Talk:Transnistria/Archive 2

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 16/05/2001. 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).

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


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


 * This is an interesting subject. Wasn't it the alphabet the source of the war?--Vasile 4 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)


 * Of course, the alphabet was one of the reasons for the war. Probably one of the least important - everybody in Transnistria would get over the Latin alphabet if the other reasons were abscent. Here, I am making a different statement: the Law was discriminatory in terms of its time schedule, and was used as a lever to fire people from jobs. I am not discussing the alphabet. Here a translation of a paragraph from this [] source:
 * In many cases one of the criteria for a job is the knowledge of the Moldovan language, although, officially the state empployees are to know Moldovan by 1994. Many emploees quit themselves in the anticipation of the coming language exams. It is practically impossible to appeal these unlawful firings, or to find a job fitting one's profession. As a result of these actions, there has been a sharp increase in the professional emigration from the Republic. It should be noted that these firings are not so much the result of the Language Law as such, but the arbitrariness of the officials. Gaidash 4 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Who will arbitrate and on which basis? By the way, there is any Russian official report, any official investigation about the events of 1992? --Vasile 4 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)


 * A sysop. Vasile, if you are doing this - I suggest you stop it. POV tagging is an official policy in Wikipedia, and removing it without the agreement the person who placed the tag might be considered vandalism with a possible ban and all of that. This is just bad manners. Check out how TSO1D negotiated with Fisenko to remove his tag in Archives. Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)


 * I take my chances. The bad faith and the interest of the other "part" in covering the article with POV is evident. --Vasile 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)


 * You have been reported as a persistant violator of the 3RR rule. Taking to many chances might not be such a cool idea. Gaidash 4 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)


 * Do I need a lawyer or something?--Vasile 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

Persistent removal of POV tag without answering the concerns raised will result in filing for the article's protection
I still keep myself out of this dispute because of some users' lack of civilty and bad faith but that's temporary, I am just short of time now. However, I just want to say one thing. If the practice of removing the POV tag will continue with not only RfC but honest attempts of dialog being ignored, dismissed or cursed (some users here are good in nothing but cursing), I will file a request for the article to be protected with the POV tag attached. If a sysop finds my request justified, this will make any edits of the article impossible until protection is lifted. I DO NOT WANT to make the article uneditable even temporary. Even strong POV edits would not have prompted me to request the protection for now. But removing the POV tag while the POV questions are elaborately stated and doing so in a complete disregard to an RfC process is such a blatant abuse of WP spirit, that protecting the tag by protecting the article would be the only option. Even at more controversial topics I have never seen such an arrogance that users would REMOVE the POV tag so persistently even when the tag is placed and elaborated clearly in a good faith. -Irpen July 4, 2005 08:11 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, you are so kind of referee, judge... The article needs to be developed (including your so precious editing) not to be hidden, frozen. This means civilty and good faith. You have no material to pretend the factual truth being "POV". Then you better stop lecturise in the talk page. Nobody is impressed by your wiki-jargon. --Vasile 4 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It is better for the article to be in development. This is impossible whith persistent obstruction of process by Mihaitza and Duca and by you, Vasile, to a lesser degree. When users disagree about neutrality, it is normal for the article to have a POV tag until the differences are worked out as long as the differences are being worked out. The tag simply shows that there is a serious disagreement on article's neutrality and users are working on it. The discussion on the talk page shows the work in process. Here we have the work in process, neutrality is disputed in a very clear way and yet you and other users are in denial and persist in attempts to hide the dispute from Wikipedians by removing the tag. My goal is not lecturize and even less so "impress" you. I call on you to respect the disagreement and stop trying to sweep it under the rug by hiding the POV tag. All I said is that there's a mechanism in the policy and if this continues, I will have to use it. -Irpen July 4, 2005 16:56 (UTC)


 * Instead, search for other sources about the subject. --Vasile 4 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Reaction
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.


 * But is not the topis in hand "Transnistria"? If one wants to highlight "Rights of Romanians in Transnistia" - one can start an article on this.Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * "A History of Russia Since 1800" by Evtuhov, Catherine et al mentions Bessarabia at pages 15, 26, 59, 62, 105, 137, 301, 392, 457, 522. No mention of Russification. It mentions Moldova at p. 505. No mention of Russification. It mentions Russification policies at pages 153-157 and 197. No mention of Moldova, Bessarabia or any comparitive analysis of XIX and XX century Russification. The source is bogus. Gaidash 4 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)


 * He didn't talk about it, so it doesn't exist. In conclusion, the russification never happened in Bessarabia. Anyway, the book can't be found on amazon.com, and doesn't refer to Bessarabia. --Vasile 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your English, or the meaning of the statement. The above was my comment on Ducu's reference to "A History of Russia Since 1800" by Evtuhov, Catherine (see Archives), describing this source as stating that Russification under Soviet Union was larger than under the Empire. This is the source that Domnu Goie refered to (two paragraphs above) at the time of RfC.Gaidash 4 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * As it stands now it is a slur. Notice: it was not there before, it was added two days ago by somebody. I don't know exactly what communist Transnistirans means. If this refers to the political association of the leaders, than it is in part true, but not altogether. In 1992 Transnistria was a transitional state with some nascent parties out of which the Communist Party was still the most important. If this refers to mentality of the population, than it is not true, the driving force behind the breakaway was Russian nationalism and fear of the Moldovan nationalism. In anycase, if the argument is that "Transnistrians are communists" because that was the most active political party in the region, than I would like to see the word "nationalistic" added as an adjective to some mentions of "Moldovans" (as, if I am not mistaken, the most active political party in Moldova was the Popular Front) or the adjective of whatever was the leading party in Moldova at that time.Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * If there is no source to back up the "broad lines", it has to go. If there is - it stays. Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Memorial is not a Russian site. It is a Civil Rights Scociety which has representations in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Latvia and Kazahstan. This organization made a name by being in constant opposition to the government and being extremely liberal. It's an NGO, sponsored by various Western funds, the famous G. Soros fund among them (look here for the sponsors: [])

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.


 * I am not sure about 7 years. My source (Memorial) says - full affect by 1994. We have to double check that. That's 4 years since 1989 (by 1994 means 4 years). I say that's not enough. Anyway, the short term of implementation is just one thing. The same source mentions people being fired based on ethnicity.Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

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.


 * Again, I am not using the site of the President of Transnistria here. Gaidash

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.


 * Shelling the station of an army of a third country is not ordinary. There is whole line of reasoning in this article based on the involvement of the army of a third country (14th Army) in the civil war, so the fact that its station has been shelled by Moldova can be mentioned as well. Use of aircraft in a civil war, in a densely populated Bulgarian villiage of Parakany, should be considered suprising in my opinion. Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

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.


 * I'll find the exact source, I read it somewhere on the Memorial website, that is that allegations happened. Gaidash

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.


 * Gysca is a Ukrainian village near Tighina. According to Memorial:


 * Gyska is a village near Bendery, its population being mostly Russians and Ukrainians. It is controlled by the self-defence unit, taking orders from the TDMR (Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic) command. .... July 22, Moldovan police and volunteers, supported by armored vehicles and artillery fire, kicked the self-defence unit out of the village. Media in Bendery carried reports on massacre of prisoners-of-war and acts of mass violence against villagers, destruction of houses and slaughter of live-stock.
 * The Memorial observers, investigating the pogrom in Gyska, established the following:
 * Eye-witnesses testified that fighters from the Gyska self-defence unit had been cruelly murdered. In particular the Moldovans were said to have been finishing off the wounded. In the meantime, there seem to have been no acts of violence against non-combatants after the combat was over. During the combat a dairy-farm and the school were destroyed by artillery fire. The building adjoining the local clinic took severe damage. At least three villagers were killed by stray bullets and fragments of shells. Two more villagers were beaten by volunteers, mopping up the village. On several occasions unprovoked fire was opened at the houses of villagers (fortunately, there were no victims). Two cows were killed by stray bullets.


 * I wouldn't insist on the use of the word masacare though. Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

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)


 * I dislike Transnistria with all my guts, all the more for the fact that my parents got time-frozen there. As you said, most of the facts are dead right and there to stay. However I clearly remember the atmosphere of panic and fear of Moldovan nationalism in the early 90, and trying to conceal this as one of the two root reasons for the war, the other being the Transnistrian criminal leadership+Russian nationalism, is a definite POV to me. As far as the POV tag, it appeared because of  the agressiveness and abuses of some users here (see Archives). I would delete it, but thing were not getting worked out here at all, at all, that's why the tag. Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

Edits

 * As my knowledge Russia lost, not ceded Bessarabia in 1918.


 * Whatever is fine, this is not mportant to me. Any formulation is acceptable. I chose to write "Bessarabia ceded" because formally Russia did not exist in 1918. "Bessarabia ceded" does not mean that Russia let it go happily. I did not write "Russia ceded Bessarabia". Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)


 * About the subject of russification after 1944, the former Moldavian and History school manuals could illustrate the situation. Related with that, the alarm produced by the laws of language had to have a rational explanation. --Vasile 4 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite get the point about the manuals. Could you explain? There are several rational explanations about the alarm, but I am not asking for that, I am asking for an academic source, say "History of the oppression of minorities in the Soviet Union" by Wise Man and Clever Women, that says on page XXX: "the extent of Russification in Soviet Moldova was larger than in Tzarist times". Gaidash 4 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)


 * This is a very good idea.

--Vasile 4 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
 * La Moldavie ex-soviétique : histoire et enjeux actuels. Suivi de Notes sur les Aroumains en Grèce, Macédoine et Albanie / Matei Cazacu, Nicolas Trifon.
 * Les relations entre la Russie et "l'étranger proche" : étude de cas : la République de Moldavie / par Anca-Elena Mot.
 * Democratic changes and authoritarian reactions in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova / edited by Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrot.
 * La Moldova : entre la Roumanie et la Russie : de Pierre le Grand à Boris Eltsine / Alain Ruzé.


 * Let's see. Les relations entre la Russie et "l'étranger proche" : étude de cas : la République de Moldavie / par Anca-Elena Mot. Master thesis, University of Montreal. Seems to be the only marginally academic source out of these four. Question: how did you physically looked into it? In my understanding Master theses of the UM are not kept even in electronic holdings.


 * It is accessible on the UdM library. Matei Cazacu, Alain Ruzé, Karen Dawisha, these are not academical sources? Anca-Elena Mot is not a source that could be considered "marginally" academic. --Vasile 4 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)


 * I'll check Alain Ruze in the library. I'll appreciate a page number though to save time. Could you help me out with how I access the UdM library? Is there an electronic resource? A master thesis is a marginal academic resource. But I'll take it if the statement is backed up. Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)


 * Please, show your goodwill and real interest in the subject of this article by reading the book. If you are not in hurry, I will see about the thesis of A-E Mot. --Vasile 4 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)


 * So lets' go through this again: I am asking for an academic source, say "History of the oppression of minorities in the Soviet Union" by Wise Man and Clever Women, that says on page XXX: "the extent of Russification in Soviet Moldova was larger than in Tzarist times".  I don't have time to reveal bogus sources as it was the case with Duca. Thank you.Gaidash 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Gaidash, why aren't the other sourses not acceptable to you?


