Jump to content

Talk:Transnistria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvilAlex (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 27 October 2006 (→‎Weapons Trafficking suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archive
Archives

Fact: Transnistria is an unrecognized country

The Montevideo Convention sets out four criteria for statehood: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." On this measure, Transnistria is already a country, but of course an unrecognized one. Does lack of recognition invalidate the statehood qualification? International law says no, since article 3 explicitly states that "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Transnistria is listed on List of countries, and, get this, on the List of sovereign states.

However, in the interest of neutrality, we can agree to not call it a "country" but merely an "unrecognized country". Transnistria is also listed on List of unrecognized countries.

Will anyone here, except for the edit warrior (who says that he loves to get his war on), please explain how in any way, shape or form it would be factually incorrect to call Transnistria an unrecognized country? Comments, please. - Mauco 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that issue has been thrashed out, the edits can be made in due course but full discussion is still required to keep everyone onboard , nobody will be completely happy but we must proceed with the facts before us. MarkStreet Oct23rd 2006.
Well, let us keep the thread open for a while longer before making the edit. If no one else objects, then I will do it, but it is good custom to give others a chance to respond as well. Remember that there are editors who are not online at the same time that we are, so give them a chance to catch up and add their comments (constructive comments, please). - Mauco 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's no consensus about it being a "country" separate from Moldova. Some definitions of "country" might require international recognition. Anyway, "region" is a neutral as it can be. A region tells you that it's a "portion of the earth's surface", but not whether it's independent, recognized, etc. bogdan 21:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Region is fairly neutral. However, I think that what MarkStreet was objecting to, when he raised the point earlier today, was the phrase "region of the Republic of Moldova". It sort of is, and it sort of isn't. The intro paragraph is not the place to get into that in detail (we do that elsewhere).
Furthermore, Bogdan, please play fair here. You are using an EvilAlex-style argument by claiming that the issue is whether or not to call it a "country". That is NOT the case. The proposal is "unrecognized country" which is a whole different ball of wax altogether, and a much less controversial proposal than merely "country". In fact, for accuracy's sake, it is a more common definition of Transnistria than the phrase "region of Moldova". In all the major lists of countries, including here on Wikipedia, Transnistria is listed as an unrecognized country: here, here and here so this proposal is hardly anything new to Wikipedia or radical at all. It has been debated by other editors on the Talk pages of these 3 compilation lists. - Mauco 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from the Republic of Moldova in 2 September 1990.

instead of:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region of the Republic of Moldova in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence in 2 September 1990.

bogdan 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. Remember, we already cover the whole Moldova/Unrecognized country debacle elsewhere, so the less of that we can have in the intro, the cleaner it is. Just one correction: take out "Republic of" because that only started in 1991. So the final wording would be:
Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is a region in Southeastern Europe which declared independence from Moldova on 2 September 1990.
OK? - Mauco 22:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. Be consistent with the info-box at the end of the page. Transnistria is = "Unrecognised state". Keep that. - Pernambuco 06:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's an "unrecognized state", still part of Moldova for all people in the world except some of the Prednistrovian people. So, the NPOV must be heavily balanced towards the status quo. Dpotop 06:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree with whats been suggested by all above but would like to see the final version to ensure its fair and accurate. Remember its not what you, they or we think , its about what it is MarkStreet Oct 24 2006

