Talk:Transnistria War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled section

An absolutely one-sided article, showing only the Moldavian point of view.

Whose would be the other, non-Moldovian point of view, then ? --Lysy ^(talk) 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The article contains almost exclusively facts. Those are already discussed on Transnistria. It is sure that there are some interesting memory books of the Russian actors in that war (for example, Colonel Bergman, military commander of Tiraspol Russian garrison in 1992). The most of the facts discribed in the article were discussed and analyzed at European Court of Human Rights, on Ilie Ilascu and others v. Russia and Moldova. You will find only one paragraph with some kind of "general comments": Some national minorities opposed these changes in the Moldovan political class of the republic, since during Soviet times, local politics had often been dominated by non-Romanians, particularly by those of Russian or Ukrainian origin. The language laws presented a particularly volatile issue as a great proportion of the non-Romanian population of the Moldavian SSR did not speak Romanian. The problem of official languages in the Republic of Moldova has become a Gordian knot, being exaggerated and, perhaps, intentionally politicized. Some described the language laws as "discriminatory" and criticized their rapid implementation. This displeasure with the new policies was manifested in a more visible way in Transnistria, where urban centers such as Tiraspol, had a Slavic majority. The scenes of protests against the central government of the republic were more accute here. It is "neutral" and looks accurate to me. The paragraph is important because the language/script dispute consists the pretext of the conflict. If someone will try to study the real cause of the conflict, that would be a problem of "neutrality". There could missing some important events from the article -like so-called Ilascu group. --Vasile 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is disputed then. --Lysy ^(talk) 00:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

I don't really feel one way or the other, but this article definately strikes me as slightly biased toward the moldovan side. Stuff like the following should be sourced.

No military or volunteer from Romania, however, took part in the fighting, despite what the Russian mass-media reports.

Scare quotes should not be used as in the following.

Days after the truce had been agreed upon, a military confrontation between a local "self-defence unit"

Seems to be making excuses for the Moldovan army.

The Moldovan army was in a position of inferiority which prevented it from regaining control of Transnistria.

All in all, the article is fairly neutral, both sides are represented, just could do with a non-partisan observer to do some small cleanup. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? Otherwise I would be willing to jump into the fray. The important thing is to stick to neutrality. We don't want another War of Transnistria right here on Wiki. William Mauco 17:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead :) - FrancisTyers 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. See if you like it. Like you, I didn't found much evidence for the alleged Moldovan bias other than a few snipes here and there which I tried to rephrase. I also fleshed out some more content where I felt that it was needed, and changed some strange phrasing. Finally, in order to clarify I divided the article into a couple more sections such as "background" and "ceasefire". It would be good to later add a photo or two, or maybe a map. William Mauco 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

14th Army fighting together with transnistrians?

Forces of the 14th Army (which had owed allegiance to the USSR, CIS and the Russian Federation in turn) stationed in Transnistria, had fought with and on behalf of the Transnistrian separatist forces.

I've moved this part here for now. No real proof has been given about 14th Army joining transnistrians in their struggle.--Theocide 06:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what others have to say before removing it. I'll add a {{fact}} tag to it for now. —Khoikhoi 06:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is partly true, but it is an over-simplification and it should be rewritten. I will find some sources but as a general rule it is also important to be careful when citing sources because most of them are biased one way or the other, even without wanting to. Remember that there were not any historians present so they base their accounts on reports from the front and other documents of the time, and war propaganda is notoriously misleading. A lot of supposedly neutral history which is in English is based on the Moldovan version of events, whereas most accounts in Russian are based on PMR's version of events. - Mauco 10:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference for that claim is currently broken. What gives? --Illythr 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

