Talk:Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic

message: *I will add the references shortly. I am beginning to do that now in my  sandbox where I wrote the rough draft of this article.
*It also needs pictures if anyone has anything appropriate. I have many, but I don't have permission to use them here. I found one on Pridnestrovie.net which has an open source / Creative Commons license, so I uploaded it and included it now. - Mauco 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!—that one is great. It would like to be able to give it a complete caption, but there are a few faces I don't recognize: From left to right: [unknown], [unknown], Emel’ianov (?), Maracutsa, Skripnichenko, Voevodin, Shtefan, Akulov (?), Volkova, Denisenko, Ryliakov, [unknown], Popov, Zaigriadskii, and Zalozhlkov.</br> Mauco, are you able to identify the unknowns? jamason 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still to do for this article..

message: The draft compromise is as follows:
1. On the strike movement:</br>"Upwards of 200 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working throughout the republic with approximately another 200 expressing support but unable to actively participate."
will be replaced with:</br> "Upwards of 180 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working thoughtout the republic."
:I have no data to object on this sentence, but I will be more happy if you can find an other source than Volkova. Didn't MSSR Government published some data on strike movement?--MariusM 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add a  to the sentence when I change it rather than use Volkova as a reference. The Supreme Soviet Commission conclusions are cited in her book which is compilation of primary sources. I need to go to the library to get a different citation (through FBIS), but this might take a while since I am out of town starting tomorrow and then I go back to class on Monday. jamason 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the number of 100000 strikers included those outside PMSSR. In Kishinev, Bălţi, Comrat there were also strikers. It will be great if we will find a source which is telling the number only for PMSSR.--MariusM 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for all of the MSSR, but the strike affected the entire republic. Unfortunately, I don't know how many were striking in just Transnistria. Alternatively, we could just get rid of the number altogether and wait until one of us can find statistics that the other will accept. jamason 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Further reasearch need to be made for Camenca raion, for the time being is O.K. Put Smirnov at refference also, as you have it.--MariusM 02:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make the changes and include Smirnov's statement about Poian. I'm glad we got this settled. jamason 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: While in the article is written about a case when a director unsympathetic to OSTK cause was ousted, there were even more situations when ordinary workers unsympathetic to PMR cause were ousted, which are not mentioned. For example, Ilie Ilaşcu was ousted from his job because of his political convictions (see "Moldova" nr. 1/1990, is not clearly explained when it happen). While Ilaşcu was able to defend himself and received back the job after he legally contested the decision, a lot of other persons didn't have the capacity to defend and were not even mentioned in the press. Not participating at strike movement was more dangerous than participating at it, and the usage of the overt or hided threat of losing job (which can mean also losing the apartment where you live) was a way of enforcing loyality for PMR. THis should be more clearly explained in the article (actually is only a hint about this).--MariusM 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Ah, yes. And so, once again, the notorious "chief economist" is trotted out. Mauco 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't believe is true? If was possible to oust a director (as jamason gave example), you don't believe simple workers were ousted?--MariusM 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am aware that the Chisinau-spin is that this was a movement imposed from the outside with little popular support, and that the popular support was orchestrated at gunpoint or via threats such as firings. Please source that this was widespread. They are trotting out this same tired old story every year. They did it twice this year alone: The old saw about how people were forced to vote, and that if they didn't, they would be fired. But it doesn't square with reality. For once in your life, talk to someone who lives in Transnistria. Or better yet, go there yourself. Try to find out just exactly how oppressed and cowering they are there. - Mauco 00:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know I disscussed already with EvilAlex. Not in person, but through Wikipedia, which is good enough.--MariusM 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was not aware that he lived in Transnistria, or that he represented the majority view of the citizens there. - Mauco 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ousting persons unsympathetic to PMR cause