To me the phrase 'Unrecognised state' is a bit confusing. A state is often part of a larger country, so even if Transnistria did officially join Moldova it would still be called Transnistria and be a state. I think that most people who are pro joining Moldova see Transnistria as a state of Moldova already. So anyway I think 'unrecognised country' is better, which reflects the fact the most of the world does not see it as a country but also the fact that it's government (at the moment at least) is trying to make it so that it is a country. I also agree that 'region of Moldova' suggests a point of view and shouldn't be used.--Jonathanpops 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanpops, Bogdan already switched that to "a region which declared independence from Moldova" which is NOT the same as saying "a region of Moldova", so I have to correct you, and with regards to the "unrecognized state" argument, Pernambuco's point was that this is the term used on the page already (in the large infobox at the very end of the page). If that is wrong, then the info box is wrong, and Pernambuco just argued that it should be kept in that phrase in order to have consistency in the page. It is similar to how we use Transnistria throughout, even though others use Transdniester and Trans-Dniestria and other names like that. We then have a section where we explain the whole thing in detail (just like we do with the names). - Mauco 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Jonathanpops' point here, the use of the word country is a more precise definition than 'state' given that 'state has two meanings it would cause confusion. MarkStreet Oct23rd 2006.
Guys, you are going in circles. I, myself, think "unrecognized country" is best, but others (Pernambuco, Dpotop, and Bogdan) do not agree. Should we try to convince them? So far it is 3 against 3, but this is not about who has the most "votes" but about who makes the most logical sense.
As an alternative, Bogdan proposed "region" but the two other users don't agree with that. They both instead prefer "unrecognized state". I am open to that compromise, too. I agree that it is a bit confusing, BUT the argument from Pernambuco is that it is part of the infobox at the end of the page and Dpotop agrees. I can accept that, too, just to get the whole thing solved. Not perfect, IMHO, but some the others think so which means I am OK to compromise as well. - Mauco 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongy disagree, using 'State' is highjly confusing because state is another word for provisional county. It is offically a country albeit not recognised, therefore that's exactly what it should be called. I checked with Century Traveller Club and they say its officially deemed a country. Hopefully thats that.MarkStreet Oct 24th 2006.
Instead of region, and avoiding the whole official/unofficial/recognized/unrecognized, since the "PMR" does have specific boundaries, perhaps: Transnistria ("Pridnestrovie") is a territory in Southeastern Europe which declared independence from Moldova on 2 September 1990. I'm sorry, but we have to do better than quoting travel agencies as authoritative sources. Ten years after Latvian independence the British Tourism Board published a brochure about Latvia stating that the 3 stars on the Freedom Monument in Riga represented the 3 Baltic States, and that the monument was built to thank Stalin for liberating them from the Nazis. Let's be serious. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so to summarize: We have four proposals - "region", "territory", "unrecognized state", and "unrecognized country". Actually, all of that should be dealt with IN DETAIL, including Moldova's territorial claim and the lack of recognition, but right now, we are only looking at how to phrase the introductory sentence. It should be as neutral and accurate as possible. Please don't vote on it because it is not a popularity contest, it is about how we can best summarize things without showing bias against the Moldovan position or the Transnistrian position. - Mauco 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Century Travel Club is not a travel agency, best research before commenting please, but I agree that it is not an absolute authority. The point is Transnistria is deemed an unrecognised country, it is not a nice thing to call it, they may find it insulting but that is what it is. To further downgrade it to a 'region' or 'territory' is not being accurate. It passes all and every aspect of being a country and is listed as one on Wikipedia's own list of countries. It is pure political game playing to downgrade it to ' Territory'. I agree that Moldova's claim should be including. That is fai. It is also proper to point out that the international community has of yet failed or refuses to recognised the de-facto independence. But and this is key. We cannot shy away from the FACT that Transnistria is a country with its own, Parliment, Consitution, Army, Currency, Borders, Customs, posts, Unique police force, its own President, Ministers. Can anyone think of anything else a country must have before its a country. It is listed as a country everywhere else on Wikipedia, Clearly it has to be listed here. The debate should be whether it is deemed a 'country or unrecognised country. Mauco's inclusion of region and territory are not appropiate or even scientific.

As a country the only thing is does not have is 'recognition'. Therefore to be sensitive mention that MarkStreet 24 Oct

Because MarkStreet reopened the issue of how we define Transnistria, here is my proposal: Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under Russian military occupation.--MariusM 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does not sound very neutral. The other four proposals are more neutral. My own suggestion is to just be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. If they use one particular term we do the same. That term is appropriate on all other pages so why not also here? - Pernambuco
It may sound not neutral, but is true. Russian Army is there and was there from the begining of the creation of PMR. Without Russian Army, today we would not have the subject of our disputes here in Wikipedia.--MariusM 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is true, there is a whole section to indulge in that. We are only discussing the intro sentence, and there have been several proposals for how to make it sound as clear and neutral as possible, I agree with the user who says that your idea is not neutral. It is similar to MarkStreet who wants to call the place a "country" with no ifs, ands or buts. Both of you have your arguments, and in a way, his argument is true as well (if you follow international law, see elsewhere on this Talk page for examples). However, the intro sentence is not the place for neither of you to pursue extremes. - Mauco 16:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement with you Mauco, My position is factual. Marius' statement about Russian troops is not correct. There are no troops in TD per-se , there is an international peace keeping corp of which Russian troops play a role along with Ukrainian and others.. They are only on the border to keep sides divided. The vast majority of TD residents want the peacekeepers so we cannot call then an army of occupation. Marius was only joking I doubt he ever really considered his statement a real effort, In fairness mine was. So please Mauco stop treating me as an extremist. MarkStreet Oct 25th 2006
Yes, I agree. I can see now that the statement from MariusM was only proposed in jest. However, we call that "trolling" and it would be better to argue on one of the 3 or 4 proposed alternatives, instead of coming up with something new which he already knows will not be accepted by other editors and where there is zero chance of reaching consensus. - Mauco 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep the referendum sub-section?

