Talk:Transnistria

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2 /archive 3 /archive 4 /archive 5 /archive 6 /archive 7 /archive 8 /archive 9 /archive 10 /archive 11 /archive 12 /archive 13 /archive 14 /archive 15 /archive 16 /archive 17 /archive 18 /archive 19

map

Can someone edit the map and add Moldiva (as a name) to it because at the moment its unlabled and makes the map a little confusing.

recomended links

Please add [1] to the list of recommended links. We're working to resolve the Transnistria issue and it would be great to have others who are interested in the peaceful resolution of the conflict work with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.114.183.20 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Blockade?

In my opinion, there is no blockade of Transnistria, they just need to have documents with Moldovan customs stamp. On this issue, Clockword is right. Transnistria is still doing a lot of imports and exports.--MariusM 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Blockade" is what Transnistria has called it. No problem, when proper attribution's in place. The export/import stuff is indeed in need of an update. Got fresh stat info? --Illythr 09:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the change of customs regime, the external trade statistics before and after March of 2006 are not comparable. I understand that now the Transnistrian trade statistics is published by customs office of Moldova and not by Transnistrian authorities. Probably the best thing to do will be to wait until full year data for 2007 is published. I understand this info is about 9 month. I propose also to move Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute section under External trade section. Beagel 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As we have a separate article about the custom conflict, we should keep in this article only a short mention about this issue, with link at detailed article. In my opinion, Transnistrian authorities just want to find somebody else to blame for the deteriorating economic life in the region. An old game (not specific only for Transnistria).--MariusM 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty small as it is, considering that it's the most recent major point of contention between them. I think it's the "Human rights" and "Security concerns" sections, that need shortening seeing as how they, while also having their own article, still take up, like, a third of this one. --Illythr 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights is an on-going problem, while the blockade is unexistant, Transnistria is exporting, only that they should make some papers for it. Do we have an agreement that the expression "blockade" is unappropiate for this article, and we should only describe the facts (that they need Moldovan custom stamps) without labeling it in POV style?--MariusM 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing or not, it's taking way too much space. A short summary should be sufficient, provided that all relevant information is kept in another article. As for the blockade - what's the problem? We have the fact that it is in place and that exports from Transnistria had decreased significantly. We also have the reaction of both sides which is, of course, POV, but since it's attributed and both sides are represented, it shouldn't pose a problem. It's all pretty short as it is, considering the ruckus it had caused. What we lack is current information. --Illythr 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with MariusM. "Blockade" is a POV. ClockworkOrange 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly willing to propose or discuss your edits here, I take it? --Illythr 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Viddi well, me brother, i ready to answer any of your questions. ClockworkOrange 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The section right above this one, thanks. --Illythr 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific it is too confusing 2,3 7... what exactly you dont like in me edits? Every edit have been explained in edit summary. ClockworkOrange 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to work on this article right now, but I think a rewriting without the word "blockade" is necessary. I would agree also with a shortening of "arms control and disarmament" section. Illythr, can you come with a proposal for that section? In my opinion is enough to mention that Russian troops are still there and that Colbasna exist, without so many details and opinions.--MariusM 19:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with the word "blockade" as long as we clearly state who called it such.

The arms control section may be shortened as well, compacting the facts, but leaving none out.

The personal security subsection can be eliminated, except for the travel warnings that probably should stay somewhere. --Illythr 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with elimination of personal security section, which is a short section and we don't have a separate article about this. Agree to shorten the arms control section. "Blockade" section also need a shortening, especially as, contrary with "Personal Security", we have a separate article dealing with all the details.--MariusM 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marius on all three issues. :Dc76\^talk 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A section dealing with individual acts of criminal offense is absent from any city or county articles I've visited, even those where this threat is much more significant. It might've been marginally useful for an article like "crime in Tiraspol", but here, in the main article about the whole region it is totally out of place. The blockade section is pretty short already, IMO, but suggestions are welcome. --Illythr 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe "personal security section" refers to security of ordinary people, not to individual crime offenses. Putting a bomb is a personal security issue, not an individual crime. Beating of X by Y is an individual crime, not a personal security issue, unless regularly repeated or associated to anti-national or anti-racial or anti-religious or nationalist or ultra-religious things. If it were a single incident, I would agree to remove it. Ditto goes if there are no repetitions over a long period of time. About other articles, I was on the verge of putting a similar note in the Balti article last year, when an anonymous bomb threat phone call was made in reference to one of the schools (former no. 16, don't know its current name). However it turned out it was a bad joke by two school children, and was discovered mere 30 minutes after the call (but the school was evacuated nevertheless, and genists called). Then I said to myself that if there is any second call, I should put the info in the article. Fortunately, there wasn't. If you consider, it should be there, I won't oppose it. :Dc76\^talk 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, I don't think you get it - even articles on regions where crime or terrorism is a far more serious concern (like, say, Venezuela or Israel, respectively) don't list the individual cases. There's a general sentence or two tops, saying that it's a notable concern and a maybe link to an article dealing with it. Here we have several scattered incidents that don't even have a systematic nature to them. Oh yeah, and we *do* have an article on that stuff, too. It's linked to right after the section itself. --Illythr 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. You do not oppose to mention it. You simply say that in mentioning it, to refer to these cases in a single general sentence, and then the list of individual cases can be moved to Crime in Transnistria. Ya, that's an idea.:Dc76\^talk 15:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Illythr, you came with the idea to make shorter the "Security concerns" section, and it seems that everybody is agreeing to shorten the "arms control" part, which is the biggest part of the section you wanted to make shorter. Why don't you come with a proposal for rewriting this part and you are focusing in contentious issues?--MariusM 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I proposed to eliminate the "personal security" subsection (minus the warnings). You were the one who suggested the same for "Arms control". I agreed to that, provided it's proposed and discussed here first, but I'm too lazy to do it for you right now. :-) --Illythr 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should focus in the areas where there is consensus. There is no consensus to eliminate personal security section, but it seems there is consensus to shorten the "arms control" section. Let's focus on that.--MariusM 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please present your version and we'll discuss it. Shortening for the sake of shortening isn't good idea imho. Alæxis_¿question? 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PMR cars will not enter Moldova any more

As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_transnistria_automobile.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_inmatriculare_transnistria.shtml cars registred in PMR will no longer enter in Moldova starting from 1st of Jannuary 2008.Nistriana 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Moldovan authorities want to get Transnistria eventually it's a rather strange decision, imho. The last thing that can topple enemy government is sanctions (proven by USA, Russia and others). Alæxis_¿question? 19:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange decision? why? it's rather called "cutting the balls and throwing them to cats!" PMR can't survive any more, it's just a matter of months. So, "de facto" idea is gone. De facto, will no more exists.--Nistriana 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at US and Cuba, US and Iraq in the interwar period, Russia and Georgia recently. Were any of these measures particularly effective? Why should Moldova be different? Alæxis_¿question? 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The situation doesn't seem similar to me, companies from Transnistria as far as I understand from this page can very well do import/exports as long as they follow Moldova's laws (and most likely even if they don't follow them) and the same thing will probably happen with cars, if they are registered with proper Moldovan authorities they will be allowed on the road, that makes sense for a country who wants to set some rule of law, letting in cars/products/persons with papers emitted by an unrecognized authority would be ludicrous. Don't know if this will have any success, probably Russia will squeeze Vorodin's balls (to use Nistriana's expression) before these measures will have any effects, but regardless of effects this is the normal thing to do, I'm wondering what Moldovan authorities have done till now... have they just woken up? -- AdrianTM 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another measure was to bann double citizenship (many Transnistrians are also citizens of Russia or Ukraine). Moldova can't accept double citizenship for people from PMR. --Nistriana 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is not a ban of double citizenship, but a ban of allowing people with double citizenship to hold some positions in governmental authorities. It is directed mainly against political leaders who have Romanian citizenship. Main concern of Voronin is pro-Romanian oposition, which won with a large margin (61-39) last elections for mayoral office in Chişinău.--MariusM 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Joint army proposal

Russian-speaking Transnistria refused Romanian-speaking Moldova to have a common army. Russia, which supports the Transnistrian side and maintains some 1,500 troops in Transnistria, despite a promise to remove them by the end of 2003, refused also Moldovan proposal.--Nistriana 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And as far as I know, President Voronin proposed full demilitarization of Moldova on both banks of the Nistru River. He proposed the “liquidation” of all tanks and armored vehicles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery of any type, both by the lawful Moldovan and the unlawful Transnistria forces, within six months. Actually, Voronin proposed this demilitarization keeping in mind with Moldova’s status of permanent neutrality. The idea is that constitution bans the stationing of foreign troops on Moldova’s territory. --Nistriana 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldova and Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian elections

As I read Moldovan authorities are against opening of Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian parliamentary elections. Moldovan side recommended to the Russian side to abstain from opening polling stations in the eastern districts of the Republic of Moldova which are not under the control of the legal authorities as well as from using mobile ballot boxes in the cities of Balti and Comrat (north and south of Moldova, respectively). Also, Moldovan Government said that in case illegal polling stations are opened in the country's Transnistrian region, the whole responsibility for consequences will fall on those who organized them, and the fact will be interpreted by the Moldovan authorities as interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. This position was reiterated at a meeting of the ministry's representatives with minister-counsellor of the Russian Embassy Vitaliy Tryapitin who was invited at the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister - (please remark the name!!!)) on 7 November 2007. At a request by the Moldovan side, the Russian diplomat said that the Embassy had been informed about no understanding in this respect between the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Tiraspol administration. The Russian diplomat underlined that his country observes the national legislation of the Republic of Moldova and will act in line with the position expressed by the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister). The Russian parliamentary elections will be conducted on 2 December 2007. --Nistriana 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

This article is incredibly one-sided! Since I know this is a very sensitive topic for many, I'll post a list of issues I have on the talk page first. In no particular order:

1. Gorbachev decree -- I do not see how this is directly relevant to the article. The overall tone of the comment makes it sound like a case against PMR's independence, which is neither neutral or appropriate. Gorbachev is obviously a very respected figure, and the comment implies that he is against PMR. This is not the case, his actions in 90s were aimed at preserving the USSR, and nothing else. This needs to be clarified.

Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Romanian support of Moldovan forces -- There is hardly any mention of the direct military and political support of Romania for the Moldovan side, while on the other hand there are more then plenty references to the support given to PMR by Russia. This is clearly cheery-picking of facts to present an unbalanced view of the conflict.

If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14t

h army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3. 400,000 citizens of Moldova. -- This comment strongly implies that the majority of people in PMR wish to be a part of Moldova. This is not the case, as is mentioned later in this article. Most people who live in PMR accept Moldovan (as well as Russian and Ukrainian) citizenship because of the legal difficulties that exit with travel. This needs to be clarified.

I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Number of Russian troops in PMR. -- According to Russian sources Russia has fully completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords. The only remaining Russian troops in PMR are peacekeeping and their presence there is unrelated to anything other then the conflict between Moldova and PMR. The number of troops present is around 500, not 1500 as is stated in the article. I will add this information with sources to present both points of view.

I think the 500 soldiers you mentioned are only the peacekeeping forces. There are about 1000 who defend the munitions. A few months ago, another editor and I tried to find more specific info, but 1500 seems to be the number most often quoted, on both English, Russian, and Romanian sources. As for fulfilling the Istanbul accords, I think even the Russian foreign ministry stated that Russia cannot fulfill these demands at the moment due to the ongoing crisis, and that they refuse to further withdraw their munitions (as provided in the accords) until the status of Transnistria is resolved. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

5. European court of human rights on Russian troops. -- Once again, apart from badmouthing PMR and Russia how is this relevant? That court has no authority (political or moral) to declare a peacekeeping operating as illegal or legal and as mentioned above Russia has completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords.

I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Other conflicts, causes. -- There is a sentence that compares PMR to other secessionist conflicts in the FSU. There is s strong implication that the only reason for these conflicts is Russian interference. However what is not mentioned is the root cause for these session movements. In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority. One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s. I will add this to the article. If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone interested in this article has any comments, please post them here, otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotnik (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have very limited time now so I won't comment on all of your points. I agree with most of them and disagree with some. Regarding #2 it would be great if you added info about the Romanian support (of course it should be confirmed by a reliable source or at least attributed). Alæxis_¿question? 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

" One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s." -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems... -- AdrianTM 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A new editor that believes Wikipedians are picking on the PMR? Please note, there is no such thing as if editors don't object I'll start making article changes. All changes to articles which have been an area of contention should be discussed and agreed to by the active editorial community. Please do not make changes to the article summarily.

• Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete
• Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?
• 400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory
• Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there
• "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.
• Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.

If you have specific edits you wish to make, please insure you discuss them fully. You yourself start your list of issues by saying you know it's sensitive. "Otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so" is not appropriate to articles in the Transnistrian space. PētersV 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs) 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

First, please do not make edits within my comments. This makes everything very hard to read and follow. I specifically enumerated my points (and will do so in the future) so that they are easier to reply to.

1. Before I get to the specifics, I want to make a couple of overall points. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant. However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here. This article fails to adequately present all sides in a neutral and encyclopedic way.

2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.

3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.

4.

Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article.

I'm not speculating on how Gorbachev "really felt". He supported the continuation of the USSR and generally the status quo. He was against the independence of all and any republics from the SU, Moldova included. If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.

5.

If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14th army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis.

I believe this is an interesting and worthwhile fact to mention. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically. I will provide my sources shortly. I also have comments with regard to the other things you brought up, but I want to stay on topic. When the current issues are addressed I will get back to these points.

6.

I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation.

My view here is that the article should be consistent in the information it presents. If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true. I don't see a problem with rewording that sentence.

7.

I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.

This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict. Their ruling is an equivalent of a simple opinion. They have no jurisdiction to decide these kinds of matters and that should be made clear.

8.

If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.

That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.

9.

-- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...

Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.

10.

Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete

See my comments above on this topic.

11.

Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?

I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.

12.

400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory

Read my above comments on this topic. I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.

13.

Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there

First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.

14.

"Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.

See above.

15.

Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.

I very strongly disagree. It is more then certain that the origins of this conflict was the desire of the ethnic Slavic people living in PMR to distance themselves from the ethnic Romanian majority, especially in light of the heavy nationalist rhetoric of that time. At the very least this is a legitimate and documented point of view.

16.

P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?

What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?

Sotnik 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Could you also propose your version? We'll discuss it then.

15. I agree that currently the wording isn't quite adequate. The conflict certainly wasn't just about the loss of influence.

In other cases I'll wait for your proposed variants to comment on them. Alæxis_¿question? 08:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sotnik

Sotnik's comments excerpted as appropriate.
1. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant.

• Good, agreed

However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here.

• Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.

2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.

• Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"

3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.

• Good, agreed

4. ... If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.

• The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.

5. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically.

• This is different from talking about supporting armed forces. As with all contentions, reputable sources please.

6.If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true.

• Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

7. (re: I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.) This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict.

• The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.

8. (re: If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.) That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.

• I look forward to your appropriately sourced statements.

9. (re: -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...) Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.

• I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.

10. Gorbachev decree, already covered
11. (re: Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?) I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.

• Reputably sourced would of course belong.

12. (re: 400,000 citizens...) I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.

• "Bias" as in reputable sources not fairly and accurately represented? If you require balance, then please insure you bring additional reputable sources also fairly and accurately represented.

13. "Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there" First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.

• What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.

14. (re: "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.) See above.

• I hope that means as above, not to delete facts.

15. (re: Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.)

I very strongly disagree. It is more then certain that the origins of this conflict was the desire of the ethnic Slavic people living in PMR to distance themselves from the ethnic Romanian majority, especially in light of the heavy nationalist rhetoric of that time. At the very least this is a legitimate and documented point of view.

• You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.

