Talk:Transnistria/Archive 17

message: Someone has removed a whole section on the Tiraspol page regarding Jews in Tiraspol, will I be blocked again if I try to restore it? Jonathanpops 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it. How could you possibly be blocked for reverting simple vandalism? Alaexis 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, genuine vandalism reverts are always legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will I be blocked again? 

message: From a website registered by PMR government and ICDISS, we already know that the standard of living in Transnistria is "visibly higher" than in Moldova, compared to Moldova, Transnistria is "like the Riviera", it is "Europe's hidden jewel" where "kids are playing computer games". However, it seems that recently there are some troubles in paradise. I already pointed above at an article about Moscow being fed up with Smirnov's consumer moods. It seems the problem is serious, just some quotes from Evgheni Şevciuc, speaker of Transnistrian Supreme Soviet: "Pridnestrovie is in a difficult economic situation"; "We initiated in fact a 30% increase in the tax rate for all companies. (...) even after that the Pension fund lacked 10 million US dollars"; "emergency measures must be taken to stabilize the economic situation, first of all, to fund pensions, salaries and social programs"; "I don’t regard the current situation as an economic crisis. It is not hopeless. (...) Salaries, pensions, etc are currently paid (...) A crisis, to me, means three-month arrears". Full press conference of Şevciuc at official website of Transnistrian parliament. Me and EvilAlex explained for months in this talk page the benefits that separatist regime brought to the people of Transnistria, it seems that Şevciuc agree with us regarding the main results. I will try to include in the mainspace something from Şevciuc's conference in the best NPOV manner I can, I hope I will not be labeled again as "anti-transnistrian".--MariusM 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the purpose of this talkpage for you or anybody else to be "explainging" "the benefits that separatist regime brought to the people of Transnistria". It is not the purpose of the article or any other place in Wikipedia either. If you want to explain your opinion about Transnistria anywhere, go and get yourself a blog. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't need to get a blog, the website of Transnistrian Supreme Soviet is explaining the situation better than I will ever can do. This talkpage is for explaining edits in the article, what I just did, providing also sources. I still believe that Wikipedia should show a true picture of Transnistria, maybe I am naive. Mauco teached me that there is no WP:TRUTH, but meantime I saw this policy was implemented!--MariusM 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, as a devout Opposer of The Truth, I ask you to revert your last "NPOV" edit to the article yourself and keep such jokes (it's a joke, right?) to your "sandbox". --Illythr 23:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, is not a joke. I gave refferences for all claims, and all are serious. Visitpmr.com is very seriously explaining to their readers that Transnistria is like the Riviera, this is not a humouristic site. Shevchuk also was serious explaining the economic situation. There are different opinions on the subject, all sourced, we should show both of them. Glad to see that you noticed that my sandbox is usefull for Wikipedia articles. If you want to make changes in the article, explain them here. I believe Shevchuk opinions are notable.--MariusM 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am wondering what part of my edit you consider a joke? The claims that standard of living in Transnistria is higher than in Moldova or the comments of Shevchuk?--MariusM 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your edit () was clearly designed not so much to provide relevant facts about the economic situation in Transnistria, but to expose what you perceive as propagandistic distortions by those pro-Transnistrian sources, by way of juxtaposing them. This is tendentious editing. Of course, you could use some of the material more properly, e.g. the fact that a they had a 30% tax increase and that a government spokesman talked of difficulties in paying pensions etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juxtaposing "exposes" nothing unusual, only different views, unless peppered with innocent conjunctions, like, "contrary to", "despite", "nevertheless". How else you can present different views? `'mikka 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current economic situation in Transnistria

message: To whomever added that tag, what information do you claim is missing? El_C 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained here, I removed the missing information tag since, in the context of this editorial dispute, it almost appears to take the form of an editorial statement (one which is overemphasized by virtue of being placed at the top of the article, with a flashy frame, image, and so on). Simply put, if information about the role of the former 14th Soviet Army is missing, just add it directly to the article. We cannot, however, expect to have such a tag in place indefinitely, especially considering that the tag instructions did not appear to have been followed in that we were not made aware as to what the editor who entered it expects, specifically. El_C 03:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, one can only tag for a few days without giving supersolid reasons. It is time to write into the article, not to tag. Well, if one has something controversial, add the controversial portions first here. We may be able to helf reformulate for neutrality.:Dc76 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information was added in the meantime. I expanded it :
"A 2,500-strong Russian military contingent, as well as over 20,000 tones of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. Moldova and OSCE demand their withdrawl. "
A 2,500-strong Russian military contingent(14th Army), as well as over 20,000 tones of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. Moldova and OSCE demand their withdrawal. According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia.European Court of Human Rights: Hotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia
Dl.goe 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: -) :Dc76 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 14th Army tag

message: there is croatian article, please put it transnistria —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.139.175 (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not sure what you mean. An Wikipedia:Interwiki link to :hr:Transnistria? It seems it's already there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because I've already added it))))) Alaexis 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  croatian? 

