Talk:Transnistria/External links

How should External links subchapters be named?[edit]

We are labeling pro-PMR links in our External links section as "Transnistrian side". This is misleading, not all Transnistrians are supporting the separatist regime. We should use the label "separatist" instead of "transnistrian", in this and in other related articles when we are talking about forces which support Smirnov's regime. A big part of Transnistrian people want to get rid of Russian occupation and unite back with Moldova. Also, there were always some forces in Chişinău which support Smirnov's regime.--MariusM 10:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Official Moldovan" and "Official Transnistrian", then? It's true that the links for both sides do not speak for all of the Transnistrian or Moldovan people. Although in this case I thought one would naturally assume governments, not people. --Illythr 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the 4 websites labelled as "Moldovan side" none is made by Moldovan government. Conflict.md is supported by OSCE (is publishing even pro-separatist information), Azi.md often is critic against Moldovan government. Maybe we should use the label "anti-separatist".--MariusM 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not made, supportive. The material presented on those sites in relation to Transnistria supports the official Modovan position. Hm, the presidential website apears to be down, btw. --Illythr 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about PMR side instead of Transnistrian side? TSO1D 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMR would confuse new readers Truli 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that by the time they would reach the external links section they would know the term. TSO1D 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, keep things uniform, like if we include Moldovan links here it goes that Transnistrian links should also be on the Moldovan page too, and the Moldova page is really lackiing in Transnistrian info. It is like its been hidden by both sides, Truli 13:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two sides are currently referred to as "Transnistria" and "Moldova". MariusM is of course correct in saying that not Transnistrians support independence. If we go by the referendum, only 97% do.
How many in Moldova support the official Moldovan irredentist position? I spoke to Popov who told me that there is a shift in opinion among intellectuals in Chisinau. They look to Europe and they see Transnistria as something which is holding them back from that. They would just as rather cut loose from Transnistria (the past) and focus on Europe (the future). His words. How many support the official line? Probably a majority. But not all.
That is how democracy works. We do not need all Transnistrians to agree with the official line, nor do we need all Moldovans to agree with the official line. If the positions are official and/or representative of the majority, it can accurately be labelled "Transnistrian side" and "Moldovan side" just as we do now. No change. - Mauco 14:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an explanatory note that "pro-Transnistrian" means regarding the current PMR regime as legitimate, and "pro-Moldovan" means regarding the current PMR regime as not legitimate would be sufficient to make the appropriate distinction without confusing people. (It doesn't really boil down to just agreeing with the Moldovans or with Smirnov/Antyufeyev, which is what is implied if there is no further explanation.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to fix something which is clear to everyone already. MariusM's proposal proceedes from the implied assumption that the majority of Transnistrians are in disagreement with their government. This is an erroneus assumption and he has no credible sources to support it. Studies published in 2006 on this matter, by German and other Western analysts, while sowing questions about the level of democratic commitment, agree that if free elections were held today under OSCE auspices, the current leadership would easily win reelection. - Mauco 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No real need to change this Truli 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truli, it is good to see that you are part of Talk. We had to revert some of your recent edits since they were quite substantial and since they were not discussed with anyone in advance. That is what the talk page is for. To avoid getting reverted, it is always a good idea to get other editors on board. This is especially true for substantial changes in pages which are controversial, like this one. Please read the info box on the top of this Discussion page. - Mauco 14:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The areas I deleted were inserted without approval as was much of this page by racists. These sections are better suited on the Moldovan page so I transfered them over, I am reverting political motivated vandalism. When I transfered the Travel Warning over to the Moldova page the same editors here that demand Transnistria have a big Travel Warning refused to allow the Travel warning on the Moldova page. However, in the ame breath they also claim Transdniestria is a region of Moldova,!! Why ? Because they are politically motivated against PMR but not Moldova. Wiki is not a forum for political speel. Nor is it a place where people from rival countries should bash each other and that is exactly what is happening here, For crying out loud, Trasnsnistria is not even refered to as a 'country' here, Something very weird about all this. Truli 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last point has been the subject of a long edit debate. It appears to have been solved now. - Mauco 15:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, it seems that unless you want to write something like "Transnistria Sells Its Women', you'll be reverted, sorry my mistake that awful slur on Transnistrian women is already in there, I should have guessed Truli 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today alone, both MariusM and myself had to revert you. But just read the three info-boxes on top of this page (the talk page), follow the instructions, and all will be well. If in doubt, do not edit, but ask for the opinion of others here first. - Mauco 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep the label "Transnistrian side", we should add a link like http://transnistria.ru.ru to show the opinion of antiseparatist transnistrians. They exist, and I don't agree they are only 3%. According Transnistrian census, there are almost 10% of Transnistrian population who don't have transnistrian citizenship, they don't vote and are not counted in ellections or referendums. Their real number is probabily higher than reported by Tiraspol regime. In my opinion, "separatist" and "antiseparatist" are clear labels, even for readers with little knowledge about the region.--MariusM 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is EvilAlex' "hate-speech" webpage. It does not meet Wikipedia criteria for external links. And please, enough with the guessing and original research. - Mauco 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Mauco I new that you like me :) EvilAlex 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marius , I know what you say but we can only operate with real facts, I understand your frustration Truli 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Transnistrian (separatist) Side"? I'm not really sure about this, probably just Transnistrian side is better. Perhaps if there were a Transnistrian Anti Seperatist side as well, just to show it exists. Unfortunately the only site I know for this is Evil Alex's, isn't it? Jonathanpops 21:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Evil Alex is the Alex from that website. Ha, funny I never made the connection. TSO1D 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you were here in the beginning of 2006, when he was pushing like crazy to get it included? Of course, he never admitted that it was his, at the time. But it was fairly obvious to see. I was not an active editor, but I visited the page often and followed his antics from the sidelines. - Mauco 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco what are you talking about? I never tried to push my site. Site was included by some anonymous editors. I only joined the war that was between you and those editors. And Isn't you the one who brought http://www.icdiss.org/ to wiki? Arent you the one who pushed it like crazy dog into Transnistrian articles? EvilAlex 23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy dogs don't push things. :-P --Illythr 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a crazy dog. Maybe an imperialist running dog, however. Oh, and I have also been called a fellow traveller, but no dog involved. - Mauco 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And Poleznye idioty, too. But not from anyone that I respect. - Mauco 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the picture, TSO1D, the picture! ;-) --Illythr 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes picture - me and girls EvilAlex 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alex, why are you on the western side of the Dniester (somewhere in Gagauzia) on that picture? --Illythr 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can stand where i want! My country. EvilAlex 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone remind me why they are labeled at all? I would make the radical suggestion that forcing the links into imperfect categories creates little benefit and has caused a considerable amount of conflict. jamason 22:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanpops, it is because Wikipedia's guidelines for external links includes a recommendation that when a link is biased, it ought to be labelled as such. In this context, we are labelling each "side" as someone who more or less espouses the official government position. In the case of Transnistria, that means give prominence to the independence view. In the case of Moldova, when they report on the issue, it means that they give prominence to unification. The homemade hate-site by EvilAlex (transnistria.ru.ru) would go under "Moldovan site" if we could include it (which we can't, for other reasons - see WP:LINKS.) - Mauco 22:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to change my handle--it looks too much like Jonathanpops's (we been confused several times at this point)! Regarding the comment, if we continue labeling links, how about "External links" and "Critics of the PMR" (or something like that). It transcends both the argument about whether all Transnistrians/Moldovans are for/against the PMR and the need to include such loaded words as "separatist." jamason 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout confusing the two of you. Your suggestion is good, but probably not needed, because the proposal for "separatist" can not pass either. There are basically two approaches: We can have one large link section, with 5 to 10 links or so, and not classify them. Or we can use the current approach. Those are the only two options. If we go to one section, with no classification, then we still have to state the bias in the form of a parenthesis or other notice next to each link. This is required as per WP:LINKS for links which are biased towards one side or the other. It is not required for all links. For instance, the BBC link would not need such a label. - Mauco 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jamason's idea is pretty good... --Illythr 23:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which idea? Changing his handle? ;-) The problem with labelling a section "Critics of PMR" is that some of the news sources, like AZI and conflict.md, are not on specific a mission to criticize PMR. They merely report the Moldovan government position favorably and suppress or partially censor the other view (just like the PMR sources do too, in reverse). - Mauco 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both. :-) Well, perhaps "Criticism of PMR" or "Official Moldovan position" (not so good, I know)? --Illythr 23:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep the links in the three parts that they have now, one for each side and one for neutral, it has been like that every since I first found this page, it is fine, it is not very important really Pernambuco 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Transnistria side / Moldovan side unacceptable: it assumes that Transnistria officials fairly represent Transnistrians; and this is contested. Both sides claim they represent Transnistrians. I think separatist side / anti-separatist side would be best. Other acceptable variants are:Transnistria officials side / Moldovan side and Transnistria separatist side and Moldovan anti-separatist side. The last one contains both criteria: all links under Transnistria separatist side are located in Transnistria, and all are pro-separatist; all links under Moldovan anti-separatist side are located in Moldova and all are anti-separatist and it does not assume one side is more legitimate than other.Dl.goe 00:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]