Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
William Mauco (talk | contribs)
4,907 edits
→4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops,...: yes, I think we are done. Let us see what others say
Line 357: Line 357:


* '''Agreed''' (do still need to have that appropriate mention of Russian troops sooner rather than later in the article body) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Agreed''' (do still need to have that appropriate mention of Russian troops sooner rather than later in the article body) <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp; [[User:Vecrumba|Pēters J. Vecrumba]]</span> 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
* '''Agreed''' (not the best version, but an acceptable compromise. And yes, of role of Russia has to be dealt with, too. It will always be a big part of Transnistria's recent history, for better or for worse. I agree with you on that, too, Peters.) - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


== POV of word "region" in intro ==
== POV of word "region" in intro ==

Revision as of 13:59, 20 December 2006


Archive
Archives


Intro Poll

As we are discussing how to best preent the introduction to the article, numerous perspectives have been presented and various users have displayed contrasting preferences. In order to determine whether a consensus exists or to limit the viable number of choices in order to seek a final compromise, I propose this poll where all editors can give his view. The choices are the versions labeled 1-5 by William and the introduction. In order to give a more general idea of what versions could be reconciled, please vote Prefered for the version you like best and Acceptable for the ones you can accept with minor modifications. TSO1D 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this is a good idea? I'll join you in a vote, of course, but I still have ugly memories of all the sockpuppetry and vote-shopping that took place when we tried this approach for the external links. Voting is evil. ;-) - Mauco 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't mean for this to be a vote, just a quick poll to see where everyone stands. Participation is of course voluntary and the results will not be conclusive. In fact I doubt there will be a solid consensus either way, but I just want to know what all users think. It is difficult to follow the multiple threads that run all over the page and I hoped that having a brief indication from all active editors here might give a better overview of the situation. Even WP:POLL states that this method is sometimes useful for a quick summary. I hope no one will take this too seriously (especially to the point of using socks). TSO1D 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see below, other users don't have the clear head that you do on this. They already misinterpreted this as having to choose one, rather than commenting on the various. If this is a content dispute, then let us follow WP:DR and you will see that a vote or a poll is just about the worst way to handle things. Our overriding principle HAS TO BE factual accuracy. When it comes to factual accuracy, I am afraid to note that we have users (on both sides) who often fall short of this goal. I really don't think you are handling this the right way, TSO1D. - Mauco 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that many users haven't read (or chose not to follow) the guidelines I proposed, however what I wrote was more of a suggestion than a rigid set of parameters. As for the unkind responses that are exchanged between some of the users, that has been the case for a long time on this page and I don't think the voting exacerbated the problem, just opened a new arena for the frustration to be vented. However, I fully agree with you, factual accuracy should be the key principle. Of course we cannot vote on facts, and that really wasn't my intention. If the majority would favor a version that is factually incorrect I would still oppose it. However, I believe the facts are pretty much agreed upon by everyone, it is just their presentation that is an issue of contention. I just wanted to see where everyone stood, and in spite of the numerous problems that are inherent to such a poll, I believe the mechanism was effective in giving a glance of all the users' views. I actually don't fully agree with any of the versions presented, and I believe furhter changes will be needed to be introduced before a final version can be found. However, in spite of all the negative comments on the page, many constructive ideas have been put forward that we can use to create a better introduction. TSO1D 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Version

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

Ok, now I understand some other of your edits. What you say is that we need a disambig page, with PMR on one side, and the geographical region on the other. I fully agree. Dpotop 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only acceptable yet. It may be improved to

Transnistria is internationally considered a region of the Republic of Moldova, in southeastern Europe, which declared its independence on September 2, 1990 (proclaiming itself Pridnestrovie). Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