message: I've just returned from a fact finding mission in PMR. I don't have time to edit much here but I'm happy to assist. . Leave question on my page. Buffadren 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: crossed out as sockpupetry to avoid blocks.:Dc76 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just Back from PMR

message: While Moldovans are a third of Transnistrian population (32% based on Transnistrian 2004 data, but they were 38% based on 1989 census data, don't know if Transnistrian data are reliable), in the last Transnistrian government, no ethnic Moldovans take part. Source: . We should include this in the article, ethnic intolerance against Moldovans is a serious problem in the Pridnestrovian "Moldovan" Republic. What the schoolteacher told to the french journalist team: "Moldavian here means something humiliating. It's as we are an inferior race. You can tell imediatelly. It's the way they say it: You, Moldavian. It immediatelly tells you, you're the lowest of the low in the region", is true. In the last time PMR regime gave up the last efforts to save appearances.--MariusM 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Moldovans in Transnistrian government

message: We have 97 refferences in our article, a little more effort and we will reach 100! This is a good result of the fact that debates here forced everybody to cite refferences for each sentence they add in the article.--MariusM 08:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 97 refferences

message: I re-read the current intro and "Geography" section and I find that a major ambiguity still exist. Don't you feel we should to differentiate:
# Transnistria, the de facto independent territory fro
# Transnistria, the part of the Republic of Moldova from the left bank of the Dniestr?
For instance, the "geography" secction corresponds to the second, whereas the intro corresponds to the first. :)
Dpotop 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I know. The problem is, what is this article about, the territory controlled by the separatist government, or a geographic region of Moldova? The difference between the two is "to get the first from the second, take 9 localities out, and add 7 other". Together with 3 other localities, that makes the 19 disputed ones, which comprise the security zone. (In fact, except for sniper fire at bridges situated elsewhere, the 1992 war never exceded the administrative limits of these 19 localities.) Does it make sence to have two different articles, one about Transnistria the breakaway territory, and other about Transnistria the left bank? If not, we should describe very clear what is this difference. You are absolutely welcome to edit the article to ensure the understanding of this difference. In fact, if you feel the ambiguity and edit to avoid it - it is better than me editting b/c I know a priori which village is where, so I'm clearly not the best to spot an ambiguity in the presentation.:Dc76 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this sort of discussion before. The best approach might be Transnistria as referring to the left-bank territory while using PMR to indicate controlling authority and associated boundaries of control and buffer zones. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. Who's against? Dpotop 07:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before I cast my vote for or against this proposal I'd like to know what exactly do you want to do. What do you mean by, for example, "differentiating"? Alaexis 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vercrumba here had a good idea. Create an article "Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic" and put all info referring to the political entity there. Then, the article "Transnistria_(geography)" covers the geography of the region inside Moldova, and "Transnistria_WWII" the politics of WWII. An then, Transnistria is a disambig page. Dpotop 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To create an article "Transnistria_(geography)" is obviously a very good idea. On the other hand, don't you think that the article about PMR (no matter how it's called) should contain a short overview of the republic's geography? The articles about most of the world's entities (both sovereign and non-sovereign) contain at least an outline of their geography (see Tatarstan#Geography, Galicia (Spain)#Geography etc). Alaexis 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alaexis, things like these 
ro:Transnistria, ro:Republica Moldovenească Nistreană
and
ru:Приднестровье, ru:Приднестровская Молдавская Республика
are meant, I believe. --Illythr 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree in principle, but "the devil is in the details". Perhaps, as Alaexis says, we must first be sure what goes where and takes what form. This article is bigger than the ones in ro and ru WP. If we admit that Transnistria becomes a disambig page, then what exactly articles it will disambig to, and which sections would go where? Again, so far I only regard this as a theoretical question.:Dc76 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: CIS-EMO is one, controversial as stated in CIS-EMO, any others?Xx236 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only CIS-EMO. All others dismissed the elections. Reason: OSCE proposed to organize them one year later under its tight supervision, and imediately following this proposal by OSCE, PMR authorities said the want to do early elections. :Dc76 13:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some organizations, such as CIS-EMO 

