Talk:Transnistria/Archive 11

message: Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.
* unacceptable.--MariusM 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources, please. MariusM, you are wrong. Please show us the appropiate sections in the two documents which you cite. You will discover (no doubt to your surprise) that the "secession" of Moldova was illegal, according to Soviet law. So was the secession of Transnistria. They were BOTH wrong. You are wholly incorrect if you think that somehow Moldova's secession was legal, and Transnistria's wasn't. It may help that you read the actual legislation which was current at the time before you hold yourself out as a legal expert on Soviet law. - Mauco 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself am no expert, however as the article the Soviet Union here states: "Even though Soviet Constitutions established the right for a republic to secede, it remained theoretical and very unlikely, given Soviet centralism, until the 1991 collapse of the Union." In fact, Article 72 stipulated: "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR". The central authorities of course did not like the turn of events in 1990/1991 and tried to stem the independence of the Baltic states and later other republics, however in the end the constitutional principle was upheld and even Russia, Ukraine and other core states "seceded". So in a way, yes, Moldova's secession was legal under the framework of the USSR, whereas Transnistria's wasn't. TSO1D 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you say you are no expert, and even if that argument held a drop of water 'in a way' sadly we are unable to facilitate 'in a way' arguements on this issue but I do really thank you for trying to assist. Mark us street 23:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We cover this below. The specific USSR legal framework governing the actual secession process is the USSR Law on Secession and according to that law, Moldova (which had the right to secession) DID NOT follow any of the specifics, such as a prior referendum. So its secession was illegal. Transnistria (which did not have the right to secession) DID follow some of the specifics, like the referendum referendum. This is why Transnistria (on Pridnestrovie.net, for instance) claims that their secession was legal. This is, however, quite debatable. I am sure that most serious academics will conclude that they were BOTH illegal, albeit for different reasons. - Mauco 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 2

message: Transnistria' (officially Pridnestrovie), located in southeastern Europe, declared its independence on September 2 1990. To date its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.
* Weak Acceptable  Needs revision Mark us street 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mark, the version should mention that Transnistria is formally part of Moldova. TSO1D 22:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? Is there anything wrong or factually incorrect in this version? Or do you just want to oppose everything that Mark Street favors? That is called obstructiomism. Let us instead try to be constructive, and work together, please. - Mauco 23:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 3

message: Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe that is internationally recognized as an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova, however de facto functions as an unrecognized country  having declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.
* Conditional Support of this version - but re WP:LEAD a page such as this really ought to have a two or three paragraph intro. So I would support this as the first paragraph. --Robdurbar 09:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you be more specific, please? I do not understand what you would like to add to the current version. Dpotop 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mark, do as everybody does, and write Support or Oppose. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease Dpotop 12:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Dpotop. This is not a vote. See what TSO1D says above. He merely put it in here in order to facilitate discussion, and it can in no way be a beauty contest where personal preferences (yours, Mark's, or anyone's else) override factual accuracy. Facts are facts. - Mauco 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please get your facts straight, Dpotop. I am not pushing a POV. I am asking that our phrasing on THIS page adheres to the SAME phrasing that Wikipedia is using on OTHER PAGES AND LISTS where Transnistria appears. I think it was User:Pernambuco who originally advocated that we needed consistency (see archives) on all lists, and this is merely what I am agreeing with. If you don't like the wording "unrecognized country" - which is factually correct, and all the rest of Wikipedia uses it - then change those lists first, there, instead of fighting to censor the phrase from this page, here. - Mauco 13:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as this is the page of Transnistria, the rest of Wikipedia uses/will use the same words we agree on here. We shouldn't invoke secondary pages when we are writing the main one on the subject.Dl.goe 13:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are asking was not agreed by other editors. Wikipedia has lower standards that Britanica or other encyclopedias, we should improve those standards.--MariusM 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I beg to differ. Wikipedia is much, much better than Britanica when it comes to Transnistria, and several other subjects too. Start by comparing basic facts (such as population figures) and then tell us who is right and who is wrong. You can't rely on Britanica for research on Transnistria, sorry. Too many errors there. - Mauco 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an other area of disagreement. Wikipedia have the advantage of being able to include quickly recent info, but Britanica is less exposed to POV pushers. However, if we are looking for Wikipedia standards, we should look at South Ossetia and Abkhazia articles.--MariusM 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  According to MariusM. Not according to WP:LEAD. May I remind everyone that our personal opinions don't matter much if WP policies and guidelines specify something else. - Mauco 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I remind you that you are not in the position of teaching others about WP policies and guidelines?--MariusM 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ouch. That was rude. Be civil, please. All of us can read, buddy. I suggest that you read WP:LEAD before you claim that this version is too long. That is all. - Mauco 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has 34 000 characters. As a rough guide, we should be having one paragraph per 10 000 characters. So to be honest this is a good 'first paragraph' of an intro. But more context is still needed it in one or two following paragraphs. I don't think those are key at the moment, by the way... they could be added once the first bit becomes stable. But to say this is too long is to say that pretty much every single introduction on Wikipedia is too long. --Robdurbar 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mark, your vote is like the kiss of death. Now that you've declared what is unacceptable to you, you will get half a dozen Romanians come out of the woodwork - people who normally never join in the discussions like the regulars here - just to oppose you. Your enemies here will make sure of that, through the same kind of collusion that we've seen in the past on issues. Emails and private messages are being sent behind the scenes as I write this. This is why a vote or a poll won't work. A case like this should be decided on the facts, and on the facts alone. It should not be determined on who can muster the highest amount of friends to come to his rescue on a given POV. - Mauco 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can never oppose the truth. I will accept the truth and not one word less. I am not trying to trample on Romanian dreams, I want a precise, scientific and sharply accurate non-POV intro.  Let's call it what is and not what people dream it should or could be. I believe we can reach that point.  .Mark us street 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, Mark, but Moldova is a larger country than Transnistria. It should be no surprise to you that there are plenty of people here who want to keep the illusion alive, even if it is totally disconnected from reality. The number of Moldovan voices will always outnumber the number of Transnistrian voices, so you can't ask for a vote or a popularity contest on which intro is best. It should be decided ONLY objectively and ONLY based on facts. No POV influence, for or against. - Mauco 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 4

