![]() | This page 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. |
Can someone edit the map and add Moldiva (as a name) to it because at the moment its unlabled and makes the map a little confusing.
Please add [1] to the list of recommended links. We're working to resolve the Transnistria issue and it would be great to have others who are interested in the peaceful resolution of the conflict work with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.114.183.20 ( talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure why not, those two mexican hosted spam links are in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.207.59 ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no blockade of Transnistria, they just need to have documents with Moldovan customs stamp. On this issue, Clockword is right. Transnistria is still doing a lot of imports and exports.-- MariusM 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As we have a separate article about the custom conflict, we should keep in this article only a short mention about this issue, with link at detailed article. In my opinion, Transnistrian authorities just want to find somebody else to blame for the deteriorating economic life in the region. An old game (not specific only for Transnistria).-- MariusM 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, you came with the idea to make shorter the "Security concerns" section, and it seems that everybody is agreeing to shorten the "arms control" part, which is the biggest part of the section you wanted to make shorter. Why don't you come with a proposal for rewriting this part and you are focusing in contentious issues?-- MariusM 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_transnistria_automobile.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_inmatriculare_transnistria.shtml cars registred in PMR will no longer enter in Moldova starting from 1st of Jannuary 2008. Nistriana 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Russian-speaking Transnistria refused Romanian-speaking Moldova to have a common army. Russia, which supports the Transnistrian side and maintains some 1,500 troops in Transnistria, despite a promise to remove them by the end of 2003, refused also Moldovan proposal.-- Nistriana 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And as far as I know, President Voronin proposed full demilitarization of Moldova on both banks of the Nistru River. He proposed the “liquidation” of all tanks and armored vehicles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery of any type, both by the lawful Moldovan and the unlawful Transnistria forces, within six months. Actually, Voronin proposed this demilitarization keeping in mind with Moldova’s status of permanent neutrality. The idea is that constitution bans the stationing of foreign troops on Moldova’s territory. -- Nistriana 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As I read Moldovan authorities are against opening of Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian parliamentary elections. Moldovan side recommended to the Russian side to abstain from opening polling stations in the eastern districts of the Republic of Moldova which are not under the control of the legal authorities as well as from using mobile ballot boxes in the cities of Balti and Comrat (north and south of Moldova, respectively). Also, Moldovan Government said that in case illegal polling stations are opened in the country's Transnistrian region, the whole responsibility for consequences will fall on those who organized them, and the fact will be interpreted by the Moldovan authorities as interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. This position was reiterated at a meeting of the ministry's representatives with minister-counsellor of the Russian Embassy Vitaliy Tryapitin who was invited at the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister - (please remark the name!!!)) on 7 November 2007. At a request by the Moldovan side, the Russian diplomat said that the Embassy had been informed about no understanding in this respect between the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Tiraspol administration. The Russian diplomat underlined that his country observes the national legislation of the Republic of Moldova and will act in line with the position expressed by the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister). The Russian parliamentary elections will be conducted on 2 December 2007. -- Nistriana 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is incredibly one-sided! Since I know this is a very sensitive topic for many, I'll post a list of issues I have on the talk page first. In no particular order:
1. Gorbachev decree -- I do not see how this is directly relevant to the article. The overall tone of the comment makes it sound like a case against PMR's independence, which is neither neutral or appropriate. Gorbachev is obviously a very respected figure, and the comment implies that he is against PMR. This is not the case, his actions in 90s were aimed at preserving the USSR, and nothing else. This needs to be clarified.
2. Romanian support of Moldovan forces -- There is hardly any mention of the direct military and political support of Romania for the Moldovan side, while on the other hand there are more then plenty references to the support given to PMR by Russia. This is clearly cheery-picking of facts to present an unbalanced view of the conflict.
h army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
3. 400,000 citizens of Moldova. -- This comment strongly implies that the majority of people in PMR wish to be a part of Moldova. This is not the case, as is mentioned later in this article. Most people who live in PMR accept Moldovan (as well as Russian and Ukrainian) citizenship because of the legal difficulties that exit with travel. This needs to be clarified.
4. Number of Russian troops in PMR. -- According to Russian sources Russia has fully completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords. The only remaining Russian troops in PMR are peacekeeping and their presence there is unrelated to anything other then the conflict between Moldova and PMR. The number of troops present is around 500, not 1500 as is stated in the article. I will add this information with sources to present both points of view.
5. European court of human rights on Russian troops. -- Once again, apart from badmouthing PMR and Russia how is this relevant? That court has no authority (political or moral) to declare a peacekeeping operating as illegal or legal and as mentioned above Russia has completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords.
6. Other conflicts, causes. -- There is a sentence that compares PMR to other secessionist conflicts in the FSU. There is s strong implication that the only reason for these conflicts is Russian interference. However what is not mentioned is the root cause for these session movements. In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority. One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s. I will add this to the article. If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone interested in this article has any comments, please post them here, otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotnik ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
First, please do not make edits within my comments. This makes everything very hard to read and follow. I specifically enumerated my points (and will do so in the future) so that they are easier to reply to.
1. Before I get to the specifics, I want to make a couple of overall points. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant. However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here. This article fails to adequately present all sides in a neutral and encyclopedic way.
2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.
3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.
4.
Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article.
5.
If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14th army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis.
6.
I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation.
7.
I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.
8.
If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.
9.
-- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...
10.
Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete
11.
Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?
12.
400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory
13.
Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there
14.
"Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.
15.
Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.
16.
P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?
Sotnik 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sotnik's comments excerpted as appropriate.
1. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant.
However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here.
2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.
3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.
4. ... If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.
5. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically.
6.If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true.
7. (re: I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.) This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict.
8. (re: If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.) That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.
9. (re: -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...) Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.
10. Gorbachev decree, already covered
11. (re: Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?) I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.
12. (re: 400,000 citizens...) I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.
13. "Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there" First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.
14. (re: "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.) See above.
15. (re: Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.)
16. (re: P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?) What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?
I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.
Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"
The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.
Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.
I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.
What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.
You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.
Moldovans died, and how many were wounded in the conflict on Dnestr? - Is it true that weapons used by the opponents were like Indian tomahawks against European guns? - Why Ilascu group members have spent so many years in prison? The last members, Ivantoc and Petrov-Popa were freed last year. They have spent about 15 years in prison, almost as many as Nelson Mandela (who spent 20), apparently for the same reason: freedom for the native South-Africans (the blacks), respectively the native Moldovans. - How much PMR army costs every year? Considering PMR has the lowest GDP per capita of the whole Europe (with the exception of Kosovo), how PRM can afford such an army? More: how can PMR maintain the military equipment? There are 18 years since 1990, and similar equipments of ex-communist countries have been replaced, or are going to be soon. There is no way such a "country" can afford such an army. - If Russia pays for the army and weapons, estimations being between 0,5 to 1 billion euros per year, why do Russians pay? Because maintaining several hundred thousands Russophones in an area with such a reduced GDP doesn't mean "help our brothers" but "prosecute" them. Sorinutsu ( talk) 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu29March2008
My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started.
Sotnik 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to lay out a road map for the changes I want to make, but this is fine, lets get to specifics.
Lets start with Russian troops in Moldova, here is a Russian source 1, that states Russia is now in full compliance with the Istanbul accords. The only troops left in Moldova are peacekeeping who will stay until the conflict is resolved.
The specific change I want to make is from this,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand their withdrawal.
To this,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. Moldova and the OSCE maintain that the Russian contingent is a part of the Soviet 14th Guards Army and demand their withdrawal based on the Istanbul accords. Russia and the PMR maintain that all the troops of the 14th Army have already been fully withdrawn. The only Russian troops in Transnistria are peacekeepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire agreement and will not be withdrawn until the conflict is fully resolved.\ Sotnik ( talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This was declared to be “lacking legal basis” by then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov and the decision to create the PMSSR was annulled by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.
I want to change this to,
Although acknowledging discriminatory policies by the Moldovan majority as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.
This is right of out of the aforementioned decree, which can be found online on many legal portals, this one for example 1. Sotnik ( talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Take for example the following academic account. — PētersV ( talk) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
On 22 December 1990, the Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, issued a decree in which he attempted to call Moldova to order by threatening presidential rule from Moscow. The decree declared the unilaterally proclaimed Gagauz and Trans-Dniester republics and the elected bodies illegal and juridical invalid. The same decree insisted that the central government of the Moldovan republic repeal or revise numerous laws and decisions. Such "objectionable" laws included the creation of a separate republican guard, a language law supposedly giving preference to Moldovan speakers, and a denunciation of the Union annexation of Moldova under the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (SM, 22 December 1990).
One week later, the Moldovan Parliament agreed to comply by disbanding its national guard and revising the law on languages, which the Union President alleged restricted minority rights. The Supreme Soviet of Moldova rejected, however, any modifications to the republic's Declaration of Sovereignty, and refused to recognize the supremacy of USSR legislation over that of the republic on the territory of Moldova (SM, 30 December 1990).
On 21 January, the Third Extraordinary Congress of Trans-Dniester deputies was convoked to discuss the Gorbachev decree. The Congress repeated its demand to the USSR Supreme Soviet and to the Union President to recognize the independence of the proclaimed PMSSR and GSSR and to let representatives of those republics sign the Union Treaty independently from Moldova.
from http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu12ee/uu12ee0a.htm
Dear Sotnik, perhaps one word at a time. You write "acknowledging". No. The word is "alleging" based on reports (актов) to the Supreme Soviet. "Acknowledging" is purely your personal interpretation wherein you ascribe admission of culpability. That is not reporting the contents of the decree. And I have provided an academic example of a source also utilizing "alleged". PētersV ( talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you have access to a reputably sourced translation we (meaning also other editors) could agree we could work from. PētersV ( talk) 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Bulgarian passport are now 'real gold' because they mean free access on the European workforce market. But I will pass to more serious consideration, ('donc, revenons a nos moutons', as French say); the article above has links to: official censuses in Transnistria that shows a continual decrease of the moldovan proportion in the total population since the 1920's years, that continued after 1990. That confuses me because thw article says: 'the xenophobia, extremist nationalism, and prosecution of the minorities' led to the 'interethnical' conflict that eventually produced the 'Proclamation of Independence' of Mr. Smirnov. Moldovans have the highest birth rate in Europe, after the Albanians, then: why their number as well as their proportion decreased ?