Referendum is already 40 days old, we have a separate article on it Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I believe it will be enough to let only a short sentence about it, with a link to the main article. It was worthy to have a referendum sub-section in this article only as long as this was a current event (this was my position from the begining, see talk archive).--MariusM 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly important part of the contemporary history of Transnistria. The outcome also either shows that the voters are massively opposed to unification with Moldova, or that the Central Election Commission is massively good at fraud (depending on how each individual reader chooses to interpret the results). - Mauco 08:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we have a main article. A mention of the referendum should remain, with a link to main article. In this article I believe is enough now a short sentence. Summary here, details there.--MariusM 12:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marius has something of a point here, the section is not suitable unlesss a history of all constitutional refe are used MarkStreet
MariusM, you should probably propose the sentence or short section that you want to keep. Please post it here for prior review so it will be easier to evaluate it. It is a bit hard to really know what we are saying yes or no to, without seeing a concrete proposal. - Mauco 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. MarkStreet Oct 23rd
Yeah, well, apparently MariusM does not or he would work with us constructively to propose an alternative. As you can see, there are some users who just want to delete information that they don't agree with (such as the fact that nine out of ten in Transnistria don't want unification with Moldova). - Mauco 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for rephrasing the referendum subsection:--MariusM 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 17 September 2006, through a referendum was aproved the possibility of a future unification with Russia.

Main article: Transnistrian referendum, 2006

Political status

On the main page under the policy of accuracy I request the following changes be made and invite opinion on the matters. Firstly, I believe that date of independence 2nd Sept 1990 should be inserted. Secondly, it should be clearly stated that the Transnistrian government is in full command and control of Transnistria. Thirdly, i request the incorrect POV that the country is under 'the effective authority of Russia' be removed. There is no basis of truth let alone evidence that this is the case. Clearly the TD government is completely independent from Russian authority and enact their own laws in their own parliment without interference. 25th Oct 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkStreet (talk • contribs)

The territory under control of the PMR is not independent (though obviously you can indicate that something was declared). The "Transnistrian government" is not in full control of Transnistria, if it were, the (what you term) "peace-keeping" force would not be required. There's no basis in truth the "country" is under Russian control? Viz:
  • SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — “President”, born on 23 October 1941 in Khabarovsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport No 50 NO. 0337530
  • SMIRNOV, Vladimir Igorevich, son of SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — Chairman of the “State” Customs Committee, born on 3 April 1961 in Kupiansk (?), Kharkovskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 50 NO. 00337016
  • SMIRNOV, Oleg Igorevich, son of SMIRNOV, Igor Nikolayevich — Adviser to the “State” Customs Committee, born on 8 August 1967 in Novaya Kakhovka, Khersonskaya Oblast, Ukraine, Russian passport No 60 NO. 1907537
  • ANTYUFEYEV, Vladimir Yuryevich, alias SHEVTSOV, Vadim — “Minister for State Security”, born in 1951 in Novosibirsk, Russian Federation, Russian passport
  • KOROLYOV, Alexandr Ivanovich, “Minister for Internal Affairs”, born in 1951 in Briansk, Russian Federation, Russian passport.
The Russian government does not need to force anyone to do anything, the whole operation is run by Russians (who pop up periodically in Moscow for regular consultations). And let's not forget the Russian troops were supposed to withdraw, when was it, in 1999? The entire so-called "peackeeping force" is there in direct violation of an international agreement that Russia signed and now refuses to comply with because its co-opting of sovereign Moldavian territory has not gone as smoothly as it hoped it would. Instead of Russia honoring its international obligations, the Russian Duma passes unanimous resolution hailing its Transdniestrian breathren. Russia not controlling events? Please! You can state the PMR position all you like, noting it as such, but making that the entire sense of the article would make it into nothing but PMR/Russian propaganda. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emotional language is not needed to state your case. Nor do you need to put the peacekeeping force in sarcastic quotes. It is a peacekeeping force. It is keeping the peace. It is keeping the peace very succesfully. Since it started operating, not a single person has died. It is also not made up of Russians exclusively. Four different sides are involved. Three of them provide soldiers, and one (Ukraine) provides military observers. Moldova provides MORE soldiers to the peacekeeping force than Russia does. It was established by an agreement with Moldova. Moldova is a party to this agreement. It has not withdrawn or ended the agreement. The agreement is still in force. This is not PMR/Russian propaganda, but the opposite. - Mauco 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just as the links section is divided into PMR and Moldova, the same should be done to annotate the footnotes, that is, —Moldova or —PMR. That will stop argument about who is citing what/whose "side." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It would be unwieldly, and a "first" for Wikipedia. Whenever a source is mentioned which is biased, we make note of that in the article. For instance, I consider the EU list (which you quote) as useless and worse than bad. It is full of errors, as I have documented. This is why I only agreed to include it with the disclaimer that this is the EU's opinion. Then readers can decide for themselves if they will take it at face value. - Mauco 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, the date of the independence proclamation is already mentioned 3 times in the article: In the intro sentence, in the infobox (right hand side) and in the history section. Isn't that enough? Remember that the idea here is to present the information in an easy format, but not to repeat things that we like at every turn. - Mauco 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Russia's involvement, yes, the section can be improved. First, we have this sentence:
The Russian authorities contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist government in Transnistria. Militarily, this is debatable. You have heard the old saw that "winners write history", right? Well, in this case, there are no clear winners ... and as a result, there are two different versions of history. The Moldovan side overstates Russia's role. The Russian side tries to minimize it. ECHR was divided between a majority opinion and some fairly substantial minority arguments of a good segment of their judges. Jamason has started to work on some indepth research, and it has been covered by some German scholars in the recent past too. As regards our sentence, the word "contributed" is a bit imprecise but it wouldn't necessarily be inaccurate.
Next sentence:
The PMR remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of Russia, and in any event it survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support that Russia gave it.
This is crapola. Even the author of the sentence knew the problem. "PMR is under Russian authority" .. erm.... "Well, maybe not, but at the very least under decisive Russian influence" ... wait, hold on, maybe not that either ... "well, at least at any event, then it survives because of Russian help..."
So what is it? If we are not sure, it shouldn't be included. If we are sure, then that should be included and it should be accurate. Russia has certainly given aid to PMR, but so has Ireland, and the United States' State Department, and several other countries within the last year alone. - Mauco 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the use of the word 'serparatist'. It could be argued that Moldova is the Separatist state too. As a compromise the word should be dropped for both TD and MD, Please note that Ukraine also provodes peace keepers. .MarkStreet 25 oct.2006.
May I add that smuggling issue has been dismissed as bogus by the EU monitors. It should now go tooMarkStreet oct 26