16. (re: P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?) What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?

• My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started. PētersV 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unfair, Unbalanced, and Non-neutral

I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make any assumptions either and everything I want to add is a verifiable fact. If you believe that Gorbachev's position is relеvent, I have no problem with it being in the article, but I will add the additional text from his decree and the fact that he was actively working to preserve the SU. There is already a third party source referenced in the article that states the majority of people do support independence. Once again, I don't want to remove the fact about citizenship as long as its dully explained with verifiable sources. First of all the Court's jurisdictional is only in issuing fines, it has no political authority in Moldova. If the precise role of the court is explained and perhaps a view from PMR on this decision is added I will be fine with that being there

Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.

What does this have to do with sources being represented? I said that faction information is presented in one-sided way.

Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"

I don't imply it is cherry picked, I said it is cherry picked, which it is. I'm assuming good faith with people I'm speaking to. Whether the article is the way it is now because it was intentionally written with bias by a single individual or simply due to ignorance of all points of view is irrelevant to me. What matters now is making the article neutral and presented all opinions in non-biased way.

The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.

That part is weaselly the way it is written. See above.

Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

There is already a source in the articles that supports my view.

The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.

Not quite, PMR (legal or illegal) is a party in this conflict where as the court is not. In any case I would be fine with leaving the court ruling in the article if its role is explained.

I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.

As stated, I will distinguish where appropriate.

What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.

I disagree, there are two parties involved in the Istambul accords, Russia and NATO, if one side claims it is in compliance with the accords and the other claims it is not, both view are need to be presented in the article.

You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.

The fact that the rise of Romanian nationalism and xenophobia in the late 80s early 90s led to two separate ethnic conflict, one with the Gagauz and one with the Slavic minority is a very clear indication that this is an ethnic conflict.

It is useful to be practical: how many Russophones and how many

Moldovans died, and how many were wounded in the conflict on Dnestr? - Is it true that weapons used by the opponents were like Indian tomahawks against European guns? - Why Ilascu group members have spent so many years in prison? The last members, Ivantoc and Petrov-Popa were freed last year. They have spent about 15 years in prison, almost as many as Nelson Mandela (who spent 20), apparently for the same reason: freedom for the native South-Africans (the blacks), respectively the native Moldovans. - How much PMR army costs every year? Considering PMR has the lowest GDP per capita of the whole Europe (with the exception of Kosovo), how PRM can afford such an army? More: how can PMR maintain the military equipment? There are 18 years since 1990, and similar equipments of ex-communist countries have been replaced, or are going to be soon. There is no way such a "country" can afford such an army. - If Russia pays for the army and weapons, estimations being between 0,5 to 1 billion euros per year, why do Russians pay? Because maintaining several hundred thousands Russophones in an area with such a reduced GDP doesn't mean "help our brothers" but "prosecute" them. Sorinutsu (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu29March2008

My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started.

The 14th army was stationed in Moldova for decades before the war. Those people did live here when it all started. Moreover, unless you have some source that claims that the armed forces of PMR are under the the direct military control of Russian MOD, then you cannot refer to them as the "Russian army".

Sotnik 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sotnik, I think it would be better if you proposed certain specific modifications to the article. I don't believe talking about it in the abstract is very likely to change anyone's view, and these discussions tend to snowball and then drag to infinity (you can look at the last thirteen archives if you don't believe me :. TSO1D 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) PētersV 00:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifics

I think its a good idea to lay out a road map for the changes I want to make, but this is fine, lets get to specifics.

Lets start with Russian troops in Moldova, here is a Russian source 1, that states Russia is now in full compliance with the Istanbul accords. The only troops left in Moldova are peacekeeping who will stay until the conflict is resolved.

The specific change I want to make is from this,

A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand their withdrawal.

To this,

A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. Moldova and the OSCE maintain that the Russian contingent is a part of the Soviet 14th Guards Army and demand their withdrawal based on the Istanbul accords. Russia and the PMR maintain that all the troops of the 14th Army have already been fully withdrawn. The only Russian troops in Transnistria are peacekeepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire agreement and will not be withdrawn until the conflict is fully resolved.\ Sotnik (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think the I don't think it's correct to say that all Russian troops are peacekeepers though. Most of them seem to be defending the munitions and old bases. For instance this news story: "Между тем 14-я воздушная, которой командовал генерал Лебедь, давно расформирована. Нынешнее российское военное присутствие, невыносимое для Кишинева, - это 1500 солдат и офицеров. Из них 360 - "голубые каски". Остальные заняты охраной военных складов." (this is saying that 1500 Russian soldiers remain, out of whom 360 are peacekeepers and the rest guard the munitions.) http://www.rg.ru/2005/10/28/vijutovich.html In fact, when this issue was last discussed here, the connsensus was 1500 troops total among which 300-400 are peacekeepers, with 360 being the most common number. I suggest the following:

"A 1,500 strong Russian military contingent as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords, however Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations and that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers and are not in violation of the accords." TSO1D (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not too bad. How about a couple of changes. First there is already a reference to a 2007 Reuters article 1 that states the number of troops is 1200. Since the date is newer then the article you provide, I think its reasonable to stick with 1200. Second, 20,000 tons, I believe is referring to munitions (makes sense, weapons are not measured in tons, munitions are). Do you agree or disagree? Third I think its noteworthy to mention the 92 ceasefire agreement in reference to the peacekeepers? What do you think? Sotnik (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the new article with 1200 is fine by me. I'm not sure though, if they are counting the blue-helmets or not, because in the past their number was given at around 300, so the 1500 would make sense. But I guess we can use the same wording as the article and not really going into specifics until we find more concrete information. As for munitions or weapons, I never really though about it that way. If you think that is makes more sense to only include the word munitions there, then I'm fine with that. As for 92 agreement, I agree, so borrowing from your version, how about:

"Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations and that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords." TSO1D (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would get rid of the second 'and' in the last sentence for style. A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations, the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords.'Sotnik (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the version without "and" doesn't really sound right though; the sentence seems a bit disjointed. With "and," the structure is: Russia insists A and B. Without it, it sounds like, Russia insists A, B. Since the second part is an independent clause, omitting the conjunction makes it a run-on sentence in my view. TSO1D (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, it does sound a bit awkward. Maybe something like, However Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords. ? Sotnik (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll make the change. TSO1D (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Sotnik (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More Specifics

This was declared to be “lacking legal basis” by then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov and the decision to create the PMSSR was annulled by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.

I want to change this to,

Although acknowledging discriminatory policies by the Moldovan majority as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.

This is right of out of the aforementioned decree, which can be found online on many legal portals, this one for example 1.Sotnik (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are adding your interpretations to reporting the content of the decree. For example, there is absolutely no mention of any "Moldovan majority" doing anything. Also, your generic "discriminatory policies" is far too open to interpretation. I suggest:

Citing "restriction of civil liberties" of the non-Moldovan population (including indicating the parliament should reexamine the language law) and unconstitutional autonomous movements as together threatening political stability and personal safety within the Moldavian SSR, then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.

I believe this covers the major points in keeping with how they are actually stated in the decree. —PētersV (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First at what level do you know Russian? I assume you are not a native speaker, correct? You are mistranslating things, for example, the decree doesn't say civil liberties, it says civil rights. Second, I am very clearly not interpreting anything, only summarizing. Third, there is no reason to leave out the stated goal of preserving the territorial integrity of the Moldovian SSR within the USSR as that is one of the key point. Forth, Межнациональное противостояние в ССР Молдова достигает критического уровня. Это связано с тем, что в ряде принятых Верховным Советом республики актов ущемляются гражданские права населения немолдавской национальности. States that the cause of ethnic strife are the restrictions of civil rights of ethnic minorities. Lastly, don't selectively use quotes, that hurts the style of the sentence. If you don't like my wording however, I'm more then willing to find a compromise, such as,

Although acknowledging the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.Sotnik (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not preserving the intent of the decree. It talks both about the threat which (a) the restriction of civil rights (more proper term, per you) of non-Moldovans and (b) the movement for autonomy both taken together pose for political stability and personal safety of the citizens of the republic. It goes on to specifically mention the language law as something which should be reexamined. These are all key points which your edit ignores and, frankly, is less informative an account than it should be. Your over-simplifiation puts the "blame" squarely and solely on the Moldovans oppressing minorities and states Gorbachov declared the declaration of autonomy illegal just to save Moldova. I'm sorry, now that you want to provide more detail based on the content of the declaration, I do not believe your now simplification is adequate. I would request several other Russian-knowledgeable editors to read the decree or, better, to find a reputable English-language source discussing its content. PētersV (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Take for example the following academic account. —PētersV (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

On 22 December 1990, the Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, issued a decree in which he attempted to call Moldova to order by threatening presidential rule from Moscow. The decree declared the unilaterally proclaimed Gagauz and Trans-Dniester republics and the elected bodies illegal and juridical invalid. The same decree insisted that the central government of the Moldovan republic repeal or revise numerous laws and decisions. Such "objectionable" laws included the creation of a separate republican guard, a language law supposedly giving preference to Moldovan speakers, and a denunciation of the Union annexation of Moldova under the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (SM, 22 December 1990).

One week later, the Moldovan Parliament agreed to comply by disbanding its national guard and revising the law on languages, which the Union President alleged restricted minority rights. The Supreme Soviet of Moldova rejected, however, any modifications to the republic's Declaration of Sovereignty, and refused to recognize the supremacy of USSR legislation over that of the republic on the territory of Moldova (SM, 30 December 1990).

On 21 January, the Third Extraordinary Congress of Trans-Dniester deputies was convoked to discuss the Gorbachev decree. The Congress repeated its demand to the USSR Supreme Soviet and to the Union President to recognize the independence of the proclaimed PMSSR and GSSR and to let representatives of those republics sign the Union Treaty independently from Moldova.

---

from http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu12ee/uu12ee0a.htm

First of all, please make sure you read over what I write and answer or respond to all the questions that I pose. I really don't care to address your list of talking points if you are going to simply ignore what other people write in response. If you don't know Russian well enough, don't argue about the nuances of the decree, that would be a waste of time. If you don't trust my translations find someone who speaks Russian and they will verify what I wrote. As for the specifics, the decree very clearly states two separate things, it attributes the cause of the conflict to one thing only, the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities, "Это связано с тем, что в ряде принятых Верховным Советом республики актов ущемляются гражданские права населения немолдавской национальности." It goes on to say that the reaction of the Gaguaz and Slavic minorities in forming autonomous territorial unions is illegal and is escalating the situation. "В то же время предпринятые действия - создание автономных образований и новых органов управления - не соответствуют Конституции СССР и Конституции ССР Молдова. В результате создалась реальная угроза стабильности в республике и безопасности граждан." I don't have any objections of mentioning both facts from the decree, however there is a very clear cause and effect relationship here. The language law is not the only thing that the decree goes on to mention. The intent of this decree is not in question, it is to preserve the status quo, Moldovian SSR as a part of the USSR. This has nothing to do with saving Moldova, the point was to save the USSR, which I mention. There is no need for accounts of a very simple and short document, I can read what it says. Adding the point about escalation of the situation,

"Although acknowledging the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990."Sotnik (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sotnik, perhaps one word at a time. You write "acknowledging". No. The word is "alleging" based on reports (актов) to the Supreme Soviet. "Acknowledging" is purely your personal interpretation wherein you ascribe admission of culpability. That is not reporting the contents of the decree. And I have provided an academic example of a source also utilizing "alleged". PētersV (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have access to a reputably sourced translation we (meaning also other editors) could agree we could work from. PētersV (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Sotnik", that's very nice, I feel like we are making progress, at least your attitude is better ;-) Now, I have no clue what you even mean, the world "актов" (presumably in "Это связано с тем, что в ряде принятых Верховным Советом республики актов ущемляются гражданские права населения немолдавской национальности") refers to laws (or bills) passed by the Moldavian legislature. Seeing as how you don't have even the basic working knowledge of Russian (and your are still arguing about the content of this document I might add) I'll go ahead and translate this passage for your. It says, "Ethnic strife in the Moldavian SSR is reaching a critical level. This is due to a number of laws restricting the civil rights of ethnic minorities passed by the parliament of the republic. At the same time, the creation of autonomous districts and new governmental entities is against the constitutions of the USSR and the Moldavian SSR... So my summery of the decree, "Although acknowledging the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990." is accurate and proper. If you believe it is noteworthy to mention the specifics of the rights violations, such as the language laws, formation of armed brigades, etc. I can incorporate that. Lastly, this source is already cited in the article and unless we are removing all non-English sources, I'm not going to look for some translation that doesn't exists. If you doubt my accuracy, there are more then plenty of people here that I'm sure can verify it. Sotnik (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we meet halfway between acknowledging and alleging at a neutral "citing". I do think that it is important to include at least the example of the language law as it stood at that point, as that has been described in reputable sources as a one of the central issues; it is significant that the decree notes this issue.

   I would also suggest that the summary note that both the Moldovan actions and reactions thereto are indicated as both contributing to instability and endangering personal safety (these being the words that indicate concern over escalation into violence--I do not believe that concern is not expressed in those specific words, so these need to be stated to qualify the statement about violence).

   Apologies that I am on vacation away from my good dictionary. PētersV (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest considering donating a translation of the decree to Wikipedia commons. PētersV (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Using the word 'citing' is just fine by me. If you insist on going into the specifics of rights violations, I insist also on including at least a couple of points. Please provide what you have in mind and we can move forward from there. Sotnik (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... If you have no specific suggestions, I'm sticking with "Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990."Sotnik (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edit. Sorry was away for a bit from here, perhaps the bolded addition? Something specific would make this more concrete and amplifies one of the key issues: "Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities and the language law in particular as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990." —PētersV (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your reply. The only problem I see with that is the language law was one of many things mentioned. If you feel its very important to add that specifically, how about, "Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities, such as a new language law, as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990." Sotnik (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

-As 66% (or more) of Moldova population is Moldovan, then a maximum of 34% are slavic ethnics (although gagauzians are of some Turkish<christian> origin). These slsvics: Ucrainians, Belarussians, Bulgarians, Poles et. al., have very different origins and don't look at all ready, and happy to become Russians. A Romanian or

Bulgarian passport are now 'real gold' because they mean free access on the European workforce market. But I will pass to more serious consideration, ('donc, revenons a nos moutons', as French say); the article above has links to: official censuses in Transnistria that shows a continual decrease of the moldovan proportion in the total population since the 1920's years, that continued after 1990. That confuses me because thw article says: 'the xenophobia, extremist nationalism, and prosecution of the minorities' led to the 'interethnical' conflict that eventually produced the 'Proclamation of Independence' of Mr. Smirnov. Moldovans have the highest birth rate in Europe, after the Albanians, then: why their number as well as their proportion decreased ?