message: I fail to see why these are included on the page. They're just a laundry list of three crimes from the last ten years.--Nydas(Talk) 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the Crime, Human rights, and Politics sections. "Laundry list" you say? Heh... --Illythr 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitic incidents 

message: I consider the expression "war of independence" as POV, we should use War of Transnistria instead, this is the name of corresponding Wikipedia article. We can use also the expression "Russian-Moldovan war", which is accurate in my opinion, considering the involvement of Russian Army.--MariusM 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Russian-Moldovan" would be incorrect, as the 14th Army had directly participated only in the very last stage of the war, ending it.   "Transnistria fought the War of Transnistria" is rather redundant. Do you have any more name suggestions? --Illythr 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's name it "war of Transnistria".--MariusM 14:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reread my second sentence above, please. Perhaps other regulars here can make more proposals as well. --Illythr 14:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That'd be only more POV. It's difficult to discern between Transnistrians who joined the war because they wanted to secede and those who just wanded to stop the "visiting" volunteers and later shellings from the right bank. Perhaps something like this:
"...tensions between the central Moldovan government and local authorities had culminated into the ((War of Transnistria)) in ((1992)). After the war was ended, due to the ((involvement of the Russian 14th army)), the pre-war status-quo of de-facto Transnistrian independence was preserved. Since then, the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika (differentiation with Transnistria here) has exercised de-facto control over..." --Illythr 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If they achieved independence as a result of this war why can't it be called "war for independence"? Alæxis¿question? 15:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Illythr, You forget one category of Transnistrians: Those who were against separatist regime. Some of them participated in the War of Transnistria against the separatists in favour of the moldovan government, some of them didn't participate at all at the war, they were just victims.--MariusM 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Alaexis: Because independence is not recognized. We can not be sure if this temporary status-quo will become permanent or will disappear (see Găgăuzia case).--MariusM 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Marius, even recognised independent countries sometimes disappear. PMR's independence has lasted 15 years so the war that had led to it has all the rights to b called 'war for independence'. Alæxis¿question? 15:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sunday Telegraph has named it a war of independence. If the war was fought to maintain or to achieve independence, or to defend a de facto independence, then it was a war of independence. End of story.--Britlawyer 23:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should present refference. Anyhow, while The Sunday Telegraph is a good source, is not the only source and certainly we are not considering "end of story" everything where this newspaper expressed an opinion.--MariusM 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The population of Moldova viewed it as a war of Russian agression, especially given the fact that its was started on the day Moldova became an UN member, March 2, 1992. For them it was a war to prevent Moldova's departing Moscow's sphere of influence. The biggest achievement of Russia in the war was not the independence of Smirnov's regime, but the appointment of a new government in Chisinau, replacing the mildly reformist Muravschi government with pro-Russia pro-CIS Sangheli one. The war was not about Transnistria, but about Moldova as a whole, as it was fought not only on the left side of Diester, and as it had major consequences for Moldova first. Transnistria's de facto independence was a by-product. Therefore, IMO it is correct to call it War of Transnistria, not war of independence. For it was in fact about the independence of Moldova from Russia's interference, and the result was non-independence.:Dc76 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Snegur was indeed quick to call all remaining 14th Army personnel that refused to join the Moldovan Army an illegal presence (I think only the frontists used the term "occupation force" at the time). He made sure to do this AFTER Russia handed the Army's right-bank equipment over to Moldova on 23 March AND put the 14th Army under its jurisdiction on 12 April, though. So you say that the Russian aggression began on 2 March? <heavy_sarcasm>It must be one of the inexplicable aspects of the Russian soul, then - to provide those you are currently invading with heavy military equipment...</heavy_sarcasm> Hey, Dc76, you can read Russian, right? Here, this book should provide an interesting perspective for you. Read at least the "Хаос как средство обогащения" and "Создание армии ПМР" chapters, if you don't have the time for the whole book. --Illythr 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: War of independence?