Ilaşcu

I would like to improve on the following sentence (which is part of the 'Human Rights' section):
"In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, and three other politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, were sentenced to death by Transnistria authority.
First of all, he (like the others) was not a politician at the time of his arrest or his sentencing. They became politicians while imprisoned.
Second, it sounds like he was sentenced to death because he favored Moldovan unification with Romania. This was not mentioned at his trial at all. His activities were also not political carried out as a politician at the time. They were very violent, and he has never hidden that fact (even today, while in freedom, he still advocates violent action to reach political goals).
Third, only Ilaşcu got the death sentence (later changed and then commuted). The other three did not. The current sentence makes it sound like all four got sentenced to death. They never did. We are not writing a political screed here. This is important in an encyclopedia which is committed to just reporting the facts. If we know that something is wrong, it is our duty to correct it. - Mauco 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wasn't he the local leader of the Popular Front organization at the time? 2) I think that's the truth, in addition to the murders. 3) Actually, I didn't notice that part. Of course, only he got the death sentence, the others were imprisoned for 20 some years... Hm, their articles don't indicate the duration, strange... --Illythr 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. He was the leader of the local (Transnistria branch) of the Popular Front. They, at the time, wanted unification with Romania. Of course his activities were politically motivated. He and his group were not using political means, however. They never hid the fact that they believed in violence in order to bring about political change. This was not a position wholly shared by all of the Popular Front, of course. In fact, the Front's Transnistria-based branch split in two because of a letter which Ilaşcu published in a local newspaper, where he called for some really drastic measures that many (most, in fact) of the Front's followers did not agree with. This left him with his little core group.
2. He was tried for the murders. There is a lot of controversy about this. However, probably the key is that, as far as I know, he never denied the murders, not even after he got out. His whole defense was based on the premise that he wouldn't recognize the authority of the court to try him. This was the same defense that Milošević used in The Hague, and which Saddam Hussein is now using in his trial.
3. Ilaşcu got death sentence (but was released in 2004). Leşco got 12 years, but was released in 2001 (after serving 9). Petrov-Popa and Ivanţoc got 15 years each, and have so far served 13. They will be out in 2008, barring early release. I will add the duration of these sentences to their articles now. - Mauco 04:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia: They were not tried by some homemade "Transnistrian law" but according to the Criminal Code of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic. The prosecutors and judges were real prosecutors and judges who had been appointed by MSSR. Of course, the MSSR did not exist at the time of the trial but many of the laws were still in force, as you will recall. - Mauco 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on the grounds that the court which had convicted them did not have jurisdiction and that, at all events, the proceedings which had led to their conviction had not been fair. They also complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the confiscation of their possessions, and maintained that their detention had been unlawful, contrary to Article 5. Mr. Ilaşcu further complained of a violation of Article 2 on account of his being sentenced to death. All the applicants complained in addition of the conditions of their detention, relying expressly on Articles 3 and 8 and, in substance, Article 34.
Mr Petrov-Popa and Mr Leşco had been denied access to a lawyer until June 2003.
The Court held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release.[1]

Proposal:
 In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, a politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, was sentenced to death by Transnistria authority. Three other (names..) were sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
EvilAlex 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this proposal. That sentence is factually wrong. Please read what this particular talk page says on the subject. - Mauco 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal2:
 In the best-known such case, Ilie Ilaşcu, a politicians in favour of Moldovan union with Romania, was sentenced to death by Transnistrian authority. The other applicants were sentenced to terms of 12 to 15 years’ imprisonment with confiscation of their property.