We should first say how they are internationally considered and second how they call themselves (the first is the opinion of a bigger entity). It is not Wikipedia's role to say what Transnistria is. All we have to do is to inform the reader.Dl.goe 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acceptable nice and short EvilAlex 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acceptable -- technically, what happened on September 2, 1990 was that the Trans-Dniester Moldovan SSR (PMSSR) declared itself a separate republic as a subject of the USSR--a declaration which on December 22, 1990 was declared invalid and illegal de jure by the Soviet Union. So, I would propose the following as a completely factually accurate description (no interpretation of events, no imbuing of events with personal POVs of their significance):
Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty and the continued presence of Russian military forces there remain issues of contention. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable Transnistria is a free and independent country and all the edits in the world cannot change some peoples dream that some day it may become a region of Moldova, but until that day comes we must call it what it is. Mark us street 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not free and independent as long as Russian troops remain, having started with transplanting into Moldova the OMONs who failed in retaining the Baltics for the Soviet Union, having propped up a leadership which has not changed since the inception (and which rushed to the defense on the side of the Soviet Union subsequent to the putsch and has been associated with the most "Soviet" members of the Russian Duma). Once the PMR is truly free, then it can choose what it wants to be. That is not today. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Street, there is a difference between the de facto reality and the de jure assumption. De facto, Transnistria is an unrecognized country. No doubt about it. No ifs, or buts. De jure, it may or may not be a region of Moldova. But please notice the clever phrasing of the entry above: "is internationally considered a region of" is not the same as saying "is a region of". It is a technicality, but if we are splitting hairs here, then technically, the above entry is correct. Most countries still cling to the legal fiction (de jure) that Transnistria is part of Moldova. The fiction is of course not supported by reality, but the proposal above uses the word "considered" and that is factually correct at this point in time. - Mauco 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree with many of your statements in particular I disagree that: "De facto, Transnistria is an unrecognized country." It is utterly wrong, Transnistria currently under De facto military occupation of Russian federation. And that is why majority of government officials are not native born Transnistrians. EvilAlex 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian troops you refer to are borderguards that are there in small numbers as part of a multinational peace-keeping mission, Thankfully, PMR is not under the military occupation of anyone. Mark us street 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The so called peace-keepers composed of of Operational Ground Forces of 14th Russian army, a military force that have been trained for offense action and not for peace-keeping mission. No one seems to agree that that thy are peace-keepers except Russia. EvilAlex 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they not undertaking the 'offensive action' you state they are trained for, their role is that of maintaining the peace. The lack of casualties must surely stand as testament to that.Pompey64 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)pompey64 23:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re "their role is that of maintaining the peace". Against whom? In 1992 Moldavian government fought a war with Russian 14th army. Moldavian government didn’t fight against its own people. Why do you think the villages near Dubossary rebelled for? It there haven’t been a 14th Russian army then there would not be a war. And no the "peace" to maintain. EvilAlex 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Lack of casualties" is an assumption on your part that hostilities would break out. I offer you the alternate assumption that freedom would break out. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the reductions in numbers not worthy of note?Pompey64 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they keeping the peace? Yes. Then they are peacekeepers, ipso facto. It is a very effective peacekeeping operation when you compare to Kosovo, for instance, or Abkhazia. Lots of lives lost there, no lives lost in Transnistria. I am sure that lots of conflict areas around the world would actually love to have this kind of "military occupation" especially when you consider what went before it: The 1992 attacks by Moldova. - Mauco 17:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To you, Mauco as well: "Peace" and "lack of casualties" is purely an assumption on your part that hostilities would break out. I also offer you the alternate assumption that freedom would break out. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not keeping peace they have divided the nation and they keep as apart. They are Nation dividers ipso facto !!!. EvilAlex 19:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mauco-the Russians are propping up the Transnistrian regime, having engaged in military action against the Moldovans on the side of the Transnistrians at every opportunity [even according to Charles King in THE MOLDOVANS, a source you respect] and remaining there long after they agreed to leave. The Moldovans did not start the violence in Transnistria, the Transnistrians raiding Russian weapons stores did.
Mark-if the Russians are so minor a presence, being mere border guards (and what are they guarding against, exactly?), why can't they just leave? The Transnistrian military is already run by a defected Russian army officer, much of their military are already defected Russian soldiers, they already have the best in Soviet/Russian arms. The Russian presence is there at this point only to deliver the message of who is in charge--not to Moldova, but to the Transnistrians. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the antequated millitary leftovers have to be safeguarded? And are the numbers of Russian troops not steadliy being diminished?Pompey64 sorry for not signing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pompey64 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
"...the Moldovan defeat in Bender marked the climax of the conflict. From the outset, the Moldovans were both outmanned and outgunned. The hastily organized national army consisted mainly of former police officers or interior ministry forces equipped with mortars, armored personnel carriers, and antitank weaponry. The DMR forces, by contrast, had at their disposal T-64 and T-72 tanks, Grad and Alazan rocket systems, trained specialists from the Fourteenth army, and Cossack volunteers." Charles King, The Moldovans, just about the only source we've agreed on here so far. The number of Russian troops is down but still numbers in the thousands. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a de facto unrecognized country and de jure region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2 1990. To date its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

De facto, it certainly isn't. But, de jure, maybe it is a region of Moldova. However, this depends. International law has a long and well documented set of definitions of what constitutes a country. Take a look at the Montevideo Convention, for instance, but it should be noted that this is far from the only source which supports the conclusion that under international law, Transnistria is already a country. We can of course modify the statement by calling it an unrecognized country, which is what Wikipedia does on all the lists, but it is still a country nevertheless. Like it or not. - Mauco 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Montevideo convention was signed only by few countries from America. None European country ever signed Montevideo convention and Moldova also didn't sign it.--MariusM 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally unacceptable for me to accept the words 'unrecognised country' It is like calling someone an 'unrecognised person' Transnistria is a free and sovereign independent country and I can accept no less. I understand Moldova's aspirations and I am willing to accomodate them but not to this point. Mark us street 22:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia we don't need your acceptance.--MariusM 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I will not be as rude as MariusM, but he is right. Your opinion is, of course, valued, but neither you nor me nor MariusM can impose ourselves. Yes, it is indeed a travesty that they are unrecognized, and this makes them second class citizens compared to the rest of us. Your own publication wrote about that problem already: "Imagine living in a country which is not on the map: You can't travel, because officially, you are stateless. Your country is not recognized and your vote, if you want to cast it, is called illegal by some of your closest neighbors. That's life for the inhabitants of Pridnestrovie (also known as Transnistria), a self-proclaimed country between Moldova and Ukraine - but whose 16 year old claim to independence is recognized by neither of the two, and whose borders are subject to what in the eyes of the Transnistrians amount to an economic blockade aimed at forcing them to their knees and to shatter their dreams of statehood."
I agree that it is sad that there is not yet a permanent status settlement with Moldova, one way or the other.
However, having said that, we must also realize that Wikipedia already uses the term "unrecognized country" to define Transnistria and a number of other states. If you don't like the term, then go to the various lists (in particular the 3 main ones) and argue your case for why the phrasing should be different. Until it changes, however, we can unilaterally adopt one phrasing here and ignore what a bunch of editors from the rest of Wikipedia has already worked hard to determine that these things should be called. I am sorry that you do not like "unrecognized country" but it is the current term in use. - Mauco 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politely, He is not right and either are you, we are not an unrecognised country, we are a new country whose diplomatic status is emerging, calling us 'unrecognised' is a slur on our hard fought freedom. Mark us street 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, please don't take my comment the wrong way, but why do keep saying "we" in reference to Transnistira? I though you were Irish and were just working as a reporter there. I don't mean this in a bad way, I am simply curious. TSO1D 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reside in Transnistria, I have lived in many countries, I am not here to discuss me or my life. Mark us street 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, this is not the forum for these kind of discussions, so sorry, but I have heard from a source in Transnistria that you only reside there part of the time and that they haven't seen you there in over two weeks now. If you will be there for this weekend's election then please see if you can post some photographs under GFDL because I asked Kramar about the same and we still don't have any really good pictures. - Mauco 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm there as often as I need to be but I can be moved about as things happen , goes with the job Mark us street 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know other journalists too. They do travel. At least we can consider you a much more authentic source for Transnistria's point of view than EvilAlex who is a Moldovan, and who lives in England, and whose views on this issue are in complete contrast to will of the vast majority of the voters who actually reside in Transnistria. - Mauco 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