 * I'll accept any academic source, Romanian, Russian, English, French or whatever, a reference to newspapers with a record of objecitivity stating this or that fact, or to any NGO with a record of objectivity, or anything like that. I will not accept, for example, a periodical of the Greater Party of Romania, the Government of Moldova, the Government of Transnistria, or the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia as a source since these organizations do not have a record of objectivity.  Ducu's source was bogus as I have checked. Unfortunately I don't have time or energy to check every single source. That is why a requested a page number - just to make it eithier on myself when I go to the library next time.Gaidash 4 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

I donnot think that refuting each other and getting into a war of words is what is needed here. I have noticed that aside from accusing each other and trying to impose your own biased point of view, neither Duca nor Gaidash have really done anything constructive. I agree that Gaidash has a great deal of knowledge but please let's use it consructively. It seems that all you want to do, is to turn this thing into a pro-Transnistrian and anti-Romanian article. Forgive me, if I am wrong but this is certainly how it seems. You have your own ideas and your own beliefs. I donnot agree with them. I still respect them but you have to respect your fellow wikipedians' beliefs as well and you must understand that no arbritration in the world will change this article according to your points above. Some are really dubious, let me tell you that.


 * I am sorry, may be I am not getting something here, what's more consructive than this two page RfC that I going through here?Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

For example: "the use of the Moldovan airforce". I really have to look into that because as far as I know, Moldova had a few MIGs but no pilots so then it would have been impossible for it to fly the planes. This is why it sold its planes to the USA and Romania(mostly USA).


 * I did not say airforce, rather aircraft. There were three bombs dropped on Parkany. Not much. But it could be mentioned as Yakovlev's arrest in the article, which also was "not much".Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Then the Gasca "massacre" or "pogrom" as you call it. I mean common. Nobody is going to agree that those little skirmishes there were a pogrom. That has to be dropped. If we mention that, then the Romanians will want the REAL pogroms mentioned against them. And they will also want to mention the ethnic clensing that occurred in Transnistria after 92. For example at the only university in Transnistria, all ethnic Romanian teachers were fired and expelled to Chishinau.


 * No, it is not "common". Wounded were beaten to death there. Gaidash 4 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)


 * This is what I propose we should do:


 * First of all, all sides, (even the pro-Romanian side) should drop all their outragous claims and stop wanting to add new things to the article that can be considered subjective or one-sided. At least let's just try this for a while.


 * I will drop anything, I'll drop Gyska, as long as I see there are 2-3 of my facts introduced in the article for the purposes of factual balance and the article is not being blatantly rewritten while we are discussing this here.. Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)


 * About Gaidash's points, I (at least) certainly agree that some are worth considering. I mentioned above where I agree with Gaidash. Of course Gaidash and Duca each have their own little agendas here so one cannot side with either one of them but sometimes, one has to filter out the actual information that can be useful.


 * Thirdly: lets concentrate on these things: 1) Let's reformulate the Romanian's status at the beggining of the article. But Gaidash I think it pretty important that we do not erase it compleetely. I do however, agree with your reformulation.


 * OK, I can agree to the non-erasure.Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

2)Let's look into the involvement of Romania and if Romanian ammo and weapons were supplied to the Moldovan Government.


 * Those were allegetions by the 14th Army. I can supply the source of allegations, but this is a pretty minor issue since allegations do not have much weight.Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

3)Let's change the part about the "fully equipped republican guard", to "well-equipped" since I do agree that nobody, not even the USA can be fully equipped

4) Until we can exhaust every single effort to have a relative agreement(however we should keep in mind that people's opinions are so different that most likely we will never all just be in compleete agreement), we should not put the POV tag.

Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)


 * As I said, I can agree to keep the passage in the begining. But I would like to see communist Transnistrians, statments of Russification, several minor changes that Vasile did today and yesterday while we are at RfC here, go. Plus, a resemblance of a balance of facts.Gaidash 4 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)


 * You could include a statement about situation in Transnistria in time of Stalin. --Vasile 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)


 * Please note that the POV tag is intended as a temporary message for use during discussions as described in point 4 above and it should be removed once those discussions have been resolved (not the other way round!).  JeremyA 4 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)


 * Discuss about what? On which basis? The POV part of this discussion doesn't produce more than one (flawed) source on subject. But the POV part insists that it knows all about the subject. Everything else is presented as POV or being not academic. --Vasile 4 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

Good English, please
"European organisms" are organisms that live in Europe, like European bison, common sparrow or Streptococcus. Please, correct (better tomorrow, as you have exceeded the 3RR rule today).Gaidash 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Changes
Ok guys, now there are two POV tags. I am not going to erase either one but we should only keep one.

Secondly, Gaidash has said that he wants 2-3 of his points included in for the same of ballancing the article. He made 7 points above; some are a little far fetched but some are really good points which could only enrich the article. And there are more then just 2-3 points there that we can certainly include.

Thirdly, Duca stop adding stuff. I don't know if you have actually payed attention, but Gaidash does not add stuff without actually proposing it here. I understand where you're comming from but what you are doing is not helping. It's actually escalating the whole thing.

Now, Gaidash is willing to drop the Gasca thing, "massacres" and the more dubious points he made; at the same time I think that pogroms in the Stalinist perdiod have to be dropped too, because it is also mentioned at the Moldova page, and under Stalinisms and also because then we might be getting into more complications, rather then come to an agreement.

The way I see it Gaidash makes the following very good points which I propose to be added into the article:

1)Transnistrian local authorities put obstructions to the Moldovans' right to education in the Romanian language written in the Latin script.Arbitrary arrests of citizens, especially of pro-Moldovan and pro-Romanian political views, have likewise been reported. instead of the existing phrase.

2)on the basis of which a well-equipped and well-trained Republican Guard on a contractual basis was formed in 1991 instead of the existing phrase.
 * I understood that the equipment was stolen from Russian army. But, who were these well-trained men? --Vasile 5 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


 * It was not stollen, according to Memorial, it was "commandeered", which in plain language means that the Republican Guard came to the 14th Army and said: "Guys, we need this, this and this. Could we have it? - Yes, of course, just tel everybody that you "captured" it from us". The well-trained men are the Republican Guard: according to Memorial they were well-trained and had periodic military exercise. Gaidash 5 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)


 * They were workers and volunteers. Tudor Petrov-Popa is jailed because he didn't give voluntarily. Exactly the way the communists have dealed with peasants. --Vasile 5 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)


 * I dont' get it, what are you debating here? If you don't want "well-trained" - no problem, it can go. Gaidash 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

3)On 5 April 1992, the Vice-President Rutskoy of the Russian Federation, in a speech delivered to 5,000 people in Tiraspol, incited the Transnistrian people to "obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of Russian 14-th Army. instead of the existing phrase.


 * This is not what he had said. The speech is still available to be read in the Russian libraries. --Vasile 5 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


 * According to your quote in Archives:

(European Court of Human Rights)
 * ''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.


 * This quote also concurs with "Rutskoy on 'Dniester Republic,'" SOVSET, 7 April 1992 and "Territorial Dimensions of Ethnic Conflict: Moldovan Case", LTC Neil V. Lamont, U.S. Army, Foreign Military Studies Office, available at []), although I don't know how accurate this last source is. Gaidash 5 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)


 * Few days ago, you evaluated eventually "suicidal" the possibility that Rutskoy would said something about independence in Tiraspol. You are not a bad faith person, you are urechist.


 * English abuses only, please. Gaidash 5 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the site talk about other event, not about the speech in Tiraspol delivered on April 5, 1992. Read those books. --Vasile 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)


 * I am tired of doing your homework for you: a simple search of "Rutskoy" in Lamont's account []) gives:
 * Russian Vice President Aleksandr Rutskoy addressed the opening session of the Russian Congress of People's Deputies on 6 April and urged lawmakers to take a stand on the question of sovereignty for the breakaway "Dniester Republic." In what was described as a strongly nationalistic speech, he argued that the Congress had to act to defend Russians throughout the former Soviet Union, maintaining that the self-proclaimed "Dniester Republic" did not want to secede from Moldova, but instead was interested in a new federative structure. This statement is important and informative as this federative structure is the key to achieving a political solution. Gaidash 5 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)


 * ECHR quote reffers to the events of April 5, 1992, in Tiraspol. Rutskoy said a different story in Moscow next day for a different audience. It will be interesting to have presented both speeches. --Vasile 5 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)


 * I thought you presented the first speech. A far as my source, I didn't claim I have the quote, I said my source "concurs" with your quote. Gaidash 5 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

4)In the course of combat actions in Bendery there were casualties among civilian population. However there were no purposeful annihilation of noncombatants or acts of large-scale violence against civilians. There were, however, occasional incidents of indiscriminate fire, launched by both sides at residential quarters. should be added. It is something that I at least, think is of some importance.

5)Romanian arms shipments were allegedly supplied to the Moldovan side. should be added. I personally have actually heard once that Romania got a plane from Moldova for some APCs which it gave to Moldova in the war.


 * I just hope your auditive sense could be considered a trusted source for the article. This is better than that Russian historian that never wrote a page about russification of Moldavians.--Vasile 5 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Now, I really have no authority so nobody MUST listen to me and everyone can do as they please. But I really think this is something we can work out ourselves, so in the spirit of cooperation, I ask Vasile, Duca and others to be kind enough to accept these changes since 1) they enrich the article, 2)they ballance the article, 3) Gaidash has shown not only resolve but also maturity and so I ask Duca to adress the problem with the same kind of maturity next time he posts something here. Please don't take it the wrong way but sometimes, Duca, you seem like you are too impulsive and it just reflects bad on your arguments which otherwise might be listened to with slightly more sympathy.

Domnu Goie 4 July 2005 22:40 (UTC)


 * As by me, you can do whatever you want with this article. --Vasile 5 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


 * Hi Domnu Goie, I would like to express my appreciation of your willingness to improve the article. I respect your position and I am willing to return and propose changes as I see fit. I have nothing nice to say about Smirnov and I don't care much too. I am only concerned about the article to be encyclopedic and infortmative. Bogdan and TSO1D, thank you too for maintaining the discussion spirit.


 * On TWO rather than one tag issue: these tags are different. One disputes neutrality and the other - factual accuracy, since both are being disputed now. They can be removed one at a time if there's a consensus on either issue (or objections are clearly frivolous). If you insist, those two could be replaced with a single tag, which essentially says the same thing as the combination of the two. I would prefer to have them separately, so that they can be removed also separately, because they raise two different concerns.