"Applicants"? Don't copyvio, please. I will work you on a better proposal, but isn't it important to mention why he and his group was convicted, and the detail that Ilascu never denied his murders? - Mauco 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: why he and his group was convicted. Because of his political believes.
Re: Ilascu never denied his murders. He pleaded innocent on his trial
EvilAlex 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his defense was based on the premise that he wouldn't recognize the authority of the court to try him. This was the same defense that Milošević used in The Hague, and which Saddam Hussein is now using in his trial. Did you read some of the interviews that he gave to the press? He was proud of his group's violent methods and felt that terrorism was the right way to effect quick social change at the time. He currently lives in Romania and still gives interviews. He is a notable public figure and quite outspoken. - Mauco 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He pleaded innocent to ALL chargers and court verdict was: "The Court held, unanimously, that Moldova and Russia were to take all the necessary steps to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and secure their immediate release."[2]
If you disagree with decision from European Court of human Rights then good luck to you it is you chose .
Re: "He was proud of his group's violent methods and felt that terrorism was the right way to effect quick social change at the time." Any Ref: to prove your statement or should i believe you again? EvilAlex 13:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EvilAlex, I should have clarified: Ilascu did not recognize the authority of the Transnistrian court to try him. He did, of course, recognize ECHR, in fact, he himself was the petitioner! I have the deepest respect for the European Court of Human Rights and the work that they do. AFAIK, he never denied the two murders but merely questioned the (Transnistrian) courts jurisdiction in the matter. As for references, I will be glad to provide references for the full and final edit which we decide should be included in the article. If it includes a mention of his public advocacy for violent government overthrow (read: terrorism), then I will of course provide source citations for that as well. If not, then it is unrelated to the edit and you can do your own research, buddy. - Mauco 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So many words and no References at all. Please prove your position. Ref, ref, ref.... EvilAlex 14:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read: As for references, I will be glad to provide references for the full and final edit which we decide should be included in the article. If it includes a mention of his public advocacy for violent government overthrow (read: terrorism), then I will of course provide source citations for that as well. If not, then it is unrelated to the edit and you can do your own research, buddy. - Mauco 21:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me who accuses him of murder. In any normal society the basis of a fundamental right is innocent until proven guilt. You the one who makes accusations - you the one who will have to prove it. My position is backed by fundamental right - based on this he is innocent. Remember innocent until proven guilt. You cant just accuse anyone of murder and then say "do your own research". Put up or shut up EvilAlex 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been reading this page but I don't think that anyone was accusing anyone else of murder. You should both fight less. - Pernambuco 22:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

Well, unfortunately we just earned ourselves full protection thanks to the more and more frequent pointless and seemingly endless edit wars. It should come as no surprise that what triggered this move, finally, was a gross blanking of some fully sourced and uncontroversial United Nations information by EvilAlex [3], without even mentioning it here in Talk or attempting to seek any form of consensus with the other editors.

May I suggest to all that we use this "time out" as productively as possible, and try to work out some of the pending issues. This includes the definition of the phrasing for the intro section, as well as the issue raised by MarkStreet on how to rephrase the Russian involvement, plus my own suggestion that one of the sentences under human rights (dealing with Ilaşcu) can be made more precise. I also believe that MariusM will give us a proposal for how to shorten the referendum section, so it is not as if we are lacking in work. Hopefully we can use this time to settle on some mutually agreed phrasing, so that we are ready and in full agreement when protection gets lifted. Maybe I am hoping for too much? - Mauco 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your ref: http://www.undp.md/main/seesac_eng.shtml does not confirm your climes that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. Report recommends that the Moldova Government develops a targeted programme to improve small arms control. Also is says that territory under the control of Transdniestrian authorities is highly militarisedthe, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown.
You put your words in UNDP mouth. EvilAlex 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously did not read the full report. It supports all the statements which you tried to delete and blank, without any discussion or prior consensus. If you thought that something was wrong, why did you not ask first? That is what the Talk page is for. We discuss changes. We don't just delete whole sections of sourced information that we don't agree with. The latter is called vandalism, and it was your little stunt which caused the page to be locked down under full protection this time. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no it is not. read full report and compare to your paragraph you will find huge misinterpretation. EvilAlex 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such as? It would help if you could give proof and EXAMPLES instead of just throwing accusations around. I quote from official policy of Wikipedia, WP:CIVIL, which says that behavior which contribute to an uncivil environment includes: "Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute." EvilAlex, please participate in a respectful and civil way. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.- Mauco 17:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The latest research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking'. Can you show me that part in UNDP the document? Lets use exact words from the report and not your imagination (EVILs and DEVILs). And that paragraph will not sound so firm. EvilAlex 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The "latest research" is the report (source has been given). The report does not say outright that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking. It indicates it. The indication clear as water in several places in the main report, and also so important that they decided to include it in the summary. In the summary, it is less pronounced but still present, for instance by stating that production and trafficking of weapons has been exaggerated, and that there is no reliable evidence (at the time of the writing of the report, in other words 2006) that this is currently happening. If this is not an indication of a non-event, then I do not know how else you would define that word. I take it that English might not be your native language and that you are more comfortable speaking Romanian? If so, then there is also a Romanian version, and it says the exact same thing. - Mauco 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: It indicates it. If it indicates it then you decided to make report perfect by placing your words there. great! Lets use exact words.
Товариш Mако мой родной язык Русский. EvilAlex 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia so we are better off using English, and as you yourself admitted (albeit half-heartedly), my use of the word "indicates" is the correct word for the summary of the conclusions of the United Nations report. - Mauco 12:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We going to use citations from UNDP and not your words. It "indicates" to you, to me there is such citations as:"territory under the control of Transdniestrian authorities is highly militarisedthe, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown", which you yourself ignored. As i said before you have changed report so that it sounds perfect for you. EvilAlex 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On topic: We have a United Nations report which is clear on the issue. All other credible sources now say the same thing. There are no weapons factories in Transnistria and no weapons exports, no weapons smuggling, etc. This is a point which has been made public over and over again throughout 2005 and 2006: by Western diplomats, OSCE, the international weapons inspectors, the European Union, United Nations, etc. Does anyone here seriously believe otherwise? - Mauco 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation request

