Talk:Union of Moldovans in Transnistria

message: Amidst rever was between you two you are nonchalantly discarding edits of other editors. Either you remove your hands from the "revert" button, or the article will be protected. `'mikka (t) 08:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the sanity reminder. - Mauco 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry for harsh tone. Too old to change myself. `'mikka (t) 08:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to apologize. I checked the logs and both of us (new editor MariusM + myself) were guilty as charged. Besides, I like your style and have long admired it from other pages. And in Transnistria, 'your' flag is still there. - Mauco 08:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: Mikkalai, you only accept to delete the word "overhelmingly", but kept the asertion that Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova. This happened just when I and Mauco seem to reach to a consensus, that we should not make statements about the opinion of the entire Moldovan community of Transnistria, but only to mention the opinion of the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie.--MariusM 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the stub was first written, and I speak here as the original creator of this particular stub, the phrasing was meant to convey that the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie hold an opinion which is shared by the majority of the ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria and not just by a minority subset. While recognizing that there are of course exceptions, this majority is fairly large. How large? Depending on the source we use and the parameters we accept, it ranges from a low estimate of 67% to a high estimate of 90%. - Mauco 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may. We also know that at least one other editor of this page is himself Anti-Transnistrian. Regardless of preferences, we can not let personal bias get in the way of good editing, and in this particular case, Mikka's edit is backed up by the available facts and statistics (namely that a majority of Moldovans in Transnistria are against unification with Moldova). The other editor who wants to delete this statement has as of yet failed to demonstrate the contrary, or show why the existing sources and data should not be trusted. - Mauco 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikkalai intervention

message: In my opinion in the article should be written "Some Moldovans from Transnistria are oppose to unification with the Republic of Moldova. Their view is represented by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". In Mauco's opinion we should keep the current phrasing "As stated in an OSCE-report [2], ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".
It is clear that OSCE report doesn't contain such words like the article says. Mauco says that there are others sources, like comments of Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that are proving the correctness of the actual article. Even if this is true, then in the article should be mentioned "As stated by Oleg Serebrian" or "As stated by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" and not "As stated in an OSCE report". I asked Mauco to show a source to prove what Oleg Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told. I receive the advice to check at International Crisis Group website to find those comments. I found at that webpage an article against Transnistria's referendum for separation, but not what Mauco told. Maybe I didn't looked enough, but as a matter of principle, as not me but Mauco was telling about Serebrian or Carnegie Endowment for International Peace opinions, he should provide the source (exact link, not advices like "go to this website with houndreds of articles and dig"). We should keep the principle "the person who make an asertion has the duty to prove its correctness".--MariusM 19:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree, and - moreover - this is one of the main principles here in Wikipedia. If not sourced, it is grounds for deletion. I will find a number of different sources which, independently of each other, make the same point. Then we can add all of them and make a unified point. The statement should then be "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie". or, if you prefer, "Ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are overwhelmingly opposed to unification with Moldova. This view is reflected by the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie".' Of some other interest to you, perhaps, although only marginally relevant: On Sunday, September 17, two-thirds of the voters of Dubăsari went to the polls versus a Transnistria-wide turnout of 77%. Dubăsari is of course the area with the highest concentration of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria. The difference in turnout between seems to indicate that about one of out every eight voters of Dubăsari followed the call from Moldova to boycot the referendum. We can also read it another way, in that seven of eight ignored Moldova's request and instead went to vote. When we couple that with preliminary results of probably 90%+ against unification (based on exit polls, due to the time of which I am writing this), it would seem to be YET ANOTHER indicator of the truthfulness of the statement that "the majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova." It would of course fall under the category of original research, so we can't use it, which is why I will find the sources that you request. - Mauco 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To summarize and to end the dispute

