Talk:Transnistria/Archive 1

Keeping discussion easy to follow
I just added some signatures and date stamps. Please do not forget to place or ~ in the end of your entries. Otherwise, it is hard to follow the discussion. I did not alter anything else in the text of the page. Irpen 17:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

older entries
Coat of arms here. Some Russian? site here &#5795;&#5815;&#5815;&#5854;&#5809;&#5803;&#5835;&#5825;&#5850; 14:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Traditionally a part [...] of Greater Romania

Politically, it was never part of Greater Romania, although until recently it had a Romanian majority. Bogdan | Talk 19:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

correcting misstatements
I am editing this page as there's some misstatements:

1) "During the Soviet era, Transnistria suffered as many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians."

I am changing this to

"In the 40's, Transnistria suffered as many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians. Most of ethnic Romanians where allowed to return in the 50's during the process of de-Stalinization"

In fact I have to doublecheck the figures, as I think that most deportations happened in Bessarabia and only few in Transnistria.

2) "The Nistru Dniestr) River" -> The Dniestr) River

I don't think Nistru is an adopted name in English. Webster shows an entry for Dniester, not Nistru.

3) "The was was ended in part by mass protests" -> "The war was ended after a cease-fire was negotioated by the Moldovan, Transnistrian, Russian and Ukrainian representatives."

4) "After a cease-fire was signed, the Russians left several thousand troops in the area as peacekeepers: a highly controversial action, owing to the country's history of Russian occupation" -> "A part of the cease-fire agreement was a Russian piecekeeping force in the region: a controversial action to some, a neccessary guarantee of protection to others."

Transnitria was never a part of any national state - it was an overseas terretory of Turkey. In this sense one can speek oonly of a conquest and not occupation.

5) "The separatist Slavic Transnistrian militias" -> "The separatist Transnistrian authorities"

There was no militia, they are all a part "legal" "police" now:)

6) "Apart from the colonization of Russian people who worked in the industry built by the Soviets here, Russians were encouraged to buy a house and retire here in order to take advantage of the less harsh weather (when compared with most of Russia). This is one of the reasons why about 2/3 of the current population are past the age of retirement."

Nobody in the Soviet Union was encouraged to buy any houses or property ever. Where's the figure 2/3 from? There is a dissproportionately large retirement-age population, but that's because the youngsters leave for Russia, Europe and Turkey.

7) Grigoriopol, (Grigoriopol'), Tiraspol, (Tiraspol') Gaidash

And of course, Transnitria was not a traditional part of Moldavia. Gaidash (May 9, 2005)

Human Rights
There are number of highly questionable comments in the "Human Rights" section of the article.

Transnistria is not a dictatorship, especially compared to the rest of Moldova ruled by the Communist party with equally poor (if not worse) human rights record.

There are a number of political parties in Transnistria who contest the elections. See List of political parties in Transnistria. During 2001 parliamentary elections for example there was a real competition for political power between "Unity", "Renewal" and the Communist party. Opposition parties now control about 40 % of seats in Transnistrian parliament. Speaker of Transnistria Parliament Grigori Marakutsa (the No. 2 man Transnistria) is an ethnic Moldovan/Romanian. President of Transnistria Igor Smirnov can hadly be called a dictator, the regime can be more correctly called as "semi-democratic". Presidential election of December 9th, 2001 were observed by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group and reportedly reflected genuine popularity of the Transnistria leader. About religious freedoms: On April 14, 2004 parliament of Transnistria refused to approve a proposed law which would limit the rights of non-Orthodox religious groups in the republic (http://www.radonezh.ru/new/?ID=1866 - in Russian).

Reference: http://www.oscewatch.org/CountryReport.asp (BHHRG reports) -Fisenko, May 12, 2005


 * This is the English Wikipedia - can you provide some evidence in English? I must admit, this is entirely news to me (the current article - which I did not write - seems to reflect just about everything I've ever read on the topic). Ambi 02:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * About religious freedoms:
 * In recent years, Transnistrian authorities have denied registration to Baptists, Methodists, and the Church of the Living God. Unregistered religious groups were not allowed to hold public assemblies, such as revival meetings. The law in Transnistria prohibits renting houses, premises of enterprises, or "cultural houses" for prayer meetings. Transnistrian authorities have told evangelical religious groups meeting in private homes that they did not have the correct permits to use their residences as churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses in Transnistria have reported several incidents of administrative fines and unjust arrests of their members.
 * In July, the Transnistrian Supreme Court ruled to limit the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the city of Tiraspol; however, the court rejected the Tiraspol public prosecutor's 2002 request to annul the group's registration and prohibit its activities altogether. Transnistrian authorities reportedly accused Jehovah's Witnesses of lacking patriotism and spreading Western influence and reportedly developed school teaching aids that contained negative and defamatory information regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses.
 * from the US Department of State. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 04:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses' and some other evangelical groups activities are routinely restricted by the majority of Eastern European/ex.-Soviet governments including Georgia See (http://watchtower.org/library/g/2002/1/22/article_01.htm), Russia etc. This alone hardly qualifies to label the country a dictatorship. Transnistria government can called corrupt and having authoritarian tendencies, but to call it a dictatorship especially in the context of Communist-dominated Moldova is an overstatment.


 * That is, nevertheless, a violation of human rights. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Also I would like to see credible links with evidence that tourture of political opponents is a common practice in Transnistria. It is not. (Fisenko 16:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC))


 * The Transnistrian authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention. [...] Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers. US Embassy report, 2004 Talk

human rights
I don't dispute the fact what there are some violations of human rights going on in Transnistria (just like they going on in Moldova, Ukraine or Russia), just the fact what Transnistria government can be called a dictatorship according to classic defenition of this word.

Transnistria political system is not fundamentally different from those of the rest of Moldova. Compared to countries like Belarus or Azerbijan, it is more democratic. (Fisenko 20:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC))


 * You are right that "dictatorship" is a bit too harsh for this case. I changed to "authoritarian". bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 21:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It should say someplace about strong anti-Romanian policies
The fact that romanians are still in Transnistrian jails and the fact that they threatened to close down 6 romanian schools should be stressed further. Also the fact that incursions into villages controlled by the Moldovan government occur all the time and people are arrested, beaten and sometimes even killed in jail should also be mentioned. -(unsigned by anon)
 * If you can find sources for your claims, you're entirely welcome to put them in - whether you do so yourself or just link them here so someone else can. Ambi 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Census
The statistics from the 2004 cesnsus seem dubious and I have not been able to confirm them using another source. If anzone knows where this information can be found, please post the link. If this information cannot be verified, it should be removed, or a caveat should be added to warn that it's authenticity cannot be verified. TSO1D


 * A google search showed that the figures are "official estimates" of 2001, not a census from 2004. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to do a similar search, and I received different estimates. However, this page includes results from the cesnsus, which I know was supposed to take place in the beginning of 2004, however I have not been able to find any official results, which led me to believe that none were yet released. Therefore, I have doubts about the statistics enclosed on this page. TSO1D 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The statistics for the 2004 census appear highly implausible, and after consulting multiple sources I came to the conclusion that official resulsts have not yet been released, which led me to doubt the authenticity of the numbers currently found on this page. If no one has any objections, I will remove them in 24 hours, and will add results from the 2004 census only after they will be officially released by the government of PRM. TSO1D 20:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC).
 * No objections here. I thought the changes looked a bit odd. (Please revert them to the 2001 figures though, unless they were also inaccurate) Ambi 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Economy section
There is little difference between Transnistria and the rest of Moldova in regards to living standarts, crime and corruption. The article must be made more neutral and not reflecting only Romanian nationalist view. There are people here on a rampage to show Transnistria as "evil". There are many problems in the region but the article in its present form is not objective or neutral. (Fisenko 02:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC))


 * You removed the part about the British journalists (from The Times) trying to buy radiation rockets. I agree that it was not presented NPOV in here, but the story is real. timesonline.co.uk bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 05:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

FISENKO are you a Transdnistrian KGB officer or something doing your duty to the "motherland"???!??

Transnistria is evil. You don't need a Romanian viewpoint to tell you that. Everyone except some Russian shovinists will tell you the same thing.

This comment only prooves my point (Fisenko 18:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Population census
Guys, about the census: the reason why it appears that there is no sourse is simple: the PMR authorities are only using it for internal purposes only. In other words you will never see Olvia press publishing it.

The only site that has updated its population is "The Transnistrian Bank" page which will show the same numbers: 580.000 Ro-33.8, Rus-28.8, Ukr. 28.8. This is not surprising since there is only about 100 or so sites from Transnistria and all government sites are rarely if never updated.

A Moldovan newpaper "Jurnal de Chi&#351;inau" has made refference to the same numbers when it published the Moldovan census, in order to add up the numbers and see how many people are left in RM as a whole.

If you think the numbers are implausible lemme shed some light: 546.400 people were in 1989 but that excluded Tighina so adding Tighina(130.000 people) we get something like 676.400 but we subtract Dorotcaia and Cocieri parts of Dubasari and 10.000 refugees so we are left with about 636.400. The figures of 633.000 from the estimates before do not assume a very large pop. drop. Same goes for the World Gazeteer which estimates the population at 620.000. The reality however is that b/c of the large number of "senior citizens"(most of them communists or ex-KGB officers who received flats in the Moldovan warm climate) has been diminishing much faster. To that one adds that most young people are fleeing Transnistria like there is no tomorrow b/c there is no opportunity there. Even the salary is 1/2 that in the neighboring Moldova which is the poorest state in Europe. So that gives you an idea.

All in all the census might be rigged, I do not deny that the number of Romanians has been lowered maybe but not by more then a few percentiles since we have to remember that many Romanians (10.000) have been forced to flee and about 6 large Romanian-Transnistrian villages are in RM control thus diminishing the numbers of Romanians left in PMR even further.

I would therefore kindly ask you that b/c of a lack of another more accurate data we make use of the census of 2004 and just mention it that b/c of the nature of the government there its accuracy may be disputable.

Cu respect, Duca

You yourself have stated that no official information has been made public. As this is an encyclopedia, we should only utilize information that is certified by official or credible sources. I do not consider the Bank of Transnistria to be an adequate source. I am certain that within a couple of months this information will be released and we will be able to post their results. Until then, we cannot use these dubious numbers. TSO1D 17:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is the Bank of Transnistria an unreliable source? Ambi 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm... I didnt say that it hasn't been released but that the census is for internal use only. Do u know what that means? That means it will never show up on the five ugly, old and never-updated sites that PMR has! Seriously, why isnt the Transnistrian bank a good refference? Is "Jurnal de Chishinau" a good refference? I mean yes this is an encyclopedia but you can't possibly be posting the data from a census that's 16 years old. Whats the big deal if you just put the 2004 census and place a warning or something besides it that the data's accuracy is disputable.

Believe me you can wait decades, not months and the PMR will never post it on OLVIA PRESS website thats for sure. As for making the census public: it has prolly already done so since Moldovan newspapers somehow miracleously use the same numbers as the Transnistrian bank uses.

Cu respect Duca

As someone included the 2004 results, I added a caveat at the end explaining that they do not represent official results. I suppose we can keep these results with the disclaimer for a couple of months, hopefully we will have something more concrete and credible by then. The 1989 results are indeed archaic, and the 2004 numbers will just provide an estimate. Doubtful as they are, I could not find a more credible source. TSO1D 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is the best way to go about it.

Cu respect, Duca

FSENKO ADMITS TO BEIGN A TRANSNISTRIAN INSTIGATOR
Well obviously now FSENKO cannot give a neutral point of view now can he? Its amazing with this little Transnistria. Its so damn small but full of little spies everywhere. (unsigned by anon 24.201.83.39)

Negative bias towards Transnistria in the article
1) The population of the region has been always mixed Slavic/Romanian (since the times of Kievan Rus) and the region has never been a part of historic Greater Romania, yet for some reason in the history section there is talk about "18th century   Russian and Ukrainian colonization in region".


 * I am not disputing the fact that it was ethnically mixed Ukrainian/Romanian, but most, if not all the Russian population was colonized. The reason was simple: in the 18th century, the Russian Empire needed to secure its south-western border. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2)The talk about 1940s mass deportations of Romanians from Transnistria to Siberia/Kazakhstan and replacement of them with Russians/Ukrainians. This is only partially true - Transnistria was part of USSR prior to 1940s unlike the rest of Moldova, most people targeted there by Stalinist regime were already deported/persecuted long before (in the 1930s). Secondly, Russians and Ukrainians were not put there to "replace" Romanians but always lived in Transnistria (esp. Ukrainians). The policy of deportations/terror in Stalinist USSR also had little to do with the kind of "nationalist ethnic cleansing" by Russians/Ukrainians against Romanians, in reality it was ideologically motivated "class warfare" employed against "class enemies" from all nationalities within USSR by Communist leadership with Russians and Ukrainians being main victims not beneficiaries.


 * If you wish another expression, but the facts remain the same: Romanians were deported for various reasons: some were considered traitors as they helped the Romanian Army in WWII, for being against the Soviets, etc -- this happened in most Soviet-occupied territories, including the Balic states. Some Ukrainians did live in Transnistria, but all the Russians, which now make a signifiant part of the Transnistrians, were settled within the last 200 years. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3)2004/Human Rights sections portray Transnistria as some kind of unique totalitarian phenomenon in the region. The articles ignores the fact what the rest of Moldova is the only country in Europe currently ruled by an unreformed Communist party with equally poor human rights record.


 * From what I know, Moldova has too, a poor human rights record, but here it's worse. See the Ilie Ila&#351;cu case, the Romanian-language schools being closed, etc. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) Statement "Transnistria is the poorest region of the poorest country in Europe" is obviously false (regardless of any economic statistics authors came up here doing google search) anyone who ever traveled in the region knows what Transnistria, despite its numerous economic problems, is relatively developed industrial region and there are plenty of extremely undeveloped rural regions throughout Balkans, Romania and Moldova itself what are even more impoverished. (Fisenko 06:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * If you can cite sources for it, then fix it! Ambi 06:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is using the GDP data provided by Transnistrian Economy Ministry as quoted here. If you have better data, please add it. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is very well known that in the village of Butur(populated by Romanians) for example, in modern-day Dubasari district( if I am not mistaken), the Russians sepparated the men from the women and shot all the 178 men in the village.


 * If you have information and references on that, it would be interesting to write an article about it. I couldn't find anything about it on the Internet. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainians and Russians must have been present in very tiny numbers before the Russian occupation of Transnistria from the Turks. A Turkish census shows us the following: out of the one hundred villages in thier province of Edisan(Transnistria roughly), about 64 had a compact Romanian population. The other villages were mostly Tatarian. So there is little or no mentioning of Russians or Ukrainians and this is just before the 1800s.

Obviously there had to be a colonization of the place, since by 1940 the Romanian population stopped being the overwhealming majority but was still a plurality, while in 1940 the population of Tiraspol was still 42% Romanian. Compare this with the 18% in 1989. Where did the Romanians go? Is it that they just do not like to procreate as much as Russians and Ukrainians? I think not.

