Talk:Transnistria/Geography/Border issues

message: The following discussion can be found here
At the section "Border issues" I would add Roghi and Vasilievca as villages controlled by central Republic of Moldova government, as it is show at Dubăsari distric (Republic of Moldova) web page http://curaj.net/dubasari/.
Roghi is shown even in the school map published by Transnistrian authorities as having a "Romanian"-language school http://tdsu.idknet.com/region/english/atlas/dir10/scools.jpg. This is a clear indication that, indeed, Roghi is under Chişinău control.
Vasilievca too was administrated from Cocieri before the war, is over the strategic road that link Tiraspol with Rîbniţa. From the web page of Dubăsari district is claimed that is under Chişinău control (in the map, white is Chişinău control, green in Tiraspol control), however I would like a double-check before listing Vasilievca as a Chişinău-controlled village.
I know that in Doroţcaia is a permanent problem - part of the agricultural land of the village is over the road, and Tiraspol authorities made several attempts to forbit the villagers to reach their land which is over the road. This issue may also been included in the "Border issues" section.--MariusM 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OSCE, which has worked heavily on the Doroţcaia situation, does not list these as Moldovan controlled villages. Why should we? A school itself is not "clear indication" - there are two Japanese schools in Washington DC but this does not mean that Washington DC is under Tokyo's control. Also, you should get the updated info from OSCE on Doroţcaia because a settlement was reached in February on access. - Mauco 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A clear indication is the website of Moldova's Dubăsari district, where Roghi and Vasilievca are listed as being under Chişinău control. Both are considered as being administrated toghether with Cocieri, and in the Cocieri website http://curaj.net/dubasari/cocieri.htm is mentioned that the locals were forbiden by the separatist regime to work 700 ha of their land and some of their crops were confiscated. The fact that the school in Roghi is listed as "Romanian" by Tiraspol (that mean is using latin script) is a clear indication, as separatist regime has a state policy against schools in latin script. Is a difference in USA, where there is no state policy agains Japanese schools. When the problem of Moldovan schools in Transnistria emerged, no one mentioned Roghi. Tiraspol regime tried to close schools in Tighina, Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, but not in Roghi - this is an indication that it don't control Roghi. It may have the ambition to control it, mainly because of strategical road that link Tiraspol and Rîbniţa. Regarding your version about the borders, I gave sources (links), if you want to contradict me, please give other sources to show the contrary (until now you just made unsourced afirmations).--MariusM 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Russian Wikipedia list both Roghi and Vasilievca as being under Chişinău control http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BE%D0%BD.--MariusM 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two questions: 1. Does the OSCE agree with you..? (Hint: They don't). 2. And: Is this kind of tone called for "you are just ignorant" ...? (Tip: You can disagree and still be polite at the same time). Anyway, draw the borders any which way you want. The real issue is de facto control, and if you consult with the Joint ControlCommission, they can let you know who controls what and exactly what the disputed areas are. Right now, they are really only dealing with Varnitsa. - Mauco 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was polite, I was calling you ignorant as I give you the benefit of the doubt assuming good faith. You just make statements about OSCE and Joint Control Commision, without any source, while I gave many links to support my opinion. Of course, it will be better if somebody will go there for reality-check, but this will be original research.--MariusM 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying this with a straight face? That you are being polite by calling one of your fellow editors ignorant? That is a new one ... The last time someone called me an ignorant, it was now-banned user Greier. But at least he didn't claim to be polite while doing so. - Mauco 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the improvement of this chapter

message: The following discussion can be found here
An other paragraph which was part of the article for long time - "Border issues" - was removed by Mauco during my short wikibreak. This is linked with the article List of unrecognized countries, where Mauco want to move Transnistria in the section with unrecognized countries with "full" control over their territorry, while I want to keep it in the section "partial" control over territorry, based exactly on information about border issues. Mauco censored the border issues section in this article, in order to remove the arguments against his position on the other article (I was reffering at Transnistria article in the disputes on the other article). I re-added back this section and I hope Mauco will refrain to start a new edit war about it.--MariusM 09:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not removed be me. Please assume good faith. I made some other edits, just like a lot of other people did (and keep doing every day), but not this particular one. Anyway, the border detail section is now located where it belongs (in the detailed article on Disputed status of Transnistria) and a summary line is included here, and I fully agree with the editor who did this that it is the correct approach. Remember the golden rule: "Details there, summary here." - Mauco 13:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I saw that border issues section was removed by User:Pernambuco. Apologies for my mistake. Anyhow, Pernambuco should first explain in talk his edits, especially when he remove something that was stable in this unstable article for 3 1/2 months and nobody objected to it.--MariusM 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The article can't do without Border issues. We should say what region we are talking about.Dl.goe 16:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is already there (it says Transnistria). Want more? The details can be seen with one mouseclick. That is right approach. It is done that way in the other parts, too (history, internal politics, human rights, referendum, the Ukraine border dispute, and so on). - Mauco 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Border issues are an ongoing problem - are necesarry. Only section which is not necesarry according your golden rule "Details there, summarry here" is the referendum section.--MariusM 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are necessary, but do we need all details on this page. I think it makes more sense to just keep one sentence mentioning their existence here, with details available in the subpage. TSO1D 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are necesarry. They were in the article from 4 September, why suddenly they are not necesarry? What is your opinion about referendum section?