Talk:Transnistria

Archive

• /archive 1

Keeping discussion easy to follow

I just added some signatures and date stamps. Please do not forget to place ~~~ or ~~~~ in the end of your entries. Otherwise, it is hard to follow the discussion. I did not alter anything else in the text of the page. Irpen 17:40, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

older entries

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coat of arms here. Some Russian? site here ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ 14:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Traditionally a part [...] of Greater Romania

Politically, it was never part of Greater Romania, although until recently it had a Romanian majority. Bogdan | Talk 19:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

link about Tighina or Bendery (city in trans-nistria)

Future of transnistria = future of Kalinengrad as long as Russian army will be there.

http://harve.ru.ru/ (unsigned by anon on Apr 23, 2005)

correcting misstatements

I am editing this page as there's some misstatements:

1) "During the Soviet era, Transnistria suffered as many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians."

I am changing this to

"In the 40's, Transnistria suffered as many ethnic Romanians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians. Most of ethnic Romanians where allowed to return in the 50's during the process of de-Stalinization"

In fact I have to doublecheck the figures, as I think that most deportations happened in Bessarabia and only few in Transnistria.

2) "The Nistru Dniestr) River" -> The Dniestr) River

I don't think Nistru is an adopted name in English. Webster shows an entry for Dniester, not Nistru.

3) "The was was ended in part by mass protests" -> "The war was ended after a cease-fire was negotioated by the Moldovan, Transnistrian, Russian and Ukrainian representatives."

4) "After a cease-fire was signed, the Russians left several thousand troops in the area as peacekeepers: a highly controversial action, owing to the country's history of Russian occupation" -> "A part of the cease-fire agreement was a Russian piecekeeping force in the region: a controversial action to some, a neccessary guarantee of protection to others."

Transnitria was never a part of any national state - it was an overseas terretory of Turkey. In this sense one can speek oonly of a conquest and not occupation.

5) "The separatist Slavic Transnistrian militias" -> "The separatist Transnistrian authorities"

There was no militia, they are all a part "legal" "police" now:)

6) "Apart from the colonization of Russian people who worked in the industry built by the Soviets here, Russians were encouraged to buy a house and retire here in order to take advantage of the less harsh weather (when compared with most of Russia). This is one of the reasons why about 2/3 of the current population are past the age of retirement."

Nobody in the Soviet Union was encouraged to buy any houses or property ever. Where's the figure 2/3 from? There is a dissproportionately large retirement-age population, but that's because the youngsters leave for Russia, Europe and Turkey.

7) Grigoriopol, (Grigoriopol'), Tiraspol, (Tiraspol') Gaidash

And of course, Transnitria was not a traditional part of Moldavia. Gaidash (May 9, 2005)

Human Rights

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There are number of highly questionable comments in the "Human Rights" section of the article.

Transnistria is not a dictatorship, especially compared to the rest of Moldova ruled by the Communist party with equally poor (if not worse) human rights record.

There are a number of political parties in Transnistria who contest the elections. See List of political parties in Transnistria. During 2001 parliamentary elections for example there was a real competition for political power between "Unity", "Renewal" and the Communist party. Opposition parties now control about 40 % of seats in Transnistrian parliament. Speaker of Transnistria Parliament Grigori Marakutsa (the No. 2 man Transnistria) is an ethnic Moldovan/Romanian. President of Transnistria Igor Smirnov can hadly be called a dictator, the regime can be more correctly called as "semi-democratic". Presidential election of December 9th, 2001 were observed by the British Helsinki Human Rights Group and reportedly reflected genuine popularity of the Transnistria leader. About religious freedoms: On April 14, 2004 parliament of Transnistria refused to approve a proposed law which would limit the rights of non-Orthodox religious groups in the republic (http://www.radonezh.ru/new/?ID=1866 - in Russian).

Reference: http://www.oscewatch.org/CountryReport.asp (BHHRG reports) -Fisenko, May 12, 2005

This is the English Wikipedia - can you provide some evidence in English? I must admit, this is entirely news to me (the current article - which I did not write - seems to reflect just about everything I've ever read on the topic). Ambi 02:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

About religious freedoms:

In recent years, Transnistrian authorities have denied registration to Baptists, Methodists, and the Church of the Living God. Unregistered religious groups were not allowed to hold public assemblies, such as revival meetings. The law in Transnistria prohibits renting houses, premises of enterprises, or "cultural houses" for prayer meetings. Transnistrian authorities have told evangelical religious groups meeting in private homes that they did not have the correct permits to use their residences as churches. The Jehovah's Witnesses in Transnistria have reported several incidents of administrative fines and unjust arrests of their members.

In July, the Transnistrian Supreme Court ruled to limit the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the city of Tiraspol; however, the court rejected the Tiraspol public prosecutor's 2002 request to annul the group's registration and prohibit its activities altogether. Transnistrian authorities reportedly accused Jehovah's Witnesses of lacking patriotism and spreading Western influence and reportedly developed school teaching aids that contained negative and defamatory information regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses.

from the US Department of State. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 04:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jehovah's Witnesses' and some other evangelical groups activities are routinely restricted by the majority of Eastern European/ex.-Soviet governments including Georgia See (http://watchtower.org/library/g/2002/1/22/article_01.htm), Russia etc. This alone hardly qualifies to label the country a dictatorship. Transnistria government can called corrupt and having authoritarian tendencies, but to call it a dictatorship especially in the context of Communist-dominated Moldova is an overstatment.

That is, nevertheless, a violation of human rights. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Also I would like to see credible links with evidence that tourture of political opponents is a common practice in Transnistria. It is not. (Fisenko 16:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC))Reply

The Transnistrian authorities reportedly continued to use torture and arbitrary arrest and detention. [...] Transnistrian authorities harassed independent media, restricted freedom of association and of religion, and discriminated against Romanian-speakers. US Embassy report, 2004 ^Talk

human rights

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I don't dispute the fact what there are some violations of human rights going on in Transnistria (just like they going on in Moldova, Ukraine or Russia), just the fact what Transnistria government can be called a dictatorship according to classic defenition of this word.