message: MariusM: You do not need to mischaracterize my work to make edit suggestions. "It seems that big majority of PMR leaders were Communists" is not new insight into the movement and it does not contradict my own writing. I am, of course, well aware that most of the OSTK leaders were Party members in the Soviet period. You don't become the manager of a factory if you are not a member of the party. But, does that necessarily mean that the OSTK was a communist front? If you said yes--and from the argument you make above, I would guess that you did--maybe you should look at the leadership of the Popular Front of Moldova. Perhaps you think that the Union of Writers was a persecuted group of dissidents ever since 1944? jamason 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered above at some of your comments. It seems we have an agreement that the majority of PMR leadership was composed by Communist Party members, we should include this in the article. Of course is not new insight, but for this article is new, Wikipedia readers will not understand this. We are disscussing here this article, not your thesis. It seems you are not aware of the tensions between Writers Union, which published "Literatura şi Arta" (leaders: Nicolae Dabija, Grigore Vieru) with a strategy to compromise with Communist party, and Moldovan Popular Front, which unfortunatelly didn't had in 1989 and 1990 a newspaper on its own (only later MPF managed to publish his own newspaper - "Ţara", which had also a Russian-language edition). Example: in December 1991 "Literatura şi Arta" group supported the election of Mircea Snegur, with a rethoric that those who are against Snegur are traitors of the national interests (Stalin would use "enemies of the people"), while Moldovan Popular Front opposed it and asked for boycotting the ellection (same position like OSTK). Snegur was ellected in 1991 with an Transnistrian-style 98%. Later "Literatura şi Arta" group developped the "Congress of Paysans and Intellectuals" and Democratic Forces Party, which finished being absorbed in current Social-Liberal Party or supporting Renaissance Party of Snegur (actually "Our Moldova Alliance"), while Moldovan Popular Front developped Cristian-Democratic Popular Party. For understanding of the split between MPF and "Literatura şi Arta" group I suggest you read the book of Iurie Roşca - "Ieşirea din întuneric", Chişinău 1995. Some relevance had also the second book of Iurie Roşca - "Exerciţii de luciditate", Chişinău, 2000. Relevant is also the collection of the newspaper "Ţara".--MariusM 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. When the shoe is on the other foot, everything changes. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If Wikipedia aims to become an encyclopedia, we need to be a bit more objective, please.  - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New comment of Mauco without any relation with what we were talking here.--MariusM 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hm, interesting. I always thought they're more or less the same nationalist group. What did they disagree on? --Illythr 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that because the "big majority of PMR leaders were Communists" then therefore "This new propagandistic trend of "anti-Communist" PMR is not sustained by the historical facts" is absurd. That is the question you should address in your comments. "I changed the wordings of the article which suggest that PMR activists were mainly anti-communists" is not supported by the evidence you have provided to date (which has consisted entirely of the fact that most OSTK activists had been communist party members). If you would like to include that most of the OSTK and PMSSR leaders were former communist party members in the article, that is fine. But if that's all you want to do, maybe in the future you will just submit a draft of the proposed addition so the rest of us know exactly what you are suggesting. jamason 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to make assumptions about what changes I wanted to made in the article. Look here and you see all my changes which were reverted by Mauco. I took out the part with "There are no published statistics..." (if there are not, we should not make assumptions) and Volkova's POV, I mentioned that OSTK activists mostly had Communist background (in fact, even a factory director is not only a simple member of Communist party; depending how big the factory is, the director is also a political leader), and also I added some biographical accurate data at Caraman (Communist background) and Volkova (born in Kamtcheatka). PMR movement was against Gorbatchev's policy of perestroika, a movement of hard-liners who wanted to keep Moscow's control in MSSR. This is not only my view, is the mainstream view of the studies about Transnistria. Revisionist views are O.K. for a study, but not for Wikipedia, at least those should not be the main view in the article. Actually, because you based your research only on Russian-language sources, you are like a judge who heared only one part in a dispute, he can not give the verdict before listening the other part.--MariusM 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't just revert you because your edits significantly changed the meaning of a part of the original article. I did so, also, because you changed the text without any prior Talk page discussion. Instead of criticizing Jamason's work, let us focus on your own. He has asked you to please submit a draft of the proposed addition. - Mauco 18:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you reverted me just because you saw my name, Pavlov-type reaction. My draft proposal (not only adition but also some deletion) is exactly the edit I did . I am waiting also to see Jamason's comments, also about the "creeping putsch" part which is disscussed bellow.--MariusM 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By thinking this, you are not following the most basic Wikipedia principle: Assume Good Faith. Your use of "creeping putsch" is a POV term which, in itself, is grounds for the move which I made of the section to this talk page, for further work and discussion. - Mauco 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad to see that you agree with my edit, I will do it again. I believe Mauco wasted the time of all other editors reverting blindly my edit, without analizing what it is about. We have also to discuss further the "creeping putsch" part, but for the time being I will change in the article only the part which you agreed.--MariusM 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the immortal words of my president, "He misunderestimated me."