 * I would like to concur to your call not to add stuff without discussing it here. That what I was doing too until Vasile wrote: "Stop proposing, edit article please". I rather withdrew at that time. As for Duca and Mihaitza, I am willing to forget their insults unless they return with more. I really have a better use for my time, than filing an elaborate request to sanction these two users for repeated personal attacks. Guys, your slurs will not help make an article pro-Romanian and put you in the bad light. If you stop it, your opinions would be treated with much more respect.


 * I will post my set of article proposals for discussion here soon. As long as the tags are kept while the disagreement is not resolved, I have no intention to force my opinions directly into the article. --Irpen July 4, 2005 23:05 (UTC)

Name of the entity
A stylistic thing which, in my opinion, is not done right here, is the name of the entity in the fact box. It says "Republica Transnistria/Transdniester Respublika". Ususally, the first entry should be in the language of the country, the second - transliteration. As it is done, for example, with Belarus in Wiki:

Рэспу́бліка Белару́сь/ Respublika Biełaruś

So it has to be one of the two, either

Република Молдовеняскэ Нистрянэ/ transliteration

Приднестровская Молдавская Республика/ transliteration

Приднiстровська Молдавська Республiка / transliteration

Like this, with the Moldovan name written in Cyrillics, as this is the convention adopted in the entity.

Or, if it is judged that the name of the entity can not be written in its languages since it is not recognized, then:

Stînga Nistrului/ transliteration

Also, "political status" in the fact box should probably be "unrecognized, self-proclaimed republic". Gaidash 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

I believe it is not practical to have the name of the republic in all of its three official languages, but I believe that the best way to resolve the problem is by simply using its Anglicized name of "Moldovan Republic of Transnistria". TSO1D 5 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong opinion about this, I just thought that the top of the fact box is reserved for the self-appelation. I also think three languages is to much, so may be either the Russian version, or Stinga Nistrului. Gaidash 5 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)


 * Sure. The Latin alphabet could produce cancer. --Vasile 5 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Clean-up
I attempted to correct some grammatical errors found throughout the article. I probably missed a few errors and further modifications to the text could enhance its quality, but the text in its current form appears to be adequate and I removed the clean-up tag. Of course, if anyone believes that the quality of the text is inferior to Wikipedia standards, you can re-insert the tag. TSO1D 5 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could delete "European organisms" in the beginning? Gaidash 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I also attemted to add point 1) and point 4) which Gaidash suggested and which nobody challanged or openly disagreed with (of course if that is ok with everyone).

Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am late with my comments on your proposals in "Changes" - was too busy argueing with Vasile:) But anyway: 1), 2), 3), 4) -agreed. So 1), 2) and 3) are the staments that we had there before, but in a different form. 4) is a new stament, but neutral in this from. It says "both are bad". So when I said, "I d'like to see 2-3 of my facts included", I refered to the 6 facts in my part VII of RfC. 5) Is one of those statements. We can add it, but I personnaly, don't value it too much, the reason being the following. My "little adgenda" here is to insert facts which would give info about 1) Moldovan nationalism being one of the causes, together with the Russian nationalism (as exhibted in the article by Rutskoy's speech), of the war; 2) about the 14th Army claims to the "right to defend" as exhbited by the following quote from Memorial:


 * March 28, 1992, Moldovan President declared the state of emergency on the entire territory of the republic. Bodies of state power were instructed to effect «all the necessary measures to liquidate and disarm illegal formations...» April 1, 1992, a police unit entered Bendery on two armored vehicles and tried to disarm a group of national guards. In the ensuing combat several people, including civilians, were killed or wounded. Skirmishes and local fights continued in the city for the next few days.
 * On the same day officers of the Bendery garrison of the 14th Army made the following statement to Presidents and parliaments of Moldova, Russia and Ukraine: "We are firmly convinced that the armed conflict in Moldova is a direct result of repeated violation of human rights of the Russian-speaking population and the unmasked desire of certain political forces of Moldova to be joined to Romania. The responsibility for the continual boosting of the conflict should be left with both sides involved in it... It is necessary to undertake the following measures: 1) the 14th Army must be temporarily assigned the functions of peace-keeping force; 2) the conflicting sides must be immediately pulled out from the borders of the Trans-Dniester region;... 5) 'if these demands are disregarded and the escalation of the armed conflict continues unabated, we reserve the right to take prompt measures to defend our city..."


 * Of course, I don't want to include this long quote, or any explanation whatsoever. So, coming back to my 6 things in Part VII, I would go with:


 * 1) The new language law was billed as "discriminatory" by some observers, in particular in its implementation. At the same time instances of abuses by the newly formed corps of volunteers have been reported in place of The new languages laws were met with alarm in Transnistria.  That's two facts.


 * The word "languages" in the current version, by the way was not there before. I think Vasile added it to underline that the law addressed both languages and not only Moldovan. But it is wrong gramatically. In English, the adjective for "languages" is "language". So it should have been either "language law" or "law about languages".


 * 2) Somewhere in the description of the conflict: either


 * 2.a) ''Instances of the use of aircraft by Moldavan forces and shelling of the 14th Army station have been reported.


 * Or
 * 2.b)  That especially relates to the Moldovan forces entering the city of Tighina on June 19/20. after Domnu Goie's change 4).


 * Or
 * 2.c) Domnu Goie's insertion about the Romanian shipments.


 * So 1) and either of 2) (2.a or 2.b preferably) would make me completely happy.


 * And by the way It's aid to the Transnistrian rebels can be explained by Russia's will to keep its influence in this region' -goes. Whoever did that, please do not make new biased edits!!! Several days ago I inserted It's aid to the Transnistrian rebels can be explained in part by Russia's will to keep its influence in this region, in part by the fact that a lot the officers and conscripts were locals. I insist, please do not delete this stuff quitely, or we will be going through this discussion again. So this part either stays the way I wrote it, or goes completely. In fact I'd like to see it go as "explained by..." is an explanation/speculation.


 * Also, I am not sure that the delition of the paragraph about Ilascu is a good idea - I did not want that at all. I agree it was a little bit too long, but it is important. Now there is a hyperlink in place of the paragraph, but it probably has to be preceeded by some comment on who he is. I suggest shortening the Ilascu part somewhat (which can be done probably without losing any meaning, like deletion of the irrelevent dates "2 and 4 July") and leaving it there. Gaidash 5 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)


 * The dates were not irrelevant. They placed the events in the picture of the war of 1992. The arrestations were made in a time of great tension. --Vasile 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

I changed the word languages to language in order to make it correct. Thou I understand the reasoning for utilizing the italicized word "languages" as this was the proper name for the laws, in English this does not translate correctly. I also added a sentence based on your proposal that many non-Romanian citizens in Moldova viewed the laws as discriminatory. I also inserted the 2.a suggestion.

I would also like to bring attention to the problems that exist with having information about the Transnistrian armed conflict in the main Transnistrian article and in a separate article on the subject. The quantitative difference between the two texts is minimal and I am not certain that it warrents the existence of a separate article. This only leads to more problems as a user has to make the same change in both texts and this will lead to many differences. I believe it is more logical to keep all of the text on the conflict in the main article, at least for now. TSO1D 5 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

TSO1D, I hope you don't mind that I changed the "languages" part and I erased the fact that Russians considered it "discriminatory". The reason for that is that probably not every single Russian thought the laws were discriminatory and the second reason is that Moldova although inhabited mainly by Romanians, it has not just large minorities of Russians but also of Ukrainians, Gagauzians, Bulgarians, Jews, Germans, Poles, Byelorussians, Tatars, etc. etc.

It would really be a generalization to say that only Russians thought the laws were discriminatory so that's why I changed it to sound more like NPOV.

About the second Transnistrian War page, I agree with TSO1D that we should keep it all here. After all isn't the war a major turning point for the people in Transnistria?

Also I agree with Gaidash that the Ilascu part should be there. Nobody ever expressed their reservations about that, so I copy-pasted it from an older version.

In any event, I think we are getting very close to an understanding here. Hopefully nobody will come along and erase everything one more time.

Domnu Goie 5 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TSO1D. I feel there are more things to change. Let me start and see if you agree. "European organisms" - that's not right. Even "European organizations" probably not needed since American and other organizations call it the same way. Then, "Moldavian Republic of Transnistria". Here's my Google counts:


 * "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" -546
 * "Transnistrian Moldovan Republic"   -237
 * "Transdniestrian Moldavian Republic" -95
 * "Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria" -56
 * "Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria" -51
 * "Moldavian Republic of Transnistria" -24 - that's name in the article
 * "Moldovan Republic of Transnistria" -7


 * European Court on Human Rights refers to it as "Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria" though. OSCE as "Transdniestrian region of Moldova". Here's my proposal:


 * Transnistria or Transdniester (Russian: Приднестровье, Pridn'estrov'ye; Romanian: Transnistria; Ukrainian: Приднiстров'я, Prydnistrovja; referred to as "Stînga Nistrului" (Left Bank of the Nistru) by official Moldovan sources, Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublika by Transnistrian official sources, and as Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic by others) is a breakaway entity on the territory of Moldova, in Eastern Europe, between Bessarabia and Ukraine. The name comes from it being the area of Moldova east of the river Dniester (Nistru).


 * "Breakaway entity from Moldova" does not sound very English, it is on the territory of Moldova, thus between "Bessarabia and Ukraine".


 * I suggest that nobody erases or inserts anything untill there is a consensus. Domnu Goie, could you please read my comments above, in particular as concerns "discriminatory". I'd like a reaction on every point that I made there. Gaidash 5 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)


 * I am completely confused. Following the discussion, I thought TSO1D inserted the language thing, than Domnu Goie erased it, but now it is there again. A must have lost the track of edits. Gaidash 5 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Gaidash, it appears that Goie did not erase the passage about the languages but simply removed the specific reference to the Russian-speaking, a modification which I believe is justified. I also agree with using the "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" version as this term is used most frequently, and by reputable organizations such as the OSCE. I ahve no objections to you making this proposed change. I also abrdiged the Ilascu text on the main page and only preserved the key elements of the case, as the rest of the information can be found on the more specific page. TSO1D 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Gaidash I assure you I will never erase anything, unless we will all agree upon doing so, in here. TSO1D pointed out correctly that I was only trying to make the statement more like it's from a NPOV.


 * Thanks. I was just very confused about what was going on. Gaidash 6 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

Switching the subject however, I have reservations about this statement: "that [Transnistria] is on the territory of Moldova, thus between "Bessarabia and Ukraine"". It is not the geography that I disagree with since yes, transnistria does exist between Ukraine and...what many consider to be Bessarabia but we have to be careful when we state that. Why? Because there are differences between Bessarabia, Ottoman Bessarabia and Moldova or the Republic of Moldova.

For starters, what many consider to be Bessarabia today is in fact only the central region of the old Russian province of Bessarabia. The northern(Hotin) and southern( Bugeac) regions are now in Ukraine.

Secondly, Ottoman Bessarabia is only the southern part of the former Russian province of Bessarabia. In actuality, the term Bessarabia should only be applied to the former-Ottoman part or southern part, since the Russian Empire really tried to conceal the fact that they were annexing the eastern parts of the Moldavian principality by extending the name "Bessarabia" to those areas as well.