message: Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its independence has not been recognized and most countries consider it an autonomous territorial unit of the Republic of Moldova. The sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.
* Unacceptable.--MariusM 13:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on how you define a country. International law usually classifies a country as a state which has control over a defined territory, has a permanent population, a government and the ability to enter into relations with other states. It is telling that diplomatic recognition is usually NOT mentioned anywhere among the listed requirements. In the few cases when it is mentioned, it is mentioned merely to underscore that it is not a requirement. I quote from U.S. practice, Swiss practice, and indeed the practice of most of the Western hemisphere. If anyone else here has a different definition on what a country is, please make sure to back it up with the appropriate references to international law. - Mauco 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 5

message: Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a country in South-East Europe that established its independence on September 2nd 1990. It is governed by a democratically elected parliment and is seeking  increased international diplomatic recognition. Despite Transnistria's independence the Republic of Moldova also claims sovereignty of the territory.
*  mildly acceptable I think this one has merit Mark us street 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not conclusively proven by anyone. And even if it was, lots of countries in the world have received support from other states before, during and after the state creation process. This is a political issue, and in and of itself it does in no way disqualify any country from being a country under international law. - Mauco 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it is a country and the rest of us have long left that argument behind. Regardless, PMR recieves massive support from a number of countries in the west, including the UK, USA, Holland, Norway, Germany, and Ireland. to name a few, if Russia pulled out  of humanitarian aid programmes these countries would and could fill the void. Mark us street 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 6 

message: Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which since September 2, 1990 have been on de facto control of Russian Federation. Moldova and international community have strongly criticized Russian government action and called for unconditional withdrawal of arsenal and personal of 14th Russian army stationed on Moldavian territory.
*  acceptable The only version that reflect the present day reality EvilAlex 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is merely a political opinion of a foreign official from a country which has no ties to Transnistria, no borders with Transnistria or Moldova, no historical connections, and no large amount of citizens living in Transnistria. It is not gospel, and it can certainly not be used to determine how we edit Wikipedia. I wonder why you either bother to list it here. It would be much more appropriate to list the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry which repeatedly has stated that any status settlement solution must take into account the democratic will of the people who live there: The affected population. - Mauco 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The declarations of the Russian foreign ministry will always support a position which justifies the presence of their troops in Transnistria and the privatization (i.e., eventual legalization of the privatization) of Moldovan assets into Russian hands. Declarations about the PMR by the Russian foreign ministry are as POV-slanted as those by the PMR itself. Russia is a direct party to the conflict--while the U.S. is not. You seem to be saying the U.S. is more POV than Russia itself, moreover, that only those with direct and-by-definition-highly-POV involvement (and only on the side of Transnistria) are reputable sources. U.S. government = discredited and inadmissible source as per Mauco? It's entirely appropriate to report what the U.S. government says (this is after all the English Wikipedia, and the U.S. is the largest English-speaking country) without the need to draw further conclusions. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 7 