About the richness of Transnistria. Well like you said anyone who would travel there would see two things. One is that 99% of the population live in horrible conditions. Reports tell of a city life that even in Moldova is considered primitive.

Yes there is some industry. Basically two factories: one making steel and one making ammuntions but they are both old.


 * You forgot the Kvint brandy factory. The Transnistrian government seems so proud of it, that they feature it on the 5 Transnistrian rubles banknote. :-) bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yes there is one stadium in Tiraspol that looks like its at a European standard. This is all that comprises the richness of Transnistria. Oh and I forgot the store-chain which the president's son owns.

Tell me what is biased in all this? Is any of the info here untrue?

bogdan, I am gonna look for the info on Butur and I will post my sourse here.

Duca

I want to remove the POV from the site, as I do not see a reason for it. If anyone wants to give specific and concrete reasons why the site is biased I promise to try to change the text in order to remove any potential bias. TSO1D 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a number of "specific and concrete reasons" none of which were even modified to sound more neutral. It is obvious the article in its current form is written by Romanians and Transnistrian/Slavic point of view is ignored. (Even on talk page every second entry ends with "Duca") Speaking about economy in Transnistria even you mentioned in your own article there are large hydroelectric plans (Moldovskaya GRES and Dubossarskaya GES) in Transnistria what export electricity to Moldova and Ukraine, there is also a large steel and pump factories in Rybnitsa (http://www.aommz.com/pls/webus/ ; http://www.apnasos.idknet.com/), There are electrical machinery plants in Tiraspol (Kirov plant etc.) (http://www.ao-electromash.md/index_e.htm ; http://www.litmash.com/ ; http://www.tez.md/ ),in Bendery there are electrical equipment plants  (http://www.elektroapparatura.idknet.com/), shoe factories (http://www.tigina.com/?lang=en ; http://www.floare.com/ ), cable factory (http://moldavcable.com/en/), and a number of other factories : http://www.catalog.tiraspol.net/PartView.aspx?PartID=6&page=1 And please don't tell me about Moldovians living in much better conditions than Transnistrians, this is pure nonsense, Moldova is extremly poor and agrarian country, its main income comes from Moldavians working abroad and sending money back home to relatives.(Fisenko 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Russophobic slur
Yes these Romanians are such bastards. Ve Russian-Transnistrian-Communists are soo right in everything. Ve rezpyekt human raitz yend our Respublic is zooo kool. Ve Got ze faktoriiess leik, ze one produzing shuz yend ze one produzing vyeponz! (unsigned by anon 24.201.83.39)

Fîsyenko, all the factories that you have mentioned are mentioned already. I really think its dumb to talk about the shoe factory. Lol. Thats a minor one.

About the richness of Transnistria go anywhere you want on any respectable objective site and they will tell you that the ones that are rich are very few, mostly Russian mafia which enriched themsleves from arm-dealing. Even an ex-USSR commander admited to that. Everyone else is dirt poor. Go to this site if you do not believe me. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1803/Meier_Foster/Meier_Foster.html

Also inflation is so high in Transnistria that people have to immagine extra zeros because the country is so poor they cannot print new banknotes. Its also on that site.

and this is the site about Butor, although its not the one that I initially read :

http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/REVISTA-AGERO/ISTORIE/totul%20despre%20transnistria.htm

Cu Respect, Fisenko's buddy Duca

Go anywhere in Moldova and you will see for yourself that "rich are very few" mostly Moldavian mafia/Voronin's Communist party apparatchiks and "everyone else is dirt poor" (those who don't have relatives working abroad even more so than most Transnistrians). So what? Such statements would not be accepted as neutral and un-biased if you post them in the article about Republic of Moldova. Regardless, of economic section there are statments in History sections what are more than enough for POV check. If you want I can correct them. (Fisenko 05:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * As a borader aside, it would be instructive to see wealth and income distrbution per decile. I wonder if current figures (if at all) exist. El_C 05:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fisenko, I rewrote many parts of the text in conformity with the POV neutrality policy of Wikipedia. I also implemented some of your suggestions, except for the economy, where I did not have a chance to look at the data. I involuntarily overrode your message as we were editing the site at the same time and I finished later, and didn't have time to take a close look at that, but I will check the numbers later today. Hopefully you will agree with the changes I made at this edit, and if you have more suggestions I will gladly look at them. TSO1D 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

 * Please, correct those statements that you pretend are POV. Meanwhile, I see nothing to discuss here. So I will erase the POV tag. --Vasile 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, please restore the POV tag that you keep deleting. Objections are stated explicitly and addressing them fully isn't done even at the talk page yet. You may debunk them at the talk page too (if you can). It's your opinion that there is "nothing to discuss". I respect it. But this by itslef is no justification to remove a tag placed by a good faith editor who elaborated his reason rather well. Thanks! -Irpen

''Vasile, forgive me for responding within you text below. I marked entries so they can be easily separated.'' -Irpen 17:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no good faith in keeping that tag and doing nothing to amend and improve the article. --Vasile
 * We do not have a case here of "placing a tag and doing nothing". It's placing a tag and explaining in detail what the user perceives non-neutral. If you have anything to say about the points raised in complaint, say it in the talk page. If you can debunk these points in toto, do that and remove the tag. -Irpen
 * A good faith editor would edit the statements considered "POV". Nobody was able yet to tell me what is about to discuss here. --Vasile 15:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This approach would have eliminated the need for a POV-tag. If the Neutrality policy was that the user MUST correct what he sees non-neutral and this is the only way he can address the problem, there won't be a need for the tag in the first place. For whatever reasons, the user may prefer not to edit at certain point. What the user must do if he has problems with neutrality, is supply a tag with a detailed explanation of what he sees not neutral. This explanation was given at the talk page above. After that, you can't just remove the tag with "nothing to discuss" comment. As of now, the tag has to be restored-Irpen


 * There were replies to Fishenko's objections, but he did not replied to them and when he replied, he tried to avoid handling specific issues. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Bogdan, I am sorry, I don't see such an avoidance in his answers. We should Assume good faith on Fisenko's behalf. I worked on several articles with this editor and we happened to agree and disagree on several occasions. From what I know, "assume good faith" guideline applies to his edits. Anyway, I am not here to defend anyone and he does not need to be defended either. I disagree with what seems to me an arbitrary removal of an NPOV tag regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I stand by my opinion that it needs to be restored. I will leave this action to others for now. However, I can see that you or Vasile may disagree not only with the tag, but also with me on the issue whether tag removal was justified. You may choose not to restore it, of course. I just brought up the reasons why I think restoring is needed. I could have restored it right away, but I don't want to continue now what became a simple edit war that consists of a rev. followed by a rev., followed by a rev., etc. -Irpen 18:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * He argues that Transnistria is not poorer than Moldova. I replied that the official data shows the GDP is lower. (Moldova had around $760/capita in 2004, while Transnistria had $662/capita), however continued saying that Moldova "is extremly poor". I don't dispute that. However Transnistria is indeed "slightly poorer", like the article suggests. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He also talked about all the factories in Transnistria but they were already mentioned in the article.

Cu Respect Duca

guys, i would like to add somewhere about the russian atrocities in transnistria. THis is my sourse http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/REVISTA-AGERO/ISTORIE/totul%20despre%20transnistria.htm

Thats where it talkes about the village of Butor and I think it would go well in the part about Transnistria under Soviet rule.

Also the link about how Transnistrians have to immagine extra zeros since the government is too poor to reprint more money because inflation is so high speaks tons about the economic situation there. (unsigned by anon)


 * I agree, there are many problems with either view. Still, I strongly feel restoration of the POV check is warranted. Please, let's deal with this calmly. No flames! regards, -Irpen 19:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

POV clean up
Why do you think the historic fact that Romanian army invaded and occupied the region in 1941 should not be in the article ?

Why do you think information about electical equipment plants in Tiraspol and Bendery should not be in the article ? (Fisenko 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

If you insist, the info about the equipment can be removed, but you have to agree that some of the older factories have old technology. I tried to soften it up a bit, but I don't really care too much for it. As for the "Axis occupation", for some (non-Romanians) it was an occupations, for some of the Romanians in the region it was a liberation. Your comments about the liberation of the Red Army are a little over the top. This would not be objective. I tried to change the text of the hole document to remove any possible POV, the fact that the info about the "fascist Romanian occupation" is not included only ensures that POV is not violated. TSO1D 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about Moldova west of Dniestr here, Transnistria unlike the rest of Moldova was never a part of Romania. It was part of the USSR since its creation in 1922, it was also part of the Russian Empire for more than a century prior to that (and part of Kievan Russia if we want to go into ancient history). Even most of ethnic Moldavians/Romanians in the region in contrast to Moldavians/Romanians west of Dniestr saw the events of 1941 as occupation and greeted Red Army in 1944 as liberators. (Fisenko 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * A compromise solution: if the term "occupation" seems controversial to some, we can use "invasion", That's for sure justifiable. On another note, regarding the deportation (I made a similar post earlier elsewhere, sorry for repetition). Stalinist policies of post-war mass repressions and deportations in Moldova were in line with similar policies of Stalin to other nations accused in collaboration with Nazis. Of course almost all of the millions of people who suffered had nothing to do with any crimes of Nazis or other axis countries' occupation forces against Slavs or Jews (and, honestly, I don't know and could be Romanian occupation didn't follow up on Nazi's "solution" of the Jewish problem). It is true that many people in the territories recently occupied by SU understandably viewed the Nazi Germany as a liberator (not for long though). However, those on the left-bank were unlikely among them for sure. It was also true that crimes against civilians were conducted with eager assistance of local collaborators, not only in these territories but also in Ukraine (see, for instance, the highly POV article "the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia which still has some truth in it) or in Baltic republics. The point I am trying to make is that the article should go into some detail on these issues, not just say that Romanians were collectively punished and singled out by Stalin. The truth was that millions where collectively punished for the crimes of the hundreds. The reader would know what Collective punishment is and will be able to judge that what was done by Stalin was inhuman and unjust. This article subject is of course not the crimes of Nazi collaborators, but if the article needs to mention the Soviet repressions of Romanians at all, it should give a complete picture. Irpen 20:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I added some info about the Romanian rule of the region, and changed the abuses section, explaining abuses done by both sides, in order to offer a balanced perspective. Fisenko, do you believe that other changes are necessary, or can we remove the POV tag? TSO1D 20:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not Fisenko, but I think it is inadequate. You changed it to:
 * current: During WWI, Axis forces advanced into the region and Romania integrated absorbed all of Transnistria until the Soviet recapture of the area.
 * suggested (at least): During [[Eastern Front (World War II)


 * World War II]], Axis forces advanced into invaded the region and Romania integrated absorbed annexation all of Transnistria until the Soviet recapture of the area driven back from there by the Soviet Army (don't forget we are talking about Transnistria, not the whole Moldova. What "recapture"?).


 * current: After World War II, it was included with Bessarabia into the Moldavian SSR in exchange for the Southern Bessarabia ("Bugeac"), which was included in the Ukrainian SSR.
 * suggested: After the war, it was included with Bessarabia into the Moldavian SSR and the Southern Bessarabia ("Bugeac") was included in the Ukrainian SSR. (What "exchange"? Administrative borders in the USSR were meaningless. Transfer of Crimea is the best proof)


 * current:In the 40's, Transnistria suffered from Axis and Soviet abuses. During the Romanian rule of the region, local Jews, Communists, and other groups were persecuted. During USSR rule, many ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians. Most ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were allowed to return in the 50's, during the process of de-Stalinazation.
 * comment: Here I don't even know what to say. "Jews, communists and other groups..." My God, you think that's neutral?

I think the adequate thing would be to discuss changes except for the obvious at this talk page, and by all means STOP removing the POV-tag until issues are worked out here. Issues raised are no bullshit trying to pull some tricks. Removing the POV-tag should not be repeated. Replacing it with "stub"? Is this a joke? Please let's put the ideologies aside, let's avoid personal attacks and name-calling and work out the differences. And, once again, please leave the POV tag alone. It is not inserted frivolously and this is a serious matter. Thanks! -Irpen 21:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comments for numerous regions. 1)Advanced into is more neutral than invaded and relates the same message, although I agree that we can use the word annexed.
 * No it's not the same message. When the Soviet Army moved into what was an eastern Poland after the Pact with Nazis, this was "invaded". When it moved into the same territories in 1944, it advanced. Do you see a difference between these two events? -Irpen

2)I used the word recapture, to mean the resumption of USSR rule of Transnistria after the brief Romanian military presence there. Is that not true?
 * No, recapture is a capture preceded by another capture. Of course everything was "captured" by someone at certain points of history, but in that context, particularly for Transnistria and particularly ofr WWII events liberation is appropriate. If you can't allow this, we should at least say "driven back". -Irpen

3)Administrative borders were not meaningless, or otherwise the Ukrainian SSR would not have engaged in such am active effort to convince Stalin to give the Romanian regions of Bugeac and Bukovina to the Ukraine.
 * Meaningless not in this sense but in a sense that there was no need to negotiate any "exchanges". Of course any Communist leader of any republic would be happy to get more people and power under his rule. But this "exchange" thing brings in the flavor of negotiations like in international relations. What's wrong with my version? -Irpen

4)Isn't it true that Jews and Communists were persecuted by the Nazis? I am at a loss here. Please explain what you mean.
 * How would you look at the phrase like: "Insert your own nation here", Nazis, Thieves and child molesters and other groups were killed, persecuted, arrested and deported", I mean no offence to your or any other nation. I hope, seeing this example you would agree that his phrase is totally unacceptable. Irpen

As for the POV tag, is there really a legitimate reason to keep it? Most contributors to this site agree with its content and are making serious efforts to remove any potential bias. The only reason the tag exists is because of a fanatical Smirnovian who believes that we should focus on the evils of fascist Romanians and the triumph of the PMR over Moldova. TSO1D 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * POV tag seems clearly warranted to me. I strongly disagree with your labeling here even though you seem not to include me under it this time. I am on the record in WP opposing several phobias and I urge you to avoid name calling. I suggest a cool-off period. Even though leaving the article in a current form is unacceptable in my view, with the POV tag we can leave it like this for a short time unchanged. I would very much like to see Fisenko's version of the article, or at least of the disputed parts, if he has time to offer them. This all is better done on the talk page. If removal of the POV tag continues, I will leave this article for a while. If this is antibody's goal, I just offered a way to achieve it. I still hope we can bring this article to an acceptable level. Best regards, -Irpen 22:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I did not include you in my label, because I respect you and I can collaborate with you. You present concrete and concise information about how to enhance the information and remove any bias. As for Fisenko, he is simply irrational in many instances. I can only imagine what his version would look like! As for the POV tag, I suppose you are right, let's keep it for a week or so until we can solve some of the outstanding problems with point of view. TSO1D 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, I am glad we agreed on keeping the tag for now. If both of us will revert its removals, it should be enough to keep it on most of the time and stay under the 3RR limit, although I would be very uncomfortable reverting the same thing more than twice a day.


 * I would like to apologise to Fisenko, on behalf of this talk page for the treatment his edits were receiving. I hope he will help with this article and I, perhaps to the disagreement of TSO1D view his edits constructive. I would very much welcome his version (as well as anyone else's version, but his especially) to be presented at this talk page before we start another revert war in the article's space. Unfortunately, I would have to do a lot of reading to be able to contribute any knowledge to this article, for which I will probably not have time these days. I will still try to look up some general reference sources. Regards, -Irpen 23:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Replacing POV with stub is not a joke. Don't use talk page, edit on article, please. --Vasile 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is definetly not a stub, and I believe that the POV should be left for now, only for a brief period until we can find a concensus on the article. Vasile, please don't change the sign for now. TSO1D 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is incomplete. Those user that pretend this is a POV need more time to study the matter. Then, how they know this is a POV? --Vasile 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I partially agree with you, but this project is delicate and we wish to strike a balance to which almost no one can find serious objections. Please refrain from making radical changes without discussing them first. TSO1D 01:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GDP
Transnistria is wealthier than Moldova, so far I know... And I know good. The population of Transnistria in 2004 is 500 th. (smaller then in 1989, not bigger, as you wrote-- that's stupid, the population of all countries in Eastern Europe is descreasing, but Transnistria no... It's population is strongly increasing... :))). 420,000,000 / 500,000 is $840. That's more than the $803 GDP per capita in Moldova (the figure for Moldova comes from IMF). --Danutz 19:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use the results of the population census from 2004 provided by the bank of Transnistria which probably calculated the total GDP as well. The population is estimated at 580,000, thus their GDP per capita would be $724. According to the US state department, the Moldovan GDP per capita is $760, slightly more than in Transnistria. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5357.htm TSO1D 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes are always good
Danutz about the GDP, as it has already been pointed out the population is not 500.000 but 580.000. The 546.400, in 1989, reffers only to Transnistria without Tighina. The 580.000 right now includes Tighina. Without Tighina( population 112.990 according to World Gazeteer), then the population in the rest of Transnistria would have decreased indeed.

About the History part I tottaly agree with Fsenko and others who have said that if we are going to talk about Soviet atrocities, we should also mention WWII atrocities against the Jews. I think thats a very important part of Romanian and Transnistrian but also Ukrainian history and it should be mentioned.

This is why I have added some stuff about it which divulges some facts about the atrocities made by the Nazis and the Romanians but also with the help of their Ukrainain allies. The source is that of a very prominent Jewish author about the Transnistrian Subject and his book " Shattered! 50 Years of Silence History and Voices of the Tragedy in Romania and Transnistria ". Here is the website http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/compassion-in-transnistria.html.

In all fairness I think we should keep the neutrality thing still on until we come to write a clear and neutral article.

Cu respect, Duca

Duca, don't you think that if you want to elaborate on the subject you should present the historical background of the attrocities rather than quote a book and talk about a specific event?

Besides, I think the attrocities aspect of this page is slowly getting out of hand. In the interest of giving a balanced view, we just keep adding information, and soon 90% of the content of the page will be about attrocities in the region. I suggest we either remove everething pertaining to the subject or restrain the info to no more than one paragraph. There is plenty of info on Nazi and Stalin's attrocities on other sites. TSO1D 23:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look: I am talking about a historical fact. WWII is a particular event that I think deserves some attention. I talked about the case in Tiraspol because it has to do with the actual Transnistrian territory that also exists now in PMR. Everyone knows that Romanian Transnistria in 1941-43 is not the same as PMR Transnistria, rather the later is only a small territory of the former. The book I quoted is the best known book about the subject. What can I do if not many people wrote about Transnistria?

Personally I think all the info is of importance. But if you want it all under one paragraph, you should select what you think is important and put it all in one paragraph.

Cu respect, Duca

NPOV
What is being disputed? As far as I can tell, the article has a anti-Ukrainian and pro-Romanian bias, but not enough of one to dispute. Could you maybe make the case for the dispute header, or just make the needed changes? It looks awful. Sam Spade 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's a little hard for those who claim that the article is not neutral to make a harder case since it's hard for them to come up with actual evidence to support that.

Sometimes facts are painful for some and satisfactory for others. It may look like its written from a Romanian point of view, I give you that. But then again it only looks so. Does that really mean it is?

After all, if you go read an accurate article about the Holocaust, it will say that the Nazis commited atrocities against the Jews and that 6 million Jews died. Is one entitled to say that it is not neutral because it does not talk about the Nazi point of view? Of course not. We all know that the Nazis could not possibly give you a neutral point of view about the Hollocaust since they are the ones that caused it. Likewise, it is very hard to talk about the Stalinist or Communist points of view and take them seriously when making a neutral article. Jeorgika

Finally I think it looks good enough that we can all say its pretty Neutral
I dunno who made the changes but I think they are quite good and give a fairly detailed but compacted account of the history of the region.

Cu respect, Duca

None of the biased statements in the article were corrected to made them neutral. The article still describes only Romanian perspective on Transnistria. In addition you added new controversial statements about "imposition of Cyrillic script for written Romanian" - Cyrrillic scrip was historically used in Moldavia (and indeed even in Romania before late 1800s). Red Army/Soviets portayed as some kind of evil occupation force in Transnistria massacring entire populations of Romanian villages (This must be the reason why Moldova today is the only European country where almost 70 % recently voted for the Communist party), while many people in the region will accuse Romanian army of doing the same. Transnistria is blamed for "armed incursions" into Moldovan villages (while I assure you PMR gov't regularly blames Moldova for doing exacly the same), etc. (Fisenko 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Fsenko why are you blaming me for changing anything? I didnt not make the latest changes and I am not the one that added the thing with the cyrilic script. The part with the romanian village, is true, I added it a few days ago but I proved it is true since i also provided a source. What is your source for all your criticisms?

The cyrilic script was imposed. Just because Moldova and Vallachia(south romania) used a form of the cyrilic script until 1800 doesn't mean that they were still used to it back in 1940. Theres at least a 140 year difference. On top of that the Romanian cyrilic script used until the 1800s was actually quite different then the Russian one since some letters were written differently.

Will you ever be happy Fsenko? I think your problem is not that the article is not neutral because right now it is. I think your problem is that you want it to say how nice the communists and Stalin was and how bad the Romanians are. Well we are not in Transdnestria here. We are in a free country and the truth prevails here, not the Communist propaganda.

Duca

>>>>The part with the romanian village, is true, I added it a few days ago but I proved it is true since i also provided a source. What is your source for all your criticisms?<<<<<

I do not deny (or confirm) what particular incident took place. However, to portray Soviets in Transnistria (not part of Romanian pre-1940 Moldova) as occupiers who did nothing but massacred Romanian villages is NPOV. First, because it is not a generally accepted view in either Transnistria or even Moldova. Governments and majority of population in both Moldova and Transnistria commemorate the events of 1944 as liberation. There have been obviously many massacres committed by Romanian army in the region. If you want references, here you go:

Mezincescu E. Marshal Antonescu and Catastrophe of Romania. Bucharest, 1993

Levit I. Holocaust in Bassarabia in the Distorting Mirror of Mr. Petrencu. Chisinau, 1999

The Moldovan SSR in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union in 1941-1945, Collected materials and documents. Vol.II. Chisinau, 1976

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/benditer-ihiel.html

http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Yedintsy/yed0749.html#page758b

http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/04/02/0304.html

http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/ironguard/holocaust.htm

http://www.vremea.net/news/2003-12-24/12:04:12.html

>>>>The cyrilic script was imposed. Just because Moldova and Vallachia(south romania) used a form of the cyrilic script until 1800 doesn't mean that they were still used to it back in 1940.<<<<<

Once again you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between Romania and Transnistria. Latin script for the Romanian language was only officially adopted in the kingdom of Romania in 1860. Cyrillic alphabet used historically in Moldavia remained in Moldavian version of Romanian language in Bessarabia (part of Ottoman Turkey prior to 1812, part of Russian Empire after) and Transnistraia (Russian after - 1792). Moldavians in Transnistria which have never been part of Romania, never adopted the Latin script. How on earth Cyrillic alphabet could be "imposed" in the region? (Fisenko 00:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I removed the word imposed and attempted to make the sentece more neutral. Do you find it adequate? TSO1D 00:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fsenko read the article again
The refferences you have mede pertain to Romanian killigs against Jews. And the article does say that Romanians and Germans did crimes against the Jews in 1941-43. Nobody denies that. Of course it would not be neutral to say that only Romanians and Jews did the atrocities because as some sourses mention, local Ukrainians (and probably Russians) did them too.

About the Soviet atrocities, lemme clarify something: They did happen. To say they didnt is like saing that "Nazis cannot be described by their atrocities against the Jews", like someone above has mentioned. The current Transnistrian government is a Communist-neo Stalinist type of government and of course it would commemorate the Soviet invasion as a liberation. The Moldovan communists usually did the same but this year they were more reserved then in other years since the Communists in Moldova have taken a pro-European and pro-western stance lately. This has angered the Russian Federation and if I am not mistaken the Russians have even protested to the Moldovan government attitude this year.

About the script, first of all, it is not the Latvian script but the Latin script. Second of all, yes the Latin script was used in Transnistria. From 1924 to 1934, if I am not mistaken, although I might be off by a few years, the Latin script was used in the MASSR.

Duca

If you would read my references more carefully you will find they also talk about Romanian killings of Moldavians, Russians, Ukrainians etc. In Transnistria and Romanian-occupied Odessa Oblast were was a rather strong resistance movement (notable Moldavian and Ukrainian partisans in the region include Boris Galavan,  Darya Dyachenko, Stefan Rimsha etc.) In Dubassary and Tiraspol (Kirpichnaya Slobodka) many non-Jewish locals, partisans, prisoners of war etc. were massacred. (ref: http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2004/04/09/0701.html) I do not dispute the fact what Soviet army/NKVD also committed some atrocities (although I doubt they targeted ethnic Romanians only, rather people of all ethnic groups justly or more often unjustly accused of collaboration with the enemy).


 * I'm a bit skeptical about the Moldavians fighting the Romanian troops. That sounds much like the propaganda used by the Soviets to sustain the "Moldavian" distinct ethnicity. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And for crying out loud! That article you linked is really pathetic. It seems cut and pasted from a Communist-era newspaper. And it is written by Nikolai Buchatsky, a Transnistrian Communist leader and member of the Tiraspol City Council. Please give us a real reference, not a propaganda article. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for Moldavian and Transnistrian governments, regardless of their ideology their view on WWII events reflects the attitude of the significant portion (probably majority) of population in both Moldova and Transnistria   regardless of the labels you put on them. Finally 10 years of Latin scrip usage in Transnistria is not enough to justify it as somehow more legitimate there and claim that Cyrillic alphabet was "imposed". (Fisenko 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))


 * The Romanians of Transnistria want to use the Latin script, but the authorities forbade them. I'd say that is the meaning of the word "imposed". bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 07:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet regime chose the latin script for Romanian in 1923 in the Autonomous Moldovian Republic in order to entice other Romanians to join the cause. In 1939, however when the MSSR was created, then people in administrative positions in the former MASSR were executed for propagating nationalistic sentiments and restored the Cyrillic system in order to show Moldova's differences from Romania. In this cruel political game I believe usage of the word imposed is justified. TSO1D 21:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nikolai Buchatsky is not a Communist (you are mistaken him for Voronin and co.) his party is called "Narodovlastie" and his is an opposition leader opposed to Igor Smirnov. If you want to read academic sources I already mentioned some, for example Mezincescu E. Marshal Antonescu and Catastrophe of Romania. Bucharest, 1993

or

Levit I. Holocaust in Bassarabia in the Distorting Mirror of Mr. Petrencu. Chisinau, 1999

About Latin script, only 6 private schools out of about 40 Romanian/Moldovan language schools in Transnistria wanted to use it and were accused of teaching kids nationalist propaganda etc. This is hardly translates into the wishes "Romanians of Transnistria" (Fisenko 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Article is very problematic in its current form as of 7am, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
As of now, I stopped my participation in this article. The main reason was not its one-sideness and not even the rudeness of some editors, though quite amazing even for a controversial topic. With things like addressing other editors purposefully misspelling the names, writing russophobic slurs and personal attacks at the talk page, I could still hope there is a chance the article was workable. However, persistent removals of an elaborately justified POV tag and even ignoring very specific suggestions makes me think that there are strongly POV editors whose commitment to making sure onesideness of the article is much stronger than my commitment to this topic. It only amazes me that Fisenko still bothers to respond specifically to these attacks and frivolous "adjustment" claimed "directed towards neutrality". It reached the stage when POV-tag is not sufficient and it requires additionally a "factual accuracy disputed tag". Reasons are already given above. Anyway, I am going to place the tag and I am quite pessimistic, that it will be removed in no time with the article's problems still being not addressed. No one is trying to defend Smirnov and his mafia. No one is expressing Stalinist viewes. The article should just stick to undisputed facts not picked selectively to someone's liking. Objections and suggestions raised earlier by Fisenko and me are still up there if anyone wants to see the reasons, and almost all of them are not address or addressed in frivolous manner. I will check how this article is doing in a week or two but now I am not anymore in the mood to fight with obvious prejudices of several editors. I am sorry to those who feel offended by my remarks, but I can't help but say here what I see absolutely warranted. -Irpen 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't know anything about the subject. Even you don't want to collaborate, please stay around to learn more. --Vasile 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He knows Vasile, he knows. But you know what he knows? All he knows is what commarde Stalin tought him. He knows how to hate Romanians, he knows how to call them "Moldovans", oh yeah and he knows that Romanians did atrocities in Transnistria but that the USSR did nothing of the sort. In fact according to him the USSR "saved" Transnistria. After all where would Transnistria be if it wasn't for the USSR? According to him "where would we all be if it wasnt for the USSR and its helping had?" That's what he knows and what he calls NPOV. (unisgned by Mihaitza)

Challangers of Neutrality have a Clear Anti-Romanian Biased
The challangers of Neutrality have done nothing else but back their outragous claims with Stalinist and Communist propaganda, with articles written by Transnistrian Stalinists and Communists and when put in a difficult possition by the stronger arguments of the majority, they either ignored these arguments or just accused the others of being unfair, of being pro-Romanian or of having hidden agendas when it is clear that the only ones with hidden agendas are Fskenko and his buddy.

This should not be a forum where Transnistrian communists can bash and degrade the truth just like they are used to doing in Transnistria but rather a forum that tries to expose the facts for what they are. Having said that I hope that those Transnistrian Stalinists either back off, either come fourth with clear arguments, not just the ones from the pre-1989 era. (unsigned by Jeorgika)

Response from the "Challenger of neutrality"

 * ''Vasile wrote: You definetely know nothing about the subject as you pretend. You just want make this article to disappear, disturbing and harassing anyone wants to edit this article. You don't respect the wikipedia rules and you should report yourself to the wikipedia staff.