-The explanations coming to my mind are: they got a Romanian (or Bulgarian) passport and move temporarily, or for longer periods (several years), somewhere in the EU. But the number of Romanian or Bulgarian passports given to Moldovan citizens is ten times smaller then passports given by the Russian Federation, because of bureaucracy and restrictive legislation, although Romania's president Basescu says he intends to give citizenship to 'all' Moldovan citizens of all nationalities(origins). That created serious tensions between Moldovan president Voronin and Basescu, after Basescu became president at the end of 2004 .(Moldovan leaders are afraid of losing most of their tax payers). [I have not now the time to cite exactly the newspapers and the tv-stations websites, that deal with the conflicts, then friendship, then again conflicts, and so on, between Romanian leaders (especially Basescu), Moldovan leaders, and -carefully- RUSSIAN leaders. Basescu is not a KGB officer like Putin, he has been an oil tank commanander, so he needed to make sailers follow him even in the middle of the ocean. I am sorry for those unable to understand the (Moldo-Romanian) language, as the political show is FUNNY at the highest level.] Moldova and especially Transnistria have HUGE economical problems and it is understandable people trying to gain money by working abroad. In fact, before 01 January 2007 (when Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union ), all Moldovans could pass the border with Romania using their Moldovan Identity Card , that significantly eased the life of many Moldovans that worked in Romania for much bigger salaries (I mention many can't pay a passport)
-Another explanation for the DECREASE of Moldovans number in Transnistria should be the continuous effort of Russian authorities to assimilate all local or immigrant population. The most obvious evidence is the decreasing number of schools or classes in the Romanian language. The simple fact that this language HAS to be called Moldovan creats confusion, especially as writers mentioned, and studied by children have never crossed at the east of Prut river,and have never been in today republic of Moldova. Older Moldovans NEVER had the opportunity of learning the Latin alphabet. Soviet official policy has been (and post year 2000 Russia is going back to that cultural policy): to impose writing, of almost all local languages into Cyrillic alphabet. A funny example is Mongolian language, used in always independent state of Mongolia, that even today uses Cyrillic alphabet.
-A conclusion would be: in spite of the prosecution of the minorities in the Republic of Moldova those who, apparently, suffered the most were the Moldovans (Romanians).The military conflict produced a large number of victims. The dead, as far as we know, were ONLY the Moldovans. It looks like: scared by the dismantling of the USSR, and with the aim of preventing the loose of the privileges, Russophones and the other minorities that controlled the police, the army,and the secret services (in 1988-1992) opened fire against Moldovan demonstrators, practically unarmed. Sorinutsu ( talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu01April2008~~
In the line with the above discussion and source, I want to change this section to,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent is present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. The 1992 cease-fire agreement between Moldova and Transnistria established a Russian peace-keeper presence in Transnistria. Russian troops stationed in Moldova proper since the time of the USSR were fully withdrawn to Russia by January 1993. On 21 October 1994, Russia and Moldova signed an agreement that committed Russia to the withdrawal of the troops in three years from the date of entry into force of the agreement, this however did not come into effect because the Russian Duma did not ratify it. The Moldovan government took advantage of the negotiations of The Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and managed to ensure that a paragraph about the removal of Russian troops from Moldova’s territory was introduced into the text of the OSCE Summit Declaration of Istanbul (1999), through which Russia had committed itself to pulling out its troops from Transnistria by the end of 2002. However, even after 2002, the Russian parliament did not ratify the Istanbul accords. On 19 July 2004, after it finally passed through parliament President Vladimir Putin signed the Law on the ratification of the CFE Treaty in Europe, which were committing Russia to remove the heavy armaments limited by this Treaty by the end of 2001. During 2000-2001, in order to comply to the CFE Treaty, Moscow withdrew 125 pieces of Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE) and 60 railway wagons containing ammunition from the Transnistrian region of Moldova. In 2002, Russia withdrew only 3 military equipment trains (118 railway wagons) and 2 of ammunition (43 wagons) from the Transnistrian region of Moldova, and in 2003, 11 rail convoys transporting military equipment and 31 transporting ammunitions. According to the OSCE Mission to Moldova, of a total of 42,000 tons of ammunitions stored in Transnistria, 1,153 tons (3%) was transported back to Russia in 2001, 2,405 tons (6%) in 2002 and 16,573 tons (39%) in 2003. Andrei Stratan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova stated in his speech during the 12th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Sofia on December 6-December 7, 2004 that "The presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state. As of 2007 however, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire, are not in violation of the Istanbul accords and will remain until the conflict is fully resolved. Sotnik ( talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In Moldova article, inhabitants are named "Moldovans", here they are called "Moldavians", maybe we should stick with only one form. -- AdrianTM 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The socks play on the blocks.
My un-edits refer to "republic" (recently added by Alaexis), and "state". IMHO, usage of legal terms can be done only based on legal sources, not on political commentaries. No matter how good faith and thorough they are, all they claim is to observe and comment the de facto situation. They never claim anything about the legal status of the territory/region. "A self-proclaimed republic/state" is ok, though, because it does not state a de jure thing, but a de facto one. Without the adjective, it becomes colloquially ok, but legally false.: Dc76\ talk 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic> | ” |
"Breakaway territory" is NPOV. Reading a dictionary to interpret what the PMR is is WP:SYNTH. Besides, there are rumors of future non-independence. The PMR is still not recognized, not even by Russia. -- PētersV ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
From Webster, republic - a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president further from Webster, government - the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit . PMR fits those definitions. A government (and a republic) maybe either legitimate or illegitimate, internationally recognized or not, etc. As long as the article makes it clear that PMR has no international recognition, saying republic and/or state is appropriate. Sotnik ( talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a different context, see here (same reference that you used): "U.S. and international law recognize that certain actions of de facto regimes must be accorded the same legal status as those of a de jure state. The existence of a de facto regime is determined by applying clearly defined criteria:" so they talk about "de facto regimes" that have to be hold accountable as states, see here: "By acknowledging the existence of a de facto regime a court does not legitimate its actions, but simply recognizes those actions, and those of its officials, as state action for which they may be held legally accountable." So it's all about accountability not about statehood. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Breakaway territory" and "self-proclaimed republic" together are fine. I would note there is no real standard for "Transnistria", Transdniester, Transdnester and various hyphenated forms are all commonly used. The quote earlier regarding accountability has nothing to do with any explicit or implicit recognition of authority, that's all Sotnik's WP:SYNTH. All it says is, we don't care who or what you are, we expect you to abide by international law (so, human rights conventions, etc.). Finally the Tiraspol Times (I noted a reference) is a PMR mouthpiece, their contributors/editors pushing pro-PMR propaganda have come and gone here on Wikipedia, banned as single-purpose accounts. It is not a reputable source, please do not cite it in the pursuit of NPOV if you want anything you say to be taken seriously. PētersV ( talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This entire section should be removed. The introduction is supposed to function as an overview for the article, and that should be expanded, possibly using info from this other section. However, as it now stands, the overview section has no purpose as it overlaps with other parts of the text. All important information should be moved to other subsections and this section should be deleted. TSO1D ( talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The International Crisis Group reports on Transnistria extensively discuss the "shadow" sector of the region's economy. Why is this article so silent about that? -- Kober Talk 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is very biased against the excellent work being done by President Smirnov and his team of committed, reform-minded public servants. Furthermore, there is little mention of the excellent public transportation system in Transnestria, which is substantially better than many in the "West", including Windsor, Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.235.87 ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction it says, The ceasefire has held; however the territory's political status remains undetermined and Transnistria has been de facto independent since that time. Does it not make more sense to say unresolved instead of undetermined? Sotnik ( talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Alexis,
Thank you that you rv partially. That is more constructive, even if partial=80%. The 2 issues:
Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages |
---|
(1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet. |
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country. |
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage. |
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law. end of citation of article 13 of Constitution |
Organic Laws |
1) Law regarding the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR
[5]. 2) Decision of Parliament regarding "Implementation of the law regarding Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR" [6]. 3) Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria) [7]. (1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova. (2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria. (3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language. |
Official language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.
An official language is not to be confused with a national language, although the national language may be official if given legal recognition by the government. One of the official languages of sierre leone is French. |
Comparative law as an example |
Three official languages in Luxembourg:
Multilingualism in Luxembourg belongs to the everyday life of Luxembourg's population.
Article 29 of Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [8]: (Modified on 6 May 1948) "The law will regulate the use of languages in administrative and judicial matters." The law of 24 February 1984 about the use of the languages in Luxembourg is (translated from French):
In most other multilingual countries, such as Switzerland or Canada, the distribution of the languages is geographic, but in Luxembourg it is functional. 'Functional' means that the use of the language depends on the situation. |
Comparative law as an example - equivalent provisions in Moldovan law |
Article 6 of the Law regarding Functioning of Languages: Regarding institutions of state power, state administration and public organisations, as well as companies, other instituions and organisations located on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, the language of oral and written communction - Moldavian or Russian - is chosen by the citizen. The citizen's right to use Gagauz language in the aforementioned conditions is guaranteed in localities with population of Gagauz nationality. In localities, where the majority of population is composed of Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian nationalities, the native or other convenient language is used. |
Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova:
1) Moldavian language (wich is the same as Romanian linguisticly and scientificly, however no legal reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)
2) Russian language (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law) [9] (official "state" language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)
3) Ukrainian language [10] which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality (как актовый язык Молдавского княжества) [11], which is official "state" language in the easten cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)
4) Gagauz language, which is official "state" language in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.
Moreover, as per evidence cited above, Romani language, Hebrew language and Bulgarian language enjoy a clearly established legal status in Moldova. What we need here is to establish the list of localities where the population is really majority of respective nationalities and speaks these languages.
Please refer to the Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria) [12].
(1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova.
(2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria.
(3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language.
Therefore the Moldovan spelling cannot be written with Cyrillic characters. Moldopodo ( talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
“ | Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy. The law was passed without any prior consultation with the de facto government in Transnistria, which felt that it was a provocation and has since ignored it. | ” |
Country infoboxes are for countries. For Transnistria should be used the same infobox as for Gagauzia. Moldopodo ( talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
“ | Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy | ” |
Alæxis ¿question? 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the Transnistrian ruble removed from the infobox btw? Alæxis ¿question? 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted it as the currency is not recognized, it is not part of international ISO 4217 standard. We may put it back if you insist, however official currency in Eastern cantons of the Republic of Moldova is officially the same as in in southern, central, western and northern - it is MDL. -- Moldopodo ( talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Russians voting in Russian military units in Transnistria, even though Moldova protested against Russia organizing vote on Moldovan territory. BBC article (sorry this is in Romanian, I don't have the translation) -- AdrianTM 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of added then removing then re-adding the template of slavic speaking states, could we not just create a Template called Romanian speaking states (presumably including Romanian, Moldova, and Transnistria) and add both templates for the slavic speaking states and the Romanian speaking states and we are all set? Otherwise someone else is just going to add it back then another person is just going to remove it. Also, state is not POV in describing Transnistria as per the description in the article state "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area". Pocopocopocopoco 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A reference backing the passage about the PMR attitude to this law was requested recently. Here's the excerpt from the address of PMR Parliament to the Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada
“ | Принятые парламентом Республики Молдова 10 июня 2005 года Декларация и обращение Парламента Республики Молдова, которые на практике означают вариант силового принуждения жителей Приднестровья к безоговорочному вхождению в унитарную Молдову в качестве Приднестровского региона Республики Молдова, ведут к провоцированию конфронтации и противоречат основополагающим принципам ОБСЕ по урегулированию региональных конфликтов. Принятые документы свидетельствуют о полном отказе Молдовы от идеи федерализма, что противоречит ранее принятым решениям и заявлениям, сделанным самим руководством Республики Молдова. | ” |
I think that this is enough to prove what is written in the article now (except for that there were no prior consultations - this probably still needs refs). Alæxis ¿question? 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Declaration and the petition to the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, adopted on June 10, 2005, in practice amount to a version of an imposition by force upon the residents of Transnistria to the unconditional entry in the unitary state of Moldova as the Transnistrian region of the Moldova Republic, lead to provoke a confrontation and contradict basic principles of OSCE on settling regional conflicts. Adopted documents witness [speak of] a complete renounce by Moldova of the idea of federalism, which contradicts earlier adopted solutions and declarations/announcements, made by the government of Moldova itself. | ” |
Alæxis ¿question? 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :slightly corrected by Dc76\ talk 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As promised above, here is an academic reference on Romanian military support. 1 I'll post specific passaged I'd like to add shortly. Sotnik ( talk) 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | 49. According to data from the headquarters of the 14th Army, every day four to five railcars crossed into Moldova from Romania loaded with Romanian arms and ammunition. The Russian command had at its disposal many documents, film, and photo materials, which were shown at a press conference proving Romanian involvement in the armed conflict in Transdniester. See The Situation in Transdniester According to Data of the Headquarters of the 14th Army," ITAR-TASS, July 7, 1992. Romanian military support for the Moldovan side was reported by a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992. (This organization unites the human rights organizations of 24 countries, and has its headquarters in Frankfurt.) The members of this delegation claimed to have received "absolute proof" that Romania was giving "full support" to the government in Kishinev, including weaponry, ammunition, and armed vehicles. According to the head of the U.S. office of this Society, it has documentary proof (including many photographs) to support these claims that the Moldovan government was using Romanian military advisers and security forces, and that there was evidence that Moldovan forces had received military and police training from the Romanians. On the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE. See "Human Rights Organization on the Situation... | ” |
The passage cited is from an article written by a Russian political analyst Edward Ozhiganov. At the end of the book, you can find these words of recommendation: "This book provides a timely and long-overdue insight into how top Russian analysts view ethno-political conflicts in the former Soviet Union ... this collection of articles and commentaries is an invaluable resource for U.S. policymakers." (Graham T. Allison)
Personally, I believe it is a good source to illustrate how the top Russian analysts view conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Maybe even a whole section can be written based on this and similar sources, in one of the secondary articles ( War of Transnistria or Disputed status of Transnistria or other). I also do not oppose the insertion of small citations from there into this article, provided they are done in faithful manner (attributed).