message: Background Paper "The Transdniestrian Conflict in Moldova: Origins and Main Issues", Vienna, 10 June 1994, CSCE Conflict Prevention Centre. A summary can be found in "Transdniestrian Conflict, Origins and Main Issues" at http://www.moldova.org/download/eng/275/ (PDF). This is a paper used by the US State Department as well. It was the first to identify that many ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria prefer independence and have an aversion to being ruled by Chisinau. See for instance the statements that " Many ethnic Moldovans living on the left bank have an aversion against being governed directly from the centre, prefer to speak Russian, and do not consider themselves as "Bessarabians". Several prominent political figures in the self-proclaimed PMR are ethnic Moldovans. " (It does not quantify as the other sources here do.)
:We already discuss about this document. "Many" is not the same as "The majority". "Aversion of being governed directly from the centre" is not the same as "Oppose unification with Moldova". If you believe the data of last referendum (I don't), you should conclude that CSCE background paper is wrong, as referendum results show Transnistrians love to be governed from the centre, if this centre is Moscow.--MariusM 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is semantics. CSCE (OSCE) refers to "the" center, meaning Chisinau. Not "a" center. Sigh. Can't we spend our time more productively, please? - Mauco 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should answer at my other comment: "Many" is not the same as "The majority".--MariusM 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nor is "many" the same as a minority either. The "many" merely buttress a number of other sources which say much the same and then quantify. (And "I did not have sex with that woman".) - Mauco 18:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't use the word "minority" - is bad faith from you to claim this. From the begining, I advocated the use of the word "some" (without a statement if is a minority of majority). And you advocated the word "overhelmingly" (this was the first version of the page) or "majority". I think I answered at all your sources, at the best case you made original research to impose the word "overhelmingly" or "majority".--MariusM 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again and again with the personal attacks. Now I am accused of bad faith. There is no such case: If it is not 50%+1 (a majority), it is automatically less (= a minority). Either/or. It can not be both. Where is the bad faith in saying that? - Mauco 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought you know better English than me, but it seems you really are not able to understand (I don't want to accuse you of bad faith). You quoted this source as a proof that Moldavians in Transnistria, either "overhelmingly" either "majority" support separation from Moldova. The source is talking about "many". "Many" is not the same as "the majority". Is so difficult the English language? Your source is not proving your claim. At best case, you made original research to show that your interpretation is correct. Indeed, is either majority (50% + 1), either not. My proposal - "some" - is covering all this possibilities. There can be many who appose reunification and, in the same time, many who want reunification.--MariusM 19:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this would be the case if we have for instance "40% oppose unification, 35% are in favor, and 25% don't care neither for nor against or are undecided." In that case, a "majority" would not oppose nor would a "majority" be in favor, and "some" would apply. But do we have any sources that suggest that this is the case? We don't, to my knowledge. Perhaps the best thing to do is to NOT make any blanket statement as if they are definitive statements by Wikipedia, but merely present a synopsis of the salient point from the relevant sources, attribute them to the sources, and then let the readers draw their own conclusions. What do you think? - Mauco 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994 CSCE (OSCE) background paper 