Indeed, Mauco, could you give me page numbers where it is said, as you claim, that "foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control?". I presume you know them, otherwise you qualify yourself as a troll, and should be banned for spreading false information. Dpotop 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to assuming good faith? Before you accuse other editors spreading false information and before you start throwing words like "troll" around, you must check the source which is provided. There are links to the full report, and if you are lazy and don't want to read the full report, there are also links to executive summaries. Both of them fully and completely support the statements included in your article. They are available in three languages, including your own tongue (Romanian). - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EvilAlex, I suggest we wait until Mauco replies. If he does not, or if he does not answer this question, we should report him as a troll (through an RfC). Dpotop 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would love an RfC, and maybe we should ask what vandalism is? That might be when someone shows up on a controversial page, goes straight to mainspace, starts deleting perfectly correct, good, true and fully sourced information which was part of a stable version of the page, and then only joins the Talk page discussion AFTER his pageblanking activity gets restored. Dpotop, to date, all of your edits have been highly POV and the particular sentence which you removed has now been restored. There was never any controversy about until MariusM solicited your services and made you become more active on this page. While discussing this with you, you became uncivil and started to impose your own criteria for sources, and your disruptive behavior generally took valuable resources away from editing. It is interesting that you are accusing others of the very same behavior which you yourself is engaging in. We can agree to disagree, but it would be good if you can concentrate on the facts and stop with trying to discredit other editors or their sources just because they don't fit with your Romanian world-view. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And report yourself for the same offence when you are there Dpotop, it wil save me the time of doing it., MarkStreet 26th 2006
Ok, I'll file one on you, too, for lies. I never put in the text information for which I did not have the source. Dpotop 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me !!! On this page alone you claimed that my contributions we being made by me on behalf of my employer, please supply the 'source' for that. Now you have coupled that by excusing me of lying. So twice on this page you have outdione yourself . If you have the good manners and good grace to excuse yourself I'm happy enough to let it go and it won't go any further than here. MarkStreet 26th 2006/
Yes, since dpotop is so quick on requesting sources, now it is his turn to back up his words with facts. All the stuff about how only people who are paid by Transnistria agrees with Transnistria is a cheap shot at discrediting those people who do not share his views and the views of his fellow Romanians. Now, please note that there is an official policy here on civility is a rule for the conduct of edits, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. No one should be like dpotop and go around and threaten people with an RfC as a way to get their own views imposed. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile Mauco should provide evidence to his edits, In fact the entire article should have the same criteria , which it does not 26th MarkStreet
Main points, from page 5 of the Executive Summary of SALW Survey: "Evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transdniestria has in the past been exaggerated (...) There is no reliable evidence (...) The Transdniesterian authorities regulate the use and and possession (...) Transparency (...) evidenced by good levels of co-operation in some areas during the research for this report." There are lots more of this, in detail, in the full report. Everything which is currently included in the article related to this subject is verified and fully backed up by the report which the United Nations published. - Mauco 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's compare what the report says and what you say:

  • Report: "While the Transdnistrean authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues, attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by the good levels of cooperations in some areas during the research for this report."
  • You: "foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control"