Well, one of the active participants of this discussion left an accusatory message above at my talk page in addition to what's beeing said here that prompted me to stop by. I just restored the full content at this page from what I was trying to remove when I hoped this discussion may lead to anywhere. I suggest other users stop saying who said what. The full history of the discussion at the talk page as well as the current "neutral" text in the article will let everyone who stops by see for themselves. The article speaks for itself with or without the POV tag.

As for your "reporting myself to Wikipedia staff" comment, there is no staff to report. However, I just want to let you know what to do if you would like to "report" me. There are two WP procedures to complain about users called RfC and Arbitration (the latter for more extreme cases). There are more options at Resolving disputes link. I can only encourage you to study them and submit a request against me. Then it will become apparent to everyone who is acting in bad faith. Regards, -Irpen 19:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

More on anti-Romanian bias
One more thing I'd like to say to these silly accusations of anti-Romanian bias. I saw another active editor of this page user:Bogdangiusca participated in the article on Peter Mogila (Petru Movil&#259;), one of the great sons of your people, the article which you may notice I created myself because of my respect to this person. In spite of myself being non-specialist, (I was not able to write much then) I saw a lack of article on him as a deficiency on WP and started it myself. I consider Romanians as well as other nations with great respect. Instead of attacking those who disagree with you, I suggest you find a better use for your efforts. -Irpen 07:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

ha ha Irpen changed the title of the previous message
Like any good Stalinist, in a very KGB like fashion Irpen changed the previous title which read "Challangers are clearly anti-Romanian". Why did you change what it said Irpin? After manipulating the whole discussion, now Irpin is even trying a new tactic: Portraing himself as a victim.

I propose that we ignore the Stalinists from now on because all they do is to try to provoke everyone that has an oppinion different then theirs(which is most people here) and they do it through different tactics, including a very sick Stalinist propaganda which may work in Transnistria but unfortunately for them does not work here. Key words here "commardes" are Neutral Point Of View. Facts are Facts and in the real world, not the Transnistrian mini-USSR world, REAL FACTS are all that matters.

Duca

Response
Duca, don't be ridiculous. Just to let you know, there is no way to hide something in WP since the history is preserved for others to judge whether the alterations are indeed a foul play as you would like to portray. It would be simply silly of me to change the title to manipulate something. I changed the title because after my response the chapter was broader than just being an attack on me and I wanted the title of the chapter to reflect it so that the dialog becomes easier to read. Besides it contained the misspelling and I didn't want it to show the author is so careless that he doesn't proofreads even the titles of his chapters. (I admit my entries also may contain poor grammar). Beware, though, of No personal attacks policy that is occasionally enforced by administrators. You seem to continue the exact things I wrote above: deliberate misspellings of other editors' names, rude personal attacks and nationalist phobic outbursts. I am really not interested in participating in the discussion of the article's content and it's just the Wikiquette that is still bothering me. So far the article continues its slide towards "neutrality" so rapidly that it doesn't even need a tag anymore. Finally, I repeat that I would encourage you to file your ethical complaints against me to RfC or even RfA. Otherwise, I suggest you concentrate on the article which seems to be getting more and more to your liking. -Irpen 06:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, almost forgot. If you care to read earlier disagreements expressed here, more than half of them are about pre-Smirnov's separatists' time. So, they have nothing to do with your imagined allegiance of anyone to Smirnov's policies.

Irpen, you see this is exactly the problem I am talking about. You just accuse me and others that agree with me with nationalistic outbursts. I backed up what I wrote with netural articles and nothing that I wrote is a lie or an exageration. This accusation of nationalism is really lame right now.

About your P.S., again yes we are talking about the pre-Smornovist era, but who is Smirnov? A communist, right? So obviously those who have been living before his time and during his time there have been brainwashed with anti-Romanian propaganda which sadly it is being expressed in here. And so even though we are not talking about the Smirnov-era, some of the people here looking for immaginary faults in the article, still use communist, Stalinist and Smirnovist arguments.

P.S. : And the personal attacks, I am sorry but how do you call someone that keeps on arguing with Stalinist methods: "a Stalinist". I don't have any other words for it. Maybe I came a little to strong but I just had the impression that you changed the article on purpose and it bothers me that you and Fsenko keep on insisting that we change this article to reflect something that would appear in a 1950s Soviet History book, when you know that would be clearly impossible beacause as we all know the Soviets were not exactly known for their "neutral view point"( lol). I am with you if you wanna bring compleetly neutral sources and if you want to make specific adjustments but otherwise you should let it go.

Duca

Ulichs and Tivertsy

 * In the early middle ages the region was populated by Slavic tribes of Ulichs and Tivertsy

I would like some references about that. The Ulich article says they lived along the Bug and Dnieper, nothing about the Dniester. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 11:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here you go :

http://myworld.cv.ua/bukovina.htm

http://www.ipfw.edu/ipfwhist/syllabi/h201/unitI.htm

http://www.hrono.ru/etnosy/tiverci.html

http://www.hrono.ru/etnosy/polyane.html

http://www.auditorium.ru/v/index.php?a=vconf&c=getForm&r=thesisDesc&CounterThesis=1&id_thesis=4040&PHPSESSID=8ddbddb0f0b5aeb68962c753190acd07

http://gumilevica.kulichki.net/maps/vgv181.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9253/rus.html

http://www.tuad.nsk.ru/~history/dop/maps/rus9.gif

http://www.5ka.ru/33/6599/1.html

http://enc.bestof.ru/showpage.php?&pageid=5533

http://www.oval.ru/enc/72020.html

&#1058;&#1088;&#1077;&#1090;&#1100;&#1103;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074; &#1055;. &#1053;., &#1042;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1095;&#1085;&#1086;&#1089;&#1083;&#1072;&#1074;&#1103;&#1085;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1077; &#1087;&#1083;&#1077;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1072; 2 &#1080;&#1079;&#1076;., &#1052;., 1953. &#1060;&#1077;&#1076;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074; &#1043;. &#1041;., &#1058;&#1080;&#1074;&#1077;&#1088;&#1094;&#1099;, "&#1042;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082; &#1076;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1085;&#1077;&#1081; &#1080;&#1089;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1080;&#1080;", 1952. &#1053;&#1072;&#1089;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1077; &#1102;&#1075;&#1086;-&#1079;&#1072;&#1087;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072; &#1057;&#1057;&#1057;&#1056; &#1074; I - &#1085;&#1072;&#1095;&#1072;&#1083;&#1077; II &#1090;&#1099;&#1089;&#1103;&#1095;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1080;&#1103; &#1085;.&#1101;., "&#1057;&#1086;&#1074;&#1077;&#1090;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103; &#1101;&#1090;&#1085;&#1086;&#1075;&#1088;&#1072;&#1092;&#1080;&#1103;", 1961.

(Fisenko 16:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Man, there's a lot of sources in Russian there. What we should do is sort out the more academic sourses and leave out the ones like "Joe's webpage on Kievan Rus History". For example there is a map there that looks a little strange. In any case there is no real evidence that they didn't live in between the Nistru and the Bug rivers so for the moment I say we leave the info there.

Mihaitza

POV Check on 6/17
If there are outstanding POV issues that have not yet been resolved, please make a list of them in this section. There have been many conflicts, and some of them have been resolved, but it is difficult to find the existing ones as the information is spread throughout the discussion page. Therefore if you like, please post any POV problems here. TSO1D 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) The Soviet Moldova: a)Russian language was not imposed as official, Romanian/Moldavian also had official status in Moldovan SRR, Russian was used as a language of international communication. b)Cyrillic alphabet was not imposed esp. in the context of Moldavians in Transnistria.


 * a, b) The Cyrillic alphabet for Romanian language was the main tool of Russification in Moldovian SSR. The USSR Supreme Soviet created the new Soviet republic and of course, the Russian was official language. Probably, the Soviet legislation is still available for a research in Russia. Feel free to add any significative piece of detail in this article. --Vasile 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

c)The story about Soviet army killing "entire Romanian male population in some villages" should be either removed or placed in the context of Stalinist retaliation for alleged Romanian atrocities in WW2 section.


 * You can put this detail into the article. Stalin din't try to hide these retaliatories crimes against Romanians. --Vasile 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2)Human Rights:

A sentence about similar PMR accusation towards Republic of Moldova should be added.
 * Those accusations were made in Russian mass-media. The international mass-media had no obstruction in Moldova. Meanwhile, the situation is very different at the East of Dniestr. --Vasile 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3)Economy:

A statement that "Transnistria is the poorest region of the poorest country in Europe" is completely unnecessary esp. since in the first paragraph it is already said that Transnistria is "possibly the poorest region in Europe". Info about electrical equipment plants in Tiraspol and Bendery should also be restored.
 * This seems OK to me. --Vasile 21:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Fisenko 21:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I tried to correct these issues. Please read my changes and inform me if you have further disagreements with the text. TSO1D 21:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * During USSR rule, many ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians. Cases have been reported of Soviet troops completly killing almost the entire Romanian male population in some villages such as the village of Butor in the district of Grigoriopol. Most ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were allowed to return in the 50's, during the process of de-Stalinazation.

This paragraph is trying to present some facts. These facts are false or what?
 * The government of the PMR has made similar allegations against the Repbulic of Moldova. There is not just a war of allegations between Chisinau and Tiraspol. What do you mean by "similar allegations"? --Vasile 00:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed all text about attorcities on both sides, because this information can be found on other sites and is not necesary here. As for the MRT's allegations, though I believe in their credibility as much as you do, they still exist, and in the name of balance I don't think it's so bad to have one sentence about them.

And about the cyrillic script being imosed, please leave that paragraph the way I edited it. It is a more neutral compromise. This site includes a reference to its being imposed by MRT authorities, however the soviet actions that applied to the entire country are talked about in Moldova's page. This is one of the last problems on this site, and I hope that in the name of compromise you will be willing to accept some of these changes. TSO1D 02:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks to TSO1D's efforts the discussion of the article is becoming constructive. I am glad to take part if it stays that way. As for Axis and Soviet atrocities, both of them are an established fact. However, if only Soviet atrocities are included while the others are edited out or described as "repressions against Jews, Communists and other groups", the article would not be neutral. Personally, I don't think this needs to be covered in this article, because controversial issues are better kept within their own articles to minimize revert wars. However, if anyone insists on including this material here, please include the complete context. -Irpen 04:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that sentence about MRT allegations. I am not able to read anything about those allegations on the site of OLVIA-PRESS, for example. --Vasile 03:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, this sentence should be added if proof of such allegations can be given. Fisenko can you please post a link. TSO1D 03:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure: http://olvia.idknet.com/ol09-06-04.htm

http://www.tiraspol.info/modules.php?name=xNews&file=article&sid=655

http://aim.webart.md/~mldnet/?id=180&record=482482 (Fisenko 04:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Fisenko, the links posted by you give information about the case of Ilascu, and therefore I added a sentence about the MRT's accusations against Ilascu in that section. TSO1D 15:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I would say that if we put Soviet atrocities we should also include the German-Romanian-Ukrainian atrocities from 1941-43 and maybe that would not be such a bad idea. After all I do not know if any other sites talk about the massacre of Butor or the Tiraspol work-camps. Maybe its not a bad idea to include them here. Sources have been given for both accounts by someone above so that's not a problem and in any case I think it would be very fair if the older version was restored( aside of course from changes made in other fields like economy or census). --Mihaitza
 * I am going to revert back to the version of  05:42 (UTC), Jun 19, 2005 (by 218.114.18.35) for the reasons explained below:
 * changes to "The Armed Conflict (1991 to 1992)" subchapter. " The Russian 14th Army entered the fighting on the side of the separatists, although it was claiming to act as a peacemaker between the two sides." as well as the next paragraph contradicts for example this interview by Lebed . Zerkalo Nedeli is a respectable newspaper. It does not mean that Lebed is telling the truth in his interview, but in his claim he quotes presidents of Moldova and Romania who, according to Lebed said, that "the only guarantee of the peace in the region is the 14th army". If anyone claims he falsely quotes them, that would be another matter. If so please find the correct quote and feel free to change it again.
 * Adding "such as the rebelious government in Tiraspol." to "a necessary guarantee of protection to others..." is an entirely frivolous edit.
 * Unexplained deletion of the piece: "According to the OSCE mission in Moldova... and do not consider themselves as Bessarabians." is restored until the reason is given. If OSCE never said it, it would be of course a valid reason.
 * -Irpen 06:26, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

WOW, the article looks so disgusting now its like its out of a Communist Transnistrian newspaper. Listen Irpen, I donnot know what your agenda is here, but please stop it with the cheap Stalinist Propaganda.

You erased the fact that the Russian 14th Army intervened on the side of the sepparatists, when it is clear as day that they did. That is like common knowledge. Why in the world did you do that? Second of all, Romanians are persecuted, the Transnistrians only allowed for 6 schools and they even wanted to close down 4 of them, they arrested children, parents, they fired parents from work and on top of that they arrested a bunch of Romanians in 1992 for no good reason aside from the fact that they were unionists- well I would say that is called persecution- why the hell did u erase that too?

The OSCE thing will obviously say something like that since the OSCE is a mediator in the conflict and its interest is to please all sides, including the criminals in Tiraspol. Just the fact that 40% of the population there speaks Romanian obviously suggests that they are Romanians. What the hell do you know about what their loyalties are. After killing entire male populations and after not being allowed to learn in their schools and the very fact that they do want to study in latin schools obviously says that they are not "transnistrian". This "transnistrian" thing is very similar to what the communists in Tirapol are trying to tell people. Are you one of them Irpen?

Listen, Wikipedia is not a place where you can put your Stalinist dirt and make people swallow it. If you are a Transnistrian communist or something and if you cannot handle being professional and neutral then maybe you should not participate :(

PS: OH and the atrocities thing should be placed back on. The only reason why people like Irpen did not want it there is because they make his fellow Soviets look bad but you know what: IT IS THE TRUTH! IT IS FACT! SO WHY IN THE WORLD should it not be there. WHY? Cuz we are scared we are going to offend some Stalinists? Mihaitza

Mihaitza, I removed the sentence about persecution of Romanians, because this is discussed in greater detail in other sections, and the way you phrased the sentence, it displayed POV. As for the attrocities, I myself removed references of Axis and Soviet attrocities because this information can be found on other pages and only led to conflict here. As for your being disgusted with the text, and don't understand why, most of it appears objective to me. TSO1D 16:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well did you erase the part with the army too? I didn't think it was you since it seems to me that you are the kind of person who wants to keep the real facts there. I would say that there is nothing left to prove there. Everyone knows the 14th army intervened. As for the persecution and the atorcities I dunno but on what other pages are the Butor massacre and the Tiraspol work-camps found? I would say it is very paramount to have them discussed here because they pertain to the history of Transnistria. Mihaitza

No, I did not erase the information about the army's involvement. It still exists on the page. TSO1D 16:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know. That's why I was saing how I didn't think it was you. But what happened is that when I checked it today, somehow the info dissapeared which is why I had to inculde it again today. Someone else must have erased it yesterday and there is only one person here that would do that and that's why I wrote the "disgusted message"(lol).

