Talk:Politics of Transnistria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Changes towards political freedom

This article is outdated, with most of the information based on 2000/2001-era elections. I'd like to add some of the more recent developments. In 2005, there were comprehensive changes to the electoral code. Council of Europe reports recognized the move towards more pluralism. In the December 2005 elections, the opposition took control of parliament.

More observers recognize this, too. Even though OSCE still boycotted the election, there were several Western European observers from other groups and organizations who didn't. Some of them members of their country's respective parliaments. The errors of the past have largely been corrected. None of the Western observers who were present questioned the result. I can source all of the above. And, for whatever it is worth, CIS-EMO also observed. - Mauco 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The current article looks more like a stub. It will benefit from any update. --Zserghei 19:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to put something together, with sources, that should be able to pass anyone's POV filter. - Mauco 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Until people who are against the separatist regime are not allowed to organize and untill freedom of press (including Romanian-language latin script newspapers) is not accepted, we can not talk about political freedom in Transnistria.--MariusM 22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
We are not talking about it, strictly speaking (we can do that fine on Talk pages, but not in mainspace). We, as it were, could be quoting a Council of Europe report (sourced) which recognizes a move towards more pluralism. This is not the same as "political freedom," of course, but just one step in the right direction. As you rightly point out, there is still a long way to go. - Mauco 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of 2001 elections

Why results of 2001 ellections don't add up at 100%?--MariusM 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the authorative answer, but it could be that a number of voters cast a blank ballot. This is sometimes done in protest, as a way of saying "None of the above." Moreover, it could be that some of the votes were invalid. That happens in every election, but usually the percentage of invalid ballots is very small (and certainly not as large as the gap in the 2001 data). I would be curious to find out the real reason, if anyone knows. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention, MariusM. - Mauco 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Source is British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a pro-Russian organisation leaded by Oxford scholar Mark Almond. Is an unreliable source, they are not able to do mathematics right.--MariusM 08:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we need to find a better source. Surely, since this was an election of note, there are more authorative sources such as the CEC. They do not necessarily need to be online (although that would be preferred); the main thing is that they are reliable. At the very minimum, percentages ought to add up to 100% when we include blank votes, spoiled votes, etc. - Mauco 14:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dignitas

I see that user Marius wishes to include the section regarding the Dignitas incident here. Although I am familiar with the incident and see how it can be relevant to the discussion about Transnistria, I don't see why it should be added here. The way the text is written it represents just an isolated incident of no direct connection to the matter at hand. I am not saying that the detention of the workers could not have had political overtones, but it is much more likely that PMR authorities were just edgy after the terrorist attacks and detained those whom they considered potential threats or culprits. If the arrest was linked to the referendum, that would be a more shadowy theory, one that is not even presented here, nor backed by a source in the competing version. TSO1D 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, T. But apparently Alex Bakharev agrees with MariusM.[1] I hope that they will both join this discussion. What I need to point to Bakharev (and not to MariusM since he already knows it) is that the whole thing is of doubtful nature. Normally I wouldn't object to something like this, but its connection to anything political is strained, at best, and as sourced text it really fails on several counts. The original source is a press release from the very biased Stefan Uritu, who tried to tie it to the referendum but failed. - Mauco 06:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
