Talk:Moldovan schools in Transnistria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The school building in Rybnitsa was apparently withheld by the Transnistrian government as of 2005. Any info on the current situation? The local and international media seem to have lost interest in this, so I can't seem to find anything fresher than a year or so. Why, I even couldn't find the exact number of schools - closed ones and total... --Illythr 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

http://pridnestrovie.net/search/node/schools may have some info. I also just checked the PMR Atlas for you, and it has even more info but it is unfortunately outdated. - Mauco 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, four it is. 'Tis strange how this incident was forgotten so quickly. Anything on that last school in Rybnitsa? --Illythr 23:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I know which one you are talking about: It was the one which had to move to a different building. I have some 2005 info on that, which states that it is now fully operating but not at the old school house anymore. Also: Earlier this year (2006), primarily in Romania, there was a collection drive for school textbooks to be sent to these schools. - Mauco 00:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. I could only find 2004-mid 2005 info in my search. And nothing on its resolution either. --Illythr 00:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the reason why it is hard to find info on its resolution is that the case was always driven first and foremost by politics. The idea, it seems, was always to use this case to make Transnistria look bad. So when the case got settled everyone just went silent - rather than celebrating the fact that these kids go to school again and now enjoy a level of educational freedom (the parent's right to choose their own books and curriculum) which, objectively speaking, is actually freer than in most of the rest of the world. - Mauco 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. --Illythr 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Click here [1] for the very latest on this issue. There is not much new info, but it does confirm the key info our main Wikipedia article: That there were six schools, that four got closed and that all six are now operating again. - Mauco 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it says the schools were licensed for one more year. Two years have passed, though. Since there's no outcry, I guess the schools were further (or permanently?) licensed during that time? --Illythr 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't say for sure, but an email to the writer of the article (pmr[at]nr2.ru) could answer this better. Now that the issue is not used to score politicized points internationally, the PMR government is happy to just let the schools do what they want and the schools are happy to just be left alone to do what they want. Seems like everyone is glad that this is no longer being made into a storm in a tea-cup by outsiders. - Mauco 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Latin script which was used in Republic of Moldova following a 1989 law was banned...

While this sentence is correct at its "heart", its "form" is a bit misleading. 1) The declaration of independence was made as a direct consequence of that law, so those schools could not have "kept" something that was previously not there (unless you mean "kept their allegiance to the authorities in Chisinau" or something like that). Here is my suggestion:

After the War of Transnistria in 1992, Moldovan-language schools came under the pressure of separatist authorities from Tiraspol, which are in control of the region. The 1989 language law that introduced the Latin script as the official script of the Republic of Moldova was rejected by the Transnistian authorities. Only a few Moldovan schools in Transnistria resisted the pressure of the authorities and switched to the new script along with all other Moldovan schools.

A bit long-winded...

2) The "...resisted the pressure of separatist authorities..." claim must be substantiated. I'm positive that the pressure was there, but a credible source is still in order here, I believe. --Illythr 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To 1): Yes, include it, please. Full agreement. Longwinded is often more accurate, so we love longwinded.
To 2) Post a [citation needed] request for citation, do not delete it. Also watch out for POV-"contraband". If we have more neutral words than "resisted the pressure" it would be best. The schools purposely attempted to portray themselves as underdogs but if you look at the dateline you can see that it was part of a larger strategy which wasn't really about schools but about ending PMR independence through pressure and forcing of sanctions like the EU visa ban. A look at a website like transnistria.md which was built around the school issue in 2004 shows that it was milked for as much PR as it could possibly get. PMR would naturally have some grievances with these moves, too. We don't need to include them on this page, but we do have an obligation to portray the events using neutral language. - Mauco 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's true, but that section refers to the postwar situation in 1992-93 and while I have no hard facts on hand, I believe that it was higly probable that administrative pressure was applied to any non-conformant schools in the region.
I would like to wait for MariusM's reaction, as the entire sections is his creation. Meanwhile, could you, as a native speaker, check that paragraph for style mishaps? I can't get rid of the feeling that it's kind of awkward... --Illythr 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a couple of things you can do to make it sound better. First of all, you don't need the "which are in control of the region" because that is obvious - and if it is not, then a user can just click on the blue hyperlink for the word Transnistria and it gets explained. That is what hyperlinks are for, so we don't need to state the political status every time we say Transnistria or say Tiraspol. So get rid of that. After that, the most awkward part is the last part: In the same sentence, you are saying "Only a few Moldovan schools" followed by "along with all other Moldovan schools." I know what you mean, of course, but there is a better way of phrasing it so it flows better and so it perhaps easier to understand. - Mauco 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in your talk page few days ago I've gave you a link to this book The policy of linguistic cleansing in Transnistria, is a pity you don't want to read it. The problem with Moldovan schools didn't start in 2004. There were attempts to use latin script in Transnistria's schools even before. People were arrested for that reason not only in 2004. The school in Dubăsari was moved in Corjova, the school in Grigoriopol was moved in Doroţcaia and children need to comute to go to school in Latin script. In 2002 Mihai Speian, leader of Parents Comitee of Moldovan School in Grigoriopol, was arrested for asking the introduction of latin script and international media didn't care (indeed, there are other things more important on the Earth - Osama Ben Laden, Irak etc.). I will expand this article when I will have time, with all details.--MariusM 23:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, what is it with you and all those personal snide comments and nasty little accusations all the time? Jeeesh, you would think that at your age, you would've learned to get along... For instance, you say crapola like "it is a pity that you don't want to read it" and I honestly don't know what possesses you to spout out something as inane as that. How do you know that I didn't read it? In fact, I am very familiar with the paper. I read it when it came out, and we have referred to it very often in the past. It is biased, but most of what we find about Transnistria for research is biased one way or the other, so that is not the problem. The problem is you and your weird accusations against me that are totally unfounded, buddy. As a matter of fact, if you check my log for user contributions, you will see that less than half an hour ago I made an edit here on Wikipedia which specifically quoted something from that report. So I guess that this A) shows that I have read your thing, and B) that you are wrong. Now, if you would please get off your high horse, we can all get back to work. You might get pleasure out of these pissing matches, but it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is not how the rest of us spend our editing time. - Mauco 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Neutral research"

Marius, I urge you to read the document before stating this, as only somebody who hadn't read it can claim that it's even remotely neutral. First of all, it originated in Moldova and is located on a highly anti-transnistrian site. But that's not really a fair criterion to judge NPOV, so I decided to read it. The foreword and conclusion are already sufficient to see its bias, but I managed to read it in its entirety. Basically, it sums up the Moldovan Govt's perspective on the issue. The Transnistrian side doesn't get the benefit of a doubt that is usually expected from neutral research. Here, a few examples:

  • The European investigation into the local illegal weapons production failed to obtain any evidence of it, yet those weapons are "highly appreciated by the underground criminal world"(pp 19-20).
  • The Al-Quaeda has went extra 10000 miles to set up its "supply and training centers" in the narrow strip of land occupied by the Russian army (p. 20). <sarcasm> This is, of course, thoroughly relevant to the topic of the research.</sarcasm>
  • Many events (particularly the one with the school in Grigoriopol) are sourced to the Flux newspaper, an establishment so thick with nationalist sentiments that you can't put a stick through them.
  • The (over)usage of inverted commas at every mention of any kind of Transnistrian official positions and establishments looks rather suspicious to me. They aren't recognised, of course, but is it really necessary to say that the Transnistrian president is not really a president, or the local Ministry of Defence is not really one every time one is mentioned?
  • The implicit comparison of Transnistrian authorities with Beslan terrorists (p. 48) is a very nasty trick. Compare: "You Honor, the defendant's name is Ivanov. The only other person with the same surname that has visited our town in the last century turned out to be a mass-murderer. Clearly, this one is guilty of murder, too!"

What really killed me though, was the reseachers' mysterious omission of the "official" reason for the closures! It is only indirectly mentioned ("the so-called "licensing"" (p. 67)) in a few (3) quotes near the very end of the paper. The only place where the reason is given more or less clearly is in an unrelated footnote on page 53 (and even then only for the Grigoriopol school). No research into the validity of that reason was conducted, of course. Nobody even cared to address the Transnistrian side.

To sum up my point: The document is, nevertheless, a valuable addition to the article, but must be labeled "Moldovan side" as it quite clearly isn't neutral.

On an side note, I have found the following in that very document: "Under the pretext that the linguistic legislation adopted by Chisinau “Romanized” the Moldovan population of Transnistria, the implementation of the laws was boycotted, and repressive measures were taken against the Moldovan schools which had switched to the Latin script." (p. 49). Now if even such a pro-Moldovan biased source states that the law was not implemented in Transnistria aside from a few clandestine schools who were later repressed because they tried to follow it, clearly, this statement must be correct. --Illythr 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: So, what's the name of that woman? Cecavschi, or Chernavskaya? --Illythr

Igny agrees and I agree too. Igny says that the text is FAR from NPOV. He took an excerpt from the conclusion (emphasis his):
The so-called “PMR” that Moscow created 15 years ago in order to prevent the Republic of Moldova from uniting to Romania continues to be a source of instability in the region and an obstacle for the integration of the Republic of Moldova with Europe. It is also a regime stuck in the Soviet totalitarianism era where – just like in the times of the USSR – basic human rights are outrageously disregarded. Smirnov’s corrupt regime, propped by the Russian troops, does not easily accept political opposition and every party or NGO that is not under its control is perceived as a potential threat to the “PMR"’s integrity. The same alleged reason is employed to impose a drastic control over the mass media: the few independent newspapers are frequently harassed, their printed editions are confiscated and the journalists are intimidated.
In Smirnov’s “republic” children in the Moldovan schools suffer the most, especially the ones that use the Latin script. These children, their teachers and parents are regarded as the “fifth column” of the Republic of Moldova in the so-called “PMR”.
and so on... - Pernambuco 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pernambuco, maybe you don't believe, but this is the reality. Indeed, childrens, teachers and parents of Latin script school are regarded as "fifth column". See this article from transnistrian press (you can find exactly the expression "fifth column").--MariusM 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's true, because other subjects in those schools (namely "History of Romanians") are taught from the Romanian point of view (Soviet invasion of 1940 and all), which the Transnistrian Govt naturally opposes (as far as I know, THIS was the main reason of govtl pressure on those schools). The dispute here is not about the correctness of the research (I believe that it's factually correct in many if not most places), but rather about its one-sided POV. It provides the reader with an opinion of its own and thus cannot be considered neutral. --Illythr 21:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Illythr here. The point is not whether the facts are true or not, as we can certainly argue each point. In general, a lot of these points are true (notice how little edit warring has taken place in this particular article). However, the more salient point on this particular study is that it is NOT neutral. It has a bias, as demonstrated by the highlighted points which Pernambuco quotes, but which are actually from Igny. A bias does not mean that we can not use it, it merely means that we have to doublecheck the facts and not take them as gospel. - Mauco 21:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the study is labeled "Moldovan side". But is factually correct and this is the main point, not that is using words like "so-called PMR" (which is also factually correct).--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as its bias is labelled (as it is now), then I can live with it. There are lots of true facts on the other side, too. Personally, I find http://www.pridnestrovie.net to be factually correct. However, the problem is that they omit part of the story (just like this study does) so we do not get the full picture from http://www.pridnestrovie.net nor from this study. That is what bias is all about. You can be right but still biased. If you read all of our comments, I think that this is the point which everyone who commented on the study is making: Illythr, Pernambuco, myself, and Igny. - Mauco 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I created the whole section in responce to this edit of MariusM. --22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacies of "Transnistrian side"

We have also a link to "Transnistrian side" with plain fallacies like:

  • For 700 years, ever since the first ethnic Moldavians arrived on the Pridnestrovie side of the river in the 14th century, they have been writing their language in cyrillic.

Nowhere in the world Romanian/Moldovan language was written 700 years ago. First document in Romanian language is from 1521 (there is a debate that some documents can be from around 1500), first book printed in Romanian was in Transylvania in 1560. Moldovans from the region were illiterates (95% of them per Russian census of 1897; the rest were literate in Russian, as no Moldovan school exist), they didn't used their language in writing at all until 20th century.--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The renegade Moldovan schools wanted to teach Moldavian in the latin script. They were allowed to do so, but from a strictly educational viewpoint, Pridnestrovie does not consider this to be a correct decision. However, as a tolerant, multiethnic country which respects the right of the parents to choose, Pridnestrovie allows the individual parents to decide this issue.

"Renegade" is a little POV. And there are situations already stated in this article when people were not "allowed" to use Latin script. Under international pressure only, Transnistrian government make some concessions.--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we debating now whether or not http://www.pridnestrovie.net is POV? That is a straw man argument. It is. You won. That is why the link is labelled, and has been labelled clearly ever since the very first day when it was included. It is not neutral. - Mauco 22:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the main debate is not about pridnestrovie.net being POV, but about writing factually incorect things, plain fallacies, which I consider an worse thing than POV.--MariusM 09:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the choice of one alphabet over the other a case of "discrimination", as Moldova was quick to claim? Not in the least. In fact, Romania itself used the Cyrillic alphabet for most of its history. As did Moldova. And as top scholars from the state university in Bucharest, Romania will point out, the cyrillic alphabet is much better suited for Romanian than the currently used latin alphabet.

Plain fallacy. No such scholar exist (not a name is given).--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Due to the nature of the language the use of latin script sometimes impairs full written use of Romanian/Moldavian. This debate is well known among language scholars in Romania who lament that country's switch to latin script.

Plain fallacy. No debate actually in Romania about the the cyrillic alphabet. Indeed, for 300 years Romania used cyrillic alphabet, but now in one year are printed more books than in 300 years of cyrillic alphabet. More than 95% of Romanian culture is in latin alphabet. Not allowing the children to learn latin script mean not allowing them 95% of Romanian culture and keeping the Romanian/Moldovan language at a status of low prestige language (exactly what PMR want).--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we should not explain in the article the forgeries of Transnistrian propaganda from the link we have.--MariusM 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I will debate all of these points with you (or anyone else) if you are trying to include them in the article. But they are not part of Wikipedia's article, and the bias is clearly labelled, so we are on solid ground here. If someone like MarkStreet comes here, and tries to put some of the above into the article, I will call him on the facts, as I have done in other Transnistria related articles from time to time with some of his suggestions. - Mauco 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think I remember some obscure scholar from Bucharest being mentioned in regard with the last two points in an anti-nationalist Chisinau newspaper (was it "Kommunist"? uhh, don't remember) some 10 years ago. They mentioned a name and and article she (I think it was a "she") wrote on this topic. Apparently, Transnistrian propaganda capitalized on that obscure article and turned it into a "well known debate" among language scholars in Romania who lament that country's switch to latin script... A usual tactic - there is no need for an outright lie when you can grab an insignificant little fact and inflate it into something of paramount importance. Including something like this as factually correct info would be quite silly, except when citing it as an official viewpoint of PMR officials.
PS: I'm sorry, Marius, I just couldn't help myself. Fell free to revert my little "vandalism". :-) --Illythr 01:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If this obscure scholar from Bucharest exist, why his name is not mentioned in the article?--MariusM 09:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we debating why Pridnestrovie.net has or has not included someone's name in an article? Why are we debating this on WIKIPEDIA? Is there anything we can do about it? Are you expecting an answer from any of us here? In that case, we can only speculate. What good does that do us? - Mauco 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and if we hang around Wikipedia long enough, especially on the subjects that deal with oddball scientific theoreties and conspiracy theories, you can see that this is the same tactic. Because the truth is that the world is so big that there is almost always someone, somewhere, who has said something that fits what you are trying to promote. But fortunately, Wikipedia has the right countermeasure in place. If you check out WP:NPOV you will see that it is not about "striking a balance", but about "getting it right". The distinction is between the general opinion, the minority view and then - get this - the extreme minority view. The latter is reserved for oddball kooks, and that takes care of these single opinions which are not shared by the community in general; not even by a representative minority. It will help us against the weirder fringes of PMR propaganda, and of course the same is true for the Moldovan side as well, which has been known to go overboard at times, too. - Mauco 02:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s Soviet textbooks?

I think it would be interesting to note that the "Moldovan language" schools use in Transnistria use really old textbooks (since no other Cyrillic alphabet textbooks were published since the end of the Soviet era)

"The problem is not only the Cyrillic script used in teaching Moldovan in Transdniester, but primarily the fact that Transdniestrian schools use Soviet-era textbooks dating back to the 1970s." Maria Robu, Director of the Bendery-Tighina Moldovan Lyceum (RFE/RL Listserve, August 11, 2004).

quoted by Donald L. Dyer of the University of Mississippi in his article At Last, a Moldovan-Romanian Dictionary, and Recurrent Linguistic Troubles in the Republic of Moldova, in Slavica, pp. 67-86, 2006

bogdan 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Libération has an article on Romanian-language education in Transnistria

"En Transnistrie, la grande Russie s'apprend dès l'école" bogdan 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's uh, in French... I babelfished it, looks good, but, well, it's French. (unrelated) Meh, I'd really like to see some history manuals from those six schools... --Illythr 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I found in a forum a Romanian translation, maybe is usefull for you http://forum.yam.ro/read.php?f=10&i=6415&t=6364. Regarding manuals, I guess are the same used in Chişinău, not the new Communist "integrated history", but the old ones.--MariusM 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/Talk%7EMoldovan_schools_in_Transnistria_2c93.html"