Transnistria political system is not fundamentally different from those of the rest of Moldova. Compared to countries like Belarus or Azerbijan, it is more democratic. (Fisenko 20:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC))Reply

You are right that "dictatorship" is a bit too harsh for this case. I changed to "authoritarian". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

It should say someplace about strong anti-Romanian policies

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The fact that romanians are still in Transnistrian jails and the fact that they threatened to close down 6 romanian schools should be stressed further. Also the fact that incursions into villages controlled by the Moldovan government occur all the time and people are arrested, beaten and sometimes even killed in jail should also be mentioned. -(unsigned by anon)

If you can find sources for your claims, you're entirely welcome to put them in - whether you do so yourself or just link them here so someone else can. Ambi 23:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Census

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The statistics from the 2004 cesnsus seem dubious and I have not been able to confirm them using another source. If anzone knows where this information can be found, please post the link. If this information cannot be verified, it should be removed, or a caveat should be added to warn that it's authenticity cannot be verified. TSO1D

A google search showed that the figures are "official estimates" of 2001, not a census from 2004. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to do a similar search, and I received different estimates. However, this page includes results from the cesnsus, which I know was supposed to take place in the beginning of 2004, however I have not been able to find any official results, which led me to believe that none were yet released. Therefore, I have doubts about the statistics enclosed on this page. TSO1D 18:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

The statistics for the 2004 census appear highly implausible, and after consulting multiple sources I came to the conclusion that official resulsts have not yet been released, which led me to doubt the authenticity of the numbers currently found on this page. If no one has any objections, I will remove them in 24 hours, and will add results from the 2004 census only after they will be officially released by the government of PRM. TSO1D 20:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC).Reply

No objections here. I thought the changes looked a bit odd. (Please revert them to the 2001 figures though, unless they were also inaccurate) Ambi 03:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Economy section

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is little difference between Transnistria and the rest of Moldova in regards to living standarts, crime and corruption. The article must be made more neutral and not reflecting only Romanian nationalist view. There are people here on a rampage to show Transnistria as "evil". There are many problems in the region but the article in its present form is not objective or neutral. (Fisenko 02:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC))Reply

You removed the part about the British journalists (from The Times) trying to buy radiation rockets. I agree that it was not presented NPOV in here, but the story is real. timesonline.co.uk bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 05:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

FISENKO are you a Transdnistrian KGB officer or something doing your duty to the "motherland"???!??

Transnistria is evil. You don't need a Romanian viewpoint to tell you that. Everyone except some Russian shovinists will tell you the same thing.

This comment only prooves my point (Fisenko 18:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Population census

Guys, about the census: the reason why it appears that there is no sourse is simple: the PMR authorities are only using it for internal purposes only. In other words you will never see Olvia press publishing it.

The only site that has updated its population is "The Transnistrian Bank" page which will show the same numbers: 580.000 Ro-33.8, Rus-28.8, Ukr. 28.8. This is not surprising since there is only about 100 or so sites from Transnistria and all government sites are rarely if never updated.

A Moldovan newpaper "Jurnal de Chişinau" has made refference to the same numbers when it published the Moldovan census, in order to add up the numbers and see how many people are left in RM as a whole.

If you think the numbers are implausible lemme shed some light: 546.400 people were in 1989 but that excluded Tighina so adding Tighina(130.000 people) we get something like 676.400 but we subtract Dorotcaia and Cocieri parts of Dubasari and 10.000 refugees so we are left with about 636.400. The figures of 633.000 from the estimates before do not assume a very large pop. drop. Same goes for the World Gazeteer which estimates the population at 620.000. The reality however is that b/c of the large number of "senior citizens"(most of them communists or ex-KGB officers who received flats in the Moldovan warm climate) has been diminishing much faster. To that one adds that most young people are fleeing Transnistria like there is no tomorrow b/c there is no opportunity there. Even the salary is 1/2 that in the neighboring Moldova which is the poorest state in Europe. So that gives you an idea.

All in all the census might be rigged, I do not deny that the number of Romanians has been lowered maybe but not by more then a few percentiles since we have to remember that many Romanians (10.000) have been forced to flee and about 6 large Romanian-Transnistrian villages are in RM control thus diminishing the numbers of Romanians left in PMR even further.

I would therefore kindly ask you that b/c of a lack of another more accurate data we make use of the census of 2004 and just mention it that b/c of the nature of the government there its accuracy may be disputable.

Cu respect, Duca

You yourself have stated that no official information has been made public. As this is an encyclopedia, we should only utilize information that is certified by official or credible sources. I do not consider the Bank of Transnistria to be an adequate source. I am certain that within a couple of months this information will be released and we will be able to post their results. Until then, we cannot use these dubious numbers. TSO1D 17:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Bank of Transnistria an unreliable source? Ambi 23:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uhmm... I didnt say that it hasn't been released but that the census is for internal use only. Do u know what that means? That means it will never show up on the five ugly, old and never-updated sites that PMR has! Seriously, why isnt the Transnistrian bank a good refference? Is "Jurnal de Chishinau" a good refference? I mean yes this is an encyclopedia but you can't possibly be posting the data from a census that's 16 years old. Whats the big deal if you just put the 2004 census and place a warning or something besides it that the data's accuracy is disputable.

Believe me you can wait decades, not months and the PMR will never post it on OLVIA PRESS website thats for sure. As for making the census public: it has prolly already done so since Moldovan newspapers somehow miracleously use the same numbers as the Transnistrian bank uses.

Cu respect Duca

As someone included the 2004 results, I added a caveat at the end explaining that they do not represent official results. I suppose we can keep these results with the disclaimer for a couple of months, hopefully we will have something more concrete and credible by then. The 1989 results are indeed archaic, and the 2004 numbers will just provide an estimate. Doubtful as they are, I could not find a more credible source. TSO1D 19:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is the best way to go about it.