In the info box it says 1000 casualties on one side and 1000 on the other. Did they both agree to stop when they reached the precise number of 1000 dead on each side? Or is someone just guessing? If so, what can I do to help to find the right numbers? - Pernambuco 00:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it's an estimate rather than a guess, though I have no idea what sources were used in determining the number. I really don't know where you could find more reliable figures, but a Google search is always the easiest way to begin if you feel like it. TSO1D 01:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can help ... first of all, we are allowed to use sources which are published by reputable sources, such as newspapers and magazines. When they mention Transnistria, they frequently refer to this war but they always just give estimates. Usually they quote "about a thousand dead" (with the number of wounded being even more vague, but usually in the 4,000 range). However, recently in the 17 September referendum coverage, most of the Western press said "1,500 dead" which is of course 50% more. These are 'total numbers (on both sides) so the 1000+1000 figure is clearly too high.
Now, the problem stems from the fact that only Transnistria published an accurate number of its victims. Moldova never did, so for the total, we are forced to use estimates. If memory serves, the Transnistrian number is something like 486. There are a couple of books out, both of them in Russian. One is available for free download from the Olvia Press website and the other one is just published in Moscow, by Regnum. It is called "The White Book on PMR" but is not available online (it is a paper book). They should both have the exact number of Transnistrian losses.
Consensus seems to be that even though Moldova never published an exact list, their losses were higher. This is probably where the approx. 1,000 estimate comes from. If we take that as fact, then that would bring us to the 1,500 number which recent press reports are quoting. It would be credible to me, but I doubt that we will ever find a source for an exact number for the Moldovan side. We are, as I said above, allowed to use a newspaper as the source even if the number is only an estimate. - Mauco 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am curious though, in the Transnistrian report, are just the figures from the main PMR army and police forces included or are the data for the numerous "volunteers" who fought on the Transnistrian side also added. Due to the shifting constituents of the two forces and the chaotic nature of the warfare, I doubt we will ever find an accurate number, but there has to be something better than what we have now. TSO1D 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am curious now too. I know that the Transnistrians make a big production out of their war deaths so we can certainly find a source for that side. It is an important part of their mythology. They "celebrate" them (if that is the word) more than once per year, if you can believe it. To my knowledge there are at least 3 dates which are historical remembrance days and which, in the eyes of the official PMR, have almost the same importance as Victory Over Fascism day. What I am getting at is that their side (their war deaths) are meticulously documented with names, lists, photos, etc. There is also the War Museum in Tighina which is dedicated to that whole thing. And if anything, they would actually have an interest in overstating their deaths in order to make the other side appear comparatively worse, so I think it is safe to say that the victims include everyone on their side: Official forces, volunteers, even civilians who didn't fight but just caught a bullet, etc. Thanks to User Pernambuco for raising this subject. - Mauco 03:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some info on "The White Book, PMR": http://compatriot.su/moldavia/news/26573.html - Mauco 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have to say that I had a higher opinion of Regnum until I saw that piece, but that's another matter. But do you have this book or have access to it? If not, can you please indicate the link for the book on Olvia. Meanwhile I will try to see if I can find anything for the Moldovan numbers. TSO1D 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer to opine on Regnum till I read what is actually in the book. They are not singling out Transnistria (to do advocacy only for Transnistria). Rather, they have published similar "White Books" in the past for Latvia, Abkhazia and some other countries. I have not read the book either. I would like to get hold of it, but it will be hard (or "hardish") because it is only in Russian and only on paper; not online. The link on Olvia is http://www.olvia.idknet.com/razlom/razlom.htm but that is a whole different book. The two are not related. - Mauco 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the passages cited in the article are indicative of the general tone of the book, then I can't really fail but to condemn the work. I mean with phrases such as: "Здесь была не просто война — здесь происходил геноцид. Здесь систематически и целенаправленно уничтожали людей, не желавших жить в „Великой Румынии" its credibility flies out of the window rather quickly. Also, thanks for the second link, but as I see that it's quite a lengthy read, I'l have to take some time to skim it for the passages that interest us here. TSO1D 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you do have a point. But this could be the fault also of http://compatriot.su and its own agenda. For comparison, you might be interested in reading Regnum's own announcement: http://www.regnum.ru/news/692416.html ... I am sorry that I can not help you more, but I don't have the book so I only know what I read from these links. - Mauco 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The regnum review is a bit more tame, but I still see statements like "Книга содержит также длинный ряд рассказов жителей Приднестровья, которые стали свидетелями преступлений, совершенных Вооруженными силами Молдовы и формированиями молдавских националистов. В приложении содержатся список жителей Приднестровья, погибших в ходе молдавской агрессии." But in any case, in spite of the bias it might contain, I believe the book does contain valuable details about the conflict and the casualties on the Transnistrian side, although I have no idea how to access that information. I guess we'll have to focus on other sources we have. TSO1D 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will keep looking. We obviously can't use as source a book which neither of us has. - Mauco 03:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Pernambuco leave us? - Mauco 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Still here. Just lurking. You two are doing at much better job than I could. You both know your stuff!!!! - Pernambuco 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On the Moldovan side, this was just added by 130.225.20.50: "Official figures: 172 combatants, ~400 civilians"