To me, "some areas" means "not all areas", and "attitudes may be changing" is not "there is currently transparency and good levels of cooperation". To me, the text from the report is OK. Yours isn't. Dpotop 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below for full answer. And, if anything, the United Nations report considers Transnistria to be more transparent in the field of weapons control than Moldova. Here is what it says about Moldova: "Levels of transparency within government ministries on topics relating to SALW vary widely." - Mauco 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, on one side you have Moldova: There is detailed information (4 pages) about state structures in Moldova, and the fire-arm crime is at normal European levels. Free press, NGO, a.s.o. And, guess what, the Ministry of Defence is more secretive. One would say Britain, Ireland, or even the US.
Now, on Transnistria you have far more documented weapons for a population that is 5 times smaller. There is an unknown number of weapons wondering free in the nature, and an undocumented number of weapons in Russian hands. There is no information on the so-called government. NGOs and journalists (including, probably, our fellow editor Mark Street from the Tiraspol Times) is, I cite, "either unwilling or unable" to investigate weapon smuggling (I wonder why). And because "attitudes maybe changing" you say that it's better than in Moldova?
Come on, you can't be serious. :) Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I wonder why a commission interested in fire arms spent 4 pages on Moldova and only 1 on Transnistria, given than the situation is more delicate in Transnistria. Maybe because there is less transparency? Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they feel that the problem is worse in Moldova. Surely you are already aware that Moldova exports weapons, right? Whereas in the case of Transnistria, there have been a lot of propaganda-accusations but no proof or hard evidence, ever. There is a difference. You may also want to know what EUBAM (the European Union's border monitors who are stationed on the border with Transnistria) have to say on this matter, in their official reports. - Mauco 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we ONLY use what is in the report, word for word, but Thanks Mauco for coming back. MarkStreet26th Oct

Drotop, are you splitting hairs? Surely you, more than anyone, should know about copyvio. We always rephrase on Wikipedia. What were the foreign experts trying to say? The gist of that is included in my summary, just not word for word. If in doubt, please read their full report and not just the exective summary. Selective interpretations to fit a Romanian view of Transnistria are not neutral and are not welcome. - Mauco 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re Mauco "We always rephrase on Wikipedia" in other words Mauco will always put his words in somebody's mouth. EvilAlex 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:COPYVIO if you are not yet aware of why we have to rephrase on Wikipedia. Thank you. - Mauco 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why do you always seem to rephrase decent text into propaganda? You sound like a spin doctor payed by some Mafia boss to build a decent image. Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a comment related to the editing of the main article, then please state it. Otherwise, I would kindly request that you refrain from speculating on personal issues involving editors that you have a conflict dispute with. It is highly inappropriate to imply that another editor is here because he is being paid to do his work, and truly below the belt to include words like "mafia boss" in the text. - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're talking about COPYVIO, you also probably know about FAIR USE. Dpotop 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do, and if you read my answer to EvilAlex, you will see that it not specifically directed at this particular edit but a general, Wikipedia wide response. As such, it stands. - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And my advise to you to read WP:TROLL EvilAlex 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which I why I specifically should NOT reply to the above comment... - Mauco 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody with any reading comprehension skills can look to the example Dpotop gave above and see that Mauco is rephrasing "decent text into propaganda," and there are many similar instances of this. This is "splitting hairs"? At some point, one has to stop assuming good faith. --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation. Your invitation to assume bad faith is also uncalled for. It would be more useful and constructive if you would provide an alternative way of phrasing the same information. There is no evidence of any weapons production. Period. There is no evidence of any weapons smuggling. Period. The United Nations report says this, using the best possible diplomatic language they can. - Mauco 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation. Yeah, I guess. Try handing the phrase and your rephrasing to anybody not familiar with the discussion and asking whether your version bears a close resemblance to the original. I'm a translator, dear Mauco, and am often compelled to interpret. Try it, Mauco, seriously. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Of Communism

One of things I encounter most as a reporter on the ground in Transnistria in regard to people fears regarding Moldova is the Communist Government that exists in Moldova. Transnistrians really hate communism, they prefer the Open Free Market Democracy of their current system that is much more western style . I think its important to state that the Transnistrians have a fear of the Old style communists . This is why the commie party does really badly in TD. Not one of my edit requests has ever been made ,yet I am the only Transnistrian voice on here. Unless things change I am going to call in higher mediators to settle matters. MarkStreet 27 2006.

