![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This page has been RFced because I feel the article in its current form is a Romanian POV. There is a factual and stylistical bias in the article. I was not able to resolve the dispute with some users here. I will withhold from editing this article for now (and from revert wars) until I here from other third parties. I propose the following changes.
I. The statements in the paragraph The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions on the Romanians' right to education and deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported are factually wrong and/or wrong in their current form.
Secondly, none of these facts constitute the "political status" of Transnistria and therefore they should be placed in the relevant sections like "Human rights". On the other hand "Human rights" already describes these facts in much more detail. Therefore, this paragraph is a candidate for deletion in my opinion. However, if there is a consensus that it should stay in "Political Status" it should read
Transnistrian authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the modern Romanian language. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported.
As it stands know, the paragraph is an eye-catching vehicle for a Romanian POV in the very beginning od the article.
II. The statement The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification, even more so then under Tzarist times is a speculation. It has to read The Moldovian SSR became the subject of Russification or The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy of Russification. However if the second, stronger, form is chosen, I'd like to see something like The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy of Russification. At the same time, traditional Moldovan culture was supported. If the second part of this statement is doubted, I will be glad to provide sources and facts of traditional music, literature and other festivals, as well as Moldovan cultural organizations in Moldovan SSR.
III. The statement ...on the basis of which a professional and fully-equipped Republican Guard was formed in 1991 is an overstatement. The Republican Guard can not be considered a professional army by any stretch of imagination. They were not "fully-equipped" as they, for example, did not have aircraft, but rather "well-equipped". The correct statement is ...on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991
IV. The statement On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to obtain their independence, under the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army is wrong in this generality. It should read On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army" (source: "Rutskoy on 'Dniester Republic,'" SOVSET, 7 April 1992 and [ [3]])
V. The statement In the course of the next days the city of Tighina was retaken by the communist Transnistrians - well, just no comment on this one. It wasn't here before. Probably added by some hot-headed editor quite recently.
VI. The statement This official document whose broad lines was established by the Russian side, was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur) is a speculation. Should read This official document was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur).
VII. The article contains a factual disbalance. There are currently mentions of several fact of the aggressive nature of Russia and Transnistria 1) involvement of the Russian 14th Army 2) Yakovlev's arrest, 3) Rutskoy's speech 4) Romanian schools closures 5) Ilascu's arrest. I don't see any mention of the aggressive nature of Moldova at this point, may be with the exception of Next morning the Moldovan forces moved into the city. I wold like some of the following facts to be mentioned for the purposes of parity (source: [ [4]] and [ [5]])
I emphasize: these are all facts collected by independent observers from Memorial ([ [7]] and [ [8]]).
I would very much appreciate comments of the third parties. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
If my POV tags keep on beeing deleted without discussion, or if someone deletes my RfC, I will immidiately move to arbitration. Thank you for understanding. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
I still keep myself out of this dispute because of some users' lack of civilty and bad faith but that's temporary, I am just short of time now. However, I just want to say one thing. If the practice of removing the POV tag will continue with not only RfC but honest attempts of dialog being ignored, dismissed or cursed (some users here are good in nothing but cursing), I will file a request for the article to be protected with the POV tag attached. If a sysop finds my request justified, this will make any edits of the article impossible until protection is lifted. I DO NOT WANT to make the article uneditable even temporary. Even strong POV edits would not have prompted me to request the protection for now. But removing the POV tag while the POV questions are elaborately stated and doing so in a complete disregard to an RfC process is such a blatant abuse of WP spirit, that protecting the tag by protecting the article would be the only option. Even at more controversial topics I have never seen such an arrogance that users would REMOVE the POV tag so persistently even when the tag is placed and elaborated clearly in a good faith. - Irpen July 4, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
I entirely agree. It is better for the article to be in development. This is impossible whith persistent obstruction of process by Mihaitza and Duca and by you, Vasile, to a lesser degree. When users disagree about neutrality, it is normal for the article to have a POV tag until the differences are worked out as long as the differences are being worked out. The tag simply shows that there is a serious disagreement on article's neutrality and users are working on it. The discussion on the talk page shows the work in process. Here we have the work in process, neutrality is disputed in a very clear way and yet you and other users are in denial and persist in attempts to hide the dispute from Wikipedians by removing the tag. My goal is not lecturize and even less so "impress" you. I call on you to respect the disagreement and stop trying to sweep it under the rug by hiding the POV tag. All I said is that there's a mechanism in the policy and if this continues, I will have to use it. - Irpen July 4, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Especially this: Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script. I do not agree that it should be moved from there because it is pretty important to the topic at hand.
I cannot agree with the following:
1) first of all you give very dubious sources. www.memo.ru is probably a Russian site that takes the Russian side. It is well known that Russia has an interest in the Transnistrian issue so it cannot be cited.
2) The discriminatory of the state law is not that discriminatory as you claim. You have stated before that you do not speak Romanian and you have hinted that you are Russian from Transnistria, however the state law offered 7 years for people to learn the language before it went into effect. I would say that’s a pretty long time. Also in every country the minorities do have to have a certain knowledge of the language of the majority to be able to work so there is nothing discriminatory in that.
3) In the combat actions, every side will give you their account of what happened. It is common knowledge that no atrocities occurred there, especially from the Moldovan side. It is therefore dubious if your claims are correct or not.
4) Shelling and use of aircraft is ordinary in any war so the fact that the Moldovans did it does not surprise me since it was a war.
5) The allegations of Romanian arms shipment is something that I have heard before. I do not know if it is true or not but if you can reference that then it would be a good piece of information to include it here.
6) I have never heard of the massacre at the village of Gasca. The name sounds very Romanian and as far as I know it’s a Romanian village near Tighina. Who committed the massacre? The Russians? It would be very illogical for Romanians to kill their own people.
PS: I think you have a great knowledge and I admire your perseverance for trying to redeem the image of the otherwise quite dubious, illegal Transnistrian government but you have to understand that some facts are just there to stay and that real facts are very hard to manipulate and you should give it up right now. However, if you are sincerely trying to commit to this article, then I think we can work something out. Which is why I ask you to stop putting the POV tag until we can exhaust every single possibility of managing it ourselves.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
-- Vasile 4 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Gaidash, why aren't the other sourses not acceptable to you?
I donnot think that refuting each other and getting into a war of words is what is needed here. I have noticed that aside from accusing each other and trying to impose your own biased point of view, neither Duca nor Gaidash have really done anything constructive. I agree that Gaidash has a great deal of knowledge but please let's use it consructively. It seems that all you want to do, is to turn this thing into a pro-Transnistrian and anti-Romanian article. Forgive me, if I am wrong but this is certainly how it seems. You have your own ideas and your own beliefs. I donnot agree with them. I still respect them but you have to respect your fellow wikipedians' beliefs as well and you must understand that no arbritration in the world will change this article according to your points above. Some are really dubious, let me tell you that.
For example: "the use of the Moldovan airforce". I really have to look into that because as far as I know, Moldova had a few MIGs but no pilots so then it would have been impossible for it to fly the planes. This is why it sold its planes to the USA and Romania(mostly USA).
Then the Gasca "massacre" or "pogrom" as you call it. I mean common. Nobody is going to agree that those little skirmishes there were a pogrom. That has to be dropped. If we mention that, then the Romanians will want the REAL pogroms mentioned against them. And they will also want to mention the ethnic clensing that occurred in Transnistria after 92. For example at the only university in Transnistria, all ethnic Romanian teachers were fired and expelled to Chishinau.
2)Let's look into the involvement of Romania and if Romanian ammo and weapons were supplied to the Moldovan Government.
3)Let's change the part about the "fully equipped republican guard", to "well-equipped" since I do agree that nobody, not even the USA can be fully equipped
4) Until we can exhaust every single effort to have a relative agreement(however we should keep in mind that people's opinions are so different that most likely we will never all just be in compleete agreement), we should not put the POV tag.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
"European organisms" are organisms that live in Europe, like European bison, common sparrow or Streptococcus. Please, correct (better tomorrow, as you have exceeded the 3RR rule today). Gaidash 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Ok guys, now there are two POV tags. I am not going to erase either one but we should only keep one.
Secondly, Gaidash has said that he wants 2-3 of his points included in for the same of ballancing the article. He made 7 points above; some are a little far fetched but some are really good points which could only enrich the article. And there are more then just 2-3 points there that we can certainly include.
Thirdly, Duca stop adding stuff. I don't know if you have actually payed attention, but Gaidash does not add stuff without actually proposing it here. I understand where you're comming from but what you are doing is not helping. It's actually escalating the whole thing.
Now, Gaidash is willing to drop the Gasca thing, "massacres" and the more dubious points he made; at the same time I think that pogroms in the Stalinist perdiod have to be dropped too, because it is also mentioned at the Moldova page, and under Stalinisms and also because then we might be getting into more complications, rather then come to an agreement.
The way I see it Gaidash makes the following very good points which I propose to be added into the article:
1)Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script.Arbitrary arrests of citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported. instead of the existing phrase.
2)on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991 instead of the existing phrase.
3)On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army. instead of the existing phrase.
( European Court of Human Rights)
4)In the course of combat actions in Bendery there were casualties among civilian population. However there were no purposeful annihilation of noncombatants or acts of large-scale violence against civilians. There were, however, occasional incidents of indiscriminate fire, launched by both sides at residential quarters. should be added. It is something that I at least, think is of some importance.
5)Romanian arms shipments were allegedly supplied to the Moldovan side. should be added. I personally have actually heard once that Romania got a plane from Moldova for some APCs which it gave to Moldova in the war.