message: This is a detailed survey done in 1997 among 350 respondents in PMR, conducted by the Tiraspol polling firm “Strategia”, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation. The results of the survey are reported at length by Nikolai V. Babilunga in  “Territorial Identity as a Factor in the Political Stability of Transniestria” which is a paper presented at the Conference on “National Identities and Territories”, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, May 14-16, 1998. This does not appear to be online, but it is referenced by other papers which are online. For instance, in "National Construction, Territorial Separatism and Post-Soviet Geopolitics: The Example of the Transdniester Moldovan Republic" by John O’Loughlin, Vladimir Kolossov and Andrei Tchepalyga, at http://www.colorado.edu/IBS/PEC/johno/pub/PsgeTMR.doc
Some main points:
* 82% were in favor of keeping the PMR and 83% want consolidation of PMR statehood (with no explanation given as to why these two numbers are not the same. This is how it was reported).
* In answer to the question, “do you consider yourself to be a citizen of the former Soviet Union?”, 70% of the Moldovans agreed.
* The survey suggests that opinion is unchanged since 1991.
* Only 15% support unity with Moldova.
::Thank you for drawing my attention at this interesting study, but it can not be considered as a clear proof that the majority of Modavians in Pridnestrovie support separatism, as (i)is based on a "Tiraspol polling firm" (and I doubt the correctness of Tiraspol based institutions); (ii) Nikolai Babilunga, who report this survey is a well known separatist - he published in 1993 a book about 1992 War of Transnistria from separatist point of view - "Dubasari, a bleeding wound of Transnistria"; I didn't read his book but I read a pro-moldavian book about the war in which Babilunga is accused of forgery - if you know Romanian look at the link http://ro.altermedia.info/politica/conflictul-transnistrean-vzut-de-un-transnistrean_4421.html; (iii) The study is made among 350 respondents, but we don't know how many of them are Moldavians. If the respondents were from Tiraspol, which have around 15% Moldavians, the fact that 15% support unity with Moldova can mean exactly the opposite you concluded.--MariusM 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study was Transnistria-wide, so you may assume 32% to be Moldovans. Then do the math on the numbers and you will see that the study actually supports the inclusion of a statement that "most ethnic Moldovans who live in Transnistria prefer independence and do not want to join Moldova". There is no need to question Babilunga in this regards as he is only reporting the results of an already existing study which he is not the author of and which he had no part in.  I fail to see why we must automatically distrust anything which is made by a Tiraspol-based firm. The firm which carried it out acted on behalf of Carnegie and it was US-funded, by Carnegie. It took place according to the parameters of the client who paid for it. As for whether or not you personally believe a Tiraspol-based polling firm, this, frankly, has no relevance to the question. What matters in Wikipedia is not what you believe (or what I believe) but what we can show to be an established fact. In the case of this particular poll, it has been cited numerous times in a wide variety of studies. Not just by Babilunga, and by O’Loughlin, Kolossov, Tchepalyga. But also in lots of other places, including the reports by the International Crisis Group. Like it or not, it is authorative. - Mauco 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't assume anything if is not stated in the study. In Transnistrian conflict there are a lot of half-truths aimed to desinform, based exactly of the assumption that good-faith people are making when data are presented to them in a certain way. I didn't heard about this Tiraspol polling firm "Strategia", I don't know how scientific they choosed their respondents and how onnest are they. If Carnegie asked for the study, why is reported by Babilunga and not directly by Carnegie? O’Loughlin, Kolossov, Tchepalyga cited Babilunga, not directly the study. See page 27: "Babilunga (1998) reports the results of a recent survey of 350 respondents in the TMR, conducted by the Tiraspol polling firm “Strategia”, under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation". Regarding Babilunga, when I will have time I will create an article in Wikipedia about him, maybe you can help (but not with edit wars, please). Regarding the other sources, please give me time to check them, you already gave me a 42 page document to read, I am not so quick.--MariusM 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is actually an excellent point. I can't help with Babilunga, because I don't know anything about him (except that he is cited here and there by several other papers.) - Mauco 17:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategia / Carnegie survey 

message: Report titled "Moldova’s Uncertain Future" (Europe Report N°175 – 17 August 2006) from International Crisis Group on Moldova at http://www.conflictprevention.net/library/documents/europe/75_moldova_s_uncertain_future____cpp.doc quotes Oleg Serebrian, leader of the Social-Liberals, an opposition party in the Moldovan parliament, as saying: "If there was an independence referendum, 90 per cent of Transdniestrians would vote for independence."
He does not break it down into ethnic groups, but we can do that. With 90% for independence, 10% are in favour of joining Moldova. We can, for sake of argument, assign this 10% exclusively to ethnic Moldovan Transnistrians. Since 32% of the population are ethnic Moldovans (2004 census), this still leaves 22% of the ethnic Moldovans which are for independence.
In other words, among the ethnic Moldovans living in Transnistria, at best 31.25% would join Moldova versus 68.75% who prefer independence.
:This statement of Oleg Serebrian is quoted from an interview with Serebrian made by this Crisis Group. The entire interview was never published and we don't know the context of those remarks, which was the question at which Serebrian answered. He explained the reason he believe such results will appear: "it’s because they have been manipulated by the regime, but it’s also because Moldova is a failed state". Oleg Serebrian is (in May 2006, when supposely he answers at interview) an opponent of actual Republic of Moldova president Vladimir Voronin, he has the political interest to show that Voronin failed in one of his main political goals: reintegration of Transnistria. Look at the wordings: "Moldova is a failed state", which is quite the type of the wordings politicians use against political opponents, is not an un-bias opinion. Serebrian is saying nothing about people who will not participate at referendum, which can be a higher number. We should not assume that persons who don't participate want reunification with Moldova or not. Maybe there are persons who just don't care about politics, or don't have a clear opinion, but you should not add them at the "opponents of reunification", in order to create a majority of Moldavians who oppose reunification. No mention was either made about hypothetic results of a referendum in democratic conditions, in which the reunification camp will have the right to explain its point of view. Even if you want to put Serebrian's remark in the article, it should be quoted "as stated by Oleg Serebrian", not "as stated by OSCE".--MariusM 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. The "OSCE" in the currently protected article refers to something else. However, I am OK with just adding the sources as references. - Mauco 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Crisis Group / Oleg Serebrian 