In actuality, the real Bessarabia corresponds more or less to Bugeac( now in Ukraine) while what many people call Bessarabia to this day is none other then the eastern region of the old Moldovan principality.

Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinon on this one. I am just afraid that "between Moldova and Ukraine" might be understood by some people as Transnistria being "outside of Moldova". Gaidash

Discrimination found by who
In the breakaway chapter: The new language law was billed as "discriminatory" by some observers, in particular in its implementation.

--Vasile 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
 * What observers? (Let me guess: "Moskva slezam ne verit" organization)
 * Who were the persons discriminated?
 * Which right was denied or obstructed for those persons?

Seriously. Discriminatory? HA HA HA! This article is turning more pro-Transnistrian every day.

At least it should say that the Transnistrian sepparatists claimed that the laws were discriminatory, in order to achieve their own aims, or something like that, because right now this article is really POV. I even agree that the POV check should stay there now, since it damn well should. Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia, not a palce where communists put their propaganda and make people swallow it.

Duca 6 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)


 * It's not amusing. It's silence, the interest in editing the article is low and the article is blocked. Somebody, nobody knows who, said the law is discriminatory. On this basis, the war of 1992 was started. --Vasile 6 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

I think a large proportion of the non-Romanian population of the Moldovan SSR believed that these changes were discriminatory against them. After all for almost two centuries urban areas were dominated by Russian-speakers and they did not feel that they represented a minority (the interbellic period was a wake-up call for some). The political dynamic was even more pro-Russian, as only a smaller proportion of the political class was composed of autochtonous persons, and Russian was the favored language in the adminstration of the republic. As a result the introduction of the new language laws terrified many non-locals as they did not speak the language as they did not feel a need to proceed so in the former circumstances.

More importantly, an emphasis has been placed on the implementation of the new laws. As it happened, within a brief period, Romanian became the only official language and thus mandatory for government positions. It was difficult for non-Romanians to adjust to this change, particularly as the state did not offer adequate opportunities for those people to learn Romanian.

I do not believe that it will be correct if we would add a sentence to the effect that some people considered the laws discriminatory and that some observers found their implementation to have been executed in a problematic manner. TSO1D 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

NPOV
If there is no more opinions, I will remove the tags of POV. --Vasile 6 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)


 * Wait a second, most of the things we were talking about here, are not done yet. Gaidash 6 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Duca please, for God's sake, you are not helping. Look, for everyone's peace of mind, let's just keep it the way it is right now, when I am writing this message. So Duca, please, can you leave it alone. Can you do that?

If there is no more issues to be discussed and if everything has been resolved then I agree with Vasile that we take off the POV tag.

Domnu Goie 6 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Proposed Version
Here is a proposed version.

The main things I did:


 * Added a line about the political system in front of "Transnistrian authorities...."


 * I still don't like "After the disintegrating Russian Empire lost Bessarabia in 1918". The Russian Empire stopped existing in May 1917. As of 1918 there were several states on the territory of Russia proper, such as Kolchaks's Siberian Republic and  Soviet Russia. So the Russian Empire can't lose anything in 1918, since it did not exist.


 * I deleted "Systematic policy" and "in Tzarist times". We've been talking about this forever.
 * Tell me your reasons, please. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * Not enough time to go around libraries checking out fishy sources. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are too smart to listen anybody else. I don't think it was those sapte ani de acasa that made your formidable ego. --Vasile 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)


 * Again, somebody deleted the "discriminatory" thing. Also, I added "At the same time instances of abuses by the newly formed corps of "volunteers" have been reported" - somehow nobody commented on that one, although this was one of the three things that I was asking for.


 * reported, reported, reported easy talk, nothing clear, just smoke and mirrors. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * at least look above where in the "discriminatory by who" section where I explained another side of the issue TSO1D 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)


 * I read your analysis. It will be nice to established the facts first.--Vasile 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It is a fact that some non-Romanians considered the language laws discriminatory and that some observers considered their implementation to have been done improperly. TSO1D 7 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)


 * Anyone could say a stupidity (as is the case with that "discrimination" allegation). That doesn't mean the article should note that stupidity. --Vasile 8 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)


 * "At the same time the newly formed corps of "volunteers" started a campaign of terror and abuse of the critics of the policy of Romanization".

Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * That "terror and abuse" means what? examples, details -write down all your memories. --Vasile 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)


 * Gaidash, I acknowledge the fact that there were some fanatics who used violence and intimidation, but the number of these people was very small. The volunteers were used not to intimidate the critics of "romanization", but rather to stop illegal secessionsist movements in Taraclia and Transnistria. TSO1D 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)


 * Well, Vasile did not like my "soft" version because it was "smoke and mirrors", so I gave him an alternative. Of course, I am not planning to put this in. But I beg to disagree with the claim that the abuses were insignificant. In Archive I gave a translation of Memorial's report about that, it cites beatings of the Parliament Memebers and "widespread" abuses during the Referendum day. So I think my original version: "At the same time instances of abuses by the newly formed corps of "volunteers" have been reported" can be there. Gaidash 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)


 * Reports all over my head... Who made all these reports you are talking about? I totally disagree with reffering to these so-called reports that I am not able to see. --Vasile 8 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)


 * I put "Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic" in place of "Moldavian Republic of Transnistria" everywhere. Changed all "MRT"s to "TMR"s.


 * Tell me your reasons, please. It's MRT a "POV" or what?--Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * Please, read our discussion with TSO1D above. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * The search on Google seems to me irrelevant. Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria is the name used by a serious institution.--Vasile 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)


 * OSCE uses the TMR term. I have seen credible organizations use multimple terms, but the TMR versions seems to be more prevalent. TSO1D 7 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)


 * OSCE uses mainly "Transdniestrian region". As the republic is not recognized, the title could be the name of the article or Transdiestria.--Vasile 8 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)


 * "the Black Sea Cossacks and other Russian nationals" -> "the Black Sea Cossacks, as well as, Russian nationals". The Black Sea Cossacks are not Russian nationals.


 * "It's aid to the Transnistrian rebels can be explained by Russia's will to keep its influence in this region. A significant portion of the personnel of the 14th Army were local conscripts and officers." This is a distortion of my original meaning. - > "It's aid to the Transnistrian rebels can be explained in part by Russia's will to keep its influence in this region, in part by the fact that a lot of its officers and conscripts were local",


 * your personal opinion. it may have some value, may be not, who knows? but it is just your personal opinion. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * Then both sentences go. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * That explanation of Russian "aid" is a speculation. The second sentence "A significant portion of the personnel of the 14th Army were local conscripts and officers" it's OK to me. How many Russian military personnel are still in region today? --Vasile 8 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)


 * No. I'm interested in your personal opinions but it is not my article. You don't know all the facts, you don't have too much time to consult the sources, but you still pretend you know the facts and the cause of the war. But if wikipedia accepts your personal opinion about the cause of the war, it's ok to me. --Vasile 7 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)


 * I don't follow: I put both sentences in, if you don't like them, both of them go. Gaidash 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)


 * "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, 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, incited the Transnistrian people to obtain their independence and sovereignty in a confederation with Moldova, under the protection of the Russian Operational Group (ROG) -the former 14th Army". Again, this has been discussed.
 * You change the sense of his words and you try to whitewash Rutskoy. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * Open to alternatives. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * Tiraspol regime can't afford to sustain the education in two alphabets, but they pretend they're interested in a confederation. How come that, what kind of serious proposal of confederation is that, if one member is unable to sustain a pure local matter? There was any detailed proposal of confederation they've made in 1991 or 1992? --Vasile 7 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)


 * "The Moldovan forces used aircraft and shelled the ROG station has been reported" -> "Instances of the use of aircraft by the Moldovan forces and shelling of the ROG station have been reported". Just to make English better.
 * too much use of "report". it's not good for your style. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * "Moldovan forces have used aircraft in the village of Parkany and shelled the ROG station". Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * "Tiraspol forces" - >"Transnistrian forces".
 * Didn't they came from Tiraspol over the bridge? --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * Tighina Rep. Guard were not all killed yet. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * "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)" -> "This official document was signed by the presidents of Russia (Boris Yeltsin) and Moldova (Mircea Snegur)." Again, we were argueing about this forever.


 * because you don't want to accept my source. and your one page source doesn't say nothing about that. If you are not able to prove the contrary, you must accept my version. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)


 * There was no source. Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)
 * Follow my steps:


 * go to the External links at the bottom of the article;
 * click on the 6th link (the decision Ilascu);
 * go to paragraph 87 and please read it. --Vasile 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If you did this before, we would have not had this discussion. You are welcome to rephrase this anyway you want, so that the uncertainty in paragraph 87 ("appears that") would be reflected. Gaidash 7 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)


 * I told you before so many times, that I am using that decision. A civilized court doesn't spread false information. The word "appears" doesn't change the sense of the phrase. The Moldovan part recieved a draft. The other part was Russia. But you can include all paragraph.


 * "that used the Romanian language in the Latin script" -> "that used the Romanian language in the Latin script". I don't know who keeps on deleting this, but I thought we agreed that it is either "that used the modern Romanian language" or "that used the Romanian language in the Latin script"


 * I added a link to the Memorial web-site and reformatted the links to "Totul despre Transnistria" as "Totul despre Transnistria" I (ro), II (ro), III (ro), IV (ro), V (ro).

Also, I don't know anything about Yakovlev. Can someone tell me how the Moldovan authorities arrested Lieutenant-General Yakovlev in Ukrainian territory ? And another question: are Andrei Ivan&#355;oc and Tudor Petrov-Popa still imprisoned in Transnistria? Gaidash 6 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)


 * He was "Head of the National Defence and Security Department" of MRT from December 1991 until April 1992. I don't know these details. Yes. --Vasile 6 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * Where's the info about Yakovlev from then? Gaidash 7 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * Decision Ilascu. paragraph 50 etc. --Vasile 7 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

I added the latin script again. I don't know who erases them either. About Tudor Petrov-Popa and Invatoc, yeah they are still in jail. Ilascu got out in 2001 and the fourth guy, I forgot his name got out last year.
 * Lesco. --Vasile 7 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

A Russian Source about the war

 * "General Lebed – Russian Enigma", Vladimir Polushin, Vneshtorgizdat publishing house, 1996

Factual accuracy
I would like to know the problems of "factual accuracy". Otherwise I will remove the tag. --Vasile 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the current version does not reflect even 1/4 of my proposals, in particular all that I said about the disbalance of facts and wrong facts which are still there. So far you succesfully countered only one: the "broad lines" thing. Gaidash 7 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)


 * Make a list 1,2,3.--Vasile 8 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)

Gaidash, I hope that you do realize that not all your proposals will be able to be placed specifically here, at wikipedia. On top of that, you yourself said that you wanted 2-3 of your ideas put in. So far we are working towards that. Let's not overdo it since I think that even as it is, Duca( and not just him) will express his disagreements with what is going on right now.