message: * Institute for National Strategic Studies: William C. Bodie - Moscow's near abroad: East of the Dniester, where one quarter of the population is Russian, a separatist cabal of old-line Russian Communists holds sway with the help of the remnants of the 14th Russian Army. 4° Also in this mix are roughly 600,000 Ukrainians -- yet another of Stalin's numerous cartographic be- quests--and 800,000 ethnic Romanians who fear the tender mercies of a Russian force that sports slogans such as "Death to Romanians" on its armored vehicles. What distinguishes this conflict is the remarkable degree of political involvement by the Russian military commander, General Aleksandr Lebed, and the proximity of Russia and Ukraine. Lebed, who has called Moldova a "fascist" state and continued to make political speeches ignoring a ban on such statements by Russian officers, fancies himself the guarantor of the self-styled Dniester Republic, itself a kind of redoubt for paleo-Communists in the former USSR. Former KGB officers and ex-Soviet special forces (OMON) officers have been identified as serving in the "Dniester Republic" security services. However, even putative Russian liberals such as Yeltsin adviser Sergei Stankevich support the actions of the 14th Army as protecting legitimate Russian interests.. BTW, 600000 Ukrainians were in the entire Republic of Moldova, not only in Transnistria.--MariusM 20:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 800000 ethnic Romanians? That's about 1.3 of the entire population of Transnistria and much less than Moldovan/Romanian population of Moldova. Overall, that's an interesting...text. I see that propaganda is not limited to Transnistria and Moldova... --Illythr 01:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did draw attention that the text is not accurate regarding numbers, is not very clear about which territorry is speaking when is giving the numbers of ethnic groups. However, is accurate regarding Lebed's comments and about the presence of OMON and former KGB officers serving in Dniester Republic security services.--MariusM 13:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the text is not accurate regarding something as basic as numbers, don't use it for anything else either. Find better sources if you want to push for the inclusion of a biased edit. - Mauco 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if carefully reworded, the passage may find its place in the article, but it'll be a near total conversion... --Illythr 16:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Army involvement

message: I open this new section as result of disscussions above, regarding the differences between MPF and "Literatura si Arta" group. While both groups were in favour of thew national awakening of Moldovans, there was a significant difference in the relation with Communist party. "Literatura si Arta" favoured a more carefull aproach and tried to convince Communist party leaders to accept the ideas of Moldovan national awakening movement. MPF was overtly anticommunist, however, it lack an own newspaper in 1989 (I don't remember exact date when they started their own newspaper, I will come later with data if I would find). From official site of Christian-Democratic Party of Moldova : "30 Iunie-1 Iulie 1990. În sala Palatului Octombrie isi desfasoara lucrarile cel de-al II –lea Congres al FPM care adopta un program anticomunist si antisovietic, militind pentru: scoaterea Partidului Comunist in afara legii, retragerea trupelor sovietice de ocupatie si desfiintarea KGB-ului, proclamarea independentei Republicii Moldova fata de URSS, admiterea ei in cadrul structurilor ONU si in alte organisme internationale, iesirea Bisericii Nationale de sub tutela Patriarhiei Ruse, repunerea in drepturi a etnonimului "popor romin" si a glotonimului "limba romina". Printr-o prevedere statutara (punctul 3.2.), Congresul interzice aderarea membrilor Partidului Comunist la Frontul Popular". Translation: 30 June - 1 July 1990 (this was after March 1990 elections), the Second Congress of MPF adopted a new political program which is asking: outlying Communist party, Soviet Army go home, dissolution of KGB (as consequence many KGB agents were worried about their future and supported Transnistrian separatism, even some KGB agents of Moldovan origin or from Basarabia, which are used now in Wikipedia as examples of Moldovans supporting Transnistrian separatism), independence of Moldova. Point 3.2. of the statute forbid to Communist party member to become members of MPF. Each Communist Party member needed to make a choice - if he wanted to remain member of MPF he needed to resign from Communist Party.--MariusM 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldovan Popular Front - relation with Communist Party

