Talk:Transnistria/Introduction

message: There was a poll regarding the introduction of Transnistria article here
----
The following discussion can be found here and is about the following version:Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie, per the PMR constitution) is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova in eastern Europe. Transnistria declared its independence as a separate republic of the U.S.S.R. on September 2, 1990. Subsequent to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic (PMR) has exercised de facto control over most of Transnistria. Its independence has not been recognized, and sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention.
----
No one is too happy with it. But if we make it "better" in my opinion, then we make it "worse" for another editor. And vice versa. We already spent weeks trying to hash out a more-or-less universally acceptable compromise version. We finally settled on a proposal by Vecrumba. It must have been the Christmas season which brought me, at least, into the "spirit of giving," and both myself and Vecrumba ignored the protests of Mark us street and EvilAlex. Most importantly, Vecrumba was the person who introduced it to the page (it was his proposal). I did not revert him, and I have since reverted others who tried to change it. If we want to deal with some of the other issues, my recommendation as a longtime editor here is to leave well enough alone for the time being. Who was it that said "perfection is the enemy of the good?" - Mauco 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a poll about introduction - see above at this talk page, and former current introduction (with "region of Moldova which declared its independence") received the majority of acceptance (7 against 1). It was a stable version, realized after compromises, which was chalanged by Mark us street. However, without seeking consensus other editors changed the introduction, telling that the poll was not a vote, voting is evil etc. Same editors always want to keep voting results when they like - as the situation of "Tiraspol Times" link. My opinion: go back to the former "current introduction".--MariusM 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only way to get past deadlock was to decide on a compromise version which was more or less acceptable to both sides. Vecrumba realized that, and he proposed such a compromise version. I realized the same. It is a shame that you don't see it that way. - Mauco 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion have the support of the minority. Introduction should be changed in accordance with the poll results. EvilAlex 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that how Wikipedia is edited now? Could we get the opinion of an administrator on this, please? - Mauco 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If any admin would like to participate in development of Transnistrian article then he should join the talking page and participate in discussion like everyone else. EvilAlex 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Alex, don't forget that voting is evil. Oh, right. --Illythr 00:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all agree on participation in voting then we should accept the results without any prejudges. EvilAlex 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop using words like "shame". I have nothing to be shame of. Everybody, except you and Mark us street, considered O.K. former version. We are disscussing here the removal of important information like "border issues" because the article is too long, but we are making longer the introduction and using complicated expressions, without any real and valuable new information for the article, only for not hurting your or Mark us street sensibility. However, nothing offensive was in former introduction, if you look with cool head. Problem is: do we have or not a problem with article lenght? Of yes, we should keep intro short as it was. If not, stop asking the removal of different paragraphs, and I will agree with a longer introduction.--MariusM 00:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a shame unfortunate that you don't see it that way. - Mauco 00:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of you, are you talking about the introduction, or are you just fighting again? there is another section earlier above which is also about the introduction, and the agreement is to leave it without changes at this point in time, and then later, like User:TSO1D says, make some slow consensus, but not change anything without a formal agreement on the talk page first. The persons who cant understand that must just be prepared to get reverted again, and I will do it the same way that I did several times in December Pernambuco 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well put. No one (including me) is overly happy with the introduction as it stands now, so it is a good compromise. With so much more on our to-do list, I would like to see this taken off the list of contentious issues. At least for now. Then deal with other items, and not have to worry about random reverts and unauthorized changes to the introduction. From either side. I am glad to see that there are others who agree, too. - Mauco 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just looked over the discussion and the current intro which seems fine. As I've noted before, it could probably do with a paragraph or two added to it, but that's a good start and there are probably more pressing problems. I highly agree with the "territory within the internationally recognised borders..." bit - this is a perfect example of expalining the facts neutrally! Robdurbar 13:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can thank Vecrumba for that. If he hadn't thought of it, I think that we would not have been able to get this issue behind us. We would have been forced to take it to further dispute resolution elsewhere. Thankfully, we avoided that. - Mauco 14:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Observation graciously accepted. As I've noted, expanding the intro content will have to wait for closure on other sections. (I've been busy building a new PC, cleaning up/migrating data... my time has been limited the past week or so.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least we should take out the word "Officially" from the introduction. Transnistria (Pridnestrovie per PMR Constitution) is enough. As PMR is not recognized, Pridnestrovie is not "official", but is a name per PMR Constitution, and those who recognize PMR can consider it official.--MariusM 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of us have things that we want to add and things that we want to delete from the intro. But  please read Vecrumba's advice: We can tinker with the current introduction only AFTER there is closure on the other open sections. - Mauco 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with MariusM on this and think the word "officially" or "official" should not appear in the introduction or anywhere else in the article, no matter whose point of view we are talking about. I don't think thewre is anything "official" about the situation in Tranistria as yet, and if there was the word probably would never appear anyway naturally. "Official" seems very point of view to me, it adds wieght to whomever's side you attach it to. Jonathanpops 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This word was part of the previous intro, too. It has been in a stable version for most of 2006. This, too, was a compromise version. If we begin to change anything in the latest intro, then I have some important changes of my own that I need to introduce as well. But right now, I prefer to follow Vecrumba's advice and not change anything in the current introduction until after after there is closure on the other sections. - Mauco 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but even if it's been there since the neolithic period, I still believe the word "official" is too provocative to be in this article. It definately suggests a point of view to me. Jonathanpops 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is official according to the PMR constitution which represents the only effective authority in the territory. It is also official to the inhabitants there. In fact, any one of them can equally claim that our use of the word "Transnistria" is in itself a POV (but TSO1D and myself worked hard on that in early 2006 and agreed that it should stay nevertheless). At the same time, the article is also quite clear that PMR is NOT internationally recognized. This is even stated in the intro. So, almost immediately, the word which MariusM wants to chop is offset by our nonrecognition explanation. - Mauco 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)