Misplaced Pages

You are not the arbiter of which site is a reliable reference. You are the owner (and tried to include in Misplaced Pages) of the hardly-objective Transnistria.ru.ru and besides, the statements by Transnistria (that they do not manufacture weapons) are not published only on http://www.Pridnestrovie.net but are common knowledge and can be found in at least a dozen other places. - Mauco 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The Link works for me, at least. But if you want even more sources added which show that the statement is true, we can certainly do so. - Mauco 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between placing a link and referencing to it. How would you feel if I will start referencing to Transnistria.ru.ru ? How about this Transnistria UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory and a nice reference to Transnistria.ru.ru? EvilAlex 12:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, http://www.Pridnestrovie.net is of course the appropriate place to quote from. We are stating that the official position of Transnistria is X-Y-Z, and we are referring to their official website as reference to support what they say. It does not matter if we agree with them, or with anything that the site says. We can refer to an official website of the White House as a source for an official White House statement. That does not mean that we have to agree with all (or even anything) that the White House says. I am surprised that I have to even spend my time mentioning this to EvilAlex, who has been called a "veteran editor" over and over again by one of his colluders (by User:MariusM). It is Misplaced Pages 101. - Mauco 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: These findings echo previous declarations by Transnistria that it is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons.
The findings does not support this statement. There is no indication that Transnistria is not involved in the manufacture or export of weapons. I repeat: Transnistria is highly militarised, number of illicit weapons in the region is unknown, the denial by Transnistrian authority the full access to international monitors to investigate allegations of illidt SALW... and so on EvilAlex 13:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And how, may I ask, would that quote be an indication that Transnistria manufactures or exports weapons? Please... Get real here. Of course the area is militarized. What on earth else would you expect? The area is a FROZEN CONFLICT, for crying out loud. Moldova tried to take over Transnistria by the use of military force in the 1992 War of Transnistria. Transnistria did not do the opposite (they did not try to take over Moldova by use of military force). So they feel that Moldova attacked them. Since then, Moldova has been upgrading its military. Transnistria is in a highly defensive position. Until there is a final solution to the question of the future status of the area, it will remain a frozen conflict and a highly militarized area. This is obvious, and the report is of course merely stating the obvious. What we, here, should highlight are the interesting findings - the new stuff that the United Nations report found out. This is what is of interest. Not that the sky is blue, or that 2+2 equals 4. - Mauco 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt argue that UNDP says that there is production and sale of SALW. The survey doesnt say or deny that clearly. What are you arguing about? the paragraph is clearly much closer to your position. Re war: Moldova defended its territory from aggression of Russian 14th army. Moldova didnt fought against its own people. In 1992 I was in Bendery. I saw the war with my own eyes. Thousands refugees flied to Moldova (Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovans) while the Russian 14th army bombarded outskirts of the city from Suvorovo hill. Moldavian government helped to all in need (Russians, Ukrainians, Moldovans). Moldovian Government helped with resettlement, helped financial Regardless of race and nation. You know nothing, dont post your crap here. EvilAlex 19:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"You know nothing" and "Don't post your crap here" is not helpful to collaborative editing. Even if you don't want to assume good faith, at least try to focus on the edit and not on personal abuse. I will not stand for it if you continue with this tone. It was this sort of your-opinion-is-not-welcome-here comment (from your colluder MariusM) which caused MarkStreet to resign from Misplaced Pages. - Mauco 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Delete :
However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control.

Why should that be deleted? If you do not agree with it, rephrase it. But they did highlight the good levels of co-operation and this was included under a heading bearing the word Transparency. In contrast, it says about Moldova that levels of transparency within government ministries vary widely. - Mauco

Hello again, mr. Spin Doctor. What the report says is that "experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation in some areas ". Dpotop 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please: Name-calling is uncalled for. Civility would create a more collaborative editing environment where we can all collaborate on how to make a great article. I am not aware of any areas where the Transnistrians are uncooperative or where there is no transparency, and can not support this with citations from the report. I do know, however, that according to the U.N. report, Moldova has a very sketchy record of transparency. This is not surprising: Moldova is a known and proven exporter of weapons, including to the Middle East, whereas the same can not be said of Transnistria. Nevertheless, claims of weapons exports and smuggling are included in the Transnistria article (despite a complete lack of evidence) whereas they are not included in the Moldovan article (where such evidence exists abundantly, and was even part of the parliamentary record in 2004). - Mauco 07:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is utterly wrong. Compare to the source. If you want to rephrase it give a shot. EvilAlex 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We disagree on that. I checked the source. It is not 'utterly wrong' that they emphasized the good levels of co-operation with Transnistria on SALW (true) and that this was included under the heading Transparency (also true). - Mauco 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You are TROLL. EvilAlex 13:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And now compare what you said to the source:
Transparency
While the Transdnieslrian authorities have a history of low transparency on SALW issues', attitudes may be changing, as evidenced by good levels of co-operation in some areas during the research for this report. High levels of secrecy on arms and security issues in the past have however had negative repercussions. For example, the denial of full access to international monitors wishing to investigate allegations of illidt SALW production by the Transdnieslrian authorities has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transdniestrian regime.
EvilAlex 13:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, the source is not the summary, but the report itself. You really ought to read the full report. It is quite clear that the U.N. report has no reason to believe that Transnistria is involved in the manufacture/production or export/smuggling of weapons of any kind, and this is what the report says. If you have a similar report from a similar credible organization (like the United Nations) which says otherwise, then please post it. Until then, there are no credible indications of any kind, whatsoever, that Transnistria produces weapons or exports weapons. It just does not exist. Is that so hard to understand? - 17:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The source which I gave you is from 5th page of Executive summary of SALW Survey. Now compare it to what you wrote:
However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control..
this paragraph should be deleted. Do you agree? EvilAlex 19:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because if you can get past the summary and read the full report (which is the bulk of the work of the foreign experts) then you will hopefully see that the sentence which you just quoted is a fairly accurate summary of one of the findings of the research which they did. I read it, and that was the conclusion which I was left with. Others who read might come away with different interpretations or conclusions. But you can't say that till you read it. Basically, after you finish it, you have to ask yourself: "What did I just learn?" And in my case, the main impression which stuck with me the most was a feeling that there was a paradigm shift in how the foreign weapons control people now sees Transnistria. Until recently (2003-2004) the general consensus was that it was a black hole. Now, the consensus has shifted, and it is more of a feeling that "wow, we can really work with these people, and the government of Transnistria is serious about opening up and collaborating with us." Again, I really urge you to read the full thing and I honestly believe that you will reach the same conclusion that I did. - Mauco 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen by my latest statement above, there is obviously no consensus yet for a phrasing of how to include the summary of the findings of the U.N. report. Before other editors continue to change the current version present in the page, I respectfully request that they please continue our joint efforts to seek some common ground here. I mean it. None of us gain anything from another pointless and childish revert war. - Mauco 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You using all possible means to disrupt or postop progress on this page. For more info see WP:TROLL. EvilAlex 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. I am merely seeking consensus on a content dispute. However, if you or any other users feel that this is a case of trolling, then I would very much welcome an RfC in the matter. This is now the third time that I am stating this publicly. Instead of these personal attacks, accusing me of "trollery", do this: 1. Work with me on seeking a mutually agreeable phrasing, and 2. Let the other issue be evaluated in an RfC. Thank you. - Mauco 17:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How can i work with you if your position doesnt allow any compromises or consensus. You stick to your phrase and not moving nor forwards nor backward. You didnt make any suggestions... Only continues Trolling is going on. Your discussion is not about subject but about the nature of discussion. EvilAlex 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is, obviously, my edit (which you continually delete, without prior consensus). How could it be anything else? I have referred to the full report, which I do not believe that you have read, for verification that this is not a malicious interpretation but an edit with corresponds to the conclusions of the report. If you feel that you are not able to reach agreement here in Talk, then the solution IS NOT TO DELETE material which you do not agree with. Instead, the solution is to follow the next step in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process. Please consider doing so and do not engage in further deletes. - Mauco 17:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, please see WP:V: the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. If something can be backed-up with reliable sources, then it can be included in the article. This is not a matter of what's correct and what isn't. There is no Misplaced Pages policy called Misplaced Pages:Truth. This is why it's not a good idea to remove sourced information. Khoikhoi 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoi, EvilAlex is not disputing that point (I think). Rather, his beef with me is that he thinks that I am misquoting when I paraphrased the conclusions of this particular United Nations report. I do not think so. It is simply a content dispute, that is all (but, of course, it is NOT solved by just deleting the material which he does not like). - Mauco 18:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Khoikhoi, but did you notice that the version proposed by Mauco is actually a misinterpretation of the actual text in the UN report? Based on a classical logical fallacy? I, for one, am for the inclusion of the actual citation. Dpotop 18:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about we include the *actual quote* from the UN report? See Azerbaijani people for some examples of how we can do this. Khoikhoi 18:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finally bringing some sanity to this debate, Khoi. All the claims, counterclaims and overall mudslinging (much of which is totally inappropriate and has to do with personal attacks) can easily be settled if we focus on the facts and the edits. But: No selective quoting, please. Whatever we quote must represent the overall tone of the report. This is a contentious matter, so I urge everyone to discuss the proposals here first and not make random edits in mainspace until there is a level of overall agreement. - Mauco 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Finally bringing some sanity"?!?!?! So, how is Khoikhoi's proposal to include exact citations different from mine?

Anyway, it's nice to see Khoikhoi agrees with me on this point. Dpotop 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

there's a small difference. Your comment was part of a larger entry which also including claims of misinterpretation on my part. I obviously (as I have made abundantly clear on this Talk page, over and over again) disagree with that assessment. Khoi's comment, which avoided this sort of criticism and focused on an edit suggestion, was clearly the better of the two; IMHO. Feel free to disagree; that is your constitutional right. - Mauco 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry—I hadn't noticed you had already proposed it. I was wondering, how long would this actual quote be? We should also keep in mind that this is not Wikisource. I think two paragraphs should be the limit. Khoikhoi 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. To start, we should simply take Mauco's misleading text:

"However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control."

and change it into:

"Foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations say that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in some fields of weapons control."

Why: There is no "confirmation", they are the first credible sources to say it. And they talk of "some fields" and not some overall confirmation or support. This is consistent with the full report, where it is clearly said that few information was actually available from Transnistria (read the first pages of the Transnistria section of the full report, if you don't believe me). Dpotop 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

good step but it is misleading... we should try to include both sides. We should add that Transnistrian authority denied the full access to international monitors to investigate allegations of iledit SALW
EvilAlex 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the SALW report: High levels of secrecy on arms and security issues in the past have however had negative repercussions. For example, the denial of full access to international monitors whishing to investigate allegation of illicit SALW production by the Transdniestrian authorities has reinforced negative perceptions of the Transdniestrian regime. (from page 10)

In the absence of any concrete evidence to demonstrate the orchestrated movement of SALW from Transdniestria, the Survey team was unable to substantiate these claims. (that of weapon smuggling) However, a number of factors serve to perpetuate perpetuate these concerns, including the high incidence of Russian enquiries about weapons to the Moldovan office of Interpol, the continued weak capacity of border controls on the Ukraine-Moldovan border, the proximity of the Odessa Illchiovsk ports, and the historically low levels of transparency of the Transdniestrian authorities regarding production facilities and the security services. (from page 40)

The report does say that there are no proves of smuggling, but it not as simple as Mauco attepts to put it... He is simply using only the parts that suits him... Greier 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. The above quotes are equally selective, if not more so. They specifically refer to the usual past concerns. The new developments are much more worthwhile to highlight: That as of lately (2005-2006), Transnistria has been very co-operative. This is not just documented in the U.N. report, but also by others - including the international weapons monitors who visited a number of suspected factories in February. - Mauco 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than criticize why dont you try yourself? Show as which quotes are not selective.. EvilAlex 19:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. This work is easy, but it is better done by a neutral third party who has no part in the edits and no part in the reversions of the edits. The task is straightforward: Read the report and then summarize, in a couple of sentences, the main conclusions which best represent the overall sentiment of what the foreign experts are stating. Where direct quotes are needed, they should only represent these main conclusions and not a selective subset of the conclusions as that would be bias. - Mauco 20:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A good policy is to keep the disputed sentences out of a controversial article while ongoing discussion is still underway in Talk, where there are attemtps to reach consensus. Some other users said the same thing. Mauco i am going to keep disputed source out till consensus have been reached. EvilAlex 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is illuminating to read the above sentence, posted just 2 days ago, in light of the more recent behavior of EvilAlex on the page dated 31 October and 1 November. . This, by the way, from the same editor who (below) says, about me, and I quote: "Mauco it is true your position is changing like a wind" - Mauco 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility, trolling, spinning, and the current conflict

I have been accused at several occasions of being uncivil, and I think it is time to react. The ones who accused me are User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet. They do not agree with the current data in the article, or with edits of other users which include me. This is, of course, their right, but my impression is that they largely overstep Misplaced Pages rules through creative trolling. What they label as insults are in fact documented remarks saying exactly (and only) this. For instance, I said that User:Mauco is spinning information. When I saw he continues, I called him a spin doctor, to represent the fact that:

1. he is selectively presenting facts and quotes,
2. he edits and phrases text in a way that assumes unproven truths.

These are two of the main actions defining spinning. To conclude, here is what the two users are doing to make me believe they are malicious:

• Repeated malicious editing of citations, which change the meaning of the citations. The last example is a fragment from a UN report, which User:Mauco would not accept unless edited (User:MarkStreet took a more reasonable position here).
• Calls to wikipedia policies (such as WP:COPYVIO) that do not apply in order to justify the malicious editing of citations. Of course, given the size of these citations, we can assume fair use, so there is no copyright problem. As an experienced wikipedia user, User:Mauco knows it, as he well acknowledged when I confronted him.
• Repeated redundant calls to assuming good faith while we are not here in the beginning in the editing process, and when the named users have completely ignored logical arguments presented here.
• Archiving too often, and usually when a subject is not yet closed, and when information in the archived sections is used in current arguments. I find this particularly disruptive, because it spreads information into many repositories, and makes referencing difficult.
• In a clear 2-side editing conflict, User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet (which form one side) often engage in verbous exchanges on the talk page, comforting each other's position, but not at all asking for the opinion of other. They seem to be trying to flood the talk page with one-sided information, without attempts to negotiate a NPOV.

Dpotop 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to provide citations for each point, especially about "completely ignored logical arguments" part. Assuming good faith is a good thing - it makes later RfCs easier. As for archiving - it's not irreversible, you can move the topics that you feel are in need of attention back to discussion (like I already did). Mentioning the misbehavior of the "home team" might be a good idea as well. --Illythr 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done: take a look at edits on the Transnistria page from 15:50, 29 October 2006 to 17:23, 29 October 2006. You will see that Mauco pushes the following text:

"However, foreign experts working on behalf of the United Nations confirm that there is currently transparency and good levels of co-operation with Transnistria in the field of weapons control."

I have cited on the talk page the exact version from the UN report, which talks about "good levels of co-operation in some areas during the writing of the report". Unspecified areas, and clearly not all areas concerning weapons control. And I'm not getting here into details (you should all read more details in the "Transnistria" section of the full report).

Note that I have already pointed out, on this talk page, and at several occasions, the logical fallacy involved in his editing. Dpotop 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: In the spirit of non-partiality, I also believe that EvilAlex should promote both sources, not just RFE/RL. EvilAlex, read the UN report, Transnistria section. Dpotop 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion too. I did not want to jump in. But some of the claims against User:Mauco and User:MarkStreet are very hard and I agree with User:Illythr that it is better for User:Dpotop if she or he gave The actual links for cite of these claims. - Pernambuco 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the charge that "Archiving too often, and usually when a subject is not yet closed" I just took a quick look at the seven archives. All of them average around 150 Kb and It is a normal size for archiving. The exception is the last one (Archive #7) . .. Seems like The User:Mauco waited more than usual before he archived. It is nearly twice the standard size. It is 245 Kb long. He also asked first and kept the open topics on the current page. - Pernambuco 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. In fact, we could all get a lot more work done, and better, if these Romanian users who MariusM solicited and brought over here recently onto this page could simply just concentrate on the work at hand: Discussing edits to the article, without letting the discussion degenerate into criticism or even personal attacks. Does it really matter who is a KGB agent, or who is paid by the Transnistrian government? Does it matter who was born where, or who is doing trolling (or creative trolling, or whatever)? Focus on the edits. It was the endless bickering and lack of focus which drove MarkStreet away. This was a shame because he had an "inside view" on the issues that none of the rest of us here are sharing. With regards to the edits, if you don't like what is there, propose others for debate. I will debate them, from my own view of the issues and will of course continue to bring my own knowledge and research to the discussion. If there are personal issues between me and another editor, deal with it on the personal User Talk pages or start an RFC. I would very much welcome that, and it would make for a cleaner, more productive work environment on this particular Talk page. - Mauco 02:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that trolling is defined and banned on wikipedia means that it hampers constructive editing, just like in this article. You ask me now:

"Does it really matter who is a KGB agent, or who is paid by the Transnistrian government?"

When talking of sources, yes. Especially when discussing which sources are trustworthy and can be cited. And especially when User:Bogdangiusca managed to uncover here an astroturfing campaign later relayed by The Economist. And this is a logical argument anyone should understand. Dpotop 08:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, Dpotop are now talking about sources. Here, we agree. However, before this, it was all about me (and not about sources). His personal attacks and accustaions could, objectively, be seen as an infringement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You are welcome to ask for an RfC and we can move the personal discussion there. Meanwhile, please add something constructively to the Talk page and help us make a better article. - Mauco 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the last edits on the Transnistria page, it still is about you, because you still try to misinterpret that UN report istead of providing the actual citation. Dpotop 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While banned practices should be reported and punished, it seems to me a tad disingenuous for this notoriously polemic group to focus on Mauco for behavior that seems endemic to these articles. Perhaps concerned editors might lead by example? Jamason 15:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Notoriously polemic group? I mean, Mauco, like yourself, never really edited articles outside the "Moldovan/Transnistrean" topic, which has been polemic from its inception. Both of you wouldn't know what non-polemic editing is. In the entire edit list of Mauco (>1000 edits in the "main" space) there are less than a dozen articles that do not contain the word "Transnistria" or "Dniestr". And among them only one is edited several times: "Dollar diplomacy". And you accuse me of being polemic? Dpotop 17:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, when using the word "polemic" he was referring to all of us (not just to you) or rather to the subject matter in general. As for my edit record, and that of Jamason, it reflects our specialties. Anyone who is clearly interested in having good content should be pleased, not annoyed, that people who know so much detailed information about Transnistria - even experts, as in the case of Jamason - are active on Misplaced Pages and are willing to help by adding these details and their factual knowledge to the articles. - Mauco 17:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another logical fallacy. So, you say that "Jamason wa referring to all of us" when talking about "the group that focuses on Mauco". So, you are focusing your criticism on yourself? Cool! Dpotop 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, is your "speciality" the misinterpretation through logical fallacies of UN reports? Dpotop 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Whatever. I am certain that all of us here have reading and comprehension skills and do not need my interpretation or your interpretation of what Jamason wanted to say. I am less sure what this discussion is doing to help the edits of the article, and it might be timely to post a reminder that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum. Could we all try to act our age, please? - Mauco 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Illogical Mauco. So, my editing here serves no purpose. Why, then, do you add text, if you see this as useless? What you are doing is called misleading vividness, a main tool of spin doctors. Dpotop 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say. But might I, please, call your attention to the fact that my quote was not "misleading vividness", however much you want to think so ... it was simply a word by word restatement of the disclaimer which sits on top of this page. Verbatim: "Article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Do not use them as a discussion forum."' Your complaint of spindoctorism should not be levelled at me, but at whoever wrote that template instruction which I just repeated and which you might have overlooked. It sits at top of this page, just scroll up. - Mauco 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages can and should be used to uncover trolls. Especially creative trolls, who use the rules and manipulate the public. And your systematic call to inapplicable rules is specific to creative trolls. Just count your number of citations of WP:CIVIL, done while you tried to manipulate text. Nasty... Dpotop 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of just insulting people, can we try to get back on topic? Khoikhoi 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I too curious in asking (Khoikhoi, not Mauco) why he believes I am insulting someone? Dpotop 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, they were more like accusations rather than insults, but regardless, they get nothing accomplished. Khoikhoi 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jamason, for having said similar reasonable things in the past, have already been accused by an ultra-nationalist Romanian POV pusher of being my sockpuppet. With this level of debate defining our current work environment, it is no wonder that MarkStreet left and that Jamason is not as active as I am suspect that he otherwise would be. - Mauco 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't cry, Mauco. I'd be surprised if Mark Street and Jamason do not appear when they are needed to push some argument with illogical arguments. Dpotop 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MarkStreet won't. He was chasen away by MariusM (the same used who invited your participation on this page, as a way to more Romanians and bolster his support here). As for Jamason, I will let him answer the thinly veiled accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. All I can say is that it is uncalled for, and that it has nothing to do with any edits to the main article. It especially has no place in a section whose heading starts with the word "Civility". - Mauco 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop you took this conversation to a personal level that I didn't expect. You also didn't quite get my comment. Neither are particularly auspicious signs for a productive future working relationship. My point is that almost all of the editors currently involved with the Transnistria articles are (by self admission) emotionally invested in either proving the PMR's legitimacy or lack there of. Also, I wish I had more self-control, but speaking of illogical and irrelevant let's look at your response to my comment. You say Mauco, like yourself, never really edited articles outside the "Moldovan/Transnistrean" topic, which has been polemic from its inception. And, conclude: Both of you wouldn't know what non-polemic editing is. Of course, I can know what non-polemic editing is because I know what is and is not polemic. The two statements are not logically connected. Furthermore, to be a relevant response, you should have addressed my concern that since most editors are making polemic edits, singling out Mauco in this respect is unfair. Instead, you make an irrelevant observation about my own editing habits. What's more, you argument is centered on an ad hominem attack on myself, as if this makes up for your own argument's weakness. Argue the point, not my qualifications! To sum up: illogical, irrelevant and ad hominem. Jamason 00:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As Mauco made some personal attacks on me I want to reply: (1) I didn't chase away MarkStreet, I don't have this power on Misplaced Pages. Indeed, I told him that he is not "the only voice of Transnistria" as he claims, but this is not "chasing away". (2) Mauco is not understanding Romanian as well as he claim - obviously he don't understand the relations between me and Dpotop, he only saw that I wrote to him. In my message I strongly criticised Dpotop for what I believed was a bad edit in this article. Using personal messages instead of edit wars is an acceptable Misplaced Pages behaviour.--MariusM 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To all: It would be huge shame (and our loss) if we disgust Jamason so much with the current level of behavior that he decides to leave, or to help us less with our work. User:Dpotop only came here because his participation was publicly solicited, along with that of a number of other hardline Romanian users, by User:MariusM. This type of action is defined as "canvassing" in WP:SPAM and it is frowned upon. In a previous arbitration case, it was stated that "the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." While Dpotop is certainly welcome as a newcomer here, especially if he can contribute something positive to the article and to the working environment, the unrequested solicitation of partisan editors which has been carried out by MariusM on individual User Talk pages and on the Talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board is beyond the pale and run counter to Misplaced Pages community-wide norms. Personally, I would prefer to see the return of an intensified involvement of some of the old Top 10 leading contributors to this page from the past, rather than newcomers who have been specifically solicited and brought in simply because their views are known in advance to favor one of the sides in an ongoing series of content disputes. The more people we can have here who are familiar with the subject, the better it is for everyone. - Mauco 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally wrong the idea that I knew Dpotop view in advance. I had also disagreements with him. All who knows Romanian can see that is nothing wrong in my message. And I repeat: Mauco himself asked outside support, including suport from a 16 years old kid and claiming that this is "wisdom of the elders".--MariusM 02:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you leave out your original solicitation of Dpotop's involvement, which was not critical of him or his edits at all, but mentioned me in negative terms and requested his involvement directly? And why did you leave out the solicitation of his (knowingly pro-Romanian) vote? - Mauco 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why you believe Romanians have no right to speak about Transnistria? Dpotop was active comenting the links, I told him not to limit himself to comment but to vote, without telling him how to. Asking others to vote I learnt from Mauco. He asked, for example (is not the only one) votes from User:Node ue , well known for starting the Moldovan Misplaced Pages, now blocked and voted for deletion, while himself is speaking badly Moldovan (self-declared Mo-2). You asked his votes because you trust his anti-Romanian bias (Romanians were the most actives in asking the deletion of Moldovan Misplaced Pages), and you called it "asking the wisdom of the elders". In fact, Node Ue, who registered also at Romanian Misplaced Pages, is a 16 year old kid Node UE presentation page in Romanian Misplaced Pages. I have to admit that for a 16 years old kid, starting a new Misplaced Pages was quite a remarkable achievement. Mauco, are you not ashamed asking support from a 16 years old kid and claiming that this mean bringing in Transnistria article the "wisdom of the elders"? You will not improve the quality of Misplaced Pages behaving in this way.--MariusM 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if Node is 16 years old, but he is one of the top past contributors to Transnistria and that is what matters here. Misplaced Pages has a tool which lets you see who the leading past contributors to a page is. When there is a contentious issue (such as a vote) it is GOOD PRACTICE to ask for the participation, without stating vote preferences, of past top contributors. Node was one of these. I also asked the rest, as you know. This is in line with Misplaced Pages norms for participation. In sharp contrast, it is OUT OF LINE is to selectively solicit votes only from those who you know will vote a certain way, such as the targeted vote-soliciting by MariusM among only the Romanian Misplaced Pages users. This sort of vote shopping is called canvassing and is frowned upon as per WP:SPAM. Since this practice started, we have had many more disruptions than usual on this page, and the level of uncivility on this page has gone through the roof. Read the archives; this is merely a statement of fact. No barnstar deserved. - Mauco 02:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reviewing the facts. On Friday, 27 Oct, MarkStreet posted a comment which - in his eyes - was a fair comment on the current state of the article.

Almost immediately, User:MariusM told him: "MarkStreet, please refrain adding plain fallacies in this page."

He then decided to leave. This was the last message which he posted here: "My comments even on this page are constantly being edited out, It's very frustrating not having a voice on this page never mind on the main page.......every agreed edit never took place. Its a complete waste of time. I have lost all faith that Transnistria can have a voice on this. If higher people in Wiki want me back in the future fine but for now I am leaving these pages."

I have asked him to return but he told me that he felt like he was being chased away by MariusM and his posse. Now, this is MarkStreet's opinion. Obviously, MariusM feels different (as we can see above). But the fact is that MarkStreet feels that he was bullied and treated badly, and I have to agree with him that the atmosphere around here has been increasingly uncivil as of late. The namecalling by a handful of Romanians is becoming constant. - Mauco 01:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

When reviewing the facts, please give full citations. MarkStreet told: "I am the only Transnistrian voice on here" and indeed I replied to him that this is a plain fallacy, as he is not born in Transnistria and is not living in that place. The only transnistrian voice here is EvilAlex, who was born in Transnistria (Bender) and has his familly still living there. The same EvilAlex Mauco wanted to block through fake 3RR report . Removing plain fallacies from Misplaced Pages is one of the things I try, and I am proud to do this work. I expect my contribution to be appreciated. Barnstar, please!--MariusM 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to give you a Barnstar. And we have already been over the issue of whether or not EvilAlex represents the voice of Transnistria on this page. He does not. But if you insist on this unproductive and, some would say, "childish" claim, then we can of course always have a vote on it... - Mauco 01:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, but that'd be eeeevil... ;-) --Illythr 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. It was said in jest. I can just imagine the poll now: "Is EvilAlex representative as a voice of Transnistria?" ("Yes"/"No"/"Dunno"/"Only if he removes the Auschwitz badge") - Mauco 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

O man i will be laughing if you will lose. Lets think logicality i can only win or nothing and you can only lose or nothing. EvilAlex 11:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Can someone point me to some information on how exactly you decide on naming conventions. For instance, this article is under Transnistria and not Pridnestrovie. Compare that with Côte d'Ivoire, or Myanmar, or Republic of China, or Democratic Republic of the Congo. All of them have the countries' preferred name as the name of the page. I know there are instances where this isn't the case, like East Timor, and Japan, and possibly some others. In both those cases, however, the name of the page is the only that is more popularly known, and changing the name would lead to extreme confusion. I'm not sure if that's the case with this one. Anyone who has heard of the country is probably familiar with both names. Zhinz 06:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of us worked in detail of this earlier in the year. The most active editors on this issue were myself and a Romanian user, TSOD1. There is a history of this in the archives. Names of Transnistria reflect our findings. With regards to the priority name in use, it is not the name preferred by the government (which is "Pridnestrovie") but the most common name in English (which is "Transnistria"). We did look into the Burma/Myanmar situation in particular, as well as some of the other countries which you mention. The main reason why we did not choose Pridnestrovie over Transnistria is because of the lack of international recognition of the area's government. If it becomes recognized, we would obviously be using the Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar examples as the article naming policy specifies in Misplaced Pages. - Mauco 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When we decided to use the name Transnistria, it was because we felt that that name was more popular in English than Pridnestrovie. If you check the number of Google hits for Pridnestrovie and Transnistria, you will see that the currently used version is much more frequently seen. Even the government's website http://pridnestrovie.net accepts this fact: "Although "Transnistria" is the name most commonly used to describe Pridnestrovie in English ." TSO1D 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this clarification. Needless to say, I agree with TSO1D (on this matter, not necessarily on everything else, as he well knows). I can add that the naming situation is unlikely to change unless the formal status of Transnistria changes. - Mauco 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While looking at the Pridnestrovie article on the name, I found something interesting. The full sentence I abridged was: "Although "Transnistria" is the name most commonly used to describe Pridnestrovie in English, the name is wrong on two counts: It is not from our language, and it doesn't even describe the territory of our country accurately." What do they mean, the name is not from our language. What happened to there being three equal official languages of Transnistria, including what they call Moldovan. They say the term is Romanian, as though "Moldovan" sources hadn't also traditionally used that word during Soviet times. This isn't directly related to the original question, but I just found it comical how the authors allowed their real opinions to seep into the article (i.e. it's clear what they mean by "our language"). TSO1D 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I hadn't even noticed that, and this was one of the sources which I used when we worked on the naming issue and the Names for Transnistria article back then. Of course Moldovan is one of their languages (one of three). If you read the more extreme Transnistrian views, such as some of the authors on Olvia Press, they also love to get the occasional stab in at Moldova regarding the language issue. It usually goes something like this (paraphrasing): "PMR is the only place in the world were people speak Moldovan. In Moldova, they speak Romanian. Here in PMR we have Moldovan as the official language. In Moldova, they have no official language." The latter is because Moldova simply talks about "state language" but does not name it, so no one (says Olvia) is quite sure whether it is called Moldovan or Romanian. Not sure how this is useful for editing the article, so I apologize for straying off topic. - Mauco 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, who coined this name, Transnistria? The earliest use I found is in the title of a newspaper published in Chişinău, "Tribuna Românilor Transnistrieni", in 1927. bogdan 20:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, I am VERY interested in any light that you can shed on this, please. The "common wisdom", which even made it into a couple of books in English, is that it was a term which saw the light at the outset of World War II, and that it was introduced by Romania when their troops stationed themselves in Odessa. I have always been suspicious of this. Your 1927 reference, and any earlier references (if they exist), would disprove that. - Mauco 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The right place to continue this thread is not here, but Talk:Names of Transnistria to avoid content forking. - Mauco 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I continued the thread in there. bogdan 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As have I. See you there! - Mauco 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

spellings

Illytr and 69.138.254.22, thank you for your help. I was and am really sleepy, sorry for so many spelling mistakes. BTW some of them were there before me, I just did not correct everything, or my eyes did not pbserved them. good night! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 October 2006.

Hi and welcome to the Transnistra page!

1. It'd be best to place your (extensive) comments on the talk page here instead of the mainspace - this way it's easier to find and discuss them.
2. The history section is currently rather bloated, I think that further expansions to it should be done in the History of Transnistria article or even in Operation Barbarossa-related WWII ones. The section here should only contain a summary of the most important stuff from those.
3. Operation Barbarossa was started by crossing the Prut (among other places), so it certainly was an invasion.
4. Now that you mentioned it, I think that Lebed' should be included into the article as well.
5. There is no need to insert a wikilink to the same article more than once or twice. It's usually done only on the first mention.

Otherwise, thanks for your contribution! --Illythr 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already talked to DC on his own page, and said some of the same things (plus thanking him for his contribution, of course). My only serious concern is the same as Illythr's: Much of this level of detail is better added to History of Transnistria. We need to prevent content forking, and also to maintain just a summary of the key events here on the main Transnistria page. - Mauco 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My answers to the 5 questions:

1. I just wantted the "waring parties" not to wage wars on me as well :)) so i put the remarks. But they obviously must be removed after a day or two when these guys have seen them. Indeed move then on the talk page, so that if the issue comes again, we can remember what was originally the argument.
2. I agree with you. William Mauco has raised the same question on my User talk:Dc76. I think this section size by now is about 99,9% of what it can be. The key events must be mentioned. But as I see it know, there is nothing I can recall that can be added. So if it can bear as it is now in size... then the section is done and we shake hands, and go to the next. anyway, something along these lines
3. In 1941, after Axis forces invaded Bessarabia in the course of the Second World War, they cut-off the Soviet troops around Odessa... You want to say they invaded Soviet Union. Because Odessa and Transnistria are surely ont in Bessarabia. :) The point that Romanian historians draw here is that the army was ordered initially to go only till Dniester. they never thought they would fight along Germans in Russia proper. When they crossed Dniester, everyone who was supposed to participate in the new to be formed civilian government of romania said "no". Therefore Antonescu was alone leader of Romania, and he could not have a normal government. In the eyes of Romanians and Moldovans, Bassarabia was not really an invasion. Like Finland when it took over lands that USSR took in 1939-1940 war. It was an invasion of the USSR as a whole, that is absolutely true. When they crossed the river Dniester, that was invasion by all standards. On the same tokken, the western countries protested when USSR crossed in 1944 to Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia. they expected Soviets to stop (ideally) at their border. being invaded is not a reason to invade. It is very difficult to stop to take more than it's yours when you see you can. Not everyone has principiality, and nations are seldom led by the best human qualities.

In fact, the reason Antonescu did that is partially because his plan for Bessarabia, coincidently his diploma paper when he finished the military academy, was a failure. His plans costed thousands more lifes of his solders, not counting civilians caught in the fire and Soviet solders. The troops that did not act accoring to his plan were able to fight off Belov's kavkorpus! The troops that did follow, faced ordinary solders, and got killed by hundreds a day. Antonescu did not want his main military contribution to be a failure. He needed one more action. Then the siege of Odessa, there was no plan for it, was a blunder that must be taught in military schools. Soviets had only half of his numbers, and he managed to loose in one month more than romania did in the previous 100 years. So he needed more action again... He justified himself by comparing with his predecessors: King Caroll II, who was banned to enter Romanian again (!) when forced to abdicate and Horia Sima (second leader of the Iron Guard), who's intelligence, was not very bright, to say the least. It is a pitty Romania did not find a force to stop in July 1941 as Finland more or less did. By the same token, if Romania would, then like Finland it would have fought in June 1940, as expected. There were big problems with the Romanian political class at that time. The best people could not reach high to power and influence, and whose who reached high were idiots or more.

4. agree

5. I thought we should add everywhere we see that word. Ok, I'll know now. Of course if the article takes 10 pages, then it makes sense to add on pages 1,3,5,etc one time each Perhaps:Dc76 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

the introduction

The way the introduction was before was lame b/c the word "independence" was repeated in two consecutive sentances without new info being added, and it somehow suggested that "sovereignty" and "independence" are treated differently when comes to Transnistria, which is not the case: Transnistria wants both, and Moldova refuses both. Neither side cares about one but not the other.

But the new formulation is even worse - it will obviously generate polemics. You don't expect EvelAlex to swallow this, do you?

I am going to refrain from changing, because I don't want to be part of edit war. I just want to see the issues that can be agreed done, and then the remaining 2-3 things, you can just go on with your war to infinity. I think you guys enjoy waring more than actually writting. At some point it stops being a "war" over issues, but "war" because of "war". There is a good example like that in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn". Have you guys read it? If you did, you surely don't remember, since it is you in the mirror!

Nevertheless, I don't want to object wothout being constructive. So I look at the list of "unrecognized countries", which is a wiki page, and hence can not be a sourse. But nevertheless, below I see partially recognized countries: PR of China, Israel, Vatican. Sorry guys, but no way close can Transnistria be to Israel, don't even suggest half way. Israel is subject to international law, Transnistria is not. The fact that some countries like Iran want to destroy Israel speaks about the very long path Iran has still to make. The fact that not a single country recognizes Transnistria speaks about the long path that Transnistria, not the rest of the world, has to make.

To me Transnistria is like Kosovo. So I look at its wiki entry:

Kosovo (Albanian: Kosovë or Kosova; Serbian: Косово и Метохија or Kosovo i Metohija, also Космет or Kosmet) is a province in southern Serbia which has been under United Nations administration since 1999. While Serbia's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Serbian governance in the province is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Kosovo). The province is governed by the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the local Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, with security provided by the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR).

So, just copying that, how about this:

Transnistria (Russian: cyrillic or Pridnestrovie; Romanian: Transnistria) is a region in the eastern Moldova which has been de facto independent since the War of Transnistria in 1992. While Moldova's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Moldovan governance in the region is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Transnistria). Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the presence of the three-party Russian-Moldovan-Transnistrian peacekeepers, established at the end of the war in 1992.

How about that? You guys fight, go ahead, you like it. I will just suggest, but YOU go ahead and change. I don't want to edit the introduction.:Dc76 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither this article nor History of Transnistria say a word about peacekeepers. I guess you are talking about Joint Control Commission. Must be mentioned somewhere in the txt. `'mikkanarxi 16:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the JCC administers everything, which is the 1,000-2,000 or so (I don;t remember the numbers, must search to find exactly) peacekeepers and about a hundred observers. Observers are non-military professional stuff. But yes, that is exactly what I mean, and yes, you are right, it should be mentioned somewhere. It is JCC that plays exactly the same role in Tighina/Bender and Dubasari/Cocieri/Cosnita, as UN adimistration does in Kosovo. Now, these two sentances from above:

Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the presence of the three-party Russian-Moldovan-Transnistrian peacekeepers, established at the end of the war in 1992.

They are not identical as in the case of Kosovo, because no two conflicts are the same. And besides, I had to put somewhere the sentance Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Otherwise William Mauco will not swallow it. So I just moved it there. I don't mind changing "peacekeepers" to "JCC", or something along these lines. My point was about the bigining. We can do very well to look at examples such as Kosovo, Chechnya or the like in the future and just use similar frazing, since probably there were "edit wars" there at some point too, and things got more or less settled.

Do you know that when William Mauco and EvelAlex faught about weapons, they managed to forget to mention Lebed and Kozak Memorandum altogether? Now, I'm not a fun of Lebed', but it is historic fact: without him maybe there would still be more war. Kozak memorandum deserves a short article, I believe. The events in November 2003 did change a lot, whither someone likes or not what was proposed and what happened is another thing, but ignoring it is like history of USSR and USA in 20th century would forget the Cuba issue. It was sort of imporatant, they almost started a nuclear war. :Dc76 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

sound good, also i prefer not use the word "peacekeepers", rather i would change it to "JCC"
EvilAlex 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the person who says that these are not identical with Kosovo. - Pernambuco 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the proposal. It a mix of what the suggestions from bogdan said and what Jonathanpops said and also from my own original suggestion. Now it matches with the same wording of what the various lists and templates on Misplaced Pages all say. It is:

Transnistria (officially Pridnestrovie) is an unrecognized country in Southeastern Europe which declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its de facto independence has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention.

I am sorry if I did something wrong but this was discussed a lot from the top of this talking page. - Pernambuco 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pernambuco. I do agree that this was discussed a lot but we didnt reached a conclusion. We still stuck on four proposals - "region", "territory", "unrecognized state", and "unrecognized country". EvilAlex 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to let the introduction as it is. It was a consensus achieved after discussion, we should not open the discussion again. See archive - I had a discussion with Mauco and Jamason regarding this paragraph, I didn't agree that de facto independence was achieved imediatelly after it was proclaimed, it was a period of "dual power". Agreement was that we will develop those details in the history section, but I didn't have time to work on it.--MariusM 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not agreeable. Several others (including Bogdan, Pernambuco, MarkStreet, myself, etc) have discussed changing it. I have had some run-ins with some of them but I don't see how on earth the change by Pernambuco can be considered controversial. It is as bland and neutral as can possibly be, in fact it is clear that it uses the same phrasing as the rest of Misplaced Pages uses towards Transnistria. The only change that I will propose is a syntax change: As DC pointed out, it does not sound very good to repeat the word "independence" in two consecutive sentences. Change the last sentence to: Its statehood has not been recognized and the sovereignty of Transnistria is an issue of contention. - Mauco 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not see the two "independence" in a row. Yes, it is best to remove the last and change as this suggestion. I agree. - Pernambuco 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, you all read what I write, but you all understand different things, because you select what you like and forget the rest. I am VERY GLAD that Mikkalai and EvelAlex had identical suggetions towards my proposition: change peacekeepers to JCC. This is a good step on the path of consensus. So, my proposition now looks:

Transnistria (Russian: cyrillic or Pridnestrovie; Romanian: Transnistria) is a region in the eastern Moldova which has been de facto independent since the War of Transnistria in 1992. While Moldova's nominal sovereignty is recognised by the international community, in practice Moldovan governance in the region is virtually non-existent (see also Constitutional status of Transnistria). Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the Joint Control Commission (formed in 1992), charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements.

Several observations are due here:

• Southeastern Europe is unnecessary. Only independent and fully recognized countries' position are given that way. In case of unrecognized authorities, it is imporatent to point not the location, but why it is unrecognized. In this case, because by law it is part of Moldova. It has nothing to do with what's de facto, and does not mean that in the future the legal status can not change. But we must say what is now, not what is posible, likely or probably to be in the future.
• The person who proposed yesterday the formulation a la Kosovo and who pointed out that no two conflicts are identical is a single person - me.
• There is a lot of similarity between Transnistria and Kosovo, especially when it comes to their international status. In fact they have IDENTICAL INTERNATIONAL STATUS IN THE EYES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. This is recognized by both Russia and the West. So I am not inventing anything here. It DOES NOT MEAN that their status and fate is somehow LINKED. It is how they are regarded from the point of view of INTERNATIONAL LAW. Therefore I suggested to use a formulation simmilar to the one used on Misplaced Pages for Kosovo.
• But I did not suggest a formulation 100% similar. Although they are similar from the point of view of law, they are NOT SIMILAR in the events that ocured, and forces involved. No military block bombed Moldova, as NATO bombed Serbia, and USA did not go to Kosovo alone, as Russia did in Transnistria. Also Kosovo has an administration who's decisions can be overruled by the UN (recently EU) administrator, while only Transnistria's decisions related to the localities subject to the 1992 war can be overruled by JCC. Also JCC and UN/UE are sort of different, I don't think anyone doubts all these facts. Therefore the last two sentances are different from Kosovo:

Transnistria has declared its independence from Moldova on September 2, 1990. Its status-quo is provided by the Joint Control Commission (formed in 1992), charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements.

The last part charged with ensuring observance of the ceasefire and security arrangements I coppied from the JCC wikipedia entry.:Dc76 15:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the situation of Transnistria is identical with Kosovo, and the West also don't agree. Only Russia is claiming that precedent of Kosovo should be taken in consideration when talking about the fate of Transnistria, Abkhazia and Ossetia. I keep my proposal to let the introduction unchanged, or to change it as I told in 25 October: "Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under Russian military occupation".--MariusM 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The other users thought that this was a joke ("said in jest"). My suggestion is more neutral. It would be nice to see everyone get along. - Pernambuco 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a complete joke. The only two people here who take it seriously is MariusM and his sidekick, EvilAlex. Of course your suggestion was neutral, and that is what we should strive for in the beginning of the article. All the Russian info is fleshed out later in the article, and in other articles as well (on 14th army's involvement, the disputed status, and so on). Meanwhile, NPOV is the fundamental Misplaced Pages principle and even more-so in the summing up which is used in the introduction statement. I am willing to accept your proposal, in the interest of having everyone get along like you say. - Mauco 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You will defenetely have my support for this one :))
Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova UNDER DE FACTO CONTROL OF RUSSIA, due to stationing of russian troops on its territory
or
Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova UNDER DE FACTO military occupation of Russia.
EvilAlex 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your adition "de facto": "Transnistria is a region of the Republic of Moldova under de facto Russian military occupation"--MariusM 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding comparison Kosovo - Transnistria, for Romanian speakers an usefull article: --MariusM 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. More info:
Accordingly to Eurasia daily monitor Russia remains in breach of the original and adapted treaty and the Istanbul Commitments on the following counts:
*Troops unlawfully stationed in Moldova despite those same Commitments;
*Stationing Russian troops including “peacekeepers” in conflict areas without “host-country consent,” such consent being fundamental to both the existing and the adapted CFE Treaty.
*Treaty-banned weaponry (“unaccounted-for treaty-limited equipment”) handed over by the Russian military to their local allies in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Karabakh (including occupied territory in Azerbaijan beyond Karabakh);
EvilAlex 18:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we go overboard quoting Vladimir Socor in the article, may I add that Russia has a completely different view of this situation. According to official statements, it believes that it has completed with its Istanbul commitments. It is also wholly incorrect to say that the troops are "unlawfully" stationed. They are there with the consent of the host country, as evidenced by the 1992 ceasefire agreement which also created the Joint Control Commission. This agreement was signed by Moldova's president and it is still in force. As long as Moldova does not revoke this agreement, there is a valid and legal basis for the presence of the Russian security forces in Transnistria. They carry out two functions: Guarding the arsenal, which is being removed with OSCE co-operation, and guarding the buffer zone, as part of a multinational peacekeeping force along with Moldova, Transnistria and Ukrainian observers. - Mauco 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Given the fact that my proposition for introduction (to use formulation similar to Kosovo, etc) has not find but circumstancial and limited support, I am withdrawing it. The version that is now (09:37 1 November 2006), as I can see, is the original one. So it stays without change. If you have objections about it, I kindly ask everyone to first find a consensus in the talk page before doing changes.
2. Although the info provided in the Jamestown foundation article is signed by Vladimir Socor, it would have not been published if it were considered by the foundation in breach with factual reality. It is the right of Socor to introduce the comments he likes, and we should not quote his oppinions, but he is bind to state only truthful facts - reproduction of facts is not Socor's oppinion. The sentance:
   Stationing Russian troops including “peacekeepers” in conflict areas without “host-country consent,” such consent being fundamental to both the existing and the adapted CFE Treaty.
   is a fact, is not an oppinion. If Socor comments on this - then it is his oppinion, but as it is - it is not an oppinion.
3. Russia has a completely different view of this situation... According to official statements, it believes that it has completed with its Istanbul commitments. Absolutely true. Only problem, that is an oppinion, and when mentioned it must be clear that that is an oppionion, not an established fact. According to OSCE, Russia has not complied with Istanbul commitments, because 1) not all weapons were withdrawn 2) there are Russian solders in Transnistria beyond those with peacekeeping status. To comply with Istanbul commitments, Russia had to finish this withdrawl in 2002, and it did not even in 2006. This is a fact. It is however possible to mention that Russia see other interpretations of Istanbul commitments than literaly ones, but that is Russia's oppinion, not an established fact.
4. I agree that the article, should, in addition to facts, state the oppinions of the important players, so that the reader can understand the debates preceding the events. That prior to 2001 expressing political oppinions in contradiction to the official one could get someone in serious trouble, is a fact. What happened after 2001, must be seriously substanciated to be a fact. The sourses I have seen so far appear to me more like oppionions... Maybe I am wrong, but I am not convinced those are facts.:Dc76 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Geography

The first thing I wondered about when I saw the map was the geography. To my high surprise not a word on it. How can you discuss politics, economy, infrastructure, ... anything about a country of this shape without discussing its geography first? Of course I looked it up in an atlas and it turns out that, as I suspected, it consists of a river valley. I will add a note in the intro, hoping someone else will pick this up and expand on that. DirkvdM 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, colleague original research. What you see in a map may be your mistake. Are you sure it is just river valley? No hills at all? On the other hand, you pinpointed the problem, thanks. Geography section is missing indeed. `'mikkanarxi 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

The following paragraph deleted as unreferenced:

There has been some domestic terrorism in Transnistria:

• 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.
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten.

BTW, is it terrorism or hooliganism or negligience? I.e., references needed. `'mikkanarxi 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Transnistrian government accused Moldova of terrorism on the July explosion: "Atentatul din Transnistria: Tiraspolul acuza Chisinaul de terorism". bogdan 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think they should be mentioned in the article. Three such attacks in three years in a small region is something noteworthy. bogdan 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok whith ref:

• 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.
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten.

EvilAlex 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

These are "violent incidents". There is no evidence of terrorists or any terrorism activity and the subheading is misleading in the extreme. - Mauco 06:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are listed on Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. Khoikhoi 06:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should do the word-change, then? I would do it, but lately I have had a couple of overly enthusiatic followers who like to follow my edits closely and "clean up" after me, as one of them calls it. - Mauco 06:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure what word we should change it to. Perhaps "violent incidents" as you suggested? Or would that be whitewashing? Khoikhoi 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the incidents was later termed a freak accident, and the other two are not comparable, so whatever you change it to, find a broad heading because there is nothing in common except for the violence (and in two cases out of three, fatalies). I would do "violent incidents" but keep it open for a day or two and let other editors get a chance to comment. If someone calls it whitewashing, they should explain how this is so. Likewise, the editor(s) who want "domestic terrorism" to stay should then be ready to back up this choice of wording.- Mauco 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by the refference given by Bogdan, the wording "terrorism" is backed up by Transnistrian authorities. They even arrested 4 antiseparatist transnistrians for a short period (the "Dignitas" case, Mauco you know it, is the case you fight so hard not to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages), and the arrest was explained as a necesary step in investigating those "terrorist" acts. Are you claiming that Transnistrian authorities lied when they make all the accusations against Moldovan government and pro-Moldovan transnistrians? That's impossible, you know that Transnistrian authorities can do no wrong.--MariusM 09:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony appreciated, but wrong. So because Transnistria's news sources use one kind of language, we are obligated to use the same kind of language here? I am sorry, but why? Misplaced Pages is not Olvia Press. We use different words, in order to achieve neutrality, and we have vastly different inclusion criteria. - Mauco 14:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Words Terror, Terrorism, Teract.. are widely used by official Transnistrian agency Olvia Pres also ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ head of Transnistrian MGB says that it was Terrorism. Mauco are you disagree with him too?:
“С чувством глубокого прискорбия воспринял известие о террористическом акте, совершенном 6 июля в Тирасполе.”
“ротив любых форм и проявлений терроризма,”
“о происшедшем в Тирасполе террористическом акте.”
“осуждают эту варварскую вылазку террористов”
“ОБА ВЗРЫВА, 6 ИЮЛЯ В МАРШРУТНОМ ТАКСИ И 13 АВГУСТА В ТРОЛЛЕЙБУСЕ, КВАЛИФИЦИРУЮТСЯ КАК ТЕРРОРИСТИЧЕСКИЕ АКТЫ - ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
“Случайности не было, 13 августа имел место террористический акт”
“ПРЕСТУПНИК, СОВЕРШИВШИЙ ТЕРАКТ 13 АВГУСТА, ВЗЯТ ПОД СТРАЖУ- ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ”
And so on …
Mauco I knew that you like Olvia
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/july-2006.htm
http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol70-08-06.htm
EvilAlex 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Olvia Press (state owned news agency) is valid as a source which helps us determine on the official position of Transnistria. It is of course biased. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that Misplaced Pages should model itself on Olvia Press? And even if you do mean this, then the place to start is not here. First, change some of the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which are currently in place to ensure neutral and accurate language (policies which are certainly not in place at the content site which you use for comparison, Olvia Press). - Mauco 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked refferences, you received refferences.--MariusM 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for references. I merely requested that the editor(s) who want "domestic terrorism" to stay should back up this choice of wording. In a comparison between Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and the wording chosen by Transnistria's news agency, Misplaced Pages wins. - Mauco 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We can not but abide by Misplaced Pages policies here. Even if all of us agree, it would not be all right to contradict them. Even if we don't like them. Now, In Khoikhoi's reference (above) I find:

Standard Misplaced Pages form: X says Y

Encyclopedic:

X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.

X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings , is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C .

Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group

Not encyclopedic:

X is a terrorist group.

Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...

After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

How about this:

• 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.
• in July 2006, a bomb killed eight in a Tiraspol minibus.
• in August 2006, a grenade explosion in a Tiraspol trolley bus killed two and injured ten.

ВЛАДИМИР АНТЮФЕЕВ, head of Transnistrian MGB, qualified these acts as terrorism.

:Dc76 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the guy's name should not be in cyrillic, and he didn't call all 3 acts terrorism, but it is a good start. The header must of course still be "Violent incidents" because Vladimir Antyufeev was wrong and we do not let him dictate how to phrase Misplaced Pages. He was trying to whip up hysteria and hold on to his job which was being heavily criticized at the same time that he gave his speech. - Mauco 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: because Vladimir Antyufeev was wrong.
That is the case of АНТЮФЕЕВ vs Mauco. i dont think you have any chances
EvilAlex 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take my chances, thank you. Antyufeev is a has-been and more wrong than right. - Mauco 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

in this case you will need some serious contra arguments backed by reliable refs. Otherwise your post will be like previous ones - just a words :) EvilAlex 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know how to spell correctly Antyufeev in English, so I coppied it in Russian. I did not mean it to stay in cyrillic.

I am very glad you think it is a good start, William Mauco, what's your next proposition? Actually, which of the three acts did he characterized as terrorism? The last two? If so, replace "these acts" with "the last two acts". Although setting fire on a synagogue by all standads is terrorism. But I agree, if Antyufeev did not use "terrorism" in reference to that act, it should just stay "set on fire a synagogue" in that case - every normal person understands what kind of act it is, even if we don't call it by name.

Whether Antyufeev is generally right or wrong, we can perhaps even agree. But what counts, is what he said as chief of Transnistria's security. Just as with George Bush - many poeple agree that Bush is wrong in different situations, but it is important what Bush said as president of USA. If that is wrong or right, everyone is free to debate, but we can not say that the president of US did not say that. That's way many people in US complain about Bush, because his declarations are recorded as those of PRESIDENT OF US, as Antyufeev's - as those of CHIEF OF TRANSNISTRIA'S MGB, and as Voronin's - as those of president of Moldova. If you are American, but believe bin Laden is not terrorist, I don't think they will let you claim on bin Laden's Misplaced Pages's entry that he only caused "violent incidents". One can go down 100 steps below bin Laden, and still "violent incidents" would just put the person who suggests such term in the category of supporting terrorism. None of us here supports terrorism. It is not we who arrived at this term, it is an official in Transnistria's administration. In fact, a key official.

William Mauco, with all due respect, do you really believe that putting a bomb in a bus is not terrorism? You don't. The fact that that happened does not say that the people of Transnistria are terrorists. On the contrary, it says that people of Transnistria live in an environment where terrorist acts take place. Regardless of people's political oppinion about the future of Transnistria!

The article does not address at all this problem: the inherent difficulties caused to the inhabitants of Transnistria because of the present status-quo:

• they do not travel as normal people do, they have to have other passports;
• they can not do business with foreign countries with their transnistria- registered companies, but have to go at lengths to be both regarded well inside, and able to do business with external pertners
• they live in a environment that is much less secure than any other place in europe. if a crime is committed in a "border" village and both militsia and police come, it can be additional confrontation instead of solving the crime.
• they do not enjoy the same freedom of speech and assembly as people nearby in Moldova, and in neighboring Ukraine do - There maybe more rights than during the time of Stalin, but europe has evolved a long way from there.
• etc. You guys should address this:Dc76 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What EvilAlex didn't understand

EvilAlex, if you want to understand Mauco, you should study more dialectical materialism. What is true today, can be wrong tommorow, this is what this wonderfull phylosophy is teaching.

Let's take the case of Transnistria: Before referendum, it was necesary to acuse Moldovan government and pro-moldovan transnistrians of terrorist acts, in order to frighten the population, to keep fresh the image of enemy and to show the evilness of Moldova. Also, good reason to make some arrest of pro-Moldova activists, in order to create proper conditions for the referendum. Even here in Misplaced Pages, when I tried to include info about the arrests, opposition was raised with the argument: this is not intimidation of political opponents, this is a normal police investigation in a terrorist case. After the referendum, there is an other priority: obtain international recognition. In order to obtain that, a new image is needed: Transnistria is a quiet place, with a wonderfull democracy. No terrorism can take place in Transnistria, I repeat: is a QUIET place. Those are the new orders.--MariusM 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice rant. It gives some interesting insight into the personality of the person who wrote it. Not sure what specific edit he is proposing to the article, however... - Mauco 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha I have noticed it too. Mauco it is true your position is changing like a wind. Before you supported Olvia you even had given me few refs too . But when we pointed something critical to your position – then you started remembering how reliable the source is. Double standards, Trolling, spinning. Like a little girl who says no but meant yes :)
EvilAlex 18:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It didn't take you long to show up and post your full agreement with MariusM. I will let your own words stand in all their glory, and let anyone else draw their own conclusions. - Mauco 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco be trustful at list to yourself. And once again thank you for this moment of glory. EvilAlex 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatching you is a free theatre :):):):):) I enjoy it, especiallt b/c I don't have to pay for it.:130.225.20.50 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)