Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: Karen Ryan. "OSCE cries fraud but did not observe vote", The Tiraspol Times, September 2, 2006. (details)

Contents 1 Number of accredited observers 2 Observers, pro-independence 3 Observers, anti-independence 4 Copyright violation 5 Paragraph rephrased 5.1 NGO Results 5.2 Official Transnistrian Results 6 HCHRM / Exceptional claims 7 Criticism section 7.1 Criticism, original version 8 Change of article name 9 NPOV 10 Ukraine 11 Who were the observers? 12 Russian version of this article 13 Fraud 14 Herding voters 15 7% electorate decrease 16 Viktor Alksnis 17 Discuss changes before reverting 18 OSCE backs "exceptional claims" of fraud 19 Media climate 20 Political climate 21 Victor Josu 22 Preliminary issues 23 Trolling 24 "Political climate" 25 Intelectual dishonesty 26 Insinuation 26.1 Back "on topic" then 27 WP:REDFLAG 28 Alaexis rephrasing

[edit] Number of accredited observers

There are some conflicting numbers as to the observers, with one source (which made it into this article) claiming 200. I think that this is wrong, and that it should be corrected. I looked into this at some detail. At best count it looks like 134 (others say 130) from various organizations, plus 40 from Nashi, for a total of 170 / 174. These were accredited election observers, with access to the International Press Center and the election process itself. However, Nashi sent 300 to 400 people, so possibly some of them are considered "election observers" by the press. This would be a mistake, however, as only 40 of them were accredited. The rest were just there for the tent-city, or whatever. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, if we talk about observers, we should ignore the 300+ plus Nashi's and only count the 40 Nashi-members who got accreditation. Add this to the other 134, and you get 174 total. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it useless to count the non-accredited observers? Because they can not be true observers if they have no access to such crucial parts of the referendum process as the vote counting which took place after polls closed, the data of the turnouts, and the central tallying of the results. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observers, pro-independence

Let's remove also "200 observers from 14 international organizations declared the referendum to be democratic and conforming to international standards", as it can be POV and addition was not discussed here. (Tiraspol Times is talking about 174 observers http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/216, however their claim about "not a single report of fraud or any irregular occurences of any kind whatsoever" is not true, seeing the report of HCHRM). I agree that first time was copyvio, but the second time I put only a summary which is not a copyvio. But let's discuss. How you want to include in the article the position of HCHRM, which is a relevant one for this section of the article?--MariusM 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. I want to correct the factual inaccuracy of 200, and source with a more accurate source. However, you can still keep the sentence that "X number of observers say the vote is fair" and that does NOT exclude that you can ALSO have another sentence along the lines of "but Y number of observers later declared that it was not." If there are two groups, as it appears that there might be in this case, then each one still has a right to its own opinion and if we report this accurately, it is in no way POV. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observers, anti-independence

Does anyone know if these observers actually exist? There are independently verifiable third party reports of them, except uncritical repeats based on their own statements with no attempt at verification or independent follow-up. Not a single one of the 215 accredited journalists has seen ANY of these HCHRM people in action, as observers, on election day. Nor did any of them apply for accredition, which is the first step if you want to pretend to actually do serious election observation work, because that is what gets you inside the door and gives you access to the voter lists, the ballots, and everything else that goes on behind the scenes. Finally, did any of the accredited observers talk to them? Or even see them? We have no record of their existence or the fact that they did any work in Transnistria on 17 September, besides their own claim. - Mauco 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we analyze the strong statements which they make, one by one, they contradict everything that everyone else say and which we can gather from more than 100 different media sources published in the last 3 days (see news.google.com, for instance). We must determine what the truth is, and to help us to do, we have the numerous statements and reports from officially accredited observers and we have the journalists. In toto, they basically report muchb the opposite of what HCHRM say, even to the anectodal evidence that support the large turnout. Or should we just take HCHRM's word for it? Being Chisinau based and with anomosity towards Transnistria, they have a motive for fibbing. - Mauco 18:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is not our job to determine what the truth is in this case - that would be original research, a no-no. Our job is to accurately record all claims made by all involved sides, however POV they may be, and reference them. In case of HCHRM, we certainly have to include their claims in the article; however, if there is any relevant information on how they might be not impartial in this case, and there are sources for it, they can be included as well (and, of course, the same goes for all other observing parties). If they were not accredited observers, and there is a source that shows it, by all means, put that in. -- int19h 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but remember that NPOV is not the same as "equal time" when one view is prevalent and generally accepted and the other is, - ahem - shall we say, a bit homemade and not based on any verifiable facts or reality. - Mauco 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why the best way is to include the opinion, as well as any claims that it is "homemade" from other sources. A phrase such as "HCHRM claims that ... [1], but numerous sources [2] [3] [4] ... challenge the credibility of their report" would convey the meaning very well. As long as such sources are there, anyway... ;) -- int19h 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just spent an hour on the phone and on the Internet doing research, and the HCHRM report smells of fabrication. As a possible hoax, I am willing to let their claim stand - with the link - so readers can judge for themselves. If we can independent source or verify any of the information, we can document it more and list their specific claims. If we can determine with certainty that it is indeed a fabrication, it must go altogether. - Mauco 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

User:MariusM, I have reverted your edit once again, as it is a clear copyright violation. It may omit a word or two, but it is still an obvious copy/paste of (in the latest edit) a whole paragraph from the source it gives, [1]. Press-release or not, the text at the bottom of the page linked says: "Copyright © 2005-2006 Asociatia Moldova Europeana Unita". Because of all this, it is inacceptible as a contribution to Wikpedia as per the latter copyright policy. Note furthermore that another attempt to restore the reverted edit can be interpreted as a violation of the three-revert rule on your side.

You are of course welcome to rephrase the material contained in the source you have found, and then add that to the article. -- int19h 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, before this is added, let us get citations as to the accuracy of the organization's claim to have participated as observers in the referendum, as this is crucial for the credibility of their accusations. I raise this above, under "Observers, anti-independence". - Mauco 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph rephrased

In Transnistria article EvilAlex (a pridnestrovian himself) has done a good rephrasing of the paragraph regarding referendum. It was reverted by Mauco with the explanation that it should be discussed in this article first. Let discuss it (I made some changes in the original EvilAlex text).

[edit] NGO Results

OCSE, EU and USA had officially condemned referendum as illegal:

No, that is a misreprentation. Words like "condemn" and "illegal" are not in accordance with the facts. What they said was they would not recognize the results. This means that they would not consider themselves legally bound to let their actions be guided by the results. They warned voters of this in advance, and (some of them) reaffirmed it afterwards. - Mauco 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

“The EU does not recognize in any possible way the referendum or its results "http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/18/europe/EU_GEN_EU_Trans_Dniester.php According to the representatives of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Moldova, the committee had found major irregularities and infringements such as:

• 1. Groups of “activists” were going into people’s homes, especially in Tiraspol and Bender districts, asking theme why they did not come to the referendum and threatening them that after the referendum they will be forced to find a home in Romania. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 2. At some voting sections, agents dressed in civil or militia uniforms were forcing the observers from outside the sections to stay at a distance of 200-250 meters far from these places. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 3. According to an important official of MGB, who works very close to the groups of “political technologists” from the Russian Federation, the results of the referendum were well known since Saturday. http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1448
• 4. According to HCHRM percentage of people who visited polling stating was less than 50%, in general it was between 10% and 30% http://conflict.md/stiri.php?ID=1452

This can not be included until we establish the bona fides of this groups presence. No one ever saw them, or heard of them, and their statements contradict what other journalists (even from the West, like BBC, UPI and AP) are reporting. For all we know, someone just invented the entire report and didn't even go to Transnistria. Are there any credible outside or third party sources confirming ANY of these four points? Or witnesses? We have already established that they were not accredited as observers in the process, so their claim to be observers ring hollow. At most, they were bystanders because they certainly did not participate in any kind of real or serious electioning monitoring mission or counting of the votes. - Mauco 20:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We should not make original research about this group. We should mention their findings, along with the findings of other NGOs which claim that the referendum was correct. Both opinions should be mentioned.--MariusM 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the no original research rule. We are not obliged to include information that is unproven or unsubstantiated. One single group saying something does not all of a sudden make it true. Remember, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. At any rate, the article already has a mention of their claims, along with a link to those who want to find out more. HCHRM are making some really strong claims. I wish that could back it up with some proof or at least some other people, journalists, observers, witnesses, or whatever, because if not, why should we believe them? - Mauco 21:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. We are not obliged, and in fact, should not include information from unreliable or potentially biased sources (i.e., unproven, or unsubstantiated) as factual. We however can and should include any claims made by unreliable and/or biased sources, as long as they are sufficiently important and relevant to the article - both of which are satisfied in this case. In this case, the fact that is reported is that a claim was made, not that it was true. Have a look at WP:Reliable source#Some definitions, which elaborates this further. -- int19h

In my case, I am very familiar with WP:Reliable source. There are many appropriate sections which give me pause when it comes to this particular press release from HCHRM. For instance, and I quoute from WP:Reliable source, "Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.
* Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
* Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
* Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community." end quote - Mauco 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course HCHRM is not a reliable source. Which is why we reference their publications only as a source to show that yes, indeed, they did make the claims they did; not to prove the claims are true. -- int19h 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, you consistently deleted from Transnistria-related articles everything which is against Transnistrian separatist government. I don't agree that you have veto rights in transnistria-related issues. Claims of HCHRM are consistent with many countries opinion (USA, European Union etc.) that in Transnistria there is no democracy--MariusM 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not true, and don't be paranoid. My edits are based on based on what is relevant for a good and factually based article. I follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I revert and delete when others fail to do the same. You have consistently failed to do so, despite numerous requests. I am being patient and spending time to sort this out because I want to help show you how to do a good job. There are lots of things in Transnistria and other Transnistria-related articles (such as human rights, which I started) that are very negative and critical of Transnistria. These things stand because they are based on true and relevant facts which we have been able to source and verify. It is a simple as that, so please don't push a Romanophile POV and then make the accusation that I am the one being biased here. - Mauco 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We should add also the 5th infringement that HCHRM claim, this is consistent with the odd shrinkage of electoral roll just before the referendum:

5. The list of voters were "cleaned", excluding some citizens who previously boycotted Transnistrian electoral farces, even if they were born and always lived in the localities from the left side of Nistru.--MariusM 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is consistent with a conspiracy theory which no one has been able to prove. Jeesh... If it was so important for HCHRM to find out if there was any hocus-pocus with the electoral rolls, then why did they not ask to be formally accredited as election observers? Everyone else did, and had full access to the before- and after-lists. In fact, there were 3 sets of list, including an intermediary database. With that information, they would have been able to build a credible case, or not, as the case may be. But as it stands, we have no one else except them claiming that they were even there; let alone that they observed the referendum. And we do know that they were not accredited because they never asked to become accredited as observers, so we know that they had no access to any of the vital information that real observers have to see in order to rule on the fairness of an election. In short: Bunk. - Mauco 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

7% electorate shrinkage in only one year is quite strange. Even before the referendum I indicated as a doubt regarding the corectness of referendum. And several foreign countries had also doubts.--MariusM 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Please cite and source. The shrinkage is already included. If you want to also include a statement that this is evidence of fraud, that is strong claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. What are the doubts of these unnamed "several foreign countries" and do they use the words fraud? Please provide the proper citations of who insist that there was voting fraud which was related to the updated electoral register. - Mauco 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Transnistrian Results

According to official Transnistrian data, 78.6 percent of the registered voters of Transnistria voted in the referendum. 97.1 percent of voters supported the first point, while 2.3 percent did not support it. 3.4 percent of voters supported the second point, while 94.6 percent did not support it.More Accurate Results of Referendum for Regions Data issued by Transnistrian authorities showed that the electorate shrunk by 7% within the last year.Transnistrian Electorate Shrinking Dramatically

We should keep the words "Official Results" insted of "Results", as is not clear how accurate are those results.--MariusM 13:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No one else is claiming any kind of fraud, except the Moldovan-based HCHRM and this is to be expected (just read some of the previously press releases on other Transnistria related subjects and you will see how much they hate Transnistria). Have they been able to back up their claim with any third party evidence? Enough said... But certainly, if you prefer, then there is no harm done in saying "official results" instead of "results". - Mauco 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HCHRM / Exceptional claims

Please help me do fact-checking and reference-running, or at least find any support of any kind, no matter how weak, for HCHRM's allegations of fraud or voter intimidation at this particular referendum. I tried five different search engines, but came up with total blanks. I did find more than 800 news articles on Google News about the referendum, filed primarily September 16 through 18. I used all the search tools I could to scan the contents, but none of them contained any mention of any of the 4 (now 5) points that HCHRM makes. In fact, if you read through the mass media news coverage, the articles do not put the fairness of the referendum in doubt or imply that it was carried out to standards other than democratic. The HCHRM press release is the only one which I can find that says so. I would prefer a more reliable source for such exceptional claims and strong accusations rather than a self-published press release from an organization with an obvious bias. - Mauco 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, may I remind you that you have no veto rights in Transnistria-related articles of Wikipedia? In main Transnistria article you take out the HCHRM claims on the basis that only in this article should be mentioned in details, and now you deleted the detailed claim also in this article.--MariusM 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, but I am familiar with Wikipedia which is the reason why I object to pushing a claim of doubtful reliability. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.