message: Illythr expressed interest about early differences between MPF and "Literatura si Arta" about which he seems not being aware, even if he lives in Kishinev (but he read Romanian with difficulty, I guess he is not ussually reading Romanian-language press). For him and others interested, probabily many Russians from Kishinev used to consider MPF and Writers Union as being the same political force: Quote from Iurie Roşca - "Ieşirea din întuneric", Chişinău 1995, page 119, the article "Amicii FPCD şi marea politică" reprinted from "Ţara" 6 September 1994, about the journalist Nicolae Negru: "That N. Negru was a dedicated fighter against MPF even from 1990 any reader of "Literatura şi Arta" is knowing. (...) We quote only some of "not-laudative" observations of this feared journalist: (...) "is the time to take out from the political arena of the Republic the dead body of Popular Front". I add that Nicolae Negru is still busy taking out from the political arena of Moldova the dead body of Popular Front (actually Christian-Democratic Popular Party), now as a journalist at "Jurnal de Chişinău". Main issue is that in early 90's "Literatura şi Arta" did publish articles considering MPF a "dead body". Unfortunately, is not mentioned exactly which number of "Literatura şi Arta" those quotes are, and I don't have the collection of 1990. Not only with Negru did Roşca polemize, but also with Nicolae Dabija or Grigore Vieru.--MariusM 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, After Rosca  and his party had "suddenly" sided with PCRM, there's no need to "kill" them. Still, what did they disagree on? Except for the above, that is. --Illythr 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MPF and "Literatura si Arta"

message: There are other comments about this article I will make, but let's deal with the issues we have now on plate and than move forward.--MariusM 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming soon

message: Given the lack of activity on this page in the last week, it seems that we might be approaching a stable, more or less accepted version.</br>Since its creation, three proposed changes have been discussed and made:
* Adjustment in the characterization of the results of the elections of 1990 (specifically mentioning the victories of non- and anti-OSTK candidates)
* adjustment in the reported numbers involved in the strikes
* making explicit the large number of Communist Party members in the leadership of the PMSSR.
And, one change could be made (at least based on the discussion above) with the agreement of the user on whose initiative the edit was originally discussed (and the participation of any interested users who have not yet expressed an opinion).
* introduction of the phrase, "creeping putsch," with attribution to the author that coined the term, together with example(s) of what this term entails taken from the period September 1990-December 1991.
If this is not a more or less acceptable version (i.e. still needs the NPOV tag) let's settle the issues and finish the article. jamason 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that you can safely go ahead and take out the NPOV tag at this point in time. The fact that "creeping putsch" is currently lacking is not in itself justification for the tag, since NPOV refers to the actual, current content that is in the version of the article NOW and can never relate to anything that could be added into it at a later date.  - Mauco 03:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this context, the characterization "Soviet-style" is POV slur and not worthy of an encyclopedia. The exact same "Soviet-style" results were present in Ukraine's December 1991 independence referendum. I don't hear anyone sowing doubts about those.  - Mauco 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then there's also the Moldovan independence referendum. 95.4% of Moldovans voted "Yes." There was a lot of criticism about the undemocratic nature of this referendum, but it mostly centered on the phrasing of the question. No one used the word "Soviet-style" to describe its results. It was held in 1994. Supposedly a more democratic time, says common wisdom, than 1990 (Transnistria) or 1991 (Ukraine). - Mauco 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Factories in MSSR were divided in Unional factories (the bigger ones), which were directly subordinated to the unional government from Moscow, and local factories, which were subordinated to government of Kishinev. I wonder if the subordination of the factories played a role in the strike movement, my guess is that strike movement was widespread mainly in the factories subordinated to the central government from Moscow. I am not aware about any scientific study on this subject, if there is any we should check it, if there is not, is worth to be done.--MariusM 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be an interesting study. I do know that Igor Smirnov's factory, "Elektromash," was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Heavy Industry (you probably noticed this too on a website you cite above ), but I have never seen anything about other Transnsitrian factories. If you ever find any stats, I would be interested to see them. jamason 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a source who might be able to help with finding the information. His name is Mihail Georgiev Kichev. In Soviet times, he was a "red director" of ZAE – Plovdiv, in Bulgaria. His factory worked closely with Electromash in Tiraspol, at the same time that Igor Smirnov was director of Electromash. The two men had a strong business relationship and were also close personal friends. What would you like me to ask him? - Mauco 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best way of making this study is not asking a Smirnov friend but: (i)find a list of factories which entered in strike; (ii) find a list of Moldovan factories which in 1989 had an Unional subordination and (iii)compare the two lists.--MariusM 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. In that case, I won't ask him, and I can not help. - Mauco 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unional factories and local factories

