Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 3 January 2007

Still to do for this article..

• I will add the references shortly. I am beginning to do that now in my sandbox where I wrote the rough draft of this article.
• It also needs pictures if anyone has anything appropriate. I have many, but I don't have permission to use them here. I found one on Pridnestrovie.net which has an open source / Creative Commons license, so I uploaded it and included it now. - Mauco 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!—that one is great. It would like to be able to give it a complete caption, but there are a few faces I don't recognize: From left to right: , , Emel’ianov (?), Maracutsa, Skripnichenko, Voevodin, Shtefan, Akulov (?), Volkova, Denisenko, Ryliakov, , Popov, Zaigriadskii, and Zalozhlkov.
Mauco, are you able to identify the unknowns? jamason 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• wiki links.
• It might also be cool to add an SSR Infobox.

After that, it should just be tinkering and typos. jamason 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Raion soviets

Jamason, in this article, as in your thesis, you miss to show exactly the situation of rayonal soviets after 1990 elections, with the exception of Dubăsari rayon. While I don't have exact refference, info that I received from some Moldovans (this is original research, I know) shows that not only at Dubăsari, but also in Grigoriopol, Slobozia and Camenca rayons OSTK was not able to win elections, and only with pressure and intimidation PMSSR was able to take control in those areas. Actual article creates the impression that everywhere OSTK-backed politicians won and support for PMSSR was around 97%. Not real, in my opinion. I think I wrote to you also in e-mail about this subject--MariusM 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pressure and intimidation". Yes, that does sound like original research. Quite original, indeed. Pal Kolstoe has some commentary on this, for those of us who prefer peer reviewed academic papers over hearsay. - Mauco 00:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that I don't have much information about the raion soviets of Grigoriopol, Slobozia and Kamenka. Here is what I do know:

After the elections in 1990:

1. S. Popa, chairman of the Dubossary raion soviet, and I. Mitskul, chairman of the Dubossary raion ispolkom, were both active opponents of the Transnistrian separatist movement.
2. F. Nirian, chairman of the Slobozia raion soviet was an active opponent of the Transnistria separatist movement.
3. P. Poian, Secretary of the Grigoriopol raikom and the Chairman of the raion sovet was not an OSTK supporter, but not an active opponent either. Igor Smirnov says of him: “although he did not come out against us openly, he secretly insulted us.”
4. I do not know who became chairman of the Kamenka raisovet in 1990.

I can make this more clear in the article.

Also, I clearly do not give the impression that "support for PMSSR was around 97%." I have no reliable indicators to gauge exact support or opposition, and I didn't guess. jamason 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You give it, through yor footnote 13. Is not your impression, but is the impression of many Misplaced Pages readers after they will read this article in actual form.--MariusM 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You should explain this more clearly, maybe in a section about oposition to PMSSR. The entire article is based on pro-PMSSR sources, no Romanian-language sources were used. I will add a NPOV tag until this is solved.--MariusM 10:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're using spurious tagging as blackmail. This is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. - Mauco 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing the referendum results organised by separatists and listing only those results of legitimate elections where separatists won (with the exception of Dubăsari rayon) is POV. Why not explaining that separatists lost 1990 elections in the majority of PMSSR teritorry, they won only in cities? Is true that in cities is concentrated the political and economical power.--MariusM 10:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Only someone who accepts the referenda as a reliable gauge of popular opinion would see listing them as POV. In fact, most Americans see "98.6%" (let alone repeated three times) and think it must have been fixed. I'm not taking a stand on their reliability in the article, I merely list them (in a footnote).
2. I'm not hiding pro-Chisinau electoral victories. If I didn't tell you who won, you wouldn't have known. So it seems that neither of us have much information on the three raion soviets at issue. The problem, of course, is sources. Nothing happened in Kamenka, Slobozia and Grigoriopol. (I will go ahead and point out that the last sentence was hyperbole, since I know you were planning on taking issue.) As neither of us have been to Transnistria to do archival research (in-shallah this summer), we are restricted to: memoirs, newspapers and NGO reports (roughly). None of these types of sources typically talk about places were nothing happens. Therefore, no evil agenda, just no information.
3. Finally, you have, yet again, not given me anything to work with. If you want to add something--you mention an anti-PMSSR section--write one and we will discuss it. If you think I'm "listing only those results of legitimate elections where separatists won," than list the others (or at least tell me how they turned out so that I can list them). If you want more sources, tell me which. etc., etc., etc. I'm happy to hear your suggestions, so make them. jamason 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

MariusM has his own very personal take on what happened in Transnistria. He tried to impose it in the Transnistria articles's introduction, but the facts showed something else. Then he went to War of Transnistria, and tried the same. No go. Now he is busy doing edit warring in History of Transnistria where at least three editors removed his POV-pushing (myself, Pernambuco and Bogdaniusca). He is quick to accuse the other side of not being neutral. But in the end, it always turns out to be a spurious charge. - Mauco 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have my own views on Transnistria and other subjects, what is wrong with this? Worse is to only repeat what others are telling your view should be.--MariusM 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was merely trying to be polite when I said that "Marius has his own personal take" on this situation. I guess that it didn't translate too well, but hopefully others got the drift... - Mauco 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To jamason: You don't have too much information about the elections where OSTK supporters lost because your sources of informations are only pro-OSTK, and those sources are not talking too much on subjects which are not good for OSTK cause. However, even those sources shows that in rural areas OSTK didn't have support from people. Is excellent that even Smirnov recognized that some democratically elected leaders were against separatism, and what I asked you is to include in the article also what your sources tell about such situations. With the exception of Dubossary rayon, you didn't include in the article those situations, while you included (in a footnote) all referendum results favourable to OSTK, but organised by OSTK itself (which is raising doubts about the correctness of those referendums. You included such doubts in your thesis, not in this article).--MariusM 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I say "Results were uncanny in their near identity." How much more POV do you want? jamason 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several Western scholars who comment on this, throughout the 1990s. The consensus is that the "Soviet style" results raise some eyebrows but that there is no reason to suspect that less than the majority was in favor of independence. In the same breath, may I also note that Ukraine had similar results, for instance. The key to reading the results lie in an understanding of Soviet voter attitudes. In that context, turnout tells a lot more than actual results, so fraud is not necessarily a factor. - Mauco 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MariusM, do I understand that if I include in the article something that says that the Grigoriopol, Slobozia, and Dubossary raion soviets were not taken by OSTK activists in the, as you say, democratic elections of 1990, and that in Dubossary and Slobozia, the raion soviets actively supported the government in Chisinau, you will agree not to restore the NPOV tag (unless something else changes)? jamason 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

With this correction and with the correction of the number of strikers NPOV tag could be removed. I will add in future some more data at this article, when I will have time to look for sources. However, don't use "democratic elections" to describe 1990 elections. Those were the most democratic elections in the entire history of Transnistria, and never after was achieved again the 1990 level of democracy, however I will object considering those elections as 100% democratic.--MariusM 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds do you object? And, just for kicks, in your opinion, were they more or less democratic than elections in the rest of the MSSR in the same year? - Mauco 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Elections in the rest of MSSR were also not 100% democratic. Democracy was at the begining in this region at that time.--MariusM 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that I am forced to repeat my question. On what GROUNDS do you object? And do you believe that they were MORE or LESS democratic? - Mauco 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strike

100000 strikers and other 200000 wanted to strike. The entire working class of PMSSR was less than 300000 people (maybe some of them strike several times?). For the exact number of participants in the strike movement we should not rely only on what strikers supporters wrote. We should not count on the number of strikers in PMSSR the strikers from the rest of Moldova (as strikes were also in other cities).--MariusM 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the article: 100,000 + 200 STKs = 200,000. jamason 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is from a Supreme Soviet of the USSR report:

"According to information provided by the Soviet of Ministers of the MSSR, 172 STKs with a general membership of about 100,000 people took part in it . According to the information of the Republican Strike Committee, it was, respectively, 191 collectives and more than 200,000 people."

This was written on 7 September (a week before the end of the strike). Together with the (partisan) source I quoted in the article I conclude:

1. The number of workers that actually stopped working during the strike was close to 100,000.
2. They comprised a little under 200 STKs (172 or perhaps a few more by the end of the strike).
3. An unknown (and possibly substantial number) of STKs supported the strike but could not participate (e.g. hospitals, meat and vegetable distributors, primary schools, etc.)

Therefore I am willing to take out, "approximately another 200 expressing support but unable to actively participate." if that is satisfactory to you. Finally, the "strike movement" section of the article is not talking about just Transnsitria (let alone the PMSSR since it didn't exist). I think it would be a mistake to mention only the strikers in that region; this was an ideological battle that divided people on both sides of the Dniester. jamason 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union Supreme Soviet was lead by Anatoly Lukianov, who was a supporter of Transnistria's separatism. It can not be a neutral source. Moldovan Supreme Soviet data can be used. However I saw you quoted Volkova (an ideologue of separatism), which is not a reliable source for me. Also, those strikers were not only from PMSSR. In Kishinev and Balti were also strikes, don't count the strikers on those cities on behalf of Transnistrian separatism.--MariusM 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not discard Volkova without having read a single word that she's written. - Mauco 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Luk'ianov wasn't actually the chairman of the Supreme Soviet until 1990. He was also not part of the Supreme Soviet Commission that visited the MSSR in September 1989. But either way, even the MSSR Soviet of Ministers said 100,000 participants in the strike. What did you think of my compromise suggested above? I couldn't tell from your response. jamason 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of strikers in the article should be acording what MSSR Soviet of Ministers told, excluding those outside Transnistria. At that moment MSSR had a communist government who considered as main enemy the Moldovan Popular Front. Few months later violent conflicts, including putting fire on the building of Moldovan Ministry of Interior lead by Vladimir Voronin, showed the intensity of conflict between MPF and MSSR Communist government. Strikers were an help for Communist party, in its fight against Moldovan Popular Front. Moldovan Communist government was against strikers, but only half-convinced. Only in November 1989 Communist party changed its atitude, when Grosu was replaced with Lucinschi. However, I believe MSSR Soviet of Ministers have reliable data. Can you provide source about MSSR Soviet of Ministers statement?--MariusM 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, this is where it is hard to take the work seriously. You are trying to paint this as a black and white issue. Communist Party against Popular Front, and vice versa. It was not that straight forward. There was a lot of overlap and a bunch of nuances. The Communist Party had to "officially" appear opposed to the more radical Popular Front demands. This was because the central Soviet authorities were still in place. But please do not insult our intelligence with statements like "MSSR had a communist government who considered as main enemy the Moldovan Popular Front". If you do, we are just all wasting our time here. - Mauco 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

The draft compromise is as follows:

1. On the strike movement:
"Upwards of 200 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working throughout the republic with approximately another 200 expressing support but unable to actively participate." will be replaced with:
"Upwards of 180 enterprises, comprising around 100,000 employees, stopped working thoughtout the republic."

2. On the elections:
"This was especially true after the elections of 1990 when the OSTK essentially took control of the city soviets of Tiraspol, Bendery, and Rybnitsa, the Rybnitsa raion soviet.' However, even in 1989 these city and..."
"Even so, the chairmen of Transnistrian city and raion soviets in and city and raion executive committees (ispolkoms) in Tiraspol, Bendery and Rybnitsa were demoted or voted out of office completely with the elections of 1990.
"This was not the case in several of the other raion soviets. The new leadership of the Grigoriopol raion soviet did not support the separatist movement and the new Dubossary and Slobozia raion soviets actively supported the government in Chisinau."