Talk:Transnistria/Archive 14

message: can somebody explain why is alaexis keep undo my posting on the mainpage? if there is no link about investigative stories about Transnistria, why was my post deleted? I understand that a russian doesen't want critical posts about transdniester but this wkipedia section is for international use - is not even the russian version of wikipedia. 
: You should've noted that not only I have reverted your contributions. They are highly pov imo, besides in wikipedia you don't just put links in the article and say that all the interesting info is there. Alaexis 19:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isnt nice to call someone "Russian boy", the editor has a name, you can use that if you want to address him directly, but he is right, you should read about wiki-pedias rules for links, they are here: WP:EL Pernambuco 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please refrain from personal attacks in future. If these links deserve to be put in the article (which I doubt) they should go to the 'External Links: Romanian Sources' section. Regards. Alaexis 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Changes

message: Please join me on congratulation to Mauco for his new article on http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/670
Viva Highland!!! Catarcostica 06:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulation Mauco

message: In his article via link 54 it says "...Despite admitting that Iraqi WMD in 2003 were an invention of febrile conspiracy theorists in the US government and their willing propagandists,". Who admitted to this, I don't recall that happening and it doesn't say in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Almond on Weapons 

message: I believe that if a sovereign country exists and functions independently and possesses all the modern virtues of a state,it is not right to just say that such a country does not exist. In the time before the middle ages, a country would be proclaimed and be sovereign and it would not need any "recognition" by another country, so Transnistria is in fact a sovereign, independent nation, only not recognised because of politics.
I also believe that if a region or a people of a region wish to become independent,then independence is a fundamental right of their and no one can surpress this in any way.
New Babylon 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the time before the middle ages the notion of sovereignty did not exist. Sovereignty, as it exists today, is a modern concept. Dpotop 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Transnistria is not sovereign. The PMR has de facto control. That's what it is. There is no such thing as "de facto sovereign." And please explain to me how the PMR is an expression of the people of the region when the authorities record who voted and for whom and the authority in place is supported by the presence of Russian troops. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  BTW: nobody has doubts about who's ruling Transnistria. It's Russia. But Russia is a great country, and few governments dare criticize it on such a minor subject as Transnistria. Dpotop 13:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as Russian troops continue their presence, nothing in Transnistria can be objectively represented as the will of the people. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on, get real. There is a multilateral peacekeeping force. It is not just Russian. Troops are also supplied by Moldova, Transnistria and Ukraine. And the OSCE participates in the management of this peacekeeping force. If Moldova hadn't attacked with MIGs, carpet bombing residential neighborhoods, none of this would have been necessary and the international troops would most likely have left a long time ago. - Mauco 15:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vecrumba's probably referring to the 14th army and Socor's articles. I understand that the MiGs were used only about once or twice with minimal results (bombs missed and fell into the Dniester). --Illythr 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mauco, you misread my intent. As long as Russian troops remain... is exactly what I meant. I was not referring to any aspect of multilateralism. I meant Russian troops (and all related Russian presence) in particular. And you "get real" about troops otherwise leaving "a long time ago."  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you perhaps elaborate how exactly do the ~1500 Russian troops strangle the free will of the people? A link to the corresponding Socor's (I'd wager) article will do. --Illythr 11:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been itching to ask the same thing for a while, but I restrained myself. Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Vecrumba is from the Baltics where, for better or worse, they here a very special phobia involving Russians in uniform. His comments are par for the course for Baltic political discourse, but they are rarely shared with the same level of zeal by non-Balts. - Mauco 12:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And are we forgetting the head of the PMR armed forces left the Russian army to take over after the Russian army appeared in Transnistria? And all those that retired from the Russian military and joined the PMR armed forces? Please, itch away. As long as Russia is in the PMR it's clear who is who. One Russian tank a day is sufficient to make the point. After all this is a territory which has never seen post-Soviet freedom. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * Fresh off the BBC news site, March 7, 2007 update: "The ongoing presence of Russian troops has been a stumbling block in peace talks and the West is concerned about the Soviet-era arsenal in the territory. A pull-out began in 2001 but was halted when Trans-Dniester blocked the dispatch of weapons. Subsequent agreements to resume failed to reach fruition. ... In 2004 a Russian-brokered plan, which would have made the presence of Russian troops permanent, sparked mass protests in Moldova and was shelved. Ukraine has since come up with settlement proposals but these too have stalled." Multilateral peace keepers? Unilateral stumbling block. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh, would you mind pointing out the Russian army that appeared in Transnistria? More on your talk page. --Illythr 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognition

message: Did anyone see what EvilAlex did today, he showed up and undid a whole month of work, and it is something like 25 reverts on the page, does anyone mind if I restore the page to the normal version? This is similar to the bonaparte-person, why can these people not propose their changes and discuss them first???? Pernambuco 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else apparently already restored to the pre-EvilAlex version, but if EvilAlex insists, just go ahead and restore the page again. Meanwhile, he will be blocked for 3RR. He was warned (twice) but decided to ignore it. He never discussed any of his changes here, or sought consensus in any way, shape or form. - Mauco 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I'm not exactly a great fan of Alex' work, a few of his (reverted) changes were actually valid, if made in a rather aggressive way. For example, did some EU countries really send humanitarian aid to Transnistria? And if yes, then what countries? I am only aware of the aid that came from Russia. --Illythr 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes i agree but in that case why dont he ask about it, for instance check with the person who introduced it (not me), or put a fact-tagging request, and then if there is no source for it, delete it later as unsourced Pernambuco 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Illythr. The fact that EvilAlex reverts idiocies in a blunt manner does not mean he is not entitled to do it. I am sincerely happy he is here, because I don't have the time myself to undo all the pro-Transnistrean propaganda of some of you, guys. It's disgusting, frankly. Dpotop 19:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fighting fire with fire, eh? Unfortunately, if Alex keeps doing this in such a way, he'll discredit his cause just as Mark Street did his own. --Illythr 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you used and open proxy for this one. Circumventing a block is a punishable endeavour. Anyhow, I think that presenting your issues with the text on the talk page instead of constantly reverting to your preferred version would've been a much better idea.  --Illythr 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by EvilAlex 

