Talk:Transnistria/Archive 19

message: How thick can you people be? "Transnistria" is widely used by foreigners to describe the country, but it is an incorrect term, it is not used locally and it should be avoided. 
Here, take it from the horses mouth: http://pridnestrovie.net/name.html
Either do the article right or DON'T do it at all.
-G
:"TRANSNISTRIA was an artificial name used by Romanian fascists and Nazi Germany for the largest killing field in the Holocaust. Never a real name, it is not in use locally."
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.138.79 (talk) 06:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
Well, it may be artificial, but it's the name most people outside are using to identify it.
Most peoples/nations have external names different than what they are using inside
(e.g. Hungary's internal name is Magyarország, China's is Jhongguó, as written in latin script)
Transnistria is easier to pronounce by non-russian speakers, imagine if you would have to call Hungary or China by its internal name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeru (talk • contribs) 13:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
Transnistria is the name most used in current scholarship on the topic. This was extensively debated at the founding of the article when information such as what you cite was available and included in the process. (In fact agreed to by people representing PMR interests who were later banned for their abuses.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Pridnestrovie NOT Transnistria

message: A decision adopted by the European parliament condemns the “strict and frequent” violation of human rights by the Transnistrian separatist authorities. Details here. As European Parliament is an important institution, I think we should mention this in the article.--MariusM 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. The ref should be not to azi.md though. Alæxis¿question? 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moldova Azi is a News Portal that reproduces news by info agencies. It can not create news of its own. Maybe you think about conflict.md ? That is a different story. This piece of news is reported by Deca-press here, which is a news agency. The link is provided at the bottom of the article in azi.md. You surely don't sugest us to repel everything from Infotag or everything ending in .ru (Azi=Today):Dc76 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for supplying the ref to europarliament decision. It's always better to have the original ) Alæxis¿question? 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat (You are welcome).:Dc76 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: European Parliament position

message: :Image:Transnistria rubla.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Transnistria rubla.jpg

message: 400000 transnistrians, which mean the big majority of the population in the region, took Moldovan citizenship . We should include this information in the article, is relevant.--MariusM 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely. Alæxis¿question? 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information it's very relevant. --Tighinian 12:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovan citizenship

message: An article in the Romanian newspaper "Adevărul" is telling that Romania started to import electricity from Transnistria (Cuciurgan) . Imports started yesterday and will be almost half of the total imports of electricity of Romania in the last year.--MariusM 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad about it )) Alæxis¿question? 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if you were able to read the article (do you speak Romanian?). The reason why transnistrian electricity is cheap is that it use "cheap Russian gas". In Romania we have "expensive Russian gas". Romania will reduce its expensive imports from Russia. In fact, Transnistria is using "free Russian gas", as it doesn't have seriously the intent to pay for gas, it need the money to pay pensions, as Supreme Soviet website is explaining The amendments to the 2007 republican budget approved in two readings. Russia made a good deal: it will supply gas for free, making Transnistrian government able to pay pensions for the population and Romanian economy to receive cheap electricity. Not to mention the profits which will be made by some oligarchs in both Transnistria and Romania.--MariusM 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice of you two: one gets profit by making electricity with free gas, the other gets to buy at a cheeper price, and Moldovans get to pay for this. Nice of you. You keep Moldova underdeveloped b/c it has to pay these debts of PMR authorities or otherwise not be able to export anything to Russia. :Dc76 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification: I, personally, have no involvement in the decision of importing transnistrian electricity in Romania. Don't know about Alaexis.--MariusM 20:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) Here is 100% proof that whatever a discussion would be about on WP, the frase "personal atack" will be mentioned. :-) Obviously, I am not accusing you or Alaexis. I was just remarking in a ironical tone, who is discussing, and made a comment about the sad reality: the bigger always wins. :Dc76 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romania helping Transnistrian economy

message: This is obviously not true, since the war started on 2 March, while the first military equipement Moldova got was in the second half of April. The process lasted for about 1 year, while the war ended in July. Also, some of it was from units nothing to do with 14th Amry.:Dc76\talk 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the sentence a bit. Alæxis¿question? 17:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you know of other regiments transferring their equipment to Moldova please add it (if it was notable enough). Alæxis¿question? 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I read par tof your sourse, and now I understand what you mean: it is the military base of the 14 army in the village of Cocieri, which saw fighting in March 1992, starting from the 3rd day of the conflict. I don't really understand what decree you mean. Moldova's Defense Ministry was formed on 17 April 1992 in response to the start of the war and only from that moment any military units started to be turned to Moldova in accordance with the agreements negociated by the 15 republics after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If I miss something, please be more specific. It might be that I am talking about one thing and you about a different one. Could you, please, copy the relevant portion from the text. thanx. I will make a slight adjastment to the text, which you can obviously edit further. I suggest to make shorter sentences, b/c longer ones are often confusing and soursing a long sentence - is not clear which part is being soursed.:Dc76\talk 16:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 14th army military equipement

message: Could we get more information in the article as to the motivation why Voronin would get pressured by the OSCE and the US not to sign a peace plan. I find this interesting. Pocopocopocopoco 17:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would refrain including such information in the article until we don't have reliable sources for it.--MariusM 22:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir Voronin and pressure from the OSCE and US 

message: Wikipedia already uses such terminology such as List of unrecognized countries why is it inappropriate for this article? Pocopocopocopoco 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defacto Independent Country is POV? 