In any case, I donnot think that we should adress the problem by erasing important stuff just for the sake of pleasing some people with Communist and Stalinist orientations. I mean it's like toning down the article on the Holocaust just so we please Neonazis. What we should do, like you said, is compile essential information( not go on with large paragraphs) which describes the history or other aspects of Transnistria exactly for what they are.

Cheers and sorry for the misunderstanding, Mihaitza

>>>>>Second of all, Romanians are persecuted, the Transnistrians only allowed for 6 schools and they even wanted to close down 4 of them, they arrested children, parents, they fired parents from work.<<<<< There are more than 30 Moldavian/Romanian schools in Transnistria, only 6 of them wanted to use Latin script. (The "essential part of Romanian heritage/identity" only intruduced in Romania in 1860 by Francophone elites after more than a 1000 years of Cyrillic script in the region and only briefly ever used in Transnistria.) Only 4 schools were closed down later re-opened, all parents arrested were released within hours, none of the kids were ever arrested.


 * There is no mass-media or books edited using Latin script in Transnistria. The deny of these Romanian children's right to education and acces on information represents a persecution. The schools were closed as a form of intimidation and re-open after months of protests. --Vasile 04:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Oliva-Press there are stories about teenagers killed in Chi&#351;in&#259;u just because they spoke Russian language.


 * What's the point of these stories? What has to understand a person of Transnistria from these stories? Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions. --Vasile 04:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We can put all these allegations here so you can spent your time deleting them or we can write a neutral academic article about Transnistria without playing the blame game who is more "evil". (Fisenko 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Please avoid using talk page for attacking other editors
Finally, Mihaitza please stop your hysteria, there are no "Stalinists" and nobody is anti-Romanian here. I myself is a grandson of Ukrainian kulaks persecuted and repressed by the Bolsheviks and I have a lot of respect for Romanian people. (Fisenko 03:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Then show it by stop taking the saides of the Stalinists in Tiraspol and be neutral for once. Like for example, you argue that Romanians are not persecuted in Transnistria, when it is clear as day that they are. Mihaitza

Mihaitza Stalinists existed 50 years ago, the once who still alive are at least 80 years old now. Wake up... (Fisenko 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Mihaitza, would you please calm down and stop using the talk pages for labeling people who happen to not agree with you. Just as attacks from Duca seemed to have stopped you jumped right on his heels. For a short time the discussion here got civil after the initiative taken by TSO1D. Your incivility doesn't help the article, it puts you in the bad light and doesn't make you sound any more convincing. I am perfectly fine when you disagree, however fiercely, with anyone edits (include mine). But you should tone your voice down when discussing the personalities of other editors, or better yet, avoid doing that at all. I will respond to your specific objections to the article's edits later. -Irpen 20:30, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The only editors I have problems with are you and Fisenko, not because you do not agree with me but because you do not approach this thing from a neutral point of view. TSO1D also does not agree with me on certain issues ( not all but some) yet I do not accuse him of Stalinisms because he seems to really want to make the article more NEUTRAL, not piss on it with communist propaganda. All you 2 have done is distort this article in order to make it look more like something Smirnov or Putin would want it to look like. A Stalinist does not have to be someone from Stalin's time and if you make that assertion then that just shows how little you know or how much you want to deceive people. A stalinist is someone who agrees or who preaches what Stalin started. And you two seem to be very good at that and prove that Stalinists are obviously alive and well today :) Mihaitza
 * Mihaitza, I am not going to argue with your definition of Stalinist. Even less so, I am going to spend time defending myself against any such silly accusation. I am asking you again, to use this page specifically for what it is supposed to be used, that is discussing the article and edits to it. You don't have to prove here, whether your accusation are justified. Your accusations should not be here at the first place, as I said earlier. It is perfectly fine, though, to express your disagreement with specific edits here which you also sometimes do, and I don't have a problem with that. -Irpen 21:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, the commies don't want to discuss their sick political orientations and ideologies so they turn it into "hey let's just talk about the article". Unfortunately they are linked "commarades" because you make your article reflect on these ideologies. And THAT is not NPOV. Anyways if you want to talk about the article lets talk about it. Not adressing certain points which are essential like Butor,mentioning that the Romanians are persecuted( in the beggining of the article) would in fact mean that it is written from a Stalinist point of view...by...Stalinists :).

Duca

Percentile Question
Hi guys, I know that this will have very little to do with what we are discussing here but I was just wondering what is the source for the 43% Romanian plurality in Transnistria?

Because at the 1989 census, the raions which were mostly in Transnistria( because some like Camenca and Dubasari also had villages in Basarabia proper) had a Romanian plurality of 40% and this was out of 601.700 people( since 53.300 did not live in Transnistria). Russians were 25.5%, Ukrainians 28.3 %, Bulgarians 1.8%, Gagauzians 0.8% and others comprised the rest.

Anyways, its a minor adjustment but I just thought for accuracy's sake to correct it.

Mihaitza

Thanks for pointing that out. The results of the census were changed by Vasile when he discovered that the numbers were incorrect, but no one changed the 43% figure in the beginning of the page. TSO1D 21:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anything left to argue about?
Guys what is there left to argue about?

1)Personally I would say that the fact that Romanians are persecuted should be stressed more.

2)And somewhere even though if it's mentioned briefly some attrocities have to be mentioned.

Mihaitza


 * Mention other significant facts. --Vasile 01:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: And what is a Slavic speaking majority? I have never heard of the Slavic language being spoken in Transnistria. Officially the langauges are Russian, Ukrainian and Moldovan/Romanian. And there is no majorty over there. Russian and Ukrainians are actually less then 30% of the population and Romanians are actually the most numerous there even according to the latest Transnistrian census. So it should say "Romanian plurality" not "Romanian minority". I made that change since I don't think that even Irpen and Fisenko would argue against their own transnistrian numbers.

More on human rights
I just came back from there, got to visit both Tiraspol and Chisinau. Both places crawl with cops, you have to register on both sides of the border. My relatives were telling me stories of corruption about both Transnistria and Moldova. I think the level of "democracy" is perceived about the same (low, that is) both for M and T. At the same time I have not heard anything about tortures and personally, did not encounter any instances of rights violations, if you don't count two rather friendly word exchanges with cops about registration: one in the Chisinau airport, the other on the Moldova-Transnistria border :))) user:Gaidash 06:02, June 29, 2005

Second batch of edits by Gaidash
It is very understandable that we all want to turn this into a showcase of our views, but... Therefore, I am changing the following things:

1) "The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions to the Romanians' right to education and deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media" - deleted.

The first part of the statment is wrong in this particular form. Rather, the right of the use of the Latin alphabete is denied. The second part of the stament is just wrong.


 * There is no Romanian education without latin alphabet. Can you tell me some Romanian newspapers and TV stations available in Tiraspol? --Vasile 30 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)


 * You can put "the right of education in the Romanian language is denied" in the "Human rights" if you wish. This does not belong to the "Political status". As far the mass media, in 2001 Moldova and Transnistria signed a declaration about the the free circulation of press: [], you might not be able to read this Russian reference, but this is a NGO agency. I saw newspapers from Moldova on the stands, of course I don't remember the names since I was not interested. As far as TV, the Moldovan channels were excluded from the standard package of the biggest cable provider "Sherrif" (of course, who else) in 2001, but this does not constitute "denial of the accees to the Romanian TV" - it is available on regular air waves, in fact I was watching M1 in Tiraspol.Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)


 * The political status has a very tight connection with the (deny of) access to the Romanian language. --Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)


 * No. I am reverting the your edits, since you did not present any counter argument on this one. Gaidash 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

2) "Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported". Deleted

Arbitrary arrests - true, the other part - unsupported. This belong to "Human rights", anyway. And all in all, this is just bad composition skills to put this stuff in "Political status" and not the "Human rights" section.

3) "Russians had some support from ethnic Ukrainians" -> "Russians had support from ethnic Ukrainians"

4)"the Russian Federation gained the role of protectors..." -> "the Russian Federation and the Ukraine"

4) "linguistic composition in 1989, according to publicly available information, was 40% Moldavian, 28% Ukrainian, 24% Russian and 8% others" -> "ethnic composition...".

My father is Romanian. Knows fewer Romanian words than me, and I know only about 10 :)

5) "heraldic device" -> "coat of arms"

6) "a large number of Cossacks and other Russian nationals went to..." -> "a large number of the Black Sea Cossacks...".

Cossack were the Black Sea Cossacks - Ukrainian nationals. I don't know of "a large number of Russian nationals" who went there. There Russian officers from the 14-th army, but that's mentioned.

7) "On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to obtain their independence, under the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army" -> "On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol promised the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army."

The was no call for independence. It would be suicidal for a Vice-Presedent to inctigate that openly.


 * Leave it this way. Nobody contests the words of Rutskoy:

''...the Fourteenth Army should act as a buffer between the combatants so that the Transdniestrian people could obtain their independence and their sovereignty and work in peace.. ''

It was not suicidal, it was heroism. What he had said and done on that day in Tiraspol, saved his skin later, in Moscow. --Vasile 30 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)


 * Source? But I will not revert this for now.Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)


 * You should look for the newspapers archives in Tiraspol.--Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)


 * OK, so there is no source. I leave this one for now, but will revert it, if you don't provide a source. Gaidash 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

8) "At the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 violent clashes broke out between the Transnistrian separatist forces and the Moldovan security forces, claiming the lives of several hundred people" -deleted.

The conflict broke out in 1992 and there were no "hundreds of deaths" before the summer of 1992.

9) "The conflict errupted then". Ok, here we go. Whoever wrote the preceding part really tried to take sides here, so, I'll introduce a leveller: "The full scale conflict errupted after the regular Moldovan forces entered the city of Tighina (Bender) in an attempt to reestablish the authority of Moldova there. The Moldovan forces were reported to take indiscriminate actions against the civilian population of the city. The news of the havoc in Tighina reached Tiraspol, only 10 km away, as the Moldovan forces were approaching the crucial bridge over the Dniester. At this point the Transnistrian Republican Guard was rushed to meet them, aided by Cossac volonteeers and (reportedly) by some officers from the Russian 14-th army (most of who had families in Tiraspol). In the course of the next days the city of Bendery was retaken by Transnistrians. The conflict dragged on for several more weeks.

And please, don't erase this: I was there personally in the summer of 92. I talked to people who fought there and lived there. I got to travel with a 60 year old Ukrainian from Bendery once who showed me his teeth broken by a soldier's rifle and told me a story of how he was pleading for his life against a wall.


 * Did the Transnistrians have those tanks that went forth and back thru the Dniestr bridge? --Vasile 30 June 2005 03:16 (UTC)


 * I mentioned ROG, there was no need to revert this one: what is exactly argued here, that Bendery was retaken, or that the Rep Guard was rushed to the bridge? Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)


 * You didn't mention ROG intervention in Tighina.--Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)


 * Of course I did. And I am also adding an explanation of this involvment and changing the description of the conflict slightly, based on this account []. Gaidash 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

10) "The broad lines of the agreement were drafted by the Russian side, which presented it for signature to the Moldovans" -deleted.

Source?
 * the actors of this agreement. --Vasile 30 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)


 * Not enough Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)


 * The testimonies of the actors are enough. You could read the decision in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (2004). --Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)


 * A quote please?Gaidash

11) "Romanian language in Latin script"-> "Latin script for the Romanian language"
 * you are right; the statement is incorrect. -> Romanian language --Vasile 30 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)


 * A fault of reasoning. It would mean that there was no Romanian language before the the begining of the 18-th century. In particular, it would mean that this [] is not Romanian. I understand that you are very touchy here, but this is an easy one to compromise. Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)


 * This discusson about Romanian language doesn't belong here. --Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)


 * It does - all your correctons are based on the premises Education=Romanian language=Latin script. If you will be reverting my edits without argumentation, I will put a POV tag first, than arbitration. Gaidash 30 June 2005 19:00 (UTC)

12) "Reports of visitors to Transnistria have confirmed that the average salary of a Transnistrian does not exceed $10-$15" -> more like "$20-$40". $662/12=$55, and we are still counting all the kids and old folks. I have not heard of $10 dollar salaries. A friend of mine who is a teacher is making about $80 at two part time jobs.

I would like to ask all Romanians (from Romania) who never travelled to Transnistria to be very easy on their edits here. To me the article looks at places like a Bucharest newspaper frontpage. I would like to ask all Transnistrians not to try to whitewash some descriptions, like the section about economy. Transnistria is very poor, it gives much fewer opportunities than Moldova (Chisinau, that is) and it certainly look worse than Moldova.

Gaidash (June 28, 2005)


 * You mentioned you don't know Romanian. So, how could you say this article loks like a Bucharest newspaper? --Vasile 30 June 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Who the hell are you? Some kind of Transnistrian KGB agent? Where is your proof? Being there is not good enough! Because just as well, you could be making this all up! This is the first time I hear this and even the Transnistrian leadership would not spit lies like this; I don't know how you expect people to beleive your crap!

You listen to any reliable source and you will find out that the Transnistrians were killing and deporting Romanians, not the other way around. Explain me this: Why is it that 85.000 Romanians fled Transnistria and only 15.000 Russians and Ukrainians?

Nice of you to talk about the Moldovans but you didnt even mention what the Transnistrians did to the Romanians in Dubasari and Grigoriopol! Stalinists and communists should not be allowed to post their propaganda in here. Take your Nazi-anti-Romanian crap elsewhere! --unsigned rude personal attack, (comment added by Irpen)

It is a bad tone to revert changes in Wiki without discussion, argumentation or sources. Gaidash (June 28, 2005)


 * I just moved some of Gaidash's recent comments posted in the middle of a long ago discussion closer to the bottom. The dialog in chronological order is a fascinating reading and a good showcase of certain manners of certain users. I am still hoping to set aside enough time to deconstruct some edits by certain POV pushers here, or, if I have enough patience, to bring this page and users to an RfC. Whether or not I will end up doing it, I would like the page to preserve the beauty of the arguments and language of certain individuals.


 * Gaidash, the problems you listed in this article and discussed are all valid points. You are not necessarily correct in everything you said, but in any case please expect your edits reverted again soon enough without any serious discussion. If you want to move this page towards neutrality, you need to compose yourself for a long battle, to get prepared to accept foul language and to put aside other things in your daily life to have time to respond to attacks of which the last one is not the worst. I am still not ready for this, so for now I gave up with editing this article. -Irpen June 29, 2005 19:28 (UTC)

To Gaidash
I have to say that I agree with some of your changes (ex. about the mean salaray and inacces to Romanian mass-media), however the changes you made to the section about the war are one-sided. Reading that text one gets the impression that the conflict was caused by Moldovan soldiers in Bender and Tighina who behaved ruthlessly towards the local populace who wished to live in peace. The truth is a bit more complex than that, as I am sure you know. The seijure of police stations in Bender that caused the arrival of the Moldovan soliders in the first place was the true beginning of the conflict. I am not yet ready to make the correct changes to this section as I am still doing research on the subject, but I would urge you to give a more objective representation of the events and include the opinions of both sides. TSO1D 29 June 2005 20:17 (UTC)


 * I agree, the police station thing should be mentioned - you are welcome to do so. The changes that I made to the "Armed conflict" are one-sided, but the whole "Armed conflict" section was one-sided before (of course with a slant to the other side). I hope it looks a little bit more objective now. As far as the "ruthless behaviour", it did happen, however notice, I am not putting "ruthless" or anything like that in the article, I mentioned it here in the discussion, but the article itself is much more toned down. The words that I am using there are "indiscriminate" and "reported".  Gaidash 29 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)


 * I drummed up some info about the police station . This [] is a very detailed account by NGO "Memorial" Human Rights Center, seems to be rather impartial. You can scroll down in the to the "THE BEGINNING OF EVENTS, JUNE 19". I would actually like to see the "Conflict" section to be rewritten using this material. Gaidash 30 June 2005 06:46 (UTC)

The mysterious person before was not me since I do sign my name but let me tell you, he/she has a very good point. Gaidashkov why are you putting Transnistrian propangada on this page. It seriously makes the Romanians look like vicious animals, which is what Smirnov would want us to believe.