message: I added a POV tag. The article does not follows wikipedian guidance on WP:NPOV. 
Here is my proposal to make it neutral: . 
EvilAlex 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking a quick glance at it, it actually looks even more POV. For starters, you open with the words "breakaway territory". None of the other unrecognized countries are described this way in their respective Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't the Transnistria article follow the NPOV standards used in the rest of Wikipedia? - Mauco 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NPOV standard reflects those like you who insist only they are "neutral." I thought we agreed a long time ago that because of the so-called controversy over the so-call legitimacy of the so-called democratic regime of the self-called PMR we would source only externally to Wiki. There has been a veritable Wiki-cottage-industry seeking to impart legitimacy to breakaway territories within the former U.S.S.R. Please leave those POV contentions in those articles. PMR = territory or region, not republic, in intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  we could change that to:Pridnestrovie) is a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in Eastern Europe. How is that? EvilAlex 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last version could be applied to, say, Gagauzia, as it's a region within the internationally recognized legal boundaries of the Republic of Moldova  without any doubt. The important thing is that Moldova has no control over this territory currently and that it (Transnistria) considers itself to be independent. This should be reflected in the first sentence of the intro imho. Alaexis 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have that line:Transnistria declared itself a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on 1990-09-02 (as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) and subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has exercised de facto control over most of the Transnistria regionEvilAlex 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fear that EvilAlex may be missing the point: The current intro is simply standardization to match how other unrecognized countries are dealt with in their respective Wikipedia articles. Alaexis said as much in his edit summary when he first introduced the change. See the logs. - Mauco 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't push POV "standardization" in other articles into this article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That IS actually a GOOD point. Each case must be decided on its individual merits. Now, I happen to believe this one has merit, but I also understand the need for open debate and why it is good that we reach a compromise that everyone here can live with. You are making some sense here, Vecrumba. I am listening. - Mauco 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a disagreement whether Transnistria is an independent republic or under the foreign military occupation. We simply cannot call it a country or independent republic. we can call it a region, territory, whatever.. EvilAlex 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Correct, Alaexis. Insofar as the same phrasing is used on other Wikipedia articles dealing with unrecognized countries, I fail to see how it can be POV to do the same (not more, not less) when it comes to Transnistria. There is nothing wrong with EvilAlex adding a POV tag in good faith, providing he does not do so to be disruptive and is in fact willing to discuss his concerns in order to make the article better. - Mauco 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Temp protection has been applied to stop edit war, expiry 48 hours, at 0200 UTC 6 March 2007. You can still edit this talk page.Rlevse 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I personally have an issue with the graveyard information, which I find poorly sourced, from one side only, and thus biased. It frankly does not reflect reality, based on my knowledge of the nearly one year development of the events related to this Bender cemetery. But I will look for more sources before I bring it up here. I believe the issue of international relations (and lack thereof) ought to be covered with three or four sentences. I will propose them here to get feedback from others before they are incorporated into the article. I also support TSO1D's desire for a copy edit, but none of that is urgent.  I can't see how an edit war could develop as long as others remember that deep reverts, such as the serial attacks by EvilAlex blanking and overwriting the past 100+ edits, should not be done without prior discussion and a semblance of consensus. - Mauco 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what could happened if Maucos dirty hands get hold on Transnistrian page. The article now reflects the Maucos personal views. Wikipedian policies? What Wikipedian policies? Mauco has truly showed his intention to continue long lasting tradition of a true Soviet NKVD followers to: disrupt, to lie and to deceive ordinary readers in order to enforce his ideology on entire Wiki community. Bravo comrade Mauco! Bravo! EvilAlex 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not inclined to respond to ad hominem argumentum ad personam by EvilAlex or anyone else. Most of my edits to the page this year have been very minor. And unlike EvilAlex et al, I usually discuss major changes first. If there is anything factually incorrect in the article, it should of course be fixed. - Mauco 13:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Alex, you're really discrediting yourself with this kind of rhetoric. Drop the personal attacks and stick to the facts, sources and diffs if you want to further your point. --Illythr 14:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK! Peace. EvilAlex 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion Mauco is using unfair methods of editing Transnistria related articles. He said  I usually discuss major changes first false. He didn't discuss the changes in which he removed human rights content. Further more, he removes Romanian sources based on Transnistrian ones, giving full credit to Transnistrian and no credit to Romanian ones. I would say Mauco has an insulting and inhuman conduct. I note here how he responded when I added the paragraph about Transnistrian authorities destroying and profaning a cemetery: Emotional outbursts are uncalled for in an encyclopedia.. The context is here:. Personally, I don't want peace, and I am less and less willing to speak to Mauco.Dl.goe 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary protection

message: This section should really be removed. Yes it had its place in a moment of time many years ago. Fears and allegations are no longer enough to support such a section. There are much more important articles such as Russian privatisation of Transnistrian industry and Offical Corruption and Russian political influence.Buffadren 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Official corruption? If you have the sources, go ahead and post them. I don't think there is more corruption in Transnistria than in Moldova (or in Ukraine for that matter), yet that word - corruption - is not given much space in either article. Mauco 10:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence but I can assure you I know quite a lot about this weapons area, When the curtain fell there was wholesale grey market weapons sales much of it went tfrough Ukraine. There was real fears back then that Transnistria was involved and this would cause disruption , not to mention that it would hurt legitimate American  arms sales. It is only now we know that the only region that didn't sell weapons was Transnistria, They had a paranoid fear of Moldova and clung onto theor stockpiles like a vice grip. Everything they had , they still have, it seems they wouldn't sell a bullet. . Buffadren 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  But it has serious corruption problems, that is a proper issue for the region now Buffadren 11:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, one of the administrators a while back suggested that crime should be dealt with in the Crime in Transnistria article. That article can have a section on corruption, if the sources merit it. If we then use the same principle that we do for other content, this means that we still ought to have a summary in the main article. Along the lines of: Summary here, details there. - Mauco 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, get rid of the weapons article because doesn't hold water. The crime section is a bit weak too. However corruption does exist and is a much more serious problem. Also how Russian 'investment depletes Transnistria and how the Transnistrians are being turned to the Russians by outsiders. Look at this http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2 .  Buffadren 12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I against removing weapons trade section. Wiki should be build on a history brick by brick. If you have something new to add be my guest, but erasing it - it the same as to erase history.EvilAlex 12:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I think we understand each other. Do remember Transnistria is a changing place. We all need to change how we view it. What do other editors here think ?  Buffadren 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also against the removal of 'weapons smuggling' section. It's well referenced and relevant. Btw the report on the CRJI site (http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=85&l=2) is definitely POV imo. We should remember it's a Romanian site. Alaexis 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It may be Romanian, so what ? It is true.The weapons section is not a fair portrayal. Buffadren 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let us not remove anything drastical for now. I suggest that anyone who has new information to add can do so on Crime in Transnistria. As that page grows, we can then re-visit the issue of perhaps including a more representative summary in the main Transnistria article. But for now, I support EvilAlex and his position on this issue: Let it stay. - Mauco 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats fine by meBuffadren 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: weapons trade