message: Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Somaliland are all called defacto independent republics. There is no reason why this article should have different wording, so I am changing it to the same wording. Pocopocopocopoco 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to make wikilinks to meanings of the used words, not to artcles with different content. `'Míkka 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just following the same linking used in the wiki articles above. See for yourself, they use the same  linking:  defacto independent  see Somaliland or Nagorno Karabakh or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Pocopocopocopoco 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This linking will be corretced as well.  Wikipedia is not a puzzle to solve and not a computer game. YOu click a link to read about the meaning of the used word. Besides, it is quite clueless to link to a list. `'Míkka 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because an illegitimate POV is pushed that the frozen conflict zone states are republics elsewhere in Wikipedia does not mean that justifies its being done here. There has been a veritable cottage industry of now banned editors pushing the legitimacy of the authorities self-installed in those territories. As was discussed long (many talk archives) ago, the only NPOV reputable references which should be used in the article are external to Wikipedia. Not a republic. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at how other similar entities are treated in Wikipedia 

message: The article has recently been protected due to complaints made by the user Míkka. In all honesty, it seems more like the very user is trying to impose his own interpretation while most others object to it and I find it hard to justify his complaints. Transnistria isn't a Slavic-speaking state, as part of the conflict is about, for the simple reason that it isn't even a state. It's a part of the Republic of Moldova. Not one country in the world recognises Transnistria as an independent state, not even Russia. According to every country, every global organisation and international law, Tranistria is simply a part of Moldova. Neither does Transnistria fit the definition by Weber imployed in the article state that Míkka encourages us to read. According to this definition, a state has the "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". That is not the case in Transnistria as its institution are no legitimate according to international law and are not recognised. JdeJ 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the notions of the state and diplomatic recognition of a state. Weber may have his opinion, as well as Karl Marx and Groucho Marx. Befor you start speaking about "most others" you have to know what has long been happening here, rathter than to jump in after a compaint of a vicious troll on your talk page. `'Míkka 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say so, both your arguments disappoint. First you encourage reading the page state, now you suddenly no longer agree with it. That page builds on Weber's views and containts the general definition of state; it doesn't fit Transnistria, which is legaly a part of Moldova. JdeJ 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view it is not part of Moldova: What is NPOV, is that Moldova has an irredentist claim on Transnistria. -- Petri Krohn 00:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing you since a long time, Petri, I find your comment a bit unexpected. Surely you are aware that according to the UN, the EU and every country or international organisation there is, Transnistria is a part of Moldvoa. Would you be so kind as to explain whose guidelines Wikipedia are following, if not those of international law and established institutions? JdeJ 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, considering inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory still vote in Moldovan elections. Transnistria = not part of Moldova is WP:OR at best. It's really quite amazing how you can go off and make over the top POV claims citing "neutral point of view." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to say so, but you fail to understand what weber says. I am no longer commenting on your lack of knowledge in the area. `'Míkka 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This far, you have not made one single argument in favour of your case. First you revise other contributions, then you complain that people should read what a state is, then you no longer accept that definition and call for protection, then you move on to personal attacks. Quite a long list of actions, but not one single argument in favour of your view. If Transnistria is a state, where's the evidence for it. JdeJ 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  WTF?? transnistria is a state?...again? Catarcostica 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And I explained that you did not present any arguments, only your opinion, which is irrelevant, just like mine. `'Míkka 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's trolling. You didn't present any arguments.--ŞtefanIaşi 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My opinion is completely irrelevant, I agree about that. What is relevant is that Transnistria hasn't been recognised as a state by any country or any organisation. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. JdeJ 18:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no valid argument to say it's a state. Moreover it's highly forced to say it's a state. It's a fact that it isn't a state no argue about this fact.--ŞtefanIaşi 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally, it´s a simple matter of de jure versus de facto. An exact parallel is, for instance, the Confederate States of America (CSA) between 1861 and 1865. As we know, the CSA was formed as a secessionist entity in 1861 and ceased to exist in 1865, when the USA at last managed to reassert its authority over its territory and population after four years of war (which was basically the equivalent of what Moldova tried to do in 1992). It´s important to note that the CSA was never recognized by any country, although both Britain and France, whose governments more or less sympathized with the Confederacy, considered for a while recognizing it in 1862. We have here a parallel with the Russian attitude. Russia has in fact through her military presence and by other means guaranteed the existence of the PMR as a de facto independent country but has refrained from recognizing it diplomatically, mostly because Moscow´s priority in this region has been to try to influence Moldova to move closer to the Russian orbit and an official recognition of the little breakaway republic would jeopardize relations with Chişinău. There have been some speculation associated with the possible UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) of Kosovo. As you know, Russia will veto any Security Council resolution in favour of an independent Kosovo. In these conditions, it´s entirely possible that the Albanian majority in Kosovo will sooner or later go for a UDI. According to international law, Kosovo is still de jure a part of Serbia exactly in the same way that the area under effective PMR control is de jure a part of Moldova. If Kosovo goes UDI, it will be, in terms of international law, exactly in the same position in which the PMR is now, unless it is recognized by some other state, for instance the USA. There has been some speculation that if the USA does recognize Kosovo´s independence against Serbia´s and Russia´s will, Russia might well retaliate by recognizing the PMR. For now, of course, this is only speculation. Time will tell. Another parallel to the PMR is, of course, Rhodesia between 1965 and 1979. Rhodesia was de facto an independent country but was never recognized by any state, not even South Africa and Portugal who in actual fact backed it more or less openly. The reason was obvious: Rhodesia was still de jure a British colony and any state recognizing it before Britain did so would risk a diplomatic crisis with London. The bottom line here is that historiography treats both the CSA and Rhodesia as de facto states in spite of the fact that no other country ever recognized them, just as no internationally recognized state recognizes the PMR (just Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh do so). The CSA and Rhodesia had and the PMR has all the attributes of an independent state save international recognition: effective military control over its territory, a constitution, a government, a parliament etc, in short a state apparatus. The fact that the PMR is de jure an organized act of of perpetual rebellion against Moldova is irrelevant from the de facto perspective: Moldova has absolutely no actual control over the territory administered by PMR authorities (just as Britain lacked control over Rhodesia and the USA lacked control over the South until the Confederacy was defeated militarily). The PMR fits to 100% the definition of a de facto state, for which there are many other historical examples as well apart from the CSA and Rhodesia, for instance the USA which was born as an act of rebellion against the British crown and gained international recognition many years after its UDI in 1776. To sum up: it's only a question of de jure versus de facto. Nothing more, nothing less. Monegasque 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transnistria isn't a state