The passage makes reference to "a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992.", which "on the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE." Unfortunately, I have not heard of this acronym before. What society is this? It must be something known, otherwise it would not have representations in 24 countries and distribute reports to US Congress, State Department, and OSCE. It is therefore natural to ask: can we pinpoint this organization more precisely, what is its full name, website, a few basic data? I am sure a 1-paragraph article about this organization would be notable in Wikipedia. We would strike gold if we can also find a copy of the report mentioned. As long as it is attributed to the source, which ideally/normally would be clearly identified, I have no objection. Even if the report would contain obvious mistakes, it does not matter, because "organization X claimed Y" is absolutely ok. So, while perhaps disagreeing with some conclusions, we can certainly agree on correctly citing the source.
In the same paragraph, but without attributing to an original source, the author also mentions about tanks and helicopters used by the Moldovans in Tighina. This is certainly a mistake, since Moldova did not own a single tank since the brake of the Soviet Union, and at the time helicopters were not flown in the conflict zone (b/c they were transport not fighter like 14h army's ones). Also, he mentions "towns", as in plural, while fighting ocured only in one urban locality, the other ones were rural. Anyway, these are details. I am just wondering, why the author was not careful about these details, because the usage of grenade launchers and other stuff is correct. Anyway. : Dc76\ talk 12:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've traversed part of the article, and I have some remarks that might help improve it:
Cheers, Dpotop ( talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
To answer the first question by Alaexis, I think that the "Overview" is no longer necessary. It was necessary as a guideline during the edit wars some time ago, but the article is now stable. I suggest we enlarge a bit the lead and push all remaining info in the sections, where it should be. Like Dc76 suggested, we could do it in stages if you agree with the principle. For a first stage, I would suggest the following:
What do you say? Dpotop ( talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | A. Although the PMR does not have such legal status within Moldova, it functions like a state, and is organized as a republic.[7]
B. Transnistria declared independence from Moldova within the Soviet Union on September 2, 1990, as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.[8][9] C. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in March 1992, a war between Moldovan and Transnistrian separatist forces started in the region. In mid April 1992, in accordance with the agreements concerning the split of the military equipment of the former Soviet Union, negotiated between the former 15 republics in the previous months, Moldova created its own Defense Ministry. According to the decree of its creation, most of the 14th Soviet Army's military equipment was to be retained by Moldova.[10] Volunteers came from Russia and Ukraine to help the separatist side ("Cossack Companies").[11] The former Soviet 14th Guards Army entered the conflict in its final stage, opening fire against Moldovan forces;[12] since then, Moldova has exercised no effective control or influence on PMR authorities. A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river. D.Transnistria functions as a presidential republic[citation needed], with its own government and parliament. Its authorities have adopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organized and maintain a military and a police force. They have a postal system and stamps. Their stamps, though not internationally recognized, are of value to collectors.[13] Transnistrian institutions, like the state itself, have no international recognition. E. Nonetheless, the population is able to travel (normally without difficulty) in and out of the territory under PMR control to neighboring Moldovan-controlled territory, Ukraine, and on to Russia, by road or (when service is not interrupted by political tensions) on two international trains, the year-round Moscow-Chişinău, and the seasonal Saratov-Varna.[14] International air travellers rely on the airport in Chisanau, the Moldovan capital. F.Despite the fact that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists, 400,000 Transnistrians (the majority of the population) took Moldovan citizenship by 2007.[15]. G.A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria.[16] Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords. [17] According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".[18] H.Transnistria is sometimes compared with Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All four are post-Soviet frozen conflicts, and except for Nagorno-Karabakh, the tensions in these areas have risen to large-scale military conflict after the independence of Moldova and Georgia from the Soviet Union, while Russian troops and/or volunteers from Russia were largely present.[19][20] |
” |
Let's add the words 'and functions like a state[7]' to the second sentence of the intro - 'Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, it is de facto independent.[4][5][6]'. Alæxis ¿question? 07:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this to the history section as this info is already summarised in the intro. Alæxis ¿question? 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Should be shorthened ("Transnistria is sometimes compared with other post_soviet frozen conflict zones such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia") and moved to intro. Alæxis ¿question? 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll take the initiate here. I think we need to have a section dedicated specifically to the conflict. We can then move parts C, F, G there and the rest can be squeezed in the intro. Thoughts?
Sotnik (
talk)
06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this? The sentence, "A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river." can be moved into the intro, right after "...and was concluded by the ceasefire of July, 1992.". The rest can be moved to the Secession to the present section. Sotnik ( talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this process :) Alæxis ¿question? 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am interested, what official international organisation "recognized" the internal borders in Republic of Moldova? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhio ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Postings by 193.120.95.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are from Buffadren ( talk · contribs) [13], who is banned by Arbcom and not welcome to edit here, be it on articles or on talk pages. All their contributions should be rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess Mark/Des/??? was reprimanded for not being efficient enough at spreading propaganda. It's pretty obvious Russia is on a diplomatic offensive now on all its borders, including Transnistria. So, I guess we risk having some action here in the near future. BTW, for those interested, reading some propaganda from the Tiraspol Times makes you understand why Voronin is so aggressive on Romania-related issues. The threats are not even shaded, they are explicit, and they come from the local FSB office. :) Dpotop 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In the last time I wasn't active here, but if Mark will insist I will become again. Some new developments occured in the last time which I saw weren't mentioned in the article:
There is also a new head of the OSCE mission to Moldova - Philip Remler [14].
Probabily some events in Moldova, like the banning of the Romanian Television, the proposed banning of people with dual citizenship to held administrative and political positions - which is targeted against people with Romanian citizenship (I wonder if the new mayor of Chişinău, who spent some years in Romania and is a potential candidate against Voronin, is not between them) and the attacks against the Romanian Orthodox Church from Moldova are conected with the Transnistrian issues. My guess is that Voronin want to seduce Putin to gain his suport for Transnistrian issues. Despite his true love for Russia, I doubt he will manage to obtain what he want.-- MariusM ( talk) 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Jurnal de Chişinău" newspaper is reporting that a 18-year old boy from the village Lunga, Dubăsari district, was killed in the Transnistrian Army, where he was enrolled. Transnistrian authorities are claiming it was a heart attack, but the family saw on his body marks of beatings. Source (in Romanian language).-- MariusM ( talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"...that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists," ... most locals took a Moldovan passport. Can someone explain to me how is the latter "despite", or relevant in any way to the former? Seeing as how one needs a passport from a recognized state to venture anywhere at all... -- Illythr ( talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but in the introduction, shouldn't there be a mention of the Russian troops stationed within this region despite international agreements?
In the intro, the phrase "within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova" is used twice in rapid succession. I want to change "Transnistria is located within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova mostly to the east of the Dniester river." to "Transnistria is located within Moldova mostly between the Dniester river and the boarder with Ukraine." Any objections? Sotnik ( talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was in the Overview section and was moved to Russian military presence in Transnistria
According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". [1]
Just read through the whole judgment and this is not what it says. Nowhere does it mention Russian troops violating the 1992 ceasefire agreement nor does it use the word illegal. What it says precisely is, "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." Its referring to the Istanbul accords not the ceasefire agreement, which I might add were not even ratified until 2004.
This sentence needs to be changed to something like,
In the verdict, issued against Moldova and Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". [2]
and moved to Incidents under the Human rights section. Sotnik ( talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I found something inexact in the article: It is claimed that the capital, Tiraspol, was also the capital of the Moldavian ASSR in Ukraine before 1940. This is false. Balta, not Tiraspol was the capital then. (Now Balta is in Ukraine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.113.161 ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote before about wanting to expand the sections of this article dealing with the ethnic origins of the conflict. Here is what I came up with. All of the sources I'm providing are either academic or books written by respected scholars. I specifically looked for American and European sources to avoid any accusations bias.
In the 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost in the Soviet Union allowed political liberalization at a regional level. This led to the creation of various informal movements in Moldavian SSR and the resurgence of pro-Romanian nationalism among ethnic Moldovans. 1 The most prominent of these movements was the Moldovan Popular Front. By the end of 1988 they demanded from the central authority to declare Moldovan the only state language, to adopt the Latin alphabet and to recognize the shared ethnic identity of the Romanian and Moldovan nations. The more radical factions of the Popular Front used extremely anti-minority, ethnocentric and chauvinist rhetoric 1 2. Some have called for minority populations, particularly the Slavs (mainly Russians and Ukrainians) and Gagauz, to leave or be expelled from Moldova. 1 After the alphabet was changed and the plans for major cultural changes in Moldova were made public, tensions rose further. Ethnic minorities felt threatened by the prospects of removing Russian as the de facto official language, the possible future reunification of Moldova and Romania and the ethnocentric rhetoric of the Popular Front. The Yedinstvo (Unity) National Front, established by the Slavic population of Moldova, pressed for the equal status given to both Russian and Moldovan. [3] The nationalist Popular Front won the parliamentary elections in the Moldavian SSR in the spring of 1990 and on September 2, 1990, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed as a Soviet republic by the Second Congress of the Peoples' Representatives of Transnistria. The situation in the country was escalating into violence, in October 1990 the Popular Front called for volunteers to form armed militias in order to stop a Gagauz autonomy referendum by coercion. In response, volunteer militias were formed Transnistria. In April 1990 nationalist mobs attacked ethnic Russian members of parliament, while the Moldovan police refused to intervene or restore order. 1 Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating further into violence the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990. [4] [5] Nevertheless, there was no significant actions taken against Transnistria and the new authorities were slowly able to establish control of the region.