message: Evilalex, I am rverting your last edit. There is a potential libel and its only inter media stuff. Buffadren 14:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it for you. Some of this is covered in the archives as well, and in the edit log. Besides, now we have a later, more updated and fuller link from the same source, which gives the complete background to the conflict. - Mauco 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mauco I see you deleted my text again removing 'separatist' Can we agree to practice what we are preaching.?Buffadren 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is really only one context where the word "separatist" is appropriate: During the time of the separatist struggle. Anything after that reflects the point of view of one side to the conflict, since the official Transnistrian position does not consider itself separatist. - Mauco 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey alex

message: Since everyone here claims to be of good faith, I have an idea to reduce edit warring on this page. 
We can all exercise self-restraint by:
# Making at most one edit per user every day (including minor changes). 
# Making an edit after describing it on the talk page and then having at least 3 other editors agree upon it.
Of course, the agreement would fail the first time one editor does not respect it (but then, we would know who is the bad guy).
As a token of good faith, I would ask we start from EvilAlex's version. :) 
Dpotop 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since the moment of your proposal, EvilAlex was the only one to edit the article more than once, so he's the first one to violate it. :-P --Illythr 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That could have been by mistake Buffadren 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  His unrestrained actions today show otherwise. - Mauco 16:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have an idea! Self-restraint. 

message: Is it just me or does this photo of "Anatoly Semerenko, the country's #1 bodybuilder, stands in front of Pridnestrovie's parliament" look totally fake? http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 Jonathanpops 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It, uh, looks like a painting, actually. Or at least heavily Photoshop'd. Shouldn't you be posting this over there? --Illythr 00:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Illythr is right. This page (here) is for dealing with edits to the article. But since the thread is already open, my own 2 Купон's: Scroll down to the end of the text of http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/636 and look for a link which says "On the web: » Anatoly Semerenko photo gallery" and links to http://fbb.land.ru/foto/index_p3.htm, then scroll down to the end of that page, and the same photo appears. Click on it to see a VERY large version. Then look for Photoshop artifacts. I am no expert, so I'll not venture to give a verdict. But Illythr or anyone else with time could also write to Anatoliy Semerenko and ask him, since he just happens to be president of the federation whose site his picture appears on. - Mauco 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't put it quite as harshly. It is a photo caption, and if it is falsified in any way, then clearly Tiraspol Times did not do the falsification. The photo is from Semerenko's own site, and they make no attempt to hide the link which leads directly to it. Besides, the background IS the PMR parliament building. It could be a painting, as Illythr suggests, or it could just be that it is out of focus due to the photographer focusing on Semerenko. If this is a concern to anyone (it isn't a concern to me), then why not just ask Semerenko himself instead of double guessing? I have both his email and his work and home phone numbers, for anyone who wants. They are from the "Kontakt" page on his website. - Mauco 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't WHAT it is (or if is a painting) until someone asks Semerenko. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a bid deal. I agree with Mauco this time. Catarcostica 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Johnathanpops claims this is a fake photo and then it is then proven the photo came from the politician's own website. The Tiraspol Times clearly lifted it from the site as any paper would do and do. Johnathanpops is the one reporting false information to discredit Tiraspol newspapers. The question is why?  Perhaps he has his own media interests. Johmathanpops who is very concerned about press transperancy should state clearly now if he has any connection with any publishing outlet. Scrapersky 16:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok Mark. I must admit I didn't realise that it was leeched from another website until Mauco pointed it out. Still, it's patently obvious, to me at least, that's it's not a photo of somone in front of a building but rather a photo of someone in front of a picture of a building (behind some trees, way in the background). So I think it's just bad reporting rather than bad reporting and photo manipulation on the part of the website called Tiraspol Times. I already stated my reasons pretty clearly in my last message. I'm not comparing the Tiraspol Times to any other website, I'm just saying I think the content is of a highly dubious nature. I don't have any other websites to offer up as being any better. Jonathanpops 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Fake Photo at Tiraspol Times Website? 