message: Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty and the continued presence of Russian military forces there remain issues of contention.
* Acceptable —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 8 

message: Transnistria (also named Pridnestrovie) is a region of the former Moldovan S.S.R. in southeastern Europe which declared its sovereignty as a separate republic within the USSR on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence subsequent to the fall of the Soviet Union has not been recognized, and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.
*Provisionally acceptable (as before, with reference to Russian troops). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "10" is a bit much, no need if Mark is departing... "9" I think states it about as well as possible. It *is* significant that the PMR declared itself a sovereign Soviet republic, not "independent"--and that de facto independence only came as the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union (which the PMR was eager to forestall!).  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying that it's insignficant, just that it's too technical for the intro. I would rather prefer #4 instead, as I don't understand how mentioning that the territory now functions as an unrecognized state can be POV. --Illythr 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no POV in explaining the reality. Unless certain editors live in a fantasy world and won't accept what is really going on. - Mauco 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 10 

message: Transnistria (Pridnestrovie) is a territory within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova in southeastern Europe which declared its independence on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and its sovereignty remains an issue of contention.
Of all the proposals, this is the one which is closest to the current version while avoiding flame-war words like "region of Moldova" and "unrecognized country". - Mauco 12:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 11 

message: This Talk is currently 289 kilobytes long. Who'll volunteer to do an archive? We normally do so around the 150K-200K mark. I have normally done it in the past but I got accused of censorship the last time I tried, so I will let someone else have the honors this time. Too frequent archiving is a bad idea, but too long talk pages are also not good. Hopefully with Mark Street gone we will now have a better signal-to-noise ratio. This request is directed at all of us, though. - Mauco 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I archived everything but the intro debate, as that appears to be an ongoing discussion. TSO1D 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I like show photo of  Igor Smirnov so people can see his face. This is a good idea.  Tell no lies about him of course. He is their leader and respect that , Bad people write things and this is important to check I have some iplaans for the page, I will help you all. I am fair you will see Mr E is for you all.
: We already have two photos (three if you count the election poster). They are on the Igor Smirnov page. The use of leader photos on other Wikipedia country pages is mixed. United States does it, so does Moldova, but many other countries don't. I would personally prefer an "action" photo (Smirnov doing something, or in a context setting) rather than a portrait, so we show a bit of Transnistria as well, since the article is about Transnistria and not Smirnov. Thanks for your offer to help. Please work through consensus. We will not tell any lies about Smirnov and I do not believe that we are currently doing so. - Mauco 20:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good Good, And the chairman of  Transnistria too, the new man, he is not like Smirnov, he is sensible and he is the real keader. Put him above Smirnov and tell why Esgert 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you referring to Yevgeny Shevchuk? He is not the "chairman of Transnistria" but the Speaker (chairman, if you will) of VS PMR; which is their parliament. - Mauco 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Smirnov 

message: The Transnistrian border guards are very strict and are are slow. This is deliberate tactic. Sometimes they take money or cigerettes. And Ukraine bordermen too. Moldovan will take a few coins but not like the others. This is something wrong. Smirnov's son is the top border customs man and he is over these men. Also deliberate long delays for cars, Esgert 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me. This article is still undeveloped... --Illythr 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border Guards 

message: We are labeling pro-PMR links in our External links section as "Transnistrian side". This is misleading, not all Transnistrians are supporting the separatist regime. We should use the label "separatist" instead of "transnistrian", in this and in other related articles when we are talking about forces which support Smirnov's regime. A big part of Transnistrian people want to get rid of Russian occupation and unite back with Moldova. Also, there were always some forces in Chişinău which support Smirnov's regime.--MariusM 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Official Moldovan" and "Official Transnistrian", then? It's true that the links for both sides do not speak for all of the Transnistrian or Moldovan people. Although in this case I thought one would naturally assume governments, not people. --Illythr 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the 4 websites labelled as "Moldovan side" none is made by Moldovan government. Conflict.md is supported by OSCE (is publishing even pro-separatist information), Azi.md often is critic against Moldovan government. Maybe we should use the label "anti-separatist".--MariusM 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not made, supportive. The material presented on those sites in relation to Transnistria supports the official Modovan position. Hm, the presidential website apears to be down, btw. --Illythr 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about PMR side instead of Transnistrian side? TSO1D 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PMR would confuse new readers Truli 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think that by the time they would reach the external links section they would know the term. TSO1D 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, keep things uniform, like if we include Moldovan links here it goes that Transnistrian links should also be on the Moldovan page too, and the Moldova page is really lackiing in Transnistrian info. It is like its been hidden by both sides, Truli 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think an explanatory note that "pro-Transnistrian" means regarding the current PMR regime as legitimate, and "pro-Moldovan" means regarding the current PMR regime as not legitimate would be sufficient to make the appropriate distinction without confusing people. (It doesn't really boil down to just agreeing with the Moldovans or with Smirnov/Antyufeyev, which is what is implied if there is no further explanation.)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No real need to change this Truli 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Truli, it is good to see that you are part of Talk. We had to revert some of your recent edits since they were quite substantial and since they were not discussed with anyone in advance. That is what the talk page is for. To avoid getting reverted, it is always a good idea to get other editors on board. This is especially true for substantial changes in pages which are controversial, like this one. Please read the info box on the top of this Discussion page. - Mauco 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  The areas I deleted were inserted without approval as was much of this page by racists. These sections are better suited on the Moldovan page so  I transfered them over, I am reverting political motivated vandalism. When I transfered the Travel Warning over to the Moldova page the same editors here that demand Transnistria have a big Travel Warning refused to allow the Travel warning on the Moldova page. However, in the ame breath they also claim Transdniestria is a region of Moldova,!! Why ? Because they are politically motivated against PMR but not Moldova. Wiki is not a forum for political speel. Nor is it a place where people from rival countries should bash each other and that is exactly what is happening here, For crying out loud, Trasnsnistria is not even refered to as a 'country' here, Something very weird about all this.  Truli 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The last point has been the subject of a long edit debate. It appears to have been solved now. - Mauco 15:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Glad to hear it, it seems that unless you want to write something like  "Transnistria Sells Its Women', you'll be reverted, sorry my mistake that awful slur on Transnistrian women is already in there, I should have guessed Truli 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Today alone, both MariusM and myself had to revert you. But just read the three info-boxes on top of this page (the talk page), follow the instructions, and all will be well. If in doubt, do not edit, but ask for the opinion of others here first. - Mauco 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is EvilAlex' "hate-speech" webpage. It does not meet Wikipedia criteria for external links. And please, enough with the guessing and original research. - Mauco 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank Mauco I new that you like me :) EvilAlex 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Marius , I know what you say but we can only operate with real facts, I understand your frustration  Truli 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transnistrian side or Separatist side?

message: We all agree that the Transnistria page is a difficult one to edit because there are strong views on both sides. The current page is a work of twisted words and opinions and is not acceptable to any fairminded person. . I have a proposal to normalise things here. Forgive me but it is a Moldovan solution.  Take a look at the Moldova main space and you will see an interesting list of headings for the topics in keeping with the way most otherr states are dealt with. Then, take a look at the headings for the Transnistrian page and you'll see a marked difference. I suggest that the editors work under an agreement of equality and respect. Under this agreement headings are by dual agreement using Moldova as a template. For example, the Intro appears on both pages and should stay, as should ; Names, Geography, History, Politics, International relations, Economics, Human rights, Demograpghics, Economy , Information technology, Culture, Gallery, External links.  Headings that are parachuted onto the Transnistrian page that are under dispute be removed, This includes all the Smuggling, Crime, and Travel Warnings. That is assuming the Moldova page would prefer not to have such heading on that page. Under this each side is treated with equal rights. Attacks on the pages cease and a degree of harmony may prevail. Can I have your feedback please. Truli 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that this is an encyclopedia, not political soapbox and that Moldova is a country and Transnistria is not a country. The Transnistrian government, you and many other people may want Transnistria to be a country, but right now it is not a country. This page has to deal with facts, with the 'right now', and portraying Transnistria as a country on Wikipedia will not make it true. When Transnistria becomes a fully recognised country then I would fully expect it to have a page similar to Moldova's, but not before. Jonathanpops 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Re:Attacks on the pages cease and a degree of harmony may prevail are you some king of pacifist? There is a huge difference between Moldova and Transnistria in Moldova people are free they can choose their leaders in Transnistrian people are ruled by Russian supported dictator. First of all we should take in to account the present day reality and not your Utopian views. EvilAlex 15:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask this again. Is equality on offer?  Truli 16:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: equality always was a huge part of our fundamental position. EvilAlex 17:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evil, don't bait a troll. - Mauco 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the whole crux of the problematic position, it is also the source of the solution. I don't have the answers but I know that in all warlike themes the first step is to stop blaming the other side for everything and except 50% of the blame.the second step is equality of treatment.  Truli 18:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal Treatment for Transnistria 