message: Report titled "Nation-building in Russia and Post-Soviet States" by University of Oslo (Norway) scholar and OSCE-researcher Pal Kolsto, published in Colorado by Westview Press, in the year 2000. Approximately thirty two percent of Transnistria’s population (as of November 2004) is Moldovan speaking, some being of Romanian origin and primarily residing in rural areas.  They are among the “most vehement anti-Romanians in Transnistria” (quote from page 144). It can be added that they are also among the strongest supporters of separate statehood for Transnistria. Another commentator dryly noted that they “have not fled the so called Stalinist dictatorship to join their ethnic brothers in Moldova.” (Source: British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), Report titled "Transnistria 2003: Eye in the Gathering Storm", page 3, available at http://www.bhhrg.org/ )
:Again you give me a website with a lot of articles to dig. I want the exact article, I don't dig. However, the statements you quote are not relevant, as being "vehement anti-Romanian" is not the same as oppose reunification with Republic of Moldova. We are talking about reunification with Moldova, not about unification with Romania. President of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin, is himself an anti-Romanian (and a Transnistrian Moldovan, too). He labbeled the blue, yellow and red flag of Moldova (and of Romania) as "fascist flag". Source: British Helsinki Human Rights Group (I know you love this group): http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?ReportID=158&CountryID=16 (exact link, you should not dig, make a search with "flag" to find the statement: "He (Voronin) has repeatedly described the blue, yellow and red flag of Moldova as a “fascist flag,” and has generated an official statement of disapproval from the Romanian Foreign Ministry"). I made a search with google about "Voronin, fascist flag" and I founded 267 hits.--MariusM 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding people who “have not fled the so called Stalinist dictatorship to join their ethnic brothers in Moldova.”, again this is not the same as oppose reunification with Moldova. People have homes in this area, relatives, friends. Is not so easy to give up at what you created in a life time. And, anyway, a lot of people did fled the "Stalinist dictatorship". Just look at the census results of 2004, there are 18% persons less in Transnistria than in 1989. Is not a natural decrease.--MariusM 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no love for BHHRG, as you claim.  However, their statement was a side-comment to the main point (as you can see from the subheader) is the Pal Kolsto paper where he calls the Moldovans who live in Transnistria “most vehement anti-Romanians in Transnistria” (quote from page 144). In case you are not familiar with Kolsto (or Kolstoe, as it is sometimes spelled, because the last "o" is a Norwegian letter), he is one of the more oft-quoted scholars in this particular field of academia. - Mauco 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the relevance, as one of the most vehement anti-Romanians is the actual president of the Republic of Moldova, Vladimir Voronin? And you didn't give the link to Kosto work (is not anymore necesary, you convinced me about its irrelevance)--MariusM 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if Kolsto's paper is online, thus no link, but the source has been given in detail, with page number. I would not agree that Voronin is more anti-Romanian than the Moldovans in Transnistria, but then again, I am not the author of the BHHRG report. - Mauco 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pal Kolsto 

message: This is the first of the reports from the OSCE mission. They spent six months in Transnistria, and wrote: "The Mission’s assessment is that the Transdniestrian feeling of identity is not primarily an ethnic one because it is obviously shared not only by Slavs but also by many ethnic Moldovans." There is no reason to believe that all ethnic Moldovans abstained from the referendum, or that they are in favour of unification and that others are not. "Even ethnic Moldovans there, thus, claim that they are not ‘Bessarabians’" and "In six months' work on the left bank, the Mission could not help but notice a deeply-rooted distrust of Chisinau in many unofficial Transdniestrians." When reporting upon feelings towards Chisinau, the OSCE-report DOES NOT distinguish between ethnic Moldovans and other ethnicities. On the contrary, in several parts of the report, it goes to some length to stress that ethnic Moldovans share the same feeling as their Ukrainian and Russian neighbors. Knowing, as we do, that the Ukrainians and Russians are strongly opposed to unification, there is no reason to say that this should be different in the case of the Moldovans. I base this not on one source, but on those presented here and others. - Mauco 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1993 CSCE (OSCE) Mission Report 