People from Dignitas are not ordinary people, are people whe expressed pro-moldovan feelings. This was recognised even by "Tiraspol Times" [2] : "On 17 August, Ghenadie Taran, a pro-Moldovan NGO activist from Slobozya, south of Tiraspol, was brought in for questioning in relation to possible involvement in the Tiraspol bombings which took the lives of ten people on 6 July two people on 13 August. Moldovan state press reported that this meant that Taran, a hardline opponent of Pridnestrovie's independence, was not allowed to campaign for his point of view in the referendum". Of course, Transnistrian authorities will never make an official statement that "we arrest Ţăran & comp with the purpose to intimidate pro-moldovan activists" (it seems this is what Mauco and TSO1D expects in order to agree about the relevance of this arrest). We don't need in Wikipedia the accord of Transnistrian authorities. The arrest of pro-Moldovan transnistrian activists is undeniable, it was considered even before the referendum as an attempt to intimidate the pro-moldovan camp (is not only my interpretation), there was no conection between Dignitas and the terrorist act in Tiraspol (in Transnistria's talk page Mauco now denies that any terrorist act occured). I would say, even if Transnistrian authorities were sincerely worried only about the bus explosion, the intimidation effect of pro-Moldovan camp was achieved. Is strange that Transnistrian press (exception Tiraspol Times, which is only on-line, targeted only for foreigners, and published a denial of wrongdoing of Transnistrian authorities) shows no interest about the arrest of Dignitas members, which should be an important subject even if it was link only with the bus explosion. This is showing the lack of press freedom in Transnistria, a pro-Russian preapproved oposition is allowed, but not a pro-Moldovan one.--MariusM 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Let us focus just on the Dignitas thing and not on the rest of the rant ("lack of press freedom", "pro-Russian preapproved opposition", etc) since we need to keep our eye on the ball and concentrate on the edit of the Dignitas-members' arrest. Lots of people who are involved in politics also commit non-political crimes or become suspects in non-political investigations, and it is wrong in those cases to infer that the police work in such cases is then "political persecution". If you do the crime, you must do the time, and it doesn't matter what kind of NGO membership card you hold. In Moldova, if I am not mistaken we have the head of the Social Democratic party (same party that Dignitas' leader belongs to) who was arrested for cigarette smuggling. Is that proof of political persecution by Moldova? No, it is just proof that the police is doing their job. Same way that they brought these guys in for questioning, and then released them afterwards when they could not tie them conclusively to the crime. If there are no reliable sources that conclusively show that Dignitas was arrested BECAUSE of their pro-Moldovan belief and IN RELATION TO the referendum, then it must go. - Mauco 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Mauco, you know very well that people from Dignitas didn't commit any non-political crime, even Transnistrian authorities admitted that freeing them. 2-3 days in custody is enough to have the intimidation effect, not only for those 4 guys, but for everybody else who want to become member in Dignitas NGO or to openly advocate reunification of Transnistria with Moldova. Other silent means of intimidation can be used, like making such people to lose their jobs (not only the state sector, but also the private economy is in the hands of pro-separatists, who often came from Russia). Arrest is an extreme measure, it shows that silent mean didn't work with those people.--MariusM 10:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist party district office closure

What was the alleged reason for the closure of one of the two Communist Party offices in Rybnitsa? If we don't include that, then it ends up looking like political harrassment (which is the way that "Azi.md" wants to spin it, but which is POV and can't stay in Wikipedia). There is something fishy about this. In the past, the Communist Party was outlawed, but it is legal now so it is also legal for it to have an office, of course. If the authorities wanted to close, why would they close only one of the Rybnitsa offices? Why not Dubossary, Kamenka, Grigoriopol, Tiraspol and all the rest. My guess is that this is a local matter, and that it is something mundane, like for instance keeping such an office in a residential apartment building where zoning laws and condo bylaws do not allow that kind of an activity to take place. - Mauco 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask Transnistrian authorities or your friend User:Mark us street (is the same thing) for the alleged reason. Of course they will find a non-political explanation. I remember in Romania, during Communist times, it was usual to find non-political explanations for political arrests or harasments. While Transnistria is not communist, the methods used against oposition are. Remember in december 2006 there are presidential elections in Transnistria, Communists wanted to put a candidate against Smirnov, they need a certain number of signatures for a candidate. I would not be surprised if, after the incursions of authorities in Rîbniţa office, lists with signatures disappeared and Communist Party will not be able to register its candidate for december 2006 elections. You told your guess, I told my guess.--(expert in Eastern European politics)MariusM 14:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I am asking YOU. You are the editor who wants this thing to stay, and I am the one who is accusing it of being POV. You must provide the justification or else it goes. - Mauco 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't need to provide any justification, I just told the facts. My edit was: "In November 2006 transnistrian authorities closed and sealed the office of Rîbniţa district comitee of the Communist Party in Transnistria". I didn't make any assumptions in the main page about the reasons of closure. Is not my POV, is a fact. And also, is the POV of Moldovan Communist Party that this closure is politically motivated. If we will have the POV of Transnistrian authorities, we can include it also.--MariusM 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You just answered my question. Thank you. The thing has to go until you show that this comment has anything to do with politics, otherwise I will be glad to show you how offices (political AND commercial) are closed every day for zoning violations all over the world. If this was political, why didn't the government close any of the other offices of the Communist Party in the rest of Transnistria? Until you can answer this, the whole thing stays OUT of the article. Period. Take your malicious "spin" away from Wikipedia, please. - Mauco 03:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't remove facts from the article. Those facts are related with politics, at least because the rulling party of Moldova issue a statement linking it with politics. We should report such statements and let the reader to decide if he trust them. I answered above at your question regarding why was closed the office only in Rîbniţa - authorities don't want a complete ban of Communist party (it will look bad for their propaganda campaign "we have true democracy in Transnistria"), they want only to avoid the registration of communist candidate for december 2006 presidential elections.--MariusM 10:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. I can remove facts from the article as long as you do not prove that they have anything to do with political issues. This article is Politics of Transnistria. If I write that the Toyota Camry has for a number of years been the best-selling car in the United States, that is a FACT and I can source it but it would still not be appropriate for inclusion in the article. It would be deleted immediately. Deal with it, Marius. Every single editor has the right to remove irrelevant material, especially when you maliciously introduce it to create a POV bias and insinuate something that doesn't exist. - Mauco 13:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Communist Party is related with politics. What you are doing is called vandalism.--MariusM 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mauco is acting in good faith. Do not accuse him of vandalism. Having said that, the "legitimate" should be removed (from Marius' edit) however the thing about the Communist party should stay for the meanwhile. The Communist Party is a political party and as such is related to politics. Regardless of if it was closed for planning or political reasons, the fact that it was closed is still a political event. Having said that, azi.md does not look like a particularly reliable source. Better sources would be appreciated. - Francis Tyers · 14:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Francis for your opinion about the article, I agree with it. Hope Mauco will not blank again relevant information. Don't know exactly why you believe azi.md is not a relevant source, but I agree to further check other reports about this event (I asked also Mauco to do the same thing with Russian-language sources). I wanted to find a Transnistrian source for this event, but because the lack of press freedom in Transnistria it seems transnistrian media didn't report the closure. Is smoething usual for this part of the world. Regarding azi.md, this is not a governamental site See who is behind azi.md.

I disagree with Francis, because we do not know what, if any, political dimension this closely has. To imply that it is a political action is POV. It is very revealing that neither Azi nor the Communist Party statement of Moldova makes any mention of WHAT the reason was that the authorities gave for the closure. If this was Wikipedia, we would put both sides out there: The reason given by the authorities, plus the Communist Party of Moldova and their opinion of the closure. While we can't do that, to keep it is POV. I ask Francis to consider this, and I ask MariusM to also follow the suggestion of Francis to find a more reliable source. - Mauco 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Mauco, we don't need an official statement of Transnistrian authorities about the fact that they don't allow political freedom to write this. They will never admit this but facts are relevant, and we should report the facts. I saw you apply other standards in Moldova article, where you included an alleged human rights abuse based only on a report of Transnistrian press agency Olvia [3]. Is a confirmation that you don't have any standards for your edits, you are here only to make propaganda for Transnistrian regime and to hide in Wikipedia all informations which are embarassing for Transnistrian regime. Regarding an other source for Rîbniţa office closure, here is one [4], but is repeating what azi.md was saying, nothing more. In fact, is the statement of Communist Party of Moldova. If Transnistrian press didn't report about office closure, this is an other example that press freedom is not allowed in Transnistria (I don't know what Transnistrian press wrote as I don't know Russian, this is why I asked you to check).--MariusM 19:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What are the facts that this closure is notable and that it is a political event. I remove it on the basis of WP:NN alone until you can produce something to show that this was a political event. Just for your information, the other Communist political offices in the rest of Transnistria are open AND the presidential candidate for the Communist Party is freely campaigning. She was registered, by complying with the legal requirements, and her candidacy is in full swing. Your claim that there is no "political freedom" and that the closure of a district office "proves this" is bogus, MariusM. It will not stand till you substantiate it with real facts. - Mauco 15:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Francis Tyers already explained: is the closure of an office of a POLITICAL PARTY, not the closure of a grocery store.--MariusM 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, in the mainspace is not made any commentary about the reasons of closure, is only reported the fact.--MariusM 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
FrancisTyers asked for better sources. Where are they? Let me explain to you how things work, both in Transnistria AND THE REST OF THE WORLD: Whether you are a polical party or a plumber, there are certain rules that you have to abide by. If you put an office in a residential apartment block, it is against the condo bylaws. You will be shut down. This is not "politican persecution" any less than it is "plumber persecution". If you don't pay your light bill, your electricity gets cut. This is not "state terrorism" or "repression". Give some sources that indicate that this was political action, and it can stay. Otherwise, it is wholly irrelevant to the article. - Mauco 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Francis, the incident may or may not have political overtones but the fact that some sources claim that it did makes it relevant here. It doesn't really matter if what the Communists allege can be proven, it will never be possible to bring conclusive evidence in such cases. However, it does not violate the NPOV guidelines to present a statement while indicating its speicific source, and the press coverage of the incident demonstrates its notability. TSO1D 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Then work with me to present an alternative that is agreeable to all sides, please. Francis had his reservations, and the more time that passes, the more I am convinced that this is absolutely not notable (WP:NN). If anything, Nadesha Bondarenko (the Communist candidate) is campaigning and getting media coverage on TV and in the press like everyone else. If there was a crackdown on the Communists, that would not have happened. The way the current entry stands, you think that the Communists are being harrassed in the campaign and that is simply not the case. This is why I allege POV. - Mauco 01:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I myself don't really trust the Communist party anywhere and have no special reason to believe their claims here, nevertheless, I cannot be the judge. From I gather Wikipedia policy basically states that if a notable source makes a claim, than it can be included, regardles of how users might perceive its veracity. The text as it stands now is: "In November 2006 transnistrian authorities closed and sealed the office of Rîbniţa district comitee of the Communist Party in Transnistria[1][2].¶" I agree with you that the passage as it now stands includes insinuation as it does not directly state how the incident is linked to the article. However, we could add the gist of the PCRM's claims, i.e. that the incident was politically motivated. It would be nice to have PMR's side on this for balance, however that in itself should not prevent us from including the passage. TSO1D 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
But ... here is what prevents us (in my opinion) from including the passage: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation This is POV, as per the NPOV tutorial. TS, to mention the district office closure in this context is to imply that it is relevant. As a result, this juxtaposition of otherwise neutral statements has the effect of fostering prejudice. From Wikipedia: "Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them." - Mauco 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, with regards to sources: I have asked in Transnistria about this, and no one even knows what I am talking about. There, it is a nonstory and there are doubts that it ever took place. In fact, the KPP office in Rybnitsa (like their offices elsewhere in Transnistria) is currently open and fully functioning. The problem is that this is original research (me on the phone + me by email) and we can not include that in Wikipedia. But I can at least try to keep the Azi article out, both on WP:NPOV grounds and WP:NN. If you read it (please do, if you haven't already) you will probably agree with me that it smacks on spin. The worst spin is that they are referring to the reason, and claiming it to be false, but without telling the readers - us - what this reason is. I would love to see it, and be allowed to judge for myself, but Azi doesn't give me that pleasure. It is just a blanket statement that PMR is lying, but without telling us what the lie consists us... - Mauco 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting to know that in the moment he has some debates in Wikipedia, Mauco is asking instructions from Transnistria (through phone and e-mails). "No one even knows what I am talking about" shows that mass-media in Transnistria was not allowed to report this closure, not even for explaining the official, "non-political reasons". It reminds me of Romania before 1989 where press didn't report about those who oppose government, not even for blaming them.--MariusM 13:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Instructions? What on earth are you talking about?!?! I am a researcher. Part of my actvity involves going to the source. Please grow up. - Mauco 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ok, I'll bite

Ok guys, first some wags of the finger.

  • Dpotop: " Special polling stations were organised in those areas for transnistrians who live under secessionist occupied territory but want to vote." stuff like this is just not going to float, learn to write in a more impartial tone. The same goes for your change of heading.
Sorry Francis, but what change of heading are you talking about? I just reverted 2 times POV edits of Mauco. I edited nothing.
Second, I have never supported the expression secessionist occupied territory. The expressions I would support are:
  • self-declared Transnistrian authorities or secessionist authorities, which is factual, like in the American civil war
  • territory controlled by the (one of the above). No treaty clearly states which is Transnistrian and which is not, and obviously there are claims on both sides. Therefore, Transnistria has no obvious/recognized boundaries.
Dpotop 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The change of heading shown in this diff. You seemed to be supporting it by the way you were reverting to it. - Francis Tyers · 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you know what "revert" means? And why it is applied when users edit without reaching an agreement first? Note that I was reverting to a version from 2 days ago, which Mauco suddenly felt he must change.
The next time you comment, don't assume. And I still don't see you retracting your "wags of finger", which are not factual by definition. Dpotop 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Always look on the bright side of life! - Francis Tyers · 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that this reply was for Francis, but here is my own suggestion: We can have a neutral heading that is to everyone's liking AND which the readers will understand. Aim for that, everyone. - Mauco 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • MariusM: Stop trying to assert that the elections are illegitimate. Stop using the phrase "secessionist occupied territory" and see my advice to Dpotop.
    Francis, you didn't notice that after your first intervention I accepted to take out the word "legitimate" from my edit? Regarding special polling stations, those were organised, were aditional polling stations, specially designed for "guest voters" (voters who came from Transnistria specially for the purpose of voting), we should report this fact, I don't understand why Mauco blanked this information. We can discuss about rephrasing, but I don't feel the word "secessionist" is POV-pushing, is just an accurate description without negative implications.--MariusM 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    The bit about Special polling stations is fine. The wording isn't. Try something like, "Special polling stations were organised in those areas for transnistrians who wished to vote in the Moldovan elections". - Francis Tyers · 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    O.K. with the adition "guest voters" to make things clear. Special polling stations were organised in those areas for "guest voters" coming from Transnistria who wished to vote in the Moldovan elections.--MariusM 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yup, the addition of "guest voters" is fine by me. - Francis Tyers · 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. - Mauco 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Mauco: Stop removing sourced information from the article. I said that better sources would be good. Perhaps your contacts can provide some citations from local newspapers or something? You said it was a non-event. It has been reported, if the KPP office in Ribnitsa is open, why haven't they issued a press release about this? If the Communist party candidate is campaigning, this would be a good place to discuss his campaign if you have sources.
Until we have the full story, I am removing on the basis of irrelevancy, and - more importantly - because of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation. Please read this Talk page for my reasoning. Without the full story (which the Azi source suspiciously fails to provide) the article is POV due to the weight alone and undue importance that this item is being given. - Mauco 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To all sides: Stop blindly reverting. I think that it is worth including, but that the wording might be altered (as Mauco points out, it does insinuate that this has political overtones, which is not necesarily the case.

My compromise suggestion would be :

In November 2006, the Moldovan press reported that the offices of the Rîbniţa district comitee of the Communist Party in Transnistria were closed by the local Transnistrian authorities.[3]. The Communist Party of Moldova condemned the act and claims it was closed under false pretenses.[4]

Following this, we could have something along the lines of "Nevertheless, the Communist Party of Transnistria is campaigning without hindrance in other areas [ref]". If you have a reference, and subject to final agreement on wording.

I wasn't watching the page, I now am. I am open to questions/suggestions etc. - Francis Tyers · 14:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We should include also an information about the reject of candidature of Andrey Safonov, self-declared "the only opposition candidate" and who claim that the reject of his candidature was "politically motivated" [5] (those are his words, I don't know if this is true, however we should include in the article the statements of political actors).--MariusM 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. This should probably be included too. - Francis Tyers · 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with your proposal Tyers. It is concise and to the point, relevant to the article and as it directly includes the accusation of the PCRM does not include any insinuation. For balance any of the aforementioned ideas would work. TSO1D 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, to both MariusM and Francis on the Safonov non-candidacy mention, and I can confirm that this is a big story in Transnistria (not just Tiraspol Times, but all news outlets and TV). He is going to court about this. It is all over the local Russian-language press. - Mauco 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
How you can confirm as you are not living in Transnistria? How can you know what is there on newspapers and TVs?--MariusM 20:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ever heard of Internet? AIM? Oh, and for those without any net access, there's even the infamous "Radio PMR" which can be heard in most of Europe, if it comes to that. Soviet legacy. - Mauco 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
So, Mauco, is my compromise on the Ribnitsa thing ok ? - Francis Tyers · 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, please do not revert this unless you have a better suggestion. We asked for your opinion two days ago, but you seem to have refrained from engaging in further discussion. - Francis Tyers · 21:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting unprotection

I asked unprotection as result of the discussions in this talk page, as I believe we agreed to a compromise. As result of Mauco wikistalking me, imediatelly he comment my request telling that we don't have an agreement and oppose unprotection [6].