Cu respect, Duca

FSENKO ADMITS TO BEIGN A TRANSNISTRIAN INSTIGATOR

Well obviously now FSENKO cannot give a neutral point of view now can he? Its amazing with this little Transnistria. Its so damn small but full of little spies everywhere. (unsigned by anon 24.201.83.39)

Negative bias towards Transnistria in the article

1) The population of the region has been always mixed Slavic/Romanian (since the times of Kievan Rus) and the region has never been a part of historic Greater Romania, yet for some reason in the history section there is talk about "18th century Russian and Ukrainian colonization in region".

I am not disputing the fact that it was ethnically mixed Ukrainian/Romanian, but most, if not all the Russian population was colonized. The reason was simple: in the 18th century, the Russian Empire needed to secure its south-western border. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2)The talk about 1940s mass deportations of Romanians from Transnistria to Siberia/Kazakhstan and replacement of them with Russians/Ukrainians. This is only partially true - Transnistria was part of USSR prior to 1940s unlike the rest of Moldova, most people targeted there by Stalinist regime were already deported/persecuted long before (in the 1930s). Secondly, Russians and Ukrainians were not put there to "replace" Romanians but always lived in Transnistria (esp. Ukrainians). The policy of deportations/terror in Stalinist USSR also had little to do with the kind of "nationalist ethnic cleansing" by Russians/Ukrainians against Romanians, in reality it was ideologically motivated "class warfare" employed against "class enemies" from all nationalities within USSR by Communist leadership with Russians and Ukrainians being main victims not beneficiaries.

If you wish another expression, but the facts remain the same: Romanians were deported for various reasons: some were considered traitors as they helped the Romanian Army in WWII, for being against the Soviets, etc -- this happened in most Soviet-occupied territories, including the Balic states. Some Ukrainians did live in Transnistria, but all the Russians, which now make a signifiant part of the Transnistrians, were settled within the last 200 years. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3)2004/Human Rights sections portray Transnistria as some kind of unique totalitarian phenomenon in the region. The articles ignores the fact what the rest of Moldova is the only country in Europe currently ruled by an unreformed Communist party with equally poor human rights record.

From what I know, Moldova has too, a poor human rights record, but here it's worse. See the Ilie Ilaşcu case, the Romanian-language schools being closed, etc. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) Statement "Transnistria is the poorest region of the poorest country in Europe" is obviously false (regardless of any economic statistics authors came up here doing google search) anyone who ever traveled in the region knows what Transnistria, despite its numerous economic problems, is relatively developed industrial region and there are plenty of extremely undeveloped rural regions throughout Balkans, Romania and Moldova itself what are even more impoverished. (Fisenko 06:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC))

If you can cite sources for it, then fix it! Ambi 06:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is using the GDP data provided by Transnistrian Economy Ministry as quoted here. If you have better data, please add it. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It is very well known that in the village of Butur(populated by Romanians) for example, in modern-day Dubasari district( if I am not mistaken), the Russians sepparated the men from the women and shot all the 178 men in the village.

If you have information and references on that, it would be interesting to write an article about it. I couldn't find anything about it on the Internet. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainians and Russians must have been present in very tiny numbers before the Russian occupation of Transnistria from the Turks. A Turkish census shows us the following: out of the one hundred villages in thier province of Edisan(Transnistria roughly), about 64 had a compact Romanian population. The other villages were mostly Tatarian. So there is little or no mentioning of Russians or Ukrainians and this is just before the 1800s.

Obviously there had to be a colonization of the place, since by 1940 the Romanian population stopped being the overwhealming majority but was still a plurality, while in 1940 the population of Tiraspol was still 42% Romanian. Compare this with the 18% in 1989. Where did the Romanians go? Is it that they just do not like to procreate as much as Russians and Ukrainians? I think not.

About the richness of Transnistria. Well like you said anyone who would travel there would see two things. One is that 99% of the population live in horrible conditions. Reports tell of a city life that even in Moldova is considered primitive.

Yes there is some industry. Basically two factories: one making steel and one making ammuntions but they are both old.

You forgot the Kvint brandy factory. The Transnistrian government seems so proud of it, that they feature it on the 5 Transnistrian rubles banknote. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yes there is one stadium in Tiraspol that looks like its at a European standard. This is all that comprises the richness of Transnistria. Oh and I forgot the store-chain which the president's son owns.

Tell me what is biased in all this? Is any of the info here untrue?

bogdan, I am gonna look for the info on Butur and I will post my sourse here.

Duca

I want to remove the POV from the site, as I do not see a reason for it. If anyone wants to give specific and concrete reasons why the site is biased I promise to try to change the text in order to remove any potential bias. TSO1D 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a number of "specific and concrete reasons" none of which were even modified to sound more neutral. It is obvious the article in its current form is written by Romanians and Transnistrian/Slavic point of view is ignored. (Even on talk page every second entry ends with "Duca") Speaking about economy in Transnistria even you mentioned in your own article there are large hydroelectric plans (Moldovskaya GRES and Dubossarskaya GES) in Transnistria what export electricity to Moldova and Ukraine, there is also a large steel and pump factories in Rybnitsa (http://www.aommz.com/pls/webus/ ; http://www.apnasos.idknet.com/), There are electrical machinery plants in Tiraspol (Kirov plant etc.) (http://www.ao-electromash.md/index_e.htm ; http://www.litmash.com/ ; http://www.tez.md/ ),in Bendery there are electrical equipment plants (http://www.elektroapparatura.idknet.com/), shoe factories (http://www.tigina.com/?lang=en ; http://www.floare.com/ ), cable factory (http://moldavcable.com/en/), and a number of other factories : http://www.catalog.tiraspol.net/PartView.aspx?PartID=6&page=1 And please don't tell me about Moldovians living in much better conditions than Transnistrians, this is pure nonsense, Moldova is extremly poor and agrarian country, its main income comes from Moldavians working abroad and sending money back home to relatives.(Fisenko 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Russophobic slur

Yes these Romanians are such bastards. Ve Russian-Transnistrian-Communists are soo right in everything. Ve rezpyekt human raitz yend our Respublic is zooo kool. Ve Got ze faktoriiess leik, ze one produzing shuz yend ze one produzing vyeponz! (unsigned by anon 24.201.83.39)

Fîsyenko, all the factories that you have mentioned are mentioned already. I really think its dumb to talk about the shoe factory. Lol. Thats a minor one.

About the richness of Transnistria go anywhere you want on any respectable objective site and they will tell you that the ones that are rich are very few, mostly Russian mafia which enriched themsleves from arm-dealing. Even an ex-USSR commander admited to that. Everyone else is dirt poor. Go to this site if you do not believe me. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1803/Meier_Foster/Meier_Foster.html

Also inflation is so high in Transnistria that people have to immagine extra zeros because the country is so poor they cannot print new banknotes. Its also on that site.

and this is the site about Butor, although its not the one that I initially read :

http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/REVISTA-AGERO/ISTORIE/totul%20despre%20transnistria.htm

Cu Respect, Fisenko's buddy Duca

Go anywhere in Moldova and you will see for yourself that "rich are very few" mostly Moldavian mafia/Voronin's Communist party apparatchiks and "everyone else is dirt poor" (those who don't have relatives working abroad even more so than most Transnistrians). So what? Such statements would not be accepted as neutral and un-biased if you post them in the article about Republic of Moldova. Regardless, of economic section there are statments in History sections what are more than enough for POV check. If you want I can correct them. (Fisenko 05:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

As a borader aside, it would be instructive to see wealth and income distrbution per decile. I wonder if current figures (if at all) exist. El_C 05:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Fisenko, I rewrote many parts of the text in conformity with the POV neutrality policy of Wikipedia. I also implemented some of your suggestions, except for the economy, where I did not have a chance to look at the data. I involuntarily overrode your message as we were editing the site at the same time and I finished later, and didn't have time to take a close look at that, but I will check the numbers later today. Hopefully you will agree with the changes I made at this edit, and if you have more suggestions I will gladly look at them. TSO1D 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

Please, correct those statements that you pretend are POV. Meanwhile, I see nothing to discuss here. So I will erase the POV tag. --Vasile 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, please restore the POV tag that you keep deleting. Objections are stated explicitly and addressing them fully isn't done even at the talk page yet. You may debunk them at the talk page too (if you can). It's your opinion that there is "nothing to discuss". I respect it. But this by itslef is no justification to remove a tag placed by a good faith editor who elaborated his reason rather well. Thanks! -Irpen

Vasile, forgive me for responding within you text below. I marked entries so they can be easily separated. -Irpen 17:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see no good faith in keeping that tag and doing nothing to amend and improve the article. --Vasile

We do not have a case here of "placing a tag and doing nothing". It's placing a tag and explaining in detail what the user perceives non-neutral. If you have anything to say about the points raised in complaint, say it in the talk page. If you can debunk these points in toto, do that and remove the tag. -Irpen

A good faith editor would edit the statements considered "POV". Nobody was able yet to tell me what is about to discuss here. --Vasile 15:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This approach would have eliminated the need for a POV-tag. If the Neutrality policy was that the user MUST correct what he sees non-neutral and this is the only way he can address the problem, there won't be a need for the tag in the first place. For whatever reasons, the user may prefer not to edit at certain point. What the user must do if he has problems with neutrality, is supply a tag with a detailed explanation of what he sees not neutral. This explanation was given at the talk page above. After that, you can't just remove the tag with "nothing to discuss" comment. As of now, the tag has to be restored-Irpen

There were replies to Fishenko's objections, but he did not replied to them and when he replied, he tried to avoid handling specific issues. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, I am sorry, I don't see such an avoidance in his answers. We should Assume good faith on Fisenko's behalf. I worked on several articles with this editor and we happened to agree and disagree on several occasions. From what I know, "assume good faith" guideline applies to his edits. Anyway, I am not here to defend anyone and he does not need to be defended either. I disagree with what seems to me an arbitrary removal of an NPOV tag regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I stand by my opinion that it needs to be restored. I will leave this action to others for now. However, I can see that you or Vasile may disagree not only with the tag, but also with me on the issue whether tag removal was justified. You may choose not to restore it, of course. I just brought up the reasons why I think restoring is needed. I could have restored it right away, but I don't want to continue now what became a simple edit war that consists of a rev. followed by a rev., followed by a rev., etc. -Irpen 18:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

He argues that Transnistria is not poorer than Moldova. I replied that the official data shows the GDP is lower. (Moldova had around $760/capita in 2004, while Transnistria had $662/capita), however continued saying that Moldova "is extremly poor". I don't dispute that. However Transnistria is indeed "slightly poorer", like the article suggests. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He also talked about all the factories in Transnistria but they were already mentioned in the article.

Cu Respect

Duca

guys, i would like to add somewhere about the russian atrocities in transnistria. THis is my sourse http://www.agero-stuttgart.de/REVISTA-AGERO/ISTORIE/totul%20despre%20transnistria.htm

Thats where it talkes about the village of Butor and I think it would go well in the part about Transnistria under Soviet rule.

Also the link about how Transnistrians have to immagine extra zeros since the government is too poor to reprint more money because inflation is so high speaks tons about the economic situation there. (unsigned by anon)

I agree, there are many problems with either view. Still, I strongly feel restoration of the POV check is warranted. Please, let's deal with this calmly. No flames! regards, -Irpen 19:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

POV clean up

Why do you think the historic fact that Romanian army invaded and occupied the region in 1941 should not be in the article ?