message: In an effort to compromise on a non-issue, the current version of the opening sentence is run on and reads poorly. Pocopocopocopoco 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shoud be read it better as poco*4 ??? Catarcostica 04:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Sentence

message: Guys, I hope you all realise that the informal article revert parole on this page can still be invoked, right? I haven't really got the time now to check who has been revert-warring again, but a lot of reverts is definitely what I seem to be seeing. Please be warned, it's still the case that blocks can and will be handed out over this article, against all sides, well below the 3RR level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert warring again? 

message: It's been so long, but the first sentence's wording and reference cited certainly appear to have come from Mauco. Given his predilection for quoting only the parts of sentences which make his case, then sticking in the ever so scholarly citation, I rather thought the opening sentence: "Although the PMR does not have such legal status within Moldova, it functions like a state, and is organized as a republic." was probably far less accurate than it purported to be.
     I'm sure that (assumed) Mauco thought no one would be (a) motivated enough to track down a copy of an obscure text and be (b) demented enough to pay $150 for the chance to catch him quoting out of context. After some soul and wallet searching, I resolved to achieve the bliss of motivated dementia. The cited book arrived today.
     The source says NOTHING about Transnistria being a republic whatsoever--the word "Republic" is used only where refering to it as it refers to itself. With regard to "de facto state"--that phrase is mentioned only once (and "de facto sovereigny" once) in the entire book with reference to Transnistria--it it does so in the most tentative fashion, that is:
# As long as Russia itself remains divided as to whether to really push for Transnistria to be independent or to be federated back into Moldova... "Transnistria will remain a de facto state"
#  "Of all the cases in this volume [10 in all], Transnistria is the weakest example of de facto sovereignty and is the one least likely to survive."
A de facto state barely hanging on in a sort of Never-Never Land while Russia figures out if there's any point to keeping it on life support. Not exactly what the opening sentence currently describes. So, "fair warning" I'll be working on a new opening sentence--of course, still citing the same source out of deference to the prior author's acknowledgment of its authority on the subject matter. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the UN country report on Moldova that calls Transnistria a de facto independent state on page 74? Pocopocopocopoco 00:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about UN report in .......MOLDOVA. page whatever.  (Did you bother to read the title?)(page 74?) Catarcostica 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ""Similarly, a nation with de facto independence, like Somaliland, is one that is not recognized by other nations or by international bodies, even though it has its own government that exercises absolute control over its claimed territory."" This is not the case for Transnistria...they claim a little bit more then that. Catarcostica 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  page 274 not 74 Pocopocopocopoco 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually Somaliland also doesn't control all the territory it claims (look here). So I think they didn't mean to imply that if the country claims 1 sq. metre it doesn't control it's no more de facto independent. Anyway, PMR is called de facto independent in a lot of sources, some of which are cited in the article. Alæxis¿question? 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview, opening sentence 

message: The added info is from the paper (published in the Western journal) by the Andrei Panici, who works in the American Institute in Bulgaria. The removal of this info cannot possibly be justified. Alæxis¿question? 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to disturb. Can you please place a link somewhere in this page? Thanks. Catarcostica 04:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? See the article's 61st note. Alæxis¿question? 05:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New changes