These are not my opinions, but part of the Wikipedia guidelines. As regards verifiability, the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. Again, these are Wikipedia guidelines (not my words). I have kindly asked for help in fact-checking and reference-running. A curt answer that "Mauco, you have no veto rights" is, quite frankly, not the kind of constructive and collaborative help that I was looking for in other to make an article which factually and truthfully reflects what this referendum was about, and thus becomes a useful resource for other researchers when they turn to this encyclopedia for information on the topic. - Mauco 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I already give arguments. I repeat: 7% electorate shrinkage in only one year is quite strange - is consistent with the claim the electoral lists were "cleaned" of people which in the past didn't participate in separatist-organised votings. Even before the referendum I indicated as a doubt regarding the corectness of referendum. And several important foreign countries had also doubts about the correctness of the referendum (USA, European Union). I didn't ask that those claims to be presented as truth, can be presented along with other claims that referendum was correct, but all opinion should be mentioned. No original research, please.--MariusM 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not guilty of original research. If you claim that I am, then please tell me which part of the article I have added that is in any way, shape or form original research and then delete it at once. - Mauco 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "shrinking voters" argument is merely a single one out of five (5) exceptional claims made by HCHRM (and no one else). You do not give any arguments for the others (such as intimidation, and ballot stuffing). The mention of the shrinkage is already included, as fact: It shrank. Period. No speculation. If you want to also include a statement that this is evidence of fraud, that is strong claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The USA and the European Union have not addressed the "shrinking voters" argument, nor have they stated that there any fraud was committed. So using that reference to support an inclusion of HCHRM's unsubstantiated claims is ingenious at best. Please provide the proper citations of who, specifically, insist that there was voting fraud which was related to the updated electoral register. - Mauco 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Moldovan Helsinki Committee:
The Moldovan Helsinki Committee is a full rights member of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (Vienna). [2] – un organisation with outstanding reputation. It is not like ICDISS or Pridnestrovie.net. You fighting with the wall :(
With your actions you break the basis of a fundamental right: innocent until proven guilt. In your case it is vies versa. Thief thinks that everybody steals.
EvilAlex 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That mud won't stick. I opened this paragraph by asking, in public, for others to please help me do fact-checking and reference-running. In the meantime, I have been accused of original research, and now the thief-thing, but no help from anyone as to actually assisting with the request. - Mauco 18:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You were correctly accused. You are the only one in this talk page who oppose the inclusion of detailed claims of Helsinki Comitee for Human Rights.--MariusM 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, false. Check the logs. At least 3 different editors have removed it at various times, either from here or when you and EvilAlex tried to push it at the main Transnistria page without prior debate. I am the one explaining why. - Mauco 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I qoute from your presentation page User:William Mauco: "Lots of half-truths floating around out there about Transnistria". You are one who put some of those half-truth here. Your remark is a good example - other 2 editors objected only for the fact is a copyvio (which was corrected now). It wasn't criticism against the inclusion of HCHRM claims in this page.--MariusM 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is great that you saw that and can point that out. This is why I don't know why you make a big production out of a single press release from HCHRM which has not been proven and which, by all accounts, is pure fantasy and speculation. No proof has been presented to substantiate any of these accusations. There is also no evidence that any representatives of the organization were present in Transnistria in the immediate period before, during or after the referendum. The organization did not participate in the referendum as accredited observers and has not substantiated its claims. None of the participating 174 officially registered observers and 215 accredited journalists have indicated that any of these claims are true, and no independent verification of any of these claims exist from a credible third party source. - Mauco 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you say "there is also no evidence that any representatives of the organization were present in Transnistria in the immediate period before, during or after the referendum"? You made original research?--MariusM 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, the sentence "No evidence has been presented to substantiate any of these accusations in the press-release" is not OR. It is a statement of fact about the document: the phrases "the document contains..." and "document soes not contain..." are of equal verifiability. `'mikka (t) 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are only speculations. How you know that they don't have evidence and proofs regarding their accusations?--MariusM 11:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article saying that they do not have evidence and/or proofs. It only says that "no evidence has been presented to substantiate any of these accusations in the press-release", which is a fact. -- int19h

Precisely. I don't know what this pissing match is about. MariusM can't ask someone to prove a negative. In fact, with regards to this particular organization, they are the ones claiming that they were there (with "a mobile team of observers" which there is no record of anywhere). No one else has seen them, heard of them or anything else. There is not a single mention of them or their claims in the more than 800 news articles about the referendum which Google News has. I am not doing original research, I am doing what I set out to do at the opening sentence of this paragraph: fact-checking and reference-running. And I am coming up with a blank. The user who defends the exceptional claims of this organization should at least help me with my request for trying to find ANYTHING from a credible third party which substantiates their claims. - Mauco 23:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The full paragraph which MariusM deleted read as follows: No proof has been presented to substantiate any of these accusations. There is also no evidence that any representatives of the organization were present in Transnistria in the immediate period before, during or after the referendum. The organization did not participate in the referendum as accredited observers and has not substantiated its claims. None of the participating 174 officially registered observers and 215 accredited journalists have indicated that any of these claims are true, and no independent verification of any of these claims exist from a credible third party source. - Mauco 23:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As HCHRM was accused as being an outside-Transnistria organisation, I just quote one paragraph from the link gaved by EvilAlex: "The Moldovan Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is an independent, non-profit human rights organization founded by a group of human rights activists in Tiraspol, Transdnistria region of the Republic of Moldova in 1990 in the wake of dissolution of the Soviet Union. Moldovan Helsinki Committee monitors the respect for human rights obligations undertaken by the Republic of Moldova towards OSCE, the United Nations, the Council of Europe. It advocates for respect, protection and promotion of human rights values through providing independent expertise of human rights legal and practical compliance, public interest advocating and litigation, raising awareness of specific groups and general public of the serious human rights concerns. The Moldovan Helsinki Committee is a full rights member of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (Vienna)."[3].--MariusM 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

Anon user 128.112.37.156 Igny just added a section headed "Criticism" and wrote the following paragraph:

An editorial on the online Lenta newspaper has criticised the formulation of the questions. The writer observes that the questions juxtapose "freedom" ("free association") and "loss of independence" ("renounce Transnistria's independent status"), as well as "reality" ("support the course") and something "unlikely" ("consider it possible").[4] It can be argued, however, that these questions simply accurately reflect the current political situation. The second option would logically entail a renunciation of Transnistrian independence and a repudiation of the region's current course. On the other hand, the term "free association" is used here to mean that Transnistria could become a member state of the Russian Federation separately from Moldova.

I have four problems with this. 1: First of all, I am not sure what the relevance is, but for background to the referendum I guess that we could include it. However, I would like other editors' opinin on this, too. 2: Secondly, there is a sentence which appears to be the editor's own personal conclusion. He says: "It can be argued, however, that these questions simply accurately reflect the current political situation." This is interesting, but it is not up to us to argue this, so I ask for one or more citations which put forward this argument. 3: Third, I would change the words "entail a renunciation of Transnistrian independence" to "entail a renunciation of Transnistrian independence aspirations" because the jury is still out on whether or not Transnistria has achieved independence. De facto, it has, but formally (de jure) it has not. 4: Fourth, and last, the technical definition of the term "free association" is not a member state of a federation but an associated state. There are a lot of similiarities but also some important distinctions. If we include the section, these four points should be addressed. - Mauco 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section was not added by an anon user, but by Russian user User:igny. The fact that you removed this section is consistent with your behaviour of defending, by all (not always fair) means, the Tiraspol authorities point of view.--MariusM 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, it was me who added this section, the anon user just reworded it. In my version, I used stronger words like public manipulation. Please see potential for inaccuracy in opinion polls, in particular the response bias where certain wording of the questions may result in answers which do not reflect true opinion of the individuals. (Igny 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Guys, calm down - both of you, please. There is no behavior of deleting stuff that the Tiraspol authorities don't like. The issues are several. The basic issue, as Marius knows, is that this page is controversial and that major changes should be discussed before adding them. See top of page. The next are four minor concerns - points 1 through 4 - which I would like to see if we can't improve on before we include the section. That was why I brought is here for discussion in the meantime. - Mauco 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for making the edits on the controversial topic without discussing them first here. Other than that I stand by my claim of the clear manipulation of the public opinion. Please note that I am not pro or against the Transnistrian independence. It is just the wording of the questions irritate me (may be because I had a course on statistics and social studies). (Igny 19:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Apology accepted, and you may not even have seen the notice first (it is only here on the Talk page, not in mainspace). That "the wording of the questions irritate me" is not grounds for inclusion. Having said that, I do believe that your paragraph is relevant (see above and below) and I do believe that it should be included (see below, under "original version"). In the anon-version, I just have issue with four minor points, and in your version, I have issue with two wording points. Do you want to do a rewrite or should I try my hand at it? - Mauco 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism, original version

Here is Igby's original version:

The formulation of the questions is found far from being fair. In a clear manipulation of the public opinion, people are asked to choose between freedom ("free association") and loss of independence ("renounce the Transnistria's indepentent status"), between reality ("support the course") and something unlikely ("consider it possible") [5].

I also have comments to with this (which were in fact partially corrected in part by the anon user above). Basically change weasel words like "is found" and POV like "clear manipulation of public opinion". (It can not be categorically "clear" until it is conventional wisdowm or at least more sources say that, not justthe single opinion of one editorial writer online). The rest is OK, but fix the spelling in "independent" and base it on the accepted English translation of the questions as they appear on the page. - Mauco 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the following variant.

According to Lenta.ru, Karel De Gucht (Chairman of OSCE) has criticised the unfair formulation of the questions. In a possible manipulation of the public opinion, people are asked to choose between freedom ("free association") and loss of independence ("renounce the Transnistria's independent status"), between reality ("support the course") and something unlikely ("consider it possible"). This formulation could have resulted in a response bias. [6].

Of course, you are welcome to edit it to make it more acceptable. (Igny 20:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Actual Karel De Gucht's words: "The suggestive character of these questions and the lack of basic requirements for free and fair elections, such as freedom of the media, freedom of assembly and political pluralism, in the region pre-determined the results of such an exercise". [7]

(Igny 20:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

In that case, we just make a slight change to your proposed paragraph. Like so:

According to Lenta.ru, Karel De Gucht (Chairman of OSCE) criticised the suggestive characters of the questions. In a possible manipulation of the public opinion, people are asked to choose between freedom ("free association") and loss of independence ("renounce the Transnistria's independent status"), between reality ("support the course") and something unlikely ("consider it possible"). This formulation could have resulted in a response bias. [8].

I like this and personally agree with the relevance for inclusion. - Mauco 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would add at the Criticism section also the remarks about "the lack of basic requirements for free and fair elections, such as freedom of the media, freedom of assembly and political pluralism".--MariusM 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of article name

Why was made the change in the article name, instead of "2006 Referendum in Transnistria" in "Transnistrian independence referendum, 2006"? I don't agree as the first question which was asked was about a future joining of Russian Federation, about losing independence.--MariusM 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

He gave his reason in the editing log. Not that I agree (I don't, since I was the one who started the stub and therefore picked the other name), but there's your answer... - Mauco 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just realised my mistake. If you want to remove the word "independence", by all means, go ahead. Biruitorul 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem, but right now - as you can see from this Talk page - there are actually some other issues which are more serious than the name. Since you are here now, if you want to help out and make a better article, that would be appreciated. Just read through the whole Talk page and pickup whenever you want, but be sensitive because it is controversial subject. - Mauco 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, I hope the new title is satisfactory, and that the opening line can be rephrased accordingly. If anyone here knows Russian, a translation would be appreciated. Biruitorul 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. The current version of this article does not conform to WP:Neutral point of view. It gives undue prominence to the view of one group, an biased anti-Transnistrian organization which is opposed to the referendum and which can not be sourced except for a single reference to their own press release. Opposing views were deleted without discussion by MariusM in this edit [9] even though press reports indicate that they represent the commonly held majority view. Let's stop the bickering and just fix this, guys. - Mauco 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting your edit in which you deleted the opinion of HCHRM. I agree (as I always told in this talk page) to include in the article other opinions. I propose to add the paragraph:

However, it should be noted that the OSCE and other international organizations had refused in advance to send any observers to the referendum. In fact, the OSCE had given its verdict on the referendum well before the referendum actually took place. ^[1] However, other European observers did attend the referendum, and had some quite different reactions. For example, Italian observers Stefanio Vernole and Alberto Askari called the voting process "democratic and transparent." The summary of the observers' conclusions stated "that practically all polling stations displayed information in all three national languages; that no incidents of voter intimidation had been found" and that polling stations were easily accessible to all voters.^[2]

This way, both opinion are included. Is this O.K.?--MariusM 21:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First a question: If you now agree that this should be included, then why did you delete it without any notice and without any discussion? Even your edit summary of this act was misleading [10]. Other people would accuse you of vandalism, in such a case, but I am being tolerant because I know that you are a new editor and still have a lot to learn. Anyway, I am including it now so I trust that you will abstain from deleting it again. It doesn't fully solve the POV issue but at least it is a start in the right direction. - Mauco 22:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It was just a revearsal at the version of 17:39 [11][ just before you deleted HCHRM opinion. I didn't notice the other text that was added.--MariusM 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. That is why I don't throw insults around, because in many of these types of cases there is a perfectly valid explanation. - Mauco 22:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

Is this worth including?

"The best way of resolving the situation in Transnistria is autonomy for this region within the Republic of Moldova, declared Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych yesterday, cited by Rompres. Emphasizing that the results of the popular consultation in Transnistria were recognised neither by Ukraine nor by the international community, the pro-Russian Yanukovych noted that the referendum would do nothing but aggravate the conflict in the eastern part of the Republic of Moldova. In this context, Prime Minister Yanukovych declared himself in favour of intensifying efforts aimed at solving the Transnistrian problem with the participation of Ukraine and Russia." Biruitorul 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that has nothing to do directly with the conducting of this referendum. Thanks for pointing it out. It is interesting information but it just doesn't fit within the very narrow scope of this particular article. - Mauco 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a "reactions" section that mentions Norway and Turkey, which have much less to do with the situation than does Ukraine. Furthermore, the article on the Montenegro referendum (which inspired this one) has a well-developed "international reactions" section. If you're going to include any nations' reactions, then Moldova, Romania, Russia and Ukraine definitely fit, I think. - Biruitorul 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, THAT part (Norway, etc) is debris from a bit of very disruptive edit-warring which took place a couple of days ago on Transnistria. It was solved on the main page and now simply says "Moldova and the West refused to recognize the referendum or its results, dismissing the poll as illegitimate". Go ahead and do that here, too, if you agree. - Mauco 00:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who were the observers?

Really, unless they are associated with a respected international human rights organization, their view is non-notable from our point of view. They are simply "some guys" who went on a holiday to Transnistria. That's why I removed the two Italians' opinion. bogdan 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If "observers" did not represent any governments or organizations then they are by themselves, their opinion will be personal POV. And if "observers" unknown then their POV will be insignificant. Not worth mentioning, we don’t have time to stuck on that, move forwardEvilAlex 10:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

2 out of the 174 observers. Check the sources, they have more info. - Mauco 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the stuff about the Moldovan observers was misleading. It was a group of the "Congress of Russian Communities" of Moldova. bogdan 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This was added, then removed and added back in by someone else. Please do not start an edit war over this. These things are solved on Talk pages. It is sourced. Please read the source first. Also, If you read through this Talk page (please do), you will see that there are some concerns about the "Moldovan Helsinki Group" as well and their comments. They do not seem to be shared by anyone else, nor substantiated in any way, shape or form. - Mauco 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor Zhos, a Moldovan journalist, reported favorably on a comparison between "recognized Chisinau" and "unrecognized Tiraspol" in an article which emphasized the openness, transparency and glasnost of the referendum process.<ref>[http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol178-09-06.htm View from Moldova]</ref>

Who is this Victor Zhos (presumably Jos, but still looking like a made-up name) and why are we quoting his opinion on Wikipedia? No google hits for his name. bogdan 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Accredited international journalist #192, out of 215. Relevant as a detailed first-hand report. Source is here: http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol178-09-06.htm - Mauco 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Victor Josu, vice-chairman of Party of Revival and Conciliation (or smth like this), deputy editor in chief Moldavskiye Vedomosti. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian version of this article

The Russian version of this article has a lot more factual information:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Референдум_о_независимости_Приднестровья_2006_года
Worth learning from. Seems like they spend their time working, not fighting. I wish we could do the same here. - Mauco 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

check the links lenta, olvia and regnum - sites with a great reputations in the western wordEvilAlex 10:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

read this one:
//35 Burzomin 18 septembrie, 12:57 Приехал сегодня с Бендер, был в гостях. Очень удивило четыре вещи: Во-первых поголовно заставляли выходить на митинг в поддержку референдума со всех гос. предприятий под угрозой увольнения. Моя знакомая не пошла, так ее вызвали к руководству и провели с ней разъяснительную беседу со строгим выговором. Во-вторых ее дочь учится в университете. Так ее в приказном порядке попросили перед всей группой прочитать заявление о том, чтобы все студенты пошли на митинг в поддержку присоединения к России. Она отказалась, так ее могут лишить стипендии, кстати в прошлом году ее тоже лишили стипендии, потому что она не вышла на митинг со всеми студентами в знак протеса блокады. В-третьих. Вчера по ОРТ показывали в вечерней программе новостей, как круто у них проходят выборы, что все маршрутки ходят бесплатно, но никто не упомянул, что всем маршрутчикам ПРИКАЗАЛИ ВОЗИТЬ ПАССАЖИРОВ ЗА СЧАТ САМИХ ВОДИТЕЛЕЙ МАРШРУТНЫХ ТАКСИ. Так такие перебои с транспортом были ужасные. Разговаривал с водителем, так он поведал, что «бесплатные» перевозки его семье будут стоить 200 рублей (примерно 350 лей). И НА ПОСЛЕДОК. Пошел отец семейства голосовать. Пришел, с полным чувством испольного долга. Проголосовал на присоединение к России, Когда на избирательном участке узнали, о его выборе и о том, что его жена и дети не пойдут голосовать, ТАК ЕМУ ПРЕДЛОЖИЛИ ПРОГОЛОСОВАТЬ ЗА НИХ!!!!! Это был полный финиш. source
EvilAlex 11:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Piece of crap. Even if they were forced to go to referendum, to go to meetings, etc., but who forced them to vote for Russia? `'mikka (t) 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they vote for Russia? If there is no organisation in Transnistria who is against Russia, no anti-union with Russia observers in the ellectoral comissions, how do you know that the votes were counted fairly? People from ellectoral commisions have jobs, they want to keep them even after the referendum.--MariusM 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday evening I called home and spoke to my parents who live in Tighina, they do confirm that this was mandatory, My father didn’t care much about politics, but after few lectures in a workplace: (you will have to vote, you will have to vote only in the right way, guess what that mean THE RIGHT WAY) he went to poling station.
EvilAlex 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

All what happened does not give you rights to delete pieces of text (Josu's opinion, which is also a kind of "criticism", by the way, in the case you disn't noticed) `'mikka (t) 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleagues and fellow editors: In bringing the Russian version of this page to your attention, my main goal was to demonstrate what a much better and much more informative page that they have, in the hopes that we could learn from them and do the same. Compare the two on the basis of an encyclopedia which a reader will turn to in order to get knowledge, and it is clear that they are doing a much better job there than we are doing here. I commented that work more, fight less, and said that I wished we could do the same. However, my comment apparently fell on deaf ears. The response from EvilAlex above speaks for itself. So much for my appeal to reason. - Mauco 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

I have to admit that I find it mildly amusing that, after the fact, those who didn't like the fact that this referendum was held are now scrambling to accuse the authoritities of committing fraud. If you stand back for a moment and think about it, it was clear all along what the result would be. EVERYONE knew it. That was why Moldova said they wouldn't recognize it, months before it happened, as did OSCE, etc. There was no doubt at all what the outcome would be. To get a pro-Russia result, no one needed commit any fraud whatsoever. Read some of the AP reports, DPA, AFP, even BBC, the Christian Science Monitor, and so on. There is not a single one who doesn't concede that the result was expected. Why would Smirnov & Co need to commit fraud if they already knew what the decision of the voters would be? - Mauco 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents, just a similarly idle remark: if they were intended to prove there were violations, why did they refuse to send observers (who could provide facts of fraud rather than empty accusations)? I have no doubts that the voters were herded to poll stations in one way or another. But who made them vote favorably? If someone was looking over their shoulders, where are the observers who are supposed to defend democracy, but who prefer wild rhetoric rather than actions? I suggest EvilAlex to read Josu,s text. Moldova alienated Transnistria forever when the war, and it didn't do anything positive to convince people in Transnistria that they will be better with Moldova than with Russia. (If they did, I would very much like to read about this in wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. This is THE key point. How can the Helsinki Committee know that there was fraud? When I thought that Moldova and the OSCE refused to go to Transdniestr and observe the referendum. - Mauco 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear fellows that question is not “how can the be a fraud?” taking into account current situation in Transnistria (Authorities there continue a long-standing campaign to silence independent opposition voices and movements [12]) the right question should be “How can the not be a fraud?”
EvilAlex 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that EvilAlex read a single word that I said here, or that Mikkalai suggested (read Josu's text). But even if we assume that EvilAlex is right, then that still doesn't answer the question: How can any outside group or country say that there was fraud in a referendum that they refused to go to and refused to observe? And keep a straight face? - Mauco 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

They told they were there.--MariusM 11:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that it was clear all along what the result would be, is a normal thing. For example, in Communist times before glasnost, everyone knows in advance that the Communist Party will win the ellections with 99%, but this doesn't mean that people love Communist Party.--MariusM 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Ukraine's 97% favorable vote in their December 1991 referendum on independence would be an example of fraud too. Jeesh... Give it a rest, Marius. And, worse still, Moldova - that beacon of democracy - didn't even have a referendum till 1994 ... three years after the fact. No one asked the citizens to find out if a majority they wanted independence or not, or if it was just a vocal minority in the capital. It was just imposed by the elite. - Mauco 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand Mauco that you regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it is nothing to do about it. Was 97% pro-independence vote in Ukraine in 1991 a fraud? It may be. I suppose that there are more than 3% Russians and Russified people in Ukraine who wanted to keep the Soviet Union (but when Russia itself declared independence, what could be done?). Gorbaciov organised, don't remember exactly when (believe in 1990), a referendum to keep the Soviet Union in which Ukraine participate, and majority was for keeping the Soviet Union. So what? In Soviet Union, the opinion of the citizens is asked in only one situation: when authorities want to know what should they not do (that's a joke, I must add it in the wonderfull article Heaven of Transnistria that you want to delete). After Ukraine declared independence, Moldova has no other choice. Kaliningrad has links with Russia through the sea, Moldova don't. So, don't be upset on Moldavians. Regarding democracy in Moldova, you can create an article Moldova, the beacon of democracy, as I created the article Heaven of Transnistria. I promise not to ask the deletion of such article.--MariusM 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would I regret the dissolution of the Soviet Union? Again, your analytical skills fail to impress me. I am an anti-Communist. In the late 1980's, I even participated in demonstrations in front of one of the USSR embassies. We shouted "Nyet, Nyet, Soviet" which was about the extent of our Russian at the time. Edward Lucas did the same thing, yet today he is a skilled researcher of post-Soviet affairs. There is no contradiction in his or my interest in these areas. - Mauco 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herding voters

Mikka said "I have no doubts that the voters were herded to poll stations in one way or another." There are indications that this could be true, but the paradox is that not a single voter has actually complained about it. - Mauco 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the issue: Everyone, both in Transnistria and outside, knew what the result would be (and no fraud needed, it is clear as day that not just the leadership, but ordinary Transnistrians reject Moldova, too). So the problem was not the outcome. The problem was whether or not enough people would actually show up to vote, in order to reach the 50% threshold. Remember that Transnistria already has one failed referendum in the past (on land reform) where the referendum failed due to low voter turnout. The government couldn't get the vote, not because it didn't have a majority of the votes (which it did) but simply because not enough votes had been cast. This was the same problem here, so for weeks on end, PMR mounted a heavy "get out the vote" campaign.
Now, I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with that. It is not fraud. In fact, in the States, you have groups like "Rock the Vote" and moveon.org whose primary purpose is to get more voters to register so more people participate in the democratic process. But, back to Transnistria: The heavy campaigning was not aimed so much at influencing a result, but more on making sure that lots of voters would show up to vote. You can see that if you read or listen to the speeches made by the leaders in the 10 days from September 5 through September 15. Even the Ministries got into the act. For instance, on 14 September, 3 days before the vote, the following was posted on one of their websites and was repeated on a bulletin board: "Прийти на референдум и высказать свою волю - проявление гражданской политической активности и ответственности. Референдум признаётся действительным, если проголосовало 50% + 1 голос. Будет обидно, если этот один голос не придёт. ВСЕ НА РЕФЕРЕНДУМ!" [13]
The pressure was to make sure that the referendum did not fail, and this was what Transnistrian authorities focused their efforts on. It is impossible for an informed observer to think that they focused their efforts on preparing fraud. But the "herding voters" charge is valid, and seems to be supported by a lot of evidence. In addition, Tiraspol Times was very critical of statefunding of the campaign. See this article: Tiraspol Times: "Disinformation and dirty tricks in referendum campaign" (which is part of the media in a country where OSCE claims that there is no free press). - Mauco 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, what to conclude? On election day even the authorities were surprised by the high turnout. They did not expect almost 80%. Remember that in in the last election (for parliament, in December) turnout barely went above 50%. They had misjudged the strength of the convictions held by the population against Moldova. Were voters herded to polls stations in different ways? Certainly. Was anyone forced there, at gun point? That is what the HCHRM tries to imply, but there is nothing to substantiate this charge. On the contrary. In the reports from the mainsteam Western press - the wire services, etc - we keep reading about a "festive atmosphere" and "happy, smiling voters" and many of them include small statements and interviews with named people in the street who express that that are glad to be given the chance to vote, etc. This is not propaganda or a conspiracy, but journalists from the leading news outlets. On Monday alone, 850+ newspaper articles appeared in English about the referendum (referenced by http://news.google.com) and the "get out the vote" theme was prevalent in many of them, but none of them gave any indication of intimadation or force being used. Only HCHRM came out with this claim, which is quite frankly totally and utterly impossible to believe, and a distinct minority opinion to boot. - Mauco 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a single voter has actually complained about it
Complain to whom? Do you won’t to lose your job? There are no jobs, people afraid...
EvilAlex 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there is no political movement in Transnistria which stives for union with Moldova? `'mikka (t) 19:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No. There is no Transnistrian party or organization which supports such a policy. bogdan 19:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no political parties with that stand (but there ARE about 8 or 10 organizations, and 2 small newspapers with that position), but the lack of major parties who advocate this stand should not be seen as "proof" that there is a complete lack of political freedom. Earlier this year Yevgeny Shevchuk said that it would be political suicide in PMR for a party to advocate unification with Moldova. Why? Because the voters won't have it. It is not the government who prohibits it, but the voters who are radical in their opposition to unification (and the referendum results bear that out). Shevchuk's statement was quoted by the International Crisis Group in their latest report, and it carries a lot of weight because he is one of the smartest politicians in the country ... much more intelligent than Smirnov, for instance. He made it almost to the very top: At age 37 he became chairman of parliament (he is now 38). - Mauco 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there is no party. But do you, by any chance, have a link to a website of any pro-Moldovan/pro-Romanian organization (or newspaper) ? bogdan 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One which was in the press quite a bit in August was "Dignitas" but I don't know if they have a website. It is made up of members of Moldova's Social Democratic party who live in the south of Transnistria. Then there are the Soros funded groups, like Tiraspol-based World Window. In fact, World Window has a directory of NGOs on their website http://www.worldwindow.md/ so that is a good place to start. Another group in favor of unification is the Tiraspol Legal Clinic http://www.iatp.md/tiraspollegalclinic/main.html and with regards to the newspapers, Alex Radchenko's paper came out against an independence vote and in favor of Moldova's call to boycot before the referendum, you can read that here http://www.cip.nm.ru/ Another opposition newspaper, http://novaiagazeta.org.ru/, was also critical. By the way, all of these above links are taken from http://pridnestrovie.net/weblinks.html which is a government-affiliated website but which DOES include links to the "other side" as well (whereas no government websites on Moldova links to any pro-Transnistria groups, organizations, newspapers or websites. -Sort of makes you wonder... ) - Mauco 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes is the Dignitas organisation which had 4 members arrested by Transnistrian police. Before the referendum I tried to include in Transnistria article the fact that those persons were arrested as a proof of oposition intimidation before the referendum. It was user Mauco who constantly reverted my edits, telling that is no conection between those arrests and the referendum.--MariusM 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But from what I read in there, these guys are more concerned about the "вранья" of the government and the "прав и свобод человека и гражданина", so I'm still not convinced. bogdan 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was also a long, detailed study made earlier this year as a survey of NGOs in Transnistria. If interested, I will see if I can find it for you. It was carried out primarily in Tiraspol and Tighina, and was funded by an agency of the British government, if memory serves. - Mauco 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The only dissent in Transnistria is the "pre-approved" dissent, in order to make outsiders think there is a democracy. (See the "very liberal" party, which criticises Smirnov, Breakthrough). In fact, the basic idea of Transnistria's foreign policy is pretending to be a real country. bogdan 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a very "Western" response. In reality, it is a quite a bit more nuanced than that. We must be very careful not to look at these issues black and white, because there are a lot of tonalities and the past year or so has seen many things happening on the political scene in Transnistria. Some of it was reactionary (such as the clampdown on foreign funding for political movements which happened a few days after the March 3 customs conflict, and which was a response to it). Most of it is the opposite. A real civil society is coming into its own. This has not received any airplay anywhere, mostly because Moldova (and therefore also the West) does not see it as a "valid" civil society due to the fact that all the parties and groups are pro-Russia. Having said that, there is actually a lot of friction between them under the facade of unity which was kept up for the referendum, and it would be a mistake to think that they are orchestrated as part of a foreign policy effort to pretend something. Very little has been seen or noted abroad and 99% of what is going on now, on their political scene, is for internal consumption. - Mauco 20:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

>It is not the government who prohibits it, but the voters who are radical in their opposition to unification.
Government doesn’t give you a chance to hear the OPPPOSITION voice. It blocks TV and Radio from Ukraine and Moldova. There are no opposition newspapers. The only newspaper that I remember buying was “новое время” highly pro Government, you will have to go outside of Transnistria to find something critical. If by any chance you will be in Tirapol go to a kiosk and ask for opposition newspaper. You will get a look like nowhere in the word.
EvilAlex 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It must have been a while since you were in Transnistria the last time. Things change. You should be glad that things are improving. Is it perfect? No, but also not as bad as you describe it to be. A few corrections: they DO have Moldovan TV and radio, and you can buy "Makler" and many other Moldovan papers in Tiraspol. You can also buy the local opposition newspapers openly. I gave you the links to opposition newspapers, why don't you just send them an email and ask... - Mauco 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

EvilAlex, you should give a phone call to your parents and tell them that now is freedom in Transnistria, as they didn't notice.--MariusM 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

> It must have been a while since you were in Transnistria the last time.
This year on the easter I visited my parents.
Neighbouring TVs and radios have been jammed since ~1997.Maybee some new radio station broadcasting on a higher frequency can be received. But with TVs it is a dead end. Before ~1997 you could freely watch TVM from Moldova, TVR1 from Romania, UT1, TV-юг (my favourite) from Nicolaev region in Ukraine. And then all of this suddenly disappeared. Makler it is equivalent to loot[14] it is not an apolitical newspaper, buy and sell stuff.
> You can also buy the local opposition newspapers openly.
What opposition? Pro Smirnove left, Pro smirnove right?
EvilAlex 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7% electorate decrease

I have an idea how this electorate was decreased. There are several villages on the left bank of Dniester that are not controlled by Transnistria: Cocieri, Doroţcaia/Dorotcaia, Coşnita/Cosnita, Pârâta/Pirita, Molovata Noua, Pohrebea. Can it be that they were discounted, since they are under firm control of Moldova and hence not counted into future Transnistria? Can anyone verify whether referendum included these? Their total population is about 25-30 thou (my uneducated guess), which would give these 7%. `'mikka (t) 00:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are only your speculations. The electoral comission from Tiraspol announced this ellectoral shrinkage compared with 2005, when was the same situation regarding those villages not controlled by Transnistria.--MariusM 00:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, good suggestion. I will see what I can find out. I do know that went had 3 sets electoral rolls (revisions) before the final one. I am sure that their fear of not reaching the 50% threshold played a role in their wish to bring the voter total down to an accurate, realistic level of actual voters. Seeing that this is the likely motivation for the sudden year-on-year decrease, it is improbably to say - as HCHRM does - that there was discrimination and that "pro-Moldovan" voters were deleted from the rolls. I am quite sure that this was not a factor, but that turnout-threshold considerations were. It is illustrative in this regard to note that HCHRM did not provide any backing for their claim, and also that we (here) are giving way to much heed to an organization which is basically a two-man "paper" group run by a pair of shifty types. See http://www.regnum.ru/english/704387.html Their opinion has not been substantiated with facts or any similar statements from other groups. - Mauco 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about people who lives in Transnistria but, as result of opposing Transnistrian regime, refuse to take Transnistrian citizenship? Were they allowed to vote?--MariusM 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe so. My understanding is that voting was open to all holders of an internal passport, which would mean all residents (not just citizens). I have no online source for this because the online index of all PMR laws appears to be down right now. It is located at http://zakon-pmr.com/ - Mauco 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As per the 2004 census, those residents who hold PMR citizenship numbered 508,600 people (90%+ of the population). - Mauco 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We should clarify this situation, not just relying on beliefs.--MariusM 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Since there is agreement on that, I've just removed the speculation about the shrinkage while we try to find out more. This means that, as of now, the only statement left in the article about the shrinkage is that "a total of 390,000 were registered to vote, down 7% from a year earlier" which is merely a factual statement that in no way relies on belief. - Mauco 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine or your speculation, it was a speculation of antiseparatist organisation. "Cleaning of ellectoral lists" has some facts behind it - this odd shrinkage. As is thier speculation, not ours, is relevant for the article to understand their position.--MariusM 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong with regards to relevance. I will have to remove that statement. If you persist in restoring it, I will be glad to demonstrate why you are wrong. - Mauco 03:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MariusM, I see that you persist. I hold that this is a tiny minority opinion, shared by no one outside the small group itself, and that the group has not been able to substantiate their claim or demonstrate why anyone should believe such an exceptional claim. Please cite other groups who share this same opinion. The purpose of this request is to give you a chance to show why this should not be considered a tiny minority opinion, and the burden of proof here is on the editor who insists on the inclusion (in this case you). - Mauco 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "that the group has not been able to substantiate their claim or demonstrate why anyone should believe such an exceptional claim" is irrelevant. Well, it is relevant, in a sense that we should mention it right after the claim (which we do). But otherwise, if they choose not to cite their sources, well, it's up to them. It's not a "tiny minority opinion" either, since Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is one in the network of well-known and well-established organisations. -- int19h 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, and you explained why. Thanks. I disagree with the second. Their claims in this matter are so "far out in left field" that it has NOT had the resonance that you would expect if such strong statements were true. The Moldovan press, which always have a field day with Transnistria-bashing, pretty much left it alone. Not even Moldova's president, Voronin, picked up on it or made any mention. The Moldovan Helsinki Committee for Human Rights is an independent PRIVATE organization, and even though they participate in the Vienna secretariat, this, too, is private. In this case, Vienna did not pick up their press release either, which shows how notoriously tiny this minority opinion is (they always do that for all the other countries, just not for Moldova in this case). I hold that it is a tiny minority opinion because it is not shared by any other known organization in the world, and not a single journalist (out of 215), observer (out of 174), spokesman for any government, etc etc. The group's chairman and second in command stand accused of fabrication[15] and of doing the Moldovan government's bidding at the expense of their alledged "concern for human rights"[16] The way to show that this is not a tiny minority opinion is to produce others who think like they do and support their accusations - Mauco 07:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an update: The official numbers were released yesterday. The decrease in voters is big, but not quite as big as Moldovan media would have had us believe. It is 5.6% versus 7.0%. But still huge for just one year. - Mauco 18:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Being that Russian troops occupy the Trans-Dniester territory in violation of Russia's own withdrawl agreement ("Istanbul"), being that the Russian government continues to insist the Soviet Union never occupied the Baltics, being that the bust of the founder of the dreaded Cheka stands rehabilitated in Moscow's police headquarters, being that the Russian press reports the government line... I have no problem in citing Russian press sources (Regnum et al.), but I would stop short of explicitly representing them as independent or objective sources in these discussions or in articles. Russian press reports should be represented as such. (Just as Olvia should be represented as the official press organ of the Trans-Dniester regime.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record: not only "Moldovan media" anounced a 7% electorate decrease, it was an official declaration of the chief of electoral comission from Tiraspol. What happened, I guess (I'm not pushing to include in the article, as this can be considered original research), based on what I know from Romanian elections: Some people are not voting where is their "official" house, for diferent reasons (they are not at home town in the voting day, or they moved from their house but they didn't update their documents) and they vote at other polling stations, where they are included in suplimentary lists. Normally those people should be deleted from the original list on their home town (or former home town if they didn't update their documents), but nobody really cares about this. This could be, in my opinion, the explanation of electorate increase after the official anouncement of the chief of electoral comision and the final results. In Romania, in 2004, this situation (people voting elsewhere than in their home town writen in their documents) brought accusations of falsification of voting results (it can hide "electoral tourism"), in Transnistria nobody except HCHRM cares about this.--MariusM 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Alksnis

A bit of effort goes into trying to trash the Moldovan Helsinki Committee, it seems -- but Alksnis (a bloodthirsty Stalinist known as "the Black Colonel") is a person who has something worthwhile to say about democratic elections?

He is well known for his reactionary views. But in this case, he was there and observed the process in person. He spoke to some of the 215 journalists and was an accredited election observer. None of this can be said about the Moldovan NGO. For all we know until now, they were not even there. So despite his faults, if this was a court of law, Alknis would rank as a credible witness and the Helsinki-group wouldn't. - Mauco 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If he is, ahem, "well known for his reactionary views" (and that is putting it a bit mildly, don't you think?) -- don't you think that might be mentioned? Why quote him on the fairness of an election? What's next, thoughts on democracy from Fidel? Your comment makes no sense to me at all, sorry -- it is sort of like saying that Himmler is a credible witness on concentration camps because he had access to them. Alksnis was a leader of the Soyuz faction, and the Soyuz faction was rather directly responsible for installing a totalitarian regime in Tiraspol in the first place. Not NPOV, sorry. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I went through the various articles on matters Transnistrian today, and I must say that this project stands as a monument to the failures of "NPOV" in practice -- the tendency here seems to be to try to "balance" the perspective of an unrecognized, criminal non-statelet created by the Kremlin against everything we know about it, and so to lend it legitimacy. Any and all insight is very obviously lost in the process. Oh, well. --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a top Transnistria scholar from the United States who is just now getting involved in the project. He has already corrected some of the facts of a couple of pages. Over the next few weeks I am sure that he will help out more, and we are very grateful for his participation. (He has not gotten around to working on this particular referendum page at the current point in time). - Mauco 17:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we judge Transnistrian scholars by the Alksnis-can-be-an-official-believable-and-reputable-observer standard of moral and intellectual legitimacy—a person who truly international (i.e., not fronts for parochial special interests) human rights groups have cited for personally disrupting the activities of human rights NGOs in Russia—then I would inquire as to what exactly those credentials are that make them a "top" scholar. There's been little if any scholarship here on the part of the "pro-" Transnistrian (i.e., PMR legitimacy) contingent in this particular Transnistrian discussion as well as in others. Quoting Russian politicians and the Russian press as reliable objective sources is not at all adequate. Nor, as has been noted, does attempting to "balance" the Russian position lead to anything resembling a usable (NPOV being unattainable!) reference. Frankly, also, "Trans-Dniester" (or as referred to by scholars, "Transdniestria") would be more appropriate, as this Transnistria does not match the historical Transnistria, i.e., the territory between the Dniester and the Bug. I should mention I find it interesting that the PMR's north-eastern boundary matches closely to the historical ethnic boundary of the Romanians, that is: Transylvania, Walachia, Moldavia, and in particular, Bessarabia on the right bank of the Dniester and then extending beyond Bessarabia on to the left bank of the Dniester to the same boundary as the PMR. Now that coincidence would be a topic for scholarly inquiry. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to Jamason, I don't think that he has ever commented on Alknis so we can not judge him on that standard. Next, speaking of Romania's historic boundary, in which year did it ever extend "beyond Bessarabia on to the left bank of the Dniester to the same [north-eastern] boundary as the PMR" ....? Even before 1792, the area was primarily inhabited by Ukrainians and other Slavs; not Romanians. - Mauco 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If we look at the turn of the 20th century, the historical area inhabited by the Romanians includes the left bank of the Dniester, the sliver-like territory claimed by the PMR. (As opposed to the boundaries of the "states" of Romania, Moldova, etc.) Only along the shore of the Black Sea, that is, the coastline and up to 50 km or so inland, did East Slavic/Ukranian predomination extend from the "other direction" to the Dniester, across to its right bank and further south along the coastline, whereas upriver it was predominantly Romanian along both banks. For centuries, the shifts in power and influence along the Dniester have tended to be divided into "along the Black Sea coastline" and "upriver." I hope this clarifies my meaning. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And I won't even mention PMR press "analysis"—it's Pravda and 1939 all over again. (In my opinion.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

...which you are certainly entitled to. Thanks for sharing it. - Mauco 03:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that this sentence be amplified unless or until there is an article on Viktor Alksnis. 99% of readers likely do not know who he is, and his endorsement would essentially be negative -- an analogy would be "David Duke recognized the racial integration program in __ as efficacious." This is particularly necessary in view of the fact that Alksnis was a prominent leader of the group that urged the creation of PMR to begin with -- a person who desired a bloodbath in the Baltics and directly supported the hardliners' coup attempt, which is directly connected to Transnistria (i.e., the head of the Transnistrian KGB is a wanted man in Latvia and lived under an assumed name until exposed). --Pēteris Cedriņš 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we are sensitive to sources, the inhabitation of the left bank of the Dniester predominantly by ethnic Romanians is directly from the "Historical Map of East Central Europe", Paul Mangosci, published by Washington University Press. Mine is the 1993 edition: "'A masterful job in covering a huge area through 1,600 years of history, . . . [this atlas] will become the standard work in the area, a magnificent introduction to the subject.' - Slavic Review." The revised 2002 edition was selected by Choice as an Outstanding Academic Title for 2003. I wouldn't want the objectivity or scholarship of my sources disputed (or for myself to be cited for non-citation!). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The head of Transnistrian KGB is Vladimir Antyufeyev. We have a stub in Wikipedia about him. Baltic wikipedians, please add on it what information you consider relevant (preferable with source).--MariusM 21:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See this, Marius -- The Collapse of Moldova's Industrial Engine. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss changes before reverting

In his 01:32, 27 September 2006, edit, User MariusM logged the comment "discuss changes before reverting" [17]. This must have been a reminder to himself, because he has consistently reverted the changes of everyone else on this page without bothering to discuss them first. The latest was the wholesale reversion of all of Mikkalai's improvements[18] which MariusM simply reverted without discussing them here first before reverting. I am now restoring Mikkalai's good work. If MariusM wants to follow his own good advice, he may do so by discussing Mikkalai's changes here first before he reverts them. - Mauco 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OSCE backs "exceptional claims" of fraud

This is what Tiraspol Times is saying: [19] It seems HCHRM report is not any more "exceptional claims".--MariusM 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any statement from OSCE which says that it supports any of the four (or five) claims that HCHRM makes? OSCE has other criticism, which is the reason why they did not recognize this referendum. We have listed those in the article by using the full quote of the OSCE chairman Karel De Gucht. There is a difference between valid, verifiable criticism like OSCE's (even though Tiraspol does not like it, as your link[20] shows) and tin-foil-hat claims like those of HCHRM. I am sure that OSCE would not like to hear that you are linking the two, and using OSCE's good name to somehow imply that HCHRM's fantasy fabrications have merit in any way, shape or form. - Mauco 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I already answered you at Transnistria talk page. OSCE arrived independently at the same conclusions as HCHRM, they didn't just copy what the first organisation told.--MariusM 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. But the facts speak for themselves. Compare the two statements and there is not a single point in common. HCHRM is discredited beyond belief and you have still, ten days later, not produced a single person who has given any evidence that any of their four or five claims have any merit whatsoever, or that they were even present at the event. - Mauco 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media climate

It looks like you don't read what you quote.

Mikka, sorry for breaking in. This comment must be directed to both EvilAlex and MariusM and the anon user 201.6.71.138 because all 3 of them have now reverted your edits. It looks like they are acting as meatpuppets so as to avoid a 3RR block. I will restore your work, but watch out for User:MariusM (who is active here) because he routinely reports others for 3RR violations even when they are good faith edits and clean-ups which have been discussed in Talk. I have requested that he joins the discussion (see "Discuss changes before reverting") but he has not yet done so. Until he does, I am forced to assume bad faith on his part, especially if he continues to revert without talking it over first. - Mauco 17:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Now back to you, Mikka:

Here is especially piece of OSCE report you chose not to see. Don't try to present thigs as Transnistria is restrictive and the Moldova is model democracy. It is calls bias. After all you say Transnistria is part of Moldova. Now you say Moldova is irrelevant. You cannot have it both, colleague.

"Media on the right bank of the Dniestr/Nistru River"

"In the last few years, the Mission has noted several cases when transmissions by broadcasters critical of the Moldovan government were blocked. Some of these issues, relating to First Romanian TV, TV Romania 2, Vocea Basarabia, Antena-C and Euro-TV Chisinau, were subsequently solved, but concerns remained. The Mission pays especially close attention to the process of frequency allocation, which is still not transparent. The Mission has also noted several problems concerning print media - especially with regard to court cases for alleged bribery or libel against journalists and media outlets known for their critical attitude towards the government."

`'mikka (t) 15:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My addition about the arrest of 4 members of antiseparatist "Dignitas" NGO was reverted from this article (and from Transnistria article as well) by user Mauco, on the ground that has nothing to do with the subject. I believe that this arrest of 4 antiseparatist transnistrians, less that one month before the referendum is 100 times more relevant for this article than Human rights situation in the Republic of Moldova (we are discussing here Transnistrian referendum, not political situation in the Republic of Moldova). There is no doubt that the communist governement of Vladimir Voronin is anti-Romanian, all TVs which were banned are pro-Romanian (there are 2 state-owned Romanian TVs and other 3 private stations also with pro-Romanian attitude). Allways for the governments in Chişinău, pro-Romanian forces were considered a bigger threat than Transnistrian forces (they are right, a Romanian saying tell: "what you are afraid of, you will not escape"). However, meantime the situation was solved and you can reach Romanian TV in Chişinău (but not in Tiraspol), and I consider that those problems are not related with our subject (Transnistrian referendum) - at the time of referendum those infrigements were not longer valid. It will be good to add this antiRomanian persecution in the Republic of Moldova article. However, I am eager to make a compromise: if other editors will agree to keep the arrest of 4 "Dignitas" members in the article, I would agree to keep the problems of media in Basarabia.--MariusM 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are sources that put a link between the arrest and the referendum, please provide them. Otherwise we cannot put the whole history of Transnistria since 1992 (which is most surely relevant to referendum in one way to another) into this article on a narrow topic. Many things influenced referendum, but you can add only these which are described elsewhere as influenced referendum. Otherwise it will be just your opinion, which is good in talk page, but not in the article. `'mikka (t) 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, back to media climate: you are free to rephrase the text so that it speaks primarily of Transnistria, but media climate in Moldova is directly relevant as long as you claim that Transnistria is part of Moldova. If you can prove that Chishinau impartially and unbiasely reported about the referendum, all the better (eg Chisihau reported about activity of Transnistrian opposition before referendum and Tiraspol didn't). `'mikka (t) 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dignitas guys were brought in for questioning, not arrested.. It happened right after a bombing which killed 2 people. After questioning, they were released. There was no evidence against them and they were not tied to the bombing. It is ingenious, to say the least, to tie this in any way to the referendum. - Mauco 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the media climate, Mikka makes some excellent points. MariusM, I know you don't agree with him for political reasons, but we are not here to push politics, so please remember what your role as an editor should be. The special representative of EU in Moldova, Adriaan Jacobovitz de Szeged on Wednesday, September 27, declared that Moldova must undertake measures to improve the human rights system, judiciary system, freedom and mass-media pluralism on the right bank of Nistru River in order to become more popular for the population of Transnistria. “Several activities are required in order to help solve the transnistrian problem”, the European official declared, and mentioned that some of these improvements should stop the alienation of Chisinau and Tiraspol, should support freedom of mass-media, because, according to the cited source, “both Republic of Moldova from the right banks of Nistru and Transnistria are characterized by the total lack of free mass-media”. This is in several parts of the press today, so it is easily sourced. - Mauco 17:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I told, the ban of some Romanian TVs mentioned by OSCE is an old problem which was solved long before the referendum, so I don't see it related with this article. Is surely related with the article Republic of Moldova or Human Rights in Moldova, but not with Transnistrian referendum. Ghenadie Ţăran was arrested in 17 august [21], the other 3 members of Dignitas in 18 august and were released in 20 august - this is more than only a questioning, and it was without mandate. Mauco deleted the arrest of "Dignitas" members on the ground that it has its place in Politics in Transnistria article, but in that article either is no mention about this arrest! As I told, I am for a compromise - to keep both the human rights problem in Moldova and the arrest of Dignitas members in the article.--MariusM 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, this article should be kept as narrowly focused as possible. This means that we can discuss if even a consideration of the media climate should be included, and I am against it although Mikka is apparently in favor. So hopefully he will add his own opinion (as I can obviously not speak for Mikka). Moreover, to me, the Dignitas event was a normal police operation in the aftermath of a deadly explosion, and a police operation where the police overstepped their powers (as you point out, they were kept longer than they needed to). Overreaching of police authority is a problem anywhere, not just in Transnistria, and it should be added to the human rights article as a clear human rights problem. - Mauco 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political climate

To not fork the text (Wikipedia guidelines), this article must not deal with political climate. We have the appropriate articles for that. They are hyperlinked in the text. To emphasize them, I additionally ALSO added them to "See Also" earlier today. Political climate in relation to the referendum is relevant insofar as outside sources comment on it. Several of them do. These comments are included in the "Reactions" section. This is good, and as it should be. Do not overdo it in order to slant the bias of the article one way or the other. Wikipedia is for facts, not a vehicle to push personal bias. - Mauco 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As the arrest of 4 "Dignitas" members was less than one month before the referendum, and as those people were antiseparatist transnitrians, is relevant for the article to tell about them. In other articles (like Politics in Transnistria) we should talk about the entire political climate in those 16 years after the declaration of independence of Transnistria, not only about the events just before the referendum. We should put in the article also facts about lack of freedom, not only comments about it (comments which, in lack of facts, may seem biases).--MariusM 06:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, they were brought in for questioning. This is different than an arrest order. The questioning came four days after a bombing. The police felt that they were doing their job. Maybe they did, maybe they overreacted, but this is not a subject for an article which deals with the referendum to speculate on. After questioning, they were released. There was no evidence against them and they were not tied to the bombing. It is ingenious, to say the least, to tie this in any way to the referendum. I know that the press in Moldova tried to do that, in August, but even they are not doing it anymore. So stop beating a dead horse. - Mauco 17:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Political climate does count and should be cited here. It's not the place for an in-depth political discussion, but climate is vital to understand the referendum in some sort of context--not a vacuum. For example, with respect to repressing pro-Moldovan parties, from the Council of Europe site:

(Council of Europe, January, 2005)

Transnistria

    35. Several NGOs from Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Belarus called on President Voronin to stop Tiraspol authorities' actions against deputies A. Radcenko and N. Buceatskiy. Leaders of the Helsinki Committees in the afore-mentioned countries signed a declaration expressing deep concern in connection with the persecution campaign developed by the Tiraspol administration: posters with the tricolour and Radcenco's picture were set on fire; another group splashed indelible paint over Buceatskiy's face. Yet, a second attempt to withdraw Radcenko's deputy mandate failed on 9 January. Only 13.1% of voters participated in a referendum on this issue, while a minimum of 25% was needed.

...

2. Council of Europe action

    44. On 25 January, the SRSG met Transnistrian deputies A. Radcenko and N. Buceatskiy, who are exposed to continuous physical and psychological pressure by the Tiraspol authorities. Earlier the CoE Committee of Ministers had requested the Transnistrian authorities to stop persecuting dissenters and agreed to further include the “Human Rights situation in Transnistria” in its agenda for 2005.

Emphasis is mine. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add this information in this article and in Politics of Transnistria and Human rights in Transnistria articles as well, with link to exact webpage. Regarding Buceatski, he is a former separatist who was disapointed by the regime he fought for. Here is an article against Buceatski of the official Transnistrian press agency Olvia Press, where he is accused of receiving "Israeli shekels" for his oposition: [22] (it seems from Olvia press opinion that Israel has no other things to do than being involved in Transnistrian conflict)--MariusM 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Josu

The refference at Victor Josu is based on a link from Olvia Press. He is a journalist, probabily he wrote an article about Transnistrian referendum in "Moldavsye Vedomosti". Please reffer to his article, else we should mention in the article that "As Transnistrian press agency Olvia Press report, Josu declared". Remember there are people here who don't consider Olvia Pres as a reliable source, if "Josu wote himself", then prove it!--MariusM 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article as signed is completely written by Victor Josu and easily available in the internet. If Josu denies that he wrote it, please proveide source. Othrwise "Victor Josu wrote", period. `'mikka (t) 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do "Moldavskye Vedomosti" have a web page where this article is availabe? If yes, we should link at their web page, not at Olvia Press.--MariusM 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Josu can write article in any newspaper he wants. I have no idea where it was published first. The article says that he was accredited by "Olvia Press" as a member of the "Moldavskie Vedomosti" staff. So it may well be that he wrote for Olvia. `'mikka (t) 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If we look closer, they publish it in something which they call "Dispatches" (Lines). This is a technique which Olvia traditionally does when they reprint articles that have first appeared elsewhere. As a Transnistria-watcher, I can tell you both that this means that this particular article was first published in "Moldavskie Vedomosti" and that Olvia then asked the guy to email the text to them. "Moldavskie Vedomosti" has no online presence (it is a paper only newspaper). This is no disqualification and we are allowed to reference offline publications. It was not in Olvia first, so remove the Olvia mention. - Mauco 17:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper does actually have an online site at http://www.vedomosti.md/. I could not find the relevant article, but I didn't search the side fully, so if anyone is interested, this might be a good place to look. TSO1D 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the link. I follow Moldova and Transnistria and I wasn't aware of this site. Great! In the meantime, I will reciprocate with another link which you probably have not seen yet: http://www.vspmr.org - it is the site of Transnistria's Supreme Soviet and it went online less than 2 days ago. They haven't finished it yet (some of the photos of MPs are still missing and there is not yet an English section even though the button is there). At the same time, they have been busy adding lots of news at a quick pace. - Mauco 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Found it. The original link to Victor Josu's article is: http://www.vedomosti.md/index.php?doc=3&ID=40 (again, thanks a lot, TSO1D, good work). - Mauco 01:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary issues

Tzekai + MariusM: 10 edits in 2 hours is edit war. Work it out first in talk. - Pernambuco 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly, no political party in Transnistria back reunification with the Republic of Moldova. The Transnistrian Supreme Court has banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state" by backing reunification with Moldova. According to Moldovan sources, before the referendum, 4 members of pro-Moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them.^[3] It remains a speculation though that this could have significantly affected the outcome of the referendum.

---

I don't really have anything to say... (you're using my version). If Marius has a problem with that section as it is, then there is a dispute. Otherwise, all this was redundant. --Tzekai 16:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please put back the paragraph. Better to mention "Preliminary issues" than nothing. I can not put it, as I don't want to break the 3RR.--MariusM 16:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TWO DON'T TRY TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. WAIT TO SEE IF OTHERS HAVE AN OPINION. - 88.191.12.12 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've agreed now :) --Tzekai 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

BUT NOT JUST TWO PEOPLE OWN WIKIPEDIA. GIVE IT A DAY FOR OTHERS TO SAY WHAT THEY THINK. - 88.191.12.12 17:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But in a day, Marius or I will be able to do it anyway... --Tzekai 17:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion for or against, just want to see everyone get along and not edit war like you two did. If no one else has objections to this text in the next 6 to 12 hours then I will add it back in. - Pernambuco 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 88.191.12.12. Is you, Mauco?--17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)MariusM

No, sorry to disappoint you. Man, you really have a beef with me, MariusM. Even when I am not part of a discussion (because today's edit war was only between you and Tzekai) you still try to drag me into it. What is it with you? It is called bad faith, you know, and the main Wikipedio credo is: assume good faith. Please try to learn this. - Mauco 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, since I am here, and since you brought me into this, I will take the chance to give my thoughts on this paragraph. Hopefully everyone will take it in the constructive and collaborative spirit that it is given, and not dismiss it as the progaganda of a KGB agent.

"Allegedly, no political party in Transnistria back reunification with the Republic of Moldova."

There is no reason to say "allegedly". I am one of the two primary maintainers of the Wikipedia list of political parties in Transnistria, and I can affirm that no political party backs unification at this point in time (2006). This is because if they do, they would not get a single seat in parliament. Voters don't want that and political parties everywhere tailor their message to what their constituents want. In the August 2006 Transnistria report by International Crisis Group, the leading opposition politician in the country (Yevgeni Shevchuk) is quoted as saying that for any politician in Transnistria to advocate unification with Moldova today is political suicide. I agree with this and so does ICG by including it in comparison with the many other ways that they could have "spun" this. Note: ICG is not Transnistria-friendly. ICG advocates unification with Moldova.

Agree. No reason for "allegedly". Reason why such political party don't exist is lack of freedom, not what Mauco claims. But we can mention the fact without comments about the reason. And the correct title of the article is "Political climate"--MariusM 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cited my sources. The leading opposition politician plus one of the world's largest groups in conflict resolution (which is in favor of unification with Moldova). Besides, this reason - the one which I quote - seems to be shared by the voting record, as this very article demonstrates. You are free to go back to 2001 events, but do so in the article on "Politics in Transnistria". They really don't have a place in this, much narrower scope, of this article. And please do source. - Mauco 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Transnistrian Supreme Court has banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state" by backing reunification with Moldova."

Ingenious, at best. Putting this sentence right after the other one is blatant intellectual dishonesty. We are talking about a referendum in 2006, and the ban took place in 2001. Two different elections. The ban was in the context of a presidential campaign. It was not really because they advocated unification, but that was the only thing that the authorities could "get them on" at the time (since it is "treason" to promote a position which is against the constitution). There are politicial organizations in Transnistria today who work for unification with Moldova. They are not yet parties, but are NGOs. MariusM mentions Dignitas. I can mention World Window and about ten more. They are not banned, so to say that political organizations are banned for having such a position is untrue, especially in the context of the year 2006. Will they become political parties? Probably not because like ICG reports, it will be political suicide. Not because the government doesn't want them but because they will be booed out of the room by the voters.

Is not ingenious, is the TRUTH (and you don't like the truth). Smirnov is in power in 2006 like in 2001. And you know what happened with people from Dignitas.--MariusM 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What a "troll-like" comment to a reasoned argument. I am not sure that YOU know what happened with the people from Dignitas. The ban is not in place, and no parties have been banned in relation to the referendum. To put a unrelated statement into an article on the referendum is conjecture and I will of course remove it. If you disagree, then defend your arguments here. DO NOT begin a revert war like you did yesterday with Tzekai. I saw that before you even argued with him, you started to threaten him. You called him a vandal and wanted to report him. You defaced his talk page with a big warning. When that didn't scare him off, only then did you see to find some common ground with him. MariusM, that is not how Wikipedia works. I know you are new, but please - please - learn to do this the right way. - Mauco 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"According to Moldovan sources, before the referendum, 4 members of pro-Moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them.^[4]"

This act happened, but it was a routine event. Others were brought in for questioning, too. A Russian, two ethnic Ukrainians. Maybe more. Why don't we hear about them? Anyway, we have already discussed this above. I see no political connection at all. The connection was to an explosion where two people died. One group in Moldova tried to milk it for propaganda value by tying this thing to the referendum, and MariusM picked up on that, but there is no connection at all. Personally, I don't think that this event is even important to merit any mention anywhere (dozens of people get brought in for questioning in Moldova every day for all sorts of reasons, and we don't mention it here on Wikipedia, let alone try to substantiate an unsubstantiated spurious connection to something political.) But if you guys disagree, and think that it should be mentioned, then clearly it has no place in article about the referendum. It must go into the Human Rights article, as an example of how police is to quick to bring people in for questioning, and how they immediately think that an explosion is political motivated when, in fact, there was no evidence that Dignitas was involved and they had to let the four members go. This is a human rights problem of police overstepping its authority. Sure. But the way that MariusM tries to present it, by putting it in the context of something else, it appears as if this is official state policy of Transnistria, and that is certainly not the case.

Is a routine event to have harrased people with pro-moldovan beliefs? We should mention the fact, not make speculation about the reasons.--MariusM 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then make this mention in the article on Human rights in Transnistria. This group, Dignitas, never campaigned in the referendum. To put in political terms, they were not an "actor". You are making this spurious link, but it is just not there and has no place in a good article devoted to what happened in the referendum. - Mauco 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

" It remains a speculation though that this could have significantly affected the outcome of the referendum."

So why are we including it here? And who is speculating about this, besides a couple of editors on Wikipedia? It is a non-issue in both Moldova and Transnistria. No one has mentioned it in over a month.

Pernambuco can do what he/she wants, but if we are responsible Wikipedians, we need to either work on the paragraph and edit it so it reflects the real situation, or else leave it out altogether. If we include it "as is", then we doing our readers a dis-service. Besides, if Pernambuco adds it back in, I would request that it goes at the end and be labelled "Background". This article is about the referendum, so the referendum questions and the results must go first. This is basic article structure 101. - Mauco 22:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We should not include speculations in the article - only show the facts.--MariusM 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why your whole section must go.

Mauco asks not to be taken for a KGB agent. Bog forbid! One tries not to offend the polittekhnologi. --Pēteris Cedriņš 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Typical Internet comment. I am sharing my knowledge of the situation, and hopefully helping to construct a better article based on the real situation pro- and con. If there is anything deficient with my analysis, then I look forward to someone pointing it out. Can we keep our eye on the ball here? - Mauco 03:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The title "Political climate" is more appropiate.--MariusM 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It can be "Background" or "Political climate", as long as the contents fits with the standards of this encyclopedia. - Mauco 14:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Would an independent third party please review the section above and find any evidence of trolling? User:MariusM has stated that he does not want to participate in the discussion, and says that this is because he does not "want to feed troll".[23] As the main participant in a reasonably argued treatise, I take offense at being called a troll. The person yesterday who argued with him was without any grounds threatened with vandalism.[24] Quite frankly, this is disruptive behavior on the part of MariusM, as is his further refusal to engage in discussion and his unwillingness to seek consensus. - Mauco 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The person with which I argued yesterday accepted the idea to keep the disputed paragraph in the article.--MariusM 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to get his views on this Talk page again now, since there has been more discussion. It is always best, when two parties dispute, to get a third party. I don't know if he is neutral, but a third set of eyes can help. (And please don't call him a vandal again, or call me a troll). - Mauco 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Political climate"

I have already suggested to EvilAlex to write an article Internal politics of Transnistria, where you can have a detailed, referenced section about criticism. In this article you cannot collect arbitrary episode of political harassment `'mikka (t) 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the colleague has already added all of that to Politics of Transnistria and most of it he then furthermore added to the main Transnistria article as well. In this page, we have links to both of these, of course. To highlight it even more, I furthermore added a "See Also" section with the link. In my opinion, we are already overdoing it without the need to repeat everything we know about Transnistria in every single article (and especially not such a narrowly focused article as this one, which does not deal with politics or human rights in general, but merely with one single event that took place on a specific date in September 2006). - Mauco 19:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, in the main Transnistria article you took out the refference at Dignitas members arrest on the ground that we have already a separate article about referendum, now you want to take out this fact even in this article. Is it related with referendum? I believe yes, but I didn't put my belief in the article, just tell the facts and readers will think for themselves. Only a small part of the people who read Wikipedia will make a reasearch trough all Transnistria articles, so, we can repeat some informations.--MariusM 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are trying to do here, friend, is obvious to anyone who knows about the subject. You are trying to distort the truth by taking an old and unrelated event and mixing it into a current event, so as to make it seem as though the two are related. By doing so, you want people to believe that the referendum was rigged because no one was allowed to campaign for Moldova and to have the readers think that somehow people got arrested for having an opposing view. But none of this happened or you would be able to present more compelling evidence. So please do not persist in your attempt to smuggle intellectual dishonesty into what is currently a fairly good and relatively objective article which many of us here have worked hard on. - Mauco 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Is not an old event,

(sorry for interrupting. Just to clarify: I referred to the 2001 ban). - Mauco 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

it was less than one month before the referendum. The fact that the political climate in Transnistria don't allow the free expression of the will of the people is not only my opinion, is the opinion of international comunity (see Ukrainian foreign ministry opinion, for example). So, don't try to push your POV that referendum in Transnistria was fair. Intelectual dishonesty is to cover true facts and to dismiss any criticism as biased. I was not even claiming to state in the article that it was a connection between the arrest and the referendum, but the facts should be presented in Wikipedia--MariusM 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We disagree on what you call "true facts". Since you can't even read the language of Transnistria, your view is tainted by Moldovan/Romanian press. I am sorry, but they do not report the full picture, and please don't retort with "Mauco says so". This is not my own opinion, but it is a known and documented fact. I can quote half a dozen reputable sources on this, including the Saferworld survey from the United Kingdom. - Mauco 15:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mika, I added reference, as you wanted.--MariusM 08:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add reference, and the fact may be true, or it may not (as you know, this was hotly contested among the different courts of law at the time)... but that still doesn't make it relevant. It happened in 2001, in a different context. No parties are banned in 2006 and no one was prevented for campaigning for what they wanted in this election. Will you stay on topic, please? - Mauco 13:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In 2001, as in 2006, still Smirnov is in power. So, is not different context. Don't try to fool Wikipedia readers claiming that anybody in Transnistria can openly ask for unification with Moldova, even smaller requests (like using latin script for Moldovan language) were met with repression.--MariusM 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they can. The situation has changed enormously since 2001. Did you read the latest report from United Nations Development Programme? They laud the openness and transparency, and the co-operation that Transnistria gave to its representatives. They also note that this was not the case before 2001. - Mauco 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can put a link to this report if you have. But I wonder if their work is about the rights to ask for reunification.--MariusM 15:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have a new approach: whatever facts shows that political freedom is missing in Transnistria, those are old facts (even if are from this year, like "Dignitas" case). What political change can be if same people are in power? Only after Brejnev/Andropov/Chernenko died a political change occur in Soviet Union. Political change with same persons in power is nonsense.--MariusM 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please assume good faith'? The Dignitas much-ado-about-nothing is unrelated to the referendum. Period. The ban is old and also unrelated. See above. Stay on topic. - Mauco 15:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If Transnistria would be a normal democratic country the arrest of Dignitas members will be discussed by Transnistrian media, not only by Chişinău's media. Even if the arrest is related only with the bus explosion (don't you think the bus explosion is an interesting case for media?). Why is not discussed in Transnistrian media (except media targeted on foreigners, to deny any wrongdoing of authorities)? Because is not allowed.--MariusM 15:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And why do you assume that it wasn't discussed by the local media? You do not live in Transnistria, so you have no access to the papers that are sold in the street. Nor do you speak or read Russian, so even if you got the press you wouldn't be able to read it. Remember that there are six opposition newspapers which are not banned and not controlled in any way. They write what they want (including about the bombings and the arrests). Until this issue is settled, please refrain from changing the article again. It is not considered good Wiki Etiquette to do so until other editors get a chance to weigh in. - Mauco 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You should give an example of Dignitas NGO being able to express its position in Transnistrian media (not the position of authorities which justify Dignitas members arrest).--MariusM 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dignitas NGO does not seem to an active organization. Taran is active in the Social Democratic party in Moldova and his Dignitas is just a piece of paper in a desk drawer in his bedroom. In fact, I was even surprised that they could find 4 members to bring in for questioning. Before that happened, I didn't think that they had that large a membership. Have they ever made a press release? Or organized an event? They seem to exist merely so that they can obtain funding and they don't rank among leading opposition NGOs in the survey of Transnistrian civil society which was published earlier this year (an independent survey made with Western funds). If Dignitas does an event or puts out a press release, it is very likely that state media will ignore it, but I can guarantee you that the opposition media will pick it up and print it. Like any valid news source, however, they will give it coverage proportional to the notability. This principle means that if the president of Romania says that Moldova and Romania should be united, then it is front page news and gets a lot of coverage, whereas if an unknown 4-member organizations says the same thing, then it gets a one paragraph mention on page 5. All newspapers operate this way. Supporters of the organization in question will of course not like it (because they think that their opinion matters as much as that of the president of Romania), but it is the principle of notability and it drives all professional news coverage. It is not an indication of bias but merely the application of common sense. Anyone who reads this Talk page can see that this is what drives most of my editing, too. - Mauco 13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that Dignitas has only 4 members? You assume Smirnov's KGB is so efficient that will not let a single pro-moldovan activist unarested? Dignitas made press release and Chişinău media mentioned, Transnistria's media didn't (not even pre-approved opposition, which should be a Russian-only opposition). Why? Because is not allowed. But I don't understand why is not allowed to mention Dignitas on Wikipedia.--MariusM 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: 1. I follow Transnistria closely. 2. Newspapers everywhere in the world, and not just in Transnistria, assign column space based on notability. An almost-nonexisting astroturf group with no traction is not notable to readers, so they still get mentioned, just not on the front page. It is not censorship. A similar group in England or USA would find the same problem in getting free press. 3. You are allowed to mention Dignitas in Wikipedia where it is appropriate and relevant, and in most articles (except possibly human rights) Dignitas would fail WP:NN blatantly. - Mauco 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The term "Smirnov's KGB" is a term used by Romanian/Moldovan yellow press. There is no KGB in Transnistria. There is State Security, just like in Romania and Moldova. It is called MGB (sure, a bad choice of acronym but only lazy thinkers would equate this with KGB without checking the facts first). It is not "Smirnov's", but Transnistria's. It is under parliamentary oversight. In fact, the local mass media covered the parliamentary oversight committee quite a bit last week. Why? Because unlike your nonchalant characterization of MGB as "so efficient", it is actually quite the opposite. Parliament was concerned about this and complaining about the way that organization uses its budget and its manpower. I realize that Transnistria must be hard for you to get a grip on since you don't know the main language of the local press, but before you make sweeping characterizations of something which you apparently know too little about, feel free to ask from those of us who are actually up to speed on the subject. I am sure that I am not the only one here who has shown a willingness to help out and share my knowledge of the situation on the ground. - Mauco 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer to my question: how you know that Dignitas has only 4 members? You made original research or this is what MGB told you? (I recognize, I made a mistake, is not KGB, is MGB, however, I don't believe is a big difference). The problem with Dignitas is that their members were arrested - this should be a reason for local media reports. What I see is that only media from Chisinau made reports about this, Transnistrian media kept silence. This is not normal for a democratic country (but nobody in the world, except Abhazia, Russia, you and few hard-line Russian nationalists in Wikipedia claim Transnistria is democratic). Suppose that is no conection between referendum and the arrests, everything is only about the bus explosion case (which inefficient MGB was not able to solve, as I know). Even in this case, 4 arrests conected with the explosion should attract media interest (isn't the explosion a good story for local press?).--MariusM 07:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... So now, it seems, I am an agent of the MGB. These kinds of personal accusations are not productive to a good editing environment, friend. And besides, I did answer your question. - Mauco 12:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intelectual dishonesty

Mauco, when censored the paragraph he don't like, tell that I was reverted by 4 different editors, suggesting that his position has a large agreement. In fact: one editor is Mauco himself, second Tzekai which agreed that paragraph should stay but wanted a small change in phrasing, third Permabuco who didn't revert me but Tzekai and in fact didn't express any opinion for or against the disputed paragraph and forth Mikkalai who had doubts about a part of the paragraph and asked for a refference, and meantime I added refference. Mauco, please stop with those misleadings comments.--MariusM 09:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that paragraph at least once as well. -- int19h 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a disinterested editor will also jump in to revert things just because he or she wants to stop an edit war and force the two sides to seek agreement in Talk instead. FrancisTyers (who is not active on this page, but sometimes joins the main Transnistria article) is one of those. The reason they do this is not to take sides but just because they realize that disagreement carried out in main namespace is disproductive and takes time away from productive editing. - Mauco 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The charge of censorship is unjustified, as are ad hominen attacks. - Mauco 01:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your behavior unjustified, Mauco -- this is a bad article, and you're the reason why this is so. An "innocent" person wandering in (i.e., most readers, for whom this will come up in a search) would get no sense of what this referendum actually was. The opening lines should clearly state that the referendum was illegitimate according to most entities, etc. The rest of the article is heavily slanted. "Both banks of the Dniester" are not equally democratic, and the persistent attempts to exclude information on just how anti-democratic the PMR is are led by you. --Pēteris Cedriņš 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Please - this discussion is not about Mauco, but about the article. Let's stick to just that. —Khoikhoi 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is awful. It wouldn't appear in any decent encyclopedia. Why is that? --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it would help if you gave specific examples on why it's awful, rather than blaming users. If there's a problem, try fixing it. —Khoikhoi 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't -- it's locked. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't stop you from giving suggestions on how to fix it... —Khoikhoi 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation was asked in order to fix the article. Khoikhoi, you may join the mediation dispute, and maybe you can convince Mauco to agree to mediation. I asked for mediation also in the Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie article, and Mauco didn't sign for agreement in 7 days (this is why that case is actually on arbitration).--MariusM 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did MariusM not follow the recommended sequence of steps in WP:DR? Mediation is uncalled for when we have not attempted dispute resolution in the proper order first. This was the same modus operandi employed in the "Union"-article, and I pointed out the error of this several times in a polite fashion, just as I am doing now. - Mauco 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we had very long discussions in this an other Transnistria-related articles. I made attempts to make a compromise with you, but your goal is only to keep in Wikipedia's articles your POV. As the article is blocked in the way you like, it seems you don't want mediation, just to gain time. Please agree to mediation, is not a problem with only us two. We will see if the Mediation comitee will reject the request, I believe it will not be the case. It seems you have plenty of time, but I have other things to do that engaging in very long discussion. Please keep your arguments for the mediation case, not need to add them here.--MariusM 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insinuation

Just a quick reminder on why Wikipedia must not tolerate the proposed paragraph which MariusM has tried to introduce, which has been reverted by at least four editors, and which is the reason why this article is now locked. The following is from Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation... - Mauco 14:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

While hinting or insinuating may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Consider the example:

The minister of parliament has been accused of lacking backbone and of being unwilling to use the armed forces to defend our rights. He acknowledged last month that he is left-handed.

To mention the minister's left-handedness 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, in particular the prejudice that all left-handers are wimps (i.e. also lacking backbone). Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them.

Mauco, I'm assuming you refer to MariusM's "political climate" section which stated that prior to the referendum, the PMR has intimidated and/or repressed individuals and organizations which espouse the "opposite" position, that is, joining Moldova and not Russia: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova^[5]. Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them ^[6]." Admittedly, it could have been written better; however, a statement on "political climate" and the degree to which opposing viewpoints have been let heard—or silenced—is certainly appropriate when the referendum is being touted as demonstrating remarkable unity in the voice of the people.

When it comes to intellectual honesty—since you have decided to create this whole new section in this discussion after the article was locked with no purpose but to berate MariusM—I noticed that on one of your reverts you also added yet another link to yet another citation of the pro-PMR press. When positions are so polarized (leaving moral, ethnic, historical and who is right/wrong factors out, just as an observation of fact), by citing non-impartial pro-PMR press at the same moment you revert statements that activities by those opposed to the "referendum" have been actively discouraged and/or banned by the PMR authorities, you engage in exactly the kind of "intellectual dishonesty" you go out of your way to accuse others of. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping at all. —Khoikhoi 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, if anyone here is going to go out of their way to "lecture" a specific contributor and admonish them to write fact and not insinuations, then their own scholarship and objectivity must be completely beyond reproach. Mauco can feel free to delete this entire section (or simply note its inappropriateness) and, instead, put in something more sensible stating his position why political climate is not applicable, or why he feels that MariusM's basic statement is false and should remain deleted. Or if the problem is simply sources cited or not, let's discuss it. If not, then my comments and observations stand. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They can stand, but they only sidetrack the discussion and violate WP:NPA. —Khoikhoi 00:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco may well believe he was being informative, but that was not the result and it needed to be pointed out as such. Probably enough said on this here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, because as I said, this discussion is not about Mauco. —Khoikhoi 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back "on topic" then

In that case, gladly back to the issues at hand (being mediated)...

• Should we include in the article the fact that: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova[1]".
• Should we include in the article the fact that: "Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them [2]".

As I mentioned, perhaps the writing style could be improved, that's a small issue. It would seem things boil down to the following:

• On the first: Whether or not to include that an opposition position to the referendum was not possible because any such position was treason ("against the state'). In particular, meaning, just because there aren't political parties espousing Moldovan unification it doesn't mean there isn't opposition.

On its own, at face value, that meaning/intent could be characterized as unsubstantiated insinuation. But while one can certainly infer the meaning, it's not what's being stated, all that's being stated is the absence of pro-Moldivan unification parties as the result of a ruling by the PMR Supreme Court banning such parties. However, let's also be realistic: as the Supreme Court (and PMR government) felt it necessary to take this extraordinary step, then it can only have been as a direct reaction to pro-Moldovan sentiment the government felt strongly compelled to quash.

• On the second: Whether or not to include that members of "Dignitas" were arrested by PMR authorities and later released with no permanent charges filed against them. How is this relevant to the referendum? If there is intimidation and/or coersion, then the vote can only be presented (at best) as "the PMR authorities reported that..." not that 97.2% voted "YES!" to independence and association with Russia.

Now, while labeled home brew original research, the question of reported personal experiences does also come into play in arriving at a judgement on balance. On the one hand, we have workers who are told to vote and how. (This is not permissible as it is hearsay and/or original research.) On the other hand, we have Viktors Alksnis presented as an accredited impartial believable observer when, based on his past conduct elsewhere, he is a criminal. (But his being quoted as the referendum was on the up-and-up is OK, just repeating what was reported in the press.) If we are to steer the middle course—indeed, if there is to even be a middle course—then the banning of opposition and the intimidation of pro-Moldovan groups is an essential counter-balance to the PMR government reporting a rapturous response of the masses overwhelmingly choosing the government's position.

It's at least a stake in the ground—let's see how the dialog develops. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for mediation to include references for both claims. (Igny 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

It should be obvious that this is FAR from NPOV. Just read an excerpt from the conclusion (emphasis mine).

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...

Again, what is the argument about? (Igny 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for that whiff of common sense reminder. One look at the title page would also suffice. It is only a shame that this is being quoted as a reliable source in the main Transnistria article and other related articles as well. The less of this pseudo babble we can have in this particular referendum article, the better. Did anyone here, besides me, follow the 800+ media stories about the referendum which appeared in English between 15 Sep and 21 Sep? More than 200 accredited journalists covered the referendum first hand. Their description of conditions in Transnistria in general and those of the referendum in particular sounded very, very different than what one could be led to believe by reading reports such as the one which Igny just quoted. - Mauco 03:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, we had almost a month of discussions about this article. Wikipedia is not your propriety and you should not ask veto rights for all Transnistria related articles. I don't believe further discussions in the talk page will help, it will be only a loss of time. The way the article looks now, with hiding of relevant information, is a shame for Wikipedia, but it seems you like it. If you work only in Transnistria related article, other will like to work on other topics as well, and being blocked one month for an article disturb them to bring other contributions at Wikipedia. A Request for Mediation was filed for this article, and was agreed by me, Vecrumba, int19h, Cedrins. Please accept the mediation, don't play with our time. Don't teach me Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, mediation is a normal step after almost one month of discussions, and the Mediation Comitee already accepted this case. All you have to do is to agree to mediation. All arguments should be told in the mediation process.--MariusM 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read this Talk page from start to bottom, you will see that my objections are based on objective criteria, citing Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I also strongly object to you (and your sympathizers') repeated attempts to steer the discussion away from valid Wikipedia criteria and instead turn it into a personal debate about Mauco. I am far from the only editor who has qualms about what you are attempting to do to this article, I am merely the most vocal. Note taht variations of your paragraph has been rejected or reverted by some 4 or 5 different editors, not just me, on what to all of them appears to be valid grounds. As for mediation, this is not a step that I can accept to participate in if you have not yet tried other dispute resolution methods first. I was also stunned that when you filed the request, you listed non-contributors to the page - merely because they had been sympathetic to your views in Talk - and failed to list anyone who reverted you, and would be parties to the dispute, apart from myself, thus slanting the odds in your favour. Unacceptable, and should not be tolerated as this makes a mockery of the institution of mediation. - Mauco 14:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true what you told, Mauco. I invited at mediation you and the Russian User:int19h who reverted me. I also invited Baltic User:Peteris Cedrins, to have a 2 against 2 mediation. You know very well that Pernambuco told that he don't want to deal with this article anymore [25] (anyway, he didn't revert me), Tzekai agreed with the paragraph, wanted only a small rephrasing and seems not very interested in Transnistria [26] and Mikalai told he has a break, and anyway, he was not against the paragraph, wanted only to provide sources (which I did meantime). Why you tell about the "mockery of the institution of mediation" as long as the Mediation Comitee accepted the mediation?--MariusM 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still interested in this article. I know less than the rest of you. This is why I declined to "edit war", but I am very interested. I have spent the last week learning. And I want to participate. - Pernambuco 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then please register your agreement for mediation in the case request page. Mediation Comitee already agreed to hear this case. Vecrumba also was not included in the mediation at the begining, but he included himself in the case. It will be better if all interested parties will participate in the mediation.--MariusM 11:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do some more work on this, obviously, in the next couple of days. However, to the first point, the banning of pro-Moldovan parties, the reference currently cited ("The Policy of Linguistic Cleansing in Transistria") specifically deals with the banning of Radchencko's and Buceatskiy's parties because advocating Moldavian union would mean liquidation of the PMR state. The article contains appropriate references in support of its claims and findings. I would also mention that some of the more "inflamatory," shall we say, descriptions, are also in this article, appropriately attributed. (Brzezinski calls the PMR a "mafia" run (!) country.)

As to the parties, anyone who reverted, etc. and disagrees with the two statements specifically in mediation are completely welcome to comment here.

In reading through the currently at 35+ page (printed) Talk section and the editing history, it is clear to me at least that Marius, the main protagonist of the one side, has in fact annotated claims; but, it appears to me that because his English is not as polished as that of other contributors, his writing has been taken at times (a) to mean not exactly what was meant and/or (b) to be his personal ventings and histrionics against the PMR when, in fact, he was practically typing verbatim what has appeared elsewhere in print. Mauco--et al. but still the principle protagonist on the other side--is not an unreasonable person--only demanding citations, but in my own limited experience, far too eager to jump immediately to the words "unsubstantiated," "original research," "irresponsible," etc., viz. Talk:Vladimir Antyufeev: "Even on this page, to jump right in and label Antyufeev as a high ranking KGB officer was a bit irresponsible, if I may say so...," comment made a couple of days after I cited my source on the Talk page. I for one don't like being talked about as being "irresponsible," however, I am probably better able to defend myself (speaking only in terms of written English) if needed—though if I responded in kind, it would only make the Talk page longer.

As for stacking the deck, this isn't a shouting match, so whatever is decided here is not going to be based on "numbers" of people on each side. My particular interest is in post-Soviet policy, primarily as manifested in Latvia and the rest of the Baltics; however, given the particular cast of characters in the PMR including Black Berets (who killed Latvian freedom demonstrators)--and working on good references for that one--the PMR needs to be revealed for what it is (yes, that would be my POV), but only through incontrovertible and substantiated fact, that is, NPOV presentation. (For example, my personal feelings about the Soviet and Russian governments don't prevent me from working on a NPOV history of Russians in Latvia.) I think we have those facts at hand to support the two statements now in mediation (which, as I indicated earlier, should be judged on their content and not grammar). No one is out to "get Mauco."—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was "what this is about" is the two statements under mediation. I fail to see what the point is of bringing up www.moldova.org, we're not arguing about its contents and it's not the source for the statements under mediation. We're not anti-PMR pro-Moldovan ultra-POV extremists here. No one is disputing the need to cite statements and claims appropriately.—Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction/clarification: the document cited for the first item under mediation is on the "Moldova" site, my apologies; however, its claims with regards to the first item in mediation are annotated. The observations it makes regarding Moldovan language repression are in line with those I have found on mainstream sites, including the U.N. and OSCE. I'll be looking for more backup this weekend. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.vremea.net/news/2006-09-19/15:20:03.html is a Moldovan article highly critical of the refendum. Nowhere does it give any credence to any of the wild claims from the Moldovan Helsinki guys. The article has other complaints, however, which are more believable. By omission, it shows how far removed from reality that the fantastic claims by Stefan U.'s group really are... - Mauco 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As we have an ongoing mediation, we should discuss arguments in the mediation process, not anymore in this talk page. Anyhow, I suggest you come with English language sources, as I don't know Russian and I don't trust you enough to blindly believe what you are saying.--MariusM 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:REDFLAG

this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG )

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

* surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;

* surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;

* claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.

Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

there are some things in the article that fall under this heading, let us move it out until someone can provide multiple reliable sources, especially politically charged issues that is the case here Pernambuco 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

it looks like no one is against my suggestion, so ive made the change, but is someone wants to move it back in that is fine but only after these red flag points are sorted out, otherwise i suggest paying attention to each of these red flag items first and dont revert unless they get solved Pernambuco 15:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaexis rephrasing

Alaexis rephrased the sentence regarding the arrest of pro-moldovan activists from Dignitas with "According to Moldovan sources...". Not only Moldovan sources told about the arrest of Dignitas guys, Tiraspol Times also [27] (of course, in a propagandistic way to justify the arrests). As TT is not meeting Wiki criteria for WP:RS, I would not mention in mainspace this article, but is clear the the arrest is an undeniable fact, recorded not only by Moldovan sources. With the exception of Tiraspol Times, no other transnistrian media was allow to mention this fact, as there is no press freedom in Transnistria. TT is a website for foreigners, they didn't have a printed edition with Dignitas arrest available in Tiraspol, this is why they were allowed to mention the fact.--MariusM 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Alaexis 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)