Talk:History of Transnistria/Archive 1

message: the image caption here says the date that transnistria was annexed by romania was August 19, 1941, but this article  says that it was October 8, 1941 --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transnistria was never formally annexed by Romania (in the sense that there was never a formal act of annexation or attempt to incorporate it into a Greater Romania.) The word "annexation" and its derivatives should be changed as it has a legal connoctation which doesn't fit in this case. For the Romanians during World War II, Transnistria served the double purpose of killing fields, primarily for Jews, and also a buffer against the Soviets.As regards the actual date, since there was never a formal annexation, it is hard to speak of a precise date. The taking of Transnistria was a gradual affair in late summer of 1941; starting with Tiraspol. Most of the advances took place during August. The correct quote would be: "At the end of summer 1941 Transnistria came under Romanian control".Source: Alexander Dallin, Odessa, 1941-1944: "A Case Study of Soviet Territory under Foreign Rule", rev. ed. (published Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1998), page 59. - Mauco 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Romanian control

message: I did some searches and here's what I found:
Some pre-WWII books:
*Românii de peste Nistru : lamuriri pentru a-i ajuta în lupta lor / Nicolae Iorga / Iasi : Tipografia Ziarului "Neamul Românesc", 1918
*Românii transnistrieni / Ion Nistor / Codrul Cosminului : buletinul "Institutului de Istorie si Limba", 1924
*Granita rosie : ancheta mea la Nistru / Mihail Condrus ; cu o pref. de Geo London / Bucuresti : Imprimeriile Independenta, 1932
*Românii de peste Nistru / de Vasile Harea / Bucuresti : Cartea Româneasca, 1934
*Transnistria: tribuna românilor de peste Nistru si Bug / red. I. Zaftur / Cluj : Tip.Fondul Cartilor Funduare, 1935-1938
*Vechimea asezarilor românesti dincolo de Nistru / Ion Nistor / Bucuresti : Monitorul Oficial si Imprimeriile Statului, Imprimeria Nationala, 1939
*Românii de pestre Nistru / Nichita P. Smochina / Bucuresti : Tip. Ziarului "Universul", 1941
*Documente moldovenesti privitoare la românii de peste Nistru : (1574-1829) / Aurel V. Sava / Bucuresti : Bucovina, I. E. Toroutiu, 1942
*Românii din rasarit-Transnistria / Emil Diaconescu ; / Iasi : Institutul de Arte Grafice si Editura Ath.Gheorghiu, 1942
*Transnistria : încercare de monografie regionala / Nicolae M. Popp / Bucuresti : [Imprimeriile Soc. Nationale de Editura si Arte Grafice "Dacia Traiana"], 1943
*Românii si stramosii lor în istoria Transnistriei / Alexandru V. Boldur / Iasi : Tipografia "Liga Culturala", 1943
(no books on this subject were published during the communist era, for obvious reasons)
and some after 1990:
*Moldova de peste Nistru-vechi pamînt stramosesc / Nicolae Dabija / Chisinau : Hyperion, 1990
*Din istoria arheologiei Moldovei: (Basarabia si Transnistria) / de Nicolae Chetraru / Chisinau : Stiinta, 1994
*Istoria românilor din Transnistria : organizarea, cultura si jertfa lor / Ioan Silviu Nistor / [Bucuresti] : Editura Eminescu, 1995
*Românitatea transnistriana : antologie / ed. îngijita, note si comentarii de Florin Rotaru / Bucuresti : Semne, 1996
bogdan 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bogdan, THANKS for a truly useful contribution that I am sure will help many researchers here. - Mauco 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian bibliography on history of Transnistria 

message: Something interesting: some population figures from early 19th century. Source: "The native races of the Russian empire", by Robert Gordon Latham (1854)
*Podolia 7,429; 
*Ekaterinoslav: 9,858; 
*Kherson: 75,000; -- Transnistria was part of this province.
*Bessarabia: 406,182
This population figure tells us that there were quite a number of Moldavians beyond the Dniester. (almost a quarter of the population of Moldavians in Bessarabia) bogdan 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Romanians (i.e. Moldavians) in the Russian Empire 

message: I must say, pridnestrovie.net has hired a lot of people who know English really well, good English always gives an air of authority. Sadly, the content itself would make Stalin weep with joy.
From pridnestrovie.net...
"Why does Pridnestrovie prefer the cyrillic alphabet?
"For 700 years, ever since the first ethnic Moldavians arrived on the Pridnestrovie side of the river in the 14th century, they have been writing their language in cyrillic. The renegade Moldovan schools wanted to teach Moldavian in the latin script. They were allowed to do so, but from a strictly educational viewpoint, Pridnestrovie does not consider this to be a correct decision. However, as a tolerant, multiethnic country which respects the right of the parents to choose, Pridnestrovie allows the individual parents to decide this issue.
"Is the choice of one alphabet over the other a case of "discrimination", as Moldova was quick to claim? Not in the least. In fact, Romania itself used the Cyrillic alphabet for most of its history. As did Moldova. And as top scholars from the state university in Bucharest, Romania will point out, the cyrillic alphabet is much better suited for Romanian than the currently used latin alphabet. Due to the nature of the language the use of latin script sometimes impairs full written use of Romanian/Moldavian. This debate is well known among language scholars in Romania who lament that country's switch to latin script. But now the mistake is made and neither Moldova nor Romania can turn back the clock. Pridnestrovie, however, decided early on that it would not commit the same mistake. So as official policy, it simply teaches Moldavian in the alphabet most naturally suited to that language.
"In Romania itself, Latin script was introduced in 1860 by outside Francophone elites following a nearly thousand year history of Cyrillic script in the region. In Moldova, Latin script was introduced in 1991. Pridnestrovie maintains the historical use of Cyrillic for Moldavian, as that is what works best for that particular language.
"Pridnestrovie respects the human rights of all its children, regardless of language or ethnic background. There is no discrimination in Pridnestrovie but only a concern that legal and educational standards are always followed and adhered to."
Stalin is not dead. He is alive and well and writing for pridnestrovie.net. witness: "Moldavian being taught in its native alphabet."
The Romanian language finds its roots in Dacian, with a strong element of Latinization (that is, the real Latin from the Romans), later, adopting terms from the Slavic languages (the Slavs picking up Latinized terms in return). There was a re-Latinization in the 1800's, but having nothing to do with outside elites, rather, it was the literary intelligencia looking to undo the Slavic influences which had come into Romanian. The Cyrillic used prior to 1860 is, in fact, quite different from the Russian Cyrillic introduced by the Soviet Union to create the fiction that there is a "Moldovan" language, and does not reflect all the original features (diacritics, etc.) of the original Cyrillic. Romanian today in Cyrillic form in Transnistria is no more than a poor transliteration of the Latin script adopted in 1860. As with many other assertions by Transnistrian "sources" regarding Moldavia, etc., something which on its surface appears perfectly plausible but, with just a slight knowledge of circumstances, is an outright lie. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part of transnistrian propaganda was already discussed in Talk:Moldovan_schools_in_Transnistria ("fallacies of Transnistrian side" part)--MariusM 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language misinformation 

message: Both me and Mauco received a 24h block yesterday, we are not virgins anymore! I'm back now (anouncement for those who missed me).
I used this short wikibreak to do some research and I discovered 1926 Soviet census results in MASSR. Look at them:
Raionul    	total	moldoveni; în %  	ucraineni	ruşi 	evrei	polonezi	nemţi	bulgari	alţii
Dubăsari   	42609	28559; .... 67,03	6077     	2867 	4612 	27      	246  	16     	205
Slobozia   	37617	24341; .... 64,71	6537     	5714 	571  	22      	72   	25     	335
Ananiev    	62289	21005; .... 33,72	32224    	2136 	6406 	164     	122  	8      	227
Birzula    	57823	18521; .... 32,03	30717    	3804 	2978 	710     	446  	19     	628
Rîbniţa    	47731	17023; .... 35,66	23064    	1809 	4422 	1138    	28   	15     	232
Tiraspol   	64750	16845; .... 26,02	12627    	21205	6608 	147     	1020 	5862   	436
Camenca    	39169	15038; .... 38,39	18263    	424  	4172 	952     	215  	4      	86
Grigoriopol	30094	13744; .... 45,67	4629     	3851 	1114 	33      	6315 	21     	387
Cruteni    	50913	8592; ..... 16,88	36518    	402  	4601 	481     	118  	5      	196
Ocna Roşie 	41249	6472; ..... 15,69	27203    	2161 	2718 	341     	2118 	19     	217
Balta      	75061	1895; ...... 2,52	70830    	316  	1246 	485     	17   	4      	268
or. Balta  	23034	369; ....... 1,60	8826     	4182 	9116 	353     	22   	28     	138
You can see that the capital of MASSR, Balta, was chosed in the most non-Moldovan part of the Republic, town of Balta had 1,6% Moldovans and county of Balta 2,52% Moldovans. I believe it was on purpose to draw the borders of MASSR in such a way to not have a Moldovan majority and to chose the capital in the most non-moldovan part. Anyhow, Balta belong now where it should - to Ukraine.
I can not separate with 100% accuracy the teritory which remained in Moldavian SSR in 1940, but with aproximation we can consider the counties of Dubăsari, Slobozia, Rîbniţa, Tiraspol, Camenca, Grigoriopol. For those counties, the split according ethnic groups is: 44,11% Moldovans, 27,18% Ukrainians, 13,69% Russians, 8,21% Jews, 3,01% Germans, 2,27% Bulgarians, 0,89% Poles, 0,64% others.--MariusM 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet census from 1926

message: According Charles Upson Clark, in 1792 there were already half a million Romanian peasants in Russia, mostly in the teritorry between Dniester and Bug, while the lower Dniester, which is the actual teritorry of Transnistria, was an almost purely Romanian streamCharles Upson Clark - Bessarabia. Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea.
: Highly biased POV. This edit removes all sources which does not agree with the flawed premise of an author whose data is dubious, to say the least, and does not match the general view of today's academics on this issue. If he should be mentioned at all, it should be done in context, without omitting the other view. - Mauco 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[user:MariusM|MariusM]]'s version

message: Google books came to rescue:
:South-west of them dwelt the Tivertsy (who squeezed out by steppe invaders, later moved to the sub-Carpathian area of Modern Ukraine) 
* Robin Milner-Gulland, The Russians, Blackwell Publishing,  p.44
bogdan 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tivertsy and invaders 

message: We have an unbalanced external links sectin, as we show only pro-separatist links. I object to the inclusion of Tiraspol Times, as this is not a real newspaper, just a website from the same source as pridnestrovie.net, as discussed in Transnistria talk page. Is misleading to make Wikipedia readers to think that in Transnistria exist a newspaper like TT, while the reality is that TT is only a website in Ireland.--MariusM 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then WP:Be bold and add other links that you consider to be relevant to this specific subject. TSO1D 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He won't. It has been 2 weeks since you gave the advice. He has not followed it. Instead, he has merely attempted to remove the existing links several times. Here's the latest such stunt:  - Mauco 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links section

message: I have to say that I cannot fully agree with either of the two opposing versions presented; Mauco's is too judgemental and Marius's is far too narrow. Like Illythir I have to admit that my knowledge of the facts underlying the matter is shallow, so it is only the way the information is presented in that I can assess. I would propose a more neutral but comprehensive version, that just presents the facts without making any qualitative remarks about the sources. 
"Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was populated by Romanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. Columibia University Professor Charles Upson Clark, claimed that the lower Dniester, was "an almost purely Romanian stream" since 1792[3]. Nevertheless, a conflicting modern view states that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants." TSO1D 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is that those modern views which tell about Slavic majority are reffering in fact at the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, not at actual teritorry of Transnistria - the rayons near Dniester. I propose:
"Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was populated by Romanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. Columbia University Professor Charles Upson Clark, claimed that the lower Dniester, was "an almost purely Romanian stream" since 1792[3]. Nevertheless, an conflicting modern other view states that the largest group living between Dniester and Bug in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants. According Soviet census of 1926, in the districts of Camenca, Rîbniţa, Dubăsari, Grigoriopol, Tiraspol and Slobozia, a teritorry roughly similar with actual Transnistria, there were 44,11% Moldovans (Romanians), 27,18% Ukrainians, 13,69% Russians, 8,21% Jews, 3,01% Germans etc."--MariusM 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But that wouldn't really be an opposing view, it is easily possible for those two theories to both be true at the same time. I believe that the authors of the second article were specifially referring to the area that is not part of Transnistria, as they are giving the background of the Moldo-Transnistrian conflict. However I did not see a specific statement to that effect so I cannot be certain. TSO1D 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, those views are not necesary in conflict, I removed the word "conflicting" from my proposal. Contrary with User:Greier, I assume good faith of Kolstoe, even if he wrote his book together with a Russian. Both Kolstoe and Upson Clark can be right. Adding Soviet census data from 1926 will make things clear (not for 1792, but at least for 20th century).--MariusM 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict  

message: I protected a half-way version. Please, Mauco and Marius, try to solve the problem on the talk page instead of reverting, which leads us nowhere.
The best solution would be to search for more sources. I'll try to look for more sources at the library next week. bogdan 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. The revert warring would've gotten both of us blocked eventually anyway. I've been blocked 3 times, and so has MariusM = 3 times, too. If you look at our block logs, you'll see that they dates and the times coincide. We both got blocked for tangling with each other. - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, about Upson Clark. I'm OK with having him in there, if we can have Pal Kolstoe in the same breath. I realize that Kolstoe is somewhat inaccurate (due to the geography) but I find Upson Clark no less reliable. He is 1) old, 2) not cited in any recent works, and 3) the claim that he is peer reviewed is hoary. If his book is on the Internet, that doesn't rate it as academia. Look at all the fairy tales on Project Gutenberg. Old books get transcribed online for two reasons. To preserve the historical record, and because their copyright has expired. If we can not have Kolstoe, which is an official OSCE publication and an often-referenced specialist on Transnistria, then I will oppose Upson Clark as well. Why? On POV grounds. We need to give both sides. In this case, the bias that Upson Clark gives (an American) is offset by the opposite bias of Pal Kolstoe (a Norwegian). - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact that Clark wrote in 20's is a + in my view. He wrote in a time when no conflict was in Transnistria, nobody disputed the status of this region, Transnistria was not subject of propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Really, there are no reasons to consider Clark as bias. Not all old books are on the internet, only the important ones. While Kolstoe wrote his book together with a Russian in times of high conflict in Transnistria, the main objection to Kolstoe is not that it is bias, but that it is irrelevant - he states the situation of a much bigger territorry. Anyhow, Upson Clark comments are offset in our article by 1926 Soviet census results (I was the one who finded those) and also, by other 2 (you want 3, but let them be 2) links in External links section.--MariusM 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Next, about the links. Official/biased links are allowed. The best solution is to have some official/biased link from the other side as well, for balance. I fully support TSO1D's suggestion here. But until they are there, I am upset that MariusM keeps removing a valid link which gives a lot of detail and researched background info, some of which is not found on this particular page. I am referring to this now-censored link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/300 - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we already have 2 officially biases links pro-PMR. There are enough.--MariusM 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  If A is true and B is a lie, then (A+B)/2 is not informed objectivity, it's no better than a half-truth.    Since you advocate for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Tiraspol Times article in question (#300)--and please correct me if I've mischaracterized your position--then as part of my (non-original) research on the history of the area I'll take on the challenge of going through the article at piece at a time to indicate where truth meets fiction. Fair enough?   P.S. Ethnicity is not an accurate indicator of non-bias, as you yourself prove. :-) Norwegians (Kolstoe et al.) have no monopoly on objectivity, nor do Americans (Clark et al.) on bias. If you have a specific issue with something Clark states, let's discuss it, not dismiss the entire source (as you complain I try to do regarding your citations).  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make assumptions about Mauco's ethnicity, as he didn't disclose his real identity.--MariusM 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He doesn't. You do. ;-) --Illythr 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that my real identity is a subject of research for Mauco (and others). I will not comment on the results he founded.--MariusM 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, then self-professed ethnicity. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again