message: This article on Portalul ONG-Moldova talks of "a national referendum on independence". An official statement by the United States Dept of State talks of an "independence referendum" in headline and body text. And, of course, the site we all love to hate has something like a hundred references to the same term (some are quotes from neutral third parties). 
Looking inhouse, we even use the term for a similar event in a very similar setting. - Mauco 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no "transdnistia" nation. You can use " independence referendum". Catarcostica 05:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referendum 

message: Now, really, how should we go about PMR's independence? It declared itself a separate SSR, so it's certainly not "from the USSR". During the declaration there was no Republic of Moldova, so, technically, it's not "from Moldova" either. Maybe from MSSR? Uhh, *confused*. ---Illythr 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: September 2, 1990, is the official date. On that date, they declared independence from the Moldavian SSR. Not Moldova, not Soviet Union either. However, it is easy to get confused. They keep declaring independence all the time. They have done it in 1991 again, in 1995, and in 2005 with the new foreign policy objectives. Arguably, the referendum of 2006 could also be seen as an independence declaration since it was followed up with an official request by the PMR Supreme Council to a number of CIS parliaments for statehood recognition. It is sort of like a Monty Python skit: They keep declaring independence, again and again, but no one cares... They also declared independence from the Soviet Union (in 1991) but never from the Republic of Moldova since they don't consider themselves to have been part of Republic of Moldova in the first place. Remember that today's Republic of Moldova only came into being on August 27, 1991.  - Mauco 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First time I hear USSR didn't recognize Pridnestrovie as its part (via MSSR)... --Illythr 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence

message: I guess we should add this http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13136774.htm to the violent incidents, or somewhere in the article? Jonathanpops 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. It is also here and here, with his photo. But please add it to Crime in Transnistria or else the main page will grow unwieldy over time. - Mauco 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not know that page existed, I'll move my section on the Border Corruption into that. Buffadren 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed that you added that a while back. It is good, but it is better in the detailed part. You didn't know it existed? It has been around for a while now. But I guess we forgot the 'See also' line. - Mauco 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does his name have different spellings, is it a language thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanpops (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viktor Neumoyin Assassination 

message: I found this site http://www.transdniestria.com  It is very informative. It should  be included ? Buffadren 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.For moment its just a bit better than tiraspol.com  Catarcostica 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly better.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New site suggestion

message: How can Russia recognize PMSSR as a a part of its territory yet recognize the Moldavian SSR's succesion?
: The PMSSR was within the Moldovan SSR, so not part of either the Russian SSR now Federation nor of the Ukrainian SSR now the Ukraine. The PMSSR (whether it existed or not--its declaration was rejected by central Soviet authorities) would have ceased to exist with the demise of the Soviet Union, so there is nothing there for Russia to now recognize. Nor does Russia recognize sovereignty of the current PMR (Duma declarations supporting the "democratic aspirations" of the Transnistrians notwithstanding). ... unless there's new news? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognition?