Why do you think information about electical equipment plants in Tiraspol and Bendery should not be in the article ? (Fisenko 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

If you insist, the info about the equipment can be removed, but you have to agree that some of the older factories have old technology. I tried to soften it up a bit, but I don't really care too much for it. As for the "Axis occupation", for some (non-Romanians) it was an occupations, for some of the Romanians in the region it was a liberation. Your comments about the liberation of the Red Army are a little over the top. This would not be objective. I tried to change the text of the hole document to remove any possible POV, the fact that the info about the "fascist Romanian occupation" is not included only ensures that POV is not violated. TSO1D 19:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about Moldova west of Dniestr here, Transnistria unlike the rest of Moldova was never a part of Romania. It was part of the USSR since its creation in 1922, it was also part of the Russian Empire for more than a century prior to that (and part of Kievan Russia if we want to go into ancient history). Even most of ethnic Moldavians/Romanians in the region in contrast to Moldavians/Romanians west of Dniestr saw the events of 1941 as occupation and greeted Red Army in 1944 as liberators. (Fisenko 19:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

A compromise solution: if the term "occupation" seems controversial to some, we can use "invasion", That's for sure justifiable. On another note, regarding the deportation (I made a similar post earlier elsewhere, sorry for repetition). Stalinist policies of post-war mass repressions and deportations in Moldova were in line with similar policies of Stalin to other nations accused in collaboration with Nazis. Of course almost all of the millions of people who suffered had nothing to do with any crimes of Nazis or other axis countries' occupation forces against Slavs or Jews (and, honestly, I don't know and could be Romanian occupation didn't follow up on Nazi's "solution" of the Jewish problem). It is true that many people in the territories recently occupied by SU understandably viewed the Nazi Germany as a liberator (not for long though). However, those on the left-bank were unlikely among them for sure. It was also true that crimes against civilians were conducted with eager assistance of local collaborators, not only in these territories but also in Ukraine (see, for instance, the highly POV article "the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia which still has some truth in it) or in Baltic republics. The point I am trying to make is that the article should go into some detail on these issues, not just say that Romanians were collectively punished and singled out by Stalin. The truth was that millions where collectively punished for the crimes of the hundreds. The reader would know what Collective punishment is and will be able to judge that what was done by Stalin was inhuman and unjust. This article subject is of course not the crimes of Nazi collaborators, but if the article needs to mention the Soviet repressions of Romanians at all, it should give a complete picture. Irpen 20:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I added some info about the Romanian rule of the region, and changed the abuses section, explaining abuses done by both sides, in order to offer a balanced perspective. Fisenko, do you believe that other changes are necessary, or can we remove the POV tag? TSO1D 20:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not Fisenko, but I think it is inadequate. You changed it to:

current: During WWI, Axis forces advanced into the region and Romania integrated absorbed all of Transnistria until the Soviet recapture of the area.

suggested (at least): During [[Eastern Front (World War II) |World War II]], [[|Axis powers|Axis forces]] advanced into invaded the region and Romania integrated absorbed [[annexed|annexation]] all of Transnistria until the Soviet recapture of the area driven back from there by the [[Red Army|Soviet Army]] (don't forget we are talking about Transnistria, not the whole Moldova. What "recapture"?).

current: After World War II, it was included with Bessarabia into the Moldavian SSR in exchange for the Southern Bessarabia ("Bugeac"), which was included in the Ukrainian SSR.

suggested: After the war, it was included with Bessarabia into the Moldavian SSR and the Southern Bessarabia ("Bugeac") was included in the Ukrainian SSR. (What "exchange"? Administrative borders in the USSR were meaningless. Transfer of Crimea is the best proof)

current:In the 40's, Transnistria suffered from Axis and Soviet abuses. During the Romanian rule of the region, local Jews, Communists, and other groups were persecuted. During USSR rule, many ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan and were replaced by Ukrainians and Russians. Most ethnic Romanians/Moldavians were allowed to return in the 50's, during the process of de-Stalinazation.

comment: Here I don't even know what to say. "Jews, communists and other groups..." My God, you think that's neutral?

I think the adequate thing would be to discuss changes except for the obvious at this talk page, and by all means STOP removing the POV-tag until issues are worked out here. Issues raised are no bullshit trying to pull some tricks. Removing the POV-tag should not be repeated. Replacing it with "stub"? Is this a joke? Please let's put the ideologies aside, let's avoid personal attacks and name-calling and work out the differences. And, once again, please leave the POV tag alone. It is not inserted frivolously and this is a serious matter. Thanks! -Irpen 21:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comments for numerous regions. 1)Advanced into is more neutral than invaded and relates the same message, although I agree that we can use the word annexed.

No it's not the same message. When the Soviet Army moved into what was an eastern Poland after the Pact with Nazis, this was "invaded". When it moved into the same territories in 1944, it advanced. Do you see a difference between these two events? -Irpen

2)I used the word recapture, to mean the resumption of USSR rule of Transnistria after the brief Romanian military presence there. Is that not true?

No, recapture is a capture preceded by another capture. Of course everything was "captured" by someone at certain points of history, but in that context, particularly for Transnistria and particularly ofr WWII events liberation is appropriate. If you can't allow this, we should at least say "driven back". -Irpen

3)Administrative borders were not meaningless, or otherwise the Ukrainian SSR would not have engaged in such am active effort to convince Stalin to give the Romanian regions of Bugeac and Bukovina to the Ukraine.

Meaningless not in this sense but in a sense that there was no need to negotiate any "exchanges". Of course any Communist leader of any republic would be happy to get more people and power under his rule. But this "exchange" thing brings in the flavor of negotiations like in international relations. What's wrong with my version? -Irpen

4)Isn't it true that Jews and Communists were persecuted by the Nazis? I am at a loss here. Please explain what you mean.