Sources, please. MariusM, you are wrong. Please show us the appropiate sections in the two documents which you cite. You will discover (no doubt to your surprise) that the "secession" of Moldova was illegal, according to Soviet law. So was the secession of Transnistria. They were BOTH wrong. You are wholly incorrect if you think that somehow Moldova's secession was legal, and Transnistria's wasn't. It may help that you read the actual legislation which was current at the time before you hold yourself out as a legal expert on Soviet law. - Mauco 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I myself am no expert, however as the article the Soviet Union here states: "Even though Soviet Constitutions established the right for a republic to secede, it remained theoretical and very unlikely, given Soviet centralism, until the 1991 collapse of the Union." In fact, Article 72 stipulated: "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR". The central authorities of course did not like the turn of events in 1990/1991 and tried to stem the independence of the Baltic states and later other republics, however in the end the constitutional principle was upheld and even Russia, Ukraine and other core states "seceded". So in a way, yes, Moldova's secession was legal under the framework of the USSR, whereas Transnistria's wasn't. TSO1D 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say you are no expert, and even if that argument held a drop of water 'in a way' sadly we are unable to facilitate 'in a way' arguements on this issue but I do really thank you for trying to assist. Mark us street 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We cover this below. The specific USSR legal framework governing the actual secession process is the USSR Law on Secession and according to that law, Moldova (which had the right to secession) DID NOT follow any of the specifics, such as a prior referendum. So its secession was illegal. Transnistria (which did not have the right to secession) DID follow some of the specifics, like the referendum referendum. This is why Transnistria (on Pridnestrovie.net, for instance) claims that their secession was legal. This is, however, quite debatable. I am sure that most serious academics will conclude that they were BOTH illegal, albeit for different reasons. - Mauco 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 3

Transnistria' (officially Pridnestrovie), located in southeastern Europe, declared its independence on September 2 1990. To date its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

I agree with Mark, the version should mention that Transnistria is formally part of Moldova. TSO1D 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....Or formally free and independent, let's be precise and work together. Mark us street 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Is there anything wrong or factually incorrect in this version? Or do you just want to oppose everything that Mark Street favors? That is called obstructiomism. Let us instead try to be constructive, and work together, please. - Mauco 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 4

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova, however de facto functions as an unrecognized country having declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

Can you be more specific, please? I do not understand what you would like to add to the current version. Dpotop 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not acceptable for me, Transnistria is an independent country, it is NOT a territorial unit of Moldova, Also we never declared our independence from Moldova, we existed as a country before Moldova. existed Mark us street 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, do as everybody does, and write Support or Oppose. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease Dpotop 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dpotop. This is not a vote. See what TSO1D says above. He merely put it in here in order to facilitate discussion, and it can in no way be a beauty contest where personal preferences (yours, Mark's, or anyone's else) override factual accuracy. Facts are facts. - Mauco 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - Not being completely factual, it seems to be NPOV w.r.t. the users editing here. It contains the actual factual information: declared independence, but not recognized by others. It also contains the POV that Mark and Mauco are pushing ("unrecognized country"). Dpotop 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please get your facts straight, Dpotop. I am not pushing a POV. I am asking that our phrasing on THIS page adheres to the SAME phrasing that Wikipedia is using on OTHER PAGES AND LISTS where Transnistria appears. I think it was User:Pernambuco who originally advocated that we needed consistency (see archives) on all lists, and this is merely what I am agreeing with. If you don't like the wording "unrecognized country" - which is factually correct, and all the rest of Wikipedia uses it - then change those lists first, there, instead of fighting to censor the phrase from this page, here. - Mauco 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this is the page of Transnistria, the rest of Wikipedia uses/will use the same words we agree on here. We shouldn't invoke secondary pages when we are writing the main one on the subject.Dl.goe 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asking was not agreed by other editors. Wikipedia has lower standards that Britanica or other encyclopedias, we should improve those standards.--MariusM 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Wikipedia is much, much better than Britanica when it comes to Transnistria, and several other subjects too. Start by comparing basic facts (such as population figures) and then tell us who is right and who is wrong. You can't rely on Britanica for research on Transnistria, sorry. Too many errors there. - Mauco 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have an other area of disagreement. Wikipedia have the advantage of being able to include quickly recent info, but Britanica is less exposed to POV pushers. However, if we are looking for Wikipedia standards, we should look at South Ossetia and Abkhazia articles.--MariusM 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to MariusM. Not according to WP:LEAD. May I remind everyone that our personal opinions don't matter much if WP policies and guidelines specify something else. - Mauco 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that you are not in the position of teaching others about WP policies and guidelines?--MariusM 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. That was rude. Be civil, please. All of us can read, buddy. I suggest that you read WP:LEAD before you claim that this version is too long. That is all. - Mauco 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has 34 000 characters. As a rough guide, we should be having one paragraph per 10 000 characters. So to be honest this is a good 'first paragraph' of an intro. But more context is still needed it in one or two following paragraphs. I don't think those are key at the moment, by the way... they could be added once the first bit becomes stable. But to say this is too long is to say that pretty much every single introduction on Wikipedia is too long. --Robdurbar 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable
  1. Where does autonomous territorial unit ideea come from?
  2. "It is recognised as... however de facto funcions... " is highly biased.Dl.goe 19:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Autonomous territorial unit is the offical status of the region in Moldovan legislation (there is a source in the political status section). TSO1D 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, your vote is like the kiss of death. Now that you've declared what is unacceptable to you, you will get half a dozen Romanians come out of the woodwork - people who normally never join in the discussions like the regulars here - just to oppose you. Your enemies here will make sure of that, through the same kind of collusion that we've seen in the past on issues. Emails and private messages are being sent behind the scenes as I write this. This is why a vote or a poll won't work. A case like this should be decided on the facts, and on the facts alone. It should not be determined on who can muster the highest amount of friends to come to his rescue on a given POV. - Mauco 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can never oppose the truth. I will accept the truth and not one word less. I am not trying to trample on Romanian dreams, I want a precise, scientific and sharply accurate non-POV intro. Let's call it what is and not what people dream it should or could be. I believe we can reach that point. .Mark us street 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, Mark, but Moldova is a larger country than Transnistria. It should be no surprise to you that there are plenty of people here who want to keep the illusion alive, even if it is totally disconnected from reality. The number of Moldovan voices will always outnumber the number of Transnistrian voices, so you can't ask for a vote or a popularity contest on which intro is best. It should be decided ONLY objectively and ONLY based on facts. No POV influence, for or against. - Mauco 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 5

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and most countries consider it an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova. The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

That depends on how you define a country. International law usually classifies a country as a state which has control over a defined territory, has a permanent population, a government and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It is telling that diplomatic recognition is usually NOT mentioned anywhere among the listed requirements. In the few cases when it is mentioned, it is mentioned merely to underscore that it is not a requirement. I quote from U.S. practice, Swiss practice, and indeed the practice of most of the Western hemisphere. If anyone else here has a different definition on what a country is, please make sure to back it up with the appropriate references to international law. - Mauco 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 6

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a country in South-East Europe that established its independence on September 2nd 1990. It is governed by a democratically elected parliment and is seeking increased international diplomatic recognition. Despite Transnistria's independence the Republic of Moldova also claims sovereignty of the territory.