Now, I really have no authority so nobody MUST listen to me and everyone can do as they please. But I really think this is something we can work out ourselves, so in the spirit of cooperation, I ask Vasile, Duca and others to be kind enough to accept these changes since 1) they enrich the article, 2)they ballance the article, 3) Gaidash has shown not only resolve but also maturity and so I ask Duca to adress the problem with the same kind of maturity next time he posts something here. Please don't take it the wrong way but sometimes, Duca, you seem like you are too impulsive and it just reflects bad on your arguments which otherwise might be listened to with slightly more sympathy.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
A stylistic thing which, in my opinion, is not done right here, is the name of the entity in the fact box. It says "Republica Transnistria/Transdniester Respublika". Ususally, the first entry should be in the language of the country, the second - transliteration. As it is done, for example, with Belarus in Wiki:
Рэспу́бліка Белару́сь/ Respublika Biełaruś
So it has to be one of the two, either
Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ/ transliteration
Приднестровская Молдавская Республика/ transliteration
Приднiстровська Молдавська Республiка / transliteration
Like this, with the Moldovan name written in Cyrillics, as this is the convention adopted in the entity.
Or, if it is judged that the name of the entity can not be written in its languages since it is not recognized, then:
Stînga Nistrului/ transliteration
Also, "political status" in the fact box should probably be "unrecognized, self-proclaimed republic".
Gaidash 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
I believe it is not practical to have the name of the republic in all of its three official languages, but I believe that the best way to resolve the problem is by simply using its Anglicized name of "Moldovan Republic of Transnistria". TSO1D 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
I attempted to correct some grammatical errors found throughout the article. I probably missed a few errors and further modifications to the text could enhance its quality, but the text in its current form appears to be adequate and I removed the clean-up tag. Of course, if anyone believes that the quality of the text is inferior to Wikipedia standards, you can re-insert the tag. TSO1D 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
I also attemted to add point 1) and point 4) which Gaidash suggested and which nobody challanged or openly disagreed with (of course if that is ok with everyone).
Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
I changed the word languages to language in order to make it correct. Thou I understand the reasoning for utilizing the italicized word "languages" as this was the proper name for the laws, in English this does not translate correctly. I also added a sentence based on your proposal that many non-Romanian citizens in Moldova viewed the laws as discriminatory. I also inserted the 2.a suggestion.
I would also like to bring attention to the problems that exist with having information about the Transnistrian armed conflict in the main Transnistrian article and in a separate article on the subject. The quantitative difference between the two texts is minimal and I am not certain that it warrents the existence of a separate article. This only leads to more problems as a user has to make the same change in both texts and this will lead to many differences. I believe it is more logical to keep all of the text on the conflict in the main article, at least for now. TSO1D 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
TSO1D, I hope you don't mind that I changed the "languages" part and I erased the fact that Russians considered it "discriminatory". The reason for that is that probably not every single Russian thought the laws were discriminatory and the second reason is that Moldova although inhabited mainly by Romanians, it has not just large minorities of Russians but also of Ukrainians, Gagauzians, Bulgarians, Jews, Germans, Poles, Byelorussians, Tatars, etc. etc.
It would really be a generalization to say that only Russians thought the laws were discriminatory so that's why I changed it to sound more like NPOV.
About the second Transnistrian War page, I agree with TSO1D that we should keep it all here. After all isn't the war a major turning point for the people in Transnistria?
Also I agree with Gaidash that the Ilascu part should be there. Nobody ever expressed their reservations about that, so I copy-pasted it from an older version.
In any event, I think we are getting very close to an understanding here. Hopefully nobody will come along and erase everything one more time.
Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
Gaidash, it appears that Goie did not erase the passage about the languages but simply removed the specific reference to the Russian-speaking, a modification which I believe is justified. I also agree with using the "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" version as this term is used most frequently, and by reputable organizations such as the OSCE. I ahve no objections to you making this proposed change. I also abrdiged the Ilascu text on the main page and only preserved the key elements of the case, as the rest of the information can be found on the more specific page. TSO1D 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Gaidash I assure you I will never erase anything, unless we will all agree upon doing so, in here. TSO1D pointed out correctly that I was only trying to make the statement more like it's from a NPOV.
Switching the subject however, I have reservations about this statement: "that [Transnistria] is on the territory of Moldova, thus between "Bessarabia and Ukraine"". It is not the geography that I disagree with since yes, transnistria does exist between Ukraine and...what many consider to be Bessarabia but we have to be careful when we state that. Why? Because there are differences between Bessarabia, Ottoman Bessarabia and Moldova or the Republic of Moldova.
For starters, what many consider to be Bessarabia today is in fact only the central region of the old Russian province of Bessarabia. The northern(Hotin) and southern( Bugeac) regions are now in Ukraine.
Secondly, Ottoman Bessarabia is only the southern part of the former Russian province of Bessarabia. In actuality, the term Bessarabia should only be applied to the former-Ottoman part or southern part, since the Russian Empire really tried to conceal the fact that they were annexing the eastern parts of the Moldavian principality by extending the name "Bessarabia" to those areas as well.
In actuality, the real Bessarabia corresponds more or less to Bugeac( now in Ukraine) while what many people call Bessarabia to this day is none other then the eastern region of the old Moldovan principality.
Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
In the breakaway chapter: The new language law was billed as "discriminatory" by some observers, in particular in its implementation.
-- Vasile 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Seriously. Discriminatory? HA HA HA! This article is turning more pro-Transnistrian every day.
At least it should say that the Transnistrian sepparatists claimed that the laws were discriminatory, in order to achieve their own aims, or something like that, because right now this article is really POV. I even agree that the POV check should stay there now, since it damn well should. Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia, not a palce where communists put their propaganda and make people swallow it.
Duca 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
I think a large proportion of the non-Romanian population of the Moldovan SSR believed that these changes were discriminatory against them. After all for almost two centuries urban areas were dominated by Russian-speakers and they did not feel that they represented a minority (the interbellic period was a wake-up call for some). The political dynamic was even more pro-Russian, as only a smaller proportion of the political class was composed of autochtonous persons, and Russian was the favored language in the adminstration of the republic. As a result the introduction of the new language laws terrified many non-locals as they did not speak the language as they did not feel a need to proceed so in the former circumstances.
More importantly, an emphasis has been placed on the implementation of the new laws. As it happened, within a brief period, Romanian became the only official language and thus mandatory for government positions. It was difficult for non-Romanians to adjust to this change, particularly as the state did not offer adequate opportunities for those people to learn Romanian.
I do not believe that it will be correct if we would add a sentence to the effect that some people considered the laws discriminatory and that some observers found their implementation to have been executed in a problematic manner. TSO1D 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
If there is no more opinions, I will remove the tags of POV. -- Vasile 6 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
Duca please, for God's sake, you are not helping. Look, for everyone's peace of mind, let's just keep it the way it is right now, when I am writing this message. So Duca, please, can you leave it alone. Can you do that?
If there is no more issues to be discussed and if everything has been resolved then I agree with Vasile that we take off the POV tag.
Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Here is a proposed version.
The main things I did:
Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)
Also, I don't know anything about Yakovlev. Can someone tell me how the Moldovan authorities arrested Lieutenant-General Yakovlev in Ukrainian territory ? And another question: are Andrei Ivanţoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa still imprisoned in Transnistria? Gaidash 6 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
I added the latin script again. I don't know who erases them either. About Tudor Petrov-Popa and Invatoc, yeah they are still in jail. Ilascu got out in 2001 and the fourth guy, I forgot his name got out last year.
Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
I would like to know the problems of "factual accuracy". Otherwise I will remove the tag. -- Vasile 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
Gaidash, I hope that you do realize that not all your proposals will be able to be placed specifically here, at wikipedia. On top of that, you yourself said that you wanted 2-3 of your ideas put in. So far we are working towards that. Let's not overdo it since I think that even as it is, Duca( and not just him) will express his disagreements with what is going on right now.
Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
Donue Goie, when I said 1/4, I refered to the things that we agreed on. I am not planning to insist on all thing in my RfC. What I don't get, is why Vasile keeps on rewriting the text while we are discussing? I mean, what the purpose of adding my facts, if there are two whole new paragraphs in the Armed conflict that describes how ROG was helping Transnistria? Now there's "ROG destroyed a Moldovan unit at Chiţcani on 30 June and they shelled several Moldovan positions at around Dubăsari, Slobozia...". I completely don't get it. Why I am writing a "proposed version" and putting it on a subpage for people to have look at before we make any edits? Why I am begging here for the inclusion of my facts (out of which the current version contains only 1, one, unu) if people just go there and throw in more stuff about glorious Moldovan defenders against the perfidious Russian invasion? Gaidash 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
If Vasile is making all that stuff up then we should erase it. But if Vasile is right, has a source, and if all that stuff really happened, then its really hard to refute it. Vasile is being civilized, its other people that I am worried about (I am not going to mention any names but I think everyone knows who I am talking about).
About your points, don't worry Gaidash, we are going to add more then just unu :) I personally think that you do bring good points concerning some aspects and it would be unfair to ignore them.
You mentioned that you would like the "discrimiation" part mentioned and the fact that "a russian 14th army outpost was attacked by Moldovan volunteers". Those were the main points, I think; correct me if I am mistaken.
Now for sure these facts have to be included; its just the language and the way they are said that I think bothers some people.
I propose that the discrimination sentence should sound like the way it is now. I don't know who changed it to the way it is now but it sounds neutral and good enough, I think.
For the attacking of the outpost I propose this: "Some reports have shown that Moldovan volunteers have attempted a retaliation, by using their aircraft in an attack on a Russian 14th Army outpost"
Domnu Goie 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Vasile is probably putting in absolutely right facts, at least I am sure that the transfer of weapons happened exactly the way he is saying. But, as I said - addition of new things about "bad Russians" will autamatically mean addition of more my facts about "bad Moldovans" - I will match every single new thing that he is putting in now. I suggest that Vasile stops because otherwise the article will grow out of proportions.