message: The intro is way too long and I suggest we move the final paragrapgh into the Russian Military in Transnistria section. It is not really needed in the intro. 
:Here is the paragrapgh I refer to.
::A 2,500-strong Russian military contingent(14th Army), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. Moldova and OSCE demand their withdrawal. According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".[2] Buffadren 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with this proposal, because Russian military presence in Transnistria is core and esential to the conflct and its resolution. The absence of this (such a) paragraph was (as I understand) one of the reasona why the article had a  tag before. The introduction is however indeed too long, as the previous (3rd) paragraph mostly repeats stuff from the first. A good idea would be to shorten it to one sentence. But I don't know how to do it without breaching coverage of all facts and POVs.:Dc76 13:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not correct to single out the Russian peacekeeping force. Ukrainian troops are there too but they are not mentioned in the introduction, nor are the Transnistrian or Moldovan peacekeepers. It is better to say that an multinational peacekeeping force protects the border.. Buffadren 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is very correct to single out Russian peacekeeping force, as the presence of Russian 14th Army was considered illegal by European Court of Human Rights. Russian Army was actively involved in the War of Transnistria and its presence there contradicts international law, and Russia's own commitments to take out the troops.--MariusM 17:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Russia's presence there is enshrined by Moldova, PMR, OSCE and Ukraine. Their involvment in the conflict should be inserted in that section. Buffadren 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  PLease reinsert my text, I am not a sock, I have one account, I also should have a voice here. Buffadren 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see my comments above on the nature of IP address assignment. Mark Street insisted Wikipedians not agreeing with him on the Transnistria page were killing Transnistrian children. He lied about the content of his own paper. (Tom De Waal incident.) Hardly someone who was/is here to contribute objectively. (Apologies, don't have the time to find the diff's right now--if needed to enforce a ban, I'm sure they can be provided.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Checkuser results need no be confirmed. Will update:Dc76 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I was wrong, he is different from Mauco.:Dc76 20:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro needs shortening

message: I've seen a couple of people bring up that Mark us street was banned and I have found no evidence on that. He may have reneged on his retirement promise but there's no policy on Wikipedia would circumvent that really... He's already been blocked for 3RR violations and will continue to do so regardless of his past really. This would only be an issue if he used his other account to circumvent policy which I haven't really seen yet. Sasquatch  t|c 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should read Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Mark street did exactly that. Dpotop 20:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with tolerating Marc Street if he is not banned. I would also prefer to know when a "new" editor turns out to be a "very old" one. One can use different accounts in different pages, even diff acc in the same page if he/she has a good reason. But changing your account every 2-3 weeks - that is itchy, that is sign not of good reason, but of bad intention. :Dc76 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I too agree Buffadren
Wait a second Buff. You're saying this is a shared IP. Are you therefore still claiming you are actually not "Mark Street"? In that case, I think we deserve a bit more of an explanation. Two people behind the same IP, who just happen to share the exact same interests and opinions, would suggest you might be colleagues working in the same organisation and sharing a professional interest in the matter. Your talking about a "fact-finding mission" you went to also seems to suggest that lobbying about Transnistria is part of a paid job you're doing. So, if you are not "Mark Street", I think you do owe us an explanation about exactly what kind of organisation it is behind whose shared IP address you're sitting, so we can evaluate claims of meatpuppetry and conflict of interest. In what relation to you stand to "Mark Street"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  In the IP report that links Mark Street to my IP number Mark Strett clearly states that he is overseas and is not using his IP number. He deliberately didn't sign in - Perhaps it's his idea of a joke  Buffadren 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get what you're saying. What edit are you talking of? Are you or aren't you "Mark Street", and if not, in what relation do you stand to him? Clear answers please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP check that linked Mark Street to me was made from one edit only, not his normal IP. He stated in that very edit that he was overseas in transit. The reason he left Wiki was because the Moldovan editors would not allow him make even one edit on main page even if it was non political. On wiki he was a peace maker that was trying to stop the trouble rakers. . Read his history. I am not connected to him. Buffadren 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I did check, these accounts are dead and not in use, what is your issue now?  Buffadren 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it, if it looks like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, sounds like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, behaves like a confirmed sockpuppeteer, supports the same POV as a confirmed sockpuppeteer and has the same IP as a confirmed sockpupeteer, then it's probably a sockpuppet (along the lines of WP:DUCK). Also, you seem a little nervous Buff (forgetting to sign  etc), why's that?--Ploutarchos 11:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nah, It is a not issue, I explained its a shared IP, and also these editors never edited at the same time, so there is no sockpuppetry here. Ask Admin for opinion, they wil agree with me.  Chill Buffadren 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinion