Talk:Transnistria/Archive 9

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Sources
This discussion is about: the usage of sources in the article to support the statements
 * One way out of this dispute is to use only peer-reviewed, academic sources (and possibly the United States Government). This cuts us off from a large amount of (possibly dubious) information, but transcends most of the controversy. For example, Mark Almond's books and articles would be fair game, but BHHRG reports would not. This might also forestall some of the long-winded speculative rants that we all know are coming. We clearly all have our ideas on how and by who the PMR was founded, etc., but let's introduce a little academic rigor into this debate. jamason 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitevely, agree. Other sourses can be used only to say: "x said this" or "y considers that", without words "however", "dispite" and especially without the word most often in the article: "although". But even so such sourses must be used with restraint. Anyway, no analysis from non-academic sourses.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of Mark Almond, I don't think we can divorce him from the BHHRG as they are one and the same. If we are looking to sources with consistent reliability and integrity, he doesn't qualify. One of my original suggestions quite some time ago was to list all sources and who they are. But even there, we have "OSCE = impartial" versus "OSCE = openly pro-Moldovan". But even if we could agree on the extremes (like Olvia = PMR authorities) that would be a start. That would also get us past the "consider the words, not who's saying them arguments." If Mauco says the moon is made of cheese and Carl Sagan says the moon is made of cheese (I know he's dead, but just for the sake of example), then I would need to consider that Carl Sagan said cheese because he would be a reputable and reliable source in astrophysics and astronomy. (I don't know Mauco's credentials in this area!) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Come now, Almond is an Oxford scholar, but it is clear that you simply do not like his conclusions and the political viewpoints of BHHRG. Would you like it better if we find more Transnistria-watchers and/or foreign policy experts who say the exact same thing? And would you be agreeable to including all of them, along with Almond, in the article? In addition to Almond, I can offer you a conservative staff consultant from one of the world's leading think tanks (composed of several former foreign ministers of EU countries). I can also offer you one of the most renowned Moldovan foreign policy experts, a Chisinau based analyst who is widely quoted by the English-language press (including Edward Lucas). And, if that is not enough, I will add the United Nations and a U.S.-funded organization (which specializes in Eastern Europe) to the list. Want more? I will go on and on and on, because they all directly (not obliquely) support the exact same point that Almond makes, and which any sane and rational person is compelled to agree with. You just have to tell me when to stop, Vecrumba, and please try to focus on the facts here. Enough with trying to discredit me, or Almond, or others by arguments such as the world is flat, the moon is made of cheese, wolves are vegans, and what have you. - Mauco 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have all theses sources that we could agree are far more credible, then why do you keep insisting on Almond when you know my low opinion of his BHHRG leadership--an opinion I am far from alone in? Yes, I am discrediting Almond and your choice of Almond. Some of the BHHRG's activities and stated positions are nothing short of prostituting Oxford's reputation for his personal gain and purposes. I'm also discrediting sources which you already introduce with "consider the words, not the source." I'm not discrediting you. If you have all the same facts available from far more credible sources, what's the problem with simply using them instead? Who's the one really being obstinate here? It's only that you like saying he's an "Oxford scholar" to lend his statements the credibility of the entire university when that's patently not the case. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you refer to Almond's papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals - is on thing, if you refer to newspaper articles - is another. But a list as you say is not a bad thing. Chances are that among the sourses you will provide we can find some that are more credible and we can find agree to include that. If you include only on Almond's newspaper article...


 * Also, requiest to everyone:
 * when you say UN, say exactly which agency and give a link to the report (UN does not issue reports by itself, unless it is a matter discussed in the Security Council)
 * when you say a think tank, say also whether it's right or left wing one, etc
 * when you say OSCE, give what report you refer to, or who's exactly declaration
 * when you mention someone, first give his/her name, then his credentials (otherwise, if someone good-faith/lunatic (erase one) quotes both Lenin and Goebbels, we might be forced to regard such a sourse serious before even knowing the person's name, less his/her general scholarly works):Dc76 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Come now? on Almond? I won't dispute the guy is bright, fairly articulate, teaches from a unique viewpoint (that's a quote from one of his students, on the Oxford web site) at a prestigious university. That said, his BHHRG chairmanhip and the BHHRG's support of people the world regards as despots makes him an unreliable source. Come now! You would paint him as a more objective reference than the OSCE! No Mark Almond, certainly not articles. And as I've documented, the one reputable peer review I did find on his work was lukewarm at best. He does not pass the litmus test for reliability. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I put Mark Almond in my first comment as an example. However, I agree with Dc76: it might be time to talk specifics. I mean, does Almond (again, first used as an example) even have any peer-reviewed, scholarly articles on Transnistria? Not that I know of. And, it doesn't sound like anyone is thinking of any specific items above, either. A debate about whether or not to use BGHHR reports that's one thing, but let's not waste time on a moot point. Also, there is at least one other published review of a different book available available through JSTOR. Much more positive, but the reviewer also isn't Charles King. (See International Affairs, 71, No. 2: 408-9.) jamason 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources are mutually agreed upon as acceptable?
No Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr (see archived discussion regarding Astroturfing). Official webpage of the regime is acceptable, but astroturfing sources who claim independence not.--MariusM 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we must include all credible media and governmental sources on BOTH sides, we have been through the attempts to delete and silence the other sides news organisations. I suggest we ask people to suggest what they would like to see included and refrain from calling for media organisations that don't match your political views to be deleted. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * Links to all media and governmental sourses, credible and non-credible - to "external links". If you want to sourse a phrase in the article with such a link, we discuss it case by case, every sentence. If Tiraspol Times says: "on 32 december the parliament of Transnistria met for 4 hours" - that's ok with me. But analysis - only from peer-reviewed sourses.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dc76, I meant to delete 'credible' becuase it will only end in a debate of what is and is not, good point. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * Would that not exclude most of what the rest of Wikipedia use as reliable sources, as per WP:RS? For instance, how about a the recent weapons report published by the United Nations? Or an article on OSCE's website about the weapons inspections (which started today)? - Mauco 17:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are covered under governmental status as they command diplomatic status, so yes they are included as above Mark us street Nov 19th
 * We can use analysis from here, I read from above: peer-reviewed, academic sources (and possibly the United States Government). Since we are not diplomats, lets' not command anyone any status. Nevertheless, UN and OSCE reports can be included in the following very easy way: According to the UN/OSCE report (and identify the report, if posible give the date, who commissioned it, who conducted it; the more such info, the better), ... and cite exactly from the main conclusions of the report. If someone brings up the issue that the report does not say what is concluded, then we can ask someone to arbitrate this particular 1-2 sentances. Fair enough?:Dc76 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't totally agree with the astroturfing argument, I do agree that these sites, Tiraspol Times, pridnestrovie.net, visitpmr, should not be used as sources for this wikipedia article, but there's no harm in someone reading something from those websites that leads to further research based on their findings - for verification et cetera.--Jonathanpops 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * fair enough:Dc76 03:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have had a three week debate followed by a voting process, which already places the mentioned sites as legitimate sites for the Transnistrian and Moldovan viewpoint.After the vote some were included and excluded. The above mentioned sites were already agreed by ALL sides to be included. Please refer to archived voting on this issue if you require more. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006.

What sources does someone believe should be used, but someone else views them as insufficiently notable?
Sources from organisations that do not cover TD on a constant regular basis are often outdated and their references used not as information but to propagandaise a point. Regular Moldovan and TD news media orgs are better sources coupled with govermental sources. Mark us street Nov 10 2006

What sources does someone believe should be used, but someone else views them as insufficiently trustworthy?
Simple. If your are from TD all Moldovan sources are not trustworthy, And if you take the Romanian/ Moldovan side they will say all TD sites are untrustworthy. Mark us street Nov 10th


 * Noone has a problem if a sourse reports a fact. The problem is when one takes comments of the facts from such sourses. I take confidence in Tiraspol sourses when they say the referendum was on this date and not on a different one, but when they say "the free will of transnistrian people was expressed in ..." - that's a commment. The same events can be reported without "enthusiastic" words.:Dc76 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement we really need to push for factual edits. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006.

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Less disputed and non-disputed sections
This discussion is about: ''Sections of the article. Are there sections of the article that we can all agree are not a problem? ''

Changing the order of some sections to a more logicl one?
Proposition: I suggest to move the sections History and Population right after Political Status. Then, also reverse the order of the sections Economy with International Relations.:Dc76 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Motivation: This order seems to me more logical, also Economics after International Relations, which talks about customs issues with Ukraine, is like "oh, and we forgot to tell you about Economics" :) A simple yes/no from each of the main editors would suffice. If all except a 1-2 agree, we change, othewise - not. The change in the article itself will take place at the very end, when all discussion will be finished and the page unprotected. So even if we agree on reordering of sections, the discussions will continue on the article in the present format. :Dc76 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Population
Proposition: Subsection "Ethnicity" contains: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups, roughly equal in numbers: Russians and Ukrainians as well as a Moldovan plurality. Below it is a table that suggests very clear that the words roughly equal in numbers do not represnt what is throughout most of its modern history. To avoid this self-contradiction, I suggest to formulate the sentance as this: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Russians and Ukrainians as well as a Moldovan plurality. without going into details, which anyway are in the table just below it.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Better still: Throughout most of its modern history, Transnistria was home to three major groups: Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans and then, like you say, let the stats speak for themselves. - Mauco 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * what's wrong with plurality, is it not true?:Dc76 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am taking your own suggestion to its logical conclusion: Just keep it as simple as possible, and let the numbers speak for themselves. Besides, many non-native speakers of English are not immediately aware of what the word "plurality" means. It is a bit technical, whereas the numbers themselves are easy to grasp. - Mauco 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's simple... home to and absolute majority of Romanians for hundreds of years as the primary ethnic inhabitants. "Roughly equal numbers" paints a heterogenity that absolutely did not exist. — Pēters J. Vecrumba  active   talk   03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, so modern history should become recent history, because otherwise we have to say majority, as Vecrumba pointed out. Then it's only plurality (after 1959). BTW, Transnistrian authorities do not deny that, they even placed "Moldovan" in the title of the entity.:Dc76 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Section History
Proposition: In the text one can find this: In 1941, after Axis forces invaded Bessarabia in the course of the Second World War, they cut-off the Soviet troops around Odessa.... Replace Bessarabia by Soviet Union, since there was no country Bessarabia in 1941, and Odessa is not in Bessarabia.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Economy
Proposition: In the text one can find: GDP per capita, based on the exchange rate, is $756, which is slightly lower than Moldova, the poorest country in Europe. I propose to reformulate: Nominal GDP per capita (2005), i.e. based on the exchange rate, is $756, which is slightly lower than the rest of Moldova, the poorest country in Europe. In fact based on the exchange rate is a very non-professional formulation, in economics one uses nominal as opposed to PPP:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: In the text one can find: An important company in the republic is Sheriff. I propose to reformulate: An important company in the republic is Sheriff, indirectly owned by the president of PMR Igor Smirnov.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as long as his name is listed as a director/ shareholder in the companies registration office in Tiraspol. We can only print facts on the main page, If we can show factual evidence I agree to this otherwise we will be pulled up for it Mark us street Nov 10th 2006.
 * There has been debate on this before, both in this article and in the specific Sheriff article. The myth of Smirnov ownership has already been disproven, and not even Moldova uses it anymore. Before another round of hammer-and-slammer against me for saying this, please go to the Talk page of Sheriff and discuss it there. If/when there is concensus for any change, then come back here and add it into the article. - Mauco 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A propose a serious section dealing with the countries industry. I can ask the PMR Chamber of Commerce to assist and there is plenty of Governental statistics. Mark us street Nov 22 2006

Section Human Rights
Proposition: In the text one can find: The Republic of Moldova, as well as other foreign states and non-governmental organizations claim.... I propose to replace with The Republic of Moldova, as well as other countries and non-governmental organizations claim...:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a reference to Media infringment and censorship in this section. The Transnistrian authorities allow complete press freedom and despite being their sharpest critic I can not label them with censorship. In fact they make it quite clear that the media are given carte blanc. Having regular chats with fellow editors in TD they are all in agreement on this. Also it is worth mentioning the Moldovan papers sell freely on the streets of TD. TD papers are banned in Moldova which is the only censorship we face. Once again we should delete this reference unless someone can find a media org in TD to ratify this claim. I'm sure you won't find any. If censorship existed they would surely ban Moldovan papers first, the fact they don't really is proof of press freedom  Mark us street Nov 10 2006


 * "Complete press freedom"? "Sharpest critic"??? LOL! Viktors Alksnis would pay good money to have "critics" like you. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a seminar in September in Chisinau (organized by the British Embassy) summed up that there is a good level of press freedom in Transnistria. It characterized it as a myth to claim that the media climate is restrive. - Mauco 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have information on time/place/hosts/participants and a (non-Olvia/et al.) published reference? Otherwise it's original research/your interpretation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please provide me details on the conference which I can verify. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. (When and where are sufficient.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And "Reporters Without Borders" ranks Moldova the highest in press freedom of all the ex-Soviet states (except for the Baltics), since you criticise Moldovan "censorship." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1st paragraph of the section says X claim Y. It does not say Y is the absolute truth. Are you objecting that X claim Y is not neutral, or are you objecting to Y?
 * The 2nd paragraph: It is also alleged that ... is a serious problem, although ... denies this, pointing to a lack of solid evidence. Are you objecting to the formulation or to the words that stand in lieu of the dots?
 * The 3rd paragraph: According to OSCE the media climate in Transnistria is ... [24] The same question, is the formulation your objection, or the conclusion of OSCE?
 * The 4th, last paragraph talks about the restriction on using the Latin script in the Moldovan schools in 2004. Are you saying there were no restrictions on using the latin script in Moldovan schools in 2004?
 * Honestly, why should I believe that you are their sharpest critic? Do you claim out of 6+ billion people you are the sharpest? With whom exactly do you compare yourself? Maybe in a certain group of people you are indeed the sharpest critic, I can certainly believe that. But how large is that group? But if they did not censor that group you can not conclude they did not censor anyone. Just read OSCE's report [24].
 * My original suggestion was simply to replace foreign state with country. Moldova is not a foreign state to Transnistria, it's the state from which Transnistria wants to brake.:Dc76 21:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will come to these many points soon. It is important to realise that the sovereignty of the territory commonly refered to as Transnistria is under dispute. What is best for the main page is to explain this dispute as clearly as possible at the begining because it is a large part of what Transnistria is. There is no need for either side to continue to drive home their politics in every section. Lets us all refrain from this. Lets be respectful to everyones hopes dreams and political beliefs by keeping the sensitive stuff to a minimun...... After that there is so much more to the place, its landscape, famous cognacs and wines, river life. environment, people. music, festivals, argiculture. Maybe someday we will have a Moldovan leader who will say "Pridnestrovie is fantastic and I recognise the people there do not want to be with us 'yet' but I say we want them and believe that a union between us would be for the betterment of both regions on both side of the river'. But alas for now Ecomomic blockade to try to stave them into submission is the approach.  one that has caused even more hurt and pain and division. Mark us street Nov 13th


 * Yes, please. I agree: There is no need for either side to continue to drive home their politics in every section. Lets us all refrain from this. Just the facts, please. - Mauco 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There appears to be some confusion about who started blockading whom in the first place and why. The visceral image of a Pridnestrovian Eden being besmirched and beset by ruthless Moldovans "starving them into submission" conclusively betrays Mark us street as a pro-PMR über-partisan more than anything I could possible say. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your view, buddy, putting words in someone's else mouth. Mark never claimed Transnistria to be an Eden. Neither did I, or anyone else on this page. Transnistria is roughtly as poor as Moldova (itself the poorest country in Europe, on par with Sudan). How do you turn that around? Not by putting new barriers up and making trade and exports harder, that is for sure. Your comment that there appears to be confusion is in itself confusing. If you are in Moldova, there is absolutely no confusion: They know full well that Transnistria never blockaded Moldova. If you are in Transnistria, there is also no confusion: They know who put the "blockade" in place, and they also know exactly why. As for "in the first place", it started on March 3. FYI, exports are down to 65% compared so far. Shoes, steel, electrical supplies, building supplies, etc. If that happened to your paycheck, what would your reaction be to the person who did that to you? Would you feel a lot of love? Would you rush to join? - Mauco 01:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark was waxing poetic over a place being "starved into submission." I don't think my summary was too far overdone. I should have been more clear about who was doing what to whom. It's really Russia that's the culprit... double gas prices, cut it off, etc. All to put the pressure on Moldova. (And it's not just Moldova, Russia has a small pocketful of PMRs going.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A: Russia has the right to charge market rates for whatever it sells, including gas. Find out what the going rate for energy is, worldwide, and you will see that even at current prices, Russia's near-abroad (Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia in particular) are getting a bargain. The rates are still not at world prices.
 * B: But be that as it may: For your argument to stand, you first have to prove to us that Transnistria is not independently governed, but that it is managed by Russia. I will meet you half-way and concede that Transnistria receives a lot of help and advice from Russia, but the same can be said for half of all the "real" countries in the world. Case in point: Georgia receives financial help, military help and heaps of advice from the U.S. In fact, my brother-in-law is currently there on a government funded assignment. They are getting more help, in money and manpower and handling, than Transnistria could ever hope to get from Russia.
 * C: Now, to get back to the subject: tell me how Transnistria is blockading Moldova or what on earth Transnistria has ever done to hurt Moldova, the Moldovan economy, or cause Moldova's export to go down 65%. Then compare that with how Moldova is putting the screws on Transnistria, and tell me who deliberately using economic and trade measures to hurt who here... The mind boggles. - Mauco 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A Those lower prices were obtained by negociations in exchange for other advantages that Russia received, as is common practice around the world. Russia wanted to increase the prices, but leave everything else as is.
 * B Maybe because Georgia is 10 times bigger by population and 20+ times by area than Transnistria, so the absolute figures are naturally higher. However, in case of Transnistria, the point is not "financial aid" or "political influence", but direct indications to a rough regime. It is like telling North Korean or Iran governments what to do, and they promptly do that, and only that, with the agravating fact that North Korean and Iranian Authorities are, dispite being rough regimes posing real threat to the security of the entire world, legitimate.
 * C Moldova has legal right to put screws on enterprizes that do not abide by Moldovan law. Moreover, Moldova has moral obligation to do so. That is is only very little effective - it's a different story. :Dc76 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * From Kommersant... 2005 figures, 2006 not available yet, this is a report from earlier this month... "Exports (fuel) in 2005 from Russia to Moldova were worth $448 million. Imports (foodstuffs and agricultural products) were worth $558 million. Those figures will be less comforting to Chisinau this year [2006] because of the Russian ban on the import of wine, limitations on meat, fruit and vegetable imports and higher prices for gas.
 * "Moldova has been the object of a ritual beating for months now because of its refusal to accept the Russian settlement plan of Transdniestria and Chisinau's alliance with Kiev and Tbilisi to reorient itself toward the West. It is thought that Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin is closer than ever to begging Moscow for mercy but, since he might not get it any way, he is unpredictable, ..."
 * I do recall a recent meeting characterized as Putin deigning to talk to Voronin only to hear what Voronin would come pleading with.
 * And, please, no praises for Russia being the only country noble enough to support the will of the Transnistrian peoples. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "I praise Russia for being the only country noble enough to support the will of the Transnistrian people." (Sorry, just couldn't help myself...) :-) - Mauco 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Far too large/not directly related a discussion for here, but I would be very interested to understand the basis of your acceptance of the stated Russian position in all of this at face value when you have no impediments to professional-level research skepticism elsewhere. And thanks for the praise of Russia, it's always a pleasure when someone obliges. :-) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To conclude no agreement has been reached on the original suggestion, therefore we cannot add in edits. However Marco can do something on Press freedom and Peters can mention RSF if nobody objects, Also I suggest a small bit on the fact that PMR papers are unavailable in Moldova while the reverse is not the case, if only because Press Freedom is such an issue. Mark us street Nov 22th 2006.

Section Geography
Proposition: In the text one can find: Transnistria is landlocked and borders Moldova (for 411 km) to the West and Ukraine (for 405 km) to the East. I propose to reformulate: Transnistria is landlocked, and borders the rest of Moldova (for 411 km) to the West, and Ukraine (for 405 km) to the East.:Dc76 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This inplies a strongly biased political point of view that suggests that TD is part of the 'rest' of Moldova. This is the conflict we are trying to avoid here. I am against this change, perhaps you can consider wording it a different way to appease both sides. Likewise I am opposed to the Transnistrians trying to say Moldova borders the Rest of Transnistria Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * My point is, that Transnistria is legally part of Moldova, while Moldoava is not legally part of Transnistria. Until it legaly brakes away, i.e. until there is a treaty that says so, we can only state what is today a legal fact. The fact that Transnistrians do not want to be part of Moldova, you have it in referendum subsection. But they did not yet achieve this. I might want many things, but until I achieve them, I can at most say I want, although I should also be modest and not say things I can not do. You want to call a thing done before it's done? The conflict is not about what is the status now, but what it will be in the future. Right now- Transnistria is de facto independent, but legally part of Moldova. In the future - that's a different discussion, but only God can tell in an encyclopedia what will happen in the future. How else do you see this sentance refrased? :Dc76 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you may come up with it, Two points here. Firstly Moldovans do not recognise the border, and transnistrians will object to the use of the word 'rest'. Perhaps you could say 'peaceline border' and delete 'rest'. That could keep everyone happy., Or use border in inverted commas. Over to you Mark us street Nov 10th

Minor edits in other sections which are not the highlights of the dispute
Proposition: To add either in the International Relations or Human Rights sections: ''In February 2003, the European Union has imposed travel restrictions against 17 members of the leadership in Transnistria, "in response to the unwillingness of the leadership in Transnistria to engage fully in efforts to reach a peaceful and comprehensive solution to the Transnistrian conflict". In August 2004, restrictive measures were imposed against additional 10 persons "responsible for the widespread campaign of intimidation against teachers, parents and students of Latin-script Moldovan schools in the Transnistrian region". Following a review of the situation in November 2005, EU Member States agreed that restrictions against eight of the ten persons should be lifted, as the schools have re-opened as from 1 September, and the situation for teachers, parents and students has improved considerably. The restrictions remain in place against two persons in Ribniţa, where the Latin-script Moldovan school is forced to continue operating from temporary premises. Of the 19 persons with travel ban, 10 are reported as having Russian passports, and 3 - old Soviet passports, while the other 6 - unreported. '':Dc76 01:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with international relations of Transnistria, so no. Does it have to do with Human Rights? Not really, either. The human rights problem is the school issue, which is already dealt with. If anything, any violation of human rights as it relates to the travel ban is that the European Union is violating the right of these 17 individuals to freely travel, but I doubt that this was the implication that you had in mind. My opinion: Let us please focus on dealing with the current content disputes, so we can unlock the page quickly, and not invent new issues to bicker over. - Mauco 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then in which section this should go? I see you do not onject to the formulations or to introducing it, only where and when. Is that correct? I thought of Human Rights because, because the issue of Moldovan schools in 2004 is there. I thought of International Relations because it is sort of important that the leadership can not travel to EU. Also all the content of that section is contained in its unique subsection, not really the most logical thing. If you know of a better place where to introduce this, please share it with me.:Dc76 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have to say it but agree with Mauco for once Mark us street Nov 22nd

Discussion on Jmabel's list: Most disputed sections
This discussion is about: ''Sections of the article. Can we confine the 'disputes to particular parts of the article?''

Clearly the Crime section is at issue.
This discussion is about: generalities about crime section

Proposition: Rename this section Security and crime:Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: An outside reader, after reading this section should understand that there is clear difference between the general population of Transnisria, which is subject to much greater insecurity than all neightboring regions and countries, and the authorities of Transnistria, which sometimes supported or support some of the activities leading to this athmosphere, such as for example, but not limitted to, uncontrolled sell of weapons.:Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever changes we will decide to make to the crime section, it will probably tale a long period to arrive at some form of consensus. However, I wish to remove the protection on this page as soon as possbile, and I would suggest to provisionally insert the version I proposed a few days earlier as the crime section, pending future modifications. The changes I introduced were relatively minor, and I think that most users were willing to accept that version, so if possible I would like to put that in, unfreeze the page, and continue the discussion here. Of course editors will have to pledge not to make any major changes to the text until a broad agreement is reached. TSO1D 03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * May I remind editors that we are not trying to build a page that paints TD in a good or bad way but rather a scientific analyses of the region/country. I have always felt that the Crime section has been used as a tool to discredit the TD law enforcement agencies. I accept that other editors want to so I agree we should keep it. I also agree it should be called security and crime. However it seem you may prefer to call it insecurity and crime. My own experience is that TD is well policed and crime is not an issue.Comments about the insecurity of the genreal population are just comments. May I again ask all editors to ONLY deal with fact and not POV where possible, I will examine TSOID proposal and get back Mark us street Nov 10th


 * TSO1D, I for once can not find you proposal (this talk page is enormous! :) ), could you put a link to it here, please, or cut-and-paste it here. :Dc76 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposal is found in Talk:Transnistria. It is:

Numerous analysts and media outlets [links, references] have identified dangers presented by Transnistria due to its large deposits of weapons, and the potential of their unauthorized sale. Nevertheless, this view has been challanged in/from what year (so that one can see from what year things started to change) by other experts and organizations [links, references], as well as by the government of the PMR. Oxford scholar Mark Almond stated that accusations of state-sponsored weapons smuggling in the PMR appear to be groundless and politically motivated, rather than based on any verified facts.[35, pages]. Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations [links, references] say that the historically low levels of transperancy, and the continued denial of full investigation to international monitors has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transnistrian regime [sourse, page number], although recent good levels of cooperation on the part of Transnitrian authorities in some areas may reflect a shift in the attitude of PMR [sourse, page number]. TSO1D 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Above, I have added in italic my suggestions, but I did not erase anything. I don't like the word nevertheless. I also have a problem with the last word although. Why not just say The same expects/report says that... Also, is it not possible to say more specifically than Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations? Something like (A) report(s) in year , commissioned by the UN agency name of the agency says that...:Dc76 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you use in the place of nevertheless? That statement is left specifically vague due to the vast number of organizations and entities mentioned in it. For instance, the PMR of course challanged this statement from the beginning, whereas others had fluctuating attitudes. As goes for sources, finding one from the PMR government is easy as well as finding some from individual organizations, but which ones, if any should be added here? The UN report is sourced (see the source in the current article), and it is in PDF format, so page numbers are not needed. TSO1D 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it all right that I editted directly in your text?:Dc76 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. TSO1D 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to reserve the right to some comments after this paragraph is soursed. I hope that they will be minor, yet I obviously can not say anything before reading all of them. I hope you understand.:Dc76 00:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really of too much use to this particular issue, but I think it would be better if you kept calling it Transnistria and not switch back and forth between that and PMR. It's a bit confusing for people who have just looked up the place and found the article. I know the article does mention Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika and Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic higher up, and has (PMR) written also, but it's still a bit confusing and forcing people to reference back up the page. I just think it makes the paragraph look uncertain, a bit like if you wrote about the UK but switched back and forth between UK and GB (Great Britain) (which is almost the same thing but not quite) three or four times in the same paragraph.
 * I see what you mean, however wouldn't using PMR all the time be a little tiring. I think using Transnistria in some places and PMR in others just makes the text a little more varied, but that is just a stylistic concern. But if you think that using more than one name might make it confusing for some people, I have no problem with just sticking to Transnistria. TSO1D 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The two terms are not always coterminous if we understand one to be a region and the other to be an unrecognized state (which, admittedly, the article itself does not encourage). Let's make people learn the acronym. They might need it if they go read anything else. jamason 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While there was much debate around what to name the article, even Transnistria is not the best alternative (as that has not always referred to the same area, though always left bank. I would use Transnistria in the article to speak more of the geographical area, and then PMR for the entity. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, that also works. But wouldn't the word Transnistria be better for the first sentence, as the threat is mainly presented by the existence of the stockpiles in the region rather than potential actions of the PMR? TSO1D 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so too. But elsewhere, e.g. sentence two, I would favor "PMR" over "Transnistria." ———jamason 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also it might sound a bit more neutral if this bit - analysts and media outlets [links, references] have identified dangers - said 'believe they have identified dangers...'Jonathanpops 11:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe "Analysts and media outlets have expressed concern regarding potential threats posed by Transnistria's large deposits of weapons, [...]. TSO1D 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Transnistria have large deposits of weapons? If it definately does then that sounds okay. Jonathanpops 20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, there is a huge cache left over from the 14th army. Although most of the weapons are obsolete, they are still operative. TSO1D 21:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I answer in bold because it's later, so you can see: There is the depot at Colbasna. It was considered one of the largest in Europe before 1991. Officially it had 40,000 ton of weapons and ammo. After the 1992 war used a few tons, and after they took back to Russia some of the most sensitive material (5 or 6 trains), they "counted" and found 50,000 tons left. After a few more withdraws, there was some attempt to count together with OSCE, and the estimate was 80,000 tons. Then, in 2001-2002 Russia withdrew something like 30 trains, and OSCE estimates that about 40,000 tons are still at Colbasna. I remember reading this in a newsapaper a year ago. I don;t know how much was withdrown since then.:Dc76 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every country has weapons so to say their are fears over these weapons is just propaganda. Transnistria has an army to defend itself as its international right. Clearly Transnistria is no military match for Ukraine so the only other neighbour is Moildova and Moldova's army is equal if not bigger than transnistrias and equally well equipped. Also recent weapons inspections have resulted in glowing reports for the Transnistrians obligations to manage the stockpiles. Mark us street Nov 13 2006
 * Transnistria has 8,000 solders, Moldova - 7,400:Dc76 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that Transnistria will attack Moldova, but rather that the weapons could either fall into the wrong hands or cause great environmental damage. The sheer size of the stockpiles is immense and such a agglomeration of war materiel would be dangerous anywhere, let alone in the relative instability that still exists in Transnistria to an extent. The fact that the weapons are dangerous isn't really challanged by any part in the conflict, it's what should be done with them that is a point of contention. TSO1D 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back to the section title, crime/security around weapons is one thing, crime around smuggling in general would be another thing. Calling it a Crime/Security section and then getting lost in just talking about arms, no arms, PMR arms, Russian arms... doesn't discuss any of the more mundane situations at the border. For example, from vlasti.net... admittedly about three years old but it was just the first one I happened to come upon... Flour and mixed feeds were being imported into Moldova illegally through Transnistria. The wheat came from Russia and the Ukraine, was then passed through phantom companies to legalize the product as being of Moldovan origin. Then there was the production of bread at the Bendery bakery which was being smuggled into Moldova with false papers.


 * That's scary. Bread smuggling. Vecrumba, I am normally never sarcastic, you know that, but in regards your bread-smuggling accusation I just couldn't help myself. Sorry, but this is getting to be too much. I can just see the headline now: "No weapons, but Transnistria is Europe's black hole of bread production..." - Mauco 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In relation to weapons, there's been much ado in the we're really not pro-PMR, we're just objective camp about there not being weapons factories producing/selling/smuggling arms. Well, the problem is Russian arms and arms produced elsewhere. I have not seen a clean bill of health declared there by anyone--any references on that? — Pēters J. Vecrumba  active   talk   04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you are asking for. If there is NOT a problem, then are we inventing another problem and saying that "well, since no one addressed that before, then maybe it exists"??! If by Russian arms, you are referring to the WWII-era weapons storage depots which have been dismantled on an on-and-off basis with OSCE supervision, then there has continuously been bill after bill after bill of clean health. The latest confirmation came just hours ago regarding this: "«На складах ничего не хранится под открытым небом, нет химического оружия, нет старых боеприпасов, которые могли бы самопроизвольно взорваться», – подчеркнул Якимов." Sure, weapons everywhere represent risks, but in the Kolbasna facility it can safely be said that it is a managed, controlled and well supervised situation. Unlike other places (Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc) where tens of thousands of weapons have gone missing or disappeared into the black market in the last year alone. - Mauco 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here. It is official: "Дипломаты, что называется, «на месте» убедились, как хранятся вооружения. И, судя по всему, были удовлетворены. Глава делегации ОБСЕ Бертран де Кромбрюгге, беседуя с журналистами в Колбасне, признал, что в плане хранения российские склады не представляют опасности. На пресс-конференции бельгийский дипломат выразился еще более определенно: «В Колбасне мы увидели хорошо охраняемые склады и хорошо охраняемое вооружение. Это очень благодарный визит»." Now, mind you, this is not Olvia Press saying this. It is OSCE's highest ranking diplomat. His statements are merely reproduced verbatim. Check with OSCE press service: He said the same thing on TV, word for word, but it was only picked up in Russian language news media. On the other side of the Dniester, a complete information blackout. Why am I not surprised that the Moldovan press ignored it? Why will I be even less surprised if the Romanian brigade on Wikipedia will not accept to include this statement in the article? - Mauco 12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My reaction to Vecrumba's comment above is two-fold.
 * First, since there are very few editors here claiming "objectivity," another way to divide "the camps" might be between those on the one hand (Mauco, Marius, TSO1D) who generally participate in mainspace, conduct extensive research, and largely spend their time contributing positive suggestions. On the other hand, we see another camp that exists mostly on the discussion page and seems to live to insult the "real" editors (with whom I by no means count myself, since I largely exist here too).
 * Second, let's take a look at these camps in action: Vercumba insults Mauco and, rather than displaying any independent research that indicates a problem, asks him to prove that an issue—that no one has raised yet—doesn't exist, implying that it's because of bias that this hasn't been done already. Perhaps people would take this more seriously if you actually got out and found some source that raised this concern. If you don't like Mauco's sources, find some that back you up. As is, your comment is poorly sourced and unnecessarily rude. — jamason 16:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [But, not to fork the discussion...]