  • acceptable BECAUSE: based on the facts alone, namely the reality on the ground, and not some legal fiction, the above is correct. Moldova tried in 1992 to make reality correspond to the legal fiction that they maintain, and they failed. - Mauco 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable. Is not a country and is dependent of Russia. Without support from Russia, Transnistria would not have been born as a political entity.--MariusM 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not conclusively proven by anyone. And even if it was, lots of countries in the world have received support from other states before, during and after the state creation process. This is a political issue, and in and of itself it does in no way disqualify any country from being a country under international law. - Mauco 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a country and the rest of us have long left that argument behind. Regardless, PMR recieves massive support from a number of countries in the west, including the UK, USA, Holland, Norway, Germany, and Ireland. to name a few, if Russia pulled out of humanitarian aid programmes these countries would and could fill the void. Mark us street 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 7

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which since September 2, 1990 have been on de facto control of Russian Federation. Moldova and international community have strongly criticized Russian government action and called for unconditional withdrawal of arsenal and personal of 14th Russian army stationed on Moldavian territory.

As President Bush said recently in Washington, during a visit by Romanian President Basescu, the U.S. seeks resolution of the Transnistria conflict that fully and unequivocally respects Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Transnistria is a part of Moldova, no questions asked. Fomenting separatism, whether in Transnistria or elsewhere, is simply unacceptable. As part of the solution, let me also reaffirm our view that Russia needs to fulfill its commitments made in Istanbul in 1999 and remove its forces and munitions from Moldovan territory.[1]

according to David J. Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs (US official)Dl.goe 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a political opinion of a foreign official from a country which has no ties to Transnistria, no borders with Transnistria or Moldova, no historical connections, and no large amount of citizens living in Transnistria. It is not gospel, and it can certainly not be used to determine how we edit Wikipedia. I wonder why you either bother to list it here. It would be much more appropriate to list the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry which repeatedly has stated that any status settlement solution must take into account the democratic will of the people who live there: The affected population. - Mauco 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The declarations of the Russian foreign ministry will always support a position which justifies the presence of their troops in Transnistria and the privatization (i.e., eventual legalization of the privatization) of Moldovan assets into Russian hands. Declarations about the PMR by the Russian foreign ministry are as POV-slanted as those by the PMR itself. Russia is a direct party to the conflict--while the U.S. is not. You seem to be saying the U.S. is more POV than Russia itself, moreover, that only those with direct and-by-definition-highly-POV involvement (and only on the side of Transnistria) are reputable sources. U.S. government = discredited and inadmissible source as per Mauco? It's entirely appropriate to report what the U.S. government says (this is after all the English Wikipedia, and the U.S. is the largest English-speaking country) without the need to draw further conclusions. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 8

Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty and the continued presence of Russian military forces there remain issues of contention.

Version 9 (= version 8, but does not mention Russian troops)

Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

Mark, it's not recognized and it's within the boundaries of Moldova. To leave Moldova out removes all historical context for why the PMR even exists. You might as well just say it's a region on the planet Earth. Accordingly, double digits, this (Version 10) is also factual and makes no reference to the current Republic of Moldova...
P.S. Absolutely no possibility of calling the PMR an independent country until the Russian Federation Russians leave (and sufficient time has passed to ascertain the result). Sorry, that's just the way it is. Print what you like on your web site. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 10

Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan S.S.R. in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

  • Provisionally acceptable (as before, with reference to Russian troops). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) [and my least favorite, as it makes no mention that the PMR is internationally considered part of Moldova].[reply]
  • Comment: I think that the lead should not mention the legislative technicalities of the declaration. They should be in the history section. Instead, perhaps, a differentiation should be made between Pridnestrovie (the territory that is internationally recognized as a region of Moldova) and PMR (the internationally unrecognized state that currently controls Pridnestrovie) to avoid confusion about what's recognized and what's not, as well as to prevent those truly moronic suggestions like "unrecognized region". --Illythr 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"10" is a bit much, no need if Mark is departing... "9" I think states it about as well as possible. It *is* significant that the PMR declared itself a sovereign Soviet republic, not "independent"--and that de facto independence only came as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union (which the PMR was eager to forestall!).  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it's insignficant, just that it's too technical for the intro. I would rather prefer #4 instead, as I don't understand how mentioning that the territory now functions as an unrecognized state can be POV. --Illythr 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no POV in explaining the reality. Unless certain editors live in a fantasy world and won't accept what is really going on. - Mauco 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version "4 + 10"

Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan S.S.R. in southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova.

Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has de facto functioned independently under the control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention.

  • Provisionally acceptable - As per Mauco's observation that brevity need not be the overriding factor, I incorporated Illythr's most recent comment (MariusM has also commented in this regard) that we must take more care in clarifying the territory versus the controlling party--and what territory that encompasses, which has not been static over time. I took out the "also called...", alternately, "officially..." references just leaving "(Pridnestrovie)"--the rest of the intro serves to summarize what things are called. ("Provisionally" = article must mention continued presence of Russian troops in proper context at the top of the article body itself.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad, though "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has de facto functioned independently under the control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" doesn't make much sense, if you don't know the story already. I mean as a first time reader you'd have to ask why "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union", as there's no qualifying reason to go with it. Jonathanpops 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just a word order/clarification issue, and that a longer sentence was better after all (to not interrupt the train of thought from the start as part of the USSR to the collapse of the USSR...)—
"Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990, and with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, (most of) that territory has de facto functioned independently under control of the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention."