Vasile, I suggest that you erase these two new paragraphs - otherwise Gyska and Romanian arms shipments are going in. Gaidash 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
"Some characterized the language laws as discriminatory and criticized their rapid implementation."
In civilized world, a law might be considered discriminatory if for a number of person the state unjustifiably deny or obstruct a fundamental right or liberty. From the text, it doesn't appear any discrimination. "Some politicians agitated unsubstantiated "discriminatory" depiction for the language laws and criticized their rapid implementation." -- Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Look, I did not state that the law was discriminatory, because I do not consider it to be such. Nonetheless, many people did consider the law discrimanatory, and whether they were justified or not is a separate matter, but it is important that this was the case as this was a powerful argument for the breakaway of Transnistria and it is an undisputable fact that many did not agree with its implementation. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)
In every statement by the TRM, they talked about discrimination against them in Moldova, and were referring to the language laws. I do not agree with this statement, but we cannot just ignore it. It is a fact that these allegations were made, even though they were unsubstantiated in my opinion. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
"Autochtnous political class of the Moldovan SSR began appealing to nationalistic sentiments to a certain extent. "
The word "autochtnous" is a diminutive having no reason in context. (A lot of great ego-s exhibated on this article.) It's highly exagerating to consider "appealing to nationalistic sentiments" introduction of the latin alphabet, the flag etc. This is just normal in civilized world. -- Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
I appologize, but I do not understand your comment. What does the word autochtonous, which means indigenous diminish in size? And what does this have to to with anyone's ego? I agree that the introduction of the latin flag was necessary for practical reasons. And the adoption of the "tricolor" was a symbollic gesture that Moldova acknowledges its Romanian identity. These actions would not have been possible without the support of the Romanian majority, and polliticians appealed to the national pride of the indigenous population. I agree with you that these actions are also done in the "civilized world", by which you probably mean Western Europe and the US. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
I don't see anything that can be considered non-neutral about that sentence. I do not see how the word autochtonous or nationalistic are insulting. I will be glad to share my source. Iulian Fruntaşu, "O Istorie Etnopolitica a Basarabiei", Cartier Istoric,2002. Capitotul 5, Liberalizare lui Gorbachev Procesul de Nationalizare si Dezintegrarea URSS. TSO1D 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
And, more important, this author book "O istorie etnopolitica a Basarabiei 1812-2002" could be used for this article? Does anyone read this book? -- Vasile 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
What do you mean "does anyone read the book"? It is published by a reputable publishing establishment- Cartier and the author is a well-known political analyst.
As for the specific text, it is dispersed across various parts of the book, but here are some passages to that effect:
pg. 254: "Calea de tranziţie alesă de perestroika şi glasnost - liberalizarea, dar nu democratizarea structurilor centrale de putere posttotalitare şi consecutivitatea alegerilor, a contribuit decisiv la faptul ca naţionalismul exclusivist să devină forţa cea mai dinamică in politica [regională]"
pg 255: "În cazul Basarabiei [...] comuniştii moldoveni nu au fost în stare să însuşească, ci doar să se adapteze, această adaptare incluzând utilizarea proaspelor naţionale pentru naţionalizarea discursului." TSO1D 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Are there any more important disagreements that justify the existence of the POV and disputed facts tags? If so, then please list them here so that they can be addressed. TSO1D 8 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
No, as far as I am concerned everything is good now. I say, let's wrap this up :)
Domnu Goie 9 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
Vasile, are you sure that your new edits are necessary. Much of the information is redundant, and other contains information that needs to be checked, but which is not truly necessary. Some of it is simply incorrect, for instance Lebed never claimed that his tanks could reach Bucharest in two hours. This is a physical impossibility considering that the maximum velocity of the tanks is 40 mph and Bucharest is farther than 80 miles from the base of the 14th army. It is more probable that he was talking about Chisinau.
In any case your changes will lead to a great deal of debate and fighting for some minor changes, and we are at a point close to a compromise. Could you perhaps reconsider some of the broader changes? TSO1D 03:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Vasile, I distinctly remember reading that Lebed said that he could reach Chisinau in two hours, in the context that Moldova should not attack Transnistria. However, I checked your phrase and found that ECHR, the European Court for Human Rights quoted him with the phrase that you used in its decision in the Ilascu case, so I suppose the usage of the phrase in the article is substantiated. TSO1D 17:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There has been a new census update in PMR or Transnistria. Apparently the communist, rebel Smirnovist government has decided that to say that Romanians were 34% was still too much so in his marxist-leninist wisdom, his greatness decided to lower the number a little bit to 31.9% romanians, 30.2% Russians and 28.8 Ukrainians.
I am guessing that the rest of 9.1% are Bulgarians : 2%, Gagauzians 1%, Jews 1%, Byelorussians, Germans, Armenians, Poles, Tatars, Turks, Greeks, Gypsies, others 5.1%?
The population was likewise dropped from 580.000 from the preliminary results to 555.500. I read all this on the september 9th 2005 issue of Jurnal de Chisinau. I was wondering if anyone else has a Transnistrian site or something more official that we can place here as a source for the new data. I know that the Smirnovist terrorist pro-Russian government is not exactly primary source material, however it really is ridiculous to relly on a census and data that is 16 years old. Mihaitza 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[ [12]]. To state in the first paragraph that the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic exists is too much. There is no republic without a State and officially is not recognized by any country. Anyway the status of the region is still in negotiation.-- Bonaparte 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Does not exist a Transnistria state because the other contries do not recognize it!!! No country speak to transnistrian terrorists, and there is no embassy in there, and Transnistria has no embassies abroad. There just a russian army, and terrorize Moldavian authorities, and abuse people. Even Irina Polkina the psychologist of Rusian army from Moldova Republic said Russian soldiers drink alcohol,bring many whores in military camp and they sold military equipment and guns. She asked for mass media support! -- Dacodava
It is also internationally recognized as one of the "frozen conflict" region as stated by the Council of Europe.
[ [15]] Bonaparte talk & contribs
Sorry Mikka, you're wrong. Moldovan is identical with Romanian. As much hard you're trying to cover this you'll never be successfull. Other soviets have tried but failed. Moldovan/ Romanian. Bonaparte talk & contribs
I've added the tag disputed until it will be agreed to a better form of the article. It seems that the official and NPOV is not taken into consideration here. This is not a state or republic. Bonaparte talk & contribs
Presedintele Traian Basescu a declarat ieri, la Kiev, ca primul pas pentru solutionarea crizei transnistrene consta in retragerea trupelor straine din zona si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist.
In discursul prezentat la Forumul Comunitatii Optiunii Democratice, presedintele s-a referit la responsabilitatea Romaniei in calitate de stat membru NATO si viitor stat membru UE, in procesul de transformare democratica, aratand ca "Romania este gata sa impartaseasca din propria experienta, pentru ca ea insasi a beneficiat de sprijinul prietenilor". La reuniunea la care au mai participat presedintii Estoniei, Georgiei, Letoniei, Lituaniei, Macedoniei, Republicii Moldova, Sloveniei si Ucrainei, Basescu a abordat problema securitatii si stabilitatii in regiunea baltica-pontica-caspica. In acest context, seful statului a afirmat ca provocarea cea mai importanta ramane existenta in aceasta zona a unor focare de conflict, cum ar fi regimurile autoritare din entitatile separatiste Transnistria, Abhazia si Osetia de Sud. Presedintele Basescu a aratat ca, pentru Romania, Transnistria reprezinta cel mai apropiat si mai clar exemplu in acest sens. "Primul pas spre solutionare presupune atat retragerea trupelor straine, cat si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist, in baza unui calendar precis, cu garantii multilaterale", a subliniat seful statului. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Orioane! The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: ( http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National ( http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680)-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Basescu, like many Romanian politicians, is an irredentist imperialistic jerk. Moldova can damned well take care of itself. If Moldovans want a union with Romania, it will happen. But currently it's not the case. So Romania needs to back the **** off and let Moldovans do our own thing. You guys can get back to your irredentist ways when the majority of Moldovan citizens is in favour of union. But for now, Romanian irredentist imperialism is contrary to the will of the Moldovan peoples in general, especially given some of the stupid things that have happened in Romania since the early 90s, so now only a few people really want very much to be part of such a country. -- Node 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/12/051206_baze_romania.shtml)
-- Bonaparte talk 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/06/romania.rice.ap/
"The U.S. takeover of bases near the Black Sea -- putting U.S. forces within closer striking distance of potential targets in the Middle East and Central Asia -- would help "take terrorists off the streets" and save lives around the world, Rice said on Tuesday.
Rice, hailing Romania as one of the United States' "best allies," signed the agreement with Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu.
What was the result? - FrancisTyers 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I remind you the transliteration is made from Moldovan version of Cyrillic to the Moldovan version of Latin alphabets, and not from Russian version of Cyrillic to the English version of Latin alphabets. -- Danutz
I propose to split this article in two, Transnistria (reffering to the Moldovan region) and Moldovan Republic of Transnistria (reffering to the unrecognised republic). -- Danutz
Have a look at Chechnya (region of Russia), and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (unrecognised republic). Same reason. -- Danutz
What f*** historical?: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is the unrecognized secessionist government of the Chechen Republic. In 1991, as the USSR was collapsing, Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev declared independence of Chechnya.".
The Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the unrecognized secessionist government of the region of Trasnistria. On 2 September 1990 the Moldovan Republic of Transnistria was proclaimed. On 25 August 1991 the Supreme Council of the MRT adopted the declaration of independence of the MRT.