Domnu Goie 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Donue Goie, when I said 1/4, I refered to the things that we agreed on. I am not planning to insist on all thing in my RfC. What I don't get, is why Vasile keeps on rewriting the text while we are discussing? I mean, what the purpose of adding my facts, if there are two whole new paragraphs in the Armed conflict that describes how ROG was helping Transnistria? Now there's "ROG destroyed a Moldovan unit at Chiţcani on 30 June and they shelled several Moldovan positions at around Dubăsari, Slobozia...". I completely don't get it. Why I am writing a "proposed version" and putting it on a subpage for people to have look at before we make any edits? Why I am begging here for the inclusion of my facts (out of which the current version contains only 1, one, unu) if people just go there and throw in more stuff about glorious Moldovan defenders against the perfidious Russian invasion? Gaidash 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

If Vasile is making all that stuff up then we should erase it. But if Vasile is right, has a source, and if all that stuff really happened, then its really hard to refute it. Vasile is being civilized, its other people that I am worried about (I am not going to mention any names but I think everyone knows who I am talking about).

About your points, don't worry Gaidash, we are going to add more then just unu :) I personally think that you do bring good points concerning some aspects and it would be unfair to ignore them.

You mentioned that you would like the "discrimiation" part mentioned and the fact that "a russian 14th army outpost was attacked by Moldovan volunteers". Those were the main points, I think; correct me if I am mistaken.

Now for sure these facts have to be included; its just the language and the way they are said that I think bothers some people.

I propose that the discrimination sentence should sound like the way it is now. I don't know who changed it to the way it is now but it sounds neutral and good enough, I think.

For the attacking of the outpost I propose this: "Some reports have shown that Moldovan volunteers have attempted a retaliation, by using their aircraft in an attack on a Russian 14th Army outpost"


 * What reports? The fact is the Moldovian army (not volunteers) attacked in Parcani. It's established. --Vasile 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Domnu Goie 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Vasile is probably putting in absolutely right facts, at least I am sure that the transfer of weapons happened exactly the way he is saying. But, as I said - addition of new things about "bad Russians" will autamatically mean addition of more my facts about "bad Moldovans" - I will match every single new thing that he is putting in now. I suggest that Vasile stops because otherwise the article will grow out of proportions.

Vasile, I suggest that you erase these two new paragraphs - otherwise Gyska and Romanian arms shipments are going in. Gaidash 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)


 * The part about the war should be a separate article. In this part, as I don't have special knowledge about the subject, I just extract details from the decision in the case Ilascu. The court doesn't incriminate an army or another. The court just established the Russian implication in war, in arrestion and detention of Ilascu and the fact the he had been "forgotten" by the Moldavian authorities in jail. Btw, stop threatening me. You can erase all the article about the war. But it is established facts by a final judgement in the most competent European court. --Vasile 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Discrimination
"Some characterized the language laws as discriminatory and criticized their rapid implementation."

In civilized world, a law might be considered discriminatory if for a number of person the state unjustifiably deny or obstruct a fundamental right or liberty. From the text, it doesn't appear any discrimination. "Some politicians agitated unsubstantiated "discriminatory" depiction for the language laws and criticized their rapid implementation." --Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Look, I did not state that the law was discriminatory, because I do not consider it to be such. Nonetheless, many people did consider the law discrimanatory, and whether they were justified or not is a separate matter, but it is important that this was the case as this was a powerful argument for the breakaway of Transnistria and it is an undisputable fact that many did not agree with its implementation. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)


 * It may be need an explanation for the word "discriminatory" in Soviet context. As I don't know that, I prefer to use the Occidental use of the word. --Vasile 8 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

In every statement by the TRM, they talked about discrimination against them in Moldova, and were referring to the language laws. I do not agree with this statement, but we cannot just ignore it. It is a fact that these allegations were made, even though they were unsubstantiated in my opinion. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

Autochtnous and their flag
"Autochtnous political class of the Moldovan SSR began appealing to nationalistic sentiments to a certain extent. "

The word "autochtnous" is a diminutive having no reason in context. (A lot of great ego-s exhibated on this article.) It's highly exagerating to consider "appealing to nationalistic sentiments" introduction of the latin alphabet, the flag etc. This is just normal in civilized world. --Vasile 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

I appologize, but I do not understand your comment. What does the word autochtonous, which means indigenous diminish in size? And what does this have to to with anyone's ego? I agree that the introduction of the latin flag was necessary for practical reasons. And the adoption of the "tricolor" was a symbollic gesture that Moldova acknowledges its Romanian identity. These actions would not have been possible without the support of the Romanian majority, and polliticians appealed to the national pride of the indigenous population. I agree with you that these actions are also done in the "civilized world", by which you probably mean Western Europe and the US. TSO1D 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)


 * For the sake of "neutrality", there is no need to use too much labeling. (Mr. Igor Smirnov regime could be easily depicted as National-Communist. Strangely, the article doesn't mention the name of the Tiraspol institutions and the name of their leaders.) I could accept the paragraph introduced if we can avoid unjustified epithets. --Vasile 8 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)


 * If you don't accept a more neutral text, please present your source. --Vasile 8 July 2005 14:14 (UTC)

I don't see anything that can be considered non-neutral about that sentence. I do not see how the word autochtonous or nationalistic are insulting. I will be glad to share my source. Iulian Fruntaşu, "O Istorie Etnopolitica a Basarabiei", Cartier Istoric,2002. Capitotul 5, Liberalizare lui Gorbachev Procesul de Nationalizare si Dezintegrarea URSS. TSO1D 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)


 * Could you be so kind to put here the text in Romanian too?

And, more important, this author book "O istorie etnopolitica a Basarabiei 1812-2002" could be used for this article? Does anyone read this book? --Vasile 8 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

What do you mean "does anyone read the book"? It is published by a reputable publishing establishment- Cartier and the author is a well-known political analyst.

As for the specific text, it is dispersed across various parts of the book, but here are some passages to that effect:

pg. 254: "Calea de tranziţie alesă de perestroika şi glasnost - liberalizarea, dar nu democratizarea structurilor centrale de putere posttotalitare şi consecutivitatea alegerilor, a contribuit decisiv la faptul ca naţionalismul exclusivist să devină forţa cea mai dinamică in politica [regională]"

pg 255: "În cazul Basarabiei [...] comuniştii moldoveni nu au fost în stare să însuşească, ci doar să se adapteze, această adaptare incluzând utilizarea proaspelor naţionale pentru naţionalizarea discursului." TSO1D 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

POV and Disputed Facts
Are there any more important disagreements that justify the existence of the POV and disputed facts tags? If so, then please list them here so that they can be addressed. TSO1D 8 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)

No, as far as I am concerned everything is good now. I say, let's wrap this up :)

Domnu Goie 9 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)


 * The Romanian transfer of arms to Moldova, the Gyska incident (reported with flaws by Memo.ru) and the 1990 Transdniestrian manifestations were included in the article. The evaluation of the political status of Transdniestria was made by the European Court of Human Rights. --Vasile 02:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, are you sure that your new edits are necessary. Much of the information is redundant, and other contains information that needs to be checked, but which is not truly necessary. Some of it is simply incorrect, for instance Lebed never claimed that his tanks could reach Bucharest in two hours. This is a physical impossibility considering that the maximum velocity of the tanks is 40 mph and Bucharest is farther than 80 miles from the base of the 14th army. It is more probable that he was talking about Chisinau.

In any case your changes will lead to a great deal of debate and fighting for some minor changes, and we are at a point close to a compromise. Could you perhaps reconsider some of the broader changes? TSO1D 03:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The certain level of redundancy is necessary. The edits about Gyska, Romanians weapons and Transdniestrian manifestations were required for the sake of the neutrality. About General Lebed's "claims": the fact that it is physically impossible that his tanks would reach Bucharest in two hours, it doesn't prove he didn't say that. You may want to say he wasn't serious in his claims. I did mention that he acted as a Transdniestrian politician.
 * About the Transdniestrian political status you could check the decision Ilascu, paragraphs 380-394. --Vasile 11:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I moved the "redundancy" into a new article. --Vasile 12:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I distinctly remember reading that Lebed said that he could reach Chisinau in two hours, in the context that Moldova should not attack Transnistria. However, I checked your phrase and found that ECHR, the European Court for Human Rights quoted him with the phrase that you used in its decision in the Ilascu case, so I suppose the usage of the phrase in the article is substantiated. TSO1D 17:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

New Census Results
There has been a new census update in PMR or Transnistria. Apparently the communist, rebel Smirnovist government has decided that to say that Romanians were 34% was still too much so in his marxist-leninist wisdom, his greatness decided to lower the number a little bit to 31.9% romanians, 30.2% Russians and 28.8 Ukrainians.

I am guessing that the rest of 9.1% are Bulgarians : 2%, Gagauzians 1%, Jews 1%, Byelorussians, Germans, Armenians, Poles, Tatars, Turks, Greeks, Gypsies, others 5.1%?

The population was likewise dropped from 580.000 from the preliminary results to 555.500. I read all this on the september 9th 2005 issue of Jurnal de Chisinau. I was wondering if anyone else has a Transnistrian site or something more official that we can place here as a source for the new data. I know that the Smirnovist terrorist pro-Russian government is not exactly primary source material, however it really is ridiculous to relly on a census and data that is 16 years old. Mihaitza 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

there is not a State of Transnistria
There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[]. To state in the first paragraph that the Moldovan Transnistrian Republic exists is too much. There is no republic without a State and officially is not recognized by any country. Anyway the status of the region is still in negotiation.--Bonaparte 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It does exist. There is a group of people in Tiraspol who, whether rightly or wrongly, claim to be a seperate "republic", have a standing army, and have something of a functioning government. It is also, as you say, not recognised by any country. If you'd read the rest of the opening paragraph, you might have noticed that that is mentioned there. Ambi 01:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rebbeca, you lie or at least you don't know the facts. A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements. Their army is not their army but the former 14th Soviet Army and like you admit before there is not a single country to recognize a terrorist regime like the one of region Transnistria. I will repet myself one more time: There exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. It must be accepted a neutral point of view like the OSCE see also the link[]. Bonaparte   talk  &  contribs