 * To jamason, how was I rude? I indicated that to rename the Crime section to Crime and Security would incorrectly focus completely on the issue of arms smuggling. Since Mauco disaproves of even the OSCE as an anti-PMR partisan (when critical of the PMR), I took some time to find an example of non-arms smuggling from a non-POV where Mauco is concerned (i.e., Russian reported) source. On the contrary, I find myself bending over backwards to provide Mauco with proper citations.
 * If no one has discussed smuggling outside of the arms context before, I'm surprised, I did not go through to check. If you're suggesting I find a bunch of reports regarding non-arms-related smuggling cited in sources Mauco won't dispute, that's obviously possible.
 * Finally, I have in no way insulted Mauco. I have, however, challenged his methods of taking facts ABC and transmorgrifying them into incontrovertible evidence of XYZ when one does not necessarily follow the other. Mauco has chided others for intellectual dishonesty, I am only holding him to his own standard. If jamason believes I am somehow being intellectually dishonest and insulting, please show me where. Don't confuse the lack of respect I show Mauco's position at times with any lack of respect for Mauco. If I didn't respect Mauco I wouldn't be bothered debating him in the first place. That would be an utter waste of my time. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response to Mauco below is more convincing than the above, but than again, you still don't address the more interesting claim that Russian is manufacturing weapons and suggling them through Transnistria. The point is this: you raised some (possibly) interesting positive contributions to the article without giving anyone any way of assessing the material. — jamason 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding... Дипломаты, что называется, «на месте» убедились, как хранятся вооружения. И, судя по всему, были удовлетворены. Глава делегации ОБСЕ Бертран де Кромбрюгге, беседуя с журналистами в Колбасне, признал, что в плане хранения российские склады не представляют опасности. На пресс-конференции бельгийский дипломат выразился еще более определенно: «В Колбасне мы увидели хорошо охраняемые склады и хорошо охраняемое вооружение. Это очень благодарный визит ... all that emphasis is rather like Americans going abroad and thinking if they talk really slowly and really loudly that the natives will suddenly comprehend English. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gimme a break. The top man from OSCE says all is well. He led an international inspection team. They found the storage depots to be well protected and secure. He is Belgian. Making fun of Americans abroad is off-context. What we should be discussing is whether or not the key message in this statement ought to be included in the article. - Mauco 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mauco, it's easy for you to laugh about grain and bread smuggling (elsewhere recently), but food and food-stuffs smuggling is a huge and lucrative business in Eastern Europe. You demand respect but feel compelled to laugh to dismiss items for discussion--you'll note I took care there to reference a Russian source so it can't be characterized as partisan propaganda. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, I AM laughing. In fact, I nearly split a gut. It is such a funny picture: After years of hearing the drivel about radioactive warheads, dirty bombs, about Al Queda going weapons shopping in Transnistria, and the $2 billion arms industry in Tiraspol (Vladimir Voronin's words) ... the best we can come up with is the "grain and bread smuggling" accusation. "Commander, sorry, no nukes. But we did find a Pullman loaf." - Uh, scary!! ;-) It is just to easy for me to laugh about it, when I put it in context. Sorry if I offfend you. - Mauco 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the OSCE, from their site, Karel de Gucht did welcome the visit, saying: "Further initiatives should be built on this until the complete withdrawal of all ammunition, as provided for by the 1999 Istanbul commitments" (under which the Russians should also be gone). There is no press release (yet) of comments by de Crombrugghe, those currently appear only on tirsaspoltimes.com and pridenstrovie.net. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In English, the comments by OSCE's de Crombrugghe can also be found on Regnum News. In Russian, they are all over the place. Lots of sources. Repeated from TV. All told, we are looking at about a dozen sourcing confirming the same thing. If in doubt, feel free to contact Claus Neukirch, head of press of OSCE in Chisinau. - 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, you take some facts and leap to print a conclusively positive picture: weapons secure = no arms smuggling = clean bill of health for PMR, the OSCE even says so. Perhaps a metaphor might clarify... The OSCE "thanked the wolves for the first opportunity to inspect their chicken coop since 2004. The chicken coop was surrounded by many wolves with procedures in place to insure no chickens are stolen. The chickens are secure." Please don't patronize us with the notion that the wolves are vegetarians. This wasn't exactly a surprise visit either. As reported in interfax, the head of the OSCE mission to Moldova, Louis F. O'Neill, attempted to visit the arms depot in Kolbasna in August, 2006. However, the ambassador was denied entry to the breakaway republic.
 * I don't know what Moldovan sites you read, but the OSCE visit and hopeful statements (and that's what diplomats do after all) regarding arms do appear to be reported there. Now you're saying there's a conspiracy to hide the fact wolves are closet vegetarians? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, buddy. You are doing the opposite. There is a complete lack of evidence for the claims, including weapons smuggling. This IS a clean bill of health. To show that there is something wrong, you need to have something to show. Since you are so fond of metaphors, here's one for you: I go to the doctor, and he doesn't find any symptoms of cancer. None. No signs, no evidence. Will he say: "You probably do not have cancer" or will he say "I think you have cancer, I just can't find any evidence of it or any symptoms." Depends on how good a doctor he is, I guess. The whole thing is not about wolves being vegetarians, or whatever. Fact is: OSCE specifically stated that they want Transnistria to be part of Moldova, so they are not friends of Smirnov or of the 97% of voters who voted for independence. Why is it so hard to simply take their statements at face value? If they went to look at weapons, and came away satisfied that all is well, then maybe, just maybe, all is indeed well. Is that worth telling our readers? Will you agree to include such a statement in the article? - Mauco 02:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with reporting the OSCE, quoted directly. But where the OSCE says they are hopeful this is progress, you say the PMR is over the finish line. I'm happy to take the OSCE's statement at face value, but not to read in more than what was actually said. At a planned, scheduled inspection by the OSCE, they stated XYZ as their findings, including the hopeful part. Mention the attempt at an unscheduled OSCE visit which was denied at the PMR border only as far back as August and we're done on this one (for now of course). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I emphatically do not claim that PMR is "over the finish line". May I respectfully ask you, once again, to stop putting false words in my mouth. You might want to provide a DIFF instead so we can all see exactly what it was that I said, instead of relying on your rewrite and selective memory. Now, to the article: Likewise, no special interpretations or fancy rewrites are needed. What was said by OSCE was said. Include it. Then let the readers draw their conclusion. With regards to the unsceduled OSCE visit, what is your point? Obviously, the Joint Control Commission has rules, in place since 1992 (one year before OSCE's mission to Moldova even existed). It is infantile to expect otherwise. One of the rules is that no one, no matter what government or organization they belong to, can just show up and roam freely, be it in the buffer zone or in areas where weapons are stored. Every visit has to be applied for and cleared in advance, for security reasons. This is not a situation unique to this part of the world. It exists in every buffer zone on the globe, and all conflict areas where there are multinational forces guarding a ceasefire, to the best of my knowledge. OSCE knows that, of course. When they applied to schedule a visit, a permission was of course readily granted. It is also not their first visit of this kind, so the "denied access" claim is completely unreasonable and only show that you either have bias or have a lack of the full understanding of the area and the situation which governs the security measures in the area. - Mauco 07:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reindented from above) Regarding: "so the "denied access" claim is completely unreasonable and only show that you either have bias or have a lack of the full understanding of the area and the situation which governs the security measures in the area." I quote from Ambassador Stephan M. Minikes' statement to the Permanent Council (2004, circumstances still apply): "We call on the Russian Federation to resume the ammunition withdrawal as soon as possible, and to inform the OSCE Mission of the plans for and status of this removal. As Ambassador Hill has noted, it is still possible that the withdrawal could be completed by the middle of this year, but time is running out. If achieved, this would be a key step toward fulfillment of Russia’s Istanbul commitment to withdraw its military forces from Moldova. It is also unfortunate that the Transnistrian authorities have resumed their tactics of regularly refusing OSCE Mission personnel access to the Colbasna depot, except on those days when trains are to depart." Your characterization of my ignorance and "infantilism" is just more blatant Transnistrian disinformation, as the PMR now denies a level of access it allowed previously. My point stands. Don't lecture me as if I'm some intellectual incompetent. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There also seem to be issues over the handling of what at least some call "terrorism"
This discussion is about: subsection #3 in the current format of the article

Adter a call for it to be deleted this section is to stay. It was dealt with in detail and it was decided we are going to keep it but under Wiki ruling we have to alter the heading. It has been agreed that Violent Incidents' be used instead, some have suggested it be moved to the history achive. I disagree, in time perhaps.Mark us street Nov 10th 2006


 * I agree with you for the subsection to stay. I agree that "domestic terorrism" is not a good title. But I am not convinced that "violent incidents" is much better. Any other suggestions? So far, I reserve my oppinion for later.:Dc76 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposition: Based on the continuous contradictory discussion between William Mauco and EvelAlex, and on their sourses and edits, I suggested this form, and I did not receive an answer. I am recalling it: ''Vladimir Antyufeev, head of Transnistrian MGB, qualified these acts as terrorism. , '' How's that?:Dc76 00:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''in May 2004, there was an attempt by a Russian neo-Nazi organization to set on fire a synagogue in Tiraspol, using a Molotov Cocktail and a flammable liquid near a gas pipe. [41]
 * ''in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus. [42]
 * ''in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten. [43]


 * The Transnistrian Cheif of Internal Security has issued a statement to say there is no proof of a link to Terrorism. Regardless, it has already been agreed that the word Violent Incidents will be inserted Mark us street Nov 22th 2006.


 * As I have stated elsewhere in this page, with reference, Antyufeyev, minister or not, is not a reliable source for making any declarations around terrorism. (Not to even mention his former OMON Soviet Black beret background.) Not agreed. Robbery and murder are violence. Any violence which may be considered politically motivated is terrorism. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Weapons subsection
This discussion is about: subsection #1 in the current format of the article

Proposition: This subsection should list all "activities" and declarations in the cronological order, such that a reader can see not only what happened and happens, but also in what order. Telling first about 1992, then about 2006, then back to 1997, is confusing already for me. When someone makes a declaration or a finding, say when this report was released, and to what period it refers to, or that it refers to in general. List who and what found and said, without words like "dispite the fact that x said this, it is generally accepted" or "y, a very famous scholar has/such a world-wide organization strongly claims". :Dc76 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The request that only proven factual information be used makes sense Mark us street Nov10th 2006


 * This would mean that for every accusation of weapons, we need the facts. Not hear-say, innuendo, or malicious rumors. If any editor here knows something that the rest of us don't, regarding any sort of weapons problems involving Transnistria, then please provide the evidence. So far, we have not seen a single weapons factory, a single instance of weapons smuggling, no weapons on the black market, no weapons trafficking (legal or illegal), no missing weapons from storage, in short: nada. And the old excuse about a supposed lack of inspections won't fly either. This year alone, three different international teams have visited on three different occasions and came away happy, in all three cases. The latest was the high-level OSCE inspection team this weekend, as published in both Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty as well as by the much-hated Tiraspol Times. - Mauco 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make the appropriate edits regarding the same provided nobody comes back with factual evidence. Wikipedia cannot be used to propagansize either side. . Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

Can we agree on the most common English-language name of the region being "Transnistria", and all use that consistently as the normal name in article and discussions?

 * We had a long discussion on this topic in the past, and I believe there was general agreement on the topic. TSO1D 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The same oppinion as TSO1D:Dc76 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * Mark Street, if you agree to something, please be consistent with yourself, and don't use any longer "TD". Please. One can not die from typing 12 letters.:Dc76 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not used in main space, but TD and MD are accepted even in diplomatic email Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * The question above was: Can we agree on the most common English-language name of the region being "Transnistria", and all use that consistently as the normal name IN ARTICLE AND DISCUSSIONS? You answered above: Agreed. So, why did you say Yes, and then you do just the opposite? I am forced to tell a joke :Dc76 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (as I promissed I move the joke in section 41)::Dc76 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it makes perfect sense and will be cleareer to readers who, by the way, this article is for. I also agree that MuS should stop using TD, or say that he/she disagrees with this question.--Jonathanpops 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dc76 is now using PMR, pots and kettles ? Mark us street Nov 13th
 * Agree. This name was used for long time in the article, we should not make changes.--MariusM 15:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am 100% on the side of MariusM here. Let us focus on the big issues, so we can get the article out of its currently protected state. Let us solve what really matters. The name issue was dealt with back in April, and it hasn't really been a source of dispute since then. - Mauco 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública (PMR) is official and should also be prominent in the article?

 * The other official title would be Transnistrian Autonomous Moldovan Region, however this article mainly discusses the unrecognized administration of Transnistria, rather than it's de jure status, and in that case PMR is the only correct version as that is what PMR documents stipulate. TSO1D 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see this already at the very begining of the article, on the right side, beneath flag and coat of arms. And I see it again in the Names section. So, I don't understand the question. Can someone explain this question, what exactly and where do you want to change? I don't say neither yes, nor no, I don't understand the question, and so perhaps will other users.:Dc76 01:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The offical title is as you have it, often shortened to PMR. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006
 * Already in the article is stated "Pridnestrovie" as a second name, nothing against to mention also PMR as abreviation.--MariusM 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What other names deserve a mention early on, either in the lead or in the naming discussion?
Pridnestrovie?

Transdniester?

We could briefly state that those other terms are used alongside Transnistria and PMR, but for the sake of consistency, they should not be used anywhere but in the names section. TSO1D 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with TSO1D. Additonally suggest that the begining instead of simply Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is... should be Transnistria (officially in Russian: Pridnestrovie) is...:Dc76 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the PMR claims that Pridnestrovie is also the official name in English. However, I don't really see why it's necessary to have this shorthand in the introduction, if the full offitial name is later used in other sections. Personally I would favor removing the word Pridnestrovie entirely from the intro, but I don't really have a problem with the way it is now. TSO1D i03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm probably not very qualified to answer this, but personally I've only ever seen the word Pridnestrovie on the internet. But on the rare occasaions I've seen the place mentioned on TV documentaries, including that BBC one (HOLIDAYS IN THE DANGER ZONE: PLACES THAT DON'T EXIST with Simon Reeve), it's always called Transnistria. Actually in my local TV listings it was spelled it Transdnistria, but I'm sure the people on TV were actually saying Transnistria - including all the people being interviewed. Having said that when he was interviewed after his visit the BBC spell it differently again -


 * SR: There were a few times when filming became dangerous. The countries we were in are inherently lawless by their very nature. They exist in a vacuum of their own. There is no British embassy you can turn to. You take somewhere like Trans-Dniester, which is quite clearly functioning as a country, but the international community does not operate there and there's no one to turn to if you get into trouble. So you are entirely dependent and at the mercy of the local government and the local security people or secret police. You do have to be responsible and careful. If someone points a gun at you, you point your camera the other way, and if they tell you to stop filming, then you have to make a judgement on whether you are going to get into a lot of trouble if you do carry on.


 * So I guess no one is really sure. For me Transnistria makes the most sense as it's the most well-known.--Jonathanpops 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. They say Pridnestrovie is the Russian word, but all the Russian websites I've seen seem to call it Transdniestria, at least in the English version they do. --Jonathanpops 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This section has been laboured over more than most and it has been agreed that Transnistria is the most common name, however in oder to keep sensitivity we have argeed to keep its offical name there as well. Mark us street Nov 10th 2006


 * Leave the whole thing the way it is, for now. TSO1D and myself, with some input from others, worked on this earlier. We reached a stable version that everyone seemed to be happy with. There has been no flames or revert wars on the naming issue since then. We have plenty of other disputes to deal with and there is no need to handle another one. in this round. - Mauco 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay Mark us street Nov 10 2006


 * Am I right about this?: The full name in Russian of the entity is Pridnestróvskaia Moldávskaia Respública, abreviated Pridnestrovie, or PMR. Sometimes, when writting in English, Russian media uses also (mostly, only?) Transdniestria. Obviously, these names are also translated in Ukrainian, Romanian, and English: Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. It is PMR in Russian and Ukrainian, RMN in Romanian, and TMR in English. That's about Transnistrian sourses and authorities. Moldovan sourses and government use the name of the region, Transnistria, or they use Stînga Nistrului, or raioanele din stînga Nistrului, or auto-proclamata Republicǎ Moldoveneascǎ Nistreanǎ, which, when they write in English, are also translated into English: Left-bank of Dniester, districts from the left bank of the Dniester, respectively the self-proclamed Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. So which of these do you want to include in the Names section?
 * I agree with TSO1D's suggestion to remove the word Pridnestrovie from the intro altogether, and move it to the Names section. The reason is that Pridnestrovie is (1) the short form, and (2) is the form in Russian, only one of the three official languages of the entity. Logically it will be to put everything in paranthesis: all short and long forms, in all three languages, but then what is left for the Names section, only one sentence?
 * (My hope is to deal now with ALL the existing or potential disputes, and obviously without slammer and hummer anyone. We "hummer and slammer" each sentence. I hope we don't need to start a second round of discussions just after we finish this.):Dc76 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We have already labored extensively over why we should use Transnistria, but at the same time include Pridnestrovie very prominently. Only those two, nothing else. Why Pridnestrovie and not any of the others? Because it is the only official shortform name, as per PMR's own naming decree. See it here. No need to guess or reinvent the wheel, it is just a matter of knowing the sources. - Mauco 23:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Smirnov's decree says how the Russian name should be used by the PMR authorities when writting with the latin alphabet. So you agree with this: Transnistria (Russian short official: Pridnestrovie) is... ?:Dc76 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Colleague Dc76 you were pretty sharp with me for using the shortened version of Transnistria (TD), While here you use a similar version 'PMR'. However, I'm not one to pick at things. Are we to agree that PMR is Okay but TD is not. I'm fine with that Mark us street Nov 13


 * I was just citing Smirnov's decree here. He obviously does not use "Transnistria", but "PMR" there. If I would have used Transnistria, someone would have legitimately pointed out that I would have missquoted Smirnov. I appologize, I should have used quotation marks and write the exact text.:Dc76 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think was can all be agreed that PMR can (and probably should) be used to abbreviate anything that is "official" Transnistria including what territory it encompasses. For example, use PMR for the authorities and authority-related activities ("the 2007 PMR referendum..."), Transnistria for the rest ("Transnistria's northern inhabitants...). Other abbreviations I think would be confusing. Is it worth having a cross-language reference key somewhere? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes a whole lot of sense. I fully agree. With regards to the cross-language key, try not to translate too much, since we have a separate article (and quite long one) that deals just with the names. - Mauco 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Other issues about the usage of names
Place your yes/no/comments, pointwise, please

1. The article should use the official country name for the localities, i.e. Tighina, not Bender, and Dubăsari, not Dubossary.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been gathering reference which, unfortunately, uses the common Westernized names. On principle, I have no issue, but we would need to have a table somewhere which does the cross-reference. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought that it's a standard wikipedia practice to list the name of a place in the official language, and in paranthezis - in other languages. But your observation makes perfect sense. One solution: the last section of the article lists the "districts", we can expand it to contain all localities, and in paranthesis to write Russian and other names as well. I can provide a list of localities (need to scroll to the bottom). Additionally, in some places through the text, in order to avoid confusion with sourses, the alternative names can be listed in paranthesis directly in the text. But my point is not to write Dubossary, and then one paragraph below Dubǎsari.
 * There are cases when the Russian name is transliterated into English in two different ways, so we'll have to list all, at least most frecvent variations.:Dc76 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Whenever more than 4 localities are listed, either use a geographic north-south order, or an alphabetical one. If not, some read will eventually look at the map, and it will be headacke for him.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This will always be problematic, there's also trying to name them in the order they most appear to be in on the map. And if something happened in 5 places in a specific order, then the places should be named in the order of occurence, not location. Well intended, but I don't think it will help resolve any confusion. Better might simply be a cross reference of place names to eliminate confusion. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. And yes to the order of occurance. Ok, we'll do it case by case. There is one such problem now in the article, when it was clear that the editor did not remember the names of all villages, and had to be completed :) but I'll fix it to be geographic in that case.

3. The offical script of the Moldovan language is Latin, and that one must be used. If Cyrillic has to be used, the form with standard script must also be provided. For one, it will ensure that the cyrillic script of Moldovan does not contain mistakes, as is often the case in wikipedia.:Dc76 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can only say that the Latvian names I've seen transliterated to Russian and then transliterated back to Latin script (by people who know Russian and English, but not Latvian) are a total mess. Just because the PMR authorities are enforcing the Soviet ways regarding the Moldovan language does not mean that should be the accepted standard here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the case with Dubossary, etc. Those names actually have meaning in Romanian, while in Russian it is most often only a collection of letters.
 * Specifically, my point here was, if we write something with cyrillic, we also write it with the official (latin) script. A simple way to avoid this - not write with cyrillic at all, unless necessary. This article is not about editors showing they can write with cyrillic.:Dc76 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Jmabel's list: characterizations of Transnistria
This discussion is about: ''Which of the following characterizations of Transnistria are to be mentioned (and whom can each be cited to):
 * ''Region of Moldova
 * ''Unrecognized country
 * Other?

Discussion on Jmabel's list: factors in the founding of Transnistria
This discussion is about: ''Degree to which we mention as factors in the founding of Transnistria:
 * ''Communist power-players
 * ''Pro-Moscow but non-communist or anti-communist players
 * ''Communist nostalgists in the general populace
 * People (presumably Slavs) who feared Moldovan nationalism ?

Proposition: In the previous discussion, Mauco suggested that this sentance looks rediculous in formulation, and must be changed. I suggested to reformulate the same thing in normal language. Mauco did not say yet neither yes, nor no. So, the proposition is, to replace The PMR remained under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of Russia, and in any event it survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support that Russia gave it. by Russia gave and gives PMR political, economic, financial, and military support, without which PMR leadership would not have survived. This is in the section Political Status.:Dc76 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we know for a fact that without Russian help, PMR leadership wouldn't have survived? Please explain. There are many (including PMR leadership) who are eager to point out that they are able to survive on their own and don't need anyone else. Are they right? We don't know. But to say that they wouldn't have survived without Russian support is also a bit in the "don't know" category, and certainly in the "not proven" category... - Mauco 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean PMR leadership, not Transnistria. I doubt anyone here believes that Transnistria would not have obtained a large degree of autonomy anyway.:Dc76 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) People like Alexander Radchenko would have definitevely survived, and they, not Smirnov and Co would be now the leaders of the region.:Dc76 03:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Attempts for autonomy were made by Russian-speaking population also in other Soviet Republics. For example in Narva in Estonia, where 93,85% of population are Russian-speakers and 86,41% are ethnic Russian, the city being near the Russian border (easy to be included in Russia). It didn't succeed. We can not make assumptions about what would happen in Transnistria without the involvement of Russian citizens, we can only remark the role those person had in Transnistrian separatism.--MariusM 08:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Regarding the proposed sentence above, it sounds to me like analysis that wikipedia editors are not qualified to provide. Instead of saying that the PMR "survived by virtue of the military, economic, financial and political support that Russia gave it," pick indicators and present data. What financial and economic support has been rendered? Loans? Subsidized energy? Investment? At this point, that section of the article is weak, vague, and not sourced. Unless you can cite someone who has done the work and supports that analysis, data is more convincing. jamason 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hammer and slammer your pal here. :) Don't add it in the point by point discussion.
''Please, continue the general discussion here, but include in the previous 7 sections only very precise suggestions/observations. General non-sense stuff goes here:''

Here is a joke:
 * (in Romania, during communist times) Comrade Lenin said this, comrade Stalin said that, comrade Marx said this!
 * All right, we see that you know them. But do you have your own oppionion?
 * Yes, I do, but I don't agree with it! :-) :Dc76 03:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag
I'm not sure the one with the hammer and sickle really is the official state flag. This page makes no mention of it. In addition, this image of parliament in session (where the official state flag would have to be displayed) does not show it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Officaly it is, but it is seldom seen even in governmental offices these days, it could be removed in the near future as TD tries to take a place as a nation of the world. Mark us street Nov 10th


 * Well, do you know if the dimensions are right, then? Pridnestrovie.net says 2:3, but the version displayed here is 1:2.  The website the official description is supposed to be on, according to the flag article:, doesn't work. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Official source: The current flag law specifies 1:2, but at the same time permits other dimensions. It also allows for the flag to be displayed without hammer and sickle, which is the most common version in current use. - Mauco 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, User:Osgoodelawyer. The hammer and sickle are part of the coat of arms of Pridnestrovie, which may, or may not, be put on the flag, according to the "laws of Pridnestrovie". Still, as you can see here the coat of arms does contain the hammer and the sickle. Dpotop 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What the PMR law says regarding the flag is that it is permissible to reproduce the flag in different size ratios, including simplified formats, which can include omitting the hammer and sickle--that is, for commercial or non-commercial use. For example, an enterprise can use elements of the flag in its logo, materials, or web site in simplified format and still be in conformance with the law.
 * I say "commercial and non-commercial" use because Article 4 states it is illegal for any official institution to use any simplified form. To state that the hammer and sickle are optional completely misrepresents the intent and applicability of the law.
 * There is only one official version of the PMR flag, and it must contain the hammer and sickle. Let's not postulate there's some equally valid kinder and gentler, warmer and fuzzier non-Sovyetskaya-hammer-and-sickle version.
 * That the pridnestrovie.net site and parliament picture do not show the hammer and sickle on the official flag is in clear violation of the law. It's just plain sloppy [propaganda] that they haven't gotten around to changing the law in an attempt to de-Sovietize their image. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I told that the new trend in PMR propaganda is to present itself as "anticommunist". Is exactly the trend followed by Mauco and Mark us Street (see his previous comments about "fear of communism"). This kind of propaganda is targeted to westerners.--MariusM 21:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Censorship at Tiraspol Times
One of the founding fathers of Transnistria, Vasily Yakovlev, published a letter against Smirnov. I saw this letter published in Tiraspol Times and in Puls.md. I see some differences between the two variants of the letter: in puls.md variant of the letter there are 7 parts, while in Tiraspol Times there are only 4 parts. In puls.md Yakovlev is reffering to UNACKNOWLEDGED Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, while in Tiraspol Times variant the word unaknowledged dissappeared. In puls.md Yakovlev is criticising the referendum: "The declared purpose of referendum - accession to Russia - is neither politically nor is legally founded". You can not find this sentence in Tiraspol Times. Missing from Tiraspol Times are also sentences like: "I accuse I.Smirnov and his political regime for transforming Transnistria into a political-psychological testing-polygon for zombie-influence on the population. For more than 10 years, precisely you gentlemen with the aid of your means of mass disinformation tie to Transnistrians the feeling of antipathy and hostility to the working people of Moldova, who are united with us". Everybody can enjoy comparing the 2 variants of Yakovlev's letter. The author is one of the founders and ideologists of the Transnistrian regime. He is the author of the first constitution of secessionist Transnistria (1991), creator and first rector of Transnistrian state university, former legislator in the Transnistrian supreme soviet. In 1995 I.Smirnov displaced him from the position of rector and he started to be in the opposition to the regional authority. Now is living in Russia. His letter has some parts which describes well the actual situation of PMR, is interesting to read, keeping in mind that the author is one of the criminals responsible for the situation he describes. We should have a part in the article about desilusions which some of the founders of PMR feel about the outcome of their actions, with refference at Yakovlev's letter (the uncensored puls.md variant). Tiraspol Times is using this letter to highlight the "anticommunist" politics of PMR (old guard - communists, are criticising Smirnov, that mean Smirnov is anticommunist).--MariusM 09:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pure nonsense mixed with malice. There is a difference between editing and censorship, but you amaze me how you read into things and form your own ideas. Mark us street Nov 13


 * No, MariusM is right, I checked it. I don't know who edited the letter, Tiraspol Times or puls.md, but all reference to the referendum disappears in the Tiraspol Times. Dpotop 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So instead of being happy that a headline like "Down with Smirnov and his ruling regime" appears in the press of Transnistria, the Romanian users here are agreeing with themselves that something is wrong and that there is (gulp!) CENSORSHIP in Transnistria. Sorry, guys: It is normal for all publications, everywhere the world, to shorten letters to the editor and even to edit them. If you don't believe me, try to send a letter to the The Economist, The Washington Post or to Time and see what happens... - Mauco 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the "anti-Smirnov" articles on the Tiraspol Times website after someone mentioned them the other day. I found that a lot of them are fairly cleverly worded so that the title seems to be anti-governemt but when you read through the whole thing they're not as biting as you might imagine they would be. I guess it could be that they take out some of the 'sting' from their articles because of where they are situated, like they don't want to tread on too many toes. I haven't looked at puls.md too much, but what I have seen is no better and sometimes a lot worse, that is they seem to be adding articles full of venom for the sake of doing so. Also remember the title of our discussion higher up the page; [Tiraspol Times = Not ONLY propaganda], the Freudian slip 'ONLY' suggesting there is 'SOME' propaganda was later edited out by someone? Still, one has to expect a ceretain degree of this kind of behaviour from both sides considering the situation. It's why most prefer to use the BBC, or similar, for sourcing information I guess. Jonathanpops 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That was me, I added "ONLY":, and I have commented the change, albeit shortly, in the Edit Summary. The objection that followed was a suggestion to erase "Not" :-) :Dc76 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The BBC is fine but it's not in Tiraspol. Regardless, we are supposed to be dealing with issues for the main page and Tiraspol Times articles are not on the list of areas in our remit.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006.


 * Yeah, right! :) Let me take an analogy: A thief (TiraspolTimes) knows better the houses where he commited theft (Tiraspol). However, the thief should not be believed, because he would probably lie when asked about the subject. Dpotop 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Such words are not the way forward for us all. Civility should be shown by all sides here. You are entitled to your own views but I ask you to be graceful in your comments Mark us street Nov 13th


 * I agree with Jonathan that puls.md include also some propaganda, I think they are a pro-communist site (pro-Communist Party of Moldovan president Vladimir Voronin). You can see that they defined the Romanian variant of their site as "Moldavian", thing that few Moldovan sites are doing on the internet (usually only government founded sites). However, in this particular case we are discussing only about Yakovlev's letter - is the opinion of this particular person, a very important person for the begining of Transnistrian separatism. Mark us street already told that Tiraspol Times version of the letter was "edited". No reason to believe that in puls.md version was written something which was not written by Yakovlev himself (else, I guess Yakovlev will protest). We can agree or disagree with Yakovlev (I don't like him and I told I consider him a criminal), however the accurate version of his letter is in puls.md. Differences between the 2 versions shows the limit of freedom that Tiraspol Times enjoys - they are allowed to publish critics against Smirnov (I would say, they are even encouraged to do this, is part of the PR campaign "we have true democracy in Transnistria" - anyhow critics are harmless as long as TT is targeted for foreigners, not for transnistrians), but they are not allowed to question the existence of PMR and the goal of Russian expansionism of anexing this region (this is why they took out exactly those parts of Yakovlev's letter where he talk about unity with working people of Moldova and about illegality of referendum question about joining Russia).--MariusM 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can say that the Transnistrian Government allows complete press freedom to all publications. This is something all journalists here agree on. More  proof of this is by virtue of the fact the government allows Moldovan newspapers to be sold here. However, the Moldovan government has a ban on the sale of Transnistrian newspapers in Moldova.  So Transnistrians make informed opinions and have both sides of the story. Sadly the people in Moldova are unable to read the Transnistrian newspapers..The reason why the Moldovan people cannot be allowed or trusted to read newspapers  from both sides of the divide,   It is because people in Transnistria enjoy a higher standard of living, pensioners get paid more, it's because of the happy colourful festivals, it's because of the sense of pride and independence that young reporters fill the columns with, it's because the Transnistrian love there homeland in a way few people do, its beacuse Tiraspol has energy that shines in sporting areas such as  the best football team and stadium, it's because of the modern open style of government, it's because young reporters  fill the pages of the newspapers with a sense of pride on every page that cannot be disgused or faked, it's because they know that if the vast majority of Moldovans knew that 97% of Transnistrians voted for independence they may have to drop the territorial claim. Or perhaps they don't want the Moldovan people to read how the customs blockade hurts the Transnistrian hearts more than their pockets.or how it failed and only served the transnistrians to look even more to Russia and not Moldova. Perhaps its because the Transnistrians are truly happy, proud, and cheerful in difficult times and such sentiment is evident in the words the journalists use. Marius talks about press freedom and censorship and it is really  a shame that he has no idea of the truth here. . I can tell you journalists in Tiraspol are free to write. Our press is pro-democracy and pro-independence that are openminded free and truly liberated. Marius can write all he likes here to blacken the Transnistrian press, media and the Transnistrian people and their struggle for freedom. We can fill these pages forever but you and I cannot change the will of a people and their determination never to be part of Moldova. What part of 97% of Transnistrians voted for independence can you not accept.? . What's printed on the main page is propaganda based nonsense and does not reflect what life is like in Tiraspol or Transnistria. it's sad to read it, all the nonsence about 'terrorism' amd 'weapons' and 'crime'. The past is the past but it is time to face reality and move on to the future and I hope for all Moldovans it will be a future where they are allowed the Freedom to read whatever newspaper they choose, a freedom we currently enjoy and cherish in Transnistria. This is a wakeup call. In the words. of Hemingway ' For Whom the Bell Tolls'.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006

MariusM is at it again. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is a "criminal." Listen, MariusM, it may come as a surprise to you, but ALL newspapers (including Tiraspol Times, I would assume) reserve the right to edit and shorten letters which are sent to them for publishing, as part of their Opinion pages or Letters to The Editor section. You can keep blackening Tiraspol Times, and by implication also blacken Transnistria, but why don't you post the same kind of criticism against New York Times and, by implication, against the USA? It is the same policy all over the world, for reasons of readability... - Mauco 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again straw man argument, mr. Mauco. We had many disagreements here, but I never accused you as being a "criminal". Factual accuracy is important to me. Read carefully my writings. What do you think about my proposal of including in the article a paragraph with desilusions that some of the firsts leaders of Transnistria feel regarding the outcome of their actions?--MariusM 22:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The man wanted independence. You don't agree with him, and you think that Transnistria should belong to Moldova. So he is a criminal. Your words. Read them. Above. - Mauco 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You told that I labeled as criminal "anyone" who doesn't agree with me. I just gave you example of a person with whom I have disagreements but I never labeled as criminal: you. Regarding Yakovlev, he is one of the responsible for 1992 war, where almost 1000 people died, the "criminal" label is accurate. Now he changed his mind, he want Smirnov and Mărăcuţă to go to jail (read his letter), he talk about the poverty and lack of oportunities for Transnistrian people brought by Smirnov's regime (and he is not blaming Moldova for those issues, is blaming Tiraspol's government). He talk also about unity with the working people in Moldova and about desinformation carried by transnistrian regime in a kind of language I saw only at EvilAlex (I always appreciated EvilAlex's in-depth knowledge about Transnistria). While most of the facts from Yakovlev letter are true, I just wanted to remind his past. I am glad you didn't object about a paragraph regarding desilusions of some first leaders.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it will be nice to include parts of Yakovlev's letter. I suggest to give in the main article links to both versions, so a reader can compare them, and decide for himself if it's cesure or not. I also suggest to include something about the way Transnistirian press talks. If we could only include Mark us street's last comments, they would speak for themselves. A better example than self-censorship one can not even imagine. That kind of speech ... how long I have not heard it ... Mark us Street, you are a living history! :Dc76 02:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you: Have you even read Yakovlev's letter? He is a communist who is slamming Smirnov for being too open, too Western, too capitalist, and for not being committed to the old Soviet ideals. At the same time, we have users here who compare Transnistria to North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, a communist state where people live in fear of blacklisting and can not vote freely. So, guys, which is it? Is Transnistria too Western and too capitalist, which is what Yakovlev says? Or an authoritarian communist dictatorship? Make up your mind. - Mauco 07:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the letter. Transnistria is an authoritarian capitalist dictatorship, this is what I think. I told you one month ago that new trend of PMR propaganda is "anticommunism" (considering that the rulling party in Moldova is communist). Tiraspol Times and you, Mauco, follow this line. However, authoritarism is not Western. I don't understand your position: do you consider that because Yakovlev is a communist we should not mention him? I believe he is worth to mention, not because he is communist but because he had an important role in the founding of PMR.--MariusM 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and mention Yakovlev if he is notable. It only shows that there is free debate in Transnistria, and room for criticism. It also shows that the ones who are angry are the communists. This is a nice contrast. For years, we have heard about how Transnistria is the last holdout of communism, how it is a Soviet theme park, and all that. Turns out, after all, it wasn't and that the angry ones are the communists. They want to turn back the clock. - Mauco 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do mention Yakovlev, he is indeed one of the founders of Transnistrian regime. What that shows, let the reader himself to decide. Any yes, I did read both versions of Yakovlev's letter - otherwise I wouldn't have replied about it. Despite his past deeds, despite his extreme idiology, dispite the fact that he was criminally indicted (sorry, not true, my mistake), he has the right to freedom of speech. One can forbid a criminal to vote, to move freely, other privileges, but noone can deny a criminal the right to live, to eat, to slip, to speak, to wear cloths, etc. We can not strip from all sourses all citations from Hitler just because that was Hitler. On the contrary, a citation from Hitler in an article about Germany in 1933-1945 is appropriate. So is about Yakovlev and Transnistria. :Dc76 16:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Criminally indicted? Mind if I ask when and by whom? jamason 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I appologize, it is my mistake. It is Gennadii Yakovlev, not Vasillii Iakovlev. Sorry. :Dc76 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that everybody agree to mention Yakovlev letter in the article, I will do it as soon as the article is unblocked. Regarding Mauco's comment about free debate in Transnistria, I would say Yakovlev letter don't prove this. AFAIK, the uncensored variant was published only in Moldovan press, the censored (excuse me, "edited") variant was published only online by TT, which is targeted for foreigners, not for transnistrians. I wonder if transnistrian newspapers available in Transnistria or transnistrian TVs and radios published Yakovlev's letter (and if yes, was it the full or "edited" variant?). Yakovlev is living in Russia, the fact he is daring to criticise Smirnov is not a proof of Transnistrian democracy. (criticism is allowed as long as you are 1000 miles distance from Transnistria). MarkStreet, instead of looking for subjects for his online newspaper on the internet, better will go to Mikhailovka village about which Yakovlev is speaking and check if the facts are true. Maybe Yakovlev is a liar, but we will not have the chance to know as there are no real journalists in Transnistria.--MariusM 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

New gosships about the will of Transnistrians
Marius why don't you write an artical on democracy and the fact that 97% of Transnistrians are calling for their freedom and independence.Mark us street Nov 13th 2006
 * You are paid for this kind of job, not me. I saw elections in Romania with 99% votes going to Communist Party, but those results have nothing to do with reality. After you finish with Transnistria, go to North Koreea, people are starving but are verry happy there, and if you ask them they will tell you they have a true democracy, 100% vote for Communist party (don't know if is called Communist or Worker's Party).--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard enough about people being "told" to go vote and how. I'm sorry, the same cadre is still in power. And what about all those political parties that mushroomed right before there were elections? It would seem someone was in a hurry to construct a facsimile of democracy. Far more likely is an analysis that there are lot of orchestrated trappings of seemingly good things, but it's still all the same underneath. — Pēters J. Vecrumba  active   talk   03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria was never part of Moldova in the past. Moldova was forced into the Soviet system by Stalin, and the secret pact with Hitler, in the MSSR with Transnistria. Moldova did not want that. As soon as they could, they denounced the pact. This was the only time in history when they were together in anything even resembling a state entity (and MSSR was not a sovereign country). The "marriage" was broken by Moldova. Read Moldova's own declaration of independence, if you are in doubt. Needless to say, Transnistria did not want this marriage either. They were never part of Moldova in the past, so why would they want to be part of Moldova in the future? It simply does not make sense. - Mauco 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is that now that Transnistria was/is there, and was most of Moldova's industry (now being lucratively privatized), and was still inhabited, majority-wise, by Romanians as it had been for the past hundreds of years, I can argue equally persuasively that it makes perfectly good sense for the marriage initially borne of untoward circumstances to continue. — Pēters J. Vecrumba  active   talk   03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are showing your true colors with these misleading statements, Vecrumba. A majority is more than 50%. Please tell us when, in any time in history, Transnistria EVER had more than fifty percent Romanians or Moldovans? You may go back a hundred years, or five hundred, or even a thousand. You won't find it. But please try, and then back it with sources. Otherwise, do not use the word "majority" like that. - Mauco 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Transnistria as defined by the territory of the current PMR almost exactly parallels the Trans-Dniestran (i.e., left bank) boundary of ethnic Romanian settlement into the 20th century, per the Magocsi reference I have cited elsewhere.
 * I've done some digging to find a good (i.e., academic, not popular, reference) atlas which we might consider unbiased to see what it says, so hopefully some more information there in a week or so.
 * To User:Jamason, if not only spending my time but also hard earned money on debating Mauco is not a sign of respect, frankly, I don't know what is. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do. We often see people who engage in endless pissing matches on Usenet and various Listservs who spend an enormous of time simply because they crave to get the last word, always. It is not really about respect for whoever they debate (as can be seen from their posts), it has more to do with how their view their egos. I will leave it at that, so as to not let this post become too personal. - Mauco 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We need some Soviet statistics from early 20's. In entire Moldavian ASSR (14 rayons) were 32% Moldovans but in actual Transnistria (6 out of 14 rayons) Moldovans were in majority. Even today Moldovans are in majority in the villages, only in cities where population increase with newcommers from outside the region Slavs are in majority. Even Yakovlev, one of the founding fathers of PMR, is complaining about newcomers in his latest letter. We didn't forget your attempts, Mauco, to include plain falacies in WIkipedia claiming that the majority of leadership is composed by natives.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

People are NOT told to vote, people want to vote as is shown by the massive percentage turnouts, there is no argument left unless one is willing to ignore the fact that 97% of people do not agree with Marius et-al. and it's a secret ballot. Can anyone else argue 97% vote off the page Mark us street 14 Nov 2006.


 * Entire civilized world, except Russia and some pro-russian forces in Ukraine, told that referendum results were not trustfull.We should not start this discussion again.--MariusM 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How dare you ?...... Where exactly is the place you call the 'civilized world'?  Your suggestion that  Transnistria and the Transnistrian people are not civilised is pure racism, it is vile and  disgusting !!!!. What century are we living in here?  So the reason you refuse to accept the 97% vote for independence is because you consider Transnistria and its citizens not part of your 'civilised world'.  Mark us street Nov 13th 2006


 * Oh please put the hackles away, you well know MariusM isn't a linguistic expert in English. Marius means that the PMR regime, which has staged shootings and blamed them on Moldovans, which has been installed by Russia and which consists of Russians at its head, is not civilized. Nor is Russia, as the installer of said regime, as the new energy thug of Europe, etc.... I can despise the Soviet Union, I can completely mistrust the Russian government, but I can love playing Scriabin and Rachmaninoff and discussing art and photography with Russian friends. It's very clear from MariusM's comment he means the governments, not their people, for whom I'm sure he feels only compassion. You're just using this as an excuse to call MariusM vermin. Oh, that's really objective, journalistic, penetratingly thoughtful behavior. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there goes a neutral party to the conflict and a possible mediator randomly invited by one of the participants... Sigh. Still, which shootings are you referring to? --Illythr 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, sources, please. And while we are add it: Someone else also asked Vecrumba for sources about Russian weapons being smuggled through Transnistria. Give us the facts here, Vecrumba. Where are they? A lot of this is stunning news to many of us, especially since Transnistria is not located on any known smuggling routes and since going through Transnistria will only make it more costly and more risky for smugglers as compared to a straight Odessa run, or to any number of other possible routes in Southeastern Europe (these are not my conclusions, by the way. They are from Saferworld, the London-based NGO funded by the British government). - Mauco 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The 97% vote sounds almost too good to be true, Mark, and it is a very "Sovietsque" number. Here is why I believe that it is true, however: No one else has credibly been able to demonstrate fraud of any kind, and the observers all say the opposite. The closest believable accusation of any misdeed which I saw was in fact in Tiraspol Times, no less. I did note that your publication had a fair and balanced article on the run-up and that you accused both sides of being disruptive and failing to hold themselves to high democratic standards. Here is the article which I am referring to: "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" - Mauco 12:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The independent international referendum monitors were very professional and oversaw the entire voting system and afterwards there was a press conference and over 150 international observers signed a declaration to state the referendum was genuine and the international media present were in broad agreement. Now the arguement being used  to wash away democracy is that the Transnistrians are NOT civilized. Mark us street November 14th


 * We've already had the Viktors Alksnis as observer conversation. There's no point in quoting numbers without credentials. Is there a list of these observers and what organizations/groups/governments/elected-appointed positions they are? Let's review them and list them in the referendum article. Then the reader can decide whom to discount, to not discount, or where to follow up further. You keep stating you only want to state the facts, but you keep stating what the conclusion is of the facts without offering the opportunity for the reader to decide. "150 observers signed a statement saying XYZ"; "The list of observers consisted of: XYZ of the Russian Duma, etc. etc." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "150 observers signed a statement saying XYZ"; "The list of observers consisted of: XYZ of the Russian Duma, etc. etc." I support that kind of formulation. It is clear for an outside reader that someone wanted the referendum to be considered legitimate, and someone whated it to be considered illegitimate. Why don't we allow the reader to know who wanted what. Let himself interpret that, let's not judge the reader stupid, and make conclusions for him. :Dc76 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the "PMR authorities reported...97%...", that is fact. But to state without such a disclaimer is to impart a veracity to the results which most countries have decided (and we're not going to debate the validity of their reasoning here) not to bestow upon them.


 * If we can get statements to reference this fine but the entire issue here is the denial of democracy.Mark us street Nov 14th 2006


 * I can equally argue with equally righteous indignation that if you don't provide references on the observers, then the entire issue is denial of an orchestrated sham. If we have the references, then readers can simply judge for themselves without our indignations competing for their attention. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not going to settle in a talk page issues which countries don't agree on. So, if you want to put out that 97% voted XYZ, it's the PMR authorities reported that.... If you want to put in 150 observers issued a statement the referendum was squeeky clean, publish the statement and list the issuers and their affiliations.
 * The PMR regime is still Russian (i.e., citizens of Russia)... so a ways to go to "democracy." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to use more neutral words here, please? The word "regime" shows your bias. You can just as well use government. You also do not gain anything from putting the word democracy in scare quotes. I have lived in the United States and there are many there who feel that it is not the world's greatest democracy when there are only two real parties to choose from. One former neighbor of mine even told me that it was almost like living in a one party state, since they agree on 90% of the major foreign policy issues anyway. Democracy is in the eye of the beholder. Peters Vecrumba is entitled to his own opinion of Russian democracy, or lack thereof. But he has never been to Transnistria, and I think that he should go one day, or at least talk to someone who lives there to find out what ordinary people really think. Better still, talk to some of the Soros-funded opposition NGOs. Or talk to some of the foreigners who have taken up residence within the last couple of years. There are even several Americans who live there fulltime now. Some of them own property in Tiraspol and Bender. - 07:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when "regime" is not a neutral word? But "government" means a legalized regime, which Transnistria's is not. The biggest problem of Transnistrian self-proclaimed authorities is that they do not wish to negociate an autonomy status with the central government. They are affraid (and have 100% reason to be so) that, if the regime would be legalized, then it will consist of completely new individuals.:Dc76 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "People are not told to vote, they want to vote, just look at the turnout." Again, ABC does not imply XYZ. A high turnout has nothing to do with the wants of the people. Fear is an equally good motivator--and we only have to look to the history of "high voter turnout" in the Soviet Union (Mauco's "Sovietsque" being entirely appropriate). Hmm... Vote? or the Gulags? or losing one's job and being blacklisted and having your family starve? My answer would be, and how exactly would you like me to vote?
 * Provide sources. Fear? Starving families? Blacklisted? I don't think you have been to Transnistria or that you even know anyone who currently lives in Transnistria. - Mauco 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot railroad a 97% vote through anywhere. The point of the high turnout showed that the people really wanted to vote for independence,people danced and hugged each other when the result was announced, there was a real carnival athmosphere. It is The 97% percentage figure that pro communist and anti democract bigade refuse to accept they claom the Transnistrians are not part of the 'civilized world' and the 'civilizef world' does not recognise the transnistrian people's right to democracy.Mark us street Nov 14th 2006
 * If we're going to state facts, let's stick to who said what. Please leave blanket interpretations of the will of the people for the reader. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. So, Vecrumba, the next time you post something here, throw in some sources. Not just your own interpretation. In this case, I am familiar with the coverage of the referendum and Mark Street is right. I base this on reports in the English language mass media, including the Associated Press, UPI and Reuters who were all there. - Mauco 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that 97% of the people voted for Transnistrian independence in a recent referendum that was overseen

independently by over 150 representatives from the international community. Can people not get their minds focused on this please? 97% of the people in the democratic republic of Transnistria do not want to be a part of their neighbouring country Moldova that has a dubious claim on their land. Can people here not realise they are representing an unwanted and undemocratic view that is causing misery.. Its like suggesting that America should be ruled by Mexico becuase 3% of Americans might vote for that. It a nonsense. The sooner people here get their heada around the fact that 97% of Transnistrians do not want a union with Moldova the sooner we all can move on and live in peace. Marius phase about Transnistria not being in the civilised world ranks as the worst statement I have read in years. The only organisation that cast doubt on the manner in whuch elections are organised and did not dispute the result was the OSCE, a pro Moldovan organisation that didn't send an observation team despite been asked and invited to do so. The real reason they didn't send a team of monitors was because they would have been obliged to recognise the result. It was much easier to ignore the vote but then issue a statement saying that they don't recognise it at a later date. Mark us street Nov 13th
 * Mark us street, I am kindly asking you to stop using this kind of falacies here. OSCE is not a pro-moldovan organisation. We should corect our "external links" list, where the site conflict.md (sponsored by OSCE) is wrongly labeled pro-moldovan. OSCE is a neutral organisation, Russia is member in OSCE. They refused to monitor Transnistria's elections for same reason why they refused to monitor polls in Wikipedia: there are no conditions for a fair and democratic elections. You know to fraud a vote in WIkipedia, as you are a confirmed sockpuppeter (under your previous name MarkStreet). In Transnistria is also easy to fraud polls: people have many IDs, is normal for a person in that region to have citizenship of many countries and to have Transnistrian passport, Moldovan passport, Russian passport, Ukrainian passport, Old Soviet passport. A person can easy vote at different polling stations with his different passports. Outside observers can't discover that and local authorities have no interest to check and punish the guilty persons. All observers in Tansnistrian referendum were from pro-Russian organisations. At begining I believed that British Helsinki Human Rights Group is kind of a neutral organisation, but discussions in this page convinced me that this group (not afiliated with International Helsinki Federation) is only an another pro-Russian group. I doubt referendum results, including the turnout.--MariusM 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is OSCE not pro-Moldovan? You bet: In this particular issue, it is. They want Transnistria and Moldova to unite, under central Chisinau control. This is what Moldova also wants. Transnistria does not want that. So in this case, they are indeed taking the Moldovan side. I would urge Mark to not reply to any of the other provocative statements by MariusM. He is trolling, unfortunately,and using this page for a social debate forum. He is not discussing any specific edit to the article, or working towards making sure that the content disputes gets solved and we get the article unlocked. - Mauco 02:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I did discuss a specific edit: to move conflict.md external link from "Moldovan side" section to the neutral section. I am happy to see that nobody is against this move.--MariusM 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't pop the champagne just yet, buddy. The frozen conflict is about whether Transnistria becomes independent or becomes part of Moldova. Conflict.md takes one side in this conflict, and does so openly. Keep it where it belongs. - Mauco 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't find that side, conflict.md, biased. I would say, it's like New York Times. NYT sometimes does not say what everyone wants, or comments one side in half-mouth only, but presents all facts before even trying to interpret them. (As I said, as long as we cite facts, findings, reports, declatations, resolutions, I agree to cite even Goebbels. But I would never agree to add Goebbels' commentaries.)


 * I think that the 26 October 2006 European Parliament’s Resolution on Moldova (Transnistria) should be mentioned in the article: this resolution makes it clear the position of the EU in ragard to 1) the principles of resulution of the conflict 2) the withdawl of weapons and ammo 3) position regarding the so-called referendum 4) freedom of speech and human rights 5) custom control, and I cite:
 * ''8. Condemns the continued repression, harassment and intimidation of representatives of the independent media, NGOs and civil society by the self-proclaimed Transnistrian authorities;
 * ''9. Regrets the lack of significant progress in the EU talks on visa facilitation and a readmission agreement with Moldova; ... considers it unfair and discriminatory that Transnistrian citizens holding Russian passports are benefiting from the possibility of travelling to the EU more easily than Moldovans, which is contributing to increased tensions over the Transnistrian region and acting as a disincentive to settlement of the dispute;
 * ''10. Expresses its satisfaction with Ukraine's decision of March 2006 to impose new customs regulations on its border with Transnistria, in line with international law;
 * 11. Welcomes the good results achieved by the EUBAM on the border between Moldova and Ukraine, which was established in March 2005, and is playing an important role in fighting corruption, illegal trade and trafficking by improving transparency and building up appropriate operational and institutional capacities in Moldova to ensure effective border control, thus contributing to the eventual settlement of the Transnistrian conflict; 
 * We concentrate too much of our discussion on the conflict, and almost nothing on plans to settle it. We mention nothing about these plans, or at least principles in the article! (except one short sentence that Ukraine suggested something, unclear what, and to what result.):Dc76 17:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Conflict MD is clearly on the Moldovan side, Marias is hoping to present it as a nuetral. It is edits like this that waste time. It is time to stop playing games here. Lets do the serious stuff Mark us street Nov 16th 2006


 * See MagioZal's comment in archive 8, where he put also a map with OSCE members. Russia is also a member of OSCE. OSCE can not be considered a pro-moldovan organisation. A tiny country like Moldova can not controll OSCE. If OSCE arrived at the conclusion that in a certain aspect Moldovan government is right, is not because OSCE is controlled by Moldova, but because they independently analysed the facts and arrive at their conclusions.--MariusM 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop playing games. Conflict.md is not the OSCE. It received a grant from OSCE. That is different. The US embassy in Chisinau also sponsors groups like that. It has sponsored hundreds of groups and websites. This does not mean that they represent the embassy, any more than Conflict.md represents the official view or position of OSCE. The bias of conflict.md is obvious from their editorial decisions on what material to include and what not to include, as well as equally obvious from their use of ironic quotes and scare quotes. Trying to move this link is DOA, it will not happen. - Mauco 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Civilized World
MariusM has clearly implied that Transnistria is not part of what he calls the 'civilised world'. This is pure ethnic racism and we must insist that he withdraws this comment before we move on. It is hard enough to deal with his hatred of the democratic 97% independence vote but for him to dismiss this vote on the basis that the Transnistrian people are uncivilized is an outrage. Mark us street Nov 14th 2006
 * New plain falacies from Mark us street. I never told that Transnistria is not part of civilized world or that Transnistrian people are uncivilized. An othet falacy is that was a "democratic 97% independence vote". It was not democratic, it was not 97% and it was not for independence, but for union with Russia.--MariusM 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Civilized world is a general, widely used phrase in many contexts. There is no racism. If there is possible to interpret anyone as being "un-civilized", that will be the Transnistrian authorities and their proxies. It is not the Transnistrian people. When someone says that about Hamas, noone means the Pelestinian people, although Hamas has a much wider support among Palestinians than Smirnov et Co among Transnistrians. Moldova has proposed in 2005, and the international community (your "civilized wolrd") supported a demilitarization and democratization policy for the region. Democratization means to do local elections first, not only supervized but organized in every locality by international observers (not only CIS-groups), to have the freedom of speech and assembly monitored for a year by the international community, and then to have regional elections. If in this period Transnistria is admnistered by the international community, not by Smirnov and Co, and if the Russian troops completely retire, then the new elected Transnistrian authorities will have real weight in talks with Chisinau. Chisinau will simply be forced to give any type of autonomy they will ask. Mark us street, you forget to metion that elections and the referendum were organized in order not to allow sufficient Western preasure to mount on Russia to agree to this democratization plan. It was recuired by Moscow to have this referendum, so that it can say "Transnistrians know what they want even without democratization", and Tiraspol delivered. Before demilitarization and democratization - there will be nothing real. Just like in Germany after WWII. If a referendum was held in May 1945, you would be surprized how many Germans would vote to keep fascism and "vote" the allies out.:Dc76 03:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded above. Just an excuse for Mark Street to call MariusM vermin. It was very clear what MariusM meant, and it has nothing to do with Mark Street's rant. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A voice of reason is needed before we wander off on a wild and ultimately unproductive Hamas-comparison. Fact #1: The referendum was planned as far back as November 2005 by parliament (See yesterday's two articles in Puls.md, from Moldova). Fact #2: The 97% was in favor of independence and subsequent free association (not union) with Russia. There is nothing wrong with this. The model was taken from how associate states of the United States of America are organized. These are states which are in some ways even smaller and less sovereign that PMR today, yet they are members of the United Nations and no one questions their sovereignty despite the free association agreements with the USA. If the U.S. can do, the reasoning goes, so can Russia. Fact #3: No one from the international organizations or in Moldova was ever seriously surprised that the voters of Transnistria overwhelmingly would prefer such an arrangement over the alternative (union with Moldova). It was predicted even before the vote was held. Even by the most pro-European Moldovan politicians, such as Oleg Serebrian. - Mauco 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Will anyone care to dispute any of these facts? - Mauco 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the 'facts' are I don't see a need for this section of discussion, it's pretty obvious MariusM wasn't being racist and if he thinks Transnistria is uncivilised it's entirely his right to think so - just as it's anyone else's right to disagree with him. This is a discussion page, not the main article, and we should be allowed to say what we feel without being subjected to vociferous rants. I particularly take exception to people attempting to put words in my mouth,"we must insist that he withdraws this comment before we move on". I think it would be better if you'd said I must insist, Mister Street, not we.Jonathanpops 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Mauco wants to dispute his facts, and since Jonathanpops suggests to talk more issues than replies, only one-line observations:
 * "Fact" 1 Democratization and demilitarization were on agenda long before that.
 * "Fact" 2 What is a state which is in some ways ... less sovereign? Non-sense.
 * "Fact" 3 If a referendum would be organized legally, when democracy is established - noone will doubt nothing. To say that people would vote the same without democracy - can do anyone, and to no legal or practical avail.:Dc76 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The entire future of Transnistria lies with the acceptance of democracy. Dc76 refers to Smirnov and Co. He is clearly unaware that Smirnov and Co are in opposition in Parliment. It is tiem to accept reality. The Transnistrian leadership is chosen freely by its people. The people writing on these pages are clearly operating from a position of the past. Mark us street Nov15 th.
 * You mean to say "The entire future of Transnistria lies with the acceptance that what is now in Transnistria is democracy''? Of course not! I know that in Transnistrian "parliament" there exist "opposition parties". But does Mark Street know that in PR of China there are 8 "democaractic parties" as well? This gives a total of 4.5 times more democracy than in USA, and 3 times more democracy than in UK! :) :Dc76 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So right. But not just in the past, Mark. In some cases: A fabricated past that never was. Transnistria is certainly not Eden, but it is fair to say that some of the stereotypes which Moldova fabricated in its information war quite simply have nothing to do with reality. Is Transnistria perfect? No. Is it as bad as Moldova and the cheerleaders of Moldova would have us believe? Of course not. There is a very real opposition in Transnistria, both to Smirnov and to Moldova. Of course, Moldova will not accept that because the opposition is not "pro-Moldova". But it is an opposition nevertheless. Example: Just look at the laws which got passed in the last 3 months alone by parliament, to see an idea of how parliament is cornering Smirnov and cutting away at the cabinet's power, Salami-style (slice by slice by slice). - Mauco 13:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The same logic would go as far as to claim that the infighting within Politbureau of CP of USSR was democracy. And when Chinese Politbureau decided to shoot the demonstrators in 1989, that was supreme democracy, they cornered Zhao Ziyang completely.:Dc76 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed and such progress was not lost on Brussels, and a eurozone policy shift is happening slice by slice or drop and drop to be more accurate Mark us street Nov 15th 2006


 * Where are we going with this. I have desperately tried to reach out and work with the Moldovan interests here and to advance areas we have in common. I am finding it close to impossible to progress in a single area. As long as people refuse to accept the  principals of democracy and accept the wishes of the people we are living in different mindsets my friends. Aseach day passes I am understanding more and more the frustrations of the Transnistrian people and their chosen leadership. There can never be progress on the Moldovan side untl the Moldovan interests soften their hearts and move to the negotiation table an adopt a working position. An acknowlegement of democracy would be a major leap but an essential one.

.Mark us street Nov 15th
 * Don't confuse the frustrations of Transnistrian people (with the deadlock their leadership has pushed them into) and the frustrations of the present Transnistrian regime (with the fact that democracy is not subject to dialectical materialism). Sorry, I forgot to sign:Dc76 20:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I am sorry for your desperation (I'll refrain from skepticism), but it is both misguided and misplaced. The issue is far wider than a dialog with "pro-Moldovan" interests. It is a dialog with Russo-skeptic interests—and since Mauco has branded me a partisan, I'll identify that as my "partisanship." I do not see this as an ethnic struggle for self-determination of Ukranians and Russians from Moldovans. I see it as a naked Russian power play (and not the only such one currently) to gain economic advantage and energy advantage it can use as a lever and territorial buffer advantage against NATO expansion. Regarding the will of the people and dancing with joy in the streets, no impartial observer—and certainly no Russo-skeptic—will regard those as true expressions until such time as, minimally: When that happens, and people then dance in the streets, then I will be prepared to initiate a discussion with you about that expression being genuine. You keep talking about the parliament's "opposition" to Smirnov. As a Russo-skeptic, I will tell you that my interpretation is not popular representation in action, my interpretation is a bunch of initially hastily organized parties which all suddenly appeared right before some "elections" which are now engaged with the leadership—which has not changed since its inception—in a carefully orchestrated ballet intended to present a fully believable facsimile of representative government. We can seriously discuss the will of the people:  Then  we can seriously discuss the validity of your interpretation. I have the patience to wait for that discussion, do you? If the "Russo-skeptics" disagree with anything I've represented, please feel free to correct. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the authorities, from the top to the bottom, are replaced with Transnistrian natives, not populated by Russian citizens including OMON thugs who transplanted to Transnistria once their attempts at thwarting true democracy in the Baltics by violent and deadly means failed, and
 * Russian (and Ukranian) forces completely vacate the Transnistrian territory, that is all arms, all troops, and raze all arms depots to the ground.
 * 1) after every Russian in the PMR authorities is out (as in out, and out of the country);
 * 2) after the foreign troops are all out (as in out of the country, and their arms depots demolished)--and I don't mean Russian military retiring to become "citizens of the PMR," either;
 * 3) after it is legal for a political party to be pro-Moldovan (that currently being treason); and
 * 4) after Romanian is once again taught in its proper Latin script, not in some Cyrillic Soviet-era utter bastardization created purely to support the Stalinist fiction that Moldovans are not Romanians.
 * I appreciate the fact that you have a position and have at least an idea of how you envisage steps towards some resolution. I will come back to deal with your points. Currently snowed under work wise. Mark us street Nov 15th


 * I want to correct 3 things in Peters Vecrumba's "minimal conditions" above:
 * There are no Ukrainian troops in Transnistria, at least not officially. So, either "Russian foces", or "foreign military and para-military formations/forces"
 * By "Russian" you mean "Russian citizens that are not Moldovan citizens" (Moldova's legislation allows double citizenship, unlike amny other parts of the world)
 * In point 4 you mean that 31+ percent of population in 100+ localities should have the right to more than only 5 schools available in Latin script, 4 of which in Tighina, and all 5 under serious persecusions and threats; and that in the official language of the country.
 * With these 3 observations, I adhere to the "Russo-skeptic" "minimal conditions" above for recognition of democracy.:Dc76 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue of Moldovan citizenship is irrelevant to those Transnistrians who feel (with some justification) that Transnistria is an independent country which has all the attributes of statehood except international recognition. To them, Moldova is just another foreign country: The near-abroad. You can tell them that they will need to be Moldovan citizens, and if you give them a good deal (such as easier travel to the EU), then they will grab it, but this is strictly out of pragmatism. Give them any other reasons and they will give you a blank stare. They are already Transnistrians and they consider Transnistria their country. They were never part of the Republic of Moldova. When the Republic of Moldova was formed, it did not ask the people of Transnistria if they wanted to become part of that new country. No referendum was ever held on the issue. At the very least, if Moldova is such a democratic place, the people need to be asked how they feel about the whole thing. - Mauco 15:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The notion of free and willing Transnistrians is not possible at this time (see Russo-skeptic conditions). And Moldovan citizenship is not irrelevent to those Transnistrians who voted in the Moldovan elections. Again, this is all your interpretation of the situation under conditions which inhibit true freedom of expression. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dialectical Materialism
This mouthful needs its own section. Regarding Mark Street's: "Don't confuse the frustrations of Transnistrian people (with the deadlock their leadership has pushed them into) and the frustrations of the present Transnistrian regime (with the fact that democracy is not subject to dialectical materialism)." I've approached your statement from the simplest Hegelian view of dialectical materialism. If you mean specifically dialectical materialism as formulated by Marx with reference to bourgeousie capitalism inevitably and of necessity giving birth to communism in the collapse of bourgeousie thought and bourgeousie society, then I'm totally lost by your intent. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no deadlock, it is an embrace, a tango, a ballet—which I would completely expect to be extraordinarily frustrating to the people living through it.
 * As for frustrations of the "Transnistrian regime", of whom are you speaking? Stated in the opposite sense, autocracy is subject to dialectical materialism, that is, in and of itself, by being itself, it eventually brings into being its exact opposite (that is, democracy). I am stumped by your assertion that the PMR authorities are frustrated that (in simple terms) democracy does not turn into autocracy over time. That would imply there is a real democracy, which is simply not the case. (In fact, it is the afore-mentioned frustration—but not for the dynamic you indicated—of Transnistria's inhabitants which is one of the precursors to eventually achieving the state of affairs I indicated above.)
 * Finally, your premise that democracy is not subject to dialectical materialism is empirically disproven. One only has to look to all the autocracies that took hold in the mid-20th century where there had formerly been democracies (and the admiration for them, before it all went terribly wrong). Even in the U.S., Roosevelt was handed autocratic rule on a plate, which he refused. That is, when democratic institutions are seen by the majority to be failing, democracy is held hostage to human nature seeking strong decisive leadership under those circumstances—there is no psycho-political basis to maintain that democracies are self-perpetuating—which would be the logical outcome of democracies "not being subject to" dialectical materialism.


 * Let us give it a break here, please. I find Hegel very difficult to read (I once spent 2 hours to understand 4 pages), and your remarks above confuse me even more. Have it your way. With one exception: although it is well-known that the term "dialectics" was introduced by Hegel, I doubt he ever used "dielectical materialism":Dc76 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, carried away, in retrospect subconsciously it could have been a subtle parody, for which I apologize. Dialectical materialism was in fact Marx (who conjoined the previously separate terms), but Marx didn't fit, so I just figured Mark Street meant Hegel's everything eventually becomes its opposite. I agree totally, Hegel's writing makes undiscovered super-heavy elements look about as dense as marshmallows. (And let me enjoy my metaphor, I know atoms are mostly empty space...) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Customs Blockade and The Independence referendum
These are the two most pressing issues in PMR and should take the main areas on the main page Mark us street Nov15th 2006


 * As I mentioned above, in regard to EU's position on that I suggest to use among other sourses the European Parliament’s Resolution on Moldova (Transnistria) from 26 October 2006
 * So we need also USA, OSCE, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova and the self-proclaimed authorities' positions. Suggestions for sourses on that?:Dc76 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Closure of the office of Transnistrian Communist Party in Rîbniţa
I had some time ago a discussion with my friend Mauco, where he claimed that ban of opposition party is an old issue and now full political freedom is allowed in Transnistria. However, recently I see that in Rîbniţa the office of Transnistrian Communist Party was closed PCRM indignant at Tiraspol’s decision to hinder Transdniestrian Communist Party’s work. As you probabily know, Communist Party submitted a candidature against Smirnov for December 2006 presidential elections. We should include this in the article, it is a recent event, significant for the political climate in Transnistria. Both me and Mauco are right (my point: there is no political freedom in Transnistra; Mauco's point: Transnistrian regime is not communist). Why I read this information only in Moldovan sites?--MariusM 08:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are the only ones who like to "spin" such a story in order to make it appear as if there is political persecution. The Communist Party is alive and well in Transnistria (heck, there are even two of them, they just don't have much voter support). Glaringly missing from your post, and from the entire Moldovan press, is the reason for the closure. Would you care to tell us that? Otherwise I will merely add that offices (political and otherwise) get closed all the time elsewhere, too, for mundane reasons that have nothing to do with politics. For instance, a zoning violation or similar pedestrian reasons such as when you put a campaign office inside a residential apartment block in violation of the condo bylaws. Provide real information, please, or else take your spin elsewhere, friend. - Mauco 15:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't make assumptions about the reasons of Transnistrian authorities for office closure, wait at least until those authorities will give a reason. Probabilly they will find some non-political reasons. I remember in Communist Romania (my home country, where I developed my skills of understanding Eastern European politics) it was unusual to have somebody imprisonned openly for political reasons, however it was usual for authorities to find non-political reasons for imprisoning or harassing political opponents. Remember in december 2006 there are presidential elections in Transnistria, Communists wanted to put a candidate against Smirnov, they need a certain number of signatures for a candidate. I would not be surprised if, after the incursions of authorities in Rîbniţa office, lists with signatures disappeared and Communist Party will not be able to register its candidate for december 2006 elections. Anyhow, my POV doesn't count, but the POV of Moldovan Communist Party is relevant. They believe the closure is politically motivated and we should include their POV in the article. I don't like Moldovan Communist Party but I recognize their right to tell their story. If we will have the POV of Transnistrian authorities on this issue we should include it also. Just a reminder: Transnistrian Communist Party was banned few years ago for the links it had with Moldovan Communist Party, the ban was lifted meantime and the party claims not having anymore links with Moldovan Communist Party (the rulling party in Moldova), but probabily transnistrian MGB knows better the truth.--MariusM 15:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The authorities DID GIVE another reason. Your own source makes that clear. However, your source also strangely omits to tell us what that reason is... Can anyone spell "s-p-i-n"? - Mauco 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell us the other reason. Anyhow, the opinion of the rulling party of Moldova is relevant, we should show it together with the opinion of Transnistrian authorities (if they have an official opinion, maybe they pretend nothing happened) and with the opinion of Transnistrian Communist Party. Mauco, you know Russian and follow the Transnistrian press better than me. What did they publish about this subject? (with refferences, please)--MariusM 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is being forked. For anyone who wants to join, it is better to continue it here: Talk: Politics of Transnistria. - Mauco 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard the exact reason but a colleague there tells me that the was a genuine legal matter over which there was no dispute. It is nohing to do with Transnistrians persecuting communists. It is interesting how the Moldovan  anti-democracy  movement cry 'foul play' when a regional Communist office is closed when they themselves refuse to accept the democratic will of  97% of Transnistrians and their cry for independence. Transnistrians want nothing to do with Communist Moldova they want their freedom, its time to embrace the people's will and to work the future from there.   Mark us street Nov 20th
 * Is not allowed for Transnistrian press to talk about the reasons of the closure of Communist Party office?--MariusM 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We are but its really a paperwork thing, nothing sinister or underhand Mark us street Nov 20th 2006


 * Mark, you don't need to respond to trollish comments. MariusM knows where the discussion is, and he is active there: Talk: Politics of Transnistria on this very matter. He does not understand how Wikipedia works if he keeps forking this - or else he is just baiting you, so the best thing you can do is ignore him. His edit won't make it into mainspace because it is not a political issue. Want to dispute that? Go here. - Mauco 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage of Transnistria in The Game
I've never seen any media coverage of this place, be interesting to see what coverage there has been of it over all. Perhaps a section on it about this place in the media? At least that is what I was planning to do, add a media section to include that this place was mention by Style in the book The Game. (a major book, on the New York Times best sellers list) The book is how I first got interesting in transnistria. Sad to see the page has been locked from when i last saw it, hope you guys get this resolved quickly so i can add that bit! best of luck Mathmo 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed seduction take place even in Transnistria. There are a lot of Average frustrated chumps in this place. Is it really relevant for this article?--MariusM 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the answer is no. Apparently there is an article for this book. Maybe this info should be added there. jamason 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind reading it, but I'm not sure it should be mentioned in the article. Is there any relevant information in the book that could be used? Has any seen this by the way: Transnistria spoof? It's just a silly comedy sketch, but kind of indicative that Transnistria is becoming a little more famous perhaps? Jonathanpops 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes it is relevant to include in this article, if you disagree with me then please first of all tell me what other books you can name instead which have been on the New York Times Best Seller List and have included Transnistria in them?! Good luck finding them! :D lol Mathmo 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at that video, it is merely a clip on youtube. Anybody can do that with ease. Heck, I could right now make up a nation and add a hundred little clips about it to youtube. Unless.... did it get shown on tv anywhere? If so... then yes, I'd say the clip probably is notable enough to be included. Regardless, hopefully you can grasp I'm talking not about a clip on youtube, but a book. And even more so, a book that was in the NY Times Best sellers list. That is many many many orders of magnitude bigger than a clip on youtube. Mathmo 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, and thanks for the link to the youtube clip! lol Was funny and interesting to watch. Mathmo 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't comparing the youtube clip, which is actually taken from a famous TV programme called Eurotrash, to the book. I was just pointing out another, if somewhat pureile, mention of Transnistria in the media. Jonathanpops 17:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, I see now. that would make it notable enough for a mention then. Mathmo 08:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that a section be created for all Transnistrian media. But I bet the anti-independence lobby will call for censorship Mark us street Nov 20


 * Ahem ... may I remind everyone that we ALREADY have Media in Transnistria. - Mauco 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks, hadn't seen that. however what i'm pointing out is quite different, it is not internal media of transnistria but external media coverage of transnistria. Mathmo 08:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a start, I'll expand on it next time I'm online. Any other mentions of Transnistria other than the game and eurotrash? Because I'd imagain they are rather rare. was how i first heard of here, and i'd expect most other people who came across this book or tv show this was their first time too. thus is note worthy because of being the only way most people would have even have heard of here. anyway, am digressing... will improve article later.


 * And obviously there's the BBC Simon Reeves thing, Places That Don't Exist. Jonathanpops 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * excellent, that is the kind of thing i'd love to see added to the article. so I've just done it... thanks Mathmo Talk

Is Europe changing sides
My colleagues, there is a wind of change sweeping through Brussels. Moscow's reaction to the economic blockade coupled with the recent pro-independence referendum result has forced everyone to rethink their position. It is time to face reality. Likewise we too must accept that we cannot alter the will of the Transnistrian people to be free from Moldova. Mark us street Nov 20th
 * Wishfull thinking. Mark, please stop trolling. When a new reaction will appear from Brussels we will discuss it. Until then, you can dream, but don't troll here. Rearding the referendum, we already discussed it, we should not repet again old arguments.--MariusM 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC


 * The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) met with Pridnestrovie's parliament in Tiraspol to evaluate human rights and democratic development. The arrival formed part of a series of consultations in the region this week..

PACE delegation led by Egidijus Vareikis) met with parliamentary committee in Tiraspol, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, had positive words for recent reform proposals during a meeting with Pridnestrovie's parliament. The meeting in Tiraspol was called to evaluate human rights progress and democratic development. During the visit, the delegates, led by PACE co-rapporteur Vareikis, met with the members of the Foreign Policy and International Relations Commission of Pridnestrovie's parliament. The sides discussed recent progress concerning the observance of human rights and freedoms in Pridnestrovie, and in particular the role of the opposition-led parliament in speeding up the pace of reform. While comparing Pridnestrovie with neighboring Moldova, the delegates saw positive developments in both places. But while Pridnestrovie actually carried out its law reforms, there were some harsh words for Moldova: Vareikis noted that the Moldovan parliament had adoption a series of laws specifically for "window-dressing" purposes, in order to comply with prior commitments before the council of Europe, but that "laws should not only be assumed, but also fulfilled". Source TiraspolTimes Mark us street Nov 20 2006

and more --MOSCOW (Tiraspol Times) - Speaking in Moscow on Monday, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy, called for closer cooperation with Russia on common goals such as the settlement talks for Pridnestrovie.Mark us street Nov 20th.


 * I see no other source than your own on-line newspaper Tiraspol Times.--MariusM 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the German Press Agency Report.
 * The plan sponsored by Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht had suggested a semi-independent status for Transnistria in a Moldovan federation, drawing on own Belgium's successful experience with mixed-ethnicity governmentThe proposal of wide rights of self-rule for Transnistria as part of a Moldovan state marked a significant European negotiating concession. Previously the OSCE and Moldova had insisted Transnistria return to Moldovan control without special status. There were good points to the plan, some interesting proposals," Litskay said. But Litskay citing "the people's will" made clear Transnistria had no intention of returning to the negotiating table any time soon, with Transnistria's return to Moldovan control not on the agenda. Ends. Mark us street Nov 20th.

Europe tires of this, perhaps
Don't confuse your "wants of the people" and "winds of change" with a war of attrition between Russia and Western Europe (with Russia increasingly holding energy as a weapon and having demonstrated great relish in using in with its neighbors). Any progress on a response for the Russo-skeptics? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Start a blog! - Mauco 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This main page is primarily about a non recognised country desperately stuggling to take her place amongst the nations of the world, the people's demoractic desire for this underpins everything. That is the whole focus of what Transnistria is External countries influences from Ukraine Russia and Moldova should also be dealt with in the contaxt of the peoples desire to have a connection with Russia and NOT with Moldova, acountry they had a recent war with and who still claims Transnistria as its own However, for the most part I am are here to create a main page for Transnistria. Mark us street Nov 22 nd 2006


 * Mark, it isn't necessary to post every day about the struggle of the Transnistrian people to fly free and the abject suppression of Transnistria's democratic sprit by the rest of the world, Russia apparently being its sole beacon of hope. How about dealing with the Russo-skeptic points or at least coming up with a list of the 149 other "independent observers" besides Viktors Alksnis. You're the journalist here. If you're that snowed under at work, then at least spend your Wiki time more constructively instead of wasting everyone's time including your own simply bemoaning the beleaguered Transnistrians on a daily basis. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you but I will write and deal with the isuues I see fit, One thing about Transnistrians, they don't get pushed around , this is something you will come to learn Mark us street Nov 25th 2006

Terrorism
Moldovan interests on this page inserted the word 'Terrorism' on the main page under huge dispute. An External editing chair agreed to withdraw that word but the page locked within hours of change due to be made. Regardless, Moldvoan interests claimed the use of the word 'Terrorism' was valid because the Chair of State Security used it when the explosion occured.I always felt he was be misquoted and the Terrorism word was being used to blacken Transnistria. Today I prove this was a typical Moldovan propaganda attack on the main page of Wikipedia.. Yesterday The chairman gave an interview where he clarified this misuse of his quote. I quote him. "Q": The past summer in Tiraspol' thundered two explosions, which led to human victims. What did be possible to establish in the course of consequence? Full interview on Presidents webpage,

Oleg Gusymo .: Explosion in the route taxi became bloodiest. Consequence still is conducted, and to say that the specific forces cost after this action, 4 I do not have a right. There is a secret of consequence. As far as explosion in the trolley bus is concerned, this crime is practically opened, consequence is located on the completing stage. Materials will be transmitted into the law court. There the version, close to the everyday..Mark us street Nov 20th 2006.
 * You should understand that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your newspaper. You can wrtie whatever you want in Tiraspol Times, but you should not expect that Wikipedia will have the same position.--MariusM 14:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tiraspoltimes is not the source of this quotation. You are infatuated with Tiraspoltimes.You never stop inadvertantly advertising Tiraspol Times here, You mention it non- stop, should pay you I in euro or dollars. Mark us street Nov 20th2006.