Sotnik ( talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sotnik ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Observation: we seem to stumble upon the two usages of the word "nationalism": in the sense of Biruitorul, or in the sense most understand. You can say about the majority in the first sense if you wish, although it was NOT a pride, and a good half or more would strongly object to call them that way. But you can definitively say "nationalist" in the second sense for extremes. "Multiparty" is obviously fine - good idea! Although correctly - "multicandidate, as there were no parties (remember the constitution of the USSR article 6) About 85-95%: depends very much of what? of Russophones? or of minorities? I don't know exact data, but Ukrainian, Russian, Gagauzian and Bulgarian villages existed before 1940. Not many, but they were (smth like 10% of villages). Cities: is a different story. Dc76\ talk 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sotnik ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of this and this. I'm going to remove the absolutely ridiculous paragraph about the Bendery/Dragalina cemetery. If someone doesn't feel like reading through both articles, I'll summarize. The PMR government painstakingly and respectfully restored the cemetery, including the Romanian quarter, restoring and/or replacing the headstones and crosses and building a new chapel. Sotnik ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article we are misleading the readers claiming that the Popular Front won the elections in 1990. In fact, only about one third of the seats in parliament were gained by Popular Front candidates. Also, is misleading to claim that PF had an aggresive, ethnocentric rethoric. Contrary to the baltic states, the Popular Front agreed to give moldovan citizenship to everybody who lived in Moldova, regardless of his place of birth or ancestors and it made attempts (unsuccesfull) to gain support from minorities publishing a Russian-language edition of its newspaper "Ţara" (which is not anymore published, for economic reasons).-- MariusM ( talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I will be inactive on WP for ca. 2 weeks. I think I made my points clear, and the discussion above already has some solutions. I will read what you came up with and how you edited when I come. In mean time, good luck. Dc76\ talk 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Promo-Lex NGO has released this year a study about Human Rights in Transnistria. It is available in Russian, Romanian and English. For English version see here.-- MariusM ( talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello and Welcome!
I've noticed you have made some changes to the article. Please discuss any changes you want to make on this page beforehand. Sotnik ( talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
is it actually fully communist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.229.130 ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The following text is deleted from section "Political stautus"
This is a piece of news does not belong to section "political status". It also does not belong to an overview article about the whole transnistria. Please put in into "human rigths in transnistria" or whatever. There are hundreds of events there. This is an encycloipedia article, not a news archive. `' Míkka >t 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree, please explain your reasons why this piece belongs to this article/section. `' Míkka >t 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no information on the topic. Does the statelet have GDP, does it have economy at all?! - R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.161.16 ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The Ukraine article starts out with a list of the countries bordering Ukraine. The list currently includes "Romania and Moldova to the southwest". I'm wondering whether, perhaps, this list should also acknowledge Transnistria in some way. Before trying to bring up the question on the Ukraine article's talk page, I thought maybe I should ask people here what they think.
Possible formulas I could think of for changing this list of Ukraine's neighbours might include:
I'm not proposing to have extended debates about Transnistria spill over unnecessarily into the Ukraine page. I'm only wondering if WP:NPOV may possibly call for some minimal, impartial acknowledgment (in the Ukraine article) of the fact that one of the entities bordering Ukraine happens to be Transnistria, a region whose rightful status is currently a matter of dispute. What do people here think would be the best way to deal with the topic over there? Or is any mention in the Ukraine article of Transnistria, no matter how it might be worded, a sure recipe for a knock-down, drag-out argument that it may be better to try to avoid for the time being? Richwales ( talk) 16:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph in the Names sections should really go into the Geography section instead.
In a strict geographical sense, the terms "Transnistria" and "PMR" are not synonymous, since the city of Bendery and three communes from the Căuşeni district situated near Bendery, which are in the security zone, but under PMR administrative control, are situated on the right bank of the Dniester and thus not geographically in Transnistria. Breakaway authorities show on their maps these, as well as two more villages of the same district but not under their administration, as belonging to Transnistria. On the other hand, nine villages on the left bank (and thus geographically in Transnistria) have remained under the Moldovan control and administration. These villages are shown by the breakaway authorities on their maps as belonging to them.
and that same information is already there,
The territory of Transnistria is mostly, but not completely coincident with the left (eastern) bank of Moldova (with respect to Dniester). It includes ten cities and towns, and 69 communes, with a totality of 147 localities (counting the unincorporated ones as well). Ten localities on the left bank are controlled by the Moldovan government, as part of the Dubăsari district. They are situated north and south of the city of Dubăsari, which itself is under Transnistrian control. On the west bank, the city of Bendery and six villages to its south and south-east, roughly opposite Tiraspol, are controlled by Transnistrian authorities. The ten localities controlled by the Moldovan authorities on the eastern bank, the city of Dubăsari (situated on the eastern bank and controlled by Tiraspol), the seven localities controlled by the Transnistrian authorities on the western bank, as well as two (Varniţa and Copanca) on the same bank under Chişinău control form a security zone. The security situation inside it is subject to the Joint Control Commission rulings.
If there aren't any objections I'll remove that paragraph from the Names sections. Sotnik ( talk) 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've used PMR's own GDP and population statistics (533.5 th. people) to estimate GDP per capita. I've also converted the GDP from PMR roubles to US$ using today's rate. If someone could improve this I'd be very glad :) Alæxis ¿question? 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Russian Empire paragraph, you might want to add that some of the Germans subsequently emigrated to the U.S. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Russian and the Glückstal Colonies Research Association, http://www.glueckstal.org/index.htm, where there is a history at http://www.ehrman.net/gcra/history.html and a map http://www.ehrman.net/maps/map2.gif
Geoffrey Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.9.16.97 ( talk) 05:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The official flag of Transnistria doesn't show the hammer and sickle. Don't make it worse than it is. I visited Transnistria in July 2008 and I can tell you that the old flag is not in use anymore. 91.57.39.139 ( talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
10/22/2008 An Italian Journalist from the popular Tv-transmition "Le Iene" , in the show aired on 10/21/2008, was able to buy 50 guns and 50 kalashnikov's in a few days through Tiraspol's market. He was also offered rocket propelled granades and heat-seeking anti-aircraft weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.171.68 ( talk) 09:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Can someone edit the map and add Moldiva (as a name) to it because at the moment its unlabled and makes the map a little confusing.
Please add [1] to the list of recommended links. We're working to resolve the Transnistria issue and it would be great to have others who are interested in the peaceful resolution of the conflict work with us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.114.183.20 ( talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure why not, those two mexican hosted spam links are in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.207.59 ( talk) 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no blockade of Transnistria, they just need to have documents with Moldovan customs stamp. On this issue, Clockword is right. Transnistria is still doing a lot of imports and exports.-- MariusM 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As we have a separate article about the custom conflict, we should keep in this article only a short mention about this issue, with link at detailed article. In my opinion, Transnistrian authorities just want to find somebody else to blame for the deteriorating economic life in the region. An old game (not specific only for Transnistria).-- MariusM 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Illythr, you came with the idea to make shorter the "Security concerns" section, and it seems that everybody is agreeing to shorten the "arms control" part, which is the biggest part of the section you wanted to make shorter. Why don't you come with a proposal for rewriting this part and you are focusing in contentious issues?-- MariusM 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
As per http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_transnistria_automobile.shtml and http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/moldova/story/2007/11/071107_inmatriculare_transnistria.shtml cars registred in PMR will no longer enter in Moldova starting from 1st of Jannuary 2008. Nistriana 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Russian-speaking Transnistria refused Romanian-speaking Moldova to have a common army. Russia, which supports the Transnistrian side and maintains some 1,500 troops in Transnistria, despite a promise to remove them by the end of 2003, refused also Moldovan proposal.-- Nistriana 19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And as far as I know, President Voronin proposed full demilitarization of Moldova on both banks of the Nistru River. He proposed the “liquidation” of all tanks and armored vehicles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery of any type, both by the lawful Moldovan and the unlawful Transnistria forces, within six months. Actually, Voronin proposed this demilitarization keeping in mind with Moldova’s status of permanent neutrality. The idea is that constitution bans the stationing of foreign troops on Moldova’s territory. -- Nistriana 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As I read Moldovan authorities are against opening of Transnistria-based polling stations for Russian parliamentary elections. Moldovan side recommended to the Russian side to abstain from opening polling stations in the eastern districts of the Republic of Moldova which are not under the control of the legal authorities as well as from using mobile ballot boxes in the cities of Balti and Comrat (north and south of Moldova, respectively). Also, Moldovan Government said that in case illegal polling stations are opened in the country's Transnistrian region, the whole responsibility for consequences will fall on those who organized them, and the fact will be interpreted by the Moldovan authorities as interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova. This position was reiterated at a meeting of the ministry's representatives with minister-counsellor of the Russian Embassy Vitaliy Tryapitin who was invited at the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister - (please remark the name!!!)) on 7 November 2007. At a request by the Moldovan side, the Russian diplomat said that the Embassy had been informed about no understanding in this respect between the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation and the Tiraspol administration. The Russian diplomat underlined that his country observes the national legislation of the Republic of Moldova and will act in line with the position expressed by the MAEIE (The Foreign and European Integration Minister). The Russian parliamentary elections will be conducted on 2 December 2007. -- Nistriana 06:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is incredibly one-sided! Since I know this is a very sensitive topic for many, I'll post a list of issues I have on the talk page first. In no particular order:
1. Gorbachev decree -- I do not see how this is directly relevant to the article. The overall tone of the comment makes it sound like a case against PMR's independence, which is neither neutral or appropriate. Gorbachev is obviously a very respected figure, and the comment implies that he is against PMR. This is not the case, his actions in 90s were aimed at preserving the USSR, and nothing else. This needs to be clarified.
2. Romanian support of Moldovan forces -- There is hardly any mention of the direct military and political support of Romania for the Moldovan side, while on the other hand there are more then plenty references to the support given to PMR by Russia. This is clearly cheery-picking of facts to present an unbalanced view of the conflict.
h army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
3. 400,000 citizens of Moldova. -- This comment strongly implies that the majority of people in PMR wish to be a part of Moldova. This is not the case, as is mentioned later in this article. Most people who live in PMR accept Moldovan (as well as Russian and Ukrainian) citizenship because of the legal difficulties that exit with travel. This needs to be clarified.
4. Number of Russian troops in PMR. -- According to Russian sources Russia has fully completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords. The only remaining Russian troops in PMR are peacekeeping and their presence there is unrelated to anything other then the conflict between Moldova and PMR. The number of troops present is around 500, not 1500 as is stated in the article. I will add this information with sources to present both points of view.
5. European court of human rights on Russian troops. -- Once again, apart from badmouthing PMR and Russia how is this relevant? That court has no authority (political or moral) to declare a peacekeeping operating as illegal or legal and as mentioned above Russia has completed its obligations under the Istanbul accords.
6. Other conflicts, causes. -- There is a sentence that compares PMR to other secessionist conflicts in the FSU. There is s strong implication that the only reason for these conflicts is Russian interference. However what is not mentioned is the root cause for these session movements. In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority. One of the root causes of this conflict are the actions of Romanian nationalists in the 80s-90s. I will add this to the article. If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first. TSO1D 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone interested in this article has any comments, please post them here, otherwise I'll make my changes in a day or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotnik ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
First, please do not make edits within my comments. This makes everything very hard to read and follow. I specifically enumerated my points (and will do so in the future) so that they are easier to reply to.