Version 11

Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.

Of all the proposals, this is the one which is closest to the current version while avoiding flame-war words like "region of Moldova" and "unrecognized country". - Mauco 12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This Talk is currently 289 kilobytes long. Who'll volunteer to do an archive? We normally do so around the 150K-200K mark. I have normally done it in the past but I got accused of censorship the last time I tried, so I will let someone else have the honors this time. Too frequent archiving is a bad idea, but too long talk pages are also not good. Hopefully with Mark Street gone we will now have a better signal-to-noise ratio. This request is directed at all of us, though. - Mauco 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I archived everything but the intro debate, as that appears to be an ongoing discussion. TSO1D 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

Looking at the results of the informal poll I set up, it appears that some versions are better starting points than other due to greater support or acceptability by users. Of course, a greater number of votes is not necessarily a better version, but could just represent a bigger number of people supporting one side. Ideally, we will be able to combine the positive aspects of all the proposed versions into one. So far some of the observations I have:

  • The current version (at the time of the vote) was the most "acceptable".
  • The other versions with a decent level of support from most sides where: 1, 4, and the last one (4 + 10).
  • Brevity should not be considered an important factor as even the longest intro would still need to be greatly expanded.

Personally, I think the current version could be improved and that the (4 + 1) version might be one of the best starting points for further discussion. TSO1D 15:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan SSR in southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova but functions as an unrecognized country. Transnistria declared itself a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990, and since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that territory has retained de facto independence as the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR). The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state, and sovereignty over Transnistria remains an issue of contention." TSO1D 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds quite good. The last sentence needs to say who hasn't recognized the PMR as an independent state, I don't meant list them all but just, for instance, "The PMR has not been recognized as an independent state by the wordlwide community by and large.." or something like that.Jonathanpops 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TSO1D, they are not votes and they can never be. This is not a popularity contest. Whatever the "numbers", we have a duty to strive for the most accurate and neutral description. - Mauco 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you, and I did say that we should incorporate the best elements from all proposals. Nevertheless, consensus is a major policy of Wikipedia, so we should strive to find the best version that is acceptable to the greatest number of people. However, I don't believe that these two considerations have to diverge. I sincerely believe that the last version I have put forward (the modified 4+10) presents a very accurate and neutral of the situation. What is your opinion of it? TSO1D 21:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ... "greatest number of people" is not necessarily the guarantee of an encyclopedia-worthy outcome when all of us are biased and we have little outside participation from non-Transnistria focused editors. We all suffer from the bias which (as Bogdan once pointed out) is inherent in anyone who knows enough about this subject to be able to edit it in a meaningful way. On this basis alone, the idea of a vote is inherently bad. I know that you always just intended it as a poll, but the more enthusiastic cheerleaders among us clearly did not see it as such (e.g. this where the editor thinks that we are "voting"). What strikes me most is the unwillingness of otherwise reasonable editors here to consider objective facts: How does the rest of Wikipedia refer to Transnistria. - Mauco 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean. Didn't you say that it should be called an "unrecognized republic"? That is part of the text. TSO1D 00:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really been voting or commenting much on these, as you can see. I am skeptical about an approach which resembles a popularity contest and don't take the most basic considerations into account, such as -
  • To call it a 'region', 'area', 'territory', etc is fine, but it is iffy to call it 'region of the Republic of Moldova' or similar use of the possessive, as this implies that we are taking sides. Most of the documents I have seen from the negotiation process don't do this. They refer to the parties by name, but without implying who owns which part of who (since this is the whole point of the 5+2 talks to define, and this is an ongoing process; not yet concluded).
  • Our intro should deal with the status (de jure/de facto) only in very brief summary form. Later, users will see a section which deals with that, and there even a full article (the 'Disputed status') where we can add any level of detail.
  • Consistency is important. Someone else advocated this originally. If there is a phrasing which is used on the major lists for countries, states, dependant areas, unrecognized widgets, etc., then look there, see what they call these things, and copy the phrasing to here. (If they are wrong, we tell them and fix it, so we can still strive for consistency.) This project, Wikipedia, will eventually become useless if we are not in sync with the standard terminology.
This is the checklist which should be used to evaluate ALL of the proposals above, instead of nursing our pet causes or personal baggage. We can't really vote on something like this. A poll is merely an indicator to smoke out individual opinions and maybe stimulate debate that will help us see the issues more clearly. - Mauco 02:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "region of Republic of Moldova" is POV, then certainly "unrecognized country" is POV even more so, and then we get into, as already mentioned, who does and doesn't recognize it and why, etc. etc.--again we wind up with something that's a popularity contest. That's why I had left "unrecognized country" out of 4+10. Wikipdia is not in a position to state the PMR (or any other territory) is a country albeit unrecognized. This is a problem in general with all unrecognized countries listed in Wikipedia, not just the PMR. Since Transnistria is already autonomous in any event, if we're not happy with region of the Republic of Moldova, we can certainly say region or territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of Moldova. I'm much happier with de facto functioning independently than taking the leap to unrecognized country--there's still too much foreign (Russian) influence to characterize this as spontaneous a development or a fully functional country as the PMR would paint itself. I do think we're very close to having a much more informative and accurate (and agreed to by all) introduction.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder sometimes if some of the editors here think that the phrase "unrecognised country" has more importance than I think it does. I think just because the phrase has the word "country" in it some people are getting frustrated, but to me the "unregognized" kind of cancels out any perceived benefit pro seperatists may feel they gain with the use of the word "country". The phrase "unrecognised country" has, for instance, been used before in the UK to describe a village in the south of England that declared independence and made their own passports, which most people didn't take all that seriously. It has also been applied to a British offshore oilrig, and a group of less than 10 people in Ausrtralia. I think when most English speaking people see the phrase

"unrecognised country" they think it means a place that wants to be a country, but actually is not a country, and take it far less seriously than the wikipedia page unrecognised country. In fact if you search Google et al for "unrecognised country" you get the wikipedia article and nearly everygthing else on the front page is about Transnistria, because it's one of the few places whose followers keep trying to plug the phrase.