 * Sigh. This article makes quite clear that the entity lacks international recognition. It makes clear that they refer to themselves as a "republic"; it does not cast judgement over whether they should be or not. There are at least five other de-facto independent states around the world, that, like Transnistria, maintain some form of government and territory independent from that of their mother country (c.f. List of unrecognized countries). Wikipedia makes no assertions as to whether that should or should not be the case; it just states the claims of each side. I know you have strong opinions on this, but we report the claims of both sides on Wikipedia as opposed to declaring that one side or the other is right; this is the basis of the neutral point of view policy. Ambi 08:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as it is not recognized internationally we should adopt a neutral point of view like the one presented by OSCE [] who is part of the negotiations of the future status of Transnistria. OSCE is The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which aims especially to deal exactly with this kind of situations and to prevent conflicts and to make peace. As the time of speaking the only term that is acceptable for both sides is the term "Transnistria region" since de-jure is in the componence of the Moldova. I will repeat one more time: there exists not a State of Transnistria since is not internationally recognized. Not a single country recognized the Transnistrian regime. That's all. Bonaparte   talk  &  contribs
 * I'm afraid that's not how the NPOV policy works on Wikipedia. For Wikipedia purposes, the view of the OSCE (or any other body) is no different to any other; it is important to mention, but not to be taken as gospel. The government in Tiraspol calls itself the Republic of Transnistria, and as such, under the NPOV policy, we note that in this article. We know it isn't internationally recognised, as it is stated in the lead section. As I've said before, we're not here to make a judgement, whether good or bad, on the Transnistrian regime; both of our personal views on whether it is good or bad, or is or isn't a state are irrelevant. What matters is that we report both sides of the dispute neutrally. Ambi 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Does not exist a Transnistria state because the other contries do not recognize it!!! No  country speak to transnistrian terrorists, and there is no embassy in there, and Transnistria has no embassies abroad. There just a russian army, and terrorize Moldavian authorities, and abuse people. Even Irina Polkina the psychologist of Rusian army from Moldova Republic said Russian soldiers drink alcohol,bring many whores in military camp and they sold military equipment and guns. She asked for mass media support! -- Dacodava

Transnistria is only a "frozen conflict" region
It is also internationally recognized as one of the "frozen conflict" region as stated by the Council of Europe.
 * Facts about Transnistria (internationally recognized by all the official powers):
 * is a part of Moldova
 * is a "frozen conflict" region
 * is one of the most illegitime organization terroriziing people (had connection with Saddam's Iraq)

[]  Bonaparte   talk  &  contribs
 * None of those affect the fact that the regime in Tiraspol claims independence from Moldova, and whether with or without help from Russia, maintains some form of government with control over an area of territory. We note in the article (quite prominently, in fact) that it is internationally recognised as being part of Moldova, it is quite clear that it is a "frozen conflict region", and I have little doubt that it is a nasty regime. This may need mentioning in the article - but it does not affect the fact that the regime claims independence. In any case, while we need more information about the regime, please stop making partisan edits aimed only at convincing people of the regime's illegitimacy. Adding actual information about the region and neutral, verifiable information about the Tiraspol regime would be far more useful. Ambi 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Moldovan is identical with Romanian
Sorry Mikka, you're wrong. Moldovan is identical with Romanian. As much hard you're trying to cover this you'll never be successfull. Other soviets have tried but failed. Moldovan/Romanian. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs
 * Moldovan is Romanian, but Transnistria is not a republic, as no state has embassy there; and no country recongnize it :); anyway is part of Moldova. Removed the edits of Mikka. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs

Disputed article
I've added the tag disputed until it will be agreed to a better form of the article. It seems that the official and NPOV is not taken into consideration here. This is not a state or republic. Bonaparte  talk  &  contribs
 * Please state what exacly is disputed. "better form" is required for every wikipedia article. Please state which statements are wrong in your opinion. mikka (t) 18:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the header. You cannot use a dispute header to force your personal point of view into the article. The article makes clear the international and Moldovan perspectives, but also MUST, in accordance with the NPOV policy, give the Transnistrian perspective as well. You or I may not agree with that perspective, but that is all the more reason why we must be even more careful to represent it neutrally in this article. Ambi 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

President of Romania Basescu asks for evacuation of russian troups from Transnistria
Presedintele Traian Basescu a declarat ieri, la Kiev, ca primul pas pentru solutionarea crizei transnistrene consta in retragerea trupelor straine din zona si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist.

In discursul prezentat la Forumul Comunitatii Optiunii Democratice, presedintele s-a referit la responsabilitatea Romaniei in calitate de stat membru NATO si viitor stat membru UE, in procesul de transformare democratica, aratand ca "Romania este gata sa impartaseasca din propria experienta, pentru ca ea insasi a beneficiat de sprijinul prietenilor". La reuniunea la care au mai participat presedintii Estoniei, Georgiei, Letoniei, Lituaniei, Macedoniei, Republicii Moldova, Sloveniei si Ucrainei, Basescu a abordat problema securitatii si stabilitatii in regiunea baltica-pontica-caspica. In acest context, seful statului a afirmat ca provocarea cea mai importanta ramane existenta in aceasta zona a unor focare de conflict, cum ar fi regimurile autoritare din entitatile separatiste Transnistria, Abhazia si Osetia de Sud. Presedintele Basescu a aratat ca, pentru Romania, Transnistria reprezinta cel mai apropiat si mai clar exemplu in acest sens. "Primul pas spre solutionare presupune atat retragerea trupelor straine, cat si desfiintarea fortelor militare si paramilitare ale regimului separatist, in baza unui calendar precis, cu garantii multilaterale", a subliniat seful statului. -- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please translate. This is an English-language wikipedia. mikka (t) 04:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to translate is a disrespect to fellows wikipedians. mikka (t) 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No mikka. Sorry mikka. I don't have now time to translate it. We can ask for help. But I will translate everyday a little bit from it OK? -- Bonaparte   talk  &amp;  contribs  17:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's it: I tried to use a translation without many syntax changes:


 * President Traian Basescu declared yesterday in Kiev, that the first step to solve the transnistrian crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime.


 * In the speech presented at the Forum of the Democratic Option Community, the president referd at the Romania's responsability as an NATO member and future UE member state, in the process of democratic transformation, showing that "Romania is ready to share its expreience, for that itself has benefited by the support of friends". At the reunion where presidents of Estonia, Georgia, Letonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia and Ukraine have also took part, Basescu discussed the problem of the security and stability in the baltic-pontic-caspic region. In this context, the chief of state affirmed that the most important challange it is the existance in the area of conflict zones, such as the autoritarian regimes from the separatist entities of Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Osetia. President Basescu showed that, for Romania, Transnistria represints the most close and the most clear example in this sense. "The first step to solving the crisis consists in the withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in the area and also the dismantle of military and paramilitary forces belonging to the separatist regime, on the basis of a precise callendar, with multilateral guarantees", has underlined the chef of state.


 * Bonaparte, you should also state out your source, I think I saw it on http://www.hotnews.ro but I can't manage to find it right now. --Orioane 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Orioane! The source link is the newspaper Romania libera: (http://www.romanialibera.ro/editie/index.php?url=articol&tabel=z03122005&idx=10) also others Curierul National (http://www.curierulnational.ro/?page=articol&editie=1018&art=66680)-- Bonaparte  talk  &amp;  contribs  18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Basescu, like many Romanian politicians, is an irredentist imperialistic jerk. Moldova can damned well take care of itself. If Moldovans want a union with Romania, it will happen. But currently it's not the case. So Romania needs to back the **** off and let Moldovans do our own thing. You guys can get back to your irredentist ways when the majority of Moldovan citizens is in favour of union. But for now, Romanian irredentist imperialism is contrary to the will of the Moldovan peoples in general, especially given some of the stupid things that have happened in Romania since the early 90s, so now only a few people really want very much to be part of such a country. --Node 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are not the voice of Moldavian People so shut up that f*** off. EvilAlex 09:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you are, mister-native-russian-speaker-born-in-bender?? At least I learnt my native language as a child, even if I don't speak it perfectly today. --Node
 * even if I don't speak it perfectly today =)))))))))) You can barely understand it, and you can't write it, I can imagine how you speak it =)) Although considering that you probably call that language "The Node" I imagine you must be quite proficient in "The Node", you can even add that to your CV :) --Just a tag 10:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Node, stop talking for us, personally I think that Basescu is a fine politician and Romania has great potential. And as, EvilAlex has put it: you are NOT the voice of moldavian people. --Just a tag 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are in the unionist minority. Quit fooling yourself, most Moldovans don't agree with you...signed by Node ue
 * And how do you know what is minority and what is majority ? :) You really like to be in US and pretend you know everything about Moldova, don't you, and who is fooling who here? :) As I said, Node, you are funny, Mr.Bean of some sort :) --Just a tag 10:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Node is just trolling. Bonaparte  talk  14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

US military base in Romania
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2005/12/051206_baze_romania.shtml)

-- Bonaparte  talk  20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

US to open military base in Romania
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/06/romania.rice.ap/

"The U.S. takeover of bases near the Black Sea -- putting U.S. forces within closer striking distance of potential targets in the Middle East and Central Asia -- would help "take terrorists off the streets" and save lives around the world, Rice said on Tuesday.

Rice, hailing Romania as one of the United States' "best allies," signed the agreement with Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu.

Elections 2005
What was the result? - FrancisTyers 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed Republika Moldovenyaske Nistryane to Republica Moldovenească Nistriană
I remind you the transliteration is made from Moldovan version of Cyrillic to the Moldovan version of Latin alphabets, and not from Russian version of Cyrillic to the English version of Latin alphabets. --Danutz

The split of the article
I propose to split this article in two, Transnistria (reffering to the Moldovan region) and Moldovan Republic of Transnistria (reffering to the unrecognised republic). --Danutz


 * Try to invent some reasons. --Vasile 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Danutz, why move the article? It is fine as is. Ambi 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at Chechnya (region of Russia), and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (unrecognised republic). Same reason. --Danutz


 * No, Danutz, the reason is quite different. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is historical, currently Chechnya is occupied by Russian troops although it's a bit hectic there. Transnistria, on the other hand, still has complete control over the entirety of its claimed territory.

What f*** historical?: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is the unrecognized secessionist government of the Chechen Republic. In 1991, as the USSR was collapsing, Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudaev declared independence of Chechnya.".

The Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the unrecognized secessionist government of the region of Trasnistria. On 2 September 1990 the Moldovan Republic of Transnistria was proclaimed. On 25 August 1991 the Supreme Council of the MRT adopted the declaration of independence of the MRT.