On top of that don't call yourself Romanian if you cannot speak the language and if you do not feel Romanian. In fact I even doubt that your parents are Romanian since one of the most important characteristics of Romanians is to actually speak the language. You would be surprised how many people that are not "Romanian by blood"( so to speak) are still considered Romanians, regardless of nationality and even of citizenship if they actually speak the language. Maybe you are "Maldiavanian" or "Predniestrovian"? Because real Romanians from Moldova or Romania would never say such a lie about their own people.

Since this is something that you cannot back it up with, please offer a relaible source. I would have nothing against it, if you can do that.

PS: Predniestrovian Presidential site does not count as a reliable source, in case you were going to offer that.

Mihaitza 29 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)


 * [] and [] Gaidash 30 June 2005 03:05 (UTC)

Same thing goes for you because by posting those things here, you show great disrespect for the Romanians that died and those that still suffer because of the Smirnovist government and their buddies.

And stop avoiding my question. Please give an accurate source.

Mihaitza 30 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)


 * I didn't get the question: what source do you need? Gaidash 30 June 2005 04:23 (UTC)

Political status
The use of Romanian is the main issue for the political status, not a low-importance one. Did anybody remember the laws of Latin alphabet of 1989? --Vasile 1 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)


 * I disagree, see below.Gaidash 1 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

The sources
Wikipedia is not a collection of information from other web-sites. The European Human Rights Court decision is an well-respected court and its decisions are taken in consideration often by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is no way that a decision of EHRC to be put under suspicion. The decision Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia should be read by anyone interested to contribute to this article. --Vasile 1 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)


 * Source is the most fundamental part of Wikipedia. You quoted Rutskoy. Is it so difficult to say were the quote is from?Gaidash 1 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)


 * The entire paragraph:

''75. On 5 April 1992 Alexander Rutskoy, the Vice-President of the Russian Federation, went to Tiraspol. As evidenced by the press articles the applicants submitted to the Court, which have not been contested by the other parties, Mr Rutskoy first visited a military unit of the Fourteenth Army and then went to Tiraspol’s central square, in the company of Mr Smirnov. In a speech to the five thousand people present Mr Rutskoy declared that Mr Snegur did not wish to engage in dialogue and that the best solution would be a confederation in which Moldovans and Russians would live together on an equal footing. Lastly, he said that the Fourteenth Army should act as a buffer between the combatants so that the Transdniestrian people could obtain their independence and their sovereignty and work in peace.''

--Vasile 1 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)


 * Fine. Then I will make an edit tomorrow which mentions "14th Army", "confederation" and "independence". Or you can make it. But "confederation" should be there together with "independence". Gaidash 1 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

Memo.ru

 * The report is dated September 11, 1992. The group asserts this "hot spot" rises their actual interest. It is clear that situation of Romanians schools in the region is not an interesting issue for the Russian Human Rights organizations.


 * Transnistria is not a "hot spot" right now. It might become one, though, if Moldova reinvades. Gaidash 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)


 * The report assertions about the laws of 1989, Moldavian = single state language, is not true.
 * True. Quote from []:


 * On August 31, 1989, the Supreme Soviet of Moldavia passed the Law on State Language, which made Moldovan written in the Latin alphabet the state language of the Moldavian SSR. Because of pressure exerted by non-Romanian ethnic groups, Russian was retained as the language of interethnic communication. In areas where non-Romanian ethnic groups were the majority, the language of that majority could also be used as a means of communication. Because of strong objections raised by the non-Romanian nationalities, implementation of the law was delayed


 * If not enough, I'll find the original Law.Gaidash 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)


 * I found the assertion that "a number of Russian-speaking deputies of the Moldovan parliament were abused in public" in other testimonies too, in the same vague way. Nobody was able to present specific names, dates, situations about this allegations. This seems a legend to me.


 * Dates and names []


 * *15/11/1990, 3 members of parliament (MP), names not supplied by Memorial


 * *27/12/1991, MP A. Malkin beaten up


 * *MPs S. Kashheev, M. Russu, A. Tsaran alleged they were threatened


 * *5/03/1991 G. MPs Pologov, A. Efanov, D. Matchin beaten up publically at the Parliament


 * * 17/03/1991 MP V. Krylov beaten up and dumped in a lake


 * * according to Memorial on the day of the Referendum 16/12/1991:  the People's Front of Moldova suppoters attacked people at meeting on 16/12/1991, vandalized several poll stations and attacked some people who were coming to vote


 * *according to Memorial In November  1990, the newspaper "The Youth of Moldova" published a photo of the President at a meeting making a gesture "reminiscent of a fascist salut". The office of the newspaper was smashed by the President's supporters.


 * The Russian officials and militaries actions are not mentioned in report.
 * They are.Gaidash 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

--Vasile 1 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Transnistrian vision of Romanian language
Some contributors insist that there is a Romanian language with Latin and another one with Cirillic. This scientific opinion should be mention at the article about Romanian. The modern Romanian is using Latin alphabet; I think there is no place for political debate for a scientifical matter. I never heard about some country trying to use for instance pre-Shakespearian English. --Vasile 1 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


 * You are mixing up things. I don't dispute the fact that the modern Romanian language is written in Latin. So I can agree to the correction "the Transnistrian authorities forcibly closed four schools that used the modern Romanian language" in "2004 Crisis". Next, let's analyse the revert that you keep on inserting in the beginnig:
 * "The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions on the Romanians right to education and deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported."
 * As far as the contents, there are three parts here: 1) "obstructions on the Romanians right to education"; 2) "deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media"; 3) "arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin". First of all, all of this does not belong to the "Political Status". This is not the political status of Transnistria. The political status is "an unrecognised self-proclaimed republic with such and such capital". I suggest that you insert 3) into "Human Rights". In fact, all that follows "At the time of a national awakening of Moldova..." should be put in the "History".
 * Next, I insist that 2) is unsupported and you have not demonstrated otherwise. Hence it should be deleted. 1) should sound like "obstructions to the Romanians' right to education in the modern Romanian language". Otherwise it has much bigger implication than the reality. It won't take much to stop the edit war if we try. If there is no consensus, this article will POV tagged or RfCed. I personally don't wont it, but will do if there is a slight Romanian bias left in this article Gaidash 1 July 2005 04:55 (UTC)

''I saw newspapers from Moldova on the stands, of course I don't remember the names since I was not interested. As far as TV, the Moldovan channels were excluded from the standard package of the biggest cable provider "Sherrif" (of course, who else) in 2001, but this does not constitute "denial of the accees to the Romanian TV" - it is available on regular air waves, in fact I was watching M1 in Tiraspol.''

What exactly means for you "denial of access to the Romanian mass-media"? Could you check the availability of Radio Canada and TV5 in Toronto? Or should we introduce some degrees of denial? --Vasile 1 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)


 * Say it again? If you are making a point that M1 has to be freely available - it is. You get a regular antenna and you watch it. If you are making a point that M1 has to be in a commercial channel - that's wrong. Denial of mass-media is a ban on sale of newspapers in Romanian or from Moldova, and active blocking/muting the transmission from Moldova.


 * TV5 is not freely available in Toronto, it is a part of cable package that you pay for. If I didn't pay for it I would be watching it right now. So in this sence, access to French media is denied in Toronto. Gaidash 1 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)


 * What about Romanian media from Romania? --Vasile 1 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)


 * You get a sattelite antenna - you watch Romanian media, same way as any other foreign TV - French, British or Polish. I am not sure if Romanian TV is available on regular airways since Romania is too far and the waves must be just barely reaching Transnistria, but it might be. It is foreign TV and is not the topic of discussion anyway. There are no French channels from France on my TV in Toronto, for instance. Of course, Romanian radio is available. The only foreign channels available in the cable packages in Transnistria are Russian and Ukrainian. But again, the choice of commercial channels is up to the provider and does not constutute a "denial".


 * There are no French, British or Polish in Transnistria, but Romanians. If you consider that Romanians are foreigners in Transnistria is nothing to discuss further. (Canada supports the access to the mass-media in official languages. TV5 is available in English Canada.) As the Transnistrian authorities assert, Romanian/Moldavian is official language.  Fact: there are no Romanian newspapers or TV stations availables in Transnistria. Even more, the Moldavian stations are excluded from cable distribution. This is denial to acces on Romanian mass-media, worst situation than the time of Soviets. Your explanation is futile. --Vasile 1 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)


 * Vasile, please, modify the paragraph of contention in the beginning, it is factually wrong and it is out of place there, or I'll POV tag the article.Gaidash 1 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)


 * I read that Antiufeev has a very special way to make police. Let me know if your father received threats in connection with your contribution on this article. --Vasile 1 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll let you know. I'll ask you again to modify the "Political Status" yourself. Gaidash 2 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * No. It is the truth written from your own details.--Vasile 2 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

Ilascu so-called group
Not all the persons of this "group" had political activity. For example, Tudor Petrov-Popa, a former Afganistan soldier, did not want to fight on the Transnistrian side. He had not any kind of political activity and had't met previously the other members of the group. --Vasile 1 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)


 * That's fine. But "The real reason for their imprisonment was either their political association, either the lack of sustain for MRT" is not a good English. I changed into into "It has been alleged that the real reason for their imprisonment has been their political association or the lack of support for Transnistria". The Court of Human Rights by the way does not state "the real reason for their arrest". It just lists several point according to which the imprisonment was unlawful. That's why I introduced "it has been alleged". Gaidash 1 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

The war: precision needed

 * Who is major Yermakov and what was his business in Bendery in June 1992?


 * Quote:
 * The events that followed were largely a result of detention by Moldovan police of the 14th Army’s major Yermakov who commanded a special reconnaissance unit of national guards. On that day Yermakov took three guards and drove to the printing shop in Bendery to collect newspapers and leaflets (the shop happened to be next door to the city police department). Yermakov’s car was registered at the 14th Army headquarters (numbers of such cars were known to police). On all previous occasions papers from the printing shop were collected by an employee of the national guards daily newspaper. According to police, shortly before the arrival of Yermakov, an unidentified person called and warned that subversion had been planned against police.
 * At 5.25 p.m. Yermakov’s car reached the printing shop. Two guards went inside. At the same instant the car was encircled by more than ten policemen who told Yermakov and his driver to drop their weapons, checked their papers and ordered them to get out of the car (policemen claimed later that they had no intention to detain Yermakov). Threatened with guns, Yermakov and his driver had to obey. Precisely at that moment a group of unidentified gunmen, sheltered in the opposite building, opened fire at the people around the car (Yermakov and chief of the city police Gusliaru confirmed this fact) Policemen began to shoot back, then took the car and their captives to the backyard of the police department building. Later one of the policemen testified that fire had been opened only when the car with Yermakov and his driver entered the backyard. It is still unclear what happened first: detention of Yermakov or shooting at policemen. In a series of interviews, carried by papers in Kishinev, Yermakov made a guess that a provocation had been planned against police and he had been used as «a bait». Yermakov’s exposures should not be taken for granted: after his arrest he was taken to Kishinev on June 20 and kept in the pen of the Ministry of Interior where the Memorial observers were allowed to talk to him only in the presence of a police officer.


 * Those reports of use of Moldovian artillery did mention which regiment was in action in Bendery? It was the 4th artillery regiment at Ungheni or the 803rd rocket artillery regiment at Ungheni? The report of Russian Civil Rights Society Memorial contains any additional precisions?


 * Quote:
 * ON THE SIDE OF THE MOLDOVAN REPUBLIC engaged in combat actions in the region of Bendery were forces of the Ministry of Interior, units of the national army, formations of volunteers, self-defence units - all equipped with fire arms, hand grenades and grenade launchers.
 * The forces of the Ministry o Interior comprised career police officers, called up from different regions of Moldova, brigades of the OPON special police, and formations of carabineers (Moldovan citizens enlisted on contractual basis). Apart from fire arms, these forces employed armored vehicles, artillery guns and mortars.
 * National army, still being in the stage of formation, also employed armored vehicles, guns and mortars. The national army of Moldova is made up of conscripts, has the Field Manual and servicemen are required to swear allegiance. Privates are paid monthly salaries, comparable to average wage. There are quite a few draft resisters among Moldovan citizens of call-up age who don’t want to take part in the civil war. Draft resistance incurs penalty, although, according to the Procurator General of Moldova, nobody has been yet legally indicted on these charges.
 * The formations of volunteers consist of citizens of the republic who have volunteered to take part in combat actions. They are required to swear allegiance, but have no Manual. The activities of volunteers are regulated only by orders of senior officers. By majority volunteers are young men, and many of them join the force, bringing their own weapons.
 * Self-defence units were set up in a number of Moldovan villages and assigned to local police departments. According to some officials, the Moldovan forces engaged in the war employed twenty (fifty, according to the TDMR observers) armored vehicles, several 57-mm anti-aircraft guns, up to a dozen 100-mm anti-tank guns, eleven 82-mm and seven 120-mm mortars (most of the mortars were positioned on the Suvorov hill near city), no less than four units with 150-mm guided anti-tank missiles, and an installation for launching the Alazan anti-hail missiles. The Moldovans also had six long-range 150-mm guns, but no proofs have been found that these guns were used to shell the city. According to military observers from the 14th Army, who supervised the observation of the cease-fire agreement, the Moldovan forces used no tanks in or around the city of Bendery.
 * ....Having run into disorganized resistance of the population of Bendery, the Moldovan forces opened intensive, but mainly unaimed fire. It was the time when there were many people in the streets and evening shows were about to begin in movie theaters). Victimized by indiscriminate fire were many people both in the streets and in their apartments.
 * It took the Moldovan forces little time to take hold of the city by 4.00 a.m., June 20, and take under control the only bridge across the river Dniester.
 * According to Moldovan officials, by 6.00 a.m., June 20, casualties of the attackers numbered one trooper killed and several wounded. This estimate agrees with the information obtained by the Memorial observers.
 * Meanwhile, there remained several seats of resistance in the city: the Executive Committee, offices of militia and Workers Committee, central post office, barracks of national guards. All these premises were intensively shelled. For instance, the building of the Executive Committee took 5-6 shells and was subjected to heavy machine gun and mortar fire. The city authorities contacted officials in Kishinev and were told to surrender, but refused.
 * June 20, the Moldovan formations began to take hold of industrial works in the city, occasionally meeting with armed resistance


 * Clear fact: ROG supported the separatists.