I am not disputing the figures (I have no grounds to) but would be very, very interested in finding out where these numbers are taken from. It could help us in the rest of what we are discussing, regarding overall casualties. I hope that 130.225.20.50 reads this and will comment here. - Mauco 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a source which has some casualty figures. It is "Valerii Moshniaga: Vooruzhennyi konflikt v Respublike Moldova i problema peremeshchennych lits (Moldoscopie. Problemy politicheskogo analiza. Sbornik statei. T. VII. Kishinev, 1995)". I have been told to look specifically at pages 82 through 126. However, I do not have this text. If anyone does, please share the contents (and specifically, the casualty figures) with us here so we can make the article more precise. - Mauco 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Betrayal and incompetence, important aspects of the war

From the book of Anatolie Muntean and Nicolae Ciubotaru - "Razboiul de pe Nistru" (The War on the Dniester), AGER-Economistul publishing House, Bucharest 2002. First author is a direct participant at war, Moldovan policeman (colonel), second author is a historian. Authors consider that Moldovan high military command betrayed. Is mentioned the example of Moldovan general Pavel Creanga, who sent troops in Tighina unarmed, the armament being in an other truck, the result being the killing of more than 100 soldiers (page 210). President Mircea Snegur and general Fiodor Dabija-Kazarov are also strongly criticised, for both incompetence and treason. A quote about Dabija-Kazarov: “Everything is to be paid in this world, while I don’t want bad for anybody. After retreat, the general died in a car accident” (page 376). In the book is explained also the formation of the Moldovan Army, after the dissolution of Soviet Union. Is claimed many officers in Moldovan Army were of Russian origin, and collaborated with the enemy. Even if they were discovered, no measures were taken against them.--MariusM 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all the Moldovan troops who were sent to attack Tighina were unarmed, I can assure you of that. Neither were the planes who launched a campaign of carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings. Do we have instances of any Transnistria's troop attacking Moldovan towns and villages in a similar way? - Mauco 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Who told that all the troups were unarmed? Please refrain from straw man arguments. It was a specific incident where more than 100 Moldovan soldiers died (in fact, this incident alone amount to a significant part of total Moldovan casualities of the war). And please spare me with your propaganda about "carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings". You need to read more about Transnistrian conflict, and not only Russian sources.--MariusM 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned the unarmed troops, not me. With regards to the Moldovan carpet bombing attacks, I am not sure what you mean: Are you denying that this happened? Or are you claiming that Transnistria also engaged in airborne bombing attacks against Moldovan towns or villages? - Mauco 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw man argument. I mentioned one incident with unarmed troups and you put in my mouth "all the troups were unarmed". And regarding "carpet bombing from the air, primarily razing civilian dwellings", I don't believe it happened. In the book I quote is mentioned that airplanes were used only once by Moldova (not against civilian targets) and after that were not used anymore, which is an other sign of betrayal or incompetence of Moldovan high military command (not using in a war all available weapons that can bring victory). I am sure that Transnistria bombed Moldovan villages, maybe not from air but with rockets and artillery, the effect being the same.--MariusM 01:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not put words in your mouth. I specifically said that "Not all the Moldovan troops who were sent to attack Tighina were unarmed". Or are you denying that, too? - Mauco 01:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I recently read a memoir by a soldier for the Moldovan military with a different take on some of the issues you are debating here. In Benderskie Khroniki, Sergei Skripnik argues that General Dabizha-Kazarov was incompetent (but not traitorous) and so disliked by his men that he feared for his life once the battle began going poorly for the Moldovans. Also, both Skripnik and contemporary Soviet/Moldovan media reported on one MiG bombing. But that was an attempt to destroy the bridge that connects Tighina to Parkany (it failed). There is some debate (that I've heard) over whether stray bombs hit houses in Parkany, but I haven't heard anyone claim that it was an intentional attack on civilians. Jamason 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Sergei Skripnik report anything about enthusiasm (or rather, lack of) among Moldovan troops? William Crowther notes that Moldova really didn't care much about getting Transnistria, and that this sentiment was generalized among civilians It appears that Ion Costas and other top Moldovan "hawks" at the time were isolated in their enthusiasm for the war, which can also be seen by the cabinet changes that took place immediately after the war ended. While Transnistria enthusiastically went all out in defense of the territory, the war enjoyed almost no support from a highly skeptical Moldovan population, according to Crowther in: "Moldova: caught between nation and empire", page 322, in New States, New Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1997). The first thing which came to my mind when I read the words 'Betrayal and incompetence' was the background info by Crowther on how unloved this military adventure was in Moldova at the time. - Mauco 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, most of the material I have seen portrays the Moldovan armed forces as poorly equipped, poorly led and not particularly enthusiastic. I think particularly as the battle of Tighina progressed and it became clear just how large the disparity in armaments were (the PMR had tanks), the Moldovan armed forces suffered something of a crisis of morale. Jamason 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Skripnik doesn't address whether the Moldovan armed forces were enthusiastic about this specific battle, but I have read others that would agree with Crowther. None, though, that were actually Moldovan soldiers. It's a good question. Jamason 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