1. Before I get to the specifics, I want to make a couple of overall points. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant. However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here. This article fails to adequately present all sides in a neutral and encyclopedic way.
2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.
3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.
4.
Incidentally, his comments sounds as though he was opposed to Transnistrian separatism, because he was :) Besides, the article makes no comment about his personal feelings, but only describes his actions, and I think you agree that there's no factual inaccuracy there. On the other hand, trying to speculate how he really felt about Transnitria's right to secede, then or now, would constitute Original Research and should be avoided in the article.
5.
If you feel that this area is not explained well, please feel free to change (or suggest certain changes you want introduced), however please provide credible sources supporting any additions in this regard. However, I don't necessarily agree with you that the article is unbalanced in this regard, simply because there existed a great disparity between direct military involvement by Romania and Russia. While it is true that Romania did provide some light weapons to Moldovan forces, this was much less than the 14th army transfered to the Transnitrian fighters, and Russian forces had a significant involvement in actual combat, which Romanian forces did not. As for political support, considering this was seen as an issue of territorial integrity, almost all countries in the world who made statements on the issue supported Moldova, so it's not really strange that Romania did so. On the other hand, Russia was virtually alone in issuing statements supporting the separatists, and even then this was done not really on an official basis.
6.
I don't understand, if as you already mentioned, the feelings of Transnistrians toward reunification is already mentioned elsewhere, why should it also be added here? The fact is true, and I don't necessarily see the same implications that you see. Most probably took citizenship for practical reasons, but this is only my speculation.
7.
I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.
8.
If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.
9.
-- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...
10.
Gorbachev decree -- it is relating a fact, there is no value judgement, the point is that no "secession" has been deemed legal either before or after the collapse of the Soviet Union, do not delete
11.
Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?
12.
400,000 citizens -- this is a fact. This article is not about representing Transnistria according to how you might editorially like to see it. Please do not take statements made as statements of fact, then imply they mean something to you personally, then those statements need to be changed because they don't fit your view of the wants of the inhabitants of the Transnistrian territory
13.
Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there
14.
"Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.
15.
Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.
16.
P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?
Sotnik 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sotnik's comments excerpted as appropriate.
1. I have no interest in removing any verifiable facts that are even remotely relevant.
However, I know that with virtually any conflict it is very easy to cherry pick a set of facts that fit whatever narrative the author wishes. This is precisely the case here.
2. I am not going to presume anyone is "picking" on anything. I always assume good faith until proven otherwise.
3. As I already wrote, because of the sensitivity of this issue for some, I will post my changes on the talk page to make sure they meet the standards for this article.
4. ... If you want to mention his decree on PMR, it needs to be put into proper context. The way this section is worded now is a perfect example of what I mention above, selectively using factual information to present a non-neutral narrative.
5. In my view (and the view of PMR) Romanian support for Moldova was significant, if in no other way, then politically.
6.If its stated that the majority of the people in PMR do not wish to be a part of Moldova (which is something I strongly believe is the truth), it is bad practice to imply in other sections of the article that the opposite is true.
7. (re: I think it's notable organization, and its statements can be included.) This needs to be reworded, European Court doesn't have a clear legal place in this conflict.
8. (re: If you want to further explain the historical context of the PMR's secession, please do so, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Since this is a particularly sensitive issue, I would only suggest that you first present any changes you intend to make to that section on the talk page so that other editors can discuss them first.) That's fine by me. I'll post specific changes I want to make shortly.
9. (re: -- you mean Moldovans? Romanians are a minority in Republic of Moldova as it seems...) Since Moldovans and Romanians are the same people (my personal view) I generally prefer to use the term Romanians. I will be more specific as necessary. In this particular case I'm referring to the actions of the Popular Front in Moldova which identified itself as Romanian.
10. Gorbachev decree, already covered
11. (re: Are you suggesting there were Romanian (of the country Romania) troops actively fighting in the PMR actively in support of Moldova?) I don't know about Romanian troops, but I did read about arms shipments and combat volunteers.
12. (re: 400,000 citizens...) I'm not implying anything, nor do I have any desire to editorialize this article. What I want is to add additional information to clarify this specific issue. As it is currently written, is it unclear and biased.
13. "Russian sources contend many things, the same Russian sources have contended they of course want to leave, now the PMR is asking them to stay to keep the murderous Moldovans at bay; they are still there" First, tone down your rhetoric, its unnecessary and rude. Second, PMR certainly want the the Russian peacekeepers to stay. They are still there because the conflict is not resolved.
14. (re: "Badmouthing" about the European Court -- it is what it is, neither is Moldova as a country necessarily always painted as a wonderful place in all aspects by international organizations, those facts are reflected in Wikipedia as well. Do not delete facts.) See above.
15. (re: Transnistria is one of the "frozen conflict" zones, also including South Ossetia, et al. They are discussed this way in the latest academic perspectives regarding issues of statehood, etc. "In each case there is an ethnic conflict sparked by strong xenophobic rhetoric and political actions on the part of the majority."? This is not an ethnic conflict, it is a conflict over loss of influence, and it is far more complicated as it is an issue that spans Romania, Moldova and the Transnistrian territory. Please do not introduce xenophobia to the article.)
16. (re: P.S. The PMR military is, last time I checked... armed with Russian arms, commanded by "former" Russian Army, staffed with "former" Russian army... has that changed?) What exactly is your point? Russians and Ukrainians form the majority of the population in PMR, why would they not be in the army there?
I disagree with many of Sotnik's comments. We should not make assumptions in this article, we should stick to the facts. Gorbatchev's position is relevant. I am not convinced that transnistrians are enthusiastic about independence, this is only what the PMR regime is claiming. Some facts, like the big number of people having Moldovan citizenship, is suggesting the opposite. European Court has jurisdiction, as Moldova accepted its jurisdiction and Transnistria is part of Moldova.--MariusM 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please show where sources are not represented fairly and accurately.
Then you should not imply the current article is "cherry picked"
The current narrative states what the decree was. It makes no judgements about motivations or desires.
Your strong beliefs, along with my strong beliefs, are utterly irrelevant. What do reputable sources say? No WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
The European Court is what it is, what they have said has been reported. I can argue that the entire PMR regime has no legal place in Transnistria. That is my personal opinion, as is your opinion on the European Court, i.e., editorially irrelevant.
I think it is useful to differentiate between ethnic Romanians of Romania and ethnic Romanians of Moldova.
What I stated about why Smirnov is now the apparent "impediment" to the Russian army evacuating is completely true. My personal opinion is that it's all a dance but that's neither here nor there where the article is concerned. Russia cannot be represented as having complied with international obligations when they have not, regardless of Russia's contentions.
You and all other editors are certainly free to bring reputable sources to bear on the topic. My point is that "ethnic" is an oversimplification which does not accurately represent the loss of influence issue. This is not an "ethnic" conflict.
Moldovans died, and how many were wounded in the conflict on Dnestr? - Is it true that weapons used by the opponents were like Indian tomahawks against European guns? - Why Ilascu group members have spent so many years in prison? The last members, Ivantoc and Petrov-Popa were freed last year. They have spent about 15 years in prison, almost as many as Nelson Mandela (who spent 20), apparently for the same reason: freedom for the native South-Africans (the blacks), respectively the native Moldovans. - How much PMR army costs every year? Considering PMR has the lowest GDP per capita of the whole Europe (with the exception of Kosovo), how PRM can afford such an army? More: how can PMR maintain the military equipment? There are 18 years since 1990, and similar equipments of ex-communist countries have been replaced, or are going to be soon. There is no way such a "country" can afford such an army. - If Russia pays for the army and weapons, estimations being between 0,5 to 1 billion euros per year, why do Russians pay? Because maintaining several hundred thousands Russophones in an area with such a reduced GDP doesn't mean "help our brothers" but "prosecute" them. Sorinutsu ( talk) 08:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu29March2008
My statement is that Russian army of Russian nationality stationed in the Transnistrian territory now forms the bulk of Transnistria's "own" armed forces including its commander, hence the Russian army has not "left" in the numbers you claim, and even if the Russian army withdraws completely, it will not have "left". These are not Russians or Ukrainians who already lived in Transnistria when this all started.
Sotnik 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to lay out a road map for the changes I want to make, but this is fine, lets get to specifics.
Lets start with Russian troops in Moldova, here is a Russian source 1, that states Russia is now in full compliance with the Istanbul accords. The only troops left in Moldova are peacekeeping who will stay until the conflict is resolved.
The specific change I want to make is from this,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian-owned weapons and munition are present in Transnistria. The Russian contingent was originally the Soviet 14th Guards Army, but in the late 1990s it was redesignated as a Operational Group. Moldova and the OSCE demand their withdrawal.
To this,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent, as well as 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. Moldova and the OSCE maintain that the Russian contingent is a part of the Soviet 14th Guards Army and demand their withdrawal based on the Istanbul accords. Russia and the PMR maintain that all the troops of the 14th Army have already been fully withdrawn. The only Russian troops in Transnistria are peacekeepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire agreement and will not be withdrawn until the conflict is fully resolved.\ Sotnik ( talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This was declared to be “lacking legal basis” by then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov and the decision to create the PMSSR was annulled by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.
I want to change this to,
Although acknowledging discriminatory policies by the Moldovan majority as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.
This is right of out of the aforementioned decree, which can be found online on many legal portals, this one for example 1. Sotnik ( talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Take for example the following academic account. — PētersV ( talk) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
On 22 December 1990, the Union President, Mikhail Gorbachev, issued a decree in which he attempted to call Moldova to order by threatening presidential rule from Moscow. The decree declared the unilaterally proclaimed Gagauz and Trans-Dniester republics and the elected bodies illegal and juridical invalid. The same decree insisted that the central government of the Moldovan republic repeal or revise numerous laws and decisions. Such "objectionable" laws included the creation of a separate republican guard, a language law supposedly giving preference to Moldovan speakers, and a denunciation of the Union annexation of Moldova under the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (SM, 22 December 1990).
One week later, the Moldovan Parliament agreed to comply by disbanding its national guard and revising the law on languages, which the Union President alleged restricted minority rights. The Supreme Soviet of Moldova rejected, however, any modifications to the republic's Declaration of Sovereignty, and refused to recognize the supremacy of USSR legislation over that of the republic on the territory of Moldova (SM, 30 December 1990).
On 21 January, the Third Extraordinary Congress of Trans-Dniester deputies was convoked to discuss the Gorbachev decree. The Congress repeated its demand to the USSR Supreme Soviet and to the Union President to recognize the independence of the proclaimed PMSSR and GSSR and to let representatives of those republics sign the Union Treaty independently from Moldova.
from http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu12ee/uu12ee0a.htm
Dear Sotnik, perhaps one word at a time. You write "acknowledging". No. The word is "alleging" based on reports (актов) to the Supreme Soviet. "Acknowledging" is purely your personal interpretation wherein you ascribe admission of culpability. That is not reporting the contents of the decree. And I have provided an academic example of a source also utilizing "alleged". PētersV ( talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you have access to a reputably sourced translation we (meaning also other editors) could agree we could work from. PētersV ( talk) 20:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Bulgarian passport are now 'real gold' because they mean free access on the European workforce market. But I will pass to more serious consideration, ('donc, revenons a nos moutons', as French say); the article above has links to: official censuses in Transnistria that shows a continual decrease of the moldovan proportion in the total population since the 1920's years, that continued after 1990. That confuses me because thw article says: 'the xenophobia, extremist nationalism, and prosecution of the minorities' led to the 'interethnical' conflict that eventually produced the 'Proclamation of Independence' of Mr. Smirnov. Moldovans have the highest birth rate in Europe, after the Albanians, then: why their number as well as their proportion decreased ?