To put it in perspective, Republic of China (Taiwan) is probably the most famous "unrecognised country" for getting backing from the USA. It is an island that fuctions entirely seperatly from mainland China, yet their page, Republic of China, does not use the phrase "unrecognised country" at all. I'm not sure what good, if at all, any of this is to us editing this article, it's just something I was thinking about.Jonathanpops 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jonathanpops. But Wikipedia is near the top of the list for pretty much everything, not just for the phrase that you mention. - Mauco 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really relevant in the least to what I was saying?Jonathanpops 14:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peters, I think that we are getting somewhere. The phrase "within the internationally recognized boundaries of Moldova" seems to be aggreable to all, rather than region of Moldova, and so does "de facto independent" rather than unrecognized country. - Mauco 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about "Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a territory in Southeastern Europe within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova. Although de jure it is regarded as an autonomous territorial unit of Moldova, a local Transnistrian government known as the PMR has exercised de facto control since Transnistria declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention." TSO1D 13:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It is not my Preferred version but Acceptable. You can polish some of the phrasing, however. The first sentence will sound better by moving some words around and you don't lose any meaning. Try: "Transnistria (officially: Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe". We can also work on the other sentences, but they are minor issues (for instance: the "government known as PMR" part can probably be left out of the intro, since we deal with all of that elsewhere). - Mauco 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 + 10 + Mauco, TSO1D, Jonathanpops,...

Another try at it (I sectioned it off just to make future editing a bit easier)...

Transnistria (also, Pridnestrovie or Pridnestrov'ia) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence from the Moldovan S.S.R. as a sovereign republic within the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990. Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR) has exercised de facto control over most of Transnistria. The independence of Transnistria under the PMR has not been recognized, and sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention.
  • "officially" is not the best word, as it signifies according to some authority; also, in terms of academic writing, I've seen Pridnestrovie and Pridnestrov'ia fairly equally (if not actually more towards the latter); it's also the (transliteration of the) Russian appelation, so "officially" also makes it out to be a primarily Russian territory; I think we should simply show both versions so that people know how to do searches to find the widest range of materials (without having to dig through the separate names of Transnistria article which is more historically oriented)
  • Transnistria did not declare independence; it declared sovereignty within the Soviet Union; to simply say independence implies it declared itself an independent country subject to no other authority, which is not the case; it's a vital clarification, which I've done my best to word as compactly as possible;
  • so that we're a bit more rigorous on territory versus authority (and since it's not good form to introduce acronyms without first using the full version), I've spelled out the PMR in full followed by acronym, and
  • in the last sentence, I've made it clear that it's the authority of the PMR as an independent state that has not been recognized; accordingly, it's not the sovereignty *of* Transnistria (it's certainly at least autonomous, which is also a form of sovereignty), it's really who (controlling authority) has sovereignty *over* the Transnistrian territory; finally,
  • "continues to be" seemed to flow better in the overall context than "is", nothing else intended.

I was cutting and pasting in notepad, my apologies for not having all the appropriate Wiki-links embedded! (Obviously, I'll be glad to do it if it's deemed as having merit.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't introduce new names, at least not in the intro. TSO1D and I worked a lot on the naming issue earlier in the year, and I think we are both defending the status quo. There is a reason for the "officially" which is an indicator of how they refer to themselves in in their constitution. It does not imply official recognition. The intro used to start like this: "Transnistria, officially Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, PMR (short form: Pridnestrovie) ..."
If we use the "also" word instead, then we should not mention Pridnestrovie but rather Transdniestria or Trans-Dniester since they are the two most commonly used alternate names. - Mauco 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need extra names either, not in the intro anyway. I'm not sure about using Moldovan SSR, I know that is the factual history but it's a bit confusing. It might be better, just in the intro, to ignore the history all together and just talk about the here and now, then have the detailed history further down the page. Fow me looking up something like this in an encyclopedia I'd want to know what it is and where it is right away in the intro, then learn the other stuff if I feel like reading down the page. It (the intro) should be so uncontroversial that no one could even think of disagreeing with it or finding any part of it irksome, which I guess is what we are trying to do here.Jonathanpops 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here, Jonathanpops. Keep the intro short and sweet. Then deal with the finicky details later, in the text itself. Peters is technically correct, but too technical. Just say "which declared its independence on September 2, 1990" and this is 100% correct, too. It was an independence declaration from the MSSR, and initially with the aim of becoming a separate SSR, and all that can and should be explained ...just not in the first line which is just a summary. - Mauco 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, where did "Pridnestrov'ia" come from? To me, "Pridnestrov'ia" = the genitive declension of "Pridnestrov'e" (Приднестровья and Приднестровье respectively). I have never seen this used as an alternative spelling and I have a hard time seeing it become so (at least among those familiar with Russian grammar). jamason 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to rather insist that saying Transnistria declared "independence" is incorrect. To make it simpler, it could be independence as a republic of the Soviet Union and leave out the Moldovan SSR reference. However, it's crucial to the understanding of later events to note support for the Soviet regime from the outset. I'd be fine with this simplification:
Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990....
I've seen the Pridnestrov'ia spelling in various documents, and now that you mention it, you are completely correct that it should be pridnestrovye (Pridnestrov'e) not pridnestrovya to be in the proper nominative form. (So yes, that usage was incorrect!) On reconsideration best left out and just dealt with in alternate names.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of compromise: I'd be fine with this, too, but please re-insert the word "officially" in the parenthesis to explain what "Pridnestrovie" is all about. This was part of the stable version for most of the year anyway. The reasoning goes a long, long way back. and is a compromise based on the constitution and the naming decree. TSO1D and I handled this already, from opposite sides. - Mauco 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we just need to note what "officially" means--is it simply "(officially Pridenstrovie, in Russian)" or "(Pridnestrovie, official Russian form) or "(Pridnestrovie, official Russian term)? I don't inherently have an issue with the word "official" itself, only that we shouldn't use it without putting it in context.
I would be fine with stating that's the official Russian form--or whatever else is the proper context--just a word or two. It's only the lack of context that is the issue.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK! How should we phrase it? We used to have - in the stable version, for the longest time - the following: "Transnistria (officially: Pridnestrovie) is a ..."
Can we keep that?
If not, do you want "Transnistria (or Pridnestrovie, per its constitution) is a ..." ...?
If we say something like "Transnistria (Russian: Pridnestrovie)" then that doesn't really cover it. It is their English name, too, according to themselves. They want to be called Pridnestrovie in English. They made a naming decree about this, some year ago. - Mauco 05:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"(Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution)" works perfectly well. That already implies "officially" since we identify it's according to the PMR constitution, but I don't object to adding the word "officially" as it's now clear what is official according to whom. I'd ask for PMR over Transnistria so we maintain a distinction of territory and authority--that is, I would not agree to "(Pridnestrovie, per its constitution)".  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so close! (re-indenting..., "[officially]" in brackets indicates word optional...)