An other book on this subject - Vlad Grecu - "O viziune din focarul conflictului de la Dubăsari", Prut International Publishing House, Kishinev 2005. The author was enthusiastic to participate at the war, as a native from Dubăsari he enrolled as a volunteer in Moldovan forces, but he describes that they didn't received orders to attack from high millitarry command, and when they attack on their own they received orders to retreat from the position conquered. This description is confirmed by Muntean & Ciubotaru. Is possible however that those persons who were not enthusiastic about the war (on both sides) are less probable book writers. Grecu also claim incompetence of Moldovan Army (especially officers, soldiers and volunteers are described as heroic fighters), he said however that Transnistrian Army was also incompetent but better equipped. Regarding the tanks, I believe those didn't belong to PMR but to Russian 14th Army who fought for PMR.--MariusM 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We probably don't need to re-fight this battle, but I would add a slight qualification: the tanks that participated in the conflict were mostly "privatized." 14th Army personnel under the command of 14th Army generals (i.e. excluding individual partisans) did not join the battle until July. In other words, the PMR did have tanks--tanks it had obtained from the 14th Army, but tanks that were under the Dniester Guards' chain of command. Of course the 14th Army generals did join the battle, but they mostly limited themselves to artillery attacks and then only later in the fighting. Jamason 07:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cossack involvement

Even "Tiraspol Times" recognized that during the war [transnistrian] "trenches were populated by Cossacks volunteers" Eduard Limonov - The War in the Orchard. What Mauco put in the article, that "Transnistria enthusiastically defended the territory, primarily drawing on volunteers", is a fallacy. The more enthusiast part of Transnistrian army were the cossacks. Locals want peace, not war. Limonov didn't see locals in transnistrian trenches.--MariusM 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

However, the Cossacks were clearly not the only ones participating in the conflict. According to the Helsinki Humans Rights Watch (Human Rights in Moldova: the Turbulent Dniester. New York, N.Y.: Helsinki Watch, 1993.) PMR forces broke down to: 1) 5,000 Dniester Guards and TSO (mostly former 14th Army personnel) 2) 1,000 Cossacks 3) 10,000 former Red Army soldiers which remained loyal to the 14th Army. Others have given considerably higher estimates (14,000-30,000) which include the untrained and sometimes unarmed ROSM militia members, etc. jamason 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see how you get that the "locals want peace" from the source you quoted. If you have some basis for that claim, cite it. Otherwise, let's not guess.

Moreover, I emphatically disagree with your interpretation of the source in the edit you made to the article. He definitely does not say that neither side of the conflict wanted war and he definitely does not say anything about Cossacks being more or less enthusiastic than other soldiers. This edit clearly needs to be revised. Perhaps the best choice is not to revert, since there was no cited basis for the claim either, but the current version is misleading. jamason 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't tell that cossacks were the only ones involved in transnistrian side, I was telling that they were the most enthusiastic force on that side. Limonov is an eye witness, he is not saying that cossacks were more enthusiastically than others, he is talking only about cossacks being in Transnistrian trenches, and he didn't talk about any local people being there on Transnistrian side. Of course, he is speaking only about the trenches in Dubossarry area, and he gives only the big picture, he didn't made a detailed research on this topic. Even from jamason's numbers the conclusion that the majority of Transnistria fighters were not locals is sustained: "5000 Dniester Guards mostly former 14th Army personel" (that mean, the majority were not local inhabitants who enthusiastically joined as volunteers but professional officers or noncoms of the former Soviet Army; knowing that this Army didn't have the policy to recruit locally I bet the majority were not locals) + 1000 cossacks (obviously not locals) + 10000 other 14th Army soldiers (again not locals), shows that my conclusion is right: the majority of military forces which fought for Transnistria was composed by non-locals. We know that the secessionist Supreme Soviet is composed mostly by people which came from other parts of the Soviet union (even now, after 16 years, the separatist regime was not able to develop a local leadership - we had this discussion at Transnistria article where we analized the biography of all Transnistrian MPs), all those data are showing that outside support for Transnistrian separatism was not a marginal issue, was an important part for Transnistrian separatism to win the battle (contrary with what happened in Baltic states; pro-Soviet forces used the lessons from Baltic states and were able to organise better in Moldova).--MariusM 22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM is wrong to say that "Even "Tiraspol Times" recognized that during the war (..)" because the citation is from an opinion column by Edward Limonov who was published in their Letters to the Editor section of Tiraspol Times.[1] They publish everything in that section: Both pro-Transnistria and anti-Transnistria. That does not mean that everyone is right, or that it is the opinion held by Tiraspol Times. - Mauco 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is also not a fallacy that "Transnistria enthusiastically defended the territory, primarily drawing on volunteers", and Limonov's chatty opinion piece - for one - is certainly not an authorative source for claiming otherwise. What MariusM is getting at is a rewrite of history where he first wants to define who is "native" and who is "not native", and then he wants to imply that somehow the "native" population would welcome Moldovan forces with flowers in a future Second War of Transnistria. It is certainly creative, to say the least. - Mauco 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I missed that the original version did have a citation. Can we restore some version of the statement that "the conflict enjoyed almost no support from a highly skeptical Moldovan population"? Since I doubt this will satisfy MariusM, I will look at the source this morning when I get to work and make another suggestion then. jamason 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