 * Sure, in fact most of them were  separatists as they called Tiraspol their hometown.


 * Other Russian nationals. Illustrious example: Mr. Shevtsov also known as Dr. Antiufeev. --Vasile 1 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)


 * Cossacks and other Russian nationals is an oximoron as the Black Sea Cossacks are not the Russian nationals. But, let it be, since realistically about 20-30% of Transnistrians have Russian passports, and about 10% had them at that time. Now, why is the explanaition about Yermakov deleted?


 * I would like to avoid the explantions before we put togheter all the facts. An exceptional figure of those events in Tiraspol was Antiufeev. Maybe your sources tell something about him. --Vasile 1 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

If you revert stuf, than try to use good Enslish: "They were combat actions in conditions of the densely populated city" is not English. And don't soften the phrase: I copied it exactly from the Memorial report. I particular, the report says in "Conclusions":


 * "In the course of combat actions in Bendery there were casualties among civilian population. However there were no purposeful annihilation of noncombatants or acts of large-scale violence against civilians. There were incidents of indiscriminate fire, launched by both sides at residential quarters, and these actions must be qualified as criminal. This particularly applies to the Moldovan forces who entered Bendery on the night of June 19/20. Military command of Moldova readily availed itself of the situation that had shaped up as a result of actions of the other side, and is fully responsible for having used artillery and armor, as well as forces unprepared for combat actions in conditions of the densely populated city.

Gaidash 1 July 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Gaidash I have a question for you. Could it be that you are a Russain Transnistrian and that maybe your "accurate views" on what happened may be clouded by the fact that if you were there and if you are a Russian Transnistrian (and probably a communist), you would obviously have had a negative biased towards the Romanian people and hence also Romanian Moldovans?

Mihaitza 1 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)


 * Mihaitza, pls follow the example of Duca and calm down a little bit if you have nothing to say on the issues themselves. I can only envy Gaidash that he has a patience which I didn't have to present the points in good order and back it up. I was taking those silly attacks, he ignores, too close to heart and withdrew, but I hope to come back some time soon to this article that interests me quite a bit. If you can seriously disprove anything without attacking the user's personality, you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, better say nothing. Seriously! Oh, and one more thing. If you want to respond with another series of emotional outburst, you can do it of course, but if you allow yourself at least an hour to calm down before responding, you will do a great service to yourself, other users and this article. Thank you. -Irpen July 1, 2005 05:54 (UTC)
 * P.S. I apologize to attributing the previous edit to you. If you say that unsigned edit wasn't yours, I take your word for it. Sorry. I also corrected my comment above.

Bias
I have inserted an edit:

"The Russian 14th Army's role in the area was crucial to the outcome of the war. It claimed to act as a peacemaker in between two sides, however it is widely believed that it aided the Transnistrian rebels. In part this can be attributed to Russia's will to keep its influence in this traditionally Slavic region, in part by the fact that a significant portion of the personnel of the 14th Army were local conscripts and officers".

Vasile has changed this into:

"The Russian 14th Army's role in the area was crucial to the outcome of the war. It's aid to the Transnistrian rebels can be explained by Russia's will to keep its influence in this traditionally Slavic region. A significant portion of the personnel of the 14th Army were local conscripts and officers".

This is a very small, but a blatantly biased revert. Let me show you an example of how few words I can change here so that these would have a completely different tone:

"The Russian 14th Army's role in the area was crucial to the outcome of the war. It's aid to the Transnistrian fighters can be explained by Russia's desire to help its Slavic brethren. Moreover, a significant portion of the personnel of the 14th Army were local conscripts and officers. A large numbers of the Black Sea Cossacks and some Russian nationals went to Transnistria to fight alongside the Transnistrians."

So if you don't want this version to appear stop reverting the neutral one than I wrote! Gaidash 1 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could estimate that "significant portion" of local conscripts and the number of Cossacks. --Vasile 1 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)


 * I don't know the number of the Black Sea Cossacks that came there - probably from several hundred to several thousand. Local conscripts and officers constituted about %40 of the 14th Army.Gaidash 1 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Sorry for being so absent from all this discussion, however I see that although the names are different Gaidash and Irpen have very similar points to bring out- Mainly, it seems that their role here is not to make a NPOV article but to make it as antiRomanian and pro-Russian as possible.

First of all lets take a look at what Gaidash did with the last paragraph. He changed the words "rebels" to "fighters". All of a sudden the mood changes. When you say "fighters" it makes them look so heroic when in fact they were just killing innocent people. Listen Gaidash, don't call them fighters. Its not NPOV. They were rebels and as long as their gov. will not be recognized they will still remain rebels.

Then he changed Vasile's changes to "help its Slavic brethren". What proof do you have of that? How do you know that's the only reason? Of course there is some truth here but it's also true that Russia also intervened so that they can block Moldova from uniting with Romania and to also keep some influence in Moldova proper. After all they occupied Tighina and Tighina is in Bassarabia, not Transnistria. And if they help "their slavic brethren" so much why didn't the Russians force Moldova to grant Transnistria independence so that Transnistria can become an independent state. If Tighina was given back to Moldova, then it is very likely that Moldova would have accepted that. There is a general, I think his name is Alexei, that said that the only reason for the attack on Tighina was to retake the city, blow up the brige to Tiraspol and then let Transnistria go. Although, maybe the official reason that the 14th army gave was that it wanted to help its Slavic brethren, I think in reality this had nothing or very little to do with that. This is just Russia attempting to keep some influence in Moldova, "an-ex colony". That is it. It probably did not give a damn about its brethren. Especially if you look at how the "brethren in Trasnistria" supported the coup against Gorbachev and how it armed Chechen rebels with ammo and weapons.

Finaly Gaidash, thank you for not actually changing the article yourself and only proposing to change it. Thank you for your insight; it's very nice of you but we can't put that in. At the same time Gaidash knows a lot of things and details since he claims he was there and I am not saying that we should not use them. It's just the interpretation of the events which Gaidash gives, that bothers me. Gaidash Mihaita has a point. Let me tell you why: if you lived in a Transnistrian city like Tiraspol for example, then its very probable that (since there are very few Romanians there) you formed friendships with Russians and Ukrainaians and actually (and you even you mention it above) you were brought up in a Russian-anti-Romanian sort of enviornment. You yourself state that you don't even know Romanian. So your view of events cannot be possibly reflected in this article because your view is really one-sided. They are not NPOV.

This is not to say that your info is unwelcomed here; info about details on what happened is very beneficial for the article but this info has to be filtered so that it does not reflect something that the criminal Transnistrian government would want us to believe.

I hope you can understand that,

Duca


 * Duca, the article is a Romanian POV as it stands now. Not too nationalistic, but it has a bias towards Romania. Notice, the paragraph that I demonstrated above with "Slavic brathren" would be a Russian POV and that is why I will not put it in.


 * Right now the article has several passages about the agressive nature of Russia/Transnistria: 1) involvement of ROG 2) Rutskoy's speech 3) Yakovlev's arrest 4) Ilascu's arrest 5) closure of Romanian schools. Not a single passage about the aggressive nature of Moldova. I attempted to include the passage about 1) Moldova using artillery and armor, as well as forces unprepared for combat actions in conditions of the densely populated city and that has been reverted right away. As long as these 5 thing are mentioned in the article (and they are valid facts), I will insist on the inclusion of passages about the agressive nature of Moldova. I would like to see 2) a mentioned of the formation of Moldovan "volunteer" force, 3) a mention of their abuses (like several instances of public beating of Transnistrian parlament members in Chisinau in 1990 and a pogrom in the Russian newspaper in Chisinau), 4) a mention of the 14th Army claims about Romanian supplying arms to Moldova, Moldova shelling the positions of the 14th Army and using aircraft in Bendery. These are also facts as valid as the ones in the article right now.




 * 1) 2) You can write details about Moldova army participation. What armor? Did they stole the Russian tanks? Mortars in Tighina, not heavy artillery.
 * 3) The article about "Transnistrian" minority is written only in Russian. Who'd beaten those persons in PUBLIC? Names, please.
 * 4) Details about those Romanian arms suplied: type number, production; If you insert the fact the Moldova used its heavy artilery and aviation against Russian OG, you should try another explanation for this conflict.
 * The Memo.ru report didn't mention any high-ranking Russian politicians and militaries that have an war contribution on the Russia side, of course. The report is flawed.
 * Do you have any other sources?     --Vasile 2 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate not making any conslusion about my background since you don't know anything about it.It is nice that you have all these views about my bringing up/Bessarabia/Gorbachev/Chechnya and so on, but it has very little to do with the article. You are right about this: So your view of events cannot be possibly reflected in this article because your view is really one-sided. Niether my view, nor yours will be reflected in the article. The article will have a balanced collection of facts. Gaidash 1 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Gaidash, you seem to be missing the point.There is an overwhelming consensus in the world community that Moldova was not the aggressor. The only ones that actually say it was are the Transnistrian unrecognized government and those who support them. That’s all.

You keep on saying that the article is biased in favor of Romania, yet let’s face it the article is simply telling the truth. If that upsets certain communists and criminals in Transnistria, well I am sorry but that does not mean it is not NPOV.

Would you say that the article on the Armenian genocide is also made up and biased and in fact it’s the Armenians that killed the Turks? Or maybe the Holocaust is made up too and is biased against the Nazis? Well if you believe so, then I sincerely do not think you should be on this forum but I think even you would not make claims like that. Then you should also see that in the Transnistrian case, too, it’s pretty clear who the bad guys were.

You keep on bringing the same arguments that the Transnistrian communist and neo-Stalinist government does: “the persecution of the Tighina population”, “rapes”, blah, blah, blah. It’s like saying that Armenians raped the wives of the Turkish soldiers which killed and deported them. Tell me if there were so many rapes and acts against the population why is it, that the world community hasn’t heard about it? How come that in the USA, EU, and most European countries but also countries across the world, it is pretty well known that the Moldovans were the victims.

Tell me if the Romanians-Moldovans were doing such atrocities, why is it that there are so many refugees that were of Moldovan origin and so few of Russian and Ukrainian origin? Wouldn’t it make sense that if the Moldovans were the aggressors, then Russians would be the ones running for their lives? I checked this data and 90% of refugees were Romanians who were sending their kids to Romania since they were scared the Russians would kill or rape them. See Transee Tirapolene. If Romanians were the aggressors, how come the population of Tighina(Bender) was 35.000 Romanians before the war and after the war it was bellow 20.000? Where are the rest of the Romanians? Maybe you would care to explain us how is it that the numbers of Russians in Tighina have risen after the war while the numbers of Romanians had dropped. If what you are saying is true then the Russian population should have been the one to decrease since Romanians(Moldovans) were soOoOOo mean and did all these things to the Russian population, right?

No matter your background, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to fill this article with your communist, Smirnovist garbage. If that is all you can do, then maybe you should try selling it someplace else: I suggest North Korea, maybe Belarus.

PS: about your last point. You are wrong if the article will have a balanced view of what I think and what you think. The article will stay the way it is because IT IS THE TRUTH. And until you cannot provide a reliable source like all wiki articles require don't even think of changing anything.

Duca 1 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus in the world community that Moldova was not the aggressor. In fact most of the world don't know the word "Moldova", forget about "Transnistria".
 * Duca, if we ever meet, we will sit down and you will tell me sipping some beer: "Look, man, we, Romanians, have so many grievances against Russia. You occupied Bessarabia, we suffered under your oppression for so many years". And we will take it from there. But right now, all I am interested in is the neutrality of this article and not trading abuses with you. My job is to make sure there is no Romanian bias. Your job is to make sure, there is no Russian bias. Unless all the facts and concerns that I mentioned are answered, one by one, this article will POV tagged.Gaidash 1 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Gaidash, again you are missing the point. We are not a Romanian and a Russian sipping some beer and talking about it and chilling. I can do that with Russians from Russia proper, because they really do not care so much about Moldova or Transnistria. They got other places to worry about. I don't know if you have noticed but most people who care so much about the issue are the Romanians from Moldova and Russians from Transnistria.

About the consensus thing. Believe me it is so. The only country that is on the PMR side is actually Russia itself( and that too, only sometimes). Oh yeah, maybe Belarus and Khazachstan.

About your questions: first of all I am not the one that wrote all those points. I did contribute to the article: for example I made changes in the census of 2004 and if you notice that census actually puts the percentile of Romanians lower then the 1989 one( something that is very questionable) but I still went along with it.

Secondly, if you notice, all those questions about the article that you have there, are all backed by a reliable source. What more of an answer do you want? Your claims are not backed by anything except maybe some communist Transnistrian or Russian newspaper or something; and you yourself have said that you have your own little agenda, mainly to make Russia and the Russian Transnistrians look good so obviously I must even question the validity of your claims.

Look, the point of this wiki is not to please everyone. The point of any encyclopedia is to state facts for what they are. In other words, it is to infrom people about the truth. If some communist is bothered with what is written in the article but cannot back up his claims with some reliable data, then I am sorry but the article has to stay the way it is.

Duca 2 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)

Removing POV
Following the discussions above I see that allegations of POV are still made by various users regarding certain passages of the text. These fierce disputes are often based on minor problems, yet they tend to escalate into broad conflicts were users spend the majority of their time insulting their opponents. As this article is as yet far from complete, my personal view is that we should focus on adding relevant and correct information to the article, rather than get distracted by minor disagreements. It would perhaps be better if changes to existing text due to accusations of biased would be made less often, so as to permit us to discuss these problems and remove POV. Wikipedia explains that articles should be written in such a way that no one can disagree with it. For instance one should not say that: "Smirnov's illegitimate regime launches aggresive strikes into Moldova and conducts arbitrary arrests of romanians living in Transnistria as a way of intimidating them", but rather: "The Republic of Moldova alleges that [...]" The use of inflamatory and controversial words should also be curbed so as to minimize disagreement.

I agree that discussions have to be kept here. But I am not sure that the article has to please everyone. I think what's more important is that the article reflects the truth which is the purpose of any encyclopedia. I mean, in the "Holocaust" article, for sure there are some Neo-Nazis that disagree with it but that doesn't mean that we should erase the whole fact that 6 million Jews died just to make those Nazis happy. It is a fact that 6 million Jews died, period. Likewise, I donnot see why we have to change this article, only to please some communists or neo-Stalinists on the forum.

About the change proposed, you see, even "The Republic of Moldova alleges that..." is a little problematic since its not just the republic of Moldova that says that. "It has been reported" sounds better because 1) IT has been reported, 2) it leaves the reader to choose if to believe the report or not.

Duca 2 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)

Some edits
It is actually a good idea to link the "War" to another page. It looks better now. I've edited the article somewhat. There are quite a few minor changes, such as articles, structure of sentances, all for better sonority. The follwing are important edits:


 * I deleted the part of contention in the "Politcal Status" as nobody countered my arguments (see above) about it being wrong factually and being out of place in that section.