message: I think this should be included in the article:
According to the Moldavian and Romanian press, in February 2007, Transnistrian authorities destroyed and profaned the Dragalina cemetery in Tighina (also known as The Romanian cemetery), thus violating the Geneva ConventionThe Geneva Convention requirs that the "dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found.". The Transnistrian authorities did not exhume the bodies; they only removed the crosses and leveled the terrain with bulldozers.319 identified Romanian and 14 unidentified soldiers, as well as 13 Soviet prisoners were buried at this cemetery.Ziua:Tyraspol officials bulldoze Romanian soldiers' remainsZiua:immages with the cemetery Slate article: What are the rights of dead people?
===References===
Mauco removed the content writing: 
"This analysis puts the Ziua article into perspective."
I don't understand Russian, and I don't know what the analysis he found contains. Ziua was not the only newspaper to publish this news: ...Dl.goe 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can anyone read Russian and maybe just put a quick summary here or something, like D1.goe I have the same problem, cant read Russian but it would be nice to know, just the main points. The other item, about the geneva convention, well that is something you can delete at least, the reason is this, how can Transnistria violate a convention that it is not part of, or did it sign this convention, probably not because how can it sign a convention when it is just an unrecognized country and has not yet membership of the International organizations Pernambuco 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I assume that Transnistria authorities didn't think they went against the Geneva Convension, but we aren't talking about what Transnistria authorities think are we? I think the main question is, is Moldova covered by the Geneva Convention, as Transnistria is part of Moldova in the eyes of other countries involved, the same countries that no doubt would see this as a violation, if it's true. Jonathanpops 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some questions wether profaning a cemetery is violating human rights. I think refering to Geneva Convention as international law is appropriate.Dl.goe 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i dont oppose Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with Pernambuco. I do oppose. But since I wasn't here, and in fact didn't make an edit to the article in nearly 2 weeks, I will let the active editors decide. Personally, I feel that this level of detail belongs in the detailed article Human rights in Transnistria. If it then merits an inclusion here, it should be a oneliner overview with a wikilink for those who want to see the full story. Details here, summary there. - Mauco 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragalina cemetery 

message: Mauco removed the content writing: 
"This analysis puts the Ziua article into perspective."
I don't understand Russian, and I don't know what the analysis he found contains. Ziua was not the only newspaper to publish this news: ...Dl.goe 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: can anyone read Russian and maybe just put a quick summary here or something, like D1.goe I have the same problem, cant read Russian but it would be nice to know, just the main points. The other item, about the geneva convention, well that is something you can delete at least, the reason is this, how can Transnistria violate a convention that it is not part of, or did it sign this convention, probably not because how can it sign a convention when it is just an unrecognized country and has not yet membership of the International organizations Pernambuco 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I assume that Transnistria authorities didn't think they went against the Geneva Convension, but we aren't talking about what Transnistria authorities think are we? I think the main question is, is Moldova covered by the Geneva Convention, as Transnistria is part of Moldova in the eyes of other countries involved, the same countries that no doubt would see this as a violation, if it's true. Jonathanpops 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been some questions wether profaning a cemetery is violating human rights. I think refering to Geneva Convention as international law is appropriate.Dl.goe 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i dont oppose Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with Pernambuco. I do oppose. But since I wasn't here, and in fact didn't make an edit to the article in nearly 2 weeks, I will let the active editors decide. Personally, I feel that this level of detail belongs in the detailed article Human rights in Transnistria. If it then merits an inclusion here, it should be a oneliner overview with a wikilink for those who want to see the full story. Details here, summary there. - Mauco 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Russia could have not recognized the PMSSR as sovereign of the Moldovan SSR yet as territory that did not want to leave. Any SSR that did not leave would probally be attacked to the Russian SFSR anyways so they could recognize the internal succesion then not recognize the PMR's since that would be like leaving after they went thru the trouble to join. Check out my presidential graph. 
Vital Component
: I added a headline because i dont think this comment was about the graveyard, also theres an article about it, it is Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic ......Pernambuco 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMSSR recognition