message: Transnistria represents a unique situation where the acquiring of (or refusal of) a PMR citizenship can adequately be construed as a political gesture indicating allegiance. The Constitution permits double and triple citizenships. Since the local citizenship is worthless for international travel, why bother even getting it? Especially since most people already have Moldovan, Russian or Ukrainian citizenships anyway. MariusM brings up the fact that the act of also acquiring PMR citizenship should be taken as an indicator of a symbolic political stand, and in the context of the fact that a PMR passport is as valid for international travel as a piece of used toilet paper, I have to agree with him. He writes: "What about people who lives in Transnistria but, as result of opposing Transnistrian regime, refuse to take Transnistrian citizenship?"
As per the 2004 census, those residents who hold PMR citizenship numbered 508,600 people (91.5%+ of the population). Assuming that the remaining 8.5% are all ethnic Moldovans, this means that 73.3% of all ethnic Moldovans have taken the symbolic step of acquiring PMR citizenship as a way to show their allegiance to Transnistria (23.4% out of the 31.9% of the population which are ethnic Moldovans.) 3 out of 4 is a majority. - Mauco 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having PMR citizenship can be a reason for harassment from Transnistrian authorities, impossibility of being hired in some jobs. Only hard-line opponents of PMR refuse to take PMR citizenship. Some are afraid to show oppenly their disagreement with the regime. Why not to look the other way around? Moldavian authorities claim that the majority of people in Transnistria took Moldova's citizenship - this can be an indicator that they want reunification.--MariusM 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there is a huge difference. There are many reasons for wanting Moldovan citizenship, and the main one has nothing to do with political preference. It is the fact that if you are stateless, eventually you will want to be able to travel. You can not do so on the toilet-paper-equivalent of a passport which PMR authorities issues. Moldovan citizenship offers that benefit, in comparison. Hey, I would take one, too. In comparison, this is not the case with a PMR citizenship. Also, your paragraph above starts with 3 unsourced statements in a row which I and other Transnistria-watchers strongly disagree with. Please remember that the whole purpose of OSTK was to fight against discrimination, and that PMR came about as a result of the language law which was at the time seen as meaning that minorities would face what you are claiming: The impossibility of being hired in some jobs. - Mauco 03:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship as indicator of allegiance 

message: This is an article about the political organization "Union of Moldovans in Transnistria" (as the correct title of the article should be). As this organisation is against unification with Moldova, we should mention this in the article. However, we should not make statements about its genuine popular support. In Wikipedia, we don't make statements like "the Republican Party of USA represent the will of the majority of American people", even if there are democratic ellection results and good surveys that show this. In the case of the "Union of Moldavians", as far as I know (you may correct me, if I am wrong) this organisation never competed independently in the ellections, and there are many doubts about the real political freedom and correctness of ellections or referendums in Transnistria. In my opinion, no assumption should be made in Wikipedia about the popular support of any political organisation. If you find some ellection results where this Union competed independently, under its own name, those may be added, but with the warning that political freedom in Transnistria is questioned by many countries. Anyhow, data from 1993 are not any more relevant, those data even don't show what you claim they show, and we are in 2006.--MariusM 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about the level of support for the organization. It is the opposite way around: This organization supports a position which our available sources, implicitly or explicitly, show to be shared by the majority of ethnic Moldovans who live on the left bank. - Mauco 01:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To summarize again