-The explanations coming to my mind are: they got a Romanian (or Bulgarian) passport and move temporarily, or for longer periods (several years), somewhere in the EU. But the number of Romanian or Bulgarian passports given to Moldovan citizens is ten times smaller then passports given by the Russian Federation, because of bureaucracy and restrictive legislation, although Romania's president Basescu says he intends to give citizenship to 'all' Moldovan citizens of all nationalities(origins). That created serious tensions between Moldovan president Voronin and Basescu, after Basescu became president at the end of 2004 .(Moldovan leaders are afraid of losing most of their tax payers). [I have not now the time to cite exactly the newspapers and the tv-stations websites, that deal with the conflicts, then friendship, then again conflicts, and so on, between Romanian leaders (especially Basescu), Moldovan leaders, and -carefully- RUSSIAN leaders. Basescu is not a KGB officer like Putin, he has been an oil tank commanander, so he needed to make sailers follow him even in the middle of the ocean. I am sorry for those unable to understand the (Moldo-Romanian) language, as the political show is FUNNY at the highest level.] Moldova and especially Transnistria have HUGE economical problems and it is understandable people trying to gain money by working abroad. In fact, before 01 January 2007 (when Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union ), all Moldovans could pass the border with Romania using their Moldovan Identity Card , that significantly eased the life of many Moldovans that worked in Romania for much bigger salaries (I mention many can't pay a passport)

-Another explanation for the DECREASE of Moldovans number in Transnistria should be the continuous effort of Russian authorities to assimilate all local or immigrant population. The most obvious evidence is the decreasing number of schools or classes in the Romanian language. The simple fact that this language HAS to be called Moldovan creats confusion, especially as writers mentioned, and studied by children have never crossed at the east of Prut river,and have never been in today republic of Moldova. Older Moldovans NEVER had the opportunity of learning the Latin alphabet. Soviet official policy has been (and post year 2000 Russia is going back to that cultural policy): to impose writing, of almost all local languages into Cyrillic alphabet. A funny example is Mongolian language, used in always independent state of Mongolia, that even today uses Cyrillic alphabet.

-A conclusion would be: in spite of the prosecution of the minorities in the Republic of Moldova those who, apparently, suffered the most were the Moldovans (Romanians).The military conflict produced a large number of victims. The dead, as far as we know, were ONLY the Moldovans. It looks like: scared by the dismantling of the USSR, and with the aim of preventing the loose of the privileges, Russophones and the other minorities that controlled the police, the army,and the secret services (in 1988-1992) opened fire against Moldovan demonstrators, practically unarmed. Sorinutsu (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu01April2008~~

Russian military presence in Transnistria

In the line with the above discussion and source, I want to change this section to,

A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent is present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. The 1992 cease-fire agreement between Moldova and Transnistria established a Russian peace-keeper presence in Transnistria. Russian troops stationed in Moldova proper since the time of the USSR were fully withdrawn to Russia by January 1993. On 21 October 1994, Russia and Moldova signed an agreement that committed Russia to the withdrawal of the troops in three years from the date of entry into force of the agreement, this however did not come into effect because the Russian Duma did not ratify it. The Moldovan government took advantage of the negotiations of The Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and managed to ensure that a paragraph about the removal of Russian troops from Moldova’s territory was introduced into the text of the OSCE Summit Declaration of Istanbul (1999), through which Russia had committed itself to pulling out its troops from Transnistria by the end of 2002. However, even after 2002, the Russian parliament did not ratify the Istanbul accords. On 19 July 2004, after it finally passed through parliament President Vladimir Putin signed the Law on the ratification of the CFE Treaty in Europe, which were committing Russia to remove the heavy armaments limited by this Treaty by the end of 2001. During 2000-2001, in order to comply to the CFE Treaty, Moscow withdrew 125 pieces of Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE) and 60 railway wagons containing ammunition from the Transnistrian region of Moldova. In 2002, Russia withdrew only 3 military equipment trains (118 railway wagons) and 2 of ammunition (43 wagons) from the Transnistrian region of Moldova, and in 2003, 11 rail convoys transporting military equipment and 31 transporting ammunitions. According to the OSCE Mission to Moldova, of a total of 42,000 tons of ammunitions stored in Transnistria, 1,153 tons (3%) was transported back to Russia in 2001, 2,405 tons (6%) in 2002 and 16,573 tons (39%) in 2003. Andrei Stratan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova stated in his speech during the 12th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Sofia on December 6-December 7, 2004 that "The presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state. As of 2007 however, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire, are not in violation of the Istanbul accords and will remain until the conflict is fully resolved. Sotnik (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Sotnik (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A question of style

In Moldova article, inhabitants are named "Moldovans", here they are called "Moldavians", maybe we should stick with only one form. -- AdrianTM 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When we had a long discussion on this issue, I think it was agreed upon to use the term Moldovan for inhabitants of Moldova and as the ethnonym. Moldavian was reserved for the Principality of Moldavia, both in a historic context and for modern day inhabitants of the Romanian region. TSO1D 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, can I go ahead and change to "Moldovans"? -- AdrianTM 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -- AdrianTM 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not very sure I understand you about "ethninym", and what you mean by that. "Moldovan" is the adjective of "Moldova". It means citizen of Moldova, regardless of the ethnic group. Moldavian is the ethnonym, imho. Is there any non-WP source that uses "Moldovan" in ethnic sense? I don't want to contradict you, but I do not recall not even one such case. I do understand the problem that appears in relation to reference to the Principality of Moldavia, but that is indeed one of the non-clarity problems generated by the Moldovenism political curent. (by the way, the word Moldovenism comes in english directly from Romanian, not from "Moldovan") :Dc76\^talk 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook for instance has: "Ethnic groups: Moldovan/Romanian"; also, I believe that the official census page (statistica.md) calls the ethnicity Moldovan. TSO1D (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way we need to be consistent, we can't call people in Moldova "Moldovans" and in people in Transnistria "Moldavians" (I'd say the same thing about Moldovans in Romania since in Romanian there's no difference, they are all called "Moldovans" but that's a longer discussion and last time it was met with resistence because of historical usage in English, it's a tricky issue.... it's also very confusing because it's not clear if we can use "Moldavian" as a translation for "Moldovan" or we need to use the term that's used in Moldovan legal acts without translation, as I said, tricky) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Socks of Moldopodo=Sotnik

The socks play on the blocks.

I'm afraid not. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Moldopodo Sotnik (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal terms

My un-edits refer to "republic" (recently added by Alaexis), and "state". IMHO, usage of legal terms can be done only based on legal sources, not on political commentaries. No matter how good faith and thorough they are, all they claim is to observe and comment the de facto situation. They never claim anything about the legal status of the territory/region. "A self-proclaimed republic/state" is ok, though, because it does not state a de jure thing, but a de facto one. Without the adjective, it becomes colloquially ok, but legally false.:Dc76\^talk 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that 'republic' is a legal term? Alæxis_¿question? 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly used in legal settings, constitutions, declarations of independence, electoral laws, etc. it's not a colloquial term used by common people for common issues as in "I set up a republic in my bathroom" -- -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "republic" as a form of government. In former USSR and former Yugoslavia, it was used also as territorial divisions, but this practice is no longer in place, even in Russia today republics are equated in powers to regions wiht only the name preserved. Anyway, imho, to a western consumer "republic" is a form of government, the other alternative being a monarchy. Well, if you (I meant Alaexis) consider "republic" not a legal term, that would explain a lot of our mutual misunderstandings... :Dc76\^talk 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

“ 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic> ”

It's the definition from Webster's. The legal term cannot have 3 (or rather 5) different meanings. Imho PMR fits this definition nicely (although it's rather irrelevant since this wording isn't something I thought up lately but something that is properly referenced).

ps. Our republics aren't equated to regions. They have varying degrees of autonomy - some of them are little more than oblasts and some of them (Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya) have considerable autonomy (money distribution, language, etc). Alæxis_¿question? 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you know much better about Russian republics, and I have no other intention but to believe you. In fact, what I heard was more or less exatly what you just said.

Back to our issue, Transnistria does not fit this definition, because it is neither a nation/state, nor a government of a nation/state (definition a). "State" is a legal term as well. Neither is Transnistria "governed by elected representatives responsible to citizens according to laws" (definition b) - their "republic" is ilegal, legally void, recognized by noone; there is not legally recognized citizenship of Transnistria: they are all either Moldovan, Russian, or Ukrainian citizen on Moldovan soil; Moldovan citizens have not elected Smirnov; and clearly they can not practically held Smirnov responsible. :Dc76\^talk 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, that Webster defines the daily usage of the word, not its legal weight. Like "guilty" - I can call X guilty, but legally X is inocent until sentenced by a court. Nevertheless, as I have just shown, Transnistria does not fit even the Webster definition of proper usage of English terms. It is an abuse of language to call it republic. But that does not mean that some people won't use it. On the contrary, a language is a "living body". Maybe from the example of Transnistria, the meaning of the English word "republic" would mutate. But even if that happens, leaglly it would not mnutate.:Dc76\^talk 20:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with you that PMR doesn't fit Webster's definition. What is 'political unit'? For sure it's not a legal term so somebody may consider PMR as such and another one may not.

Anyway, Wikipedia doesn't have to use words in their legal sense. It it did, actually, it wouldn't be human-readable :) If enough people call PMR 'breakaway republic' there should be no problems with using these words here also. I'd like to remind you that the previous wording was 'breakaway territory'. Compare these variants using google, googlebooks and googlescholar and you'll see that the current variant is much more widespread. Alæxis_¿question? 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Breakaway territory" is NPOV. Reading a dictionary to interpret what the PMR is is WP:SYNTH. Besides, there are rumors of future non-independence. The PMR is still not recognized, not even by Russia. -- PētersV (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From Webster, republic - a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president further from Webster, government - the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit . PMR fits those definitions. A government (and a republic) maybe either legitimate or illegitimate, internationally recognized or not, etc. As long as the article makes it clear that PMR has no international recognition, saying republic and/or state is appropriate. Sotnik (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Mafia fits that definition too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference being PMR also fits the common understanding of what a state and a republic is, whereas the Mafia does not. In any case the point in question is does PMR fit this definition or not and it does. As long as no attempt is made to disguise or misrepresent the fact that PMR has no international recognition, I see no reason to not use the term. Sotnik (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also now that I think about it, I'm not sure you can say that the Mafia exercises authority over a political unit, that's a bit of a stretch.Sotnik (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They have some authority over territory, see Paolo Pezzino's quote in Mafia. Anyway, I think the recognition by at least one external legitimate party is a necessary condition to call an entity "republic" or "state" and I think this is the common understanding (not only mine), I can probably find some reference related to this, but this seems too trivial to require definition when common sense is enough -- if no legitimate party accepts the claim that Transnistria is a "state" or "republic" then it means that it isn't from the point of view of international affairs and that's then only POV that matters in this respect, not contorted dictionary quotes and interpretations. -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right that PMR is not a 'state' from the point of view of international affairs. Wikipedia doesn't have to be written 'from the point of view of international affairs' though. Try to find a wiki-policy that requires it. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. Its a stretch to go from some authority over territory to a political unit. More to the point, it is very common to refer to a number of places as a break-away republic or state. Case in point, this Washington Times article 1 that refers to Nagorno-Karabakh (a region that in many ways is similar to PMR) as both a break away state and republic. I can find more then plenty similar reference in many major and respectable sources. Also, dictionary definitions cannot be "contorted " that's the perceive reason dictionaries exist.Sotnik (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's my fault that I've brought this whole thing with dictionaries up. It's not directly relevant to this issue. What is important is that PMR is referred to as 'breakaway republic' in reliable soutrces. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not the problem with the dictionaries, it's not the dictionary that is contorted is the use of them, let me use what Dc76 wrote in edit summary because I think makes the point perfectly: <A self-proclaimed state is ok. "de facto independent" is ok. but "de facto state" is non-sense, just as "found de jure not guilty, de facto guilty" would be> -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First lets agree that 'breakaway republic' is acceptable. Second, these words do no have a very complex or deep meaning, they are very simple. Once again, the word state according to Webster, a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people 1. Very clearly. the word state is acceptable in this context and does not imply international recognition. I also found a PMR source that addressed this question, which may be of interest 1. Lastly if you feel so strongly about this and want to change the wording from 'it is de facto an independent state to it is a de facto independent state, to me the meaning is the same, so I would not object.Sotnik (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, let's see "a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b: the political organization of such a body of people" if somebody declares a republic/state in his bedroom and co-opts his wife and kids there will be: 1. territory 2. body of people 3. political organization (where there are more than 2-3 people there could be parties and political process) would that make that a state? No, official recognition by at least one party is the required element, of course mass media will report that somebody has decided to declare a republic in his bedroom, but that cannot be used a "reliable source" to quote that that's a republic, which basically it's done in this article, people quote reporting as "reliable source" to prove things. "Self-proclaimed republic" is probably the acceptable term. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And most importantly "republic" is a form of government, you can't have something to be considered a form of government if it's not officially considered a government. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is ridiculous and incorrect, 2-3 people cannot physically maintain either a government or a state, nor could they have the means to archive de facto independence, where PMR has done all of the above. More importantly, please provide evidence to support what you are saying, so far you have provided only your opinion. I want a source that supports what you claim. As the words state, republic and government, do not mean what you claim they mean based on either (1) the dictionary definitions, (2) common usage, and (3) according to this source 1. international law, I have no idea what you are trying to claim.Sotnik (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the dictionary definition that you use for "republic"? Any definition that I could find talks about it as a form of government, and since the government of Transnistria is not officially recognized at most we can talk about "self-proclaimed republic" the article on Republic starts by saying "A republic is a state or country [...]" (my emphasis)-- Transnistria is neither a state or a country. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, we are going in circles. Webster's gives this definition - 'a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government'. Alæxis_¿question? 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, PMR is a state (and in turn a republic) based on (1) the dictionary definitions, (2) common usage, and (3) according to this source 1. international law. If you disagree please explain and back up your arguments with actual sources. Sotnik (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I will provide evidence when you'll provide me evidence that it's a state according to international law as you claim. It's a "self-proclaimed state" with the stress on "self-proclaimed", it's not a "state". -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First please take the time to read what other people write before responding, as this will save everyone time. and (3) according to this source 1. international law. I await your source. Second, there is no requirement that this article is written from the point of view of international law (this too has already been mentioned). As the language that it currently used is correct by the dictionary definition AND common usage AND there is no ambiguity as to the legal status of PMR in the article, its acceptable. Once again, I ask you to provide sources for every one of your claims. At this point, in my view, what you are arguing is completely baseless.Sotnik (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how tiraspoltimes can be considered an unbiased reliable source in this discussion. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have no valid arguments regardless the definition of the word state by international law, because there is no such requirement. However, if you so insist, here is another source, International bodies charged with enforcing international law also recognize that de facto states are bound by it. See Appellants' Br. at 20-21. Most recently, the International Tribunal formed by the U.N. Security Council to prosecute humani- tarian law violations in the former Yugoslavia defined "state" to include de facto regimes as well as recognized governments State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not. 1Sotnik (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a different context, see here (same reference that you used): "U.S. and international law recognize that certain actions of de facto regimes must be accorded the same legal status as those of a de jure state. The existence of a de facto regime is determined by applying clearly defined criteria:" so they talk about "de facto regimes" that have to be hold accountable as states, see here: "By acknowledging the existence of a de facto regime a court does not legitimate its actions, but simply recognizes those actions, and those of its officials, as state action for which they may be held legally accountable." So it's all about accountability not about statehood. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is not what's in question here. Provide sources that claim what you claim, not your interpreations. Here is another source that says, "State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not."' 2Sotnik (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, that's the way it is used in that judicial opinion, basically they say that you can't hide behind non-recognition and you have to abide by the rules like any recognized state no matter if you are only a "de facto regime" unrecognized by anybody else. Whatever you say you cannot deny that the common understanding of "state" is "internationally recognized political unit" just a small example (last bullet point) and this is obtained only by a simple googling around, if you want more respectable sources I'm sure I can find them, I only need more time, keep in mind though that it would be a good idea to use formulation in the lead that are not easily misinterpreted, even that reference that I provided is an enough proof that people don't necessarily understand by "state" what you claim that they should, that's why formulas like "self-proclaimed state" should be preferable, do you have any reference against calling Transnistria a "self-proclaimed state" I can provide sources for this wording upon request. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, that's the way it is used in that judicial opinion, basically they say that you can't hide behind non-recognition and you have to abide by the rules like any recognized state no matter if you are only a "de facto regime" unrecognized by anybody else.

Yes you can't hide behind non-recognition specifically because by UN rule (i.e. international law) a state is defined to mean, State: A State Member or non-Member of the United Nations or a self-proclaimed entity de facto exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as a State or not.