I read the Gudymo interview too, Mark. You are right. Crime and violent events happen everywhere, and the T-word is overused anyway. If anything, less crime happens in Transnistria than similar places. It is sad when things blow up but it should not be blown out of proportion either. Hats off to BOTH MOLDOVA AND TRANSNISTRIA for the restraint showed. It is easy to let radical groups on either side take things to the next level: Just look at Kashmir, Palestine, FARC/ELN in Colombia, Northern Ireland, and dozens of other places where proxies blow things up on purpose. We don't have that in Transnistria, and we don't have that in Moldova, and both sides should be thankful for the restraint showed by the other. Let us use the same restraint here on Wikipedia: No use of the word "terrorism" when that is clearly not the case. - Mauco 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Times: Using the New York Times as source, we know that the bomb was NOT called an act of domestic terrorism. I quote: "The minister did not immediately link the blast to terrorism or to simmering tensions in the region" and this statement: ''"We do not consider this an act of terrorism at the moment, since we do not have any information that this act was aimed at destabilizing the republic," the minister, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Y. Antyufeyev, said in a telephone interview from Tiraspol, the capital of Transnistria. "We do not attach any political coloring to this crime."'' Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/europe/07moldova.html - Mauco 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is now forked in three places on the same page. Give it a rest. Antyufeyev, minister or not, is not a reliable source regarding "terrorism." The fact that the New York Times quotes Antyufeyev in no way lends credibility to Antyufeyev. It is not the analysis of the New York Times that it's not terrorism, so the fact they reported what they did does not help us "know" anything. Just as when you quote Mark Almond, there's no endorsement of anything he says by Oxford University. "Terrorism" stays. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could we get a pronunciation here (in IPA if available)? In particular, I'd like to know how to pronounce "Pridnestrovie". I assume it's something like pree-dih-nes-tro-vee-eh, but English speakers would likely read it as prid-nes-tro-vee. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Prid Nes Strove ee and say it with pride for effect Mark us street Nov20th 2006.


 * In "Приднестровье," the ь palatization symbol would make the pronunciation closer to one of the alternate transliterations, "Pridnestrov'ia". And again, let's lay off the Transnistrian pride and winged joyous democracy being thwarted ostensibly by Moldova until the PMR territory can be considered free of Russian presence. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of an old joke: One Ukrainian to another after the launch of the Mir space station: "Hey Mиkola, have you heard - the Moskali now live in space!" The other replies, in joyous disbelief: "What, ALL of them?!"


 * That is, I think you ought to clarify that last part. ;) --Illythr 01:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, you can say it with pride and joy. Peters can say it with venom. It is a free world, for both of you. Most of the population (97%+ of votes cast in September) seem to be happy with closer ties to Russia, including Russian presence in PMR territory.
 * I am not a native Russian speaker myself, but I know that Peters is right with regards to the little  ь  in this case. Also, may I point out that the central feature in the countryname is the river (Dniester, but Dnestr in Russian). Spot the river: "Pridnestrovie". - Mauco 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we agreed to report facts, like the vote, and leave interpretations (what the population "seems" happiest with) to our esteemed readers. I do not say Приднестровье, or, for example, Piedņestra (next to the Dnjestr) in Latvian, with venom--the Moldovans and "Transnistrians" are both victims of naked Russian interests. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When nine out of ten votes in favor of something, it "seems" pretty clear to anyone what they want. And what they want has nothing to do with Moldova. They want their independence and sovereignty to be recognized. - Mauco 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its 19 out of 20 people that voted for freedom and independence Mark us street Nov22 2006


 * "The PMR authorities reported that..." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As did the authorities of your government for there referendums, only ours are internationally monitored, all I can say is 'remember President Al Gore, Gee he was great', for the six hours he was president before the politically appointed judges from the US supreme court buckled democracy. Mark us street Nov 27th

Old saying about ex-Soviet space politics confirmed in South Ossetia
In South Ossetia they had recently 2 (two!) referendums: one organised by Russian (separatist) authorities and one organised by Georgia. Russian-organised referendum showed the overhelming support of Ossetian people for separatism (99% for, 95% turnout). Georgian organised referendum shows the overhelming support of Ossetian people for Georgia (94%). Again we see a confirmation of a wise man from the 20th century remark: "is not impotant who votes, is important who counts the votes". This is still true in ex-Soviet space.--MariusM 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Marius you have been eating too many Sour Grapes from Moldova, you should know better, everyone knows they are posionous. Best remedy to recovery is a shot a democracy from the vaults of Pridnestrovie. Mark us street Nov 20th
 * Yeah, you mean, like that journalist that took a shot of democracy from the vaults of Russia? Dpotop 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an agenda to make Russia and Putin look like evil, to find the culprits we must look to the emenies of Russia and democracy.. Mark us street Nov 21st 2006
 * Neo-Stalinistic Cheka-venerating Russia is the enemy of democracy. All the people who tried to forestall (by violent and deadly means) the demise of the Soviet Union are still in the Russian government in the same positions of influence. And Putin has done nothing but relentlessly centralize authority. In his own words (2000), he "can be considered a successful product of a Soviet man's patriotic upbringing." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. :) Just like for Transnistria. Dpotop 13:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no benefit in creating a martyr, this man is a victim of anti Putin forces in my view. It is pure twisted evil and every effort must be made to bring the evil ones to justice. Nobody knows for sure but the clear motive is to discredit Russia, By taking that view the chances are YOU are encouraging the posioner. The last thing we need is for the posioner to think Russia is getting the blame. This is what they want. Mark us street Nov 21st 2006
 * You see Mark, it is during moments such as these that a man can easily loose all credibility... TSO1D 22:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the credibility of Mark, he already lost it long time ago. Often in history Russia didn't care about creating martyrs. Millions of martyrs were created during Soviet Union and actual Russian leader is a former KGB officer, a member of the organisation responsible for creating martyrs. Is more important for Russia the effect of intimidation. Interesant your logic, as you claim that the anti-Putin person who was poisoned is a victim of anti-Putin forces. The victim himself has other opinions, but pretending that white is black and black is white is an old tactic. During War of Transnistria, Moldovans killed by Russians were photographed and the pictures later showed as proofs of Moldovan atrocities.--MariusM 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, you have interesting logic yourself. The Pope is a former member of Hitlerjugend, so, according to this logic, Catholics might be building gas chambers somewhere too, right?
 * What are these pictures/claims of Moldovans killed by Russians I keep hearing about. Would somebody give me a link, please?
 * Is this whole section relevant to the Transnistia article in any way? PS: The Stalin quote is 100% correct, IMHO.--Illythr 23:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We discussed the recent poisoning of an anti-Putin Russian and there are other events like this (Yushtschenko, Politkovskaia?). Don't get your logic, I didn't hear about any Pope enemy being poisoned. Anyway, people under 18 are not responsible for their facts. Putin is. Regarding the second question, ask in Kishinev bookstores for the book of Vlad Grecu - "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubasari".--MariusM 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in what way is this article concerned with this? Hm, I don't know, from what I've gathered here, the author/book is about as neutral a source as Olvia Press...  --Illythr 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Illythr, nice to see you again. I think MariusM was trying to make a parallel between the referendum of Transnistria and those of South Ossetia. Then, Mark Street or Mauco issued an "ad hominem", a.s.o. The main issue here is that Mark and Mauco would have the Transnistrian authorities democratic (they have elections and referendums, don't they), while everybody else says they are not. Sorry if my joke has upset you. Dpotop 10:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't, actually. I was replying to MariusM, anyway. But I still think this whole section is unproductive except perhaps in generating a new flame war. --Illythr


 * Interesting discussion, but let us try to end it if we can. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transnistria article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject, and much less a forum for general discussion of South Ossetia, Putin, or elections on the post-Soviet space. - Mauco 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ossetia would appear to be apropos after all. Aside from the similarities of the Russian government's modus operandi with regards to the sovereign governments from which the breakaway "republics" have "seceded," this news carried on Interfax within the last week: "MOSCOW - The leaders of the three breakaway republics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria are meeting in Moscow to discuss trilateral cooperation. The Abkhaz, South Ossetian and Transdniestrian presidents, Sergei Bagapsh, Eduard Kokoity and Igor Smirnov, are holding talks in Moscow today, a source close to the talks told Interfax. Questions related to cooperation between the three republics are at the center of the talks, he said. They are scheduled to meet again on Friday morning, the sources said." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about Tiraspol Times
Illythr, those who claim to be absolutely neutral on a disputed issue tend to have the greatest bias of all. Grecu is not pretending to be neutral, he is a proud pridnestrovian who defended his country against foreign invasion and is relating his experience as eye witness and also as a person who talked with other non-neutral eye witnesses. He is reffering at specific propaganda books published in Transnistria and is indicating evidence for the fact that what those books claim is oposite of the truth (for example, the place where a dead body was founded was in Transnistrian controlled area, while Transnistrian propaganda claimed that the kill was done by Moldovans). Probabily you will consider POV any book that accuse Russian forces during war of Transnistria of lying. You told you have a friend in Dubosary, send him Grecu's book and ask him to comment. BTW, what about the investigation regarding TT about which we discussed?--MariusM 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, my own words! ;) But I also think that everyone should at least try to be neutral, for the sake of their own credibility. The book may be useful to provide another perspective on the topic, but I don't think it counts as a reliable source on everything it covers. I will consider a book claiming that the war was a foreign invasion an untrustworthy source, especially on disputed matters, unless it provides some sort of condemning evidence to confirm its claims. To know my friend's reaction to the book I don't need to send it to him - it'll be very negative. He'll dismiss it as Moldovan nationalist propaganda. He, like every other former coed of mine from Transnistria (those that I talked to, anyway) is very supportive of an independent Transnistria, and in their opinion, invaders came from beyond the Dniester. As for TT - he asked some of his friends visiting Tiraspol to keep an eye out for it - and they found no trace of the printed version. Those guys didn't actively look for it, but I think we can safely assume that TT is not sold in Tiraspol in public areas. As of late October 2006, at least. --Illythr 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You should read Grecu's book and only afterwards comment on it. You should send the book to your friends from Transnistria (if they can read Romanian, but it has a short summary in Russian also). Thansk for your clarification about Tiraspol Times. Previously, Mauco used your name to pretend that a hard copy of Tiraspol Times does exist. Quote from Mauco answering question if Tiraspol Times is a hard copy newspaper or only a website: “It is both. Illytr wrote, and he posted the reply here (see archives). The website is daily and the paper version is not. MariusM is trying to claim that just because he hasn't seen the paper version, it doesn't exist. He will get a surprise the next time he visits Transnistria (...). It is also available in the hotels and some other places which Illytr has more information about than me”.--MariusM 16:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a printed version of Tiraspol Times, it is very popular too, Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006.


 * Well, I did read the summary in the link I provided. Summary in Russian? Is it available at an online source?
 * William was commenting on the reply from TT I received and posted here that stated that they're not yet printing for public press sources, but are available only at several locations such as the Tiraspol University etc. Come to think of it - there is a similar situation with foreign language (except Russian, that is) newspapers here in Chisinau - they can only be found where foreigners tend to congregate: hotels, the airport etc, but not in public kiosks where no one will buy them anyway.
 * Mark, since you are an editor of the newspaper in question, could you ask your colleagues in Tiraspol to make a few photos of TT being sold in public? It should be a trivial matter and would resolve at least one issue about TT here on Wiki. --Illythr 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As usual William Mauco was mistaking your words pretending that you told something else that you really told. You told that after you sent an e-mail to Tiraspol Times explaining the doubts raised here in Wikipedia about their real existence on the streets of Tiraspol and they reply "is not true, we indeed have a hard copy edition". Mauco told that is an established fact that Tiraspol Times had a hard copy edition, and Illythr can confirm this (in fact Illythr can confirm only that the editors of Tiraspol Times sent him an e-mail in which they claimed being present on the streets of Tiraspol). Illythr, you didn't tell to your friends to look exactly at hotels, airport and the places mentioned in the e-mail from Tiraspol Times staff? Why you ask only a photo of Tiraspol Times being sold and not also a hard copy (Mark us Street will be so nice to send one for free to you)? I've asked a similar investigation from pridnestrovian EvilAlex. The problem of Mauco misquoting Illythr is part of the broader problem of Mauco misquoting sources for edits made in Wikipedia articles (not only in talk pages) - is a habit for him to claim that source A tell B, but if you look in details what source told, is only Mauco's interpretation that source A told B.--MariusM 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeeesh... Before we go overboard with Mauco-this, Mauco-that, why not just get the photo. Illythr has a commonsense suggestion and I am sure that Mark will get it in a few days. Until then, no need to get our shorts in a bind. - Mauco 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Marius, would you travel to Bucharest and buy&send me a set of D&D dice if I asked? What if I told you that it's important for a hobby of mine and asked real nice? I have no idea where or even if they are available for sale there, but I'm sure you can think of something... Seriously, those guys are just some aquaintances of a friend, they don't owe him or me anything and don't really care or even know about TT or Wikipedia. I certainly can ask them to keep an eye out for stuff, but they won't go out of their way for someone they don't even know. A single hardcopy of TT in my posession will also prove nothing. Several photos of it available at several public places throughout Tiraspol, on the other hand, would. --Illythr 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The e-mail you received indicates clearly where is claimed that TT is available: "available in offices such as VSPMR (the Supreme Soviet), TSU (the state university) and other places". We know at least 2 places in which it should be available. What is so difficult to have a person going to Tiraspol State University and check? I asked this check 2 months ago. Anyhow, is clear that the average pridnestrovian didn't heard about Tiraspol Times, this is a non-notable source and I doubt its relevance for our external links section.--MariusM 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reread what I wrote above. I have nobody in Tiraspol, who I can compel to actively look for TT. From the data I have on hand, I can assume that it is not (yet) open to the wide audience, though. --Illythr 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark us Street, would you be so kind to tell where is available your very popular newspaper in Transnistria's second city, Tighina (Bender)? One wikipedian involved in Transnistria article, User:EvilAlex, has his parents in Bender, if you can indicate a place in this city where your newspaper is available, I'm sure we will be able to have in short time a confirmation.--MariusM 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's not publicly available even in Tiraspol, I doubt that anyone can find it elsewhere in Transnistria. It's Tiraspol Times, not New York Times, after all... :-) --Illythr 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this has to do with the article. We are not mentioning Tiraspol Times in it, except as a link (which also includes links to other sources, such as conflict.md which is a biased Moldovan website that has no "real world" presence and no paper version). Anyway, MariusM gave his game away ... He wants the link to be removed. On that account, we can do the same for conflict.md and several other pro-Moldovan references: To paraphrase our colleague, " is clear that the average Moldovan didn't heard about conflict.md, this is a non-notable source and I doubt its relevance for our external links section." :-) - Mauco 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not journalism?
tiraspoltimes.com... [at the bottom of a rather long story applying Kosovo as an example to the PMR situation, a parallel which Putin himself has made (but which does not apply, but that's for another discussion)] Columnist Michael Garner adapted this piece from arguments developed by Thomas de Waal for the Caucasus region during the first half of 2006. Tom de Waal is Caucasus editor of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting in London and co-author of Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus. jamestown.org... Tom de Waal, a London-based journalist and author, was outraged to see an article under his name appear on the "Tiraspol Times" website. The article, which the site says was "adapted" by a journalist named Michael Garner, appears to support Transdniester's claim to independence. "I've certainly never been to Pridnestrovie, Transdneister, or Moldova, and I am certainly not arguing, as is written under my name, that Pridnestrovie has a better case for independence than Kosovo," de Waal says. De Waal says that the publication grafted material onto an article he had earlier written about parallels between Kosovo and Georgia's breakaway territory of Abkhazia. He said he had never heard of Michael Garner, and did not even know his byline had appeared on the "Tiraspol Times." Confronted with this information, website founder Grant said he had no knowledge an error had been made, but that it would be rectified if it proved to be the case.

Apparently not (rectified) as the reference is still there. And while Grant first indicated in a phone interview that tiraspoltimes.com receives no funding at all, in later Email he said the website is funded by unnamed "directors." If tiraspoltimes.com is an independent "newspaper," then there should be no issue with full transparency of its funding and its backers. If that transparency is not available and verifiable, then Mark Street (and others) need to stop painting it as something ("objective" and "journalism") it is not. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Old troll. Tom never made a single complaint about the article, a propaganda station claimed he did, Tom didn't even come on the show and never complained afterwards .its was mudraking. Secondly Mr  Grant was refering to external governmental funding not directors funding, Tiraspol Times is fully open about its operations. Its directors are listed  in the companies memorandum of assosciation and filed with the authorities in Tiraspol  Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006


 * I wasn't aware Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is now considered a "propaganda station." It's an even older response to answer by labeling a respected source as propaganda. Since I (and, I would expect, most of Wiki's readers) can't easily make it to Tiraspol, perhaps you would be so kind as to arrange to post the ownership and directorship information here--and on your website--and put this "old troll" to bed. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Pēters J. Vecrumba, though I do agree heartily with your request above, I thought that RFERL was very well known for propaganda and biased views? Jonathanpops 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is listed by your own USA government as a propaganda station. So thats that I trust. Mark us street Nov 23rd 2006


 * Anti-"C"ommunist bias, certainly (and I would suppose that translates into post-Soviet Russo-skepticism, perhaps). That said, I would like to see Mark Street specify where the USA government identifies RFE/RL as a "propaganda" instrument. Additionally, I would like to see a reference which indicates "RFE/RL propaganda" consists of lies and is an untrustworthy source, which is his clear implication. Believe the Tiraspol Times but not RFE/RL? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question still remains on the tiraspoltimes.com web site . Are you saying De Waal agreed to this use of his work? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the only one with an issue, he never had, its all propaganda, Nov 25th 2006


 * I assume that's Mark Street responding, thank you for the confirmation. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Tom de Waal. My attention has been drawn to this page. For the record, the article was written without my consent. It is an adaptation of a piece I wrote about Abkhazia. I have never been to Transniestria. I wrote to the Tiraspol Times on September 14 and received an assurance from Jason Cooper that it would be taken off the website. So, yes I am now doubly outraged that this has not been done and that it is now being denied that I complained in the first place. Tom de Waal 11:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, Mark Street is not a reliable source regarding even his own "paper." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah Peters, put the cork back in the champers, have you no honor, I'll get one our reporters to contact him directly immeadiately and get this matter sorted, it is an odd one I agree. Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.