We are talking about two guvernaments, so we should split the articles. If that practice is used for Russia, why shouldn't that be used here also? Because this is Moldova? BTW, Transnistria also has a history of own, as an RSSA in the Soviet Union, back when Moldova was part of Romania. Transnistria is the autonomous region in Moldova (as is Chechnya for Russia), and Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the de facto breakaway Republic (as is the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria). -- Danutz
The proposal of Danutz is pretty much reasonable. The historical notion Transnistria is very much different from Moldovan Republic of Transnistria: the latter one is but a narrow strip. So the "history" section in the current article gives a false impression, not to say the intro is totally misleading. as to the usage of the term, failing to refer its old historical usage. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The ridiculous statement that "Sheriff" company controls all economy of Transnistria is removed. mikka (t) 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
America asks Russia to go out with their troups from Transnistria! Oficialul american a cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova
link: http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-12-23&id=13823
-- Bonaparte talk 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If it is acceptable to illustrate the great contribution of the Slav tribes in the nearby of the region, I humbly request the presence of some information about the ancient Greek and Roman activity in the region.-- Vasile 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
From what I saw, they use international .com/.net/.org domains. See: www.idknet.com; www.president-pmr.org; www.tiraspol.net bogdan 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Transnistria’s ethnic composition is unlike the rest of Moldova, and the region does not share the same interwar history as the rest of the country as part of socalled ‘‘Greater Romania.’’ Moreover, many of the ethnic Russians and Ukrainians that currently reside in Transnistria were not born in Moldova and only recently came to the country in the 1980s and 1990s (Note: Significantly, much of the current Transnistrian leadership, including Igor Smirnov, were born and raised in Russia and therefore not surprisingly have a different and hostile view of Moldovan identity and culture.)
The leadership has used these issues to cultivate a separate Transnistrian identity among youth and to socialize the population towards a Russian political space, rejecting European demands for democratization and conflict resolution. Transnistrian socialization has used traditional instruments including the media and school.
Indeed, one of the important agents of identity formation and socialization is education. There is a large political science literature that examines the impact that education has on group identity formation as well as on the process of individual political socialization. During the Soviet period, the education system in Moldova was used as a means to russify the indigenous titular population through the use of Russian language as the principle means of instruction.
I have reference for every word.
--
Bonaparte
talk
18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
(copyvio)
Reference
James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse, Ethinicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union, Regions in conflict. Routledge Ed. ISBN: 0714652261, page 114-115 -- Bonaparte talk 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
(copyvio)
Well, look at what Bonaparte did this time: almost all of the text he just inserted into the article was plagiarism and copyvio, copied word-for-word from books. You may verify this by searching for snippets of the offending texts (I removed them) on Google Book Search. -- Node 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't know this guy user:node ue, because of him we have the page of Moldova and moldovan language blocked. This guy has proved Anti-Romanian feelings. I see that he follows every edit I make. He want that this page to be blocked too. Bonaparte talk 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bonaparte here. The additions should stay, provided that they are sourced. And as Ambi points out, the more rewriting you can do, the better. And in case of larger, unchanged portions you can always use quotes ("") and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, why did you removed the links to the BBC and the Japan Times articles ? bogdan 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Protected from anonymous edits against revert war by a flock of anon accounts. mikka (t) 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Mikka push a POV fork here. Bonaparte talk 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Is bad.Stop it the lot of you please. Try working on one section of the article only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Also please add a reason for the reverting to older versions, either in the edit summary or in the talk page. And don't use misleading summaries like this anonymous edit ("Fixed ISBNs") and reverting several edits... bogdan 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I seen this thrown around a couple times in the reverts. Where is this copyvio from? Zach (Smack Back) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Another conflict that I see is the user of UK/US English. Which one is most prefered by the editors? Zach (Smack Back) 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region. [17] OSCE is trying to facilitate a negotiated settlement and has had an observer mission in place for several years. The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001.
vs the alleged copyvio:
In Transnistria the troops and equipment of the Russian 14th Army, which was redesignated an "operational group" in 1995, have been used as an instrument of influence by the Russian authorities both over the negotiations relating to Transnistria and over Moldova's regional policies. Although only some 2,600 personnel remain from the original force, this group continues to unsettls neighbor states and is still viewed as a geopolitical asset by many Russian politicians with a nationalist mindset. Moldovan and Ukrainian leaders have shared an interest not only in a resolution of the Transnistrian crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty but also in the removal of Russian forces from the region. [18] Only one sentence matches with the source being acknowledged right away (one sentence cannot be covered by copyrights). Then also look at the version you pushed 3, especially the parts at the end, how is that a "merge" ? I'm sorry, but if Node_ue would have problems against copyvio he would have removed exactly those paragraphs instead of pushing a version of his, then "trying to merge" which is nothing more than a spoof. -- Just a tag 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the copyvio is an obvious spoof. This is clearly a POV revert-war, waged by User:Node ue in his various incarnations, nothing more. -- Lysy ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The list appears to have shrunk. Would whoever removed them please explain why. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Lysy's identity aside (he seems to have recently aligned himself with Bonaparte and Anittas -- I would advise him to check out their histories before doing so), there is obviously an outstanding issue of copyvio. [19] is a diff between the verbatim copies and the slightly modified version. As you can see, most copyvio material was deleted entirely. However, 2 paragraphs were kept (or so it seems), and some words were modified slightly, but not so much that the extreme similarity cannot be found through the diff. -- Node 05:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and, I resent you referring to them as "incarnations". It is no secret that those edits were made by me on various different computers when not logged in. It wasn't an attempt to obscure identity, rather, it was based on circumstances -- when I'm at my volunteer work, I use the computer there; when I'm at home, I use one of the computers here. The only one on which I'm nearly always logged on is my own PC. Other than that, I tend to be rather lazy and don't log in. However, the patterns of the edits of these IPs and the results of traceroutes should be a fairly clear indicator to any interested parties that they are me. -- Node 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did the Moldovan government decide to create a blockade that would isolate the autonomous republic from the rest of the country in 2004 ? It's not clear from the article. -- Lysy ( talk) 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this:
In recent years, Transnistrian authorities have denied registration to Baptists, Methodists, and the Church of the Living God. Transnistrian authorities reportedly accused Jehovah's Witnesses of lacking patriotism and spreading Western influence and reportedly developed school teaching aids that contained negative and defamatory information regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses. [ [20]] -- Bonaparte talk 09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602963,00.html
THREE radioactive rockets capable of contaminating a city centre were offered for sale last week to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a middleman for Islamic terrorists.
The Alazan rockets, which have a range of eight miles, were among 50,000 tons of weapons left behind at an arms dump in the breakaway eastern European republic of Transdniester when the Russian army withdrew after the cold war.
They were offered to the reporter for $500,000 (£263,000) after he approached a senior officer in Transdniester’s secret police, claiming to represent a militant group in Algeria. The officer contacted a local arms dealer who arranged meetings with the reporter on a bridge in Transdniester and later at a hotel in neighbouring Moldova.
At their first meeting two months ago, the dealer said the price of a single rocket would be $200,000. The rocket could be independently inspected with a Geiger counter to verify that its warhead contained radioactive strontium and caesium, he said.
Last month the reporter was told that he would have to transfer $2,000 to a bank account in Cyprus before the inspection. He would then pay $8,000 for forged documentation that would enable the rocket to be smuggled across Transdniester’s border with Ukraine. It could be collected at an airfield in southwestern Ukraine once the rest of the asking price had been handed over.
Last week the dealer said that the terms had changed. “My people want to sell three Alazans for a total sum of $500,000,” he said.
According to the dealer, the rockets would be moved to Ukraine tomorrow if the terms were accepted. The Sunday Times withdrew from the negotiations once the availability of the weapons had been confirmed.
Experts said the Alazan rockets, which were originally intended for use in Soviet weather experiments, could spread radiation for more than 20 miles from their point of impact. Few people would die, they said, but the contamination would cause widespread fear and disruption. Large areas would have to be evacuated for a costly clean-up operation.
“The psychological impact would be devastating and the economic damage would run into millions of pounds, “ said Andy Oppenheimer, a consultant to Jane’s Information Group. “The Alazan would be especially attractive for terrorists seeking to strike a high security target.”
United Nations and regional officials are pressing for tighter security at the arms dump in Transdniester. -- Bonaparte talk 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||||
Motto: none | |||||
Anthem: Anthem of Transnistria | |||||
![]() | |||||
Capital |
Tiraspol | ||||
Largest city | Tiraspol | ||||
Official language(s) | Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian | ||||
Government |
Parliamentary Republic Igor Smirnov | ||||
Recognition Independence Recognition From Moldova |
none September 2, 1990 none | ||||
Area • Water (%) |
3,567 km² 0% | ||||
Population | 555,500 ( 2004 est). | ||||
Currency |
Transnistrian ruble (
TR )
| ||||
Time zone • Summer ( DST) |
EET (
UTC+2) EEST ( UTC+3) | ||||
Internet TLD | none; in some cases .md is used | ||||
Calling code | 373 5xx | ||||
Footnotes |
Looks like my infobox got removed in the various edits, but I will paste it here to see if there should be any changes or not. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I only have a problem with the top of the box where you randomly see: Нистрянэ Приднестровкая Придністровська Transnistria
This information is not organized correctly as it is in the original box. It is for this reason that I oppose your particular version, though of course this can be fixed. TSO1D 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have made a few changes that I considered self-evident. They were reverted by User:TSO1D here the summary of the changes:
I thought I did service to your article, but was reversed wholesale. Please explain abakharev 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This page has been RFced because I feel the article in its current form is a Romanian POV. There is a factual and stylistical bias in the article. I was not able to resolve the dispute with some users here. I will withhold from editing this article for now (and from revert wars) until I here from other third parties. I propose the following changes.