How would you look at the phrase like: "Insert your own nation here", Nazis, Thieves and child molesters and other groups were killed, persecuted, arrested and deported", I mean no offence to your or any other nation. I hope, seeing this example you would agree that his phrase is totally unacceptable. Irpen

As for the POV tag, is there really a legitimate reason to keep it? Most contributors to this site agree with its content and are making serious efforts to remove any potential bias. The only reason the tag exists is because of a fanatical Smirnovian who believes that we should focus on the evils of fascist Romanians and the triumph of the PMR over Moldova. TSO1D 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV tag seems clearly warranted to me. I strongly disagree with your labeling here even though you seem not to include me under it this time. I am on the record in WP opposing several phobias and I urge you to avoid name calling. I suggest a cool-off period. Even though leaving the article in a current form is unacceptable in my view, with the POV tag we can leave it like this for a short time unchanged. I would very much like to see Fisenko's version of the article, or at least of the disputed parts, if he has time to offer them. This all is better done on the talk page. If removal of the POV tag continues, I will leave this article for a while. If this is antibody's goal, I just offered a way to achieve it. I still hope we can bring this article to an acceptable level. Best regards, -Irpen 22:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I did not include you in my label, because I respect you and I can collaborate with you. You present concrete and concise information about how to enhance the information and remove any bias. As for Fisenko, he is simply irrational in many instances. I can only imagine what his version would look like! As for the POV tag, I suppose you are right, let's keep it for a week or so until we can solve some of the outstanding problems with point of view. TSO1D 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All right, I am glad we agreed on keeping the tag for now. If both of us will revert its removals, it should be enough to keep it on most of the time and stay under the 3RR limit, although I would be very uncomfortable reverting the same thing more than twice a day.

I would like to apologise to Fisenko, on behalf of this talk page for the treatment his edits were receiving. I hope he will help with this article and I, perhaps to the disagreement of TSO1D view his edits constructive. I would very much welcome his version (as well as anyone else's version, but his especially) to be presented at this talk page before we start another revert war in the article's space. Unfortunately, I would have to do a lot of reading to be able to contribute any knowledge to this article, for which I will probably not have time these days. I will still try to look up some general reference sources. Regards, -Irpen 23:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Replacing POV with stub is not a joke. Don't use talk page, edit on article, please. --Vasile 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is definetly not a stub, and I believe that the POV should be left for now, only for a brief period until we can find a concensus on the article. Vasile, please don't change the sign for now. TSO1D 00:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article is incomplete. Those user that pretend this is a POV need more time to study the matter. Then, how they know this is a POV? --Vasile 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vasile, I partially agree with you, but this project is delicate and we wish to strike a balance to which almost no one can find serious objections. Please refrain from making radical changes without discussing them first. TSO1D 01:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GDP

Transnistria is wealthier than Moldova, so far I know... And I know good. The population of Transnistria in 2004 is 500 th. (smaller then in 1989, not bigger, as you wrote-- that's stupid, the population of all countries in Eastern Europe is descreasing, but Transnistria no... It's population is strongly increasing... :))). 420,000,000 / 500,000 is $840. That's more than the $803 GDP per capita in Moldova (the figure for Moldova comes from IMF). --Danutz 19:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use the results of the population census from 2004 provided by the bank of Transnistria which probably calculated the total GDP as well. The population is estimated at 580,000, thus their GDP per capita would be $724. According to the US state department, the Moldovan GDP per capita is $760, slightly more than in Transnistria. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5357.htm TSO1D 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes are always good

Danutz about the GDP, as it has already been pointed out the population is not 500.000 but 580.000. The 546.400, in 1989, reffers only to Transnistria without Tighina. The 580.000 right now includes Tighina. Without Tighina( population 112.990 according to World Gazeteer), then the population in the rest of Transnistria would have decreased indeed.

About the History part I tottaly agree with Fsenko and others who have said that if we are going to talk about Soviet atrocities, we should also mention WWII atrocities against the Jews. I think thats a very important part of Romanian and Transnistrian but also Ukrainian history and it should be mentioned.

This is why I have added some stuff about it which divulges some facts about the atrocities made by the Nazis and the Romanians but also with the help of their Ukrainain allies. The source is that of a very prominent Jewish author about the Transnistrian Subject and his book " Shattered! 50 Years of Silence History and Voices of the Tragedy in Romania and Transnistria ". Here is the website http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/compassion-in-transnistria.html .

In all fairness I think we should keep the neutrality thing still on until we come to write a clear and neutral article.

Cu respect, Duca

Duca, don't you think that if you want to elaborate on the subject you should present the historical background of the attrocities rather than quote a book and talk about a specific event?

Besides, I think the attrocities aspect of this page is slowly getting out of hand. In the interest of giving a balanced view, we just keep adding information, and soon 90% of the content of the page will be about attrocities in the region. I suggest we either remove everething pertaining to the subject or restrain the info to no more than one paragraph. There is plenty of info on Nazi and Stalin's attrocities on other sites. TSO1D 23:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look: I am talking about a historical fact. WWII is a particular event that I think deserves some attention. I talked about the case in Tiraspol because it has to do with the actual Transnistrian territory that also exists now in PMR. Everyone knows that Romanian Transnistria in 1941-43 is not the same as PMR Transnistria, rather the later is only a small territory of the former. The book I quoted is the best known book about the subject. What can I do if not many people wrote about Transnistria?

Personally I think all the info is of importance. But if you want it all under one paragraph, you should select what you think is important and put it all in one paragraph.

Cu respect, Duca

NPOV

What is being disputed? As far as I can tell, the article has a anti-Ukrainian and pro-Romanian bias, but not enough of one to dispute. Could you maybe make the case for the dispute header, or just make the needed changes? It looks awful. Sam Spade 00:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's a little hard for those who claim that the article is not neutral to make a harder case since it's hard for them to come up with actual evidence to support that.

Sometimes facts are painful for some and satisfactory for others. It may look like its written from a Romanian point of view, I give you that. But then again it only looks so. Does that really mean it is?

After all, if you go read an accurate article about the Holocaust, it will say that the Nazis commited atrocities against the Jews and that 6 million Jews died. Is one entitled to say that it is not neutral because it does not talk about the Nazi point of view? Of course not. We all know that the Nazis could not possibly give you a neutral point of view about the Hollocaust since they are the ones that caused it. Likewise, it is very hard to talk about the Stalinist or Communist points of view and take them seriously when making a neutral article. Jeorgika

Finally I think it looks good enough that we can all say its pretty Neutral

I dunno who made the changes but I think they are quite good and give a fairly detailed but compacted account of the history of the region.

Cu respect, Duca

None of the biased statements in the article were corrected to made them neutral. The article still describes only Romanian perspective on Transnistria. In addition you added new controversial statements about "imposition of Cyrillic script for written Romanian" - Cyrrillic scrip was historically used in Moldavia (and indeed even in Romania before late 1800s). Red Army/Soviets portayed as some kind of evil occupation force in Transnistria massacring entire populations of Romanian villages (This must be the reason why Moldova today is the only European country where almost 70 % recently voted for the Communist party), while many people in the region will accuse Romanian army of doing the same. Transnistria is blamed for "armed incursions" into Moldovan villages (while I assure you PMR gov't regularly blames Moldova for doing exacly the same), etc. (Fisenko 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Fsenko why are you blaming me for changing anything? I didnt not make the latest changes and I am not the one that added the thing with the cyrilic script. The part with the romanian village, is true, I added it a few days ago but I proved it is true since i also provided a source. What is your source for all your criticisms?

The cyrilic script was imposed. Just because Moldova and Vallachia(south romania) used a form of the cyrilic script until 1800 doesn't mean that they were still used to it back in 1940. Theres at least a 140 year difference. On top of that the Romanian cyrilic script used until the 1800s was actually quite different then the Russian one since some letters were written differently.

Will you ever be happy Fsenko? I think your problem is not that the article is not neutral because right now it is. I think your problem is that you want it to say how nice the communists and Stalin was and how bad the Romanians are. Well we are not in Transdnestria here. We are in a free country and the truth prevails here, not the Communist propaganda.

Duca

>>>>The part with the romanian village, is true, I added it a few days ago but I proved it is true since i also provided a source. What is your source for all your criticisms?<<<<<

I do not deny (or confirm) what particular incident took place. However, to portray Soviets in Transnistria (not part of Romanian pre-1940 Moldova) as occupiers who did nothing but massacred Romanian villages is NPOV. First, because it is not a generally accepted view in either Transnistria or even Moldova. Governments and majority of population in both Moldova and Transnistria commemorate the events of 1944 as liberation. There have been obviously many massacres committed by Romanian army in the region. If you want references, here you go:

Mezincescu E. Marshal Antonescu and Catastrophe of Romania. Bucharest, 1993

Levit I. Holocaust in Bassarabia in the Distorting Mirror of Mr. Petrencu. Chisinau, 1999

The Moldovan SSR in the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union in 1941-1945, Collected materials and documents. Vol.II. Chisinau, 1976

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/benditer-ihiel.html

http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Yedintsy/yed0749.html#page758b

http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2003/04/02/0304.html

http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/ironguard/holocaust.htm

http://www.vremea.net/news/2003-12-24/12:04:12.html

>>>>The cyrilic script was imposed. Just because Moldova and Vallachia(south romania) used a form of the cyrilic script until 1800 doesn't mean that they were still used to it back in 1940.<<<<<

Once again you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between Romania and Transnistria. Latin script for the Romanian language was only officially adopted in the kingdom of Romania in 1860. Cyrillic alphabet used historically in Moldavia remained in Moldavian version of Romanian language in Bessarabia (part of Ottoman Turkey prior to 1812, part of Russian Empire after) and Transnistraia (Russian after - 1792). Moldavians in Transnistria which have never been part of Romania, never adopted the Latin script. How on earth Cyrillic alphabet could be "imposed" in the region? (Fisenko 00:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I removed the word imposed and attempted to make the sentece more neutral. Do you find it adequate? TSO1D 00:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fsenko read the article again

The refferences you have mede pertain to Romanian killigs against Jews. And the article does say that Romanians and Germans did crimes against the Jews in 1941-43. Nobody denies that. Of course it would not be neutral to say that only Romanians and Jews did the atrocities because as some sourses mention, local Ukrainians (and probably Russians) did them too.

About the Soviet atrocities, lemme clarify something: They did happen. To say they didnt is like saing that "Nazis cannot be described by their atrocities against the Jews", like someone above has mentioned. The current Transnistrian government is a Communist-neo Stalinist type of government and of course it would commemorate the Soviet invasion as a liberation. The Moldovan communists usually did the same but this year they were more reserved then in other years since the Communists in Moldova have taken a pro-European and pro-western stance lately. This has angered the Russian Federation and if I am not mistaken the Russians have even protested to the Moldovan government attitude this year.

About the script, first of all, it is not the Latvian script but the Latin script. Second of all, yes the Latin script was used in Transnistria. From 1924 to 1934, if I am not mistaken, although I might be off by a few years, the Latin script was used in the MASSR.

Duca

If you would read my references more carefully you will find they also talk about Romanian killings of Moldavians, Russians, Ukrainians etc. In Transnistria and Romanian-occupied Odessa Oblast were was a rather strong resistance movement (notable Moldavian and Ukrainian partisans in the region include Boris Galavan, Darya Dyachenko, Stefan Rimsha etc.) In Dubassary and Tiraspol (Kirpichnaya Slobodka) many non-Jewish locals, partisans, prisoners of war etc. were massacred. (ref: http://www.nm.md/daily/article/2004/04/09/0701.html) I do not dispute the fact what Soviet army/NKVD also committed some atrocities (although I doubt they targeted ethnic Romanians only, rather people of all ethnic groups justly or more often unjustly accused of collaboration with the enemy).

I'm a bit skeptical about the Moldavians fighting the Romanian troops. That sounds much like the propaganda used by the Soviets to sustain the "Moldavian" distinct ethnicity. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And for crying out loud! That article you linked is really pathetic. It seems cut and pasted from a Communist-era newspaper. And it is written by Nikolai Buchatsky, a Transnistrian Communist leader and member of the Tiraspol City Council. Please give us a real reference, not a propaganda article. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for Moldavian and Transnistrian governments, regardless of their ideology their view on WWII events reflects the attitude of the significant portion (probably majority) of population in both Moldova and Transnistria regardless of the labels you put on them. Finally 10 years of Latin scrip usage in Transnistria is not enough to justify it as somehow more legitimate there and claim that Cyrillic alphabet was "imposed". (Fisenko 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The Romanians of Transnistria want to use the Latin script, but the authorities forbade them. I'd say that is the meaning of the word "imposed". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Soviet regime chose the latin script for Romanian in 1923 in the Autonomous Moldovian Republic in order to entice other Romanians to join the cause. In 1939, however when the MSSR was created, then people in administrative positions in the former MASSR were executed for propagating nationalistic sentiments and restored the Cyrillic system in order to show Moldova's differences from Romania. In this cruel political game I believe usage of the word imposed is justified. TSO1D 21:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nikolai Buchatsky is not a Communist (you are mistaken him for Voronin and co.) his party is called "Narodovlastie" and his is an opposition leader opposed to Igor Smirnov. If you want to read academic sources I already mentioned some, for example

Mezincescu E. Marshal Antonescu and Catastrophe of Romania. Bucharest, 1993

or

Levit I. Holocaust in Bassarabia in the Distorting Mirror of Mr. Petrencu. Chisinau, 1999

About Latin script, only 6 private schools out of about 40 Romanian/Moldovan language schools in Transnistria wanted to use it and were accused of teaching kids nationalist propaganda etc. This is hardly translates into the wishes "Romanians of Transnistria" (Fisenko 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Article is very problematic in its current form as of 7am , Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

As of now, I stopped my participation in this article. The main reason was not its one-sideness and not even the rudeness of some editors, though quite amazing even for a controversial topic. With things like addressing other editors purposefully misspelling the names, writing russophobic slurs and personal attacks at the talk page, I could still hope there is a chance the article was workable. However, persistent removals of an elaborately justified POV tag and even ignoring very specific suggestions makes me think that there are strongly POV editors whose commitment to making sure onesideness of the article is much stronger than my commitment to this topic. It only amazes me that Fisenko still bothers to respond specifically to these attacks and frivolous "adjustment" claimed "directed towards neutrality". It reached the stage when POV-tag is not sufficient and it requires additionally a "factual accuracy disputed tag". Reasons are already given above. Anyway, I am going to place the tag and I am quite pessimistic, that it will be removed in no time with the article's problems still being not addressed. No one is trying to defend Smirnov and his mafia. No one is expressing Stalinist viewes. The article should just stick to undisputed facts not picked selectively to someone's liking. Objections and suggestions raised earlier by Fisenko and me are still up there if anyone wants to see the reasons, and almost all of them are not address or addressed in frivolous manner. I will check how this article is doing in a week or two but now I am not anymore in the mood to fight with obvious prejudices of several editors. I am sorry to those who feel offended by my remarks, but I can't help but say here what I see absolutely warranted. -Irpen 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You don't know anything about the subject. Even you don't want to collaborate, please stay around to learn more. --Vasile 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He knows Vasile, he knows. But you know what he knows? All he knows is what commarde Stalin tought him. He knows how to hate Romanians, he knows how to call them "Moldovans", oh yeah and he knows that Romanians did atrocities in Transnistria but that the USSR did nothing of the sort. In fact according to him the USSR "saved" Transnistria. After all where would Transnistria be if it wasn't for the USSR? According to him "where would we all be if it wasnt for the USSR and its helping had?" That's what he knows and what he calls NPOV. (unisgned by Mihaitza)

Allegation against "challengers of neutrality"

The challangers of Neutrality have done nothing else but back their outragous claims with Stalinist and Communist propaganda, with articles written by Transnistrian Stalinists and Communists and when put in a difficult possition by the stronger arguments of the majority, they either ignored these arguments or just accused the others of being unfair, of being pro-Romanian or of having hidden agendas when it is clear that the only ones with hidden agendas are Fskenko and his buddy.

This should not be a forum where Transnistrian communists can bash and degrade the truth just like they are used to doing in Transnistria but rather a forum that tries to expose the facts for what they are. Having said that I hope that those Transnistrian Stalinists either back off, either come fourth with clear arguments, not just the ones from the pre-1989 era. (unsigned by Jeorgika)

Vasile wrote: You definetely know nothing about the subject as you pretend. You just want make this article to disappear, disturbing and harassing anyone wants to edit this article. You don't respect the wikipedia rules and you should report yourself to the wikipedia staff.

Well, one of the active participants of this discussion left an accusatory message above at my talk page in addition to what's beeing said here that prompted me to stop by. I just restored the full content at this page from what I was trying to remove when I hoped this discussion may lead to anywhere. I suggest other users stop saying who said what. The full history of the discussion at the talk page as well as the current "neutral" text in the article will let everyone who stops by see for themselves. The article speaks for itself with or without the POV tag.

As for your "reporting myself to Wikipedia staff" comment, there is no staff to report. However, I just want to let you know what to do if you would like to "report" me. There are two WP procedures to complain about users called RfC and Arbitration (the latter for more extreme cases). There are more options at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes link. I can only encourage you to study them and submit a request against me. Then it will become apparent to everyone who is acting in bad faith. Regards, -Irpen 19:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

ha ha Irpen changed the title of the previous message

Like any good Stalinist, in a very KGB like fashion Irpen changed the previous title which read "Challangers are clearly anti-Romanian". Why did you change what it said Irpin? After manipulating the whole discussion, now Irpin is even trying a new tactic: Portraing himself as a victim.

I propose that we ignore the Stalinists from now on because all they do is to try to provoke everyone that has an oppinion different then theirs(which is most people here) and they do it through different tactics, including a very sick Stalinist propaganda which may work in Transnistria but unfortunately for them does not work here. Key words here "commardes" are Neutral Point Of View. Facts are Facts and in the real world, not the Transnistrian mini-USSR world, REAL FACTS are all that matters.

Duca