 * Ah Mark, perhaps you could have done some due diligence before denouncing a 100% accurate report regarding your "paper" as entirely false and its source as a propaganda factory (as documented by the United States government, no less).
 * Accusing others of what you do yourself—that is, propaganda—is a tried and true Russian tactic. For example, to know what the Russians are up to, simply examine their accusations:
 * Russian accusation is = Latvia smuggling arms to/arming Georgia;
 * Ergo, reality must be = Russia smuggling arms to/arming South Ossetia.
 * Alas, I didn't unsportingly run you through while you weren't paying attention—I would more liken it to you picking up a sword and running with it while waving it (emphatically) and then (predictably) suffering the (inevitable) consequences. Didn't your mother ever teach you not to run carrying sharp objects in your hand?
 * I should mention my honor is intact, but it thanks you nevertheless for your concern. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. If it makes you feel better, I haven't popped the champagne cork yet. That would imply I'm done.

Main Space
Is there any way for getting the agreed changes put onto main space while the page is still locked? Mark us street Nov22nd 2006.


 * What agreed changes? Can you list them here? Dpotop 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See above, Firstly the opening paragraph and secondly the deletion of the word 'Terrorism'. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006


 * No agreement for deletion of word terrorism. There were 2 explosions in which people died.--MariusM 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obstructism. Who says terrorism? A: It is a word that Wikipedia shouldn't use, see guidelines. B: Where's the proof? C: We have the New York Times, quoting the security minister, discarding terrorism. Direct quote: "We do not consider this an act of terrorism" ... What more do you want? - Mauco 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See archive, we already had this discussion. The link you provided don't work for me, NYT is asking a password.--MariusM 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless, really, do you want us to accept the word of someone (Antyufeyev) who has (according to reliable non-pro-Moldovan testimony) ordered the staging of a terrorist act then blamed on Moldovans? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Link! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! --Illythr 12:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Latvian Crimes Against Humanity site, article examining the current whereabouts of former Riga OMON (Soviet Black Beret) forces, this is according to Bergman, the commandant of Tiraspol under Lebed. An ambulance was shot up, people were wounded and killed, and the incident blamed on Moldovans. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, can't read it... :-( English, German, Russian? Romanian, even? --Illythr 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(Indent reset) As you are well aware, there are very few outside of the Baltics who care anything about what happenned to the OMON, so not widely covered. Basically, Bergman says that Antyufeyev ordered two of his former OMON men, V. Nyikitenko and S. Bubnov, to stage an incident. An ambulance was shot up which was carrying a pregnant woman to the hospital. The woman's mother was killed in the attack, the driver and others were wounded. The attack was then blamed on Moldovan extremists. Hopefully this will give folks enough information to try and locate an English/Russian/Romanian source on the Bergman statement. My apologies, Antyufeyev references on the web are few and far between. (Where the PMR is concerned, most do appear to be in Romanian, for obvious reasons; unfortunately a language I do not know.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The cheif of security for Transnistria has rubbished theTerrorism claim in a number of places including the Olivia Press, New Region Russian News, and TiraspolTimes. Regardless, save your fingers, Terrorism is not a word allowed in the article under WIKI guidelines, any external mediator will delete it, so lets move on Mark us street Nov 27th 2006.


 * Antyufeyev a reliable source? Please! The guy had people killed and blamed it on Moldovans. Grenades going off in buses? Seems that's "terrorism" to me. Please show me where "terrorism" cannot be used to describe terrorist acts. I'll be glad to take this to mediation with you. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And "rubbished" in a number of places? As if endless repetition of a lie makes it true? I can read Pravda in Minnesota, that doesn't make the stories it prints any more true. Spreading propaganda far and wide until it starts to take on the mantle of truth from endless repetition is nothing but "urban legends" usurped for political intrigue. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Youth In Transnistria
The young people in Transnistria are so artistic and musical we really should do a section to promote their excellent efforts,Mark us street Nov 22nd
 * Er, promote? Still, the article does lack a Culture section... --Illythr 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, Mark us street, I think you wont be happy until this page is a carbon copy of pridnestrovie.net.Jonathanpops 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was evenly balanced I'd accept it Mark us street Nov 24


 * Evenly balanced does not mean equal quantities of truth and (at best) misinformation. I'm still waiting on:
 * Russo-skeptic points [you're "busy"];
 * list of referendum observers and their affiliations [you just keep quoting the 97%, "19 out of 20," etc.];
 * your directors/managers/investors/backers to verify your independence/transparency [which information you have indicated is filed and available to the public in Tiraspol, so there should be no issue appropriately publishing on your web site and sharing the link here]; and
 * now on my "old troll" about the article on your web site referencing De Waal's work [you've already indicated the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty report is "mudraking propaganda"—that is, a lie; I'm just looking to confirm that you are using his work with his permission, since you didn't specifically state it that way].
 * If you believe you've responded or I've mis-stated what I'm expecting [or the current state of affairs], please feel free to note in response. I'm not expecting an immediate response on all, just keeping track. Some should be simple, others might require a bit more effort, and I completely understand that. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Russo Skeptics,- Not sure what you are refering too but will back check -These were released to the international media, so do your own homwork.\ -Who my employers are, ? given the horrific events in London last week and the murder of a prominent journalist in Moscow, I doubt my employers would appreciate their details being splashed on this site. We have already recieved very serious threats and thank you all the same, we are pretty keen to make it to Christmas Day, -De Waal issue is actively being dealt with with him, thanks. Mark us street Nov 27th


 * Russo-skeptic, you were busy, easy enough to find again in this page.
 * I've been looking for the list of 153 to no avail (at least not in English). Are you saying the Tiraspol Times does not have a copy to share?
 * Politkovskaya and Litvinenko served the other side (the truth) and died for their trouble. Don't debase their memory by comparing you and your employers to them. You're either above-board or you're not. I regret needing to be quite so blunt, but it's that simple.
 * On De Waal, I believe I've said all I need to say. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wine and Cognacs
Transnistria is famous for these lets do a section Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006


 * Perhaps a summary in the main article, but any level of detail should be in Economy of Transnistria which is how similar pages elsewhere in Wikipedia handle it. - Mauco 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Moldova is renowned for its good wine. In Moldova article is briefly mentioned wine and there is a link at Moldovan wine article. Mark, you can propose to that article whatever change you believe is good, but don't mix wine with politics, please ("97% of Transnistrian wine drinkers want ...").--MariusM 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That was actually funny, MariusM. Thanks for my smile-of-the-day. But, to get serious - will anyone start the Economy of Transnistria article? I would do it, but I hate to get tagged as the guy who created 97% of the Transnistria pages on Wikipedia. I am already at around 80% so far, so I would prefer to let another editor take the lead on this particular one. - Mauco 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you will not put in Economy of Transnistria article stuffs like "Sheriff, which is in big oposition with Smirnov".--MariusM 00:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MariusM has a sense of humour. I laughed too, Agreed, no politics or words that offend ,just a wine and cognac article Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

Is there enough for a whole article, can't we just add to the economy section already there if there's anything new?Jonathanpops 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tourism
I think people would be interested in the tourism aspect. Can we agree that tourism should be a section. And given that most of us fly in through Moldova, she too will benefit from this. Mark us street Nov 22


 * Dunno. Seriously, how many people would be interested in tourism there? It is not the first place that springs to mind as a place to take the wife for holidays, except if you are someone weird like myself or like Jamason, who has a professional interest. The "living open-air Soviet museum" thing seems to be main attraction and that is wearing thin now, seeing how little of it is actually true. Besides, look at how small the Tourism in Spain and Tourism in France articles on Wikipedia are. We can hardly expect the Tourism in Transnistria to be much larger, and some of Wikipedia's readership might even think that it is hoax article (and ask for deletion, like the infamous Heaven of Transnistria; now thankfully deleted). Just my two kopecks... But feel free to discuss. - Mauco 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tourism is a growing industry in Transnistria. Hpwever a small section will do, just to highlight the main tourist attractions and general information regarding travel etc. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006

How may hotels are there? And I don't mean some woman renting out her granny's apartment in Tiraspol occasionally, an actualy hotel, or even an official tourist campsite? I think this suggestion is taking things too far. I do think a bit on how to get there might be interesting though, seeing as it's not directly accesible. Jonathanpops 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We have twelve hotels and also tourist agencies that give guided tours of the many key attractions, Soon we'll have a five star hotel  that will be the pride of the region. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006


 * Twelve? Names, telephone numbers, addresses please. I guess they don't have websites? Jonathanpops 10:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes twelve, all listed in visitpmr.com, are you guys for real !!! Mark us street 27th 2006


 * I can't speak for the others Mark, but I am for real. I do wonder sometimes if you are or not though, which is why I ask these silly questions I guess. There are only two hotels listed for the whole 'country' on visitpmr that have telephone numbers, the rest are half written addresses. Only one of these hotels is in Tiraspol, which is no bad thing of course, just that it hardly represents a 'tourist industry' as this topic, you and visitpmr seem to be trying to suggest.Jonathanpops 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan, Transnistria is a normal place with normal people dealing with an incredible situation whereby a neighbouring country has an internation claim on it, just like England had on America when it won its independence. Here is a report from the BBC.. Leafy lanes ... full of cafes and restaurants" (BBC)

BBC's Simon Reeve didn't pay heed to Moldova's scare tactics that tried to demonize Pridnestrovie in the eyes of the world. He came anyway, saw the truth for himself, and then wrote this — "Moldovans had warned me hungry armed men roam the streets, but although the border is tense, the leafy lanes of Tiraspol were full of cafes and restaurants."

— BBC News, 200

Currency
The currency is really interesting, perhaps we should cover it with links to photos of the notes and coins. I think this is an excellent idea. Does everyone agree ? Mark us street Nov 22 2006
 * We have an economy section. There we can include everything related with currency, tourism, wine and cognac.--MariusM 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are half right, I agree with you that the wine and cognac and general industrial information should go in the Economy section like you suggest but as long as we can agree that Culture and Tourism need there own sections. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006.
 * By the way there already is a section on the currency. See: Transnistrian_ruble. TSO1D 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of article
Mark, the purpose of this article is not to paint a thorough picture of how complete a facsimile of an "independent country" has been constructed for geopolitical consumption and to become a "Come see Tiraspol!" and have a glass of illegally privatized Buket cognac on us (company sold to Russian interests) advertisement. Your lobbying is more appropriate to a Tiraspolian shill than to someone who represents themselves as an "objective journalist." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Illegally" is in the eye of the beholder. PMR believes itself to be legally created by the will of the people, through a referendum (remember that countries do not need anyone's permission to exist. You yourself surely know this from your U.S. History lessons). Was it legal for Moldova to boycot the May 1990 referendum and deprive the bulk of the citizens of the MSSR their right to vote? If it was legal, then it was because Chisinau attributed to itself sovereign powers which the central authority had not given it at the time. A direct parallel can be drawn to the self-attribution of similar sovereign powers which Tiraspol invoked later that year to declare independence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Peters. - Mauco 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What "May, 1990 boycott" by the Moldovan SSR are you speaking of? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. Tired typing. It was very late at the time when I wrote it ... complete with spelling mistakes, too, and all. I of course meant the March 17, 1991, USSR Union-wide referendum. Which does not change anything in the meaning, however: Namely that Moldova (which at the time was still a formal part of the USSR) ignored the command from the center to hold the referendum and poll the voters on their opinion. The same way that Tiraspol ignored Chisinau's commands at the time. And the meaning is also still the same that no country needs a prior permission from any other country to declare independence. It that was required, USA and 80% of the other countries in the world today would not exist. -

Mauco 05:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its time for you to accept that you cannot change the fact that the Transnistrians have won their freedom and have democratically endorsed it with a 97% vote for self determination. To contnue the campaign to capture Transnistria for Moldova is hurting ordinary Moldovans that want no part in this unjust war to conquer a neighbouring country, Moldova's claim can only be entertaibed through democratic referendum. This has taken place and 97% of Transnistrians utterly reject the possible union with Moldova. Perhaps I should go onto the American page and argue that Mexico should govern USA because 3% of Americans want that. The Transnistrian/Moldovan dispute is economically stunting the growth and prosperity on BOTH sides. Your campaign onthese pages is keeping Moldovans and Transnistrians in a economic quagmire. Mark us street Nov 23


 * Finally, it was discovered the person who is guilty for economic problems in both Transnistria and Moldova: Peters Vecrumba. In fact, transnistrian authorities need somebody to blame, as they have problems in paying salaries and pensions at time. They privatised the economy in those 16 years and used the money to pay pensions, but is no more left for privatisation, soon they will face difficulties. Thanks Russia that it's not asking money for gas (1 billion USD debt).--MariusM 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, it wasn't the Moldovans that started the war, nor was it the Transnistrian majority yearning to be free. The PMR can in no way be considered free of Russian influence, nor has the leadership of the PMR ever changed. Again, the "PMR authorities reported that 97%" voted XYZ.
 * You have yet to deal with the Russo-skeptic points, to indicate who the 150 "objective observers from the international community" were, etc.—actions which could lend credence to your position by giving information for readers to decide for themselves. You're the journalist here, surely you can respond more constructively than threatening to vandalize the "United States" page.
 * I believe the Russians don't care what happens to the people of Moldova or the PMR as long as they get what they want (which has nothing to do with the Moldovans or Transnistrians), and that all that has to happen for circumstances to immediately improve is for the Russian troops and freedom fighters like Antyufeyev to leave, and for the Russian government to release their vice grip. Moldova was quite happy to come to an autonomy agreement with its Turkish minority in Gagauz. They're not the evil empire here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Peters I agree 'Evil' is a really nasty word, but that's exactly the type of world been wrongly presented on wikipedia about Transnistria, Reading it makes it look like banditland. This is a complete falicy and fabrication. If the very people demanding we write such terrible things about Transnistria ever took the time to visit all this would end. There is evil and hate every day on this page.The Transnistrians are todays version for the apartheid blacks of `South Africa or the Jews of WW2.  Mark us street Nov 25th 2006.


 * Mark, no one has any issue with the people of Transnistria, whether they be Romanian, Ukranian, Russian, Turkik, or Martian. There is no hate or evil on this page. What there is on this page is one camp which gleefully proclaims the PMR government benificent and benevolent, looking only to free its people, and another camp which maintains the PMR government is a sham of thieves and murderers. You'll excuse the hyperbole, it's to make sure you get the point. Your assertion that ethnic hatred is being exhibited on this page is, frankly, insulting. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Peters, some here like to make the distinction between the people of Transnistria and the Government of Transnistria, the point is to confuse. The government is democratically elected by the people. Therefore there is no distinction its just easier to discredit a government but its harder to dismiss the will of 97% of a population. The government in Transnistria changed last December, all went quiet for a while as the anti transnistrian side pondered. Now its started again. The war for Transnistria was ethnic, the current discussion is also ethnic. For me its about democracy. I don't care who runs Transnistria as long as its democratically elected by the people. Moldova's claim is strangling these innocent people. I want to see both sides at peace and the only way is to have mutual respect and equality and above all else democracy. By assisting the anti democracy side here you are brutalising a people stuggling for its freedom. If that insults you I can understand that. I live in Tiraspol so I hear the peoples will daily. They respect their government and want nothing to do with neighbouring Moldova. It is so simple. All I can say is come here and talk to people. . Mark us street Nov 27th 2006

(Reindented)... When a government is discredited, then everything they pronounce is discredited too, your 97% included. (Otherwise you are doing a Mauco "consider the words not the source.") The government has not changed, it's merely a ballet. All the same folks are still in charge in a state where the power is concentrated in the chief executive. Russia is the one strangling freedom. If it weren't for Russia's interference, the inhabitants of Transnistria could already have their own autonomous and truly democratic region to govern as they see fit, as in Gagauz. I'm assisting the "anti-democracy" side? That would be you, alas. What you hear is only within your own earshot, and, seemingly of your own choosing. You said you support factual edits. Have I ever said not to report "The PMR authorities reported that 97%..."? Let's stop the relentless repetitive interpreting. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Press
Everyone is Tiras is talking about the Free Press competition and the prize money, What a brilliant way to prove to the world we have the best free press culture in the world. It is a cracking idea to silence the mudrakers that lie about here. Mark us street Nov 22nd 2006


 * Mark, normally I don't like to object to new threads on talk pages, but please try to keep the discussion about the content of the article rather than going on various tangents. Although some of your proposals and ideas might be interesting to disucuss in another forum, the purpose of these talk pages is rather specific, and having too much text will just make it more difficult for others to follow our lengthy contentual debates. TSO1D 14:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, perhaps we can insert it into the Human Rights section, but to be honest we should really delete that because its just a propaganda mudraker and there is no human rights issues in Transnistria. Mark us street Nov24th 2006.


 * Some new developments about Moldovan schools in latin script that must be included in the Human Rights section Ribnitsa authorities must return confiscated school building, says OSCE Mission Head, European Court of Human Rights to consider claims lodged by Moldovan schools in Transnistria. This kind of facts you will never find in Tiraspol Times (I wonder if exist any mass-media in Transnistria which report this).--MariusM 20:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, "everyone is talking about" is not even original research, it is hearsay. No human rights issues? Obviously your PMR is on an Earth in an alternate universe. I suppose the whole Romanian language issue is an "old troll" as well? The drek on pridnestrovie.net that talks about teaching Romanian in its centuries old original Cyrillic (the Latin form being a sinister Francophone plot) is propaganda that would make Stalin weep with unbridled joy that his pack of lies is still being recited verbatim today. Please, limit your similar tears of joy over Transnistrian press freedom to your own web site. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Before commenting on the schools issue you chould research the truth Mark us street Nov 25th


 * Believe me, Mark, I have, and the more I read the more it makes my hair stand on end. As much as I relish well constructed rhetoric (having studied Cicero in the original Latin in my school days), rhetoric is nothing if it lacks basis in fact. Do I need to link to the pridnestrovie.net [neo-Stalinist propaganda] page and start dissecting? Perhaps we can review several points at a time, starting with the language itself:
 * Russian Cyrillic script is not (pre-mid-19th century) Romanian Cyrillic script any more than English Latin script is Romanian Latin script. pridnestrovie.net paints the picture they are the same.
 * Stalin manufactured "Moldovan." It's a bastardized transliteration of Latin-script Romanian. pridnestrovie.net skirts the issue by saying the PMR is returning the language to its cultural (Cyrillic) roots.
 * Ду юу агри со фар, ор дисагри? [that would be written in the logical English equivalent to "Moldovan"] —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)