 * The statement about Russification now looks like this: "The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification". I don't think it is possible to verify whether Russification was bigger or smaller than in the Tzarist times.


 * I added the following fact to the "The Breakaway": "The new languge laws were met with alarm in Transnistria. At the same time instances of abuses by a newly formed corps of Moldovan "volunteers" have been reported". Done for the purposes of parity.

Of course, somebody will revert all of this tomorrow. I would ask however not to simply paste the old version: there were some instances of not so good English. If the edits are reverted without any discussion (which means reasoning, logic, argumentation and not abuses), I'll POV tag the article. Gaidash 2 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

I am not so certain that crating a separate page for the war is such a great idea. The war in Transnistria was not a conventional conflict and it will be difficult to find the beginning of the actual war. As a result, users will have to decide which information to place in the breakaway section, what to place in the war page, and and what should be found in both. As Transnistria as a political entity is only 10 years old the war is a central element to the state and I believe this information should be kept on this page, at least for now. Otherwise one would have to introduce a background section to the Transnistrian War page, which would basically have to inlcude the introduction of the main page. As this article is still incomplete and relatively short, I believe it would be better if we would preserve its past structure. TSO1D 2 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)


 * Well, the War Section has been growing recently, so it began looking somewhat uncomely in the article. That could justify a separate article. By the way, it was not me who made it into a separate page. I was planning to expand it even more, but probably won't do that as it seems to be a waste of time because of all reverts.Gaidash 2 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Ok, you see this is the problem. Gaidash, you obviously do not understand the way wikipedia works man. This is not about arguments. Listen to what Duca is saying. This is about the fact that every statement here, even the smallest one has to have a source and also another important point that must be brought up, here at wikipedia you cannot bring your own work. In other words you cannot place here, stuff that otherwise is unchecked or that you cannot publish someplace else.

And you erased the part of the status of the Romanian minority. Listen, if you want to achieve your sick Stalinist communist aims, you should be more subtle. This was really obvious that you just erased them because it makes the Russians look bad. Unfortunately there is plenly of evidence for it and very little unreliable evidence against it.

And oh yes. The Russification process was harsher then in Tzarist times. In fact if you pick up any good book on Russian history you will find that out. I suggest "A History of Russia Since 1800" by C. Evutuhov and R. Stites. See thats how you do it. You give a sourse!

I honestly think something has to be done with Gaidash. He is getting on my nerves.

Mihaitza 2 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Request For Comment
This page has been RFced because I feel the article in its current form is a Romanian POV. There is a factual and stylistical bias in the article. I was not able to resolve the dispute with some users here. I will withhold from editing this article for now (and from revert wars) until I here from other third parties. I propose the following changes.

I. The statements in the paragraph ''The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions on the Romanians' right to education and deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported'' are factually wrong and/or wrong in their current form.


 * 1) The statement The Russian-speaking local authorities put obstructions on the Romanians right to education is wrong in its generality. Obstructions to education in the modern Romanian language take place. I propose the statement: Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script, or Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the modern Romanian language. I am not quite sure what Russian-speaking means. If this is a statement about the state language, than there are three of them. If this is the statement about the ethnicity of the authorities, then the authorities are multi-ethnic. If this is the statement about the de-facto language of the politicians in the region, I am not sure it deserves a place: I've never heard anything about "the English-speaking authorities of UN". Anyway, the "Russian-speaking" thing is not crucial to me and can be left there.


 * 2) The statement The Russian-speaking local authorities deny them the access to the Romanian mass-media is factually wrong. Transnistria and Moldova have signed a "Declaration about the unobstructed circulation of mass media and delivery of the periodicals and telegrams in the territory of Moldova and the Transnistrian republic" ("Протокольное решение о мерах по содействию беспрепятственной деятельности на территории Республики Молдова и Приднестровья средств массовой информации, распространению периодических изданий и телепрограмм") on 16/05/2201. I am not aware of any major violations of this Declaration by Transnistria. My opponents have not provided any facts or sources to support this. However, there are reports of such actions by Moldova ([] and []).


 * 3) The statement Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of Romanian ethnic origin, have likewise been reported  is wrong in this form. It should read Arbitrary arrests of citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported. Ethnicity is not the bases for arrest here but rather their views.

Secondly, none of these facts constitute the "political status" of Transnistria and therefore they should be placed in the relevant sections like "Human rights". On the other hand "Human rights" already describes these facts in much more detail. Therefore, this paragraph is a candidate for deletion in my opinion. However, if there is a consensus that it should stay in "Political Status" it should read

''Transnistrian authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the modern Romanian language. Arbitrary arrests against citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported.''

As it stands know, the paragraph is an eye-catching vehicle for a Romanian POV in the very beginning od the article.

'''II. The statement' The Moldovian SSR became the subject of a systematic policy of Russification, even more so then under Tzarist times'' is a speculation. It has to read The Moldovian SSR became the subject of Russification or The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy of Russification. However if the second, stronger, form is chosen, I'd like to see something like  ''The Moldovian SSR became the subject of the systematics policy  of Russification. At the same time, traditional Moldovan culture was supported''. If the second part of this statement is doubted, I will be glad to provide sources and facts of traditional music, literature and other festivals, as well as Moldovan cultural organizations in Moldovan SSR.

'''III. The statement  ...on the basis of which a professional and fully-equipped Republican Guard was formed in 1991 is an overstatement'''. The Republican Guard can not be considered a professional army by any stretch of imagination. They were not "fully-equipped" as they, for example, did not have aircraft, but rather "well-equipped". The correct statement is ...on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991

''' IV. The statement' On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to obtain their independence, under the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army'' is wrong in this generality. It should read On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army" (source: "Rutskoy on 'Dniester Republic,'" SOVSET, 7 April 1992 and [])

V. The statement In the course of the next days the city of Tighina was retaken by the communist Transnistrians - well, just no comment on this one. It wasn't here before. Probably added by some hot-headed editor quite recently.

'''VI. The statement' This official document whose broad lines was established by the Russian side, was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur)'' is a speculation. Should read This official document was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur).

V. The article contains a factual disbalance. There are currently mentions of several fact of the aggressive nature of Russia and Transnistria 1) involvement of the Russian 14th Army 2) Yakovlev's arrest, 3) Rutskoy's speech 4) Romanian schools closures 5) Ilascu's arrest. I don't see any mention of the aggressive nature of Moldova at this point, may be with the exception of Next morning the Moldovan forces moved into the city. I wold like some of the following facts to be mentioned for the purposes of parity (source: [] and [])


 * 1) The discriminatory nature of the State Language Law. In particular, as related to the unrealistic terms of its implementation (full affect -1994).


 * 2) Abuses and beatings by the corps of volunteers, in particular during the Referendum day.


 * 3) According to Memorial: In the course of combat actions in Bendery there were casualties among civilian population. However there were no purposeful annihilation of noncombatants or acts of large-scale violence against civilians. There were incidents of indiscriminate fire, launched by both sides at residential quarters, and these actions must be qualified as criminal. This particularly applies to the Moldovan forces who entered Bendery on the night of June 19/20. Military command of Moldova readily availed itself of the situation that had shaped up as a result of actions of the other side, and is fully responsible for having used artillery and armor, as well as forces unprepared for combat actions in conditions of the densely populated city. 


 * 4) Shelling of the 14th Army by the Moldovan forces and the use of aircraft in Tighina.


 * 5) Allegations of the Romanian arms shipments by the 14th Army (I emphasize: allegations).


 * 6) Massacre in the village of Gyska.

I emphasize: these are all facts collected by independent observers from Memorial ([] and []).

I would very much appreciate comments of the third parties. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Reverts of POV tags or RfC
If my POV tags keep on beeing deleted without discussion, or if someone deletes my RfC, I will immidiately move to arbitration. Thank you for understanding. Gaidash 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)

Especially this: Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script. I do not agree that it should be moved from there because it is pretty important to the topic at hand.
 * Ok, I agree that on your number I. and number III, you are right and in the spirit of cooperation, I agree that your formulation is closer to a NPOV then the one before.


 * On your Point III, I agree completely.


 * On your Point II, I cannot agree since there has been a source provided which states otherwise. Since you have a source that Moldovan culture was kept, there are probably 10000 sources that say that a "soviet kind of invented-Moldovan culture was encouraged", but "Romanian culture" denied. So I cannot agree and nobody in the right mind will agree with change number III.


 * On your Point IV, if you have a source then I do not see why you cannot change it.


 * On your Point V, you make no comment. Nor do I.


 * On your Point VI, I do not know where problem is. It is the truth, the Russian side established it. You have no source to back that up so it has to stay.


 * On your part V-repeated. I think you ment VII,

I cannot agree with the following:

1)	first of all you give very dubious sources. www.memo.ru is probably a Russian site that takes the Russian side. It is well known that Russia has an interest in the Transnistrian issue so it cannot be cited. 2)	The discriminatory of the state law is not that discriminatory as you claim. You have stated before that you do not speak Romanian and you have hinted that you are Russian from Transnistria, however the state law offered 7 years for people to learn the language before it went into effect. I would say that’s a pretty long time. Also in every country the minorities do have to have a certain knowledge of the language of the majority to be able to work so there is nothing discriminatory in that. 3)	In the combat actions, every side will give you their account of what happened. It is common knowledge that no atrocities occurred there, especially from the Moldovan side. It is therefore dubious if your claims are correct or not. 4)	Shelling and use of aircraft is ordinary in any war so the fact that the Moldovans did it does not surprise me since it was a war. 5)	The allegations of Romanian arms shipment is something that I have heard before. I do not know if it is true or not but if you can reference that then it would be a good piece of information to include it here. 6)	I have never heard of the massacre at the village of Gasca. The name sounds very Romanian and as far as I know it’s a Romanian village near Tighina. Who committed the massacre? The Russians? It would be very illogical for Romanians to kill their own people.

PS: I think you have a great knowledge and I admire your perseverance for trying to redeem the image of the otherwise quite dubious, illegal Transnistrian government but you have to understand that some facts are just there to stay and that real facts are very hard to manipulate and you should give it up right now. However, if you are sincerely trying to commit to this article, then I think we can work something out. Which is why I ask you to stop putting the POV tag until we can exhaust every single possibility of managing it ourselves.

Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005352/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2012 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2012
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604134515/http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11767991 to http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=11767991

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010052258/http://www.aiarad.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39 to http://www.aiarad.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070203062724/http://www.freedomhouse.org:80/uploads/press_release/fiw07_charts.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/press_release/fiw07_charts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070616124417/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR590012007 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR590012007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 one external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927045344/http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=78&l=2 to http://www.crji.org/news.php?id=78&l=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110319155215/http://www.unece.org:80/stats/trends2005/notes.htm to http://www.unece.org/stats/trends2005/notes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100226201112/http://ceumonitor.group.googlepages.com/Transnistria_ethnicity.jpg/Transnistria_ethnicity-full.jpg to http://ceumonitor.group.googlepages.com/Transnistria_ethnicity.jpg/Transnistria_ethnicity-full.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418150950/http://www.cbn.com:80/cbnnews/133101.aspx to http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/133101.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140102191045/http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/656240 to http://www.kommersant.ua/doc/656240
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005522/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2143 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2143
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016050811/http://tiras.ru:80/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1172054345&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25& to http://www.tiras.ru/en/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1172054345&archive=&start_from=&ucat=25&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025224219/http://www.peacebuilding.md/library/153/en/Moldova%20Strategic%20Conflict%20Assessment%202006.pdf to http://www.peacebuilding.md/library/153/en/Moldova%20Strategic%20Conflict%20Assessment%202006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205120232/http://www.tirotex.com/index.htm to http://www.tirotex.com/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927005634/http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303 to http://www.conflict.md/comentarii.php?ID=2303
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927010610/http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2467 to http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=2467

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 one external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iasps.org/eng_editor/socor_show.php?lang=&main=&type=6&article_id=356
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616151054/http://strategiya-pmr.ru/?p=1237 to http://strategiya-pmr.ru/?p=1237
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://worldwindow.md/trans_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313165452/http://transnistria.md/ru/info to http://transnistria.md/ru/info
 * Added tag to http://www.acus.org/publication/moldova-matters-why-progress-still-possible-ukraines-southwestern-flank
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011075500/http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041200_cstp_art_l%C3%B6wenhardt.pdf to http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041200_cstp_art_l%C3%B6wenhardt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523132421/http://www.km.press.md:80/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html to http://www.km.press.md/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312092901/http://politicom.moldova.org/news/tiraspol-not-willing-to-register-opposition-representative-in-electoral-race-20417-eng.html to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/tiraspol-not-willing-to-register-opposition-representative-in-electoral-race-20417-eng.html
 * Added tag to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russias-humanitarian-assistance-is-a-planned-propagandist-action-chisinau-claims-11365-eng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512230751/http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html to http://politicom.moldova.org/news/russian-troops-in-transnistria-a-threat-to-the-security-of-the-republic-of-moldova-20998-eng.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616004647/http://www.vspmr.org/Upload/File/doklad2007.rar to http://www.vspmr.org/Upload/File/doklad2007.rar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207061448/http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/1.shtml to http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/1.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207061455/http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/5.shtml to http://vspmr.org/Upload/File/conferential/eng/5.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.cbpmr.net/resource/prbvd95.zip
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528060422/http://www.osce.org:80/moldova/43605 to http://www.osce.org/moldova/43605
 * Added tag to http://www.osce.org/moldova/47949
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626204456/http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05(07)-GPH.pdf to http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05(07)-GPH.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403001714/http://tv.poiskpmr.info:80/ to http://tv.poiskpmr.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511022945/http://www.eubam.org/en/about/overview to http://www.eubam.org/en/about/overview
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.km.press.md/arhiv/09_06/pridn2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609183548/http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/ to http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moldova.org/download/eng/515/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016213958/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCOUNTRYPROF%2CRUS%2C%2C4954ce57c%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CCOUNTRYPROF%2CRUS%2C%2C4954ce57c%2C0.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbpmr.net/resource/prbvd95.zip
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.osce.org/moldova/47949
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120804015138/http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id=B5A90475FA6B4800A679D5F28F31C354 to http://www.km.ru/magazin/view.asp?id=B5A90475FA6B4800A679D5F28F31C354
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/cee/05%2807%29-GPH.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transnistria.md/en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.poiskpmr.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://transnistria.md/en/news//284/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320113935/http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1652 to http://www.nato-pa.int/Default.asp?SHORTCUT=1652
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105231746/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol37-09-05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Transnistria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160921034927/http://usefoundation.org/view/436 to http://usefoundation.org/view/436
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303195233/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol27-02-01.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol27-02-01.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193846/http://www.bne.eu/archive_story.php?id=3467&words to http://www.bne.eu/archive_story.php?id=3467&words
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160228110016/http://www.olvia.idknet.com/news15-07-04.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/news15-07-04.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523091733/http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/211 to http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/211

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)