Whatever you say you cannot deny that the common understanding of "state" is "internationally recognized political unit" just a small example (last bullet point) and this is obtained only by a simple googling around, if you want more respectable sources I'm sure I can find them, I only need more time, keep in mind though that it would be a good idea to use formulation in the lead that are not easily misinterpreted, even that reference that I provided is an enough proof that people don't necessarily understand by "state" what you claim that they should, that's why formulas like "self-proclaimed state" should be preferable,

To me this reads like nonsense, you cannot claim that there is any ambiguity about PMR legal status, in the following sentence, Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, it is de facto an independent state There is NO possibility for any misinterpretation here. Moreover as already stated, by common usage and dictionary definition and I maintain by international law this formulation is proper.Sotnik (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would this not be enough or correct: "Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, Transnistria is de facto independent" I think that you use a definition of state that is not applicable in the context, the quote that you used is for a specific context of accountability of rulers and it applies to any "self-proclaimed entity". -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the reason I don't like the term 'self-proclaimed' is that most of the countries in the world are actually self-proclaimed (US or Moldova, for example). So these words don't give any new info to the reader imho. Compare these search results [2], [3] also. Alæxis_¿question? 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, this time I used the term in that law. The term of self-proclaimed is pretty widely used and breakaway has many meanings: [4] a quick search of Google dictionary doesn't even list the meaning of "breakaway republic", anyway breakaway is probably fine, if no other editors have anything else to say about that... -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Breakaway territory" and "self-proclaimed republic" together are fine. I would note there is no real standard for "Transnistria", Transdniester, Transdnester and various hyphenated forms are all commonly used. The quote earlier regarding accountability has nothing to do with any explicit or implicit recognition of authority, that's all Sotnik's WP:SYNTH. All it says is, we don't care who or what you are, we expect you to abide by international law (so, human rights conventions, etc.). Finally the Tiraspol Times (I noted a reference) is a PMR mouthpiece, their contributors/editors pushing pro-PMR propaganda have come and gone here on Wikipedia, banned as single-purpose accounts. It is not a reputable source, please do not cite it in the pursuit of NPOV if you want anything you say to be taken seriously. PētersV (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no synthesis or conjuncture on my part and in no place do I mention anything about recognition of authority. I provided an example, where in a formal legal document a breakaway republic is referred to as a state, to show that this language is appropriate. I know quite well that TT is a pro-PMR paper, however that particular article had a few references to various treaties and precedents, which I found to be interesting and relevant to our current discussion. Anyway, I'm fine with the wording of the introduction as it stands now, as said, aspects of statehood can be discussed in the body. Sotnik (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Overview

This entire section should be removed. The introduction is supposed to function as an overview for the article, and that should be expanded, possibly using info from this other section. However, as it now stands, the overview section has no purpose as it overlaps with other parts of the text. All important information should be moved to other subsections and this section should be deleted. TSO1D (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the section holds all the stuff that the folks here have tried to push into the lead for various reasons. That is, I pretty much agree. --Illythr (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here, it was cleaner before. "ABC however XYZ" are points to be discussed in the body. "Breakaway territory" and "de facto independent" are things which are non-interpreted facts and belong up top. Discussing various aspects of "statehood" belong in the body. The other item belonging up top is no international recognition. PētersV (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy

The International Crisis Group reports on Transnistria extensively discuss the "shadow" sector of the region's economy. Why is this article so silent about that? --Kober^Talk 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead of the Economy section gives GDP per capita as of 2004, and the Macroeconomics subsection gives GDP per capita as of 2006. As the GDP per capita is a macroeconomic indicator, it should be given in the macroeconomics subsection and the latest available figure should be used. Beagel 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased

This page is very biased against the excellent work being done by President Smirnov and his team of committed, reform-minded public servants. Furthermore, there is little mention of the excellent public transportation system in Transnestria, which is substantially better than many in the "West", including Windsor, Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.235.87 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One is tempted to draw the parallel that Mussolini made the trains run on time. I am sorry, but reputable sources currently do not paint the rosy picture of Smirnov & Family & Co. which you do. PētersV (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the nature of transnistrian politics. Let me illuminate you. 1) You will not find a single Transnistrian willing to say anything below satisfactory about the Smirnov regime. 2) Transnistria is the finest motherland in the world. 3) The buses do run on time, thank you. If you don't believe believe me, visit http://wikitravel.org/en/Tiraspol which has an excellent discussion the topic.137.207.238.104 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor change to the Intro

In the introduction it says, The ceasefire has held; however the territory's political status remains undetermined and Transnistria has been de facto independent since that time. Does it not make more sense to say unresolved instead of undetermined? Sotnik (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But can you say that a status is resolved? I think it would make sense to say that the conflict remains unresolved, but the status remains undetermined. TSO1D (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, "How Taiwan’s Status Is Resolved Will Determine..." 1, "KFOR to stay in Kosovo after the status is resolved" 2. Unresolved sounds like it fits the sentence a little bit better.Sotnik (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

two issues in the intro

Alexis,

Thank you that you rv partially. That is more constructive, even if partial=80%. The 2 issues:

• how about "area (sometimes referred as republic)" or "area (also called republic)". Basically, I would like to see something that makes clear that some people call it region, while others - republic.
• It is governed by a regime with close ties to Russia. The was a request above in the talk page to mention President Smirnov... I strongly believe that the intro has to contain the word "Russia" with a reference to the regime. Alternatives are more than welcome.

I edited directly, before discussing, because I saw you rm my sign after "republic". Did not mean at all to be confrontational. Simply weight/counterweight.:Dc76\^talk 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your second point I don't have anything against mentioning Russia somewhere in the beginning of the article. Alæxis_¿question? 16:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen PMR (or any other country/territory) called 'area' in English so I think it's not a very good idea. I understand what you mean but then a new question arises - should we list in the intro all the wordings used to describe what PMR really is? I can easily name a few more ones and find references backing them :) Alæxis_¿question? 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitevely believe you could do that. In fact, I bet I can find at least 2 more after your first 5. But we do agree that "region" and "republic" are more often used, don't we?. Forget "area", indeed not a good choice. So, how about a sentence/half-sentence with "region" and "republic" in it, and another one with "Russia" and "regime"/"authorities". I think we both agree what we need, don't we? if so, then it remains to do it. I'll think a few days, you think a few days, and then we can try more. (In fact, I am sorry, but I simply do not have physically the time to enter WP every day, so the issue will have to be in flux for a few days/a week until we find 2 good formulations.) :Dc76\^talk 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the words region and republic together and I am very strongly against mentioning Russia in the first few sentences, especially with a loaded word like "regime". This would very clearly be non NPOV. I am all for however, explaining in the article the roles Russia, Romania, Ukraine, and other nations or entities played in the conflict and their current relation to PMR and Moldova.Sotnik (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would postulate Russia has played a particular role. I seem to recall quite a number of Russian citizens in the regime, the transplanting of the Baltic OMON to Transnistria with its senior officer (Antyufeyev) taking the post of minister of security under a false name (Shevstov) and still there and alleged to be the power behind the throne and testified to by the Russians as having staged terrorist incidents resulting in death which were then blamed on Moldova. Then there's over a billion dollars in energy subsidies to keep the regime alive. I believe this merits mention of Russia in the lead. PētersV (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Russia has played a particular role, so have other countries. What does the Baltic OMON have to do with Russia? The Russian government is not the SU. Also, I'm not sure I follow, who testified about what? Lastly Russia provided billions worth of energy subsidies to just about all former republics of the SU. Sotnik (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that in the case of Transnistria, Russia forced Moldova to pay for the consumption of the left bank. The word regime is less loaded than the words republic or state, as a regime can very well be also democratic. I suggest a sentance like: The leadership of Transnistria is virtually unchanged since 1992. It has close relationships with Russia. The point is that the leadership does not have close relationship of the same kind with any other country. Also, they are mostly Russian citizens, they travel abroad with Russian passports.:Dc76\^talk 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PMR as a whole has close relationship with Russia, why should we stress its government? The assertion that PMR's leadership hasn't changed since 1992 is only partially true and imho this doesn't belong to the intro anyway (if it's added why not to add that the opposition won the last elections - again, I'm not suggesting it either).

So, I advise you to find the description of Russia-PMR relationship in some reliable source. That shouldn't be very hard, I believe. Alæxis_¿question? 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a question that Russia provided billions of dollars worth of very cheap gas and oil to Moldova. PMR got a better deal, but nonetheless its clear that the Russian government also subsidized Moldova. Keeping that in mind, the point you are making is not valid. In general, my understanding is that the relations between PMR and Russia are good because of ethnic and cultural ties, not only because of intergovernmental ties. This is a very complex issue and I don't think it can be objectively covered in one line. Lastly, the word regime has an extremely negative connotation, if necessary I can provide examples. Sotnik 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Official languages in Moldova

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages
(1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet.
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country.
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage.
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law. end of citation of article 13 of Constitution
Organic Laws
1) Law regarding the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR[5]. 2) Decision of Parliament regarding "Implementation of the law regarding Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR"[6]. 3) Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria)[7]. (1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova. (2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria. (3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language.
Official language From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken. An official language is not to be confused with a national language, although the national language may be official if given legal recognition by the government. One of the official languages of sierre leone is French.
Comparative law as an example
Three official languages in Luxembourg: Multilingualism in Luxembourg belongs to the everyday life of Luxembourg's population. Article 29 of Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [8]: (Modified on 6 May 1948) "The law will regulate the use of languages in administrative and judicial matters." The law of 24 February 1984 about the use of the languages in Luxembourg is (translated from French): Article 1: The national language of the Luxembourgers is Luxembourgish. Article 2: The laws are in French. Article 3: The language of the government: Luxembourgish, German and French can be used. Article 4: administrative questions: If a citizen asks a question in Luxembourgish, German or French, the administration has to reply, as far as possible, in the language in which the question has been asked." In most other multilingual countries, such as Switzerland or Canada, the distribution of the languages is geographic, but in Luxembourg it is functional. 'Functional' means that the use of the language depends on the situation.
Comparative law as an example - equivalent provisions in Moldovan law
Article 6 of the Law regarding Functioning of Languages: Regarding institutions of state power, state administration and public organisations, as well as companies, other instituions and organisations located on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, the language of oral and written communction - Moldavian or Russian - is chosen by the citizen. The citizen's right to use Gagauz language in the aforementioned conditions is guaranteed in localities with population of Gagauz nationality. In localities, where the majority of population is composed of Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian nationalities, the native or other convenient language is used.

Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova:

1) Moldavian language (wich is the same as Romanian linguisticly and scientificly, however no legal reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)

2) Russian language (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law)[9] (official "state" language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)

3) Ukrainian language[10] which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality (как актовый язык Молдавского княжества)[11], which is official "state" language in the easten cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)

I think this is a joke. Ukrainian language was never an official language of the Moldavian Principality, regardless of what some Ukrainian nationalists are claiming today. At the begining of Modavian Principality, the Old Slavonic language was the written language for both church and legal documents (something similar with an "official" language status). I am not sure that at that time Ukrainian language existed, AFAIK it was still a Russian dialect (IMHO, we can not seriously talk about a separate Ukrainian language before Taras Shevchenko). Slavonic was used not only in Moldavia, but in the entire Romanian teritorry.--MariusM (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

4) Gagauz language, which is official "state" language in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.

Moreover, as per evidence cited above, Romani language, Hebrew language and Bulgarian language enjoy a clearly established legal status in Moldova. What we need here is to establish the list of localities where the population is really majority of respective nationalities and speaks these languages.

and in Transnitrian region

Please refer to the Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria)[12].

(1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova.

(2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria.

(3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language.

Therefore the Moldovan spelling cannot be written with Cyrillic characters. Moldopodo (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Currently Moldovan is written using Cyrillic characters there. This is why its name in Cyrillic is given in the article. Alæxis_¿question? 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to write about this somewhere in the article proper, not in the infobox with officially recognized data. We could insert something like this: Moldovan language, inspite of the 2005 law, is written in Cyrillic in Transnitria.Moldopodo (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

So what? Moldovan laws don't work in PMR now. Wikipedia shouldn't give preference to de jure situation over the de facto one (or the other way around). What's the problem with the old version, where both variants of the Moldovan name were given? Alæxis_¿question? 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the a breakaway republic of Pridnestrovie, which is why the information presented reflects the situation as is. The fact that Moldova and The International Community as a whole does not recognize PMR as independent is made clear. Given that, I don't see any reason to make the changes you propose. Sotnik (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Would you then suggest to write a separate article about eastern cantons of the Republic of Moldova, if this article is about "the a breakaway republic of Pridnestrovie"? I think, as somebody has very well said (Alaexis?), we should try to depict both de jure and de facto situation, why stick only to the unrecognized de facto situation without mentioning the official status of the eastern cantons? Moldopodo (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

First, the official status is mentioned many times in the article (including the intro: "within the internationally recognised borders of Moldova, ... de jure part of Moldova"). I don't think you would argue with that. Furthermore it's written in the article that:

“ Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy. The law was passed without any prior consultation with the de facto government in Transnistria, which felt that it was a provocation and has since ignored it. ”

Frankly I think that one can't say anything more about it but I'm open to suggestions. Alæxis_¿question? 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, I think we need a source which proves that it was felt as provocation by the Transnistrian authorities. Also reference to the official legal status of Transnistria should appear in the first sentence of introduction, in my mind. Are you sure there were no consultations attempted by Chisinau authorities or may be Tiraspol authorities refused to dialog? Moldopodo (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I agree with you that references are needed here. What do you mean by 'official legal status' then? Alæxis_¿question? 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Region template

Country infoboxes are for countries. For Transnistria should be used the same infobox as for Gagauzia. Moldopodo (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please seek consensus at the talk for such edits first. Alæxis_¿question? 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Moldo, this article is about the unrecognised state of Transnistria. It's you who should explain to others why your changes should be accepted. Alæxis_¿question? 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot agree with the formulation "this article is about unrecognised state". I would rather say "this article is about Eastern cantons of the Republic of Moldova, whose status is disputed, inspite of their official legal status as defined by the Moldovan law and (we can also add) a number of international treaties". --Moldopodo (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Because of the recognised laws of the Republic of Moldova which I have cited just above. Have a look at them. Also, I have added the Moldovan flag to the infobox, but it did not appear. I think it would be useful to create an infobox for autonomous regions/units of Moldova, just like there is a separate infobox for federal lands in Germany, for example. Moldopodo (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Before I reply could you first answer a simple question - is it true that (as it's written now in the article)

“ Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy ”

Alæxis_¿question? 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I perfectly agree with this wording, as it reflects the reality very well. Moldopodo (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Therefore describing Transnistria as 'autonomous region' is not correct. It can be given autonomy but it hasn't received it yet. Alæxis_¿question? 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I do not think so, Transnistria is an autonomy de jure and de facto for many years now. We can also start the article as the one one eastern cantons of Moldova, because this too would reflect the situation.Moldopodo (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• So, what do you think of creating an infobox for Moldovan autonomous regions? Moldopodo (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I don't think anything about it now :) What do you want to put in such infobox? Alæxis_¿question? 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to put more or less the same info that is already present in Gagauzia and Transnistria infoboxes, adding two lines: country - Moldova, flag - Moldavian flag. Where do I change infobox contents? If you want, I can write you a little later exactly the list of all what I would like to see in it. Unfortunately as of now, I am spending a lot of time on Wikipedia taking care of "personal" things concerning me as a user and not as I would like to write exclusively on contents of articles. Have a good evening...Moldopodo (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I'm not sure I understand what changes you are proposing, so lets try to clarify things. First, in your view what is the status of Pridnestrovie within Moldova? What I understand is, legally Pridnestrovie has the same status within Moldova it did before it declared independence, i.e. no autonomy of any sort. I know that offers of some autonomy have been put on the table, but I don't remember any such offer being either accepted or unilaterally passed by Moldova. If that's not the case, please provide references. So, the way that I see this is the article is about the break-away republic of Pridnestrovie, hence the current infobox. You mention above that Pridnestrovie has been de jure and de facto autonomous, I don't think either is true. Pridnestrovie is not de facto autonomous because it is de facto independent. Autonomous would mean that some Moldovan laws would have effect in Pridnestrovie, they don't. De jure, I don't believe Moldova ever declared that Pridnestrovie is autonomous, only that it could be given autonomy IF it agreed.Sotnik (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Currency