I. The statements in the paragraph The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions on the Romanians' right to education and deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported are factually wrong and/or wrong in their current form.
Secondly, none of these facts constitute the "political status" of Transnistria and therefore they should be placed in the relevant sections like "Human rights". On the other hand "Human rights" already describes these facts in much more detail. Therefore, this paragraph is a candidate for deletion in my opinion. However, if there is a consensus that it should stay in "Political Status" it should read
Transnistrian authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the modern Romanian language. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported.
As it stands know, the paragraph is an eye-catching vehicle for a Romanian POV in the very beginning od the article.
II. The statement The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification, even more so then under Tzarist times is a speculation. It has to read The Moldovian SSR became the subject of Russification or The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy of Russification. However if the second, stronger, form is chosen, I'd like to see something like The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy of Russification. At the same time, traditional Moldovan culture was supported. If the second part of this statement is doubted, I will be glad to provide sources and facts of traditional music, literature and other festivals, as well as Moldovan cultural organizations in Moldovan SSR.
III. The statement ...on the basis of which a professional and fully-equipped Republican Guard was formed in 1991 is an overstatement. The Republican Guard can not be considered a professional army by any stretch of imagination. They were not "fully-equipped" as they, for example, did not have aircraft, but rather "well-equipped". The correct statement is ...on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991
IV. The statement On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to obtain their independence, under the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army is wrong in this generality. It should read On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army" (source: "Rutskoy on 'Dniester Republic,'" SOVSET, 7 April 1992 and [ [3]])
V. The statement In the course of the next days the city of Tighina was retaken by the communist Transnistrians - well, just no comment on this one. It wasn't here before. Probably added by some hot-headed editor quite recently.
VI. The statement This official document whose broad lines was established by the Russian side, was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur) is a speculation. Should read This official document was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur).
VII. The article contains a factual disbalance. There are currently mentions of several fact of the aggressive nature of Russia and Transnistria 1) involvement of the Russian 14th Army 2) Yakovlev's arrest, 3) Rutskoy's speech 4) Romanian schools closures 5) Ilascu's arrest. I don't see any mention of the aggressive nature of Moldova at this point, may be with the exception of Next morning the Moldovan forces moved into the city. I wold like some of the following facts to be mentioned for the purposes of parity (source: [ [4]] and [ [5]])
I emphasize: these are all facts collected by independent observers from Memorial ([ [7]] and [ [8]]).
I would very much appreciate comments of the third parties. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
If my POV tags keep on beeing deleted without discussion, or if someone deletes my RfC, I will immidiately move to arbitration. Thank you for understanding. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
I still keep myself out of this dispute because of some users' lack of civilty and bad faith but that's temporary, I am just short of time now. However, I just want to say one thing. If the practice of removing the POV tag will continue with not only RfC but honest attempts of dialog being ignored, dismissed or cursed (some users here are good in nothing but cursing), I will file a request for the article to be protected with the POV tag attached. If a sysop finds my request justified, this will make any edits of the article impossible until protection is lifted. I DO NOT WANT to make the article uneditable even temporary. Even strong POV edits would not have prompted me to request the protection for now. But removing the POV tag while the POV questions are elaborately stated and doing so in a complete disregard to an RfC process is such a blatant abuse of WP spirit, that protecting the tag by protecting the article would be the only option. Even at more controversial topics I have never seen such an arrogance that users would REMOVE the POV tag so persistently even when the tag is placed and elaborated clearly in a good faith. - Irpen July 4, 2005 08:11 (UTC)
I entirely agree. It is better for the article to be in development. This is impossible whith persistent obstruction of process by Mihaitza and Duca and by you, Vasile, to a lesser degree. When users disagree about neutrality, it is normal for the article to have a POV tag until the differences are worked out as long as the differences are being worked out. The tag simply shows that there is a serious disagreement on article's neutrality and users are working on it. The discussion on the talk page shows the work in process. Here we have the work in process, neutrality is disputed in a very clear way and yet you and other users are in denial and persist in attempts to hide the dispute from Wikipedians by removing the tag. My goal is not lecturize and even less so "impress" you. I call on you to respect the disagreement and stop trying to sweep it under the rug by hiding the POV tag. All I said is that there's a mechanism in the policy and if this continues, I will have to use it. - Irpen July 4, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Especially this: Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script. I do not agree that it should be moved from there because it is pretty important to the topic at hand.
I cannot agree with the following:
1) first of all you give very dubious sources. www.memo.ru is probably a Russian site that takes the Russian side. It is well known that Russia has an interest in the Transnistrian issue so it cannot be cited.
2) The discriminatory of the state law is not that discriminatory as you claim. You have stated before that you do not speak Romanian and you have hinted that you are Russian from Transnistria, however the state law offered 7 years for people to learn the language before it went into effect. I would say that’s a pretty long time. Also in every country the minorities do have to have a certain knowledge of the language of the majority to be able to work so there is nothing discriminatory in that.
3) In the combat actions, every side will give you their account of what happened. It is common knowledge that no atrocities occurred there, especially from the Moldovan side. It is therefore dubious if your claims are correct or not.
4) Shelling and use of aircraft is ordinary in any war so the fact that the Moldovans did it does not surprise me since it was a war.
5) The allegations of Romanian arms shipment is something that I have heard before. I do not know if it is true or not but if you can reference that then it would be a good piece of information to include it here.
6) I have never heard of the massacre at the village of Gasca. The name sounds very Romanian and as far as I know it’s a Romanian village near Tighina. Who committed the massacre? The Russians? It would be very illogical for Romanians to kill their own people.
PS: I think you have a great knowledge and I admire your perseverance for trying to redeem the image of the otherwise quite dubious, illegal Transnistrian government but you have to understand that some facts are just there to stay and that real facts are very hard to manipulate and you should give it up right now. However, if you are sincerely trying to commit to this article, then I think we can work something out. Which is why I ask you to stop putting the POV tag until we can exhaust every single possibility of managing it ourselves.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
-- Vasile 4 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Gaidash, why aren't the other sourses not acceptable to you?
I donnot think that refuting each other and getting into a war of words is what is needed here. I have noticed that aside from accusing each other and trying to impose your own biased point of view, neither Duca nor Gaidash have really done anything constructive. I agree that Gaidash has a great deal of knowledge but please let's use it consructively. It seems that all you want to do, is to turn this thing into a pro-Transnistrian and anti-Romanian article. Forgive me, if I am wrong but this is certainly how it seems. You have your own ideas and your own beliefs. I donnot agree with them. I still respect them but you have to respect your fellow wikipedians' beliefs as well and you must understand that no arbritration in the world will change this article according to your points above. Some are really dubious, let me tell you that.
For example: "the use of the Moldovan airforce". I really have to look into that because as far as I know, Moldova had a few MIGs but no pilots so then it would have been impossible for it to fly the planes. This is why it sold its planes to the USA and Romania(mostly USA).
Then the Gasca "massacre" or "pogrom" as you call it. I mean common. Nobody is going to agree that those little skirmishes there were a pogrom. That has to be dropped. If we mention that, then the Romanians will want the REAL pogroms mentioned against them. And they will also want to mention the ethnic clensing that occurred in Transnistria after 92. For example at the only university in Transnistria, all ethnic Romanian teachers were fired and expelled to Chishinau.
2)Let's look into the involvement of Romania and if Romanian ammo and weapons were supplied to the Moldovan Government.
3)Let's change the part about the "fully equipped republican guard", to "well-equipped" since I do agree that nobody, not even the USA can be fully equipped
4) Until we can exhaust every single effort to have a relative agreement(however we should keep in mind that people's opinions are so different that most likely we will never all just be in compleete agreement), we should not put the POV tag.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
"European organisms" are organisms that live in Europe, like European bison, common sparrow or Streptococcus. Please, correct (better tomorrow, as you have exceeded the 3RR rule today). Gaidash 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Ok guys, now there are two POV tags. I am not going to erase either one but we should only keep one.
Secondly, Gaidash has said that he wants 2-3 of his points included in for the same of ballancing the article. He made 7 points above; some are a little far fetched but some are really good points which could only enrich the article. And there are more then just 2-3 points there that we can certainly include.
Thirdly, Duca stop adding stuff. I don't know if you have actually payed attention, but Gaidash does not add stuff without actually proposing it here. I understand where you're comming from but what you are doing is not helping. It's actually escalating the whole thing.
Now, Gaidash is willing to drop the Gasca thing, "massacres" and the more dubious points he made; at the same time I think that pogroms in the Stalinist perdiod have to be dropped too, because it is also mentioned at the Moldova page, and under Stalinisms and also because then we might be getting into more complications, rather then come to an agreement.
The way I see it Gaidash makes the following very good points which I propose to be added into the article:
1)Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script.Arbitrary arrests of citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported. instead of the existing phrase.
2)on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991 instead of the existing phrase.
3)On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army. instead of the existing phrase.
( European Court of Human Rights)
4)In the course of combat actions in Bendery there were casualties among civilian population. However there were no purposeful annihilation of noncombatants or acts of large-scale violence against civilians. There were, however, occasional incidents of indiscriminate fire, launched by both sides at residential quarters. should be added. It is something that I at least, think is of some importance.
5)Romanian arms shipments were allegedly supplied to the Moldovan side. should be added. I personally have actually heard once that Romania got a plane from Moldova for some APCs which it gave to Moldova in the war.