Delusions, no wonder Tiraspol Times have such a poor reputations. Transnistrians really hate were there is no hot water, were they have been ruled by foreign power, were their country UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory EvilAlex 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MarkStreet, please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page. You are not a Transnistrian voice (maybe only an employee of Transnistrian government). The only transnistrian voice here is User:EvilAlex.--MariusM 11:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Marius, what happened to the much-touted "Romanian democracy"? Are you asking MarkStreet to shut up just because you disagree with his opinions? This is censorship. MarkStreet has a right to his opinion and - unlike some of your comments - all of his edits deal directly with the subject of this page. They are ON TOPIC, and he provides edit suggestions and edit requests. Now, as you know, I do not agree with him on all of his suggestions. In fact, I have rebutted most of what he suggested. But he has a right to his opinion. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as for calling them "fallacies", that is what the Talk page is for. You can debate him, but you can not ask him to shut up or try to smear him (as you have tried to smear me, too) by speculating that someone is or is not an employee of the Transnistrian government. You may want to read Wikipedia policies regarding these matters. Discussion should focus on edit work, and not be a social discussion nor should it involve personal comments on other editors. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, MariusM, you yourself have made several edits in mainspace for which there was no consensus and for which you have been reverted. Meanwhile, MarkStreet has NOT done the same. It has been pointed out to him (by me) that he has a possible conflict of interest, and we have requested that he only edits in Talk. He has followed this request. This is in stark contrast to some of your behavior and the behavior of your colluder, EvilAlex. Both of you have a history (which I can document) of jumping right into the main page and make highly controversial edits without first discussing them with other editors in Talk. We don't always agree with MarkStreet, but his behavior here is much better than yours, and he certainly has a right to share his opinion with us here in Talk. We can then decide if we agree with him or not. - Mauco 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked MarkStreet "please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page" and Mauco is crying: Censorship! Democracy in danger! Wikipedia's rules are not followed! EVILS and DEVILS MariusM, Dpotop, EvilAlex (list is open) are making edits in the main space without Mauco's agreement! However, when MarkStreet claim "I am the only Transnistrian voice on here", this is a fallacy, as he is not born in Transnistria and don't live there, at most he is sometimes a tourist in that place.--MariusM 13:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MarkStreet is NOT adding any fallacies anywhere. This is a TALK-page. He states his opinion. He has never made a single edit in mainspace. Now, you can be a Transnistrian voice without having been born in Transnistria. The governor of California is widely accepted as being the official voice of California in many of the most important matters, yet he was not born in California. What is your point? MarkStreet has a right to his opinion, whether or not you agree with it or not, and it is improper to ask him to stop. - Mauco 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Let me remind you that Wikipedia Is Not A Forum, so opinions are not really relevant on talk pages. bogdan 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this sanity reminder, Bogdan. I myself added the following template to the top of this Talk page just a few days ago: "Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum." What this means is that we can not censor MarkStreet or anyone else because of their opinions, or ask them to shut up. But we can (and should) ask everyone, including MarkStreet, to only comment on issues which are relevant to editing the main article: Edit suggestions, sources, etc.
PS: I just archived the 300K-long Talk page, as Archive 7. I kept topics open where we still have some pending issues to take care of, in advance of the protection being lifted. - Mauco 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this sanity reminder, Bogdan, But it seems that Mauco decided to continue his TROLLING EvilAlex 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please stop with all the namecalling around here? Be civil, all. - Mauco 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments even on this page are constantly being edited out, It's very frustrating not having a voice on this page never mind on the main page.......every agreed edit never took place. Its a complete waste of time. I have lost all faith that Transnistria can have a voice on this. If higher people in Wiki want me back in the future fine but for now I am leaving these pages. I have worked hard on presenting factual evidence for the main page, not a single edit has ever been inserted. Yet it has been widely agreed I am the only TD voice here. Imagine a USA page where USA citizens have no voice and Al Jaz writes it. MarkStreet 27th 2006
Just for the records: it was never agreed that you are the only transnistrian voice here. It was not even agreed that you are a transnistrian voice. Are you a transnistrian citizen?--MariusM 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can be "a Transnistrian voice" without having been born in Transnistria. The governor of California is widely accepted as being the official voice of California in many of the most important matters, yet he was not born in California. Mark works for the only Transnistrian news source in English. He knows the score. They deal with news from the region every day. What is your point? - Mauco 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the USA page was written by Al Jazeera, it would look more or less like the Transnistria page does right now: With information that "yes, there is a democracy, but it is really only a sham" and a huge emphasis on crime, terrorism and weapons smuggling (much of which does not exist, as per the reports by EU, OSCE, U.N., etc). You should reconsider and don't let ultra-nationalist Romanians scare you away. The person who told that your voice in the discussion was not welcome was clearly out of line. Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. - Mauco 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Trafficking suggestion

1. OK Proposal instead of this:
The latest research published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) indicates that Transnistria is not involved in arms production or trafficking.[38] It states that evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, and affirms that although there is a likelihood that trafficking of light weapons could have occurred before 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. It also states that the same holds true for the production of such weapons, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip the local law enforcement but which are no longer produced. These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons.[39]

This one:
The latest survey published by the United Nations Development Programme states that the territory under the control of Transnistrian authorities is highly militarised, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown however the evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transnistria has in the past been exaggerated, while trafficking of weapons is likely to have occurred prior to 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. It also states that the same holds true for the production of such weapons, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip Transnistrian forces.


2. Delete :
However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control.[35]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria&oldid=84138136"