After Francis Tyers compromise proposal at 22 November 14:14 regarding the closure of Communist Party office, I didn't see any other argument from Mauco, this is why I believed we can ask for unprotection. At the same time we agreed to include info about the banning of Andrei Safonov's candidature conflict.md is the better source for this, including his claim that he is "the only candidate of the oposition" and about special polling station for guest voters. I consider Mauco's action - refusing to tell in this talk page what is not good about latest compromise proposal but oposing unprotection, as disruptive. Anyhow, I think neither Mauco or Transnistrian government has veto rights here in Wikipedia.--MariusM 09:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early voting

What is the importance of early voting? How does this show that there is anything strange about democracy? Early voting is common all over the world. It is especially important in the United States. I know this from first hand experience, since I used to be a resident. - Mauco 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is very easy to falsify votes when you allow multiple days for voting. In the night, ballot boxes can be changed, lists of people who voted also, people can vote several times without posibility for an outside observer to realise. There are posibility for frauds even in a single-day election, allowing multiple voting those posssibilities increase.--MariusM 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have sources for this? It seems like a blanket accusation against, first of all, the United States ... which, of all the countries in the world, is the place where early voting is most common. As of today, in Transnistria, approximately 1000 people have voted in early voting. Even if you believe that 100% of these are then falsified (I do not believe this, and you do not have any sources to support this fantasy), this tiny number can in no way change the outcome. Your entry is entirely irrelevant and inappropriate, and your so-called "justification" for including it is simply ... well, let me leave it at that, so I can stay polite. - Mauco 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renewal party birth date

In the International Crisis Group report "Moldova's uncertain future", which can be downloaded from here, at page 10 is written that Renewal officially registered as political party only in June 2006. Some of the things in this report are not true, for example we know that friction between Smirnov and Renewal is not so big and Smirnov received the support of the majority of Renewal voters in december 2006. However, the fact that Renewal was registered only in June 2006 mean that is a fallacy to claim that in December 2005 Renewal received 23 mandates, and even more to claim that Renewal participated in previous elections.--MariusM 12:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help!
Polling stations were organised only in those areas of Transnistria under Moldovan government control.

I thought that Transnistria was by definition the parts of Moldova beyond the Dniester not under the control of the Chisinau government. Could we have a map of the areas with Transnistrian polling stations? Could we have a map of the special Moldovan stations for Transnistrians? --84.20.17.84 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moldovan citizenship

The actual wording of the phrase regarding Moldovan citizenship is not neutral, as is puting doubts about the number of 300000 Moldovan citizens in Transnistria and is promoting only the "official" number of Transnistrian authorities, of 19,4%. Paolo Sartori is not Romanian or Moldovan, his name sounds Italian, I think he is a neutral source. Transnistrian authorities have no credibility in my eyes, however I don't want to include polemics in the article, this is why I believe we should put both numbers with the mention that there is a dispute, and without comments. We don't need 2 sources for Transnistrian authorities, one is enough, I prefer pridnestrovie.net which anyway is linked with Tiraspol Times (all articles from Tiraspol Times are featured at pridnestrovie.net). Tiraspol Times article is self-conflicting - it claims less than 10% want Moldovan citizenship but after that it says that 19,4% have this citizenship - is anybody seriously believing that Moldovan citizenship was given by force to Transnistrians?--MariusM 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the sources better. The first one, published in Romania, takes the figure out of thin air. There are no statistics to support it, and it is not a credible source. It is pure junk science. The other source are official. If you don't like the government that publishes them, that does not make them any less official. Regarding the article, it is ALSO a credible source because it gives its references: Both the official data and the poll. According to official data, 19.4% are already citizens. According to the poll, another 10% additionally want the citizenship. That makes it a total of 29.4% which is more or less in line with the number of ethnic Moldovans in Transnistria (discounting those who are too old to care much one way or the other). Mauco 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Your source it may be "official" (for the unrecognized government of Transnistria) but is not credible. There are a lot of situations when "official" sources were wrong, especially in political sensitive areas. We should not pretend in Wikipedia that governamental Transnistrian sources are the most reliable. We should only report what those sources tell, but explain also the doubts about their accuracy and the existence of conflicting data. You should assume good faith regarding Paolo Sartori, a journalist who don't have the guilt of being Romanian or Moldovan.--MariusM 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you don't get to be the judge of credibility. If you have sources to document why you think that official census data is fudged, please bring them. Until such sources are provided, the information stands just as officially released census data is taken at face value for all other Wikipedia country articles as well. - Mauco 23:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask to remove the official census data, but to include without derogatory comments also the other source. There is a dispute about the real number of Moldovan citizen in Transnistria and we should show this dispute. I am not alone who consider unreliable the Transnistrian government. Both fake reporting by census official (BTW, detailed data from census were not yet released, this lack of transparency is raising doubts) and people avoiding to report their Moldovan citizenship to transnistrian officials, for fear of having troubles, are reasons why census data can be distorted.--MariusM 09:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPolitics_of_Transnistria_ecff.html"