Now, I really have no authority so nobody MUST listen to me and everyone can do as they please. But I really think this is something we can work out ourselves, so in the spirit of cooperation, I ask Vasile, Duca and others to be kind enough to accept these changes since 1) they enrich the article, 2)they ballance the article, 3) Gaidash has shown not only resolve but also maturity and so I ask Duca to adress the problem with the same kind of maturity next time he posts something here. Please don't take it the wrong way but sometimes, Duca, you seem like you are too impulsive and it just reflects bad on your arguments which otherwise might be listened to with slightly more sympathy.
Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)
A stylistic thing which, in my opinion, is not done right here, is the name of the entity in the fact box. It says "Republica Transnistria/Transdniester Respublika". Ususally, the first entry should be in the language of the country, the second - transliteration. As it is done, for example, with Belarus in Wiki:
Рэспу́бліка Белару́сь/ Respublika Biełaruś
So it has to be one of the two, either
Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ/ transliteration
Приднестровская Молдавская Республика/ transliteration
Приднiстровська Молдавська Республiка / transliteration
Like this, with the Moldovan name written in Cyrillics, as this is the convention adopted in the entity.
Or, if it is judged that the name of the entity can not be written in its languages since it is not recognized, then:
Stînga Nistrului/ transliteration
Also, "political status" in the fact box should probably be "unrecognized, self-proclaimed republic".
Gaidash 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
I believe it is not practical to have the name of the republic in all of its three official languages, but I believe that the best way to resolve the problem is by simply using its Anglicized name of "Moldovan Republic of Transnistria". TSO1D 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
I attempted to correct some grammatical errors found throughout the article. I probably missed a few errors and further modifications to the text could enhance its quality, but the text in its current form appears to be adequate and I removed the clean-up tag. Of course, if anyone believes that the quality of the text is inferior to Wikipedia standards, you can re-insert the tag. TSO1D 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
I also attemted to add point 1) and point 4) which Gaidash suggested and which nobody challanged or openly disagreed with (of course if that is ok with everyone).
Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)
I changed the word languages to language in order to make it correct. Thou I understand the reasoning for utilizing the italicized word "languages" as this was the proper name for the laws, in English this does not translate correctly. I also added a sentence based on your proposal that many non-Romanian citizens in Moldova viewed the laws as discriminatory. I also inserted the 2.a suggestion.
I would also like to bring attention to the problems that exist with having information about the Transnistrian armed conflict in the main Transnistrian article and in a separate article on the subject. The quantitative difference between the two texts is minimal and I am not certain that it warrents the existence of a separate article. This only leads to more problems as a user has to make the same change in both texts and this will lead to many differences. I believe it is more logical to keep all of the text on the conflict in the main article, at least for now. TSO1D 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
TSO1D, I hope you don't mind that I changed the "languages" part and I erased the fact that Russians considered it "discriminatory". The reason for that is that probably not every single Russian thought the laws were discriminatory and the second reason is that Moldova although inhabited mainly by Romanians, it has not just large minorities of Russians but also of Ukrainians, Gagauzians, Bulgarians, Jews, Germans, Poles, Byelorussians, Tatars, etc. etc.
It would really be a generalization to say that only Russians thought the laws were discriminatory so that's why I changed it to sound more like NPOV.
About the second Transnistrian War page, I agree with TSO1D that we should keep it all here. After all isn't the war a major turning point for the people in Transnistria?
Also I agree with Gaidash that the Ilascu part should be there. Nobody ever expressed their reservations about that, so I copy-pasted it from an older version.
In any event, I think we are getting very close to an understanding here. Hopefully nobody will come along and erase everything one more time.
Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
Gaidash, it appears that Goie did not erase the passage about the languages but simply removed the specific reference to the Russian-speaking, a modification which I believe is justified. I also agree with using the "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" version as this term is used most frequently, and by reputable organizations such as the OSCE. I ahve no objections to you making this proposed change. I also abrdiged the Ilascu text on the main page and only preserved the key elements of the case, as the rest of the information can be found on the more specific page. TSO1D 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
Gaidash I assure you I will never erase anything, unless we will all agree upon doing so, in here. TSO1D pointed out correctly that I was only trying to make the statement more like it's from a NPOV.
Switching the subject however, I have reservations about this statement: "that [Transnistria] is on the territory of Moldova, thus between "Bessarabia and Ukraine"". It is not the geography that I disagree with since yes, transnistria does exist between Ukraine and...what many consider to be Bessarabia but we have to be careful when we state that. Why? Because there are differences between Bessarabia, Ottoman Bessarabia and Moldova or the Republic of Moldova.
For starters, what many consider to be Bessarabia today is in fact only the central region of the old Russian province of Bessarabia. The northern(Hotin) and southern( Bugeac) regions are now in Ukraine.
Secondly, Ottoman Bessarabia is only the southern part of the former Russian province of Bessarabia. In actuality, the term Bessarabia should only be applied to the former-Ottoman part or southern part, since the Russian Empire really tried to conceal the fact that they were annexing the eastern parts of the Moldavian principality by extending the name "Bessarabia" to those areas as well.
In actuality, the real Bessarabia corresponds more or less to Bugeac( now in Ukraine) while what many people call Bessarabia to this day is none other then the eastern region of the old Moldovan principality.
Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)
In the breakaway chapter: The new language law was billed as "discriminatory" by some observers, in particular in its implementation.
-- Vasile 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Seriously. Discriminatory? HA HA HA! This article is turning more pro-Transnistrian every day.
At least it should say that the Transnistrian sepparatists claimed that the laws were discriminatory, in order to achieve their own aims, or something like that, because right now this article is really POV. I even agree that the POV check should stay there now, since it damn well should. Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia, not a palce where communists put their propaganda and make people swallow it.
Duca 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
I think a large proportion of the non-Romanian population of the Moldovan SSR believed that these changes were discriminatory against them. After all for almost two centuries urban areas were dominated by Russian-speakers and they did not feel that they represented a minority (the interbellic period was a wake-up call for some). The political dynamic was even more pro-Russian, as only a smaller proportion of the political class was composed of autochtonous persons, and Russian was the favored language in the adminstration of the republic. As a result the introduction of the new language laws terrified many non-locals as they did not speak the language as they did not feel a need to proceed so in the former circumstances.
More importantly, an emphasis has been placed on the implementation of the new laws. As it happened, within a brief period, Romanian became the only official language and thus mandatory for government positions. It was difficult for non-Romanians to adjust to this change, particularly as the state did not offer adequate opportunities for those people to learn Romanian.
I do not believe that it will be correct if we would add a sentence to the effect that some people considered the laws discriminatory and that some observers found their implementation to have been executed in a problematic manner. TSO1D 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
If there is no more opinions, I will remove the tags of POV. -- Vasile 6 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
Duca please, for God's sake, you are not helping. Look, for everyone's peace of mind, let's just keep it the way it is right now, when I am writing this message. So Duca, please, can you leave it alone. Can you do that?
If there is no more issues to be discussed and if everything has been resolved then I agree with Vasile that we take off the POV tag.
Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
Here is a proposed version.
The main things I did:
Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)
Also, I don't know anything about Yakovlev. Can someone tell me how the Moldovan authorities arrested Lieutenant-General Yakovlev in Ukrainian territory ? And another question: are Andrei Ivanţoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa still imprisoned in Transnistria? Gaidash 6 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
I added the latin script again. I don't know who erases them either. About Tudor Petrov-Popa and Invatoc, yeah they are still in jail. Ilascu got out in 2001 and the fourth guy, I forgot his name got out last year.
Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
I would like to know the problems of "factual accuracy". Otherwise I will remove the tag. -- Vasile 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)
Gaidash, I hope that you do realize that not all your proposals will be able to be placed specifically here, at wikipedia. On top of that, you yourself said that you wanted 2-3 of your ideas put in. So far we are working towards that. Let's not overdo it since I think that even as it is, Duca( and not just him) will express his disagreements with what is going on right now.
Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
Donue Goie, when I said 1/4, I refered to the things that we agreed on. I am not planning to insist on all thing in my RfC. What I don't get, is why Vasile keeps on rewriting the text while we are discussing? I mean, what the purpose of adding my facts, if there are two whole new paragraphs in the Armed conflict that describes how ROG was helping Transnistria? Now there's "ROG destroyed a Moldovan unit at Chiţcani on 30 June and they shelled several Moldovan positions at around Dubăsari, Slobozia...". I completely don't get it. Why I am writing a "proposed version" and putting it on a subpage for people to have look at before we make any edits? Why I am begging here for the inclusion of my facts (out of which the current version contains only 1, one, unu) if people just go there and throw in more stuff about glorious Moldovan defenders against the perfidious Russian invasion? Gaidash 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
If Vasile is making all that stuff up then we should erase it. But if Vasile is right, has a source, and if all that stuff really happened, then its really hard to refute it. Vasile is being civilized, its other people that I am worried about (I am not going to mention any names but I think everyone knows who I am talking about).
About your points, don't worry Gaidash, we are going to add more then just unu :) I personally think that you do bring good points concerning some aspects and it would be unfair to ignore them.
You mentioned that you would like the "discrimiation" part mentioned and the fact that "a russian 14th army outpost was attacked by Moldovan volunteers". Those were the main points, I think; correct me if I am mistaken.
Now for sure these facts have to be included; its just the language and the way they are said that I think bothers some people.
I propose that the discrimination sentence should sound like the way it is now. I don't know who changed it to the way it is now but it sounds neutral and good enough, I think.
For the attacking of the outpost I propose this: "Some reports have shown that Moldovan volunteers have attempted a retaliation, by using their aircraft in an attack on a Russian 14th Army outpost"
Domnu Goie 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
Vasile is probably putting in absolutely right facts, at least I am sure that the transfer of weapons happened exactly the way he is saying. But, as I said - addition of new things about "bad Russians" will autamatically mean addition of more my facts about "bad Moldovans" - I will match every single new thing that he is putting in now. I suggest that Vasile stops because otherwise the article will grow out of proportions.