Transnistria ([officially] Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990. Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR) has exercised de facto control over most of Transnistria. The independence of Transnistria under the PMR has not been recognized, and sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention.

  • Agreed (do still need to have that appropriate mention of Russian troops sooner rather than later in the article body)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed (not the best version, but an acceptable compromise. And yes, of role of Russia has to be dealt with, too. It will always be a big part of Transnistria's recent history, for better or for worse. I agree with you on that, too, Peters.) - Mauco 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV of word "region" in intro

The use of the word "region" to describe Transnistria is being pushed by Moldovan government officials. This is despite the fact that it has not been used before in official documents, like the 1992 cease fire mandate signed by Mircea Snegur (then-president of Moldova).

Source: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol154-12-06.htm

Quote: делегация Республики Молдова стремится заменить название "Приднестровье" на "Приднестровский регион Республики Молдова", и это вызывает определенное беспокойство у приднестровской стороны. "Извините, если мы берем за основу действующую инструкцию, то должны использовать ту терминологию, которая в ней употребляется", - сказал Александр Порожан.

Rough translation: The delegation of the Republic of Moldova aims to replace the name "Pridnestrovie" with the "pridnestrovian region of the Republic of Moldova", and this causes certain uneasiness on the Transnistrian side. "Excuse me, but if we use the mandate as our basis, then we must use the terminology, which is used in it", said Aleksandr Porozhan.

Previous documents did not use this terminology. Real life shows that Transnistria is no longer a part of Moldova and that Moldova's government has, in reality, lost all control over Transnistria. The push for "region" is an attempt by Moldova's government to put something into the paperwork between the sides which is not the actual case, based on the evidence on the ground, and which has never been used before. - Mauco 12:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the names for the region and state are often used interchangeably. That is why the delegation states that it is referring specifically to the region (so that it won't seem that it implicitly recognizes the state). That is also why I urged to differentiate between them is these issues. --Illythr 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Illythr, the way that OSCE and most others have done it in the past is to call Moldova a republic, by spelling out the full name "Republic of Moldova", whereas Transnistria is never (ever) spelled out by its own constitutional name, "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". It is merely called Pridnestrovie. Not state, not republic, not region. Just the name. The OSCE has a bunch of the official documents on its site, and the Peacemaking project by the British Embassy has a lot of that, too.
My point is this: To call it a "region" is just as much POV as if we call it a "country". Moldova wants to call it a region, PMR wants to be called a country, but the mediators have long ago found an middle-ground that sort of satisfies both sides. - Mauco 03:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Region is vague enough to be neutral. A region is not necesarily a division of a country. Region of Middle East, for example, includes many countries.--MariusM 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But there is a difference between vague and neutral words like "Region" and "Area", and then "Region of Moldova" which implies a possessive relationship. This is why the government of Moldova is POV pushing it but the other sides in the conflict won't let them get away with this little stunt. One of the two sides in the conflict will not accept it, and besides, it is wholly wrong as it does not correctly identify the actual situation in the real world. - Mauco 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "territory"? --Illythr 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, the issue is not so much the word itself (like MariusM says, 'region' can be a neutral word, too), but the context when it is used as a possessive. This was the gist of the unaccepted attempt by Moldova, which is described above and for which I provided a rough translation. Otherwise territory is certainly good, too. - Mauco 21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Yes Yes, The Transnistria country is supposed to be part of Moldova and now she is ruled by Smirnov and I suggest we write that this country will be part of Moldova and we all believe that this will return though peace talks and good words. Esgert 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, let us vote for peace in the entire world. Eliminate all crime and injustice. Kill all the evil people, too, while we're at it. :-) --Illythr 21:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Smirnov

I like show photo of Igor Smirnov so people can see his face. This is a good idea. Tell no lies about him of course. He is their leader and respect that , Bad people write things and this is important to check I have some iplaans for the page, I will help you all. I am fair you will see Mr E is for you all.

We already have two photos (three if you count the election poster). They are on the Igor Smirnov page. The use of leader photos on other Wikipedia country pages is mixed. United States does it, so does Moldova, but many other countries don't. I would personally prefer an "action" photo (Smirnov doing something, or in a context setting) rather than a portrait, so we show a bit of Transnistria as well, since the article is about Transnistria and not Smirnov. Thanks for your offer to help. Please work through consensus. We will not tell any lies about Smirnov and I do not believe that we are currently doing so. - Mauco 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Good, And the chairman of Transnistria too, the new man, he is not like Smirnov, he is sensible and he is the real keader. Put him above Smirnov and tell why Esgert 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Yevgeny Shevchuk? He is not the "chairman of Transnistria" but the Speaker (chairman, if you will) of VS PMR; which is their parliament. - Mauco 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border Guards

The Transnistrian border guards are very strict and are are slow. This is deliberate tactic. Sometimes they take money or cigerettes. And Ukraine bordermen too. Moldovan will take a few coins but not like the others. This is something wrong. Smirnov's son is the top border customs man and he is over these men. Also deliberate long delays for cars, Esgert 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me. This article is still undeveloped... --Illythr 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN

I've introduced back Travel Warnings, according to the Discussion.

I've introduced back Propaganda and Disinformation chapter. Whether some sources on the subject are objective or not is really important. Especially if it is about Wikipedia.