-The explanations coming to my mind are: they got a Romanian (or Bulgarian) passport and move temporarily, or for longer periods (several years), somewhere in the EU. But the number of Romanian or Bulgarian passports given to Moldovan citizens is ten times smaller then passports given by the Russian Federation, because of bureaucracy and restrictive legislation, although Romania's president Basescu says he intends to give citizenship to 'all' Moldovan citizens of all nationalities(origins). That created serious tensions between Moldovan president Voronin and Basescu, after Basescu became president at the end of 2004 .(Moldovan leaders are afraid of losing most of their tax payers). [I have not now the time to cite exactly the newspapers and the tv-stations websites, that deal with the conflicts, then friendship, then again conflicts, and so on, between Romanian leaders (especially Basescu), Moldovan leaders, and -carefully- RUSSIAN leaders. Basescu is not a KGB officer like Putin, he has been an oil tank commanander, so he needed to make sailers follow him even in the middle of the ocean. I am sorry for those unable to understand the (Moldo-Romanian) language, as the political show is FUNNY at the highest level.] Moldova and especially Transnistria have HUGE economical problems and it is understandable people trying to gain money by working abroad. In fact, before 01 January 2007 (when Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union ), all Moldovans could pass the border with Romania using their Moldovan Identity Card , that significantly eased the life of many Moldovans that worked in Romania for much bigger salaries (I mention many can't pay a passport)
-Another explanation for the DECREASE of Moldovans number in Transnistria should be the continuous effort of Russian authorities to assimilate all local or immigrant population. The most obvious evidence is the decreasing number of schools or classes in the Romanian language. The simple fact that this language HAS to be called Moldovan creats confusion, especially as writers mentioned, and studied by children have never crossed at the east of Prut river,and have never been in today republic of Moldova. Older Moldovans NEVER had the opportunity of learning the Latin alphabet. Soviet official policy has been (and post year 2000 Russia is going back to that cultural policy): to impose writing, of almost all local languages into Cyrillic alphabet. A funny example is Mongolian language, used in always independent state of Mongolia, that even today uses Cyrillic alphabet.
-A conclusion would be: in spite of the prosecution of the minorities in the Republic of Moldova those who, apparently, suffered the most were the Moldovans (Romanians).The military conflict produced a large number of victims. The dead, as far as we know, were ONLY the Moldovans. It looks like: scared by the dismantling of the USSR, and with the aim of preventing the loose of the privileges, Russophones and the other minorities that controlled the police, the army,and the secret services (in 1988-1992) opened fire against Moldovan demonstrators, practically unarmed. Sorinutsu ( talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Sorinutsu01April2008~~
In the line with the above discussion and source, I want to change this section to,
A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent is present in Transnistria. The status of this contingent is disputed. The 1992 cease-fire agreement between Moldova and Transnistria established a Russian peace-keeper presence in Transnistria. Russian troops stationed in Moldova proper since the time of the USSR were fully withdrawn to Russia by January 1993. On 21 October 1994, Russia and Moldova signed an agreement that committed Russia to the withdrawal of the troops in three years from the date of entry into force of the agreement, this however did not come into effect because the Russian Duma did not ratify it. The Moldovan government took advantage of the negotiations of The Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), and managed to ensure that a paragraph about the removal of Russian troops from Moldova’s territory was introduced into the text of the OSCE Summit Declaration of Istanbul (1999), through which Russia had committed itself to pulling out its troops from Transnistria by the end of 2002. However, even after 2002, the Russian parliament did not ratify the Istanbul accords. On 19 July 2004, after it finally passed through parliament President Vladimir Putin signed the Law on the ratification of the CFE Treaty in Europe, which were committing Russia to remove the heavy armaments limited by this Treaty by the end of 2001. During 2000-2001, in order to comply to the CFE Treaty, Moscow withdrew 125 pieces of Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE) and 60 railway wagons containing ammunition from the Transnistrian region of Moldova. In 2002, Russia withdrew only 3 military equipment trains (118 railway wagons) and 2 of ammunition (43 wagons) from the Transnistrian region of Moldova, and in 2003, 11 rail convoys transporting military equipment and 31 transporting ammunitions. According to the OSCE Mission to Moldova, of a total of 42,000 tons of ammunitions stored in Transnistria, 1,153 tons (3%) was transported back to Russia in 2001, 2,405 tons (6%) in 2002 and 16,573 tons (39%) in 2003. Andrei Stratan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Moldova stated in his speech during the 12th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting in Sofia on December 6-December 7, 2004 that "The presence of Russian troops on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is against the political will of Moldovan constitutional authorities and defies the unanimously recognized international norms and principles, being qualified by Moldovan authorities as a foreign military occupation illegally deployed on the territory of the state. As of 2007 however, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire, are not in violation of the Istanbul accords and will remain until the conflict is fully resolved. Sotnik ( talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In Moldova article, inhabitants are named "Moldovans", here they are called "Moldavians", maybe we should stick with only one form. -- AdrianTM 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The socks play on the blocks.
My un-edits refer to "republic" (recently added by Alaexis), and "state". IMHO, usage of legal terms can be done only based on legal sources, not on political commentaries. No matter how good faith and thorough they are, all they claim is to observe and comment the de facto situation. They never claim anything about the legal status of the territory/region. "A self-proclaimed republic/state" is ok, though, because it does not state a de jure thing, but a de facto one. Without the adjective, it becomes colloquially ok, but legally false.: Dc76\ talk 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | 1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic> | ” |
"Breakaway territory" is NPOV. Reading a dictionary to interpret what the PMR is is WP:SYNTH. Besides, there are rumors of future non-independence. The PMR is still not recognized, not even by Russia. -- PētersV ( talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
From Webster, republic - a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president further from Webster, government - the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit . PMR fits those definitions. A government (and a republic) maybe either legitimate or illegitimate, internationally recognized or not, etc. As long as the article makes it clear that PMR has no international recognition, saying republic and/or state is appropriate. Sotnik ( talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a different context, see here (same reference that you used): "U.S. and international law recognize that certain actions of de facto regimes must be accorded the same legal status as those of a de jure state. The existence of a de facto regime is determined by applying clearly defined criteria:" so they talk about "de facto regimes" that have to be hold accountable as states, see here: "By acknowledging the existence of a de facto regime a court does not legitimate its actions, but simply recognizes those actions, and those of its officials, as state action for which they may be held legally accountable." So it's all about accountability not about statehood. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"Breakaway territory" and "self-proclaimed republic" together are fine. I would note there is no real standard for "Transnistria", Transdniester, Transdnester and various hyphenated forms are all commonly used. The quote earlier regarding accountability has nothing to do with any explicit or implicit recognition of authority, that's all Sotnik's WP:SYNTH. All it says is, we don't care who or what you are, we expect you to abide by international law (so, human rights conventions, etc.). Finally the Tiraspol Times (I noted a reference) is a PMR mouthpiece, their contributors/editors pushing pro-PMR propaganda have come and gone here on Wikipedia, banned as single-purpose accounts. It is not a reputable source, please do not cite it in the pursuit of NPOV if you want anything you say to be taken seriously. PētersV ( talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This entire section should be removed. The introduction is supposed to function as an overview for the article, and that should be expanded, possibly using info from this other section. However, as it now stands, the overview section has no purpose as it overlaps with other parts of the text. All important information should be moved to other subsections and this section should be deleted. TSO1D ( talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The International Crisis Group reports on Transnistria extensively discuss the "shadow" sector of the region's economy. Why is this article so silent about that? -- Kober Talk 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is very biased against the excellent work being done by President Smirnov and his team of committed, reform-minded public servants. Furthermore, there is little mention of the excellent public transportation system in Transnestria, which is substantially better than many in the "West", including Windsor, Ontario. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.235.87 ( talk) 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In the introduction it says, The ceasefire has held; however the territory's political status remains undetermined and Transnistria has been de facto independent since that time. Does it not make more sense to say unresolved instead of undetermined? Sotnik ( talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Alexis,
Thank you that you rv partially. That is more constructive, even if partial=80%. The 2 issues:
Constitution of the Republic of Moldova Article 13. The National Language, Use of Other Languages |
---|
(1) The state language of the Republic of Moldova is Moldovan, and its writing is based on the Latin alphabet. |
(2) The Moldovan State acknowledges and protects the right to preserve, develop and use the Russian language and other languages spoken within the national territory of the country. |
(3) The State will encourage and promote studies of foreign languages enjoying widespread international usage. |
(4) The use of languages in the territory of the Republic of Moldova will be established by organic law. end of citation of article 13 of Constitution |
Organic Laws |
1) Law regarding the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR
[5]. 2) Decision of Parliament regarding "Implementation of the law regarding Functioning of Languages on the Territory of Moldavian SSR" [6]. 3) Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria) [7]. (1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova. (2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria. (3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language. |
Official language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in the countries, states, and other territories. It is typically the language used in a nation's legislative bodies, though the law in many nations requires that government documents be produced in other languages as well. Official status can also be used to give a language (often indigenous) legal status, even if that language is not widely spoken.
An official language is not to be confused with a national language, although the national language may be official if given legal recognition by the government. One of the official languages of sierre leone is French. |
Comparative law as an example |
Three official languages in Luxembourg:
Multilingualism in Luxembourg belongs to the everyday life of Luxembourg's population.
Article 29 of Constitution of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [8]: (Modified on 6 May 1948) "The law will regulate the use of languages in administrative and judicial matters." The law of 24 February 1984 about the use of the languages in Luxembourg is (translated from French):
In most other multilingual countries, such as Switzerland or Canada, the distribution of the languages is geographic, but in Luxembourg it is functional. 'Functional' means that the use of the language depends on the situation. |
Comparative law as an example - equivalent provisions in Moldovan law |
Article 6 of the Law regarding Functioning of Languages: Regarding institutions of state power, state administration and public organisations, as well as companies, other instituions and organisations located on the territory of the Moldavian SSR, the language of oral and written communction - Moldavian or Russian - is chosen by the citizen. The citizen's right to use Gagauz language in the aforementioned conditions is guaranteed in localities with population of Gagauz nationality. In localities, where the majority of population is composed of Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian nationalities, the native or other convenient language is used. |
Therefore, there are four official languages in Moldova:
1) Moldavian language (wich is the same as Romanian linguisticly and scientificly, however no legal reference to Romanian exists in Moldovan legislation)
2) Russian language (language of international communication (as stipulated by the Moldovan law) [9] (official "state" language in Transnistria and Gagauzia)
3) Ukrainian language [10] which used to be legal language of the Modavian Principality (как актовый язык Молдавского княжества) [11], which is official "state" language in the easten cantons of Moldova. (official language in Transnistria)
4) Gagauz language, which is official "state" language in the southern autonomous region Gagauzia.