message: Template:Infobox Region is the proper template to be used and not Template: Infobox Country .--Mihai Bucur 13:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unrecognised it may be, but the PMR is a country, not a region. I would like to suggest again that a split of this article into region and state would help to clarify things. Sephia karta 17:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sephia karta, there is no need to respond to this user. "Mihai Bucur" was a sockpuppet of permanently banned Bonaparte and was almost immediately blocked for good. He spent an hour or two vandalizing a bunch of Wikipedia and now he is gone. - Mauco 17:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the info. Sephia karta 18:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As is visible in the way it is worded: "Unrecognised country" is a subspecification of "country". It is a country, which happens to be unrecognised. Now as I see it, non-recognition is a qualification which is unfit to be employed as the basis for a general classification because what it does, is that it represent an opinion (the opinion of most of the world's states that the country should not exist.) The country itself naturally does not share this opinion, nor do many of its inhabitants, nor may you or I, for that matter. If we are to remain NPOV we cannot use opinions as a basis for classification. Sephia karta 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sephia, we just had a huge debate about this and it resulted in an intro section which is not perfect, but an acceptable compromise. The sticking point was the use of the word "unrecognized country" versus the word "region" so let us try to not open this can of worms again, please, if we can avoid it. Some of us tried to apply consistency and wanted the same mention ("unrecognized country") that the rest of Wikipedia uses elsewhere, but in the end, we had to settle for a different compromise which no one is particularly happy with but which appears to be acceptable to almost all of us. - Mauco 19:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to have any change brought into the opening, I was merely arguing against a proposed change in the template employed for the PMR, though I realise that this is not the place where this is relevant anyway. Sephia karta 16:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong template

message: How much of the information in the crime section is actually proven? It seems to me that 90%, if not more, is hearsay. I am not asking for it to be removed, but it would be good to underscore that there has never been any evidence for these allegations. - Mauco 18:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree, the section doesn't include much specific information; it mostly consists of general statements that are directly attributed to various sources. Nevertheless, I think this is the best way to present the information, by just citing various experts in the area, from both sides. I don't believe we should add our own analysis to the text, though. If there is a contrasting view, than that should be added, but our opinions should not be mixed into it. TSO1D 19:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK! I was just asking ... - Mauco 19:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, sorry I didn't mean to sound harsh. I just wanted say that although I agree that the section could be improved, it's probably best if we present various statements as they are. If we try to add qualitative statements, we risk bringing our biases into the text. TSO1D 19:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All too true. A common problem. - Mauco 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: Our friend User:Mark us street didn't leave Wikipedia as he told, he just changed his username and edited under other names. At least 2 sockpuppets were confirmed : User:Truli and User:Esgert. Probabily we will have plenty of sockpuppets of Mark us street in the future.--MariusM 22:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope not. One Bonaparte is already enough. - Mauco 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpupetry again

message: Do you think it would be better to add a conflict resolution paragraph? The last part of the history section is far greater than all the rest, and I was wondering if maybe it would be better to split it up. In the history section we could keep an overview of the facts in chronological order, whereas the resolution section could discuss all ongoing and previous proposals for ending the crisis. TSO1D 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the real "problem" is that we have two histories which are out of sync. A lot of stuff was added to history section of the main Transnistria page a couple of months ago which never made it into the History of Transnistria article. This is the opposite of what we are trying to do with the various sections: All the details should go there, and then a summary of the most important facts should be extracted and go into the main article. Principle is: Details there, summary here. Right now, they are out of sync. They both have detals, but the details vary and don't even overlap 100%. If you feel ambitious, the best thing to do now is to move everything over to History first, merge it there, and then start from scratch with a brand new summary for the main Transnistria-article which you draw from the new, combined History article. - Mauco 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Conflict Resolution