On violent incidents, the word isolated is biased.Dl.goe 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were they widespread and all over the country unrecognized state region? --Illythr 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dl.goe, your wholesale revert is a bit rash, considering 1) there is certainly no conclusive outcome of the discussion which you cite, and 2) WP:BAN specifically states that "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users". I am certainly willing to work with you, and others, on developing phrasing which is acceptable to all. But it must be done here, and not on mainspace unless we all enjoy engaging in those tiresome revert wars back and forth. I know I don't. - Mauco 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the propaganda and misinformation subsection to Media in Transnistria for the time being. --Illythr 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it fits there better. But now perma-banned user Greier was singling out Transnistria and painting it in the worst possible light, whereas in reality, public diplomacy is a part of what every country does. It is not unusual for them to use GONGOs to do so. Pretty much all nations are guilty of this (with the United States being the current world leader in this field). Whether we like it or not, is a reality of the international relations field. The other side will always call it propaganda and disinformation. That is another fact of life of international relations. - Mauco 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus, there is no consensus either for introducing or for removing the text. I would like to know the reason why Greier's text is not suitable. I added back Travel Warnings because the discussion on it was stopped. I don't understand what Mauco thinks on Travel Warnings:
1.The information is irrelevant.
2.The information is relevant but this article should not include a chapter that is not yet present in any other article.
3.The information should be included, but the phrasing should be developed.
The article should not describe the violent incidents as isolated. This is like saying if the region is safe or not. Wikipedia should contain the facts and let the reader judge on them.Dl.goe 09:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Mauco made some misleading comments about Wikipedia policies regarding banned user, just a reminder: WP:BAN is telling about reverting any edit made in defiance of a ban. Banned user Greier didn't edit in defiance of a ban, his edit was previous of the ban and was discussed in talk page. It was a legitimate edit. Fact that Greier was banned afterwards (without any relation about the edit we discuss) does not mean that everything he wrote in Wikipedia in one year should be removed. Also, it doesn't mean that nobody else can share Greier's view about a certain edit. Regarding Greier's ban, I consider an abuse see full story--MariusM 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no point in discussing this. WP:BAN is clear on the matter, and Greier is permanently banned for good. On a contentious page like Transnistria, it is not kosher to introduce entire new sections without prior debate and trying to achieve consensus. So far, only Greier, yourself and EvilAlex have done that wholesale. It is even less cool to reinstate the edits of banned users. There is no need to debate this endlessly, since an admin has already told you this clearly on your own talk page, MariusM. - Mauco 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I told to this admin that I don't agree with him. Wikipedia policy is written and very clear. Expression "defiance of a ban" is mentioned, and Greier's edit was not in "defiance". We don't need Mauco's interpretation of Wikipedia policies when we have clear policies.--MariusM 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ask some more admins, then. The policy is obviously not as clear as you say, if there can be this kind of doubt about it. - Mauco 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is quite clear. The fact that a user is banned does not have any inherent effect on the validity of their prior edits. (If they were banned for repeated plagiarism or use of faked sources that would be an issue, but that is not the case here.) The whole point of the rule about rolling back edits made in defiance of a ban is so that they have nothing to gain by defying the ban. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this for all. Of course, a good part of why Greier is no longer with us is because he pulled non-consentual stunts like this on pages with a high level of dispute. Finally, the community's patience just ran out. - Mauco 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But his individual edits should stand or fall on their individual merits. I've crossed paths with him quite a few places, and by no means was his work uniformly bad, unlike his attitude toward contributors with whom he disagreed. - Jmabel | Talk 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistrian side or Separatist side?

We are labeling pro-PMR links in our External links section as "Transnistrian side". This is misleading, not all Transnistrians are supporting the separatist regime. We should use the label "separatist" instead of "transnistrian", in this and in other related articles when we are talking about forces which support Smirnov's regime. A big part of Transnistrian people want to get rid of Russian occupation and unite back with Moldova. Also, there were always some forces in Chişinău which support Smirnov's regime.--MariusM 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Official Moldovan" and "Official Transnistian", then? It's true that the links for both sides do not speak for all of the Transnistrian or Moldovan people. Although in this case I thought one would naturally assume governments, not people. --Illythr 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the 4 websites labelled as "Moldovan side" none is made by Moldovan government. Conflict.md is supported by OSCE (is publishing even pro-separatist information), Azi.md often is critic against Moldovan government. Maybe we should use the label "anti-separatist".--MariusM 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not made, supportive. The material presented on those sites in relation to Transnistria supports the official Modovan position. Hm, the presidential website apears to be down, btw. --Illythr 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about PMR side instead of Transnistrian side? TSO1D 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PMR would confuse new readers Truli 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that by the time they would reach the external links section they would know the term. TSO1D 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, keep things uniform, like if we include Moldovan links here it goes that Transnistrian links should also be on the Moldovan page too, and the Moldova page is really lackiing in Transnistrian info. It is like its been hidden by both sides, Truli 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two sides are currently referred to as "Transnistria" and "Moldova". MariusM is of course correct in saying that not Transnistrians support independence. If we go by the referendum, only 97% do.
How many in Moldova support the official Moldovan irredentist position? I spoke to Popov who told me that there is a shift in opinion among intellectuals in Chisinau. They look to Europe and they see Transnistria as something which is holding them back from that. They would just as rather cut loose from Transnistria (the past) and focus on Europe (the future). His words. How many support the official line? Probably a majority. But not all.
That is how democracy works. We do not need all Transnistrians to agree with the official line, nor do we need all Moldovans to agree with the official line. If the positions are official and/or representative of the majority, it can accurately be labelled "Transnistrian side" and "Moldovan side" just as we do now. No change. - Mauco 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an explanatory note that "pro-Transnistrian" means regarding the current PMR regime as legitimate, and "pro-Moldovan" means regarding the current PMR regime as not legitimate would be sufficient to make the appropriate distinction without confusing people. (It doesn't really boil down to just agreeing with the Moldovans or with Smirnov/Antyufeyev, which is what is implied if there is no further explanation.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to fix something which is clear to everyone already. MariusM's proposal proceedes from the implied assumption that the majority of Transnistrians are in disagreement with their government. This is an erroneus assumption and he has no credible sources to support it. Studies published in 2006 on this matter, by German and other Western analysts, while sowing questions about the level of democratic commitment, agree that if free elections were held today under OSCE auspices, the current leadership would easily win reelection. - Mauco 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real need to change this Truli 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&oldid=95516090"