Talk:Transnistria/Archive 10

message: This section actually included multiple subsections but everyone seems to agree that we need credible sources that include facts! So I guess this is finished. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Sources


message: No real disputes are visible, just a desire on the part of some editors to expand the economy seciton, so these issues are resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
History and Economy


message: I see a dispute between the usage of Transnistria "borders Moldova" versus "borders the rest of Moldova" with compromises such as "peaceline border" or "border" presented. This appears to be a minor issue and hopefully will be easily resolved. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: De jure, since Moldova considers the Transnistrian territory to still be part of Moldova, the proper term would be "borders the rest of Moldova." Or, just simply state the western border of the Transnistrian territory is the Dniester and avoid mentioning Moldova. Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are parts of Transnistria (the geographic region) that are controlled by the central government and parts of Bessarabia under PMR control, so you can't really say that the Dniester forms the eastern boundary. Actually how about "borders Bessarabia to the East"? In geographic terms that is probably the most accurate way of presenting this information. TSO1D 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bordering Bessarabia I believe would be a sufficiently descriptive and NPOV. Bessarabia as a territory is generally well understood. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 08:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the term was used by the Russian authorities to denote the region, however that is not not the only period when the name applies. Many modern sources that I have read by both Western, Romanian, and Russian sources continue to use the word as a geographic term because it is the most specific descriptor for the landmass between the Prut and the Dniester. TSO1D 14:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bessarabia continues to be used in current scholarship for the land between the Prut and Dniester, with Moldavia bordering on its west [Moldova obviously being something different, just making it clear so folks know "Moldavia" not a typo]. Bessarabia is a very reliable geographic term. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I can see that now from what you say, and looking it up, but it's hardly common knowledge amongst everyday English-speaking people who this article is meant to be for. I just think the article is complicated enough as it is with all the different names etc, Bessarabia is just one more thing that readers have to look up when they see it. Perhaps that's all part of the joy of learning?Jonathanpops 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This region is still pretty obscure for most people, so much of the terminology or references used will be unfamiliar at first. But I still think Bessarabia is the best alternative. I mean the term is used very frequently in articles about the region and is common knowledge to some. I just don't see a better choice. TSO1D 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Geography


message: This is one section with almost complete agreement. PMR is the official name with Transnistria being the common English short form of the word. TSO1D 02:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Name


message: I think is an agreement to include in the article a mention about Yakovlev's letter and about Moldovan schools recent development (see "Free press" section).--MariusM 16:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yakovlev letter and Moldovan schools recent developments

message: See Penambuco above. since the page reopened there have been three unapproved edits. This is the exact same edit  that caused the page to be locked four weeks ago. . This is fair warning. Edit warriors will be blocked if this continues and the page may have to be locked again. Penambuco's negotiated intros is as followis; Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.
:Reverting to its prior state and relocking is fine, it will keep you from changing it to sound like the Tiraspol Times/pridnestrovie.net, citing agreements that were never made. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war on Intro 

message: To recap, the "Russo-skeptic" view is that the Transnistrian situation is an orchestrated Russian power play. No impartial observer—and certainly no Russo-skeptic—will regard "dancing in the streets" as a true expression of the will of the people until such time as (and incorporating Dc76's clarifications):
#after every Russian national (i.e., not a Russian of Moldovan citizenship) in the PMR authorities is out (as in out, and out of the country);
#after the Russian troops and any other troops or para-military forces assisting are all out (as in out of the country, and their arms depots demolished)--and I don't mean Russian military/para-military retiring to become "citizens of the PMR and join the PMR army," either;
#after it is legal for a political party to be pro-Moldovan (that currently being treason); and
#after Romanian is once again taught in its proper Latin script, not in some Cyrillic Soviet-era utter bastardization created purely to support the Stalinist fiction that Moldovans are not Romanians—"31+ percent of population in 100+ localities should have the right to more than only 5 schools available in Latin script, 4 of which in Tighina, and all 5 under serious persecusions and threats; and that in the official language of the country."
When these conditions are met, we can seriously discuss the validity of any subsequent expressions of the will of the people. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russo-Skepticism 