Moreover, as per evidence cited above, Romani language, Hebrew language and Bulgarian language enjoy a clearly established legal status in Moldova. What we need here is to establish the list of localities where the population is really majority of respective nationalities and speaks these languages.
Please refer to the Article 6 of the Law regarding Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of the Dniestr Left bank Localities (Transnistria) [12].
(1) Transnistria has its own symbols (heraldry), which are applied together with the symbols of the Republic of Moldova.
(2) Official languages of Transnistria are Moldavian written in Latin alphabet, Ukrainian and Russian languages. The Republic of Moldova guarantees functioning of other language on the territory of Transnistria.
(3) Record keeping, as well as correspondence with public power intitutions of the Republic of Moldova, companies, organisations and institutions, situated abroad from Transnistria, are held in Moldavian language written in Latin alphabet and Russian language.
Therefore the Moldovan spelling cannot be written with Cyrillic characters. Moldopodo ( talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
“ | Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy. The law was passed without any prior consultation with the de facto government in Transnistria, which felt that it was a provocation and has since ignored it. | ” |
Country infoboxes are for countries. For Transnistria should be used the same infobox as for Gagauzia. Moldopodo ( talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
“ | Although exercising no direct control over the territory, the Moldovan government passed the "Law on Basic Provisions of the Special Legal Status of Localities from the Left Bank of the Dniester" on July 22, 2005, which established Transnistria as a separate territorial unit within the Republic of Moldova, which can be given a status of a large autonomy | ” |
Alæxis ¿question? 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the Transnistrian ruble removed from the infobox btw? Alæxis ¿question? 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted it as the currency is not recognized, it is not part of international ISO 4217 standard. We may put it back if you insist, however official currency in Eastern cantons of the Republic of Moldova is officially the same as in in southern, central, western and northern - it is MDL. -- Moldopodo ( talk) 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo
Russians voting in Russian military units in Transnistria, even though Moldova protested against Russia organizing vote on Moldovan territory. BBC article (sorry this is in Romanian, I don't have the translation) -- AdrianTM 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of added then removing then re-adding the template of slavic speaking states, could we not just create a Template called Romanian speaking states (presumably including Romanian, Moldova, and Transnistria) and add both templates for the slavic speaking states and the Romanian speaking states and we are all set? Otherwise someone else is just going to add it back then another person is just going to remove it. Also, state is not POV in describing Transnistria as per the description in the article state "A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area". Pocopocopocopoco 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A reference backing the passage about the PMR attitude to this law was requested recently. Here's the excerpt from the address of PMR Parliament to the Ukrainian Verkhovnaya Rada
“ | Принятые парламентом Республики Молдова 10 июня 2005 года Декларация и обращение Парламента Республики Молдова, которые на практике означают вариант силового принуждения жителей Приднестровья к безоговорочному вхождению в унитарную Молдову в качестве Приднестровского региона Республики Молдова, ведут к провоцированию конфронтации и противоречат основополагающим принципам ОБСЕ по урегулированию региональных конфликтов. Принятые документы свидетельствуют о полном отказе Молдовы от идеи федерализма, что противоречит ранее принятым решениям и заявлениям, сделанным самим руководством Республики Молдова. | ” |
I think that this is enough to prove what is written in the article now (except for that there were no prior consultations - this probably still needs refs). Alæxis ¿question? 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | The Declaration and the petition to the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, adopted on June 10, 2005, in practice amount to a version of an imposition by force upon the residents of Transnistria to the unconditional entry in the unitary state of Moldova as the Transnistrian region of the Moldova Republic, lead to provoke a confrontation and contradict basic principles of OSCE on settling regional conflicts. Adopted documents witness [speak of] a complete renounce by Moldova of the idea of federalism, which contradicts earlier adopted solutions and declarations/announcements, made by the government of Moldova itself. | ” |
Alæxis ¿question? 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :slightly corrected by Dc76\ talk 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As promised above, here is an academic reference on Romanian military support. 1 I'll post specific passaged I'd like to add shortly. Sotnik ( talk) 19:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | 49. According to data from the headquarters of the 14th Army, every day four to five railcars crossed into Moldova from Romania loaded with Romanian arms and ammunition. The Russian command had at its disposal many documents, film, and photo materials, which were shown at a press conference proving Romanian involvement in the armed conflict in Transdniester. See The Situation in Transdniester According to Data of the Headquarters of the 14th Army," ITAR-TASS, July 7, 1992. Romanian military support for the Moldovan side was reported by a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992. (This organization unites the human rights organizations of 24 countries, and has its headquarters in Frankfurt.) The members of this delegation claimed to have received "absolute proof" that Romania was giving "full support" to the government in Kishinev, including weaponry, ammunition, and armed vehicles. According to the head of the U.S. office of this Society, it has documentary proof (including many photographs) to support these claims that the Moldovan government was using Romanian military advisers and security forces, and that there was evidence that Moldovan forces had received military and police training from the Romanians. On the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE. See "Human Rights Organization on the Situation... | ” |
The passage cited is from an article written by a Russian political analyst Edward Ozhiganov. At the end of the book, you can find these words of recommendation: "This book provides a timely and long-overdue insight into how top Russian analysts view ethno-political conflicts in the former Soviet Union ... this collection of articles and commentaries is an invaluable resource for U.S. policymakers." (Graham T. Allison)
Personally, I believe it is a good source to illustrate how the top Russian analysts view conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Maybe even a whole section can be written based on this and similar sources, in one of the secondary articles ( War of Transnistria or Disputed status of Transnistria or other). I also do not oppose the insertion of small citations from there into this article, provided they are done in faithful manner (attributed).
The passage makes reference to "a delegation from the International Society for the Defense of Human Rights who visited Transdniester in April 1992.", which "on the basis of this evidence, the Society prepared a report that was distributed to the U.S. Congress and State Department, and to representatives of the CSCE." Unfortunately, I have not heard of this acronym before. What society is this? It must be something known, otherwise it would not have representations in 24 countries and distribute reports to US Congress, State Department, and OSCE. It is therefore natural to ask: can we pinpoint this organization more precisely, what is its full name, website, a few basic data? I am sure a 1-paragraph article about this organization would be notable in Wikipedia. We would strike gold if we can also find a copy of the report mentioned. As long as it is attributed to the source, which ideally/normally would be clearly identified, I have no objection. Even if the report would contain obvious mistakes, it does not matter, because "organization X claimed Y" is absolutely ok. So, while perhaps disagreeing with some conclusions, we can certainly agree on correctly citing the source.
In the same paragraph, but without attributing to an original source, the author also mentions about tanks and helicopters used by the Moldovans in Tighina. This is certainly a mistake, since Moldova did not own a single tank since the brake of the Soviet Union, and at the time helicopters were not flown in the conflict zone (b/c they were transport not fighter like 14h army's ones). Also, he mentions "towns", as in plural, while fighting ocured only in one urban locality, the other ones were rural. Anyway, these are details. I am just wondering, why the author was not careful about these details, because the usage of grenade launchers and other stuff is correct. Anyway. : Dc76\ talk 12:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've traversed part of the article, and I have some remarks that might help improve it:
Cheers, Dpotop ( talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
To answer the first question by Alaexis, I think that the "Overview" is no longer necessary. It was necessary as a guideline during the edit wars some time ago, but the article is now stable. I suggest we enlarge a bit the lead and push all remaining info in the sections, where it should be. Like Dc76 suggested, we could do it in stages if you agree with the principle. For a first stage, I would suggest the following:
What do you say? Dpotop ( talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
“ | A. Although the PMR does not have such legal status within Moldova, it functions like a state, and is organized as a republic.[7]
B. Transnistria declared independence from Moldova within the Soviet Union on September 2, 1990, as the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating into violence the then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990.[8][9] C. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in March 1992, a war between Moldovan and Transnistrian separatist forces started in the region. In mid April 1992, in accordance with the agreements concerning the split of the military equipment of the former Soviet Union, negotiated between the former 15 republics in the previous months, Moldova created its own Defense Ministry. According to the decree of its creation, most of the 14th Soviet Army's military equipment was to be retained by Moldova.[10] Volunteers came from Russia and Ukraine to help the separatist side ("Cossack Companies").[11] The former Soviet 14th Guards Army entered the conflict in its final stage, opening fire against Moldovan forces;[12] since then, Moldova has exercised no effective control or influence on PMR authorities. A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river. D.Transnistria functions as a presidential republic[citation needed], with its own government and parliament. Its authorities have adopted a constitution, flag, a national anthem, and a coat of arms. They organized and maintain a military and a police force. They have a postal system and stamps. Their stamps, though not internationally recognized, are of value to collectors.[13] Transnistrian institutions, like the state itself, have no international recognition. E. Nonetheless, the population is able to travel (normally without difficulty) in and out of the territory under PMR control to neighboring Moldovan-controlled territory, Ukraine, and on to Russia, by road or (when service is not interrupted by political tensions) on two international trains, the year-round Moscow-Chişinău, and the seasonal Saratov-Varna.[14] International air travellers rely on the airport in Chisanau, the Moldovan capital. F.Despite the fact that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists, 400,000 Transnistrians (the majority of the population) took Moldovan citizenship by 2007.[15]. G.A 1,200-strong Russian military contingent (the Operational Group of Russian Forces in Moldova of the Moscow Military District), as well as over 20,000 tons of Russian munitions are present in Transnistria.[16] Moldova and the OSCE demand the withdrawal of all Russian forces on the basis of the 1999 Istanbul accords. However, Russia insists that it has already fulfilled those obligations. It states that the remaining troops are serving as peace-keepers authorized under the 1992 ceasefire and are not in violation of the Istanbul accords. [17] According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria is "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia".[18] H.Transnistria is sometimes compared with Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. All four are post-Soviet frozen conflicts, and except for Nagorno-Karabakh, the tensions in these areas have risen to large-scale military conflict after the independence of Moldova and Georgia from the Soviet Union, while Russian troops and/or volunteers from Russia were largely present.[19][20] |
” |
Let's add the words 'and functions like a state[7]' to the second sentence of the intro - 'Although not recognised by any state or international organisation and de jure part of Moldova, it is de facto independent.[4][5][6]'. Alæxis ¿question? 07:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this to the history section as this info is already summarised in the intro. Alæxis ¿question? 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Should be shorthened ("Transnistria is sometimes compared with other post_soviet frozen conflict zones such as Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia") and moved to intro. Alæxis ¿question? 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll take the initiate here. I think we need to have a section dedicated specifically to the conflict. We can then move parts C, F, G there and the rest can be squeezed in the intro. Thoughts?
Sotnik (
talk)
06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How about this? The sentence, "A three-party (Russia, Moldova, PMR) Joint Control Commission supervises the security arrangements in the de-militarized zone, comprising 20 localities on both sides of the river." can be moved into the intro, right after "...and was concluded by the ceasefire of July, 1992.". The rest can be moved to the Secession to the present section. Sotnik ( talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this process :) Alæxis ¿question? 06:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am interested, what official international organisation "recognized" the internal borders in Republic of Moldova? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhio ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Postings by 193.120.95.11 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) are from Buffadren ( talk · contribs) [13], who is banned by Arbcom and not welcome to edit here, be it on articles or on talk pages. All their contributions should be rolled back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess Mark/Des/??? was reprimanded for not being efficient enough at spreading propaganda. It's pretty obvious Russia is on a diplomatic offensive now on all its borders, including Transnistria. So, I guess we risk having some action here in the near future. BTW, for those interested, reading some propaganda from the Tiraspol Times makes you understand why Voronin is so aggressive on Romania-related issues. The threats are not even shaded, they are explicit, and they come from the local FSB office. :) Dpotop 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
In the last time I wasn't active here, but if Mark will insist I will become again. Some new developments occured in the last time which I saw weren't mentioned in the article:
There is also a new head of the OSCE mission to Moldova - Philip Remler [14].
Probabily some events in Moldova, like the banning of the Romanian Television, the proposed banning of people with dual citizenship to held administrative and political positions - which is targeted against people with Romanian citizenship (I wonder if the new mayor of Chişinău, who spent some years in Romania and is a potential candidate against Voronin, is not between them) and the attacks against the Romanian Orthodox Church from Moldova are conected with the Transnistrian issues. My guess is that Voronin want to seduce Putin to gain his suport for Transnistrian issues. Despite his true love for Russia, I doubt he will manage to obtain what he want.-- MariusM ( talk) 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"Jurnal de Chişinău" newspaper is reporting that a 18-year old boy from the village Lunga, Dubăsari district, was killed in the Transnistrian Army, where he was enrolled. Transnistrian authorities are claiming it was a heart attack, but the family saw on his body marks of beatings. Source (in Romanian language).-- MariusM ( talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"...that when Moldova proclaimed its independence, the majority of Transnistrian territory was already controlled by separatists," ... most locals took a Moldovan passport. Can someone explain to me how is the latter "despite", or relevant in any way to the former? Seeing as how one needs a passport from a recognized state to venture anywhere at all... -- Illythr ( talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but in the introduction, shouldn't there be a mention of the Russian troops stationed within this region despite international agreements?
In the intro, the phrase "within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova" is used twice in rapid succession. I want to change "Transnistria is located within the internationally recognized borders of Moldova mostly to the east of the Dniester river." to "Transnistria is located within Moldova mostly between the Dniester river and the boarder with Ukraine." Any objections? Sotnik ( talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This sentence was in the Overview section and was moved to Russian military presence in Transnistria
According to a verdict issued by European Court of Human Rights, the presence of these troops is illegal (breaking the July 21 1992 agreement), and Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". [1]
Just read through the whole judgment and this is not what it says. Nowhere does it mention Russian troops violating the 1992 ceasefire agreement nor does it use the word illegal. What it says precisely is, "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." Its referring to the Istanbul accords not the ceasefire agreement, which I might add were not even ratified until 2004.
This sentence needs to be changed to something like,
In the verdict, issued against Moldova and Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that Transnistria was "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". [2]
and moved to Incidents under the Human rights section. Sotnik ( talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I found something inexact in the article: It is claimed that the capital, Tiraspol, was also the capital of the Moldavian ASSR in Ukraine before 1940. This is false. Balta, not Tiraspol was the capital then. (Now Balta is in Ukraine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.113.161 ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote before about wanting to expand the sections of this article dealing with the ethnic origins of the conflict. Here is what I came up with. All of the sources I'm providing are either academic or books written by respected scholars. I specifically looked for American and European sources to avoid any accusations bias.
In the 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost in the Soviet Union allowed political liberalization at a regional level. This led to the creation of various informal movements in Moldavian SSR and the resurgence of pro-Romanian nationalism among ethnic Moldovans. 1 The most prominent of these movements was the Moldovan Popular Front. By the end of 1988 they demanded from the central authority to declare Moldovan the only state language, to adopt the Latin alphabet and to recognize the shared ethnic identity of the Romanian and Moldovan nations. The more radical factions of the Popular Front used extremely anti-minority, ethnocentric and chauvinist rhetoric 1 2. Some have called for minority populations, particularly the Slavs (mainly Russians and Ukrainians) and Gagauz, to leave or be expelled from Moldova. 1 After the alphabet was changed and the plans for major cultural changes in Moldova were made public, tensions rose further. Ethnic minorities felt threatened by the prospects of removing Russian as the de facto official language, the possible future reunification of Moldova and Romania and the ethnocentric rhetoric of the Popular Front. The Yedinstvo (Unity) National Front, established by the Slavic population of Moldova, pressed for the equal status given to both Russian and Moldovan. [3] The nationalist Popular Front won the parliamentary elections in the Moldavian SSR in the spring of 1990 and on September 2, 1990, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic was proclaimed as a Soviet republic by the Second Congress of the Peoples' Representatives of Transnistria. The situation in the country was escalating into violence, in October 1990 the Popular Front called for volunteers to form armed militias in order to stop a Gagauz autonomy referendum by coercion. In response, volunteer militias were formed Transnistria. In April 1990 nationalist mobs attacked ethnic Russian members of parliament, while the Moldovan police refused to intervene or restore order. 1 Citing the restriction of civil rights of ethnic minorities by Moldova as the cause of the dispute, in the interest of preserving a unified Moldavian SSR within the USSR and preventing the situation escalating further into violence the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev declared this move to be lacking legal basis and annulled it by presidential decree on December 22, 1990. [4] [5] Nevertheless, there was no significant actions taken against Transnistria and the new authorities were slowly able to establish control of the region.
Sotnik ( talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sotnik ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Observation: we seem to stumble upon the two usages of the word "nationalism": in the sense of Biruitorul, or in the sense most understand. You can say about the majority in the first sense if you wish, although it was NOT a pride, and a good half or more would strongly object to call them that way. But you can definitively say "nationalist" in the second sense for extremes. "Multiparty" is obviously fine - good idea! Although correctly - "multicandidate, as there were no parties (remember the constitution of the USSR article 6) About 85-95%: depends very much of what? of Russophones? or of minorities? I don't know exact data, but Ukrainian, Russian, Gagauzian and Bulgarian villages existed before 1940. Not many, but they were (smth like 10% of villages). Cities: is a different story. Dc76\ talk 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sotnik ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In light of this and this. I'm going to remove the absolutely ridiculous paragraph about the Bendery/Dragalina cemetery. If someone doesn't feel like reading through both articles, I'll summarize. The PMR government painstakingly and respectfully restored the cemetery, including the Romanian quarter, restoring and/or replacing the headstones and crosses and building a new chapel. Sotnik ( talk) 01:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article we are misleading the readers claiming that the Popular Front won the elections in 1990. In fact, only about one third of the seats in parliament were gained by Popular Front candidates. Also, is misleading to claim that PF had an aggresive, ethnocentric rethoric. Contrary to the baltic states, the Popular Front agreed to give moldovan citizenship to everybody who lived in Moldova, regardless of his place of birth or ancestors and it made attempts (unsuccesfull) to gain support from minorities publishing a Russian-language edition of its newspaper "Ţara" (which is not anymore published, for economic reasons).-- MariusM ( talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I will be inactive on WP for ca. 2 weeks. I think I made my points clear, and the discussion above already has some solutions. I will read what you came up with and how you edited when I come. In mean time, good luck. Dc76\ talk 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Promo-Lex NGO has released this year a study about Human Rights in Transnistria. It is available in Russian, Romanian and English. For English version see here.-- MariusM ( talk) 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello and Welcome!
I've noticed you have made some changes to the article. Please discuss any changes you want to make on this page beforehand. Sotnik ( talk) 06:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
is it actually fully communist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.229.130 ( talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The following text is deleted from section "Political stautus"
This is a piece of news does not belong to section "political status". It also does not belong to an overview article about the whole transnistria. Please put in into "human rigths in transnistria" or whatever. There are hundreds of events there. This is an encycloipedia article, not a news archive. `' Míkka >t 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree, please explain your reasons why this piece belongs to this article/section. `' Míkka >t 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no information on the topic. Does the statelet have GDP, does it have economy at all?! - R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.161.16 ( talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The Ukraine article starts out with a list of the countries bordering Ukraine. The list currently includes "Romania and Moldova to the southwest". I'm wondering whether, perhaps, this list should also acknowledge Transnistria in some way. Before trying to bring up the question on the Ukraine article's talk page, I thought maybe I should ask people here what they think.
Possible formulas I could think of for changing this list of Ukraine's neighbours might include:
I'm not proposing to have extended debates about Transnistria spill over unnecessarily into the Ukraine page. I'm only wondering if WP:NPOV may possibly call for some minimal, impartial acknowledgment (in the Ukraine article) of the fact that one of the entities bordering Ukraine happens to be Transnistria, a region whose rightful status is currently a matter of dispute. What do people here think would be the best way to deal with the topic over there? Or is any mention in the Ukraine article of Transnistria, no matter how it might be worded, a sure recipe for a knock-down, drag-out argument that it may be better to try to avoid for the time being? Richwales ( talk) 16:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph in the Names sections should really go into the Geography section instead.
In a strict geographical sense, the terms "Transnistria" and "PMR" are not synonymous, since the city of Bendery and three communes from the Căuşeni district situated near Bendery, which are in the security zone, but under PMR administrative control, are situated on the right bank of the Dniester and thus not geographically in Transnistria. Breakaway authorities show on their maps these, as well as two more villages of the same district but not under their administration, as belonging to Transnistria. On the other hand, nine villages on the left bank (and thus geographically in Transnistria) have remained under the Moldovan control and administration. These villages are shown by the breakaway authorities on their maps as belonging to them.
and that same information is already there,
The territory of Transnistria is mostly, but not completely coincident with the left (eastern) bank of Moldova (with respect to Dniester). It includes ten cities and towns, and 69 communes, with a totality of 147 localities (counting the unincorporated ones as well). Ten localities on the left bank are controlled by the Moldovan government, as part of the Dubăsari district. They are situated north and south of the city of Dubăsari, which itself is under Transnistrian control. On the west bank, the city of Bendery and six villages to its south and south-east, roughly opposite Tiraspol, are controlled by Transnistrian authorities. The ten localities controlled by the Moldovan authorities on the eastern bank, the city of Dubăsari (situated on the eastern bank and controlled by Tiraspol), the seven localities controlled by the Transnistrian authorities on the western bank, as well as two (Varniţa and Copanca) on the same bank under Chişinău control form a security zone. The security situation inside it is subject to the Joint Control Commission rulings.
If there aren't any objections I'll remove that paragraph from the Names sections. Sotnik ( talk) 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've used PMR's own GDP and population statistics (533.5 th. people) to estimate GDP per capita. I've also converted the GDP from PMR roubles to US$ using today's rate. If someone could improve this I'd be very glad :) Alæxis ¿question? 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
In the Russian Empire paragraph, you might want to add that some of the Germans subsequently emigrated to the U.S. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Russian and the Glückstal Colonies Research Association, http://www.glueckstal.org/index.htm, where there is a history at http://www.ehrman.net/gcra/history.html and a map http://www.ehrman.net/maps/map2.gif
Geoffrey Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.9.16.97 ( talk) 05:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The official flag of Transnistria doesn't show the hammer and sickle. Don't make it worse than it is. I visited Transnistria in July 2008 and I can tell you that the old flag is not in use anymore. 91.57.39.139 ( talk) 18:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
10/22/2008 An Italian Journalist from the popular Tv-transmition "Le Iene" , in the show aired on 10/21/2008, was able to buy 50 guns and 50 kalashnikov's in a few days through Tiraspol's market. He was also offered rocket propelled granades and heat-seeking anti-aircraft weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.171.68 ( talk) 09:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)