message: Sorry to be so goal oriented lately (I usually quite enjoy our digressions. And please keep going around this proposal - if that happens, I can just section it off again). Mauco, would you be satisfied if instead of saying "famously characterized" by Socor, we wrote "pejoratively characterized"? This would make it very clear that Socor's work explicitly censures one side of the conflict and is not an attempt at what we in the wikiworld would describe as neutrality. (Which isn't a criticism of his work which I dislike for other reasons. It took me time to grow accustomed to the NPOV style of wikipedia since all of my academic writting is necessarily thesis-driven.) jamason 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "characterized"? Not famously, not pejoratively. We report Socor's caracterization without labeling it.--MariusM 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mauco is going to have the same problem with that as he did "famously." Namely, that "creeping putsch" is used in the body of the article. jamason 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The word "putsch" or "creeping putsch" is an invention by Socor, in order to sensationalize what was going on in Transnistria at the time and piggy-backing it on an event which was fresh in everyone's mind in January of 1992. Surely we can write the encyclopedia with a better choice of words. Just portray the events and don't quote Socor's phrasing (unless the PHRASE itself is a notable part of history. Which we know that it isn't.)  So, please stick to the topic: Report what happened in and around the time of the war. - Mauco 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we left Socor as a footnote, but changed the sentence I suggested above to make it more explicit that pro-Moldovan civil servants were often subject to violence? How about: "Many Transnistrian civil service, including the police, employees of the public prosecutor's, and employees of the court system remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. These were often the targets of violence and intimidation as Transnistrian authorities attempted to take control of loyalist governmental institutions." To this we could add one or more examples. Comments? jamason 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this work for MariusM? I am afraid of giving it the kiss of death, if you get my drift... - Mauco 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the lack of activity for the past three days, I'm going to assume that this is OK and make the edit. jamason 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "creeping putsch" negotiations