--MariusM 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be mentioned but not in great detail. One line summarizing the results and a link to the main article should suffice in my view. TSO1D 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I checked the archives, and it was added without any discussion, and then it was duplicated in another article, it is bad that someone says "he should explain" when my edit line did explain this, and I just moved it into the right article where it belongs. I did not remove any information but just ordered it, sorted it out the right way.This is on the rule that all of you have here, where you decide on the details in one place, and the summary in the main space, and so on. I am not taking sides, but I have to do a good job, and all this edit war stuff between the two camps, I have to say, honest, it is not helping the article Pernambuco 21:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rule is not upheld in practice. Take a look at the human rights section, or internal politics, for instance. - Mauco 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it. Pernambuco 15:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding border issues, is you, Pernambuco who started the edit war. Is amazing to see the person who stated the edit war asking others to stop it. Border issues section was part of the article for 3 and a half months, there were thousand edits in Transnistria article during that time, nobody was against border issues section (not even in the other thousands edits in talk page). COntrary, some other editors added more details at this section. Suddenly, Pernambuco deleted the section without any discussion in talk.--MariusM 16:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not an edit warrior and I never take sides, I did one single move, it is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=prev&oldid=96140706, and I explained it on the 23 december, with my edit log comment. There was no information removed, it was moved into the right place, and every one else liked it, then you show up here, and complain, but it was one single move and it was not an edit war. I do not edit this article a lot, the rest that I have done since is just to revert the p.o.v. changes, so do not accuse me of edit warrior, I ask Pernambuco 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not every one else liked your move, as you can see in the last 2 days that you were reverted not only by me, but by Dlgoe and Diana Teodorescu as well. Don't take it personally, it happens in Wikipedia that other editors don't agree with some of your edits. People don't want to look in tens articles to find information about Transnistria, important information should be in the main article also.--MariusM 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  MariusM, why do you always team up with Bonaparte? Mauco 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sure. Whatever you say, my friend. You ALWAYS challenge Tiraspol Times. If I didn't know any better, I would think that you had a clinical fixation on it. It even required admin intervention. - Mauco 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is the section eliminated? No, it is not. It is in the right location now. Details there, summary here. - Mauco 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was wondering why you didn't share your views on the less controversial ground rules and the request for a gentlemen's agreement. It is one paragraph above this one. Just scroll up and let us hear what you have to say. - Mauco 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is still not controversial. It never was. But some other editor took the correct initiative to move it into the right place, and some of the rest of us just happen agree with him/her. Now it is located where it belongs. - Mauco 00:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some of the rest being only you". I don't see anybody else defending your position.--MariusM 10:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beware of the silent majority. :-) I didn't want to start (yet another) edit war, so I refrained from editing it. But in my opinion, the issues should indeed be only summarized here, because their status remains frozen, that is, there were no major political (and, thankfully, military) conflicts about them for years. Also note that the Georgraphy section provides a short overview as well. --Illythr 12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hello, this is Pernambuco, I am the person who made this move, so of course I defend my own edit, you can add my name to the list of the people who defend this position. Like I have already said before on this page, I never deleted anything, I just put it in the right section in the right article, so why do I have to repeat it and why is it a big deal Pernambuco 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also section 9.4 above (subheaded "Geography") where this is discussed, and more support is given. - Mauco 16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I failed to notice the "Border issues" sections in either of those two articles. I also couldn't find "Crime" and "Human Rights" sections there. Does that mean we should remove them here as well? Also note that in South Ossetia, the Georgian-controlled villages are numerous and are situated all over the region, whereas in Transnistria they form the suburbs of two districts. I think that a short mention is enough. The full list can be moved to Disputed status of Transnistria (oh, it's alredy there) and, perhaps into the Administrative Region of Dubăsari. Could you also pinpoint where the Georgian-controlled territory/villages is/are listen in the Abkhazia article? --Illythr 12:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check here. The section is not called "border issues, is called "De jure government of Abkhazia" but it is an entire section explaining that not the entire Abkhazia territorry is controlled by separatists. Adding the fact that Kodori region is mentioned on the map, the reader has an overview about who control what from the main article. Same about South Ossetia, where the map is very informative. Do you want to change the section name from "Border issues" to something like "Territory controlled by de jure government"? I preferr border issues because is shorter, but I would not mind for a name change. Main issue is that info about unsettled disputes about Transnistria's territorry should stay in the main article. Those disputes are hot points, even in 2006 was a conflict in Varniţa, in 2005 in Doroţcaia. Those border issues can be the start for new conflicts, info is important.--MariusM 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. MariusM is wrong. The Doroţcaia incident was solved in early 2006, with a signed agreement between the two sides that was brokered by the OSCE. Varnitsa was quelled later in 2006, thanks to Russian intervention. Oh, and Russia sided with Moldova. We never hear that. It was reported widely in Russian, but no one took the time to translate it to English or Romanian. (Except one source: "Russia sides with Moldova in Varnitsa standoff"). From the Moldovan side, we always hear how "Russia supports the separatists", etc etc. In reality, it is not so clear cut. The chauvenists are quick to blame Russia for all ills, but will never mention it when the shoe is on the other foot. - Mauco 13:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It has but one sentence on the territory issue. But if you click the 2006 Kodori crisis or Upper Abkhazia links - you get the info. Still, I'd support the inclusion of a more detailed map, that clearly shows who's controlling what, in this article. --Illythr 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if the main Abkhazia artcle has just one sentence, then we should have none. In Abkhazia, the territory which is not controlled by Abkhazia is much, much larger than the two small border pockets which are not controlled by the PMR government in Transnistria. The situation is also not comparable AT ALL to the patchwork of South Ossetia. Please don't overplay your hand here, MariusM. There is nothing wrong with pushing for your border info. But in the right place, please. - Mauco 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How you tell: "if". But there is an entire subsection - "De jure government of Abkhazia". If they have a subsection, we can have a subsection too. Anyhow, it was not a long section.--MariusM 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the inclusion of this chapter