Vasile, I suggest that you erase these two new paragraphs - otherwise Gyska and Romanian arms shipments are going in. Gaidash 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)
"Some characterized the language laws as discriminatory and criticized their rapid implementation."
In civilized world, a law might be considered discriminatory if for a number of person the state unjustifiably deny or obstruct a fundamental right or liberty. From the text, it doesn't appear any discrimination. "Some politicians agitated unsubstantiated "discriminatory" depiction for the language laws and criticized their rapid implementation." -- Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
Look, I did not state that the law was discriminatory, because I do not consider it to be such. Nonetheless, many people did consider the law discrimanatory, and whether they were justified or not is a separate matter, but it is important that this was the case as this was a powerful argument for the breakaway of Transnistria and it is an undisputable fact that many did not agree with its implementation. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)
In every statement by the TRM, they talked about discrimination against them in Moldova, and were referring to the language laws. I do not agree with this statement, but we cannot just ignore it. It is a fact that these allegations were made, even though they were unsubstantiated in my opinion. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
"Autochtnous political class of the Moldovan SSR began appealing to nationalistic sentiments to a certain extent. "
The word "autochtnous" is a diminutive having no reason in context. (A lot of great ego-s exhibated on this article.) It's highly exagerating to consider "appealing to nationalistic sentiments" introduction of the latin alphabet, the flag etc. This is just normal in civilized world. -- Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
I appologize, but I do not understand your comment. What does the word autochtonous, which means indigenous diminish in size? And what does this have to to with anyone's ego? I agree that the introduction of the latin flag was necessary for practical reasons. And the adoption of the "tricolor" was a symbollic gesture that Moldova acknowledges its Romanian identity. These actions would not have been possible without the support of the Romanian majority, and polliticians appealed to the national pride of the indigenous population. I agree with you that these actions are also done in the "civilized world", by which you probably mean Western Europe and the US. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)
I don't see anything that can be considered non-neutral about that sentence. I do not see how the word autochtonous or nationalistic are insulting. I will be glad to share my source. Iulian Fruntaşu, "O Istorie Etnopolitica a Basarabiei", Cartier Istoric,2002. Capitotul 5, Liberalizare lui Gorbachev Procesul de Nationalizare si Dezintegrarea URSS. TSO1D 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
And, more important, this author book "O istorie etnopolitica a Basarabiei 1812-2002" could be used for this article? Does anyone read this book? -- Vasile 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
What do you mean "does anyone read the book"? It is published by a reputable publishing establishment- Cartier and the author is a well-known political analyst.
As for the specific text, it is dispersed across various parts of the book, but here are some passages to that effect:
pg. 254: "Calea de tranziţie alesă de perestroika şi glasnost - liberalizarea, dar nu democratizarea structurilor centrale de putere posttotalitare şi consecutivitatea alegerilor, a contribuit decisiv la faptul ca naţionalismul exclusivist să devină forţa cea mai dinamică in politica [regională]"
pg 255: "În cazul Basarabiei [...] comuniştii moldoveni nu au fost în stare să însuşească, ci doar să se adapteze, această adaptare incluzând utilizarea proaspelor naţionale pentru naţionalizarea discursului." TSO1D 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Are there any more important disagreements that justify the existence of the POV and disputed facts tags? If so, then please list them here so that they can be addressed. TSO1D 8 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
No, as far as I am concerned everything is good now. I say, let's wrap this up :)
Domnu Goie 9 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
Vasile, are you sure that your new edits are necessary. Much of the information is redundant, and other contains information that needs to be checked, but which is not truly necessary. Some of it is simply incorrect, for instance Lebed never claimed that his tanks could reach Bucharest in two hours. This is a physical impossibility considering that the maximum velocity of the tanks is 40 mph and Bucharest is farther than 80 miles from the base of the 14th army. It is more probable that he was talking about Chisinau.
In any case your changes will lead to a great deal of debate and fighting for some minor changes, and we are at a point close to a compromise. Could you perhaps reconsider some of the broader changes? TSO1D 03:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Vasile, I distinctly remember reading that Lebed said that he could reach Chisinau in two hours, in the context that Moldova should not attack Transnistria. However, I checked your phrase and found that ECHR, the European Court for Human Rights quoted him with the phrase that you used in its decision in the Ilascu case, so I suppose the usage of the phrase in the article is substantiated. TSO1D 17:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There has been a new census update in PMR or Transnistria. Apparently the communist, rebel Smirnovist government has decided that to say that Romanians were 34% was still too much so in his marxist-leninist wisdom, his greatness decided to lower the number a little bit to 31.9% romanians, 30.2% Russians and 28.8 Ukrainians.
I am guessing that the rest of 9.1% are Bulgarians : 2%, Gagauzians 1%, Jews 1%, Byelorussians, Germans, Armenians, Poles, Tatars, Turks, Greeks, Gypsies, others 5.1%?
The population was likewise dropped from 580.000 from the preliminary results to 555.500. I read all this on the september 9th 2005 issue of Jurnal de Chisinau. I was wondering if anyone else has a Transnistrian site or something more official that we can place here as a source for the new data. I know that the Smirnovist terrorist pro-Russian government is not exactly primary source material, however it really is ridiculous to relly on a census and data that is 16 years old. Mihaitza 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[ [12]]. To state in the first paragraph that the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic exists is too much. There is no republic without a State and officially is not recognized by any country. Anyway the status of the region is still in negotiation.-- Bonaparte 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Does not exist a Transnistria state because the other contries do not recognize it!!! No country speak to transnistrian terrorists, and there is no embassy in there, and Transnistria has no embassies abroad. There just a russian army, and terrorize Moldavian authorities, and abuse people. Even Irina Polkina the psychologist of Rusian army from Moldova Republic said Russian soldiers drink alcohol,bring many whores in military camp and they sold military equipment and guns. She asked for mass media support! -- Dacodava
It is also internationally recognized as one of the "frozen conflict" region as stated by the Council of Europe.
[ [15]] Bonaparte talk & contribs
Sorry Mikka, you're wrong. Moldovan is identical with Romanian. As much hard you're trying to cover this you'll never be successfull. Other soviets have tried but failed. Moldovan/ Romanian. Bonaparte talk & contribs
I've added the tag disputed until it will be agreed to a better form of the article. It seems that the official and NPOV is not taken into consideration here. This is not a state or republic. Bonaparte talk & contribs
Presedintele Traian Basescu a declarat ieri, la Kiev, ca primul pas pentru solutionarea crizei transnistrene consta in retragerea trupelor straine din zona si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist.
In discursul prezentat la Forumul Comunitatii Optiunii Democratice, presedintele s-a referit la responsabilitatea Romaniei in calitate de stat membru NATO si viitor stat membru UE, in procesul de transformare democratica, aratand ca "Romania este gata sa impartaseasca din propria experienta, pentru ca ea insasi a beneficiat de sprijinul prietenilor". La reuniunea la care au mai participat presedintii Estoniei, Georgiei, Letoniei, Lituaniei, Macedoniei, Republicii Moldova, Sloveniei si Ucrainei, Basescu a abordat problema securitatii si stabilitatii in regiunea baltica-pontica-caspica. In acest context, seful statului a afirmat ca provocarea cea mai importanta ramane existenta in aceasta zona a unor focare de conflict, cum ar fi regimurile autoritare din entitatile separatiste Transnistria, Abhazia si Osetia de Sud. Presedintele Basescu a aratat ca, pentru Romania, Transnistria reprezinta cel mai apropiat si mai clar exemplu in acest sens. "Primul pas spre solutionare presupune atat retragerea trupelor straine, cat si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist, in baza unui calendar precis, cu garantii multilaterale", a subliniat seful statului. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Orioane! The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: ( http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National ( http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680)-- Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Basescu, like many Romanian politicians, is an irredentist imperialistic jerk. Moldova can damned well take care of itself. If Moldovans want a union with Romania, it will happen. But currently it's not the case. So Romania needs to back the **** off and let Moldovans do our own thing. You guys can get back to your irredentist ways when the majority of Moldovan citizens is in favour of union. But for now, Romanian irredentist imperialism is contrary to the will of the Moldovan peoples in general, especially given some of the stupid things that have happened in Romania since the early 90s, so now only a few people really want very much to be part of such a country. -- Node 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
( http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/12/051206_baze_romania.shtml)
-- Bonaparte talk 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/06/romania.rice.ap/
"The U.S. takeover of bases near the Black Sea -- putting U.S. forces within closer striking distance of potential targets in the Middle East and Central Asia -- would help "take terrorists off the streets" and save lives around the world, Rice said on Tuesday.
Rice, hailing Romania as one of the United States' "best allies," signed the agreement with Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu.
What was the result? - FrancisTyers 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I remind you the transliteration is made from Moldovan version of Cyrillic to the Moldovan version of Latin alphabets, and not from Russian version of Cyrillic to the English version of Latin alphabets. -- Danutz
I propose to split this article in two, Transnistria (reffering to the Moldovan region) and Moldovan Republic of Transnistria (reffering to the unrecognised republic). -- Danutz
Have a look at Chechnya (region of Russia), and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (unrecognised republic). Same reason. -- Danutz
What f*** historical?: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is the unrecognized secessionist government of the Chechen Republic. In 1991, as the USSR was collapsing, Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev declared independence of Chechnya.".
The Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the unrecognized secessionist government of the region of Trasnistria. On 2 September 1990 the Moldovan Republic of Transnistria was proclaimed. On 25 August 1991 the Supreme Council of the MRT adopted the declaration of independence of the MRT.
We are talking about two guvernaments, so we should split the articles. If that practice is used for Russia, why shouldn't that be used here also? Because this is Moldova? BTW, Transnistria also has a history of own, as an RSSA in the Soviet Union, back when Moldova was part of Romania. Transnistria is the autonomous region in Moldova (as is Chechnya for Russia), and Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the de facto breakaway Republic (as is the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria). -- Danutz
The proposal of Danutz is pretty much reasonable. The historical notion Transnistria is very much different from Moldovan Republic of Transnistria: the latter one is but a narrow strip. So the "history" section in the current article gives a false impression, not to say the intro is totally misleading. as to the usage of the term, failing to refer its old historical usage. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The ridiculous statement that "Sheriff" company controls all economy of Transnistria is removed. mikka (t) 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
America asks Russia to go out with their troups from Transnistria! Oficialul american a cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova
link: http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-12-23&id=13823
-- Bonaparte talk 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If it is acceptable to illustrate the great contribution of the Slav tribes in the nearby of the region, I humbly request the presence of some information about the ancient Greek and Roman activity in the region.-- Vasile 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
From what I saw, they use international .com/.net/.org domains. See: www.idknet.com; www.president-pmr.org; www.tiraspol.net bogdan 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Transnistria’s ethnic composition is unlike the rest of Moldova, and the region does not share the same interwar history as the rest of the country as part of socalled ‘‘Greater Romania.’’ Moreover, many of the ethnic Russians and Ukrainians that currently reside in Transnistria were not born in Moldova and only recently came to the country in the 1980s and 1990s (Note: Significantly, much of the current Transnistrian leadership, including Igor Smirnov, were born and raised in Russia and therefore not surprisingly have a different and hostile view of Moldovan identity and culture.)
The leadership has used these issues to cultivate a separate Transnistrian identity among youth and to socialize the population towards a Russian political space, rejecting European demands for democratization and conflict resolution. Transnistrian socialization has used traditional instruments including the media and school.
Indeed, one of the important agents of identity formation and socialization is education. There is a large political science literature that examines the impact that education has on group identity formation as well as on the process of individual political socialization. During the Soviet period, the education system in Moldova was used as a means to russify the indigenous titular population through the use of Russian language as the principle means of instruction.
I have reference for every word.
--
Bonaparte
talk
18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
(copyvio)
Reference
James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse, Ethinicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union, Regions in conflict. Routledge Ed. ISBN: 0714652261, page 114-115 -- Bonaparte talk 11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
(copyvio)
Well, look at what Bonaparte did this time: almost all of the text he just inserted into the article was plagiarism and copyvio, copied word-for-word from books. You may verify this by searching for snippets of the offending texts (I removed them) on Google Book Search. -- Node 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't know this guy user:node ue, because of him we have the page of Moldova and moldovan language blocked. This guy has proved Anti-Romanian feelings. I see that he follows every edit I make. He want that this page to be blocked too. Bonaparte talk 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bonaparte here. The additions should stay, provided that they are sourced. And as Ambi points out, the more rewriting you can do, the better. And in case of larger, unchanged portions you can always use quotes ("") and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mikkalai, why did you removed the links to the BBC and the Japan Times articles ? bogdan 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Protected from anonymous edits against revert war by a flock of anon accounts. mikka (t) 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Mikka push a POV fork here. Bonaparte talk 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Is bad.Stop it the lot of you please. Try working on one section of the article only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Also please add a reason for the reverting to older versions, either in the edit summary or in the talk page. And don't use misleading summaries like this anonymous edit ("Fixed ISBNs") and reverting several edits... bogdan 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I seen this thrown around a couple times in the reverts. Where is this copyvio from? Zach (Smack Back) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Another conflict that I see is the user of UK/US English. Which one is most prefered by the editors? Zach (Smack Back) 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Also Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region. [17] OSCE is trying to facilitate a negotiated settlement and has had an observer mission in place for several years. The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001.
vs the alleged copyvio:
In Transnistria the troops and equipment of the Russian 14th Army, which was redesignated an "operational group" in 1995, have been used as an instrument of influence by the Russian authorities both over the negotiations relating to Transnistria and over Moldova's regional policies. Although only some 2,600 personnel remain from the original force, this group continues to unsettls neighbor states and is still viewed as a geopolitical asset by many Russian politicians with a nationalist mindset. Moldovan and Ukrainian leaders have shared an interest not only in a resolution of the Transnistrian crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty but also in the removal of Russian forces from the region. [18] Only one sentence matches with the source being acknowledged right away (one sentence cannot be covered by copyrights). Then also look at the version you pushed 3, especially the parts at the end, how is that a "merge" ? I'm sorry, but if Node_ue would have problems against copyvio he would have removed exactly those paragraphs instead of pushing a version of his, then "trying to merge" which is nothing more than a spoof. -- Just a tag 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the copyvio is an obvious spoof. This is clearly a POV revert-war, waged by User:Node ue in his various incarnations, nothing more. -- Lysy ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The list appears to have shrunk. Would whoever removed them please explain why. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Lysy's identity aside (he seems to have recently aligned himself with Bonaparte and Anittas -- I would advise him to check out their histories before doing so), there is obviously an outstanding issue of copyvio. [19] is a diff between the verbatim copies and the slightly modified version. As you can see, most copyvio material was deleted entirely. However, 2 paragraphs were kept (or so it seems), and some words were modified slightly, but not so much that the extreme similarity cannot be found through the diff. -- Node 05:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and, I resent you referring to them as "incarnations". It is no secret that those edits were made by me on various different computers when not logged in. It wasn't an attempt to obscure identity, rather, it was based on circumstances -- when I'm at my volunteer work, I use the computer there; when I'm at home, I use one of the computers here. The only one on which I'm nearly always logged on is my own PC. Other than that, I tend to be rather lazy and don't log in. However, the patterns of the edits of these IPs and the results of traceroutes should be a fairly clear indicator to any interested parties that they are me. -- Node 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did the Moldovan government decide to create a blockade that would isolate the autonomous republic from the rest of the country in 2004 ? It's not clear from the article. -- Lysy ( talk) 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this:
In recent years, Transnistrian authorities have denied registration to Baptists, Methodists, and the Church of the Living God. Transnistrian authorities reportedly accused Jehovah's Witnesses of lacking patriotism and spreading Western influence and reportedly developed school teaching aids that contained negative and defamatory information regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses. [ [20]] -- Bonaparte talk 09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602963,00.html
THREE radioactive rockets capable of contaminating a city centre were offered for sale last week to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a middleman for Islamic terrorists.
The Alazan rockets, which have a range of eight miles, were among 50,000 tons of weapons left behind at an arms dump in the breakaway eastern European republic of Transdniester when the Russian army withdrew after the cold war.
They were offered to the reporter for $500,000 (£263,000) after he approached a senior officer in Transdniester’s secret police, claiming to represent a militant group in Algeria. The officer contacted a local arms dealer who arranged meetings with the reporter on a bridge in Transdniester and later at a hotel in neighbouring Moldova.
At their first meeting two months ago, the dealer said the price of a single rocket would be $200,000. The rocket could be independently inspected with a Geiger counter to verify that its warhead contained radioactive strontium and caesium, he said.
Last month the reporter was told that he would have to transfer $2,000 to a bank account in Cyprus before the inspection. He would then pay $8,000 for forged documentation that would enable the rocket to be smuggled across Transdniester’s border with Ukraine. It could be collected at an airfield in southwestern Ukraine once the rest of the asking price had been handed over.
Last week the dealer said that the terms had changed. “My people want to sell three Alazans for a total sum of $500,000,” he said.
According to the dealer, the rockets would be moved to Ukraine tomorrow if the terms were accepted. The Sunday Times withdrew from the negotiations once the availability of the weapons had been confirmed.
Experts said the Alazan rockets, which were originally intended for use in Soviet weather experiments, could spread radiation for more than 20 miles from their point of impact. Few people would die, they said, but the contamination would cause widespread fear and disruption. Large areas would have to be evacuated for a costly clean-up operation.
“The psychological impact would be devastating and the economic damage would run into millions of pounds, “ said Andy Oppenheimer, a consultant to Jane’s Information Group. “The Alazan would be especially attractive for terrorists seeking to strike a high security target.”
United Nations and regional officials are pressing for tighter security at the arms dump in Transdniester. -- Bonaparte talk 09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||||
Motto: none | |||||
Anthem: Anthem of Transnistria | |||||
![]() | |||||
Capital |
Tiraspol | ||||
Largest city | Tiraspol | ||||
Official language(s) | Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian | ||||
Government |
Parliamentary Republic Igor Smirnov | ||||
Recognition Independence Recognition From Moldova |
none September 2, 1990 none | ||||
Area • Water (%) |
3,567 km² 0% | ||||
Population | 555,500 ( 2004 est). | ||||
Currency |
Transnistrian ruble (
TR )
| ||||
Time zone • Summer ( DST) |
EET (
UTC+2) EEST ( UTC+3) | ||||
Internet TLD | none; in some cases .md is used | ||||
Calling code | 373 5xx | ||||
Footnotes |
Looks like my infobox got removed in the various edits, but I will paste it here to see if there should be any changes or not. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I only have a problem with the top of the box where you randomly see: Нистрянэ Приднестровкая Придністровська Transnistria
This information is not organized correctly as it is in the original box. It is for this reason that I oppose your particular version, though of course this can be fixed. TSO1D 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I have made a few changes that I considered self-evident. They were reverted by User:TSO1D here the summary of the changes:
I thought I did service to your article, but was reversed wholesale. Please explain abakharev 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)