We are talking about two guvernaments, so we should split the articles. If that practice is used for Russia, why shouldn't that be used here also? Because this is Moldova? BTW, Transnistria also has a history of own, as an RSSA in the Soviet Union, back when Moldova was part of Romania. Transnistria is the autonomous region in Moldova (as is Chechnya for Russia), and Moldovan Transnistrian Republic is the de facto breakaway Republic (as is the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria). --Danutz

The proposal of Danutz is pretty much reasonable. The historical notion Transnistria is very much different from Moldovan Republic of Transnistria: the latter one is but a narrow strip. So the "history" section in the current article gives a false impression, not to say the intro is totally misleading. as to the usage of the term, failing to refer its old historical usage. mikka (t) 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In current usage, Transnistria usually means the non-recognized Republic. So, IMO, if the split is made, there should be Transnistria (region) and Transnistria, the non-recognized country. Moldovan Republic of Transnistria is neither official, nor widespreadly used. bogdan 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see nothing to split. The history section certainly belongs in the article about the Republic and all the rest is about the break-away state, not about the region. bogdan 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article should stay - in one piece - under Transnistria. --Valentinian 10:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheriff
The ridiculous statement that "Sheriff" company controls all economy of Transnistria is removed. mikka (t) 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

America asks Russia to go out with their troups from Transnistria! Oficialul american a cerut din nou Rusiei sa isi retraga trupele din Moldova

link: http://www.averea.ro/display.php?data=2005-12-23&id=13823

-- Bonaparte  talk  17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulichs
If it is acceptable to illustrate the great contribution of the Slav tribes in the nearby of the region, I humbly request the presence of some information about the ancient Greek and Roman activity in the region.--Vasile 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That Ulich and Tivertsy lived there is mentioned even in the Primary Chronicle. I humbly request that Vasile's contributions to the articles extend beyond the deletion of info from them. --Irpen 19:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Internet domain

 * Internet TLD: none; in some cases .md is used

From what I saw, they use international .com/.net/.org domains. See: www.idknet.com; www.president-pmr.org; www.tiraspol.net bogdan 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

added new info
Transnistria’s ethnic composition is unlike the rest of Moldova, and the region does not share the same interwar history as the rest of the country as part of socalled ‘‘Greater Romania.’’ Moreover, many of the ethnic Russians and Ukrainians that currently reside in Transnistria were not born in Moldova and only recently came to the country in the 1980s and 1990s (Note: Significantly, much of the current Transnistrian leadership, including Igor Smirnov, were born and raised in Russia and therefore not surprisingly have a different and hostile view of Moldovan identity and culture.)

The leadership has used these issues to cultivate a separate Transnistrian identity among youth and to socialize the population towards a Russian political space, rejecting European demands for democratization and conflict resolution. Transnistrian socialization has used traditional instruments including the media and school.

Indeed, one of the important agents of identity formation and socialization is education. There is a large political science literature that examines the impact that education has on group identity formation as well as on the process of individual political socialization. During the Soviet period, the education system in Moldova was used as a means to russify the indigenous titular population through the use of Russian language as the principle means of instruction.

I have reference for every word. -- Bonaparte  talk  18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Istanbul summit
(copyvio)

Reference

James Hughes, Gwendolyn Sasse, Ethinicity and Territory in the Former Soviet Union, Regions in conflict. Routledge Ed. ISBN: 0714652261, page 114-115 -- Bonaparte  talk  11:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Transnitria's relationship with Russia and Ukraine
(copyvio)

Copyvios, brought to us by Bonaparte
Well, look at what Bonaparte did this time: almost all of the text he just inserted into the article was plagiarism and copyvio, copied word-for-word from books. You may verify this by searching for snippets of the offending texts (I removed them) on Google Book Search. --Node 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was afraid of this; I thought the writing somewhat too neutral and the English too good to be Bonaparte's original work. Thanks for picking this up. Ambi 02:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys...You have to read this first http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia Bonaparte   talk  08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Examples:


 * An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable.
 * A digitized picture that may be copied from elsewhere, but has in fact been created hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, the companies who have digitized these pictures claim copyright on them, but I find such claims highly dubious.
 * Screenshots of free software applications, and small illustrative screenshots. It should generally be no problem if a screenshot is copied from the official product page.


 * Bonaparte, I'm sorry, but you're completely in the wrong here. You've quoted large slabs of text (to the point where it was about half the article) with only a footnote. That's something you'd need to do if it was in your own words, not if you'd plagiarised it, and it goes way beyond the boundaries of the page you quote. We've had a massive crackdown on copyright violations over the last few months, as it is becoming a serious problem. This is very serious - if you proceed to re-add this to the article again, I'll block you from editing for 24 hours. Ambi 08:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know this guy user:node ue, because of him we have the page of Moldova and moldovan language blocked. This guy has proved Anti-Romanian feelings. I see that he follows every edit I make. He want that this page to be blocked too. Bonaparte  talk  08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bono, just reword it (replace some words with synonyms, change some expressions, rewrite bigger chunks with smaller once using your own words, etc...), there's no need to fight node, he has been proven not to be worthy of that. If you need help, just ask. --Just a tag 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, don't. That's still plagiarism, and will still end up with your edits removed and you in trouble. Just cover the same topics in your own words. It isn't hard with a bit of practice. :) Ambi 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * rewrite bigger chunks with smaller once using your own words - Given the fact that all information on WP must be sourced, pretty much everything on WP could be considered as "plagiarism" (even a conclusion be it important is considered that, if you don't acknowledge the original source for information). But since plagiarism implies using information without acknowledging the original source, as long as Bonaparte is providing the original sources he is okay, obviously it's a good practice to rewrite the text using his own words (which would be sort of a conclusion) and that's exactly what I suggested. But oh well, if you disagree... --Just a tag 09:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's ok. We'll do like that. Please Ambi if you find a better place for integrating the 14th Army ..you're welcome also to edit. However I will look to integrate myself in couple of hours. -- Bonaparte  talk  09:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in other edit disputes, I don't want this article to be locked too, and I don't doubt that node has a strong agenda here. However, this absolutely does not excuse adding copyright violations into articles, which is your fault entirely.


 * Thanks for not re-adding the material, however. The information you've just added about the size of the Russian forces is good, but would you mind integrating it with the rest of the article? It looks very odd sitting out on its own without any context. Ambi 08:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt somebody without a strong agenda would spam the talk pages as much as he does. When others do not agree with him, he simply starts a revert war, followed by a request to block the page (Mr.Gallagher or other admin), simple as that. My 2 cents. --Just a tag 09:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never requested somebody lock a page. Bonaparte was actually the one who requested the locking of Moldovan language, I think; I had absolutely nothing to do with the recent edit war at Moldova. --Node 11:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please stick to the topic at hand. This is not the place for attacks on other editors. Ambi 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right, sorry. --Just a tag 10:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bonaparte here. The additions should stay, provided that they are sourced. And as Ambi points out, the more rewriting you can do, the better. And in case of larger, unchanged portions you can always use quotes ("") and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC/Japan Times
Mikkalai, why did you removed the links to the BBC and the Japan Times articles ? bogdan 18:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of articles about Transnistria on net. The article already has two dozens of external links, including one from BBC. If a Japanese newspaper says something absent in article, please add it into the article. Wikipedia is not a link farm. People can use google themselves. mikka (t) 21:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used those two articles as references. bogdan 10:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected
Protected from anonymous edits against revert war by a flock of anon accounts. mikka (t) 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are involved in this article. You cannot protect articles that you have edited. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Semi protection is to prevent simple vandalism. This is a content dispute. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Theresa. However looks very bad his behaviour. And yes, he did this before. This is not his last time. He made similar things with Moldovan language. Bonaparte   talk  10:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

POV fork of Mikka
Mikka push a POV fork here. Bonaparte  talk  09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring
Is bad.Stop it the lot of you please. Try working on one section of the article only. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also please add a reason for the reverting to older versions, either in the edit summary or in the talk page. And don't use misleading summaries like this anonymous edit ("Fixed ISBNs") and reverting several edits... bogdan 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And this anonymous user happens to be node_ue, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Node_ue&diff=prev&oldid=32680988 . --Just a tag 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one is user:Node ue. -- Bonaparte  talk  13:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know. He did two absolutely useless reverts on Movement for unification of Romania and the Republic of Moldova: first time he reverted to the version with three "[Citation needed]" saying that it is unreferenced (although there is a reference section and the exact citation on the talk page) and the second time he reverted to that same version saying that it is unreferenced because the citations are in not in the article... bogdan 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
I seen this thrown around a couple times in the reverts. Where is this copyvio from? Zach (Smack Back) 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Among others, Hughes and Pavliuk. Although the article text is no longer word-for-word copied (as were previous versions), in many cases whole phrases are lifted and a few words are just replaced with synonyms,which is still copyvio.
 * Can you provide weblinks please, if you can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They're all written sources, ie, books. However, an earlier copyvio was confirmed on this talkpage, and much of the material is the same copyvio. --70.58.114.239 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How can we sort out the alledged copyvios unless you provide the evidence. What paragraphs are you stating are copyvios? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
Another conflict that I see is the user of UK/US English. Which one is most prefered by the editors? Zach (Smack Back) 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter, the issue at hand is this version being pushed again without considering other's editors edits. --Just a tag 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see, where I tried to merge two versions, after you reverted against policy to re-insert copyrighted materials.
 * I'm sorry Node_ue, but I think it's mostly your POV that there's a vio of copyrights here. If you find some phrases that are 1:1 why don't you quote them ? Why do you prefer to remove them altogether ? --Just a tag 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether or not copyright has been violated is NOT a POV. It either has, or it hasn't. And in this case, it has. It is not my responsibility to try to integrate the material. I have a number of choices, and the easiest of those by far is to simply remove offending material.
 * If you think that information should be included, it's fine with me if you include it. Just use different words, different sentence structure, a different organisation. Otherwise, you are breaking copyright law and Wikipedia policy. --70.58.114.239 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you prove that it is copyvio ? Saying it's copyvio "doesn't make it so", doesn't it ? I could arguably do the same to all of your edits, just rv them and say it's copyvio and give some references, so ? --Just a tag 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If people were to work from this merged version then the copyvio issue would be at an end wouldn't it. So instead of reverting - edit! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, theresa you are taking sides here, AFAIK only Node_ue argues that this is copyvio. --Just a tag 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not my intention. I don't know anything about the topic. But if you edit rather than revert, the copyright claim dissapears! I'm not trying to push his version, I'm just saying start from it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the point, IT HAS BEEN edited, and it has been discussed already. If you care, in my opinion you are taking sides in this matter by pushing his version without taking a careful look into the matter. --Just a tag 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the discussion further up this page and the matter didn't look settled to me, or is there another discussion somewhere else? As I said before I am not pushing his or anyone's version. I'm trying to stop a revert war. Revert wars do not work. So stopping it is my number one priorty. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, this reply of mine has been erased from the talk page by Node_ue: Fine with me, edit it yourself then. --Just a tag 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself really. Like I said before I know nothing of this topic. I'm happy to discuss edits here though, if you like.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me learn a new wiki-trick today: if you don't like something, just tell it's copyvio, no need to prove anything. --Just a tag 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But a cunning technique you can use to foil the accusation is to simly rewrite the offending section in your own words. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To what end ? As I said, it has ben edited already. Node_ue will still say that only some occasional words are changed. --Just a tag 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Post both versions on this talk page for everyone to compare. If Node Ue doesn't like it he can edit it himself. Then when everyone is happy it can go into the article. Copyvio problem solved. Easy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See 1 and 2 A quick example:

''Also Moldovan and Ukrainian authorities share an interest in a resolution of the crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty and in the removal of Russian forces from the region. OSCE is trying to facilitate a negotiated settlement and has had an observer mission in place for several years. The Russian army was still stationed in Moldovan territory in breach of the undertakings to withdraw them completely given by Russia at the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2001.''