message: First, on no human rights issues, Mark indicated I was uninformed when it came to the "language issue." Rather than take on all the contents of the pridnestrovie.net page explaining there is no problem or oppression, I suggested we address one or two points at a time, starting with the language:
# Russian Cyrillic script is not (pre-mid-19th century) Romanian Cyrillic script any more than English Latin script is Romanian Latin script—pridnestrovie.net paints the picture they are the same.
# Stalin manufactured "Moldovan." It's a bastardized transliteration of Latin-script Romanian—pridnestrovie.net skirts the issue by saying the PMR is returning the language to its "cultural (Cyrillic) roots."
Again, in the logical English equivalent of (PMR) Moldovan, I ask, Ду юу агри со фар, ор дисагри? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A week later, just checked, still there. Of course, Mark might be having some access problems... —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homework, Mark Street 

message: Jamason has requested sources for the expression of pro-Moldovan union being illegal. (That was the premise under which parties advocating such union were banned--as advocating Moldovan union requires the dissolution of the PMR, considered treasonous.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you've already come across the US Department of State's country reports. If not, I would direct you to take a look. Not a "clean bill of health," but nothing specifically indicating that it is against the law to advocate unification with Moldova. jamason 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homework, Pēters J. Vecrumba 

message: I reverted the information and Propaganda section for two reasons. Firstly this was not agreed to be a section. Transnistrian editors always flag their desire to create new sections and have to battle to get them in..The Romanian editors just plough in with sections of hatred unannounced. . Also the attack on the sites mention is legally libelous. Tiraspol Times only connection is a shared IP address which 800 others users that share the address too including half the businesses in PMR. Therefore, these claims of propaganda is propaganda in itself.t we can fully debate that section here before we can include as we do with every section.. Mark us street Dec 4th
: I believe that this was added in my absense. There was no prior discussion and as I can see, here, there is no consensus either. Let us move it here (to Talk) and give the editors a chance to defend it. Besides, the proper place for a treatise like that is on Media in Transnistria. - Mauco 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: The word "Propaganda" is itself POV. One man's propaganda is another man's information. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... This is Wikipedia, we do not use loaded words lightly. - Mauco 22:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section when I first saw it as it hadn't been discussed on the talk page beforehand and it was clear that the addition would be controversial. I am not sure if the section should stay here, but the passage is well-sourced and is relevant to the foreign section. I am not pleased with its neutrality, however, because of the language used and the lack of balance. The title of the section will have to go for sure. Having a sectin called "Propaganda and disinformation" certainly contravenes Wikipedia policy. Also it would be nice to present ICDISS's response to the accusations as well as that of the Tiraspol Times. TSO1D 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have already seen that anything calling pro-PMR sources into question is denounced as propaganda by Mark Street, even 100% factual reports regarding his own "paper." It was only after I tracked down the author whose materials were involved--who responded PERSONALLY in the discussion page, that Mr. Street's tone suddenly changed. ICDISS is yet another blatant pro-PMR propaganda factory. When someone vociferously denounces reputable (and completely factual) reports as "mudraking" and "propaganda" is it not fair to use the term "propaganda" in return to describe the act of denouncing? Mr. Street would have us believe it's all an unfortunate and completely unintentional misunderstanding among friends. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peters, this is Wikipedia. Don't confuse the often-heated discussions on the Talk pages with the kind of wording that ought to stay in main namespace. - Mauco 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mark Street was being quite emphatic (not getting carried away in heated discussion) regarding "propaganda" attacking his paper. I suppose I could simply say Mark "lied" instead of using "propaganda"? "Propaganda" is being kind. I'm not the one confused here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever you say. I will let you have the last word, but we can all read English and check the DIFFs ... and draw our own conclusions. - Mauco 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: I've just read about an explosion in Bendery. I didn't want to put it under the terrorism discussion as the snippet I read on transdniestria.com doesn't say anything much about it. I guess this will go in the article though once we know more, unless it turns out to be an accident. Jonathanpops 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This source  (in Romanian) is telling that was negligence of some kids in a school, when they manipulate a grenade at the lesson of "militarry training".--MariusM 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In school N13" not faraway from where i lived EvilAlex 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some wikieditors will start investigations to establish exactly where you lived, which is your exact identity and which members or your family are still living in Transnistria.--MariusM 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then they will eat them all alive. Got ketchup? (Um, sorry 'bout that, couldn't resist) --Illythr 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From what is apparently known so far, an 11th grade had started some basic military training. Instead of dummies, one of the students (a Moldovan, it is said) brought with him a live grenade from Moldova instead of the dummies that are used for this sort of training. It blew out the windows of the school, apparently unintentionally. Needless to say, live grenades are NOT part of any training. Caution: This information is gathered from Internet forums, similar to Wikipedia talk pages, so we can not rely on it for factual accuracy until the JCC releases an official statement. Note: The area is part of the JCC buffer zone and they were on the scene immediately after the incident. - Mauco 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Yes Mauco - here is some more from the same forum Диверсию провели агенты спецслужб Молдовы,замаскированные под учеников школы №13: EvilAlex 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a bomb Mark, a grenade remember... Jonathanpops 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no proof that this was planned by Moldova. The fact that he was a Moldovan should not be used to draw conclusions. Maybe it was a prank by the teenager himself, who wanted to impress people by how "cool" he was that he could train with real, live ammo and not with the unloaded props. Anyway, no one died. He suffered some leg damage and is being treated at the local hospital. - Mauco 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explosion in Bendery 

message: As MariusM pointed in the voting section above, Transnistria means 2 different things: a geographical region, which fluctuated through time, and the current political entity. We should make this clear in the beginning of the article, and then make no confusions when treating the two subjects. Dpotop 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  May I point out that we are not voting. It is not a voting section. - Mauco 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, it's called "Poll". Is this different from voting? Dpotop 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I quote textually from the initiator of this initiative: "Well, I don't mean for this to be a vote" - Mauco 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We have a separate article Transnistria (World War II). Indeed, we need a disambiguization page.--MariusM 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need a disambig page; maybe we can have a disambig line at the top saying this article is about the modern territory, for the World War II region see.... TSO1D 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, TSO1D, with all due respect, I think that you are misunderstanding the proposal of MariusM. He gives the WWII article merely as an existing example. Rather, what he wants to do is to separate the unrecognized country (or whatever you want to call it) with the geographical area, and have two articles. Similar to how Wikipedia does it for Western Sahara, for instance. This has actually been proposed in the past. - Mauco 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand. I remember proposing that a few months ago Talk:Transnistria/archive_4#Two_Transnistria_Articles here, however it didn't seem like there was too much support for the move. Maybe things have changed. TSO1D 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct. I am glad that I could help clear that up, it seems like MariusM is offline but I wanted to explain his position so you (and others) could understand. - Mauco 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the few examples when Mauco explained correctly my position.--MariusM 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no need to thank me. But if you do, I will say that you're welcome. - Mauco 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig page

message: I want to highlight that MariusM deleted the Tiraspoltimes link on Dec 6th. This is an agreed link. Where is you pride and honour MariusM ?  Is your word that cheap to you ? Have you not a scrap of honor ?  Mark us street 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your comments related to an author's actions but not his character. Insults will get us nowhere. TSO1D 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Mark. By now, we all know about MariusM's pride and honor. No need to rub it in. His actions speak for themselves, but I have now restored the links to what was actually agreed upon by all here. - Mauco 00:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never agreed with the inclusion of the link to Tiraspol Times, I clearly stated my position several times on this talk page (see archives). Mark us street, while still editing with the name MarkStreet, used sockpuppetry to promote his website . I don't consider neither Mark or Mauco as persons who can talk about my honor and don't need their recognition as a honorable man. The presence of Mark us street here is a permanent reminder about the misleading link we have in External links section.--MariusM 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Marius I think we know you are and where you are coming and we accept you have a place here,  however, all we are asking is for you to behave with honour  Mark us street 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  You were party to an agreement between all the editors  Mark us street 09:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  There will always be objections, I don't like the Moldovan sites either but I have to accept they must be allowed to have a voice. What I oppose os censorship. I'm sure you'd agree. Mark us street 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mauco, I don't understand how you can claim that Tiraspol Times is "the only single English language news source for Transnistria". Pridnestrovie.net or visitpmr.com are also in English. Are you not afraid of losing your credibility by claiming untrue facts which are so easy for anybody to check?--MariusM 22:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read. NEWS SOURCE. The sites which you mention are static. No reporting of daily news or regularly updated content. Your personal remarks are uncalled for. - Mauco 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith 

message: I see that the issue of using the word separatist is coming to the fore again. William labeled it as NPOV, however I don't believe that to be the case. In archive 4 I had a similar discussion with William and I thought we had come to the conclusion that usage of that term was justified. Although I know that some users have expressed doubts regarding Encarta, they do use that word as can be seen here and that is a valid and credible reference work. William, you yourself stated: "I agree with separatist (although if we really, really, really want to split hairs I can document why technically this is not the case. However, for ease-of-understanding it is probably the word that best describes Transnistria for outsiders who don't want to get bogged down in technicalities)." TSO1D 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but of course. You know that I agree, TSO1D. It is just that there is now huge difference between the context of when the word was used at the time that we had the discussion and the inference that the more recent edits by MariusM has now given to the usage of the word in a Transnistria-related setting. He is currently using it as a slur, to pepper a lot of his new edits. Back when we had this discussion, you and I, the limited usage of the word was in a very specific context and not as a general moniker tagged on to every mention of Transnistria for the purpose of denigration. If it helps the article, I will not be the one to split hairs. But if it is there to push a POV, it has to go. We can easily find neutral words. - Mauco 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the usage of the word should not be abused. It should only be written in order to add exactitude or variety to the text. If you have every other sentence using that word, then that would just be an annoyance. Nevertheless, in the latest version you reverted to, there were absolutely no instances of the word being used, even in places where it was appropriate. If you look at a compromise version from the good ol' days: here, you will see about nine appearances of the word. In [this edit] you removed all usages of the word "separatist" for concerns of neturality; this even includes cases not disputed between Marius and Mark. I guess what I'm trying to say is that moderation is the key, and although the word probably shouldn't appear more than  about 4 times on an article of this size, completely removing it is not fully justified other. TSO1D 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please take a look at the latest tag-team play by MariusM and EvilAlex, and see what you can do to moderate it. Your removal of two words is a start, but there is a lot more hidden behind the scenes than meets the eye. MariusM even gave it a misleading edit comment, here. Claming to merely restore just 'separatist', he also reverted a bunch of other edits, removed a link that he hates, changed the order of a POV link, and so on. He even unilaterally changed part of the intro, despite the fact that it is currently under discussion. - Mauco 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like your latest work. Still, check this Diff and you'll see what they are up to; of course without any prior discussion on Talk (as usual). - Mauco 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One change I'm not sure about is in the introduction where it used to say (officially:Pridnestrovie) but that was changed to (Russian:Pridnestrovie). Of course I don't like the Russian version, because by the PMR's statement Pridnestrovie is also the Enlgish shortform. However, should we say that it is the official name. It might be confusing to have that in the intro as it might not be clear official where in Moldova or the PMR. I think the name section does a better deal of explaining this dispute. For now I left it as Transnitria or Pridnestrovie in the intro, but I'm not sure what's best. TSO1D 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your edits stand for themselves, and we can all read how you used the word, thank you. Try to use more neutral language the next time. There are many other ways to describe the same sentences, as TSO1D has amply showed us. - Mauco 15:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separatist 

message: There were above some discussions about Moldavian SSR right to secede from USSR. Mauco told this was illegal, TSO1D told it was legal, Mark us street pretend that Moldova didn't even exist before 1991 (he don't recognize Moldavian SSR as predecesor state of Moldova, is not the only case when Mark has an unique view which nobody else shares). Agreement was done about the fact that an expert view is needed, and I realized people were waiting for my advice. O.K., this is an article about Moldavian SSR constitution adopted in 1978. Few quotes for lazy editors who don't want to read the entire article:
*"The Preamble of the new Constitution of the Moldavian SSR, for example, is shorter than that of the Constitution of the Soviet Union, and there is no mention of "a new historic community of people (which) has been formed -- the Soviet people." The statement that the people of the republic recognized itself "an inalienable part of the whole Soviet people," which appears in the Constitutions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and of the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan SSRs -- thus seemingly making the legal right of each republic to secede null and void -- is also missing."
*"The Moldavian SSR is a sovereign state (Article 68) which enjoys -- at least in principle -- certain prerogatives of sovereignty. According to Article 73, it has the right to enter into relations with foreign states, to conduct negotiations with them, and to exchange diplomatic and consular representatives; finally, it has the right to join international organizations. The Moldavian Republic has not yet, however, begun to apply this article (corresponding to Article 15(a) of the old Constitution) in actual practice: it has not appointed diplomatic representatives to any foreign capital, nor has it joined any international organization".
*"Another right of sovereignty, the right to secede, contained in Article 69 (corresponding to the old Article 14), states that "the Moldavian SSR retains the right freely to withdraw from the Soviet Union."
I've checked, no right for secession for Transnistria. Based on its Constitution, Moldavian SSR was a sovereign state.--MariusM 01:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are simply utterly wrong. Sorry. Selective quotations of generalities are like the old Soviet constitutions which proclaimed that the USSR was the most democratic place in the world. What really matters here is the actual law in question, which was curent for MSSR at the time, and Moldova did not follow it. Neither did Transnistria. Read it for yourself. Although at least when it came to the 1991 all-Union referendum, Transnistria was more law abiding than Moldova. The leaders of Moldova, as you probably know, was afraid to ask the people for their opinion in the referendum and it was never held. It took until 1994 before Moldova was able to have a democratic referendum, so its independence declaration (unlike that of Transnistria) was not preceeded by a referendum asking the will of the people. Anyway, the relevant law is here and Moldova broke it. Moldova did not hold the required referendum, and did not have the right to secession in the undemocratic way that it was carried out. - Mauco 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moldavian SSR, as a sovereign state (see its Constitution) never delegated to the All-Union Supreme Soviet the right to establish the procedure of secession. I think Russian Federation also didn't had a referendum when declared its independence from Soviet Union.--MariusM 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Novel legal concept. Never heard that one before. So, are you saying that Soviet laws did not apply in Soviet times for the Moldavian SSR? Face it, neither Transnistria nor Moldova followed the law when they declared independence. If you compare the two, however, the method chosen by Transnistria was more democratic and closer to the existing Soviet law because they, at least, had a referendum before. Moldova didn't. - Mauco 22:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moldova had a (truly) freely and fairly elected representative government that had recently taken office. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moldavian SSR constitution

message: Hello Mark, EvilAlex, Mauco.
I understand that all of you are fluent in Russian.
But could you, please, translate russian excerpts into English? Dpotop 20:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case, I wouldn't say "fluent" but I read it. Anyway, I very rarely post anything in Russian. If I do, I'll be sure to add a translation for you. - Mauco 21:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same as William Mark us street 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian

message: We've got the article peppered with BHHRG as a reputable source for citations. "(Some)..." is a totally insufficient disclaimer.
   I don't mind pridnestrovie.net, president-pmr.org--even 5 minutes of reading the Tiraspol Times tells any objective reader what it is. BHHRG blatantly misuses the term "Helsinki" to intentionally confuse itself with a legitimate human rights organization--to the point where that legitimate organization on its own website has to deny any association with the BHHRG.  The BHHRG is not acceptable as a reference under any circumstances. We can discuss what they say here, but their bias and intentional characterization of themselves as something they are not makes them totally unacceptable as a reference for an encyclopedia article.  —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right I agree with you, but also in this case it can be said "some" because of the reason that it is not just "BHHRG" that says this, but also several other people, we would be better off by using a reference to them instead of only giving the prominence to "BHHRG", however, so I will try to find these links and add them instead. The two others that say the same are Andrei Popov and Damien Helly, I got this information from the summary that I worked on of that old United Nations report, Pernambuco 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quotes associated with a specific individual would be much clearer; those can be associated with the organization or interests that individual represents. (That said, I'll grind the old axe once more on associating "Mark Almond" = "Oxford University" without mention of his heading up the BHHRG: everyone associated with the BHHRG must be considered equally biased with reference to Moldova/Transnistria.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes i agree BHHRG is unreliable and highly controversial; we should delete it or at list we should mention who they are EvilAlex 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that BHHRG is unreliable. Dpotop 15:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Frankly the way the page is going there are many organisations that are considered unreliable, even the OSCE has nailed its colors to the Moldovan flag and lost a lot of credibility by refusing to monitor the elections in Pridnestrovie, yet we use them a source here to question democracy in Tiraspol. The main page is a propaganda mess that serves nobody except the Romanian Secret Service. It does not present an accurate picture but rather a cartoon like image of 'Banditland' and this further deepens the divide between Transnistrians and Moldovans. It is an irony that we call a British human rights group unreliable while 'our' own page here is a work of fiction. Mark us street 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: It is an irony that we call a British human rights group unreliableDid you noted  this statement on International Helsinki Federation (IHF) web site:  "PLEASE NOTE that the so-called British Helsinki Group is NOT affiliated with the IHF"  There is no much to say. EvilAlex 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're exaggerating, Mark. Nobody here said Transnistria is banditland. We're simply reporting here that the general perception (that is the NPOV) is that standards of democracy and rule of law are lower there than everywhere else in Europe. That's all. Dpotop 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As concerns your "British human rights group", I'll stick with its wikipedia definition, which states that it's unreliable, and that's not  clear who pays them, who's a member, etc. Nothing to do with NGO's like the Amnesty International, MSF, or even the true Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. In other words, a sort of rogue NGO. Dpotop 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  As has been made absolutely and abundantly clear on numerous occassions, the BHHRG is not a human rights group. Have you identified my Romanian employers yet? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Lets not engage in small talk regarding your employers, If you have them all I'd wish is that someone from a higher level would take a look because this nonsense serves nobody and it serves Moldova least. Mark us street 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hopefully all this listening to yourself vent is relieving the pressure. BHHRG will be removed and where more reputable individuals can be identified, they can certainly be quoted/referenced as Pernambuco indicated. We can leave the BHHRG (and Mark Almond) on as a pro-PMR web site in the reference section. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BHHRG Redux 

message: The page has been overtaken by propaganda. Needs an overhaul Mark us street 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific, here we go again with you calling the whole page intellectual swill. I'm assuming you don't consider the BHHRG references to be removed to be part of the propaganda you speak of.  —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   To be specific.It starts with the intro which is pure nonsense. Then, as you make your way through the articles you quickly realise it is an all out 'information war' propaganda attack. The Crime, Terrorism, Weapons, Smuggling sections are sensationalist and hype things in an obvious manner that's beyond belief. In truth, they should be completely deleted.. I am not allowed to edit. If I try I am reverted and if I re-enter there is enough Romanians to keep my edits out. I can say there is not a single line on that page that is mine.  It has got so crazy the Romanians have outdone themselves and the entire page will backfire and drive a deeper wedge between the peoples of both PMR and Moldova. That's the irony. Just like the customs blockade, it drove the Transnistrians even more against Moldova. I am not in a position to help Wikipedia as the page is defended by pro Moldovan / Romanian promoters, The Transnistria page has been violated and bears little resemblance to reality. It is now a tool for propaganda and aimed at unwary masses because no government agency can take it seriously anymore. I don't expect the current editors here to react in a positive way because they see it as a current policy to rub Pridnestrovie's face in the mud. Maybe someday a wise one will appear.Mark us street 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transnistrian face was in the mud since 1992. Re: "Propoganda" have you ever read this sites: tiraspoltimes.com pridnestrovie.net visitpmr.com  tiras.ru regnum.ru ? You dont know what is Propaganda. You need to live in Transnistria to see what is going on in real life there. EvilAlex 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do, and the dirt you write about these people does little to help them or your cause  Mark us street 20:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you work from your "office" which is not there, as you've stated, and when you've forgotten to log on, you've shown up with an Irish broadband IP address (even when you say you were in Los Angeles). No one is writing dirt about the Transnistrians, we all have the deepest and most profound sympathy for their living in a Soviet time capsule. It's the government (and the whole ballet to make it look legitimate) that is the issue. Stop saying we "hate" the Transnistrians or we "treat them like dirt", etc., etc., etc. If you keep this up I'm sure someone will have the sense to ban you permanently. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i am writing only the true. You cant just hide it, now or later the true will come out anyway. You will not help Transnistrians buy hiding their problems, only in free and open discussion we could help them. EvilAlex 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alex, there are some problems, not as bad as Moldova to be fair, but yes, things can be hard, Things have changed , are changing, this is what the people want. they have that right. Mark us street 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see how things changing: population decreases like in a war time. What do you wont me to write a fairytale? EvilAlex 21:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  And as soon as independence is recognised the economy will grow and people will return. Mark us street 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow I feel that's not going to happen. It would set a dangerous precedent; first Transnistria, then... Chechnya! //Dirak 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: Hey guys; one of the editors emailed me about this flag so I wanted to let yall know this: the ratio  is officially 1:2, so I am not sure why that one website uses a 2:3 ratio. I think they got the colors right, so I will try and fix those as much as possible. But to use the plain flag or the hammer and sickle flag, I do not know what would be good to use. It is true that the hammer and sickle flag is used officially by the Gov't, but since we are not owned by them, we could use whatever flag. However, most of the official PMR websites are down, so I cannot see what flag is used the most. If you have any questions, see me please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I changed the colors to match http://pridnestrovie.net/flag_pmr.html, but kept the ratio at 1:2. I checked the MFA, they used the plain flag. The only website that I saw the hammer and sickle flag was the constitutional court in a possibly outdated photo. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'n not one hundred percent what's right. http://pridnestrovie.net/flag_pmr.html which is an official site shows the dimensions to be 2 by 3. However the actual law says that "Отношение ширины флага к ее длине - 1/2" the ratio of the width to the length is 1 to 2. But I guess the law is right, so it would be 1 to 2. TSO1D 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is an article called Flag of Transnistria that you could also edit if you are interested. TSO1D 12:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make some edits there eventually, but I just wanted to let you know what I got in email. The other issue that was brought up to me was what flag to use on Wikipedia. I am leaning towards the one without the hammer and sickle, based on useage issues, not I am not sure if "State" flags are used more in the infoboxes than the "civil" ones, but I want to discuss this with yall before anything gets changed. I would have done it by email, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was busy last night mostly tending to a Latvian web site (on top of a 5 hour daily work commute). My orignal inquiry was, are the flag icons in use supposed to mirror the actual flag? The PMR law states all governmental use must have the hammer and sickle--we should reflect that until such time it changes. The "plain stripe" version, if you read the actual law, is intended to allow people to use the flag colors, etc. for their own use, without hammer and sickle, in any aspect ratio or form they choose. While there are photos which show parliament with a flag symbol on the wall without said hammer and sickle, that's not the official flag, it's mererly a flag-like decoration (if we don't want to accuse the PMR parliament of breaking its own laws). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the flag icons, it doesn't matter what we pick. For example, the State Flag of Venezuela is used on articles and some tags. But for the stub tags, articles for sports events, etc., is used by the Civil flag without the arms. For the sake of viewing, I would pick the plain flag for stub tags,  and the state flag for the infoboxes and all of that stuff. Plus, I do not believe that we are endorsing a specific flag if we choose the plain one over the hammer and sickle flag. Both flags are legal, both are used by government organs, so it is matter of choice of what looks better, and to me, the plain flag will work for the icons (due to the small size of it). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll accept your use, though, again, use without the hammer and sickle by any government organ is illegal. We can simply update the full size SVG file descriptions with the actual rules surrounding the use of the official and unofficial versions. Thanks for your help! —— Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be left to our article on the PMR flag. Plus, as I mentioned before, we are not an  organ of the PMR Government, so we pick which flag we use. I'll make the changes later, food is calling my name very sweetly and softly. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bon appétit! — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of Transnistria 

message: The propaganda war against the Transnistrian people is collapsing by the minute. On Monday 15,000 flag waving people entered the city centre to celebrate the election of their President. Can we now agree to delete all the rubbish about elections not being fair and free, it's pure nonsense.   Mark us street 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, absolutely... //Dirak 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! TSO1D 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like Chimps Mark us street 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean, like in the following image? Dpotop 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: pictures of the demonstration and the flags. jamason 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting pictures. I can see transnistrean flags, russian ones, but cannot identify the yellow ones. Do you know what they represent? Dpotop 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe Proriv? TSO1D 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the yellow ones with Che are proryv (more here). I also see a pennant or two for individual Transnistrian factories. One in the penultimate photo says "elektromash."  jamason 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone recognize the one vaguely similar to the Estonian or Latvian SSR, but with a green band on the bottom? jamason 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  The denial of the recognition and the ecomonic strangle associated with this continues to cause strain  in areas such Pridnestrovie's health service. Children are dying because of you. I have learned in Tiraspol that an economic war and propaganda war cost many lives  just as a military war. However the victims are the old and the sick. You gentlemen are at the frontline of this propganda war to destroy the Transnistrian people. This is not a game. On Mnday the Transnistrian people took to the streets to call out for their freedom. LOL ! Maybe you need to be dragged into a hospital by the scruff of the next and be shown a child dying because of you actions here in the propaganda war to deny Transnistria her rightful freedom and self determined independence, Mark us street 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ромыний дин Транснистрия сынт де акорд ку тине сау дореск унификаре ку Република Молдова, ши дупэ ачея ку Ромыния (Ilie Ilaşcu)? //Dirak 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And so it goes on, never a hand of friendship, just more bashing and pain, and somehow you think this will bring everyone together in the end. it is insane !!!! Mark us street 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, who do you think is the cause of this mess? I say it's Russia. //Dirak 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We here are responsible for the deaths of innocent children in Transnistria? Russia and its Smirnov/Antyufeyev thug-puppets are the problem there. That's at least #5 from you accusing people here of hatred and malice towards the inhabitants of Transnistria. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Deutsche Presse Agentur reported on the election in an article "Polls certain to confirm one-man rule in Transnistria," stating: "Smirnov, a welder by training who likes to see himself photographed in true Soviet style as a benevolent ruler against an azure-blue backdrop, has ruled over this pro-Russian region for the past 16 years." . The only thing missing is the Papa-Stalin baby pictures. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thousands take to the streets 

message: Alas, Mark, I see this following edit of yours reverted: "There is no longer any doubt that elections are fair and free, this has been confirmed by international election monitors. The last election for President Smirnov in December 2006 saw an outpouring of support for his victory when 15,000 flag-waving people rallied in the city centre in support of the President and of Independence."   I must say I had a good laugh, so if I'm laughing then there must be no joy in Smirnovtown tonight.   P.S. If you let me know where you got your observers list hardcopy perhaps I can contact them for a scan/fax. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No joy in Smirnovtown? 

message: Tiraspol Times is saying (what a surprise!) Presidential candidates agree that voting was free and fair; transparent, however, it seems that at least one of the candidates, Andrey Safonov, raised doubts about the results see last paragraph. A strange thing for me was the "early voting" procedure - people were able to cast their votes starting with 5 December “VOTUL ANTICIPAT”, INVENŢIE TRANSNISTREANA. I had a small edit war  about the early voting procedure with Mauco, at Politics of Transnistria article, few days before the elections. I considered relevant to include a mention about it in that article, Mauco doubted the relevance. My question is what observer can be sure that ballot boxes are not changed during the night? Were the observers permanently at polling stations from 5 to 10 december, 24h/24?--MariusM 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea whether the ballot boxes were tampered with, but my views don't really matter. I believe that unless you can find a credible source suggesting that illegal manipulation has taken place, this information remains pure speculation and Original Research that shouldn't be included in the article. TSO1D 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was explaining some divergences I had with Mauco at an other article. You can look in the history of that article, I didn't introduce original research, I wanted only to mention that this procedure of early voting exist in Transnistria, but I was reverted.--MariusM 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidential Elections

message: Has anyone a complete list of towns and villages in Transnistria? That would be useful. :-) bogdan 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't this map have them all? --Illythr 08:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks a bunch! :-) bogdan 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoah, likewise! --Illythr 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's a nice bit of work. I've seen the new page too, now all the names need a page or explanation to go with them. Jonathanpops 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great work, but I hate to be a naysayer: Could we get the Russian names as well? After all, 99% of the inhabitants in Transnistria speak Russian and only about 30% speak Romanian.  - Mauco 11:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A list could be compiled from the map up there. But what are all these names for, anyway? --Illythr 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yep, the Russian names would be useful. Maybe also the original names of some villages which had their changed names (I suspect that at least part of the villages with names ending with -scoe and -ovca have changed names). bogdan 12:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towns and villages in Transnistria 

message: The Wiki Transnistria page has decended into a propaganda farce, Transnistrians are not allowed to edit their own page and unless you are a Romanian or Moldovan editor with a passionate hatred of the Transnistrian people you will not be allowed enter a single word on the page. I want no part of this hate-filled campaign on a new country trying to find her place at the international table. This pages serves nobody and Moldova least of all. I am washing my hands of you as I believe this page is only causing more hurt, hate and division between Transnistria and Moldova . Above all it shows there is absolutely no concept of  mediation, accomodation and negotiation on the Moldovan side. Mark us street 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good bye. But note that many wikipedians have left only to come back. Bogdan did it once, I left some subjects, etc. If you are truly addicted, you'll come back. :) Dpotop 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, did you leave, or just changed your name  ? Dpotop 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Goodbye Black  Propaganda Farce