message: The contested statement is not "As stated in an OSCE-report, ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova". Both MariusM and myself are in agreement that it should go. Instead, I have proposed  "The majority of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" which MariusM does not agree with, and he has proposed the more vague "Some ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" which I do not agree with. - Mauco 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You added this comentary after the request for mediation was made. In my understanding, after a request for mediation was made, all other discussions should be done in the mediation process. Actually, I am not supporting the formula "some moldavians oppose unification with Moldova", I believe we should not make any assumption about what Moldovans in Pridnestrovie want, as there are no reliable data, just to quote the statements of this political organisation we are talking about (and which, as far as I know, never competed separately in ellections). If you don't agree with the mediation please write "disagree" at the Request for Mediation page.--MariusM 13:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, if you and I agree to solve it here, or through easier avenues of dispute resolution, then we may do so. Your interpretation could be called WP:Wikilawyering which includes situations where the spirit of a policy or guideline is broken through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter thereof. Do I agree to mediation? Of course! But see below ... there are other avenues which you should explore first, and which you failed to do. This is not me saying so. This is WP:DR. Besides, you can not phrase the dispute as being "As stated in an OSCE-report, ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria are opposed to unification with Moldova" because as you can see above, and as is clear from this Talk page, I am in agreement with you that this phrasing is not appropriate. - Mauco 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for incursion but actually I disagree with both of you:Many ethnic Moldavians from Transnistria do wont to unite with Moldova ClockworkOrange 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, most of this Talk page (now 57 kilobytes long and counting) deals with a contention of whether we should use the word "most", "many" or "some". This is not a vote. Whatever we decide upon, we must be able to source it. This doesn't mean we have to explain the sources. A succint summary is enough, and it can even be a one-sentence summary which is what we are both trying to get included. - Mauco 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know either. I am not an expert on WP:Wikilawyering but on practical problem solving instead. Of course, the easiest way to solve the dispute is to just talk about the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie (the main subject of the article) and not mention the level of support or lack of support for unification (an auxiliary subject of the article). Still, I have provided six or seven sources for varying levels of indications that most Moldovans are opposed to unifications, and the opposite view (that the majority wants unification) does not have any convincing citations that I have seen so far. - Mauco 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had enough talk from 14 September until now. I didn't convince you, you didn't convince me. The page was protected with the sentence that you wanted. If you agree to take out this sentence and not to mention the level of support or lack of support for unification is O.K. - we will ask for removal of the protection of this page. If you don't agree, let's go to Mediation, which is a Wikipedian way of practical problem solving.--MariusM 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am puzzled as to why you didn't follow the order of the suggested guidelines in WP:DR, like informal mediation or Wikipedia:Esperanza, or the seeking of a Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. - Mauco 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested statement 

message: Please see WP:DR for recommendations of how to resolve a dispute. If Talk fails, we should try informal mediation or Wikipedia:Esperanza. We can also seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion since this is dispute involving only two editors, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. A poll or survey would not be appropriate, IMHO, due to the specialized nature of this subject. But some of the above needs to be explored before we burden the Mediation Committee with a formal Requests for Mediation. - Mauco 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the avenues which should be explored at this point in time, in the correct order of dispute resolution as listed on WP:DR. - Mauco 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already had very long discussions, you blocked this page with the propagandist pro-separatist sentence that you wanted. You refused to agree mediation in the 7 days when you should sign for agreement. In this situation I will request arbitration.--MariusM 07:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikilawyering. I am amazed to the point of disbelief that you are blatantly ignoring the correct sequence of steps as outlined in WP:DR to the point of not exploring any of them. And may I point out that I did not block the page. Someone else did, in response to an edit war started "not by moi". Your qualification of the sentence itself also shows your inherent biased approach to Wikipedia editing. - Mauco 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I saw Russian language sources about this Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie. I wonder if this organisation is using at all Moldavian language. Did they publish their statements in Moldavian? What language is used in their meetings? Do we have any source about this?--MariusM 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What language is used by Union of Moldavians?

message: MariusM twice deleted the following statement: " It is the largest group of its kind in Transnistria." Before doing so the next time, please explain why this statement is untrue. If there is a larger group of this kind, please create a stub for it and please include a "See also" link in this article as it would - in that case - be a very important new development that no one else in the world has ever heard of. Otherwise, may  I politely request that we please let this very important and defining fact of the organization stay in its entry. - Mauco 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are bigger groups of this kind (supporters of separatist regime from Transnistria) which already had wiki articles. See Respublika, for example.--MariusM 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I will clarify the article now. - Mauco 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest association of Moldovans

message: To have its voice heard. There is no other obvious reason. Do not delete the obvious. - Mauco 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but don't pretend this voice is the voice of Moldovans in Transnistria. Is the voice of an organisation with unknown popularity (it never participated alone in elections and no surveys were made about it, AFAIK).--MariusM 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is certainly a valid point. - Mauco 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does someone participate in an election? 