vs the alleged copyvio:

''In Transnistria the troops and equipment of the Russian 14th Army, which was redesignated an "operational group" in 1995, have been used as an instrument of influence by the Russian authorities both over the negotiations relating to Transnistria and over Moldova's regional policies. Although only some 2,600 personnel remain from the original force, this group continues to unsettls neighbor states and is still viewed as a geopolitical asset by many Russian politicians with a nationalist mindset. Moldovan and Ukrainian leaders have shared an interest not only in a resolution of the Transnistrian crisis within the framework of Moldovan sovereignty but also in the removal of Russian forces from the region.'' Only one sentence matches with the source being acknowledged right away (one sentence cannot be covered by copyrights). Then also look at the version you pushed 3, especially the parts at the end, how is that a "merge" ? I'm sorry, but if Node_ue would have problems against copyvio he would have removed exactly those paragraphs instead of pushing a version of his, then "trying to merge" which is nothing more than a spoof. --Just a tag 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Node_Ue this doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Is this one of the paragraphs you are disputing? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No -- it's not. --Node 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case can you please put on this talk page the paragraph/s you do claim are copyvios. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Theresa, to get a bit off the topic (tired of it already..), I see you are a fellow physicist :) nice to hear that =) Btw, for drawing diagrams, LaTeX+METAFONT is the way to go :) --Just a tag 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was a different copyright violation then. Well, in a manner of speaking. Ambi and I quickly put a stop to the copyright violations of Bonaparte, who had word-for-word copied paragraphs upon paragraphs of content from copyrighted books. Then, after that, someone came along and added back a couple of paragraphs (though not all of it), merely replacing a few words here and there. The source for the copyvio is given on User talk:Theresa knott; copyright violations in this diff are primarily the section with a reference to Hughes. I may've removed a copyvio from Pavliuk, I can't tell.
 * WRT Pavliuk if you can't tell if it's a copyvio then it's safe to assume that it isn't one surely? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean, I can't find a section from Pavliuk which I removed... if there is one, it was definitely copyvio. --70.58.114.239 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough. Perhaps you could rewrite the offending sections rather than removing them? That way the copyvio problem is solved and the revert war will be ended too? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the copyvio is an obvious spoof. This is clearly a POV revert-war, waged by User:Node ue in his various incarnations, nothing more. --Lysy (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio diffs
Lysy's identity aside (he seems to have recently aligned himself with Bonaparte and Anittas -- I would advise him to check out their histories before doing so), there is obviously an outstanding issue of copyvio. is a diff between the verbatim copies and the slightly modified version. As you can see, most copyvio material was deleted entirely. However, 2 paragraphs were kept (or so it seems), and some words were modified slightly, but not so much that the extreme similarity cannot be found through the diff. --Node 05:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please post the two paragraphs here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You make again personal attacks? Just because you don't agree with the NPOV version of Lysy doesn't mean that you have to talk like that about me or Anittas, or any other user. Learn how to cooperate first. Bonaparte   talk  08:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bonaparte, where do you get the idea that accusations of Copyvio are personal attacks, especially when they're 100% true? I don't know about Anittas, but I know you've definitely violated copyrights here. Or in case you're talking about me saying "I would advise... before doing so"... that's silly. I could be advising him to check your histories (although unlikely, and in actuality not true) because I want him to see what outstanding editors you really are. --Node 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The diff is huge. Which section exactly do you think has the copyvio problem ? --Lysy (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph or two just before "The Kozak Memorandum" is the only one I can find with the diff engine. I thought there were more, but I can't seem to find them. --Node 06:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the section containing the text "within the framework of Moldovan" was copyvio. --Node 07:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and, I resent you referring to them as "incarnations". It is no secret that those edits were made by me on various different computers when not logged in. It wasn't an attempt to obscure identity, rather, it was based on circumstances -- when I'm at my volunteer work, I use the computer there; when I'm at home, I use one of the computers here. The only one on which I'm nearly always logged on is my own PC. Other than that, I tend to be rather lazy and don't log in. However, the patterns of the edits of these IPs and the results of traceroutes should be a fairly clear indicator to any interested parties that they are me. --Node 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining this. I'm sure you know that signing your comments with different names and IPs can be confusing for other users. But I undestand and accept that this may be simply the matter of your laziness versus respect for other editors. --Lysy (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't accept it I'm afraid. It takes virtually zero effort to log in, and/or sign a comment. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 crisis
Why did the Moldovan government decide to create a blockade that would isolate the autonomous republic from the rest of the country in 2004 ? It's not clear from the article. --Lysy (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Violation of human rights
I added this:

In recent years, Transnistrian authorities have denied registration to Baptists, Methodists, and the Church of the Living God. Transnistrian authorities reportedly accused Jehovah's Witnesses of lacking patriotism and spreading Western influence and reportedly developed school teaching aids that contained negative and defamatory information regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses. [] -- Bonaparte  talk  09:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiation rockets on sale to ‘terrorists’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1602963,00.html

THREE radioactive rockets capable of contaminating a city centre were offered for sale last week to a Sunday Times reporter posing as a middleman for Islamic terrorists.

The Alazan rockets, which have a range of eight miles, were among 50,000 tons of weapons left behind at an arms dump in the breakaway eastern European republic of Transdniester when the Russian army withdrew after the cold war.

They were offered to the reporter for $500,000 (£263,000) after he approached a senior officer in Transdniester’s secret police, claiming to represent a militant group in Algeria. The officer contacted a local arms dealer who arranged meetings with the reporter on a bridge in Transdniester and later at a hotel in neighbouring Moldova.

At their first meeting two months ago, the dealer said the price of a single rocket would be $200,000. The rocket could be independently inspected with a Geiger counter to verify that its warhead contained radioactive strontium and caesium, he said.

Last month the reporter was told that he would have to transfer $2,000 to a bank account in Cyprus before the inspection. He would then pay $8,000 for forged documentation that would enable the rocket to be smuggled across Transdniester’s border with Ukraine. It could be collected at an airfield in southwestern Ukraine once the rest of the asking price had been handed over.

Last week the dealer said that the terms had changed. “My people want to sell three Alazans for a total sum of $500,000,” he said.

According to the dealer, the rockets would be moved to Ukraine tomorrow if the terms were accepted. The Sunday Times withdrew from the negotiations once the availability of the weapons had been confirmed.

Experts said the Alazan rockets, which were originally intended for use in Soviet weather experiments, could spread radiation for more than 20 miles from their point of impact. Few people would die, they said, but the contamination would cause widespread fear and disruption. Large areas would have to be evacuated for a costly clean-up operation.

“The psychological impact would be devastating and the economic damage would run into millions of pounds, “ said Andy Oppenheimer, a consultant to Jane’s Information Group. “The Alazan would be especially attractive for terrorists seeking to strike a high security target.”

United Nations and regional officials are pressing for tighter security at the arms dump in Transdniester. -- Bonaparte  talk  09:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Looks like my infobox got removed in the various edits, but I will paste it here to see if there should be any changes or not. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 02:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I only have a problem with the top of the box where you randomly see: Нистрянэ Приднестровкая Придністровська Transnistria

This information is not organized correctly as it is in the original box. It is for this reason that I oppose your particular version, though of course this can be fixed. TSO1D 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, do you wish to have the English name only, or all of the official names? I can remove the other languages, if the others agree. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 03:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think having only Transnistria on top will suffice. TSO1D 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. Is everything else alright? The only other significant change is that I added a ISO code for the Transnistrian Rouble (TR, as pointed out by our article) and me and bogdan discovered that the PMR has a song they consider their "national anthem," so a short article was created and linked into the new infobox. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The rest looks fine. TSO1D 04:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My changes.
I have made a few changes that I considered self-evident. They were reverted by User:TSO1D here the summary of the changes:
 * Internal politics, I removed the word Formally - there are obviously multiple parties who take part in the election, the elections are flawed that explained in details later in the same paragraph.
 * Autonomous Moldavian Republic in Soviet Ukraine There are five ethnic groups mention in the paragraph. Only one (Romanian) is wikilinked (to disambig!). I think we need to either link all five or nor link at all. Especially important to proper link the Romanians and Moldovans as an unprepared reader would have a clue what the slash is suppose to mean
 * World War II I have added This strip of land it was that later became the Transnistria to show the relevance to the main article that is not about Moldova but Transnistria. Probably should be edited to The main part of this strip of land it was that later became the Transnistria as there are some parts of it controlled the Moldova proper.
 * The breakaway. I added that the language laws required from public servants to be proficient in Moldovan. That is the main problem with the laws as many PS did not know a word in Moldovan/Romanian
 * Aftermath - I have rearranged the paragraphs in chronological order, removed duplications In the security zone controlled by the Russian peacekeeping forces, the MRT regime continued to deploy its troops illegally and to manufacture and sell weapons in breach of the agreement of 21 July 1992. In February 2003, the USA and EU imposed visa restrictions against the Transnistrian leadership. is literally repeated twice. I have also attributed POV comments as Moldova and Ukraine share common interests.
 * Aftermath Undertaking!=promise - check your dictionary

I thought I did service to your article, but was reversed wholesale. Please explain abakharev 03:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

--
 * The word formally is supposed to indicate that the formal or theoretical state of Transnistrian politics does not match reality. Though technically more than one party exist, they do not differ greatly in many respects and true political freedom is not possible. I am against removing the word.
 * This is both personal research and a judgement call without multiple sources. --Node 06:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it, Node. I don't think I've ever read anything on Transnistria that didn't refer to it as a one-party state, and I could really care less about the racial tensions involved here. Ambi 06:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see List of political parties in Transnistria. You may not have known this in the past, but Transnistria is officially a multi-party state, although its politics are dominated by non-partisans. And WTF racial tensions are you talking about? I'm Moldovan-American, although Anittas, Bonaparte, and others have all called me a "Russian" in an attempt to be derogatory. Any racial tension that _would_ be expected here would be between me and Russians, which it is not; rather, it is between me, Romanians, and a single Ukrainian, which is strange because most Romanians and most Moldovans agree about Transnistria on most principles. --Node 07:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, only the word 'romanian' was wikilinked. However I do not see the reason for having a link for any ethnicities. Therefore I removed all of them. Of course if there is any specific reason for the existence of any of the links they may be replaced.


 * The strip did not become Transnistria, it already was part of the geographical region called Transnistria. You probably mean that the MRT currently exists on that territory and I made a change that specifies this.


 * I reinserted your statement about the requirement for proficiency with some minor changes.


 * I retained your changes of the Ilascu section with some minor changes.


 * You are right, undertaking does not equal promise. But I am not quite sure why you are saying this.

TSO1D 04:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your editing, I agree with them abakharev 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored the unexplained wholesale reversions by an anon of TS01D, mine, Node ue and Phil Boswell edits, I do not think we deserve such a treatment by an anon abakharev 08:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)