Why was the Transnistrian ruble removed from the infobox btw? Alæxis_¿question? 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted it as the currency is not recognized, it is not part of international ISO 4217 standard. We may put it back if you insist, however official currency in Eastern cantons of the Republic of Moldova is officially the same as in in southern, central, western and northern - it is MDL. --Moldopodo (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Russians voting in Russian military units in Transnistria

Russians voting in Russian military units in Transnistria, even though Moldova protested against Russia organizing vote on Moldovan territory. BBC article (sorry this is in Romanian, I don't have the translation) -- AdrianTM 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• So what? This is not a news article. Besides, the Russian ambassador in Moldova has very well explained what is the legal basis for opening of Russian voting offices in Russian military stations, which are extraterritorial as far as the sovereignity of the Republic of Moldova on its own territory (which certianly includes Transnistria) is concerned.Moldopodo 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Template edit wars

Instead of added then removing then re-adding the template of slavic speaking states, could we not just create a Template called Romanian speaking states (presumably including Romanian, Moldova, and Transnistria) and add both templates for the slavic speaking states and the Romanian speaking states and we are all set? Otherwise someone else is just going to add it back then another person is just going to remove it. Also, state is not POV in describing Transnistria as per the description in the article state "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area". Pocopocopocopoco 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have (at least yet) an edit war here, it was one revert. I would agree to have both categories, this was an agreed solution some time ago, but the Romanian speaking countries and teritories category was deleted as "nationalist". A Slavic speaking states category is also nationalist. Then, the best solution is to have none of those.--MariusM 21:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about it. I supported having both templates long time ago and would've opposed deletion of Romanian-speaking one if I knew about this proposal... I think it could be recreated. The main problem with it was that the Moldovan/Romanian issue wasn't somehow mentioned. This can be easily fixed, of course. Alæxis_¿question? 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I might be wrong but I believe there was an edit war back in July or August about this. Pocopocopocopoco 21:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2005 autonomy law

A reference backing the passage about the PMR attitude to this law was requested recently. Here's the excerpt from the address of PMR Parliament to the Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada

“ Принятые парламентом Республики Молдова 10 июня 2005 года Декларация и обращение Парламента Республики Молдова, которые на практике означают вариант силового принуждения жителей Приднестровья к безоговорочному вхождению в унитарную Молдову в качестве Приднестровского региона Республики Молдова, ведут к провоцированию конфронтации и противоречат основополагающим принципам ОБСЕ по урегулированию региональных конфликтов. Принятые документы свидетельствуют о полном отказе Молдовы от идеи федерализма, что противоречит ранее принятым решениям и заявлениям, сделанным самим руководством Республики Молдова. ”

I think that this is enough to prove what is written in the article now (except for that there were no prior consultations - this probably still needs refs). Alæxis_¿question? 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation, please.--MariusM (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

“ The Declaration and the address of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, adopted on June 10, 2005, that in practice amount to a version of imposition by force to the inhabitants of Transnistria of an unconditional entry in a unitary Moldova as the Transnistrian region, lead to provoke confrontation and contradict basic OSCE principles on settling regional conflicts. Adopted documents witness [speak of] a complete renounce by Moldova of the idea of federalism, which contradicts earlier adopted solutions and declarations/announcements, made by the leadership of Moldova itself. ”

Alæxis_¿question? 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :slightly corrected by Dc76\^talk 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanian military support

As promised above, here is an academic reference on Romanian military support. 1 I'll post specific passaged I'd like to add shortly.Sotnik (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate source quoted in that book is the 14th Army, thus it fails any objectivity and WP:RS requirements. (Not that Romanian help would have been something shameful, if that's true, Romanian helped a neighboring country and official ellected government in fight against separatists and occupation army), the other source talks about "military and police training" -- that's something that I don't think is debated, but it's not clear related to the war in Transnistry, Romania offered many such training programs in many fields to Moldovan government if I'm not wrong... -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

“ 49. According to data from the headquarters of the 14th Army, every day four to five railcars crossed into Moldova from Romania loaded with Romanian arms and ammunition. The Russian command had at its disposal many documents, film, and photo materials, which were shown at a press conference proving Romanian involvement in the armed conflict in Transdniester. See The Situation in Transdniester According to Data of the Headquarters of the 14th Army," ITAR-TASS, July 7, 1992. Romanian military support for the Moldovan side was reported by a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992. (This organization unites the human rights organizations of 24 countries, and has its headquarters in Frankfurt.) The members of this delegation claimed to have received "absolute proof" that Romania was giving "full support" to the government in Kishinev, including weaponry, ammunition, and armed vehicles. According to the head of the U.S. office of this Society, it has documentary proof (including many photographs) to support these claims that the Moldovan government was using Romanian military advisers and security forces, and that there was evidence that Moldovan forces had received military and police training from the Romanians. On the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE. See "Human Rights Organization on the Situation... ”

The source of bolded text is not 14th army. Alæxis_¿question? 20:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the footnote, it cites a number of sources, including a western NGO. This is also an academic source which is in a better position to evaluate the validity of these sources then you or I. Lastly I'm not interested in presenting any fact as "shameful", "noble" or otherwise, only to fully represent the facts.Sotnik (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, that was only a parenthesis where I mentioned that I don't have any specific interest to keep that out. Anyway, it seemed to me that the main source was the 14th Army, as long as that info is supported by some other organization I think it's fine. It would probably be better to find the direct source not a quote in one book saying that a source supports something, better provide that source directly (and see exactly what it says), if possible of course. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, any additional sources are always welcome. I will start working on the changes I want to make and will also try to track down other information. I do have an unrelated, question for you. The 14th Army is not an entirely neutral party to this conflict. However, TASS is a respected new agency, do you believe its appropriate to dismiss anything that they reported, even if its not disputed by any other source? I certainly do not. The book states that documented evidence was presented, since there is nothing contradictory coming from the other side, in my view its appropriate. As I said, this information is backed up by other sources, but I'm interested in your view.Sotnik (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

TASS would have the same credibility as a Romanian news agency in my view -- I wouldn't consider any totally impartial. There's a conundrum here though, if you use other sources they might be less informed than TASS (also as a general remark many "sources" even if not directly interested in issue take their info from more direct but biased sources that's why is important to search primary source or at least a quotation from them in another source) Just my opinion, I'm not specialist when it comes to what sources to use... -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, even if a 'neutral' source takes some info from a 'biased' one it means that it has its reasons to consider this info to be correct (it depends on how the facts in question are presented of course - just as facts or attributed to certain side of the dispute). So the information becomes a good deal more credible in this case than if it was published in a 'biased' source only.

I agree with you about TASS mostly. Actually we can always write 'according to TASS' if something is contested. Alæxis_¿question? 09:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The passage cited is from an article written by a Russian political analyst Edward Ozhiganov. At the end of the book, you can find these words of recommendation: "This book provides a timely and long-overdue insight into how top Russian analysts view ethno-political conflicts in the former Soviet Union ... this collection of articles and commentaries is an invaluable resource for U.S. policymakers." (Graham T. Allison)

Personally, I believe it is a good source to illustrate how the top Russian analysts view conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Maybe even a whole section can be written based on this and similar sources, in one of the secondary articles (War of Transnistria or Disputed status of Transnistria or other). I also do not oppose the insertion of small citations from there into this article, provided they are done in faithful manner (attributed).

The passage makes reference to "a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992.", which "on the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE." Unfortunately, I have not heard of this acronym before. What society is this? It must be something known, otherwise it would not have representations in 24 countries and distribute reports to US Congress, State Department, and OSCE. It is therefore natural to ask: can we pinpoint this organization more precisely, what is its full name, website, a few basic data? I am sure a 1-paragraph article about this organization would be notable in Wikipedia. We would strike gold if we can also find a copy of the report mentioned. As long as it is attributed to the source, which ideally/normally would be clearly identified, I have no objection. Even if the report would contain obvious mistakes, it does not matter, because "organization X claimed Y" is absolutely ok. So, while perhaps disagreeing with some conclusions, we can certainly agree on correctly citing the source.

In the same paragraph, but without attributing to an original source, the author also mentions about tanks and helicopters used by the Moldovans in Tighina. This is certainly a mistake, since Moldova did not own a single tank since the brake of the Soviet Union, and at the time helicopters were not flown in the conflict zone (b/c they were transport not fighter like 14h army's ones). Also, he mentions "towns", as in plural, while fighting ocured only in one urban locality, the other ones were rural. Anyway, these are details. I am just wondering, why the author was not careful about these details, because the usage of grenade launchers and other stuff is correct. Anyway. :Dc76\^talk 12:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it was International Society for Human Rights that made this report. I don't think there are two human rights organisations with similar names located in Frankfurt ) There is already an article about them in Wikipedia. Alæxis_¿question? 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Just to be sure, where did "the defense of" from the title go, is it a mistake in traslation into and from Russian? Can I say that there is only one human rights organization in Frankfurt? No, I can not. Can I say that it in my opinion, too, this seems to be the one? Yes, I can. But, just to be on the safe side, don't blame me if it turns our it's a different one. If we can also find the report, it would be great. Anyway, we can formulate "X, citing a International Society for Human Rights report, claimed/claims ..." ... :Dc76\^talk 17:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't particularly agree with your points. First and foremost, the source I present is academic and it further cites two respectable organizations. There is not even a hint of anything biased here, formulating anything based on these sources as "X, citing a International Society for Human Rights report, claimed/claims ..." is ridiculous. The article as is, cites sources much less credible and does not preface them in any such way. Second, if you find other valuable information in this book, that's great, I'm happy to help incorporating it into the article. However, my main interest is to add basic facts (such as the role of Romania in the conflict) about PMR to the article. For the time being I will focus on those.Sotnik (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Some problems I see in the article

Hi guys, I've traversed part of the article, and I have some remarks that might help improve it:

1. The "Overview" section repeats all the information of the lead, but is not yet the real thing. What is the purpose of this section?
2. In the first 4 paragraphs of the article I learned 4 times that the thing is a republic. Isn't one time sufficient? Of course, all the info of the lead is repeated n+1 times, which is really annoying.
3. I don't see why transportation info belongs in the "Overview", especially the part on "international travellers". :) That part sounds like the "PMR travel guide".
4. You mention that 400000 Transnistrians took Moldovan citizenship. This info should be balanced by info on Russian/Ukrainian citizenship.
5. I don't see why the paragraph on the remaining Russian forces is separated from the one on the war by the travel info mentioned above.
6. The last paragraph of the overview could make the subject of a "List of post-Soviet frozen conflicts". :)

Cheers, Dpotop (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, in principle. What exactly do you propose to do with this section?
2. The word occurs 3 times in the intro (and in 2 cases it's just part of the official name of some entity). This is absolutely normal, imo.
3. Should be moved to Geography, I think.
4. Yes.
5. It's separated not only by that...
6. We could shorten it - something like: "Transnistria is sometimes compared with other post_soviet frozen conflict zones such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Alæxis_¿question? 06:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To 2.: I think the first sentence of Overview is redundant and can be integrated with the 3rd paragraph of the same section. --Illythr (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with 1-4 of Dpotop. Don't have time to read more into 5 and 6 now. Just as a matter of procedure. I think it will be less conflict-generating if paragraphs from the "Overview" section are removed one by one, and only when the section is empty to remove it. I think the only reason it exists is that we found easier through it to achieve more balance (some people objected to presence of some info in the lead, others objected to insertion of that as ordinary fact in the main text):Dc76\^talk 15:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer the first question by Alaexis, I think that the "Overview" is no longer necessary. It was necessary as a guideline during the edit wars some time ago, but the article is now stable. I suggest we enlarge a bit the lead and push all remaining info in the sections, where it should be. Like Dc76 suggested, we could do it in stages if you agree with the principle. For a first stage, I would suggest the following:

1. Move the "travel guide" to "Geography", or maybe "Tourism", as suggested by Alaexis.
2. The comparison with South Ossetia a.s.o. could go in the lead in the shorter form proposed by Alaexis.

What do you say? Dpotop (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant in #1 was where do you intend to move other info from this section (or what do you wish to remove). I support the idea, as I've already said. Alæxis_¿question? 07:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of the "Overview" is a good idea, gets my vote. I suppose the shorter version about other frozen conflict would be fine in the intro as well. Sotnik (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Overview

“ A. Although the PMR does not have such legal status within Moldova, it functions like a state, and is organized as a republic.[7]

B. Transnistria declared independence from Moldova within the Soviet Union on September 2, 1990, as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.[8][9]

C. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in March 1992, a war between Moldovan and Transnistrian separatist forces started in the region. In mid April 1992, in accordance with the agreements concerning the split of the military equipment of the former Soviet Union, negotiated between the former 15 republics in the previous months, Moldova created its own Defense Ministry. According to the decree of its creation, most of the 14th Soviet Army's military equipment was to be retained by Moldova.[10] Volunteers came from Russia and Ukraine to help the separatist side ("Cossack Companies").[11] The former Soviet 14th Guards Army entered the conflict in its final stage, opening fire against Moldovan forces;[12] since then, Moldova has exercised no effective control or influence on PMR authorities. A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river.

D.Transnistria functions as a presidential republic[citation needed], with its own government and parliament. Its authorities have adopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organized and maintain a military and a police force. They have a postal system and stamps. Their stamps, though not internationally recognized, are of value to collectors.[13] Transnistrian institutions, like the state itself, have no international recognition. E. Nonetheless, the population is able to travel (normally without difficulty) in and out of the territory under PMR control to neighboring Moldovan-controlled territory, Ukraine, and on to Russia, by road or (when service is not interrupted by political tensions) on two international trains, the year-round Moscow-Chişinău, and the seasonal Saratov-Varna.[14] International air travellers rely on the airport in Chisanau, the Moldovan capital.

F.Despite the fact that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists, 400,000 Transnistrians (the majority of the population) took Moldovan citizenship by 2007.[15].

G.A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria.[16] Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords. [17] According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".[18]

H.Transnistria is sometimes compared with Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All four are post-Soviet frozen conflicts, and except for Nagorno-Karabakh, the tensions in these areas have risen to large-scale military conflict after the independence of Moldova and Georgia from the Soviet Union, while Russian troops and/or volunteers from Russia were largely present.[19][20]

”

A

Let's add the words 'and functions like a state[7]' to the second sentence of the intro - 'Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, it is de facto independent.[4][5][6]'. Alæxis_¿question? 07:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

B - declaration of independence and stuff

I've moved this to the history section as this info is already summarised in the intro. Alæxis_¿question? 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

H - comparison

Should be shorthened ("Transnistria is sometimes compared with other post_soviet frozen conflict zones such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia") and moved to intro. Alæxis_¿question? 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I moved A and H into the intro as suggested. Sotnik (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the initiate here. I think we need to have a section dedicated specifically to the conflict. We can then move parts C, F, G there and the rest can be squeezed in the intro. Thoughts? Sotnik (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that sure a new section is needed. I think that F could be moved to 'Political status' section. Some of the info and refs from C should go to 'History:Secession to the present' imho. I'm not sure about G now. Alæxis_¿question? 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, just throwing out that idea. The alternative is that the the intro will double in size or so, but that's OK. Lets start with the easy ones, D can be moved into the intro right after ...and functions like a state. To make it a little less wordy, I would also change it to, Constitutionally Transnistria is a presidential republic[citation needed], with its own government and parliament. Its authorities have adopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organized and maintain a military and a police force. They have a postal system and stamps. Their stamps, though not internationally recognized, are of value to collectors.[13] All these institutions, like the state itself, have no international recognition. Sotnik (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

C

How about this? The sentence, "A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river." can be moved into the intro, right after "...and was concluded by the ceasefire of July, 1992.". The rest can be moved to the Secession to the present section. Sotnik (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This part is done. Sotnik (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this process :) Alæxis_¿question? 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

internationally recognised borders?

I am interested, what official international organisation "recognized" the internal borders in Republic of Moldova? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhio (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That sentence talks about the officially recognized borders - external ones. --Illythr (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Serhio makes a good point. Would someone care to present evidence within international law that there is such a thing as "internationally recognised borders" and that moldova's borders are internationally recognised? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that sorta come with the international recognition of the country itself? Borders and all... --Illythr (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But what exactly is international recognition? Is it a defined concept in international law or is it a definition we've all created inside wikipedia? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

posting by banned user removed Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, shit! Here we start again with this. So, Mr. 193.120.95.11, if you manage to find reputable sources explicitly claiming that Transnistria is independent, then be my guest and add the "independent" stuff. As for now, Transnistria is a territory within the borders of Moldova. Control or not control, Moldova is the name of the former RSSM, and there is no international recognition for any border changes. Dpotop 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs)

posting by banned user removed Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. Are you of the Tiraspol Times bunch? They were the only ones to refuse understanding WP:OR. I repeat: You can only present here things that were explicitly stated by some other reputable source. If you find a source explicitly stating that "Transnistria is independent". Dpotop 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs)

Note: Postings by 193.120.95.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are from Buffadren (talk · contribs) [13], who is banned by Arbcom and not welcome to edit here, be it on articles or on talk pages. All their contributions should be rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Replacing my comment which was curiously replaced by re-inserted Des Grant aka Mark Street dreck...

With regard to that "neck of the woods", Moldova and Ukraine signed their border agreement in 1999. That bilateral agreement defines the border and enters the body of international agreements/laws.—PētersV (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! Finally someone who can answer this question properly. So Transnistria is internationally recognized as part of Moldova because Moldova and Ukraine signed a border agreement. I think this takes care of the issue which prompted Serhio to add the neutrality tag so I will remove it now. If not, please feel free to add it back. On a slightly unrelated note, I think this is what distinguishes Transnistria from other frozen conflicts and possibly Kosovo and the TRNC in that Transnistria is surrounded by unsympathetic countries that have agreed on the official borders. This is not the case for example with Abkhazia, or South Ossetia as I'm not aware of any border agreement between Russia and Georgia so in those articles we should not use Internationally Recognized. It's kinda sad in that indiginous peoples that want to form there own country can only do so if they are already bordering a sympathetic country. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I just happened to check two days ago on that Tiraspol Times article using Tom de Waal's work, the one which Des ("Mark") said there was no issue, it was all propaganda (lie) that it would be immediately addressed and removed (lie), and it's still there. The best new line is Smirnov, the only president Transnistria has ever had, now 16 years (and how many times did we hear there is political "opposition"?), called the Russian "Lech Walesa".

   Eventually they've got to drown in their own spew. —PētersV (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies on the colorful edit comment on the above post, Des, (now if I had only spelled "nailing" properly) but you did tell me to not pop the champagne cork and I took you at your word. —PētersV (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess Mark/Des/??? was reprimanded for not being efficient enough at spreading propaganda. It's pretty obvious Russia is on a diplomatic offensive now on all its borders, including Transnistria. So, I guess we risk having some action here in the near future. BTW, for those interested, reading some propaganda from the Tiraspol Times makes you understand why Voronin is so aggressive on Romania-related issues. The threats are not even shaded, they are explicit, and they come from the local FSB office. :) Dpotop 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only are your comments obviously biased, borderline bigoted really, they are incredibly childish and have no particular relevance to this article. As stated above this is not a discussion forum, so please don't clutter up the talk page with irrelevant opinions and unrelated discussions. Sotnik (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just having a sense of humor over what were at the time extremely contentious and not-at-all based on any sorts of facts discussions, brought back by Des Grant's undoing of my post. All in the older archives. PētersV (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not all humor, unfortunately. But anyway, being called "bigoted" by a single-purpose account (Sotnik) does not induce a sentiment of shame. On the contrary. If I were Fut.Perf, I would make a quick IP check. Just to check it's not some old acquaintance. Dpotop (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I could not care less. My request is not unreasonable, this is not a discussion forum or a place for whatever you think passes for humor, please treat it accordingly. Lastly, feel free to check whatever you feel necessary. Sotnik (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New developments

In the last time I wasn't active here, but if Mark will insist I will become again. Some new developments occured in the last time which I saw weren't mentioned in the article:

1. Russia resume funding of Transnistria - with some comments that Russia is actually suporting Shevchuk, not Smirnov.
2. Bread price increase with 25%
3. Ukraine says settlement of Transnistria conflict is one of its three main foreign policy priorities
4. Transnistrian conflict settlement is near, Moldovan reintegration minister says
5. Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin presumes the Transnistria problem may be settled before the next parliamentary elections due in the spring of 2009
6. Transnistrian conflict is relatively easily soluble - Kalman Mizsei

There is also a new head of the OSCE mission to Moldova - Philip Remler [14].

Probabily some events in Moldova, like the banning of the Romanian Television, the proposed banning of people with dual citizenship to held administrative and political positions - which is targeted against people with Romanian citizenship (I wonder if the new mayor of Chişinău, who spent some years in Romania and is a potential candidate against Voronin, is not between them) and the attacks against the Romanian Orthodox Church from Moldova are conected with the Transnistrian issues. My guess is that Voronin want to seduce Putin to gain his suport for Transnistrian issues. Despite his true love for Russia, I doubt he will manage to obtain what he want.--MariusM (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marius. I suggest you don't breach the ban. Instead, try to appeal it on the grounds of good behavior. In the meantime, posting this info on this talk page could be done by me or some other interested editor, such as Dc76, Illythr, etc. These guys always played fair and worked towards improving the article (my impression, of course). Dpotop 13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs)

I don't understand how this automatic signing works. I do write my four tildes after messages I write, but apparently it's no longer enough. Can someone tell me how to correct this? Dpotop 13:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs)

I don't understand about what ban are you talking about? Nobody banned me. Mark us street / Buffadren / Truli / Esgert was banned, and I saw he don't respect the decision of arbcom.--MariusM (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I mixed you with EvilAlex. :) But then, why do you threaten Mark about coming back? You have a right to edit. BTW, sorry about my signature, I don't know what happens. Dpotop 13:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs)

It was not a threat, just an observation. It needs somebody like MarkStreet or Mauco to motivate me enough to spend long time at this page of Wikipedia.--MariusM (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Young Moldovan killed in Transnistrian Army

"Jurnal de Chişinău" newspaper is reporting that a 18-year old boy from the village Lunga, Dubăsari district, was killed in the Transnistrian Army, where he was enrolled. Transnistrian authorities are claiming it was a heart attack, but the family saw on his body marks of beatings. Source (in Romanian language).--MariusM (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Maruis, perhaps you'd like to start a Transnistria-oriented news aggregation portal? It would be a fine alternative to your favorite online newspaper, I think. --Illythr (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I wonder if there's another Wikipedia article about a territory that enjoys such diligent updates of its criminal chronicle. In fact, I wonder if there's another article sporting a criminal chronicle section at all. --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I was not really active here in the last months. However, when I have time I am ready to bring accurate information here, but please don't rely only on me. In the last incident, what is relevant is the position of authorities, which, according the victim's family, are trying to cover up the case. I didn't understand if you consider having updated information on this article is good or bad for Wikipedia.--MariusM (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder why this article in particular has such a detailed chronicle. It has, like, pretty much every incident the press had reported on in the last 8 years or so. What with articles about far more criminalised places merely stating that crime is a problem in the region... --Illythr (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same comment. Listing specific incidents of crime is not appropriate for an article about a territory or a country. In general I never came across any statistics about crime rates in PMR but if they are any different from Moldova and the neighboring regions of Ukraine, my guess would be that they are lower. Also, I would ask everyone to first discuss any changes here before changing the article. Sotnik (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Transnistria/archive_16#Killings,Talk:Transnistria/archive_16#Human_rights_details,Talk:Transnistria/archive_18#Crime...*Shrug* --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand the reason of your unhappiness. In my opinion there are many other parts of this article less relevant. For example, I am not convinced that we really should list in the article details about each single wagon of ammunition which was withdrawn by Russia, instead of puting a general statement that Russia didn't fulfill its Istanbul comitments, it did withdraw a part of ammunitions but there is still a lot of Russian weapons, ammunitions and military personel which were not withdrawn.--MariusM (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a total percentage of equipment withdrawn would suffice there. But at least that part deals with an important problem of the region, so some detail may be a good thing. The list of crimes is just a useless ad hoc hangon. --Illythr (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's terrible reasoning, if two sections or the article are inappropriate or bad in any way, that is a good reason to fix both, not keep both. I'm not attached to the list of munitions withdrawn, but there is a very clear difference between that and some random list of crimes. The situation with the munitions is something that is politically relevant for the entire regions, where as the list of crimes is completely irrelevant. A crime section for a country/territory should contain general crime statistics and nothing else. As a side note on your comment, I'd like to point out that, the official Russian position is that they DID fulfill all of their Istanbul commitments.Sotnik (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the crime section is not present in all the articles about countries although crimes exist in all countries. Criminal situation has to be notable enough to deserve a special section (see this and this for examples). Currently the 'personal security' section of the article is merely a collection of incidents (and travel warnings stuff that can be moved elsewhere in the article). Alæxis_¿question? 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For this particular article I think the crime section is relevant. It was renamed from "killings" to "personal security" as result of the request of MarkStreet and Mauco, if I remeber well Illythr also agreed with this.--MariusM (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the reasons, in your view, for it being relevant? Sotnik (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A country article can have a section on the general situation of public safety etc. It does not get a list of individual criminal events. We are WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts. An individual crime is notable for illustrating the state of a country's society, if and only if it is discussed as such in a reliable neutral source. Otherwise it's "original research" by means of novel synthesis of published information to advance a POV. MariusM, your coming here every other day with these factoids is disruptive POV-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem, Future? You were attacked on WP:ANI by Pocopoco and you need to prove your neutrality attacking me? From August until now (6 months) I made 8 edits on this article and you accuse me of "disruptive POV-pushing". You made the same accusations against me (+ "single purpose account") during the arbitration case, asking my ban, but arbcom rejected your proposal. I didn't increase the "personal security" section, I've just replaced an old incident with a new one, which I considered more relevant [15], after discussing in the talk page. The incident was widely publicised in Moldova and Romania: Transnistria.md (english language), Unimedia, Gândul, ziare.com, new article in "Jurnal de Chişinău", transnistryia wordpress, moldova.org, Monitorul Civic, Romanian Global News, infoportal, Moldova Suverană, basarabeni.ro, Infotag, Telegraf, Gazeta de Transilvania. The relevance of this case come from the fact that Transnistrian authorities try to cover it pretending that the young boy died from heart disease, despite signs of beatings on his body which were discovered by his family.--MariusM (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, people are asking why is relevant to list this kind of cases in the article, I think that when an illegal regime starts to kill people it should be relevant, I find it sad if people decide to hide under the rug this kind of "irrelevant" things for political reasons. -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, MariusM and AdrianTM, you both clearly feel very passionately about this, but you still don't provide any arguments as to why this section is relevant. I agree that each of these incidents is horrendous, but crime exists everywhere and PMR hardly has any more of it then Moldova or other countries in that region. My concern isn't with your edit specifically, its with this whole section. Apart from the travel warnings, it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. There is no other article that I've seen about a country/territory/what-have-you, that lists out a completely random list of crimes. Just because some incident gets a lot of press coverage, does not qualify it to be listed in an article about a country or territory. It is nothing more then mudslinging and is against policy. Sotnik (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are two problems here. The first is whether this section is needed at all. One can notice that articles about neighbouring countries lack it. So in order to justify the existence of such a section the criminal situation in Transnistria should be a good deal worse than that in other countries. I'm not a specialist and don't know whether it's true or not and there are no sources confirming it in the article. The second problem is what to include in that section should it be found needed here. Alæxis_¿question? 06:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AdrianTM: If you have a reliable source stating that any of those incidents were staged/committed by the Transnistrian government, do not hesitate to bring them in. Unless there's a UN report stating that crime in the region has reached Columbian levels (or something similar), the excerpt of the US report at the beginning of the Human Rights section should be sufficient to highlight the situation vividly enough. This article probably holds the record on HR section length already. Even then, the stress should be on smuggling and corruption (already mentioned), which are indeed major and widespread problems of the region, and not on individual incidents of little or no regional consequence. --Illythr (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilythr, please don't use straw man arguments. Crime and personal security problems mean not only incidents directly commited by the government. There is no rule in Wikipedia that we rely solely on UN reports. For example, Freedom House is labeling Transnistria as a non-free teritory (rank 6 out of 7), while the rest of Moldova is labeled "partially free" and Romania is labeled "free" [16].--MariusM (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a reply to AdrianTM's post. As for the rest - "...or something similar" means precisely that - some kind of official paper summing up the situation is what is really needed. It is already there, along with some other stuff, so there's no need for a list of every crime that was mentioned in the press in the last 8 years. --Illythr (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom house rates human rights situation afaik. Its report can't be used to justify the inclusion of random incidents to the article imho. Alæxis_¿question? 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Illythr I don't understand why you keep pretending that we included in this article every crime that was mentioned in the press. We never did this for "every" crime, only for the most important cases. Alaexis, we didn't include random incidents, only the most important ones. The importance of the latest incident came from the fact that it was mentioned not only in one or two newspapers but it received a wider coverage, including from mass-media outside Transnistria.--MariusM (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'Random' may have been a mild exaggeration, however it is only your POV that they are most important and somehow characteristic (you've made this conclusion after examining newspapers but it's still your conclusion). Note that individual incidents aren't described in the crime sections I gave links to.

I don't understand why is this section needed here at all. Alæxis_¿question? 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

These incidents are only not random in the sense that they are probably the worst examples of crimes in PMR, which is clearly NOT NPOV. In any case, that does not matter, a section with a list of specific crimes in an article about a country or territory is not appropriate regardless. This whole sections needs to go.Sotnik (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much every crime I hear about from there. A lot of criminal cases throughout the world are notable enough to get international (meaning BBC and CNN level, not some regional newspapers and blogs) coverage yet they aren't mentioned in articles about the countries, regions or even cities they were committed in, unless such a crime has had some profound effect on the image of the place in the world. Again, an encyclopedia article doesn't list an arbitrary list of crimes in a region, committed during an arbitrary period of time. Such an article presents a summary of the situation by drawing upon a reliable source that does the summarizing. As i mentioned above, a UN report is a good example of such a source, but any source of similar quality will do. --Illythr (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the fact..."

"...that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists," ... most locals took a Moldovan passport. Can someone explain to me how is the latter "despite", or relevant in any way to the former? Seeing as how one needs a passport from a recognized state to venture anywhere at all... --Illythr (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an indication about the attitude of local population. Transnistrian had the choice to apply for Russian passports, many did, but more asked moldovan passports. Moldovan passports didn't exist in the moment of Transnistrian declaration of independence from Moldova, only after the disappearance of Soviet union were issued Moldovan passports. Anyhow, this wording existed for long time in the article.--MariusM (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What attitude? Moldova's right nearby and often is the only place most Transnistrians travel to, whereas Russia is pretty far away. Besides, Moldovan citizenship was provided to every resident automatically, while the Russian one was somewhat more difficult to acquire (foreign country and all that). With the old Soviet passport losing its validity and the Transnistrian one being just a pretty piece of paper outside of that place, one would naturally try to secure some means of passing through the borders. A Moldovan passport was the most accessible option. So again, what attitude? --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

intro

I might be wrong, but in the introduction, shouldn't there be a mention of the Russian troops stationed within this region despite international agreements?

ps: I expect somebody to delete this comments and ignore them :) Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see this info is present in the 'Overview' section. We are currently in the process of dismembering it. If we get the general agreement about it the presence of Russian troops will be mentioned in the intro. Alæxis_¿question? 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the intro should be limited to a very basic overview, what is Transnistria, where its located, its de jure and de facto status, etc. All other information and details of the conflict can go into the body. The legal status of Russian troops in PMR is in dispute and adding a paragraph explaining the various positions would, in my view, unnecessary clutter up the intro. I do agree that this issue is one of the most important for the region, which is why there is a whole subsection of article dedicated to it. On the other hand, if someone has very strong opinions on this, I can probably be persuaded. Sotnik (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor intro change

In the intro, the phrase "within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova" is used twice in rapid succession. I want to change "Transnistria is located within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova mostly to the east of the Dniester river." to "Transnistria is located within Moldova mostly between the Dniester river and the boarder with Ukraine." Any objections? Sotnik (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the change Sotnik (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights verdict

This sentence was in the Overview section and was moved to Russian military presence in Transnistria

According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".

Just read through the whole judgment and this is not what it says. Nowhere does it mention Russian troops violating the 1992 ceasefire agreement nor does it use the word illegal. What it says precisely is, "The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001." Its referring to the Istanbul accords not the ceasefire agreement, which I might add were not even ratified until 2004.

This sentence needs to be changed to something like,

In the verdict, issued against Moldova and Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".

and moved to Incidents under the Human rights section. Sotnik (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the change. Sotnik (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I found something inexact in the article: It is claimed that the capital, Tiraspol, was also the capital of the Moldavian ASSR in Ukraine before 1940. This is false. Balta, not Tiraspol was the capital then. (Now Balta is in Ukraine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.113.161 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read that the capital was first Balta and then in 1929 Tiraspol. Sotnik (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Secession to the present section and the ethnic nature of the conflict

I wrote before about wanting to expand the sections of this article dealing with the ethnic origins of the conflict. Here is what I came up with. All of the sources I'm providing are either academic or books written by respected scholars. I specifically looked for American and European sources to avoid any accusations bias.

In the 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost in the Soviet Union allowed political liberalization at a regional level. This led to the creation of various informal movements in Moldavian SSR and the resurgence of pro-Romanian nationalism among ethnic Moldovans. 1 The most prominent of these movements was the Moldovan Popular Front. By the end of 1988 they demanded from the central authority to declare Moldovan the only state language, to adopt the Latin alphabet and to recognize the shared ethnic identity of the Romanian and Moldovan nations. The more radical factions of the Popular Front used extremely anti-minority, ethnocentric and chauvinist rhetoric 1 2. Some have called for minority populations, particularly the Slavs (mainly Russians and Ukrainians) and Gagauz, to leave or be expelled from Moldova. 1 After the alphabet was changed and the plans for major cultural changes in Moldova were made public, tensions rose further. Ethnic minorities felt threatened by the prospects of removing Russian as the de facto official language, the possible future reunification of Moldova and Romania and the ethnocentric rhetoric of the Popular Front. The Yedinstvo (Unity) National Front, established by the Slavic population of Moldova, pressed for the equal status given to both Russian and Moldovan. The nationalist Popular Front won the parliamentary elections in the Moldavian SSR in the spring of 1990 and on September 2, 1990, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed as a Soviet republic by the Second Congress of the Peoples' Representatives of Transnistria. The situation in the country was escalating into violence, in October 1990 the Popular Front called for volunteers to form armed militias in order to stop a Gagauz autonomy referendum by coercion. In response, volunteer militias were formed Transnistria. In April 1990 nationalist mobs attacked ethnic Russian members of parliament, while the Moldovan police refused to intervene or restore order. 1 Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating further into violence the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990. Nevertheless, there was no significant actions taken against Transnistria and the new authorities were slowly able to establish control of the region.

Sotnik (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, this should be added to History of Moldova (and History of Transnistria), expanding on the rather euphemistic notion of "increasing self-expression" existing there, with shorter versions included into Moldova, Transnistra, and War of Transnistria as important background info. It would be interesting to see the reaction to this.

BTW, nice job finding all those sources, I was sure no outside sources with significant level of detail existed to date, not written by direct participants. More stuff to read for me... --Illythr (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the change. Thanks! It actually takes a lot of time and effort to research and dig this up. There are a few other minor changes I wanted to make to this article and then I was going to move on to the War of Transnistria and History of Transnistria. If you want to help of course, I would really appreciate it. Sotnik (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sotnik, I am affraid that your message here 5 days ago remained somewhat unnoticed. I have some objections and incorrectnesses to point out, and would like to present them here later today or tomorrow. Thank you.Dc76\^talk 06:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sotnik, please see the modifications I made [17]. If you could, please, keep those that are generally ok with you, I'd really appreciate: it would help pinpoint the differences to a small list of issues. Commas, intechaging words, English formulations are not essential at this point - I am sure those won't be a reason to disagree, anyway. My general feeling is that we will only disagree on 2 or 3 adjectives, which would be very easy to settle with the help of other users. I must remark that given the original material you worked on was somehow (naturally) tilted in one direction, you have done a very good job: I would have expected much more wrong things than a couple adjectives. Those are definitevely fixable. If it only were such differences in real life... Dc76\^talk 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You must surely be joking. The only reason I'm not reverting your edit now is because I'm going to me more respectfully of the rules and more courteous then you were. I specifically left my proposed changes in the talk page for days so that any issues can be discussed. Please do not do this in the future. As for your specific changes, they are unacceptable, the exact language I used, "nationalism", "coercion", "chauvinist", etc are directly out of academic sources I provided, they reflect the situation exactly as it was. If you have specific academic sources that contradict any of the ones I provided, I'm more then willing to take a look at those and come to some kind of compromise. Otherwise, I don't see that there is anything to discuss. I'll revert your change in about a day or so. Sotnik (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dc76, I reverted the edit and then added in the majority of your changes, excluding things that contradicted cited sources. If my revision is unacceptable to you, you have other things to add, and/or change, I would ask that you first post your changes here. Thanks. Sotnik (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sotnik, I just did these changes, before noticing your remark here: [18]. They are technical. I have no problem with slight reformulation - just go ahead. The fact that you retained many of my (technical, but yet) changes is very nice of you - I appreciate your very constructive attitude. That is exactly the kind of partial rv I meant. So I guess we can now pinpoint the differences that makes sense to discuss:

1. "the resurgence of pro-Romanian nationalism among ethnic Moldovans" vs "the resurgence of national, pro-Romanian emancipation among ethnic Moldovans"
2. "The more radical factions of the Popular Front used extremely anti-minority, ethnocentric and chauvinist rhetoric." vs "The more radical factions of the Popular Front used anti-Russophone, ethnocentric, and chauvinist rhetoric."
3. "Some have called for minority populations, particularly the Slavs (mainly Russians and Ukrainians) and Gagauz, to leave or be expelled from Moldova." vs "Some have called for persons that settled in Moldova duing the Soviet period (mainly Russophones) to leave the country."
4. "The Popular Front of Moldova won the first free parliamentary elections" vs "The nationalist Popular Front won the first free parliamentary elections" In fact here both are somewhat incorrect: it won only 30%, but it did form the government.
5. "in October 1990 the Popular Front called for volunteers to form armed militias in order to stop a Gagauz autonomy referendum by coercion. In response, volunteer militias were formed Transnistria." vs "In October 1990 the Popular Front called for volunteers to form militias in order to prevent a Gagauz autonomy referendum. On the other hand, volunteer militias were formed Transnistria."
6. "In April 1990 nationalist mobs attacked ethnic Russian members of parliament, while the Moldovan police refused to intervene or restore order." vs "April 1990, some ethnic Russian members of parliament were attacked by nationalists, while the Moldovan police stood by."

To me, all 6 of them are about adjectives. Dc76\^talk 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Emancipation" is too euphemistic to describe what happened at the time, IMO. Besides, that's what the BBC source says.
2. While it could be argued that the Gagauzi are predominantly Russophone, I think it's more correct to use "anti-minority", since their official nativa language is Gagauz.
3. These can be merged. Besides, the majority of Russian-speakers have either settled at that time, or are descendants of people who did (an interesing way to occupy a country, btw - by being born in it)
4. I think the word "free" is causing problems here.
5. Were the militias supposed to, uh, peacefully convince the Gagauzi not to participate? Anyhow, the source says "coercion".
6. This too is what the source says. Maybe "ethnic Russian" can be changed to "a group of ethnic Russian"
7. About Russian: as I recall, the original draft simply reversed the roles of Russian and Moldovan/Romanian - the latter was to be the language of interethnic communication, whereas the former - the language of local minorities. The law that was actually adopted was comparatively soft, perhaps as a consession to the massive strikes against it at the time.

--Illythr (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. why don't we just say emancipation/nationalism, i.e. use both terms. It was both, wasn't it?
2. 100,000 of 140,000 Gagauzes are Gagauzo-phones ! (2004 census). My first observation is, there should be the word "anti-Russophone", because that was the centerpiece. If you add then also the word "anti-minorities", it only complements. I imagine some radicals could have had anti-minority rethoric as well, although all radicals I have met were only anti-Russophones.
3. (I am not expressing my POV on who should have gotten citizenship) I am just making an observation: there was this demand that all who arrived after 1940 should not get citizenship. But it is news to me someone asked every minority not to get it. B/c on PFM "side" there were also ethnic Ukrainians and Russians from before 1940 / not many, but they were, and they did shared this until-1940 thing.
4. I meant the word "nationalist". "Free" b/c it was the first election with multiple candidates for the Supreme Soviet. Noone would claim it was free in the perfect sense, but comparing to previous ones - total difference.
5. well, when in a locality population 2000 (total) there show up 200 guys and tell you should not separate from Moldova, do these 200 need guns? About "coercion": I just told you what happened. You can call it coercion or you can call it influence. Also there is a problem would this causing Transnistria to arm: I do not think that is correct. Perhaps they just started arming up more at that moment.
6. something along those lines, yes.

Dc76\^talk 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I provided a source that says nationalism, there are other sources, such as this, from the article that use the same word.
2. That's untrue, the rhetoric and actions of the more radical PF factions were not targeted at only people who primarily spoke Russian (like a very large portions of ethnic Moldovans) they specifically targeted non-Moldovans. The sources I provide say as much.
3. Simply untrue, the rhetoric and some of the actions were purely based on ethnic hatred and division. If you think otherwise provide sources to the contrary.
4. As stated before, the word nationalist is appropriate, in terms of exactly what they won, please clarify with sources. I don't know if it was 30% or not, if so that's fine. They did enter the government. I'm also interested in seeing a source that says this was a free election, who declared it as such?
5. 'by coercion' right out of the source.
6. What point exactly are you trying to make with this change? I think your version sounds rather awkward.

Sotnik (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not saying not to use "nationalism". I am saying to use both "emancipation" and "nationalism".
2. I am not saying not to use "anti-ethnic". I am saying to use both "anti-Russophone" and "anti-ethnic".
3. ditto, to say both
4. well, I did not consider myself nationalist back then. (I was underage, if you wonder) As the majority of Moldovans. More radical elements - sure. But you seem to suggest every Moldovan.
5. what they did, was to prevent the holding of a referendum, etc. How is that called by a source: "coercion". Every article lists the facts and the authors opinions. Again, why don't we mention both?
6. Illythr has given a suggestion

Dc76\^talk 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The way I see it, emancipation is what took place during early '80s, until '87 or so. Note that the BBC source says "Late '80s". Perhaps this can be specified to "the resurgence of pro-Romanian nationalism among ethnic Moldovans in the late 1980s". After all, the section talks specifically about the reasons for unrest, not general Moldovan history.
2. Actually, you can read about it in the source Sotnik provided, the one that talks about the Gagauzi being labeled as non-native immigrants who don't really "belong".
3. Hm, perhaps the passage may be reformulated to suit this. The point is that most "foreigners" would have fallen victim to this law, as the war left remarkably few non-titular survivors. Sort of like in the Baltics. Perhaps something like this: "Some have called for persons that settled in Moldova after 1940 (the majority [a percentage number would be nice here, my bet it's around 85-95%) of the Russophone population] to leave the country."
4. Perhaps "multiparty", then. As for nationalist - well, that's what it was. Why, this was a matter of pride for them! Nobody tried to hide it or something.
5. Well, the source says "coercion". As for Transnistria's militia - AFAIK, that was the main reason - the call to organise those militias was something along "self-defense against nationalist hooligans" and later "help the brothers Gagauzi against nationalist..." uh, is there a word for "bespredel" in English?.

--Illythr (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Observation: we seem to stumble upon the two usages of the word "nationalism": in the sense of Biruitorul, or in the sense most understand. You can say about the majority in the first sense if you wish, although it was NOT a pride, and a good half or more would strongly object to call them that way. But you can definitively say "nationalist" in the second sense for extremes. "Multiparty" is obviously fine - good idea! Although correctly - "multicandidate, as there were no parties (remember the constitution of the USSR article 6) About 85-95%: depends very much of what? of Russophones? or of minorities? I don't know exact data, but Ukrainian, Russian, Gagauzian and Bulgarian villages existed before 1940. Not many, but they were (smth like 10% of villages). Cities: is a different story. Dc76\^talk 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

6) Of the minorities. Actually, Sotnik has a very good point here: Many ethnic Moldovans were also Russophone and some of them didn't even know Moldovan, but the PF rhetoric was not targeted at them. So, exclusive usage of "Russophones" as targets of PF extremism is incorrect. --Illythr (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. What specifically do you mean by emancipation in this context, can you elaborate and if possible provide sources.
2. The sentence right now says anti-minority, rather then anti-ethnic. Russophone in this case is not correct (see comment above) and is generally a confusing term. Which specific minorities are in question is clarified on the next line, so I don't see any reason to change this.
3. There are two separate issue to sort out here. First, you say that some members/factions of PF called for all people who arrived in Moldova after 1940 to be refused citizenship. I don't know if that's true. If you can provide a good source for this, I don't think I would have any problems with adding it in. Second, I wrote some of the more radical members/factions of PF called for ethnic minorities to leave or be expelled from Moldova (these are two separate things). What I wrote is most defiantly a fact, I've backed it up with a good source, and it should not be changed or removed. In addition, if I'm not mistaken some number of ethnic Moldovans/Romanians moved to Moldova after 1940 (from Northern Bukovina for example), are you saying that there were people in PF that rallied for stripping them of citizenship as well? I'm very sure that's not true.
4. Multicandidate seems like the best choice.
5. When a government sanctions the creation of semi-controlled armed bands (not professional and/or trained law enforcement officials, but random armed people) and sends them to stop a minority referendum legal or otherwise, the word coercion is appropriate. In any case, this is what the source says.
6. I suppose we could use "a group of ethnic Russian" instead of "ethnic Russian", but what's the actual difference between the two?