message: http://priznanie.tiras.ru/page.php?18 gives the date of the change of the name of PMSSR to PMR as 5 November 1990 ("Временный Верховный Совет ПМССР переименовывает самопровозглашённое государство в Приднестровскую Молдавскую Республику (ПМР)"). Just two months and three days after the 2 Sept declaration. - Mauco 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I've never seen the actual resolution and I'm surprised that it's listed as happening so early. Elsewhere (such as the Верховный Совет website cited above ) "PMSSR" is clearly used after that, but then inconsistently and interchangeably with PMR (or at least if there is pattern, I missed it). jamason 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be more comfortable if we could find a second source for the Nov 5 date. I can easily see it happening in 1991, but in late 1990 there were still many (at least in Transnistria) who thought that the Soviet Union would survive. - Mauco 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having said that, I can also easily see how, by November 5, the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet could have known that they would not be admitted as an SSR or even ASSR. Maybe this was not clear to the population at the time, but the leaders surely knew. Vadim Bakatin, Soviet Minister of Internal Affairs, had refused to grant the request of the Transnistrian authorities to create a new post of Minister of Internal Affairs for the PMSSR. The Soviet Union Ministry of Internal Affairs considered the 2 September 1990 declaration of PMSSR to be anti-constitutional. In view of this, all-out independence, or at least a name change to prepare for it, would have been the next logical step for them to take, especially since this was the step taken by Moldova, too. - Mauco 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: The new paragraph seems largely redundant to me. 
*Sentences one & two: "While, as shown from election results of 1990, in the cities pro-PMSSR feelings prevailed, this was not the case in rural areas of Transnistria. Rayonal soviets of Dubăsari, Slobozia and Grigoriopol didn't support separatism."
This has little new information. There is this from above it (regarding electoral victories for separatists in Transnistrian cities): "This was not the case in several of the other raion soviets. The new leadership of the Grigoriopol raion soviet did not support the separatist movement[12] and the new Dubossary and Slobozia raion soviets actively supported the government in Chişinău."</br>
The only thing added is that the raions in question represented rural constituencies. Plus the original is more precise and has a footnote.
*Sentences five & six: "Many governamental institutions - the police, public prosecutors, judges, remained loyal to Moldovan government. The procesus of PMSSR taking control over state institutions, took more than one year, and it was finished after the War of Transnistria."
This has no new information. See below: "Many Transnistrian civil servants, including the police, employees of the public prosecutor's, and employees of the court system remained loyal to the government in Chisinau. These were often the targets of violence and intimidation as Transnistrian authorities attempted to take control of loyalist governmental institutions.[20]" [...] "Throughout the first half of 1992 the violence continued to escalate and culminated in a short, but bloody, war in late June 1992."Again, the addition is less precise and has no citation.
*Sentence three is good.
*Sentence four: "In 17 September the Moldovan government held its meeting in Dubăsari, in the building of rayonal soviet which was loyal to the central authorities from Chişinău."
It seems like the section is really talking about opposition by actors within Transnistria. In that case this is irrelevant. If the section really was intended to include opposition to the PMSSR by the authorities in Chisinau, then why just this one, ambiguous example? Surely we can find better examples of opposition on the part of Chisinau. It also needs a footnote.</br> I suggest we yank the redundant material and add specific examples of Transnistrian opposition to the PMSSR. Ilie Ilascu's September 1990 "Resolution No.6" and that kind of stuff. jamason 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right telling that some info is repeated. I believe is good to have a separate paragraph with "Opposition to PMSSR" and take out from the other paragraphs what exist in this new paragraph (keeping all references). The 4th sentence is a symbolic act of Moldovan government after 2 weeks of PMSSR proclamation, to show it had control over region (I read somewhere, but I need to find exactly where, that Druc had even the idea to move the capital of Moldova from Chişinău to Dubăsari). However, with the fact that rayonal soviet of Dubăsari provided the building for Moldovan government is a specific example of resistence against PMSSR within Transnistria. We can further expand this section.--MariusM 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorganized the article a little but I kept all of the information you added. I will add more examples of opposition when I have some more time. jamason 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition to PMSSR

message: At the bottom Igor Smirnov is listed as a leader in that section. They say he was Chair of Supreme Soviet yet they state Maracura was chair also and also provisional chair. Which is it? What was the top office in the PMSSR and who heald it? and were its powers transfered to the PMR Presidency? Vital Component 6:16 PM EST 3/16/07
:According to a biography written by one of Igor Smirnov's close associates, Anna Volkova,  Smirnov was elected Chairman of the Provisional Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR upon its creation in September 1990. In November 1990 there were elections to the PMSSR Supreme Soviet and at its first session (November 27) Igor Smirnov was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the PMSSR. However, at the second session soon after, the deputies created a new post, the Chairman of the Republic, and elected Smirnov. Smirnov served as Chairman of the Republic of the PMSSR until he was elected President of the PMR in December 1991. This means that Igor Smirnov has been the chief executive of the Dniester state since its creation. After Smirnov vacated the chairmanship of the Supreme Soviet, it was filled by a assistant until Maracuta was elected to the position in January 1991. I will correct this article which contains mistakes. Thanks for pointing these out. jamason 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Igor Smirnov or Maracuta

message: :Image:SovMoldSept6,1989.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 08:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SovMoldSept6,1989.JPG

message: :Image:Sovetskaia Moldaviia 2-9-89.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 08:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sovetskaia Moldaviia 2-9-89.JPG

message: I believe the latter is a better description for the men listed in that section of the article. While these categories are admittedly fuzzy, I don't see any members of the Soviet apparatus (if this is being seen as distinct from the Communist Party apparatus) and I do see several factory workers (e.g. Zalozhkov, Ryliakov, and Emel'ianov). jamason (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I trust you know better than me. Dc76\talk 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  soviet apparatus vs. soviet industrial workers