William Crowther, Professor at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, writes: "...little or no possibility existed for Moldova to achieve its ends through the use of force. The conflict quickly deteriorated into a bloody stalemate which enjoyed almost no support from a highly skeptical Moldovan population." ("Moldova: caught between nation and empire," in New States, New Politics, Ian Bremmer and Ray Taras, eds., pg. 322) My suggestion for the article: "With the PMR's overwhelming military superiority, Moldova had little chance of achieving victory and the fighting quickly became unpopular with the skeptical Moldovan population." jamason 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Was the fighting ever popular in the beginning? Most wars usually are (until they turn unwinnable), but I know that this one wasn't. If anything, it was met with indifference even from before it started. I seem to recall that only some 2% of the population in Moldova proper supported it. It was advocated mostly by the "Greater Romania" crowd, itself a dwindling minority in Moldova at the time of the war. - Mauco 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about: "With the PMR's overwhelming military superiority, Moldova had little chance of achieving victory and the fighting was unpopular with the skeptical Moldovan population"? Crowther is ambiguous on the point that you raise, but we could certainly be more specific if you (or anyone else) has a more specific source. jamason 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this phrasing, and I agree with you with your reading on Crowther. I am adding it, and we can change it later as more sources come up. I am not sure how scientific the 2% statement will be, however, so it would be best to not give any specific numbers like that - - not even with a source for it, in my opinion. - Mauco 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am questioning the fact that William Crowther's opinion represent the truth. I already gave refferences for an oposite view: War was winable, but Moldovan military command betrayed. I'm not saying that this oposite view is correct, however we should not put only one view here. Is a fact that Moldovan politicians at power at that time considered Popular Front a more important danger than Transnistrian separatism. In December 1991 Popular Front called for boycot the elections of Mircea Snegur as president (they had the same position as Smirnov at that time). War was used by anti-Romanian politicians as a toll to get rid of the most dangerous oposition - the Popular Front. This may be an explanation why secesionism succeded in Moldova but not in Baltic states.--MariusM 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, as you told that Tiraspol Times "publish everything in that section: Both pro-Transnistria and anti-Transnistria", can you give me one single example of anti-Transnistria article in Tiraspol Times (I mean one article in which they doubt the legitimacy of Transnistrian separatism)?--MariusM 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not give you any examples if you have appointed yourself the goalkeeper for what is or is not anti-Transnistrian sentiment. In my book, an OpEd column which has the headline "Down with Smirnov and his ruling regime" is oppositonal [2]. Besides, this is not a social discussion forum on the merits of a news source. It is about the War of Transnistria and the only reason why Tiraspol Times[3] was brought into this was because of your attempt to mispresent and misquote an entry.[4]. Hey, here's a suggestion: Instead of complaining about how repressive the place is that you have never visited, just write to them at the OpEd email address and ask to have some of the Marius Mioc articles published. As you know, I had one article published already, without any kind of censorship. All in all, a good experience. They even let me keep the moniker that I used for the place. - Mauco 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You will not give me any example as such example don't exist. The example you gave was discussed in Talk:Transnistria section "Censorship at Tiraspol Times" and I proved at that discussion that Yakovlev's letter was censored exactly in the parts where he talk about union with working people from Moldova and where he criticised the last referendum about separation from Moldova. From the begining I told that I ask "one article in which they doubt the legitimacy of Transnistrian separatism". They don't publish such articles. They are only a propaganda tool designated for foreigners (TT is not available in Transistria on hard copy, as Illythr confirmed today: "we can safely assume that TT is not sold in Tiraspol in public areas. As of late October 2006, at least", despite your previous asertion that Illythr can confirm the existence of a hard copy of Tiraspol Times: “It is both. Illytr wrote, and he posted the reply here (see archives). The website is daily and the paper version is not. MariusM is trying to claim that just because he hasn't seen the paper version, it doesn't exist. He will get a surprise the next time he visits Transnistria (...). It is also available in the hotels and some other places which Illytr has more information about than me.” Mauco answering question if Tiraspol Times is a hard copy newspaper or only a website.--MariusM 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You can be a newspaper without being a daily. There is such a concept as a "weekly newspaper" my friend. And then, in between updates, a daily news website. One is not exclusive of the other. I think that it is great that there are news sources in English which focus more on Transnistria. The more, the better. Of all types, sides, and political persuations. - Mauco 16:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Refugees

Suggestion: If it is agreeable to other editors, I would like to include a small section (near the end) on refugees. I have read account that at one point there were as many as 100,000 people who were forced to flee their homes due to the fighting. Is that true? If so, what happened to them? How many went home, and how many are still displaced (either IDPs or displaced in Ukraine and Russia). I do not have all the answers for this, but would like to start the section. Then hopefully, with collaborative editing, it can expand over time and we can get others to add sources as well. - Mauco 13:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess no opposition? - Mauco 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe propose the section here, first? --Illythr 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Smart move. Safer that way. Avoids (me hopes) the usual revert warring. - Mauco 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)