Sotnik (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bendery/Dragalina cemetery

In light of this and this. I'm going to remove the absolutely ridiculous paragraph about the Bendery/Dragalina cemetery. If someone doesn't feel like reading through both articles, I'll summarize. The PMR government painstakingly and respectfully restored the cemetery, including the Romanian quarter, restoring and/or replacing the headstones and crosses and building a new chapel. Sotnik (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you give are Tiraspol Times, which is highly POV, and in the past is known to have given false information. So, please, do not remove that paragraph, as it is sourced by mainstream media. Also, please, try not express your political view in terms that are openly denigratory, like "absolutely ridiculous paragraph": you are talking about the graves of several hundred solders fallen in several wars, which tombs have been demolished by tractors and excavators. It is ok to talk about politics when we discuss other aspect, but I would respectfully ask to live this one out of strong language.Dc76\^talk 06:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiraspol Times is indeed a PMR owned paper and therefore POV, we are in agreement there. However considering that there are pictures of the restored cemetery and specifically restored graves of the Romanian soldiers and the diplomatic representatives of Ukraine and Russia participated on some level 1, the paragraph is absolutely ridiculous. Sotnik (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that you do recognize that Tiraspol Times is POV, and that the tone of my previous remark was based on the assumption that you consider it a source, I would like to respectfully erase a few adjective, if I may. Back to the question: the problem is, are there pictures from the mainstream media, is there no report from RIA Novosti or ITAR-TASS or any western source? A picture in TT can be very wel fabricated or a picture of something totally different. There are pictures of bulldozers on the graves, and demolished stones in mainstream (Romanian, but very mainstream, not some fanatics) media. In the source you gave I see nothing about the Swedish (18th century) and Romanian (WWII) graves, which occupied 1/3-1/2 of the cemetery. If appears they only restored the Russian half (Borisov), and bulldozered the other half (Dragalina). Please correct me, if I am wrong.Dc76\^talk 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They did not destroy the graves, they removed the headstones/crosses, level the ground, planted new grass and then restored or installed new headstones/crosses, which is what was done for all sections of the cemetery. Here is another more mainstream Russian source with the same pictures and information.Sotnik (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Add a sentence-two, but don't remove the paragraph. It is customary (according to the Geneva convention) that such works on military graves start after the parties were contacted, and performed with the participation of expects. The way it was done (without international press during the works) will always suggest that on the surface it is fine (thought I only see 30 crosses, not 300), but only God knows what is underneath. The names of Romanian solders were on the broken gravestones. Dc76\^talk 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume you read Russian (take a look here if you don't ). The article I provided clearly said, the Romanian side was contacted and did not choose to participate, while at least 2 other countries (Ukraine and Russia) did participate along with Germany sending a representative to verify the absence of German graves. And, no I don't think its possible to accurately read the names on headstones in an abandoned/semi-abandoned cemetery. Lastly, why is that I'm the only person in this discussion that's providing soruces for everything that I claim?Sotnik (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph. Sotnik (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular Front

In the article we are misleading the readers claiming that the Popular Front won the elections in 1990. In fact, only about one third of the seats in parliament were gained by Popular Front candidates. Also, is misleading to claim that PF had an aggresive, ethnocentric rethoric. Contrary to the baltic states, the Popular Front agreed to give moldovan citizenship to everybody who lived in Moldova, regardless of his place of birth or ancestors and it made attempts (unsuccesfull) to gain support from minorities publishing a Russian-language edition of its newspaper "Ţara" (which is not anymore published, for economic reasons).--MariusM (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it may need further clarification that it was the nationalist idea brought it by the PF that took hold in the parliament (that is, PF's initiatives were supported).

As for ethnocentric retoric, it's nice to have some non-Transnistrian or Russian sources stating what is otherwise known to everyone who was present and conscious in Moldova at the time. If "Ţara" (a voice for the aforementioned rhetoric) was really an attempt to gain support from minorities, it had very curious ways of doing so. For example, the "Ten commandments of a bessarabian Romanian", published just before the war broke out (1992) said (among other things) that marrying a person of a different nationality is "good for animals, but harmful for humans" and should not be done by a nationally conscious pureblood Romanian. It even proposed building a monument to Antonescu and renaming a main street in his honor at one time[19]... --Illythr (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just say the the Prime-Minister was from the PFM. I think the exact policies would better be discussed in a different article, since they are not about Transnistria only.

Given that after 50 years of Soviet history people knew nothing about 20th century history it wouldn't be strange to hear about ideas of a lot of other monuments. You have to understand that even now the majority do not know their history: they have no idea even when exactly was Antonescu, less so what he did. As late as 2000 something Ion Iliescu ! seems not to have known much. And you ask the average person from Moldova... That's why we have to search, find and introduce these things in WP. Dc76\^talk 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that is why I suggested to introduce most of that into the "History of..." articles. Still, these policies are among the core reasons for Transnistria's appearance, so a summary of them is quite relevant here, too.

I do believe that the frontists, of all people, do know their own history. Besides, that was mainly a comment to Marius' claim that Ţara was intended to gain support among minorities. Although by 1992 most Jews have already fled the country, I don't think those that remained had appreciated that kind of "support". --Illythr (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, on 27 August 1989, there were 600,000 frontist at the meeting in Chisinau. I sincerely doubt even 1/10 of those could clearly say who was Antinescu. / I have no prob with putting here a summary. Dc76\^talk 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

About Tara in 1992: I don't think the left knew what the right was writing, much less 3 lower from the left to know 4 upper from right. You'd have to take each article separately and judge it. There were serious articles, and there were flamboyant rethoric. Dc76\^talk 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, where were published the "Ten commandments of a bessarabian Romanian"? I doubt it was an official document of MPF. We had previous discussions about an article of Dabija who criticised mixed marriages and I gave you sources about explicit disagreement that MPF expressed against Dabija, regarding such views. We should clarify that the Moldovan "nationalist idea" was nothing more than the ideas expressed in all Soviet Republics except Russia - the idea to give official status for the language of the titular ethnic group and to have autonomy (later independence) from Moscow.--MariusM (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I first time here about these "10 commandments" Dc76\^talk 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DC76, we can say that in 1990 the prime minister (Druc) was from MPF, but we should clarify: When the war of Transnistria started (in 1992) Druc was not anymore prime-minister, but a competitor of president Mircea Snegur. At the elections of december 1991 already MPF was in opposition and openly asked to boycot the elections. The conflict between former Soviet nomenclature, lead by Snegur, and MPF, was one of the reasons of the outcome of transnistrian conflict. Snegur was more worryied about MPF which treatened his power than about transnistrian separatists, which were usefull as a tool against MPF.--MariusM (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, please do find citation(s) for these - we definitevely should add this info. It somehow missed my mind when i was reading Sotnik's edit. I thought it was already in the article Dc76\^talk 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, how is my comment about Russian-language edition of "Ţara" invalid? Isn't true that "Ţara" was published also in Russian language at the begining? What do you believe are the reasons? Economic reasons were not, as Russian edition didn't make profit and it was closed finally for economic reasons. The reason for publishing in Russian language was exactly to try a dialogue with russophones. The dialogue didn't mean giving up at its own political positions, for example MPF never claimed it will accept Russian as official language only to please russophones. Dialogue mean clearly and honnestly explain to russophones what MPF want. Fooling ethnic minorities with unrealistic promises in order to gain electoral support (like Communists did in 2001 with their unfulfilled promises about official status for Russian) was not a tactic of MPF.--MariusM (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, "Ţara" was about as good as a means of dialogue with the Russophones, as Bessarabetz was with Jews. 10 Commandments, as well as some other like-minded stuff can be read in this book by Paul Kolstoe (p. 153). The whole chapter is quite an interesting, neutral and informative read. --Illythr (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Illythr, with all due respect, but this is a very gross and absolutely false comparison. I do not deny there were quite a few demagogic articles. Remember, this was a period when people for the first time had the right to speak up. But there was never a call for violence. You see, remarks like yours above is the reason why extremes still have appeal: you reject the entire movement, the mainstream, whole-heartedly supported by the vast majority of the population. From your comparison, an outsider would think that an average article in Tara in early 1990 was comparable to the ones by Mr. Krushevan. The extremes only have to say one thing: "look-look, they compare us with Krushevan/Hitler/a couple other alternatives, they compare your words with calls for violence? why do we need your moderation and lucid judgment? they consider your lucid judgment call for violence! Listen to us, out with them all!" Your word label me and someone without any responsibility just the same. Your words fail to mention the chasm between mainstream and the extremes.

And yes, the Moldovans that are using mostly Russian (129,000 according to the last census) were the main target of attacks. You perhaps did not hear what words they got from the rest? Believe me, I saw people who started reading books and dictionaries so that they don't have to face that. What non-ethnic Moldovans heard pales comparing to the rhethoric Russophone ethnic Moldovans got. Thank God you did not have to endure that. There are means to say in Romanian, such that every word cuts deep to one's heart: with 20 words (civilized only) you can deliver a lethal blow. But obviously, I am not denying there was anti-minority rhetoric somewhere along the line. Not in the first row, though.Dc76\^talk 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanian verbal ninjutsu? -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian, for diffusing it with a joke. All I meant to say is it is very sad when even such exceptionally moderate people like Illythr occasionally (thanks God this only happens one or twice a year) can be deceived by memories of arguments of those that constantly build inter-ethnic tensions. "Tara" was not a paper based on ethnic hatred. Personally I did not agree with many details written there, also the style was somewhat patronizing, but leaving that appart, the main take of the paper was quite moderate. Dc76\^talk 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the questions asked in the streets were "rus?" not "care limba vorbeste?". Then again, Russophone Moldovans could've gotten some of it, too, but I don't believe someone would call them "occupants" and "invite" them to go "home". "Collaborators," perhaps?

As for Tara, I tend to judge an information source as a whole by the quality of the worst article its editors allowed to be published (Wikipedia appears to be the sole exception, due to its unique... editorial staff composition :-) ). The mere fact that Tara articles were reprinted on the left bank to fuel Transnistrian propaganda speaks volumes of their content. That commandments thing really needed no further comments, other that it wasn't a lone occurrence. Comparably, pridnestrovie.net and Tiraspol Times may have good and objective articles as well, but once they resort to propaganda, the whole source can no longer be trusted (except for obvious cases). A spoon of tar spoils the whole barrel, so to speak.

Call for violence - hm, which media were used to summon the volunteers?

The chasm between the moderates and the extremes was not visible at all, unfortunately. Hysterical screams are so much easier to hear than whispers of reason. To sum it up, the whole tragedy came about because when people got their chance to speak up, it was all the wrong ones, who got under the limelight.

Anyways, as Sotnik said, this is the place to discuss the article, not the events. The discussion should be continued on someone's talk page.

PS It would really be interesting to get a hold of some of those newspapers (1989-1992) and scan the headlines... --Illythr (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, "I tend to judge an information source as a whole by the quality of the worst article its editors allowed to be published" explains it. I agree in general with everything you said, except one thing: the call for volonteers was not their idea, it was the call of the Moldovan Ministry of the Interior, so you should take issues with the government. Dc76\^talk 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as soon as I build my time machine and license a high-powered sniper rifle... :-) --Illythr (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets try to localize this discussion to only one sections of the talk page. To answer the first comment made. I specifically avoided saying that the whole of PF embraced all the chauvinism, but the more extreme factions did. This is unquestionable and backed up now by a variety of sources. As for the election, that information was there before my edit, and if someone wants to clarify it, please do so. See the discussion above. Sotnik (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone noticed your usage of "more extreme factions". It is clear for everyone you edited in good faith.

The problem is, there are 2 things that influenced Russophone minority: the rhetoric of few extremists, and the fact that the mainstream movement had a wide support. Only the first would not have caused any problem. They feared that it could use the policies of extremists, while supported by the majority: and the Soviet authorities did "help" them make that confusion.Dc76\^talk 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the interested propaganda of Soviet authorities against MPF, based on FUD tactics, had a big role in fueling the ethnic conflict in Moldova. Until November 1989 the boss of Moldovan Communist Party (Semion Grossu), was fiercely anti-MPF. He lost his position after MPF staged violent demonstrations against him.--MariusM (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As the book I linked to above says, the two extremes fed on each other to blow up the conflict. They didn't really need outside help for that. But feel free to provide similarly neutral sources that state the opposite. --Illythr (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to second Illythr and ask you to provide sources, seems like no one other them me has been doing that. I am also curious who you mean when you say Soviet authorities, I sincerially hope you are not talking the Gorbachev government. Sotnik (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I will be inactive on WP for ca. 2 weeks. I think I made my points clear, and the discussion above already has some solutions. I will read what you came up with and how you edited when I come. In mean time, good luck. Dc76\^talk 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New study about Human Rights in Transnistria

Promo-Lex NGO has released this year a study about Human Rights in Transnistria. It is available in Russian, Romanian and English. For English version see here.--MariusM (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many letters to read entirely, but it seems to be somewhat better then the last such "neutral" paper I read. This one accurately presents (as fact, unfortunately) the Moldovan POV on the issue. Any suggestions for the article from it? --Illythr (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorinutsu

Hello and Welcome!

I've noticed you have made some changes to the article. Please discuss any changes you want to make on this page beforehand. Sotnik (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the explanation of my reverts. a) No source confirming that Bug served as a border between Dacia and Scythia has been provided. b) Why to add only Turkish and Romanian names? Let's add then Latin, a few Greek and Russian names also. Otherwise let's leave only Ukrainian one. Alæxis_¿question? 08:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Transnistria had been under Soviet rule for 20 years, I doubt there was anyone who could be called 'bourgeois' there then. All the info that was added was not sourced but even if it were the total number of those deported belongs to the History of Moldova article and not here. If someone has statistics about Transnistria only it could be added somewhere here. Alæxis_¿question? 08:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

communist

is it actually fully communist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.229.130 (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

The following text is deleted from section "Political stautus"

According to Moldovan sources, in 13 May 2007 the mayor of the village Corjova, which is under Moldovan government control, was arrested by Transnistrian police, together with a councillor of Moldovan-controlled part of Dubăsari district.

This is a piece of news does not belong to section "political status". It also does not belong to an overview article about the whole transnistria. Please put in into "human rigths in transnistria" or whatever. There are hundreds of events there. This is an encycloipedia article, not a news archive. `'Míkka>t 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree, please explain your reasons why this piece belongs to this article/section. `'Míkka>t 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The incident is showing that one unsolved problem of this region are its boundaries. Also is showing the lack of political freedom for opponents of separatism, which is relevant for the overview of the region.--MariusM (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GDP?

There's no information on the topic. Does the statelet have GDP, does it have economy at all?! - R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.161.16 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked there? Alæxis_¿question? 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Should Transnistria be mentioned in list of Ukraine's neighbours?

The Ukraine article starts out with a list of the countries bordering Ukraine. The list currently includes "Romania and Moldova to the southwest". I'm wondering whether, perhaps, this list should also acknowledge Transnistria in some way. Before trying to bring up the question on the Ukraine article's talk page, I thought maybe I should ask people here what they think.

Possible formulas I could think of for changing this list of Ukraine's neighbours might include:

• "Romania, Moldova, and Transnistria to the southwest"
• "Romania, Moldova, and the disputed territory of Transnistria to the southwest"
• "Romania and Moldova (including the disputed territory of Transnistria) to the southwest"
• no change (just keep tht text as it currently reads)

I'm not proposing to have extended debates about Transnistria spill over unnecessarily into the Ukraine page. I'm only wondering if WP:NPOV may possibly call for some minimal, impartial acknowledgment (in the Ukraine article) of the fact that one of the entities bordering Ukraine happens to be Transnistria, a region whose rightful status is currently a matter of dispute. What do people here think would be the best way to deal with the topic over there? Or is any mention in the Ukraine article of Transnistria, no matter how it might be worded, a sure recipe for a knock-down, drag-out argument that it may be better to try to avoid for the time being? Richwales (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Entities bordering Ukraine are also the counties of Romania or raions of Russia, but those are not listed.--MariusM (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)