message: For a person born in a democratic country, who always assume good faith and a little bit naive (now, I am assuming good faith) is a stupid question: Which is the ethnicity of the membership of Union of Moldovans in Transnistria?
For a person like me, who was born in a communist country and has a different life experience, the question is not stupid, considering all the activities of this particular organisation. Is a credible possibility, for my point of view, that this organisation is a creation of Transnistrian MGB, with Tulgar as a face, and when congresses are made authorities to take care to bring people in the room (not necesarily of Moldovan ethnicity) in order to create the impression that this is a living organisation.
In this talk page I asked, much time ago, a question: what language is used by this "Union of Moldovans"? Nobody answered. Do we have any proofs that this organisation did use Moldovan language in its meetings and congresses? Did they publish something in Moldavian language (not only press release in "Adevărul Nistrean"). If not, I doubt that the membership of the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie is composed only by ethnic Moldovans.--MariusM 20:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any sources or references that indicate that this organization is a hoax, then post them. Otherwise, don't engage in original research. Tulgar is a well-respected political leader. Lots of people don't agree with him, but they respect his work and see his as a true representative of his community. Send an email to William Hill (former OSCE head) to find out more. - Mauco 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know Hill's e-mail. I am sure that any sources I will found claiming that this organisation is a hoax, you will labeled them as POV.--MariusM 21:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try me. Find the sources ... if they exist. Otherwise, stop this ridiculous attemtp at WP:OR right now. - Mauco 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I would find a source I would pretend to include in the article the fact that this organisation is a hoax made by PMR. Meantime, we should only removed the unsourced affirmation that the membership of the Union of Moldovans is composed by ethnic Moldovans, as long no proofs exist that this organisation use Moldovan language.--MariusM 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, don't remove it. There are loads and loads of sources which state that the Union of Moldovans is composed by ethnic Moldovans. Via Google alone, the Union is mentioned over 23,000 times and, in many of these cases, with a clear reference to who  is part of its membership. - Mauco 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian language links. Can you prove me that this Union is using Moldovan language, at least in its cyrillic version?--MariusM 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I thought that we were discussing the membership?  Guess not. I already proved my point. - Mauco 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Union of Moldovans membership

message: You wrote in the article about "Its membership of Transnistrian Moldovans". But its leader, Tulgar, is not a transnistrian, is a basarabian. So, article is not correct.--MariusM 00:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is certainly a Transnistrian citizen, or else he would not be able to hold a seat in PMR's parliament. That makes him a Transnistrian. But you can change it to Moldovan, if you prefer. It is always good to make the article more precise. I do not know if he has a Moldovan citizenship but I would suppose so, as most ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria do (and even quite a few who are not ethnic Moldovans, too). - Mauco 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valerian Tulgar, not a Transnistrian Moldovan

message: The Committee against Torture had to decide whether or not a communication was admissible under its rules that it could not already be heard elsewhere. It was rejected because the Committee has verified and assured itself that a complaint from the author was in fact registered by the European Court on 3 May 1999 which is, and I quote, an "already pending examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement." In other words, they rejected it because it had been accepted elsewhere. Not because it was invalid.  Are we splitting hairs now? - Mauco 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mauco, it was not accepted elsewhere. It was "under another procedure of international investigation or settlement". Are you really of good faith? People seeking refuge in Western countries often tell lies in order to obtain asylum. Sometimes, it works. I don't know in this particular case which was the outcome.--MariusM 02:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't either, and I agree with you on the lies. In the States, that is a common trick to circumvent immigration. Needless to say, the outcome of the ECHR case would determine whether or not the torture claims in this particular case were bogus or not. Unfortunately, I have no further information to add but it would be very interesting to get a copy of the ruling in the 1999 case. - Mauco 02:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint valid; only rejected on a technicality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union of Moldavians in Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nr2.ru%2fpmr%2f65522.html
*Added  tag to http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.nr2.ru%2fpmr%2f65541.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313092533/http://www.elections2005.md:80/electoralcourier/20050228/ to http://www.elections2005.md/electoralcourier/20050228/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified