Talk:History of Transnistria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date of Romanian control

the image caption here says the date that transnistria was annexed by romania was August 19, 1941, but this article [1] says that it was October 8, 1941 --Astrokey44 04:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria was never formally annexed by Romania (in the sense that there was never a formal act of annexation or attempt to incorporate it into a Greater Romania.) The word "annexation" and its derivatives should be changed as it has a legal connoctation which doesn't fit in this case. For the Romanians during World War II, Transnistria served the double purpose of killing fields, primarily for Jews, and also a buffer against the Soviets.
As regards the actual date, since there was never a formal annexation, it is hard to speak of a precise date. The taking of Transnistria was a gradual affair in late summer of 1941; starting with Tiraspol. Most of the advances took place during August. The correct quote would be: "At the end of summer 1941 Transnistria came under Romanian control".
Source: Alexander Dallin, Odessa, 1941-1944: "A Case Study of Soviet Territory under Foreign Rule", rev. ed. (published Iasi: Center for Romanian Studies, 1998), page 59. - Mauco 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the "biased info"

The source was written by a Norwegian guy, how does that make it biased? If it was written by some Ukranian, then I would understand. But please, don't delete sourced material. —Khoikhoi 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It`s written in 1992, in full war of Transnistria, by a Norwegian, and a Russian dude, who`se basically an anonymous historian wannabe. The work doesn`t provide any sources for the claims (read the content, it so biased that they even say that Bessarabia, not Transnistria, was inhabited by Slavs too) and it`s causing contradiction with the rest of what`s sayd in the article. It`s bassicaly an amatorial subjective view. When tens of sources (even the Russian censuses) say that as early as the 16th century, the land between the Dniester and Southern Bug (not only Trasndiester) were inhabited primarily by Romanians and Tatars, and also by Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and other (and not mention of any Russia or Ukrainian), how can you totally dismiss that? When on the walls of citadels of cities like Otchkov, Cetatea Alba and others trones the coat of arms of Moldavia from as early as the 14th century, when Italian travelers Niccolo Barsi da Luca and Niccolo Barsi say in the 16th century that the land is inhabited mainly by Moldavians, when Gianni Lorenzo D’Anania and Giovani Botero in their cartographic works (Relazzioni universali” (1596 Venetia) describes most of the cities (Ochackov for example) as being Moldavian, when in 1709 Daniel Krmannhow, a member of kings Charles XII of Sweden retinue, when retreated with the swedish king and his army, aslo says that the land is inhabited by Romanians, how can this dude nobody has ever heard of, before and after his masterpiece, say such things, based on nothing greier 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe is one of the most frequently cited scholars on Moldova-Transnistrian issues, and his research is generally considered unbiased (by both sides). This is rare in debates over contemporary Transnistria where one paper from one side is generally not accepted by the other side. Kolstoe's research has been published by official mediators like OSCE. It is the first time that I have seen anyone contest his findings...
Charles King, author of "The Moldovans" (currently the most authorative review of Moldavian history in English) backs up what Kolstoe says. He adds that the region was a traditional borderland, with not just Moldavians and Ukrainians but an influx of many other nationalities as well. In fact, before the Romanian invasion in World War II, it was heavily Jewish. For instance, more than 1/4th of Tiraspol's population was Jewish. This percentage only changed with the systematic extermination of Jews by Romania in collaboration with its wartime ally; Nazi Germany.
I am including this in the discussion to make the point that 1) Transnistria has always been heterogeneous, 2) that the relative proportions of the various ethnic groups have always been fluid, and 3) that the no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory. Moldavians have certainly always played a role in Transnistria's history, alongside other ethnic groups, but not to the point of excluding them or somehow validating the argument put forward by radicals that the land is part of Moldavia and was somehow taken from Moldavia from "invading foreigners". That would be a revisionism which does not match the historical facts. - Mauco 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely off the point! greier 10:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... and no. I made the point, knowing that the last half was unrelated. But I also explained why, and the reason why is absolutely related to where you are coming from, Greir. Reading your edit history, I can see that you are pushing a NPOV fork of the typical advocate of Greater Romania. There is nothing wrong with that, and you are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, but just not on Wikipedia. You have had troubles for that reason on other edits, and it is sad that you are now taking this POV to the History of Wikipedia. I made my point on the Jews above to give you the hint, in a subtle way, that since no single ethnic group has ever had a monopoly claim on the territory, that includes Romanians too. Romania was involved in some of the worst ethnic cleansing precisely in Transnistria, but they never accomplished making the region majority-Romanian (or majority Moldavian, if you prefer that term). Please do rewrite history to make the facts fit your point of view, and please do not cast doubt on the impartiality of Pal Kolstoe from Oslo University in Norway and Charles King from the Hoover Institute in the United States. If they are good enough for OSCE then they are certainly good enough for us. - Mauco 13:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The removal of that part has nothing to do with any jews, Greater Romania, or ethnic cleaning. The fact is that today, only in Transnistria (I don`t want to speak now about Ukranie) there is a population of 40% Moldavians, native to the area, and all sources say that in the past the population, indeed mixed, had as natives Moldavians, Tatars, and others. Never, until the Soviet Union, had the Russians and Ukrainians been the majoritary there. It`s gettig ridiculous: has it now turned into a battle between slavs and nonslavs? Pal Kolstoe should add references to his claims if he wants to be taken serious. Most scholary works have at the bottom a list of references, linked to every paragraph from the article... greier 13:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a slav, so this is not "a battle between slavs and nonslavs". Nor shall I defend Kolstoe, other than what I have stated above: He is one of the most cited sources, his information is backed up by other Western historians also (among others Charles King). If you read their books, you will see that they are certainly not biased in favor of Transnistria. I would like the info on Ukrainian peasants to remain, please, until Western historians agree otherwise (in published materials). We should try not to rely solely on the writings of Romanian historians or purveyors of a Greater Romania POV. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you keep mentioning Greater Romania. Honestly, I don`t see the point for relating it to the paragraph we`re disputing, nor (as I presume you want/assume) has anything to do with me and my edits. greier 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And honestly, the part about the history of the region is sooooo amatorial, so full of errors, that it looks like it`s made by a highschool kid. Want to continue to discuss about the history of the area? greier 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was created by simply moving the history subsection from the main Transnistria article where it was created with the collaboration of roughly a dozen active editors over a period of two years. Contrary to other parts of that article, it was never a major source of edit wars. - Mauco 14:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the history part from Kolstoes article. Man, if Kolstoe is an expert in Transnistria, than I am a genius!!!! The dude is tataly wasted!!! How could he put that shit (the history part) in his article??? God, looks like it`s made by a kid... greier 15:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And if you consider that a scholary work, than you too are wasted. It`s so shitty... Paragraph by paragraph... is pure shit, unworthy of such waste of time... greier 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Kolstoe from Oslo is not the only source on how Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans in the 18th century, and in fact even more recently too. Another quote from http://ivantoc.org/moldova.htm which refers to the 1920's: "only some 30 percent of them were Romanians." - Mauco 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tipic misleading comment, I recognize the style of Nikolai Babilunga, a falsifier of history from Tiraspol. 30% was the proportion of Romanians in the entire former teritorry of Moldavian ASSR. Actual Transnistria include only 6 of the former rayons of MASSR, other 8 rayons (with a bigger proportion of Slavs) are now in Ukraine. Kolstoe wrote about the entire teritorry between Dniester and Bug, not only about the sliver of land on the left bank of Dniester which is today Transnistria. So, you can have a Slav majority in the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, but a Romanian majority in the 6 rayons of today Transnistria (and I believe this was the truth).--MariusM 22:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not from Nikolai Babilunga. The quote is from a Romanian historian: Nicholas Dima. His history of Moldova was published in 1991 by East European Monographs, Boulder, as part of an imprint by Columbia University Press, New York. Now, if you have any sources which state that there was ever a Romanian majority in what is today Transnistria, please post them here. We have several sources that say the opposite (that Romanians were always a minority) and so far none, that I know of, which succesfully demonstrate that there was ever a Romanian majority for the area as whole. - Mauco 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote Dima's words: "The new Moldavian autonomous republic was formed in southwest Ukraine along the Dnestr and bordering Romania. Its surface area was 8,300 square kilometers and its population over 500,000 people, but only some 30 percent of them were Romanians". Is obviously he is reffering at entire MASSR, not at present day Transnistria, which is less than half of former MASSR but include Bender which was not part of MASSR. I didn't confuse Babilunga with Dima, I remarked the syle of comparing apples with oranges, which is one of Babilunga caracteristics, is used also by you.--MariusM 10:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack on my record as a researcher. Please back this up with DIFF's if you want anyone to take your accusations seriously, or else please avoid making personal attacks in the future. - Mauco 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not call it personal attack but criticism on your edits (but if you like Babilunga, you can consider my words as favourable). For example, in this edit you compared apples with oranges. Both your sources (Kolstoe and ivantoc.org) are reffering to a bigger teritorry than today Transnistria when saying that Ukrainians outnumbered Moldovans. You misused their words in order to pretend that in today Transnistria Slavs were a majority. For a researcher, misusing the sources is not a good thing, but I doubt you are a real researcher.--MariusM 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In answer to "You misused their words in order to pretend that in today Transnistria Slavs were a majority" I would merely say, to keep the polemic to a minimum, that there is absolutely no need to pretend that in today, in Transnistria, the Slavs represent an absolutely majority. They do, and that is a fact. No pretending is needed. - Mauco 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A new misused of my words. We are talking about "History of Transnistria" and about population before 1792 (Russian conquest). Through "Today Transnistria" I meant the teritorry of actual secessionist region of Moldova: rayons of Camenca, Rîbniţa, Dubăsari, Grigoriopol, Slobozia, cities of Tiraspol and Tighina. I was pointing to the fact that in this region Moldovans were a majority in 18th century, and Kolstoe don't deny it, as he reffered to a broader region (same with Dima). I was using past tense. Today, in the same region, Moldovans have a plurality, while Ukrainians and Russians, if counted together, are a small majority as result of colonisation done in Soviet period. They are in majority at cities (where population came from other part of the Soviet Union, is not a "historical" population), while in the rural area Moldovans are a majority.--MariusM 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a sweeping generalization. Before we just take your word for it, let me ask: Do you have a real source to backup the claim that Moldovans form a majority outside the cities? Can we see this source and review the numbers? (Not, please, another propaganda source published in Chisinau at the height of war, in order to convince people that this is old Moldovan land). - Mauco 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My data regarding 1989 census results are from Nedelciuc book published in 1992. It shows total population 39,9% Moldovans, 28,3% Ukrainians and 25,4% Russians for mostly left bank rayons. For rural areas data are 60% Moldovans, 22% Ukrainians and 12,6% Russians. In urban area data are 25,6% Moldovans, 32,7% Ukrainians and 34,6% Russians. Not included in above are data for Tighina: 29,9% Moldovans, 18,2% Ukrainians and 41,9% Russians. I am not aware of anybody doubting those data. Same data are in Wikipedia at 1989 Census in Transnistria and it was you who wrote that article (I couldn't make any correction to it, one of the moments I totally agreed with you)--MariusM 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Later edit: of course you were wrong on that article too, and I should correct you, as you didn't include data for Tighina. I'm losing so much time at Wikipedia correcting Mauco!--MariusM 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this shows any distinction between the "historical" population of Moldovans (as you would have it) and that Slavs, as a majority, are newcomers to the area (post-1920 "colonisation", to quote you). If you have any sources for this truly exceptional claim, please post them. Surely you are aware by now that historically, Transnistria was never part of Moldova prior to 1940. - Mauco 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to prove that "the claim that Moldovans form a majority outside the cities". As I proved that claim, you changed your demand, you ask to prove that Slavs, as a majority, are post-1920 colonisation. You doubt that cities are growing through attracting population from other region? This is not an exceptional claim, is a worldwide trend, especially when ethnic composition in cities is different than in neighbouring area. If Transnistria was not part of Moldova, that mean no Moldovan government organised colonisation in that region, the presence of Moldovans is a natural one. You confuse administrative borders with ethnic borders.--MariusM 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I am just curious as to where you get the idea that Slavs arrived after 1920 (your "Soviet colonisation", as you call it) and where you get the idea that only Moldovans inhabited the area before that time (your "historical" population, as you call it). You don't even have to distinguish between countryside and cities. Population density in Transnistria is very high, so you may treat the area as a whole if that will make it easier to find your data. It is quite a unique and exceptional claim for anyone who knows about Transnistria. - Mauco 00:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again you put in my mouth words I didn't use. I didn't say that Slavs arrived after 1920, I am sure they arrived in 1792 when Russian conquest was made. However, during Soviet period when industrialisation was done, Slav proportion in Transnistria's population increased most.--MariusM 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendly advice: You ought to get some sleep, buddy. Just an hour ago, you said: "Today, in the same region, Moldovans have a plurality, while Ukrainians and Russians, if counted together, are a small majority as result of colonisation done in Soviet period. They are in majority at cities (where population came from other part of the Soviet Union, is not a "historical" population), while in the rural area Moldovans are a majority". These are your words.

You refer to "Today". That is now, i.e. 2006. Moldovans make up 31.9%. Slavs make up 59.2%. Hardly a "small majority", but I will let that distortion pass. What I can not refrain to comment on, however, is your claim that this majority resulted from " colonisation done in Soviet period" (in other words, after 1920 ... Or did Soviets exist in 1792?).

You say that the Slav population "is not a "historical" population", inferring by comparison that the Moldovans are the rightful owners of Transnistria, i.e. the "historical" population to use your words. Again, I am very curious as to where you get those ideas. They are very exceptional claims, as you surely must know. Sources, please, for the following:

• Slav majority came after 1920, as a result of Soviet colonisation.
• Moldovans are the "historical" population. - Mauco 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are not exceptional claims. Greier already gave the refference: Charles Upson Clark: “Russia and Roumania on the Black Sea”: “Frequent mention has been made of the Moldavian Soviet Republic. It is not generally known that the lower Dniester is an almost purely Roumanian stream. The villages along its left bank, from Movilau down to Ovidiopol, opposite Akkerman, are as Moldavian as those on the Bessarabian bank. And this Moldavian peasantry stretches as far east as the Bug, beyond Elisavetgrad, and down to within a few miles of Odessa (see Draghicesco). This is due to a very early immigration of Roumanian shepherds and traders along the streams of the black-earth district east of the Dniester-so early that we find here some Roumanian place-names on the Reichersdorf map of 1541. Further extensive colonization took place in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Polish princes of Podolia encouraging the creation of large farms by Moldavian boyars; and in the eighteenth century, Russian generals took back with them from their campaigns against the Turks, enormous numbers of Roumanian peasants. In 1739, Gen. Munnich carried back with him 100,000 Roumanian peasants, according to the memoirs of Trenck, his companion; and_ in 1792, another great immigration took place. As a result, it is reckoned that there are probably half a million Roumanian peasants in Russia east of the Dniester.” Ch. XXIX. Upson Clark was reffering at actual Transnistria, not at the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry as Kolstoe.--MariusM 00:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This text does not demonstrate that a Slav majority only came after 1920, as a result of Soviet colonisation. As for the "historical" population, you are leaving out the preceeding nine hundred years: Don't forget that the early East Slavs came to the area in 600 AD, far earlier than any Romanians. This Slav heritage was reinforced with one thousand years of almost uninterrupted Slavic rule: Kievan Rus rule (Slavic), the 80-some years of Halych-Volhynia rule (Slavic), Polish rule (Slavic) and rule under Imperial Russia (Slavic). Historically, Moldavia or Romania never ruled Transnistria. Even while in the MSSR, which nominally Moldovan, the Soviet Union (Slavic ruled) was firmly in charge, like it or not. MSSR (taking its orders from Moscow) was never an independent country, as you well know. - Mauco 01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Source claim that lower Dniester is an almost purely Roumanian stream. When was this? Not today, as we know that in Tiraspol, Rîbniţa, Tighina is a Slav majority. It was in the past and situation change in time, as result of Russian political domination. I am sure that Soviet censuses prove my point, but I don't have the data. I am talking about the census results in actual Transnistria teritory (the strip on left bank of Dniester) not about the entire Dniester-Bug teritory.--MariusM 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we are closer to reaching agreement (I hope). Fact: This is a classic border area. Historically, and even today, with the latest census listing 35 or 36 different nationalities. Now, in a classic border area, you have inflows of different ethnic groups. Fact: Over centuries, in such an area, it can be expected that you have ebbs and flows of who is the majority or the correlations between the individual minorities. This happened even in the past one hundred years. There is no reason to be surprised at why it also happened earlier. It is even more true when the 'ownership' of the area changes hands, as happened over and over again in the case of Transnistria. At one point, the population of area was completely Slav. Then - if we believe Upson Clark - at a later time in history, it became an "almost purely Roumanian stream". Yet, this does still not support any claim that the "historical" population was Romanian. History did not start in 1541 or in 1739. The land was populated before then, in fact a thousand years earlier as many sources on this page show. And not by Romanians. - Mauco 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't have any sources that "At one point, the population of area was completely Slav". Even if you disregard Magocsi and believe that Kievan Rus ruled the area, that is no indication that population was completely Slav. When did Moldovans replace the Slavs as we don't have data about a war between Moldovans and Slavs. The fact that area was not under Moldovan political domination exclude any forced replacement of Slavs by Moldovans in this area. Between cossacks were many ethnic Moldovans, I already gave the example of Dănilă Apostol. In middle ages, Slavonic was the prestige language used in church and administration also by Romanians, Slavs and Romanians were both Orthodox, I would say that is possible that some Romanians accepted at that time the rule of Kievan Rus. In Romanian language words like "voievod" (king), "boyar" (noble), "cneaz" (ruler) are of Slav origin. Some historians consider this as an indication that Slavs conquered the Romanians and, at the begining, the upper class of Romanians was composed by ethnic Slavs, who latter were assimilated (as French Normands were assimilated by Anglo-Saxons or Turkic Bulgarians were assimilated by Slav Bulgarians). First "official language" of Romanian kingdoms (both Moldavia and Walachia) was Slavonic, but population was Romanian.--MariusM 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Short and to the point: Who lived in Transnistria around 600 AD, or even 1000 AD, besides Slavs? No one. - Mauco 02:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians lives there, besides migratory tribes as petchenegs, cumans etc.--MariusM 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians, really? How so? Not in this early time period, sorry. One of the best sources, incidentally, is Charles Upson Clark who vividly documents the expansion and immigration of Romanians into Transnsnistria. He confirms, on page after page, that they are newcomers in comparison to the earlier Slav population. - Mauco 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote, please.--MariusM 08:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't even read this Upson Clark book, have you? Well, let me help you: All chapters and illustrations can be accessed from the University of Washington, here - Mauco 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanian bibliography on history of Transnistria

I did some searches and here's what I found:

Some pre-WWII books:

• Românii de peste Nistru : lamuriri pentru a-i ajuta în lupta lor / Nicolae Iorga / Iasi : Tipografia Ziarului "Neamul Românesc", 1918
• Românii transnistrieni / Ion Nistor / Codrul Cosminului : buletinul "Institutului de Istorie si Limba", 1924
• Granita rosie : ancheta mea la Nistru / Mihail Condrus ; cu o pref. de Geo London / Bucuresti : Imprimeriile Independenta, 1932
• Românii de peste Nistru / de Vasile Harea / Bucuresti : Cartea Româneasca, 1934
• Transnistria: tribuna românilor de peste Nistru si Bug / red. I. Zaftur / Cluj : Tip.Fondul Cartilor Funduare, 1935-1938
• Vechimea asezarilor românesti dincolo de Nistru / Ion Nistor / Bucuresti : Monitorul Oficial si Imprimeriile Statului, Imprimeria Nationala, 1939
• Românii de pestre Nistru / Nichita P. Smochina / Bucuresti : Tip. Ziarului "Universul", 1941
• Documente moldovenesti privitoare la românii de peste Nistru : (1574-1829) / Aurel V. Sava / Bucuresti : Bucovina, I. E. Toroutiu, 1942
• Românii din rasarit-Transnistria / Emil Diaconescu ; / Iasi : Institutul de Arte Grafice si Editura Ath.Gheorghiu, 1942
• Transnistria : încercare de monografie regionala / Nicolae M. Popp / Bucuresti : [Imprimeriile Soc. Nationale de Editura si Arte Grafice "Dacia Traiana"], 1943
• Românii si stramosii lor în istoria Transnistriei / Alexandru V. Boldur / Iasi : Tipografia "Liga Culturala", 1943

(no books on this subject were published during the communist era, for obvious reasons)

and some after 1990:

• Moldova de peste Nistru-vechi pamînt stramosesc / Nicolae Dabija / Chisinau : Hyperion, 1990
• Din istoria arheologiei Moldovei: (Basarabia si Transnistria) / de Nicolae Chetraru / Chisinau : Stiinta, 1994
• Istoria românilor din Transnistria : organizarea, cultura si jertfa lor / Ioan Silviu Nistor / [Bucuresti] : Editura Eminescu, 1995
• Românitatea transnistriana : antologie / ed. îngijita, note si comentarii de Florin Rotaru / Bucuresti : Semne, 1996

bogdan 11:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, THANKS for a truly useful contribution that I am sure will help many researchers here. - Mauco 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of Romanians (i.e. Moldavians) in the Russian Empire

Something interesting: some population figures from early 19th century. Source: "The native races of the Russian empire", by Robert Gordon Latham (1854)

• Podolia 7,429;
• Ekaterinoslav: 9,858;
• Kherson: 75,000; -- Transnistria was part of this province.
• Bessarabia: 406,182

This population figure tells us that there were quite a number of Moldavians beyond the Dniester. (almost a quarter of the population of Moldavians in Bessarabia) bogdan 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Древнерусского государства ?!?

My Russian is too rusty to fully understand what is meant by "Древнерусского государства" in the following context: "В X – XI веках территория, ныне именуемая Приднестровьем, входила в состав Древнерусского государства" - can someone with better Russian than me please help. (By the way, it is from this page: http://www.obnovlenie.info/text.php?cat=34 ) - Mauco 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remember my Russian lessons now. "Ancient Rus'" (the Russian term) is just another name for Kievan Rus' (the mostly Ukrainian term). - Mauco 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The term is somewhat broader, it also includes the Pre-Oleg period. Hmm, that page doen't cite its sources... --Illythr 02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a scientific work, but from the largest of the opposition parties in Transnistria. I would certainly not rely on it solely, but merely as a confirmation of other, less-biased sources. With regards to the time before prince Oleg of Kiev, did you see the inclusion of "В X – XI" in the sentence above and wouldn't that limit the reference to the Kievan Rus' period (i.e., after 880)? Not a leading question. I am genuinely asking for someone to shed more light in this. - Mauco 03:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Basically, it says: During the X-XI centuries the territory that is now called Pridnestrovie was part of the Ancient Rus'. My remark above was only about the general usage of the term. --Illythr 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we are on the same page then. I was actually asking for clarification of the term, to see if I understand it correctly, because Russian is not my native tongue. - Mauco 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Magocsi, Kievan Rus in 912 falls about 100km short of (i.e., east of) the Western and Southern Bug, reaching west past the Dnieper only upriver from Roden. East of Southern Bug to the Dniester was Etelköz. In 1050, Kievan Rus stretched to (but not including) Carpathian Rus, however, all along the Black Sea were the Pechenegs (Turks), down to the Danube/Bulgaria. Relative to the Dniester, Kievan Rus extended no more than 50km south east (as the crow flies) of the point where the Zbruch joins the Dniester. So, this is another source I would dispute based on Magocsi. In fact, I would consider Magocsi infinitely more authoritative than the web site of the Republican Party "Renewal" of Pridnestrovie. You may classify it an "opposition" party, but it's not advocating the dissolution of the PMR and union with Moldova, so that classification doesn't lend it any credence as a historical source whatsoever. If 10¹⁰ Russian-PMR sources say "A" and Magocsi says "B", relying on objective sources demands we take "B" every time. Anyone can put anything they like on a website. Come now, we can cite something a bit less obviously pro-PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Year 981: Volodymyr the Great of Kievan Rus took an area known as Ruś Czerwona. The name is recorded, translated as "Red Ruthenia" ("Czerwień" means the color red in Slavic languages, or it is possibly from the Polish village Czermno), and applied to a territory extended up to the Dniester River. This areas was of course much larger than Transnistria but included part of Transnistria. It had priority gradually transferred to Przemyśl. I quote: Since the times of Władyslaw Jagiełło, the Przemyśl Voivodeship was called the Ruthenian Voivodeship ("województwo ruskie"). - Mauco 07:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider a "source" something that was written by a political party of Transnistria (is relevant only for a study about Transnistrian propaganda). How you established that "Red Ruthenia" included present day Transnistria or part of it?--MariusM 14:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ruthenia aka many things, academically "Subcarpathian Rus" was the territory better known to us today as the eastern end of the former Czechoslovakia, considerably inland, and west of the Dniester. That was nothing more than the southwestern end of the Galicia-Volhynia province, already noted. Sorry, absolutely not even close to Transnistria. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like I implied in my reply to Illythr above, the political party can only be used as a corrobarative (is that the word?) source, and not as a main source for anything. Of course, they don't gain anything from lying in public either. If they say that their unrecognized country was part of Kievan Rus', then at least that provides a hint that should tell us to look for others who say the same. With regards to "Red Ruthenia" that was not part of the opposition party's webpage. It came from Wikipedia so it will be fairly easy to go back to the original author of that entry and ask for his sources. - Mauco 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not source itself. Regarding political parties, I assure you that many of them are gaining from lying in public.--MariusM 18:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The solution? Refer to the primary sources! The article should write what the contemporany chronicles are saying. I'm certain that for each interpretation of the primary sources, there'd be an exactly opposite interpretion by another historian. This is a disputed matter, so writing "Transnistria was part of the Kievan Rus" is POV. There's no such consensus. Writing "Transnistria was not part of the Kievan Rus" is also POV.

BTW, both Nicolae Iorga and Ion Nistor wrote histories of the "Romanians from beyond the Nistru" and I'm almost certain that the histories written by them and the history from that site conflict. :-) bogdan 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My citing Magocsi is not POV in disputing the "Kievan Rus" contingent. And I should note I obtained that source quite some years ago for a completely different purpose, I didn't run out to find something to support my POV. If Magocsi said otherwise, that would be fine. For the sake of completeness, there was Galician-Volhynian influence to the Black Sea from 1160 to 1240 (roughly from the Siret to the Dniester) at the height of that province's power, but then surplanted by the Golden Horde (Galicia-Volhynia returning to its traditional border). So, still no historical tradition of Kievan Rus. I suppose writing the moon is not made of cheese, no the moon IS made of cheese would be two competing POV viewpoints by the logic just stated. Sources MUST be outside of Wikipedia and MUST be more credible than blurb sites. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I still believe there is something called historical truth which should guide us. In Transnistria talk page (now archive 7) I commented a book of Alexandr Soljenitsyn, who shows that Transnistria became Russian teritory only at 1792. He wrote that in the time of Bogdan Hmelnitsky Ukraine was a fifth of what is today. If we don't have clear data about Kievan Rus we should not mention it at all. (somebody says this, somebody the opposite is not a way Wiki articles should be written)--MariusM 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We do have clear data on the extent of Kievan Rus over time. This is why we should mention it. Of course, not using 'blurb sites' as sources but using reputable sources and well-renowned historians and academic publications. Here are a number of sources which all support the statement that Transnistria was a part of Kievan Rus':

* John Haywood: Cassell Atlas of World History;

* Penguin Atlas of Russian History (Puffin, 1995);

* David Christian: A History of Russia, Mongolia and Central Asia, Vol. 1 (Blackwell, 1999);

* Charles King: The Moldovans (Hoover Press, Studies of Nationalities series (Stanford University, 2000);

* Andrew Wilson: "The Ukrainians: Engaging the Eastern Diaspora" (Westview Press, 1998). - Mauco 03:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the issue. In most maps of Kievan Rus I was able to check, the area of Transnistria is shown as the dependency of Kiev. It was settled by the Slavic tribe of Tivertsi, who (according to the Laurentian Codex) settled all along the Dniester down to the Danube delta. They are mentioned in the chronicle twice: when they sided with Oleg of Novgorod and Igor I of Kiev during their campaigns against Tsargrad in 907 and 944. During the reign of Svyatoslav I, they most certainly were subjugated by the Rus: the capital of this prince was Pereyaslavets in Bulgaria. The late (and not very reliable) Voskresensk chronicle lists among the Russian cities "Belgorod in the mouth of the Dniester, above the sea". That's about all written evidence we have; all the rest is speculation. Soviet archaeologists excavated several settlements of the Tivertsi. Those in the Raionul Rezina include Alchedar (6th-12th cent.) and Ekimauzi (reconstruction). Some Moldavian authors dispute the attribution of these settlements to Slavs. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This settles it, then. Ghirla's sources support my own five sources: Transnistria was part of Kievan Rus. This does not contradict Magocsi, where Kievan Rus in 912 falls about 100km short of Transnistria. Transnistria became part of Kievan Rus later, under Svyatoslav I of Kiev. Moreover, there were Slavic inhabitants of Transnistria even prior to Kievan Rus. This confirms other sources which put the Early East Slavs in Transnistria around 600 AD. - Mauco 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Russian sources on the extent of Kievan Rus consistently overstate its span as compared to non-Russian sources. I also see Charles King requoted as a source, for example, although reading the text did not support Kievan Rus in Transnistria based on earlier discussion.

The Tiverstians were primarily situated on the west bank of the Dniester and westward (toward the Prut), the Ulichians east of the Dniester (600's-800's). So ancient Slavs, yes.

However even in the 800's, Kievan Rus did not extend much west beyond the Dnieper (and only to the Dnieper downstream of Roden). By 1050 Kievan Rus extended into central east-central Europe (Galicia/Volhynia), but again, not anywhere in the territory of Transnistria (which at that time was under the control of the Pechenegs, later surplanted by the Golden Horde). Who settled does not imply Kievan Rus actually had domain over the territory. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, I would send you my older Magocsi (I just bought the latest edition), but I already promised it to someone. And you are contradicting Kievan Rus falling short of the present PMR. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Mauco) Feel free to add "although latest scholarship disputes Russian control of territory prior to the partition of Poland. (ref. Magocsi "Historical Atlas of Eastern Central Europe, 1993 and 2002, University of Washington Press)" until we can complete discussing the interpretation of your sources. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Goths actually have the most ancient claim. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm, "claim"? What claim? The actual disputed sentence part is "...It was part of Kievan Rus at times". That is all. I understand that it was a relatively brief period of time around the X century. --Illythr 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

10th century was raids on Bulgaria, nothing to do with Transnistria being part of Kievan Rus. (See my answer to yours regarding Pereyaslavets.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, we can agree that they were there, is that correct? (And went further south as well, to Bulgaria). And the disagreement thus now centers on the issue of in which capacity they were there, namely either as rulers or as marauders. Is that a fair interpretation? If they were rulers, it was obviously "part of Kievan Rus at times" but if they were raiders, that sentence would not necessary be true. Please let me know if I am understanding your position and your interpretation of Magocsi correctly so we can build toward consensus. - Mauco 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Danube is a long way from Tiraspol, I'm afraid. Actually, with Galicia/Volhinya becoming the power in Kievan Rus, actions like the raids on Bulgaria in the south would have been the norm--that is, attempts at expansion of power and influence south and west of the Dniester. (The Prut and the Siret both originated well within Galicia/Volhynia and flowed to the mouth of the Danube). Neither Magocsi nor my reading of your King quotes indicates Kievan Rus in Transnistria. As I indicated (elsewhere), I'll probably see if I can get my hands on the King reference some time in the next week or so for a more thorough analysis. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I can offer to scan the page and send it to you by email if you want me to. It is only one page (page 179) of the book, The Moldovans. In Chapter 9, in the chapter called "The Transnistrian Conundrum", Charles King starts a section which is headed "Territory and History" with the following sentence: "The Transnistrian war was in no sense about ancient hatreds between eastern Latinity and Slavdom, but history did play an important role. Unlike the rest of the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria was never considered part of the traditional lands of Romanian settlement. The territory east of the Dnestr River belonged to Kievan Rus' and the kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries. The expansion of the Moldovan principality from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries stopped at the Dnestr, and the expansion of Russia from the east in the eighteenth century moved the empire up to the Dnestr's eastern bank." That is all. - Mauco 06:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Language misinformation

I must say, pridnestrovie.net has hired a lot of people who know English really well, good English always gives an air of authority. Sadly, the content itself would make Stalin weep with joy.

From pridnestrovie.net...

"Why does Pridnestrovie prefer the cyrillic alphabet?

"For 700 years, ever since the first ethnic Moldavians arrived on the Pridnestrovie side of the river in the 14th century, they have been writing their language in cyrillic. The renegade Moldovan schools wanted to teach Moldavian in the latin script. They were allowed to do so, but from a strictly educational viewpoint, Pridnestrovie does not consider this to be a correct decision. However, as a tolerant, multiethnic country which respects the right of the parents to choose, Pridnestrovie allows the individual parents to decide this issue.

"Is the choice of one alphabet over the other a case of "discrimination", as Moldova was quick to claim? Not in the least. In fact, Romania itself used the Cyrillic alphabet for most of its history. As did Moldova. And as top scholars from the state university in Bucharest, Romania will point out, the cyrillic alphabet is much better suited for Romanian than the currently used latin alphabet. Due to the nature of the language the use of latin script sometimes impairs full written use of Romanian/Moldavian. This debate is well known among language scholars in Romania who lament that country's switch to latin script. But now the mistake is made and neither Moldova nor Romania can turn back the clock. Pridnestrovie, however, decided early on that it would not commit the same mistake. So as official policy, it simply teaches Moldavian in the alphabet most naturally suited to that language.

"In Romania itself, Latin script was introduced in 1860 by outside Francophone elites following a nearly thousand year history of Cyrillic script in the region. In Moldova, Latin script was introduced in 1991. Pridnestrovie maintains the historical use of Cyrillic for Moldavian, as that is what works best for that particular language.

"Pridnestrovie respects the human rights of all its children, regardless of language or ethnic background. There is no discrimination in Pridnestrovie but only a concern that legal and educational standards are always followed and adhered to."

Stalin is not dead. He is alive and well and writing for pridnestrovie.net. witness: "Moldavian being taught in its native alphabet."

The Romanian language finds its roots in Dacian, with a strong element of Latinization (that is, the real Latin from the Romans), later, adopting terms from the Slavic languages (the Slavs picking up Latinized terms in return). There was a re-Latinization in the 1800's, but having nothing to do with outside elites, rather, it was the literary intelligencia looking to undo the Slavic influences which had come into Romanian. The Cyrillic used prior to 1860 is, in fact, quite different from the Russian Cyrillic introduced by the Soviet Union to create the fiction that there is a "Moldovan" language, and does not reflect all the original features (diacritics, etc.) of the original Cyrillic. Romanian today in Cyrillic form in Transnistria is no more than a poor transliteration of the Latin script adopted in 1860. As with many other assertions by Transnistrian "sources" regarding Moldavia, etc., something which on its surface appears perfectly plausible but, with just a slight knowledge of circumstances, is an outright lie. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This part of transnistrian propaganda was already discussed in Talk:Moldovan_schools_in_Transnistria ("fallacies of Transnistrian side" part)--MariusM 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco's edit

Mauco insist to add in the article: "the area was always predominantly Slavic. At no time in history did ethnic Moldovans ever constitute a majority". However, from the discussions above was showed that all sources which claim a Slavic majority (Kolstoe, Dima etc.) reffered at entire Dniester-Bug territorry or at least at the teritorry of Moldavian ASSR created in 1924, which was significantly bigger than actual PMR (this is the meaning of Transnistria for this article; we have separate articles about entire Dniester-Bug teritorry Transnistria (WWII) and about Moldavian ASSR). For the territorry of actual PMR there are no sources to show that was ever a Slavic majority, except recent propaganda of PMR regime. In fact, even PMR from the begining recognized Moldovans as native ethnic group, including the name "Moldovan" in the name of the republic ("Pridnestrovie Moldovan Republic"). They didn't name it Pridnestrovie Slavic Republic (while this is more close with the reality of PMR regime). Totally bogus is Mauco's claim that Upson Clark is the only who wrote about a Moldovan majority. We already discussed in Transnistria talk page (now archived) about the book of Dabija. Mauco took part at this discussion, so, is difficult for me to assume good faith on him.--MariusM 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Dabija's book is called "Transnistria - our rightful land"! It was published in Chisinau right before the 1992 war. Reliable source? Naaah! Hmm, I wonder if I can find it online...

On the territory issue: When you speak about the population (ethnic composition, size etc) of Romania in the historical period of 1918-1940, or during the Middle Ages (or any other country, that, at some time, posessed more territory than it does now), do you include the population of Bessarabia, Bukovina etc or are you only considering Romania within its current borders at any time of its history (in population issues)?

Perhaps a compromise may still be achieved. Here, my proposition:

Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area between the Dniester and Bug rivers, that later came to be known as Transnistria, was always predominantly Slavic. However, the ethnic composition of the lower Dniester area, which constitutes the current teritorry of Transnistria, is still a disputed matter. According to Charles Upson Clark, the territory was an almost purely Romanian stream. A later research made by Paul Kolstoe {hm, no article yet?} states, that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants. --Illythr 14:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, is not only Dabija and Upson Clark with those conclusions. Vecrumba mentioned Magocsi and Mauco told "I am familiar with Magocsi, and respect this work" (see this talk page). I have to admit I am not familiar with Magocsi and didn't read anything written by him, but I trust Mauco and Vecrumba about the seriousness of this source. Dabija is claiming more than Upson Clark, he is claiming that entire Dniester-Bug teritorry was with Moldovan majority before 1792. Dniester-Bug teritorry was never a country on its own, it make no sense to show ethnic data about it in this article. As Transnistria was once part of Poland, why not telling "Transnistria was part of Poland, where Moldovans where outnumbered by Slavs? Regarding Romania between 1918-1940, do you feel apropiate to write in the article about Basarabia that "Basarabia was part of Romania. Russians were only 3% of population" (misleading the readers, who will believe you are reffering at basarabian population, while you are referring at total interwar romanian population)? My opinion: no comment about ethnic data for entire Dniester-Bug teritorry belong to this article. We should focus at actual PMR teritorry.--MariusM 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to get a hold of that Magocsi's work as well. The idea is not to include countries of which Transnistria was part, but rather, territories that were considered part of Transnistria themselves. You see, "Transnistria" was originally named so by Romanians and was that bigger territory between the two rivers. As for defining the land before that point, things become rather vague... Of course, whenever a historical population estimation is made, the territory needs to be stated explicitly. I think that my proposal reflects that necessity. --Illythr 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Magocsi doesn't talk about the Slavic majority, so it is irrevelant to this edit. He deals with conquests, such as the Kievan Rus' and others. I have read the entire work by Upson Clark as well (in fact, MariusM was unaware of it and I provided him with the link). It is very unscientific and dated. It is a travelogue, more than anything, and a lot of what he writes smacks of rumors that he has heard and which he is merely passing on. There is no evidence (other than Upson Clark's word) for what he says, and he does not say how he reach the conclusion or what data he bases it on. There are several other fallacies in the old book, which have been proven wrong by later historians, and it is not unreasonable to believe that this is one of them. I would prefer not to include it, for that reason alone, but if we include it, then it must at least be countered with the later research. AND with common sense: it is a bit wild to imagine that an area which was never part of Moldova should have a Moldovan majority. Hmmmm... - Mauco 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Illythr, can you come up with a second compromise version? Besides, by "lower Dniester area", historians usually refer to the Akkerman area. This is NOT the same as the current Transnistria, whatever MariusM will have us believe. - Mauco 20:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the general idea was that the area that was later know as "Transnistria" was predominantly Slavic, yada-yada, whereas the ethnic composition of the strip of land known as "Transnistria" today was rather vague and still remains a disputed matter. --Illythr 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mauco's appeal to common sense: Transylvania and Banat were regions which were not under Romanian control before 1918, however they had a Romanian majority. Transnistria was under Turkish/Tatar rule before 1792, is a bit wild to imagine that it had a Slavic majority. Hmmm... Illythr: compromise should not start with predominantly Slavic Dniester-Bug teritorry (even this is disputed - see Dabija, who is giving a lot of sources; see Danylo Apostol, the Moldavian who was hetman of Ukraine or Petru Movilă, from the rulling family of Moldavia, who was metropolitan of Kiev). We should jump directly at the actual strip of land. Else, we mislead the ordinary readers.--MariusM 21:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: it was not Mauco, but Greier who provided the link at Upson Clark book. And "Magocsi doesn't talk about the Slavic majority", probabily because it was not any Slavic majority. For Mauco, every source which doesn't talk about Slavic majority is irrelevant.--MariusM 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, what can I see with Apostol and Movilă? Transnistria was cut down to the narrow strip of land it is now only during Soviet times. If its historical borders were Dniester and Bug before that event, we should refer to the greater territory in that historical context. This territorial difference must be clarified to avoid confusion, of course. --Illythr 22:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Illythr. 100% in agreement. Anyone can prove anything if we are comparing apples and oranges. In a book from the 1920's, it is not clear what Upson Clark is referring to, or if he even set foot in Transnistria. His book is a chatty travelogue which doesn't give any sources for his extraordinary claim, and no other serious, peer-reviewed researcher has ever said the same: Neither before Upson Clark or after. In contrast, Pal Kolstoe (from Oslo University) deals specifically about Transnistria, is peer reviewed, and has been published by the OSCE. - Mauco 00:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet census from 1926

Both me and Mauco received a 24h block yesterday, we are not virgins anymore! I'm back now (anouncement for those who missed me).

I used this short wikibreak to do some research and I discovered 1926 Soviet census results in MASSR. Look at them:

Raionul	total	moldoveni; în %	ucraineni	ruşi	evrei	polonezi	nemţi	bulgari	alţii
Dubăsari	42609	28559; .... 67,03	6077	2867	4612	27	246	16	205
Slobozia	37617	24341; .... 64,71	6537	5714	571	22	72	25	335
Ananiev	62289	21005; .... 33,72	32224	2136	6406	164	122	8	227
Birzula	57823	18521; .... 32,03	30717	3804	2978	710	446	19	628
Rîbniţa	47731	17023; .... 35,66	23064	1809	4422	1138	28	15	232
Tiraspol	64750	16845; .... 26,02	12627	21205	6608	147	1020	5862	436
Camenca	39169	15038; .... 38,39	18263	424	4172	952	215	4	86
Grigoriopol	30094	13744; .... 45,67	4629	3851	1114	33	6315	21	387
Cruteni	50913	8592; ..... 16,88	36518	402	4601	481	118	5	196
Ocna Roşie	41249	6472; ..... 15,69	27203	2161	2718	341	2118	19	217
Balta	75061	1895; ...... 2,52	70830	316	1246	485	17	4	268
or. Balta	23034	369; ....... 1,60	8826	4182	9116	353	22	28	138

You can see that the capital of MASSR, Balta, was chosed in the most non-Moldovan part of the Republic, town of Balta had 1,6% Moldovans and county of Balta 2,52% Moldovans. I believe it was on purpose to draw the borders of MASSR in such a way to not have a Moldovan majority and to chose the capital in the most non-moldovan part. Anyhow, Balta belong now where it should - to Ukraine.

I can not separate with 100% accuracy the teritory which remained in Moldavian SSR in 1940, but with aproximation we can consider the counties of Dubăsari, Slobozia, Rîbniţa, Tiraspol, Camenca, Grigoriopol. For those counties, the split according ethnic groups is: 44,11% Moldovans, 27,18% Ukrainians, 13,69% Russians, 8,21% Jews, 3,01% Germans, 2,27% Bulgarians, 0,89% Poles, 0,64% others.--MariusM 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the capital, is quite interesting what is told in the article: "Pare de-a dreptul comică şi istoria cu căutarea unei capitale pentru R.A.S.S.M. Orăşelul Birzula (Bîrzu, azi Kotovsk), cu o populaţie de 10 mii de locuitori, dintre care doar 195 erau moldoveni, restul ucraineni, evrei şi ruşi, propus pentru aşa ceva, „n-a trecut concursul”, deoarece s-a constatat că nu are clădiri adecvate pentru instituţiile de partid şi de stat. Astfel că, aproximativ la o lună şi jumătate de la proclamarea ei, republica autonomă încă nu avea un centru administrativ. S-a hotărît atunci să se „împrumute” o capitală de la Ucraina şi la 26 noiembrie 1924 C.C. al P.C.(b.)U. şi Sovietul Comisarilor Norodnici al Ucrainei au dispus cedarea oraşului Balta, cu o populaţie de 23 034 locuitori, dintre care moldovenii alcătuiau ceva mai mult de un procent (369), republicii autonome şi această Baltă devenea capitala R.A.S.S.M.".

Also is mentioned that total number of Moldavians in Ukraine was in 1926 of 257800, from which only 172400 (66,87%) were within the borders of Moldavian ASSR.--MariusM 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Okay guys, you don't agree on stuff. I move that stuff over here, so that you can duke it out on the talk page, instead of reverting each other in the mainspace. Please don't re-introduce any one of the versions until you/we can reach some kind of consensus with the data. --Illythr 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco's version

Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was always predominantly Slavic. At no time in history did ethnic Moldovans ever constitute a majority. Only one source, Charles Upson Clark, claims that the lower Dniester, in 1792 was "an almost purely Romanian stream". Subsequent research, however, state that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.

Full story here, with the authorative source given the primary weight as per WP:NPOV. - Mauco 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the At no time in history... sentence should go, IMHO, because it's redundant in the context of the previous one. If Slavs were always a majority, then it's not necessary to say that Moldovans weren't. Only one source... is not a good idea either: There will always be more, reputable or not, to repeat it. It probably should be either just One source..., or, as I proposed above According to.... --Illythr 02:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that makes sense. Why can't all editors be like you, Illythr: Constructive instead of destructive... - Mauco 05:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem with me is that I can dispute the form, but not the actual content here (which is the main cause of this revert war), as I have no sources of my own to verify/debunk it. I can make it look better (from my POV, of course), but content issues you have to settle with Marius and others, I'm afraid. --Illythr 13:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is biased: has russian authors, the very article is labeled by the authors as "encorrected", and it hasn`t got a single reference. I would like to know what the hell is with that "1792"? Pure sophistry from Mauco... Also, regarding the "subsequent research", please explain how, by whome, and when was the research done. (Personal attack removed) Greier 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not serve your cause, Greier. The 1792 source is Charles Upson Clark. He basically says that, as a result of a great immigration in 1792 (among others), Dniester is (that is, since 1792 till 1927, the time the research was published) an almost purely Roumanian stream. I see nothing wrong with this, as it's your point, not Mauco's. The correct way to question this version would be to ask William to present more reliable sources instead of attacking his persona... --Illythr 18:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Listen here, for the second time, HOW THE F. DID THIS Frequent mention has been made of the Moldavian Soviet Republic.(THAT IS THE GOD DAMMNED 20th CENTURY!!!) It is not generally known that the lower Dniester is an almost purely Roumanian stream. TRANSFORMED ITSELF INTO THIS Charles Upson Clark, claims that the lower Dniester, in 1792 was "an almost purely Romanian stream" ??????????????? AM I A CRETIN OR WHAT????????? DO I SUFFER FROM SOME MENTAL ILLNESS, AND CAN`T USE SIMPLE LOGIC OR WHAT??????? TELL ME!! IS IT ME?????? TELL ME, AND I`ll LEAVE ALL OF YOU ALONE! GOD!!!!! Greier 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, you're shouting now... Okay. Read the last part. ... and in 1792, another great immigration took place. As a result, it is reckoned that there are probably half a million Roumanian peasants in Russia east of the Dniester.. So, since the last large mentioned migration was in 1792, it can be interpreted that Dniester had been an almost purely Roumanian stream at least since that time until the time the research was conducted. The form of that passage looks a bit speculative to me (it is reckoned, probably), but it is a source, for what it's worth...

Ah, I see what you mean! The ...in 1792 was... part needs to be changed to ...since 1792 was... --Illythr 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Marius' version has the same problem, though. --Illythr 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Greier for 48 hours for personal attacks. Khoikhoi 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

In 1792 started the slavisation of this land. While in 1792 is highly probable it was an almost pure Romanian population near Dniester, and a mixed Romanian-Tatar population for Dniester-Bug area, situation changed starting 1792 when Russia took possesion of this land. In 1926, Soviet census show around 44% Romanians (see bellow data). See also Slav population increase in Basarabia after 1812 - there is no reason to believe that proportion of Slavs increased in Basarabia but not in Transnistria.--MariusM 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

MariusM's version

According Charles Upson Clark, in 1792 there were already half a million Romanian peasants in Russia, mostly in the teritorry between Dniester and Bug, while the lower Dniester, which is the actual teritorry of Transnistria, was an almost purely Romanian stream.

Highly biased POV. This edit removes all sources which does not agree with the flawed premise of an author whose data is dubious, to say the least, and does not match the general view of today's academics on this issue. If he should be mentioned at all, it should be done in context, without omitting the other view. - Mauco 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tivertsy and invaders

Google books came to rescue:

South-west of them dwelt the Tivertsy (who squeezed out by steppe invaders, later moved to the sub-Carpathian area of Modern Ukraine)

• Robin Milner-Gulland, The Russians, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 0631218491 p.44

bogdan 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Between the Dniester to the Bug

Another view states that the largest group living between Dniester and Bug in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants

Actually, I don't think that's an opposing view: the Moldavians were clearly never the largest group living between the Dniester and the Bug.

The Moldovans lived in Transnistria and a little beyond (there were some isolated villages quite far away), but there's a lot of territory between those two rivers and probably less than 20% of that territory is in today's Transnistria.

It's like claiming that: "Most inhabitants of Hungary are Hungarians. Another view states that the largest ethnic group in Central Europe is the Germans." :-) bogdan 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. It is a reference which is used specifically in works about Transnistria, including titles published by OSCE. Pal Kolstoe (Oslo University) cites it. He feels it is relevant to the history of Transnistria which is why I originally included it here.

Another view states that the largest group living between Dniester and Bug in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants.

I have serious misgivings about the "opposing" Upson Clark quote, especially now that it sits there all by its lonesome, unopposed by a second view. Here are some of the reasons why it is useless:

1. How well are we sure that the area was almost entirely Romanian? No other sources back this up.

2. Where does he get this information from? He does not tell us. He just asserts.

3. The source is old, and frankly not very scientic. Read it. It is from the 1920s, but it reads like one of the those quaint Victorian travelogues.

That's valid for your source, too. :-) bogdan 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

4. It is also not clear that he refers to the Dniester. It could be Akkerman, so we have the same "between Dniester and Bug" problem, just in reverse.

With such a weak source, either take it out or else allow the more recent Dniester-Bug source to stay. It is factually correct, and although it is not specifically about the exact Dniester area, neither is the Upson Clark comment. But at least the Andew Wilson source is recent, it is peer reviewed and it tells us the area which is covered so that there can be no misunderstandings. - Mauco 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed Clark's claim, too. Actually, yes, neither source is good enough. Now it just says there were Romanians and Ukrainians, a fact accepted by both sides, AFAIK. bogdan 09:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bogdan, you are an experienced editor. You should learn not to trust Mauco's comments, but to check. Clark was writing: "The villages along its left bank, from Movilau down to Ovidiopol, opposite Akkerman, are as Moldavian as those on the Bessarabian bank". He clearly indicates he was refering at the left bank of Dniester. Mauco's comment that "It is also not clear that he [Clark] refers to the Dniester. It could be Akkerman" is just another misleading comment of Mauco, either he didn't read Clark's book, either he read it but he knowingly introduce plain fallacies in the debate. There are other sources that back Clark, like Dabija, but I prefer to have Clark as refference as Dabija can be considered biased. Regarding Mauco's concern: "I have serious misgivings about the "opposing" Upson Clark quote, especially now that it sits there all by its lonesome, unopposed by a second view", is normal that Clark quote to remain without an opposing view, as long as such opposing view don't exist. As explained, Kolstoe don't contradict Clark, and after so long debates Mauco was not able to find a serious source who contradict Clark (Tiraspol Times or pridnestrovie.net are not serious sources).--MariusM 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that some villages were originally Romanian, but they were Ukrainized. (some still have names derived from Romanian words, for example Frunzovka/Frunzivka < Frunză, a town in Ukraine) I'm not sure exactly when that happened. bogdan 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the governmental map, there are a number of villages/towns with Romanian names, but with most of the population Slavic: Valya-Adynke, Popenki, Doybany, Mereneshty, Shipka, Frunze, Gyska, Kitskany. Probably there were more, as I think there are at least half a dozen places with changed names. bogdan 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't accept that we include Upson Clark and don't mention any of the later research. His stuff is old and I have 4 misgivings, all stated. - Mauco 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't have only Upson Clark mention. We are showing also Soviet census results. Is not a contradiction between them (it is possible in 1792 to have an almost pure Romanian population and in 1926 to have only 44% Romanians), but anyhow is relativizing Upson Clark's views). Anyhow, Upson Clark is notable - he has an article in Wikipedia, and also the fact that his book published in 1920 was considered important enough to be republished on the internet shows he is an important scholar, contrary with Mauco's claims.--MariusM 10:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to assume from your edits that you are not an academic, since you show some lack understanding of how historical sources must be evaluated. In this case, I will merely say that despite how much you seem to put faith in Upson Clark, he is the only source with this point of view. It is striking that in all of the histories of the area, including recent historical reviews published by leading US and European universities, Upson Clark's claim for the ethnic composition of Transnistria is never cited. Not even once. Simply put: He does not pass peer review. Neither does the OSCE quote him. I can not accept that you want to let him stand. - Mauco 13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Clark is not cited (I don't believe you), anyhow his book is +80 years old, is not relevant if contemporary books are not quoting him. It was peer reviewed at his time, when internet was not available. In this talk page Vecrumba showed other sources - like Magocsi (I can not quote Magocsi as I didn't read his book, but I believe Vecrumba and even you admited that Magocsi is a good source). In the same time you missed a point: you were not able to prove a single source which denied Clark's assertion. All your sources are about a bigger territorry. If you come with a serious academic source about actual teritorry of Transnistria, I will agree to include it, alongside Clark.--MariusM 17:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a solution is to try to make a timeline of the colonization of Transnistria and see the results. :-) bogdan 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

External links section

We have an unbalanced external links sectin, as we show only pro-separatist links. I object to the inclusion of Tiraspol Times, as this is not a real newspaper, just a website from the same source as pridnestrovie.net, as discussed in Transnistria talk page. Is misleading to make Wikipedia readers to think that in Transnistria exist a newspaper like TT, while the reality is that TT is only a website in Ireland.--MariusM 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Then WP:Be bold and add other links that you consider to be relevant to this specific subject. TSO1D 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

He won't. It has been 2 weeks since you gave the advice. He has not followed it. Instead, he has merely attempted to remove the existing links several times. Here's the latest such stunt: [2] - Mauco 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Double standards

Upson Clark is not a good source because it was not peer review. I don't think this is correct, it is a book from 80 years ago, it was peer review at its time, we can not find on the internet the reviews. However, the book was considered important enough to be put on the internet so long time after the appearance. Few books printed 80 years ago are now on the internet.

In contrast with his exigency about Upson Clark, Mauco is pushing to include sources like pridnestrovie.net or tiraspoltimes.com, which are made by separatist regime of Transnistria and are not independent (pridnestrovie.net is giving links to almost all articles which appeared in Tiraspol Times), which are also not peer reviewed. Why this double standard, mr. Mauco?--MariusM 12:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Our reservations about Upson Clark has been answered fully, both here and in the archive. I say "ours" because I am not alone on this one. You have been reverted by others, too, including by an admin. Please give it a rest.

As for the link, TSO1D - above - tells you what you should do. You can follow his advice, if you want. For the past two weeks, you have not done so. With regards to http://www.tiraspoltimes.com, why do you claim that it is not independent? Why do you claim that the government of PMR makes this newspaper? If you have any sources, please post them. Otherwise, may I kindly refrain that you stop making a mountain out of a molehill. - Mauco 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict

I have to say that I cannot fully agree with either of the two opposing versions presented; Mauco's is too judgemental and Marius's is far too narrow. Like Illythir I have to admit that my knowledge of the facts underlying the matter is shallow, so it is only the way the information is presented in that I can assess. I would propose a more neutral but comprehensive version, that just presents the facts without making any qualitative remarks about the sources. "Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was populated by Romanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. Columibia University Professor Charles Upson Clark, claimed that the lower Dniester, was "an almost purely Romanian stream" since 1792[3]. Nevertheless, a conflicting modern view states that the largest group on the left bank of the Dniester in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants." TSO1D 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that those modern views which tell about Slavic majority are reffering in fact at the entire Dniester-Bug teritorry, not at actual teritorry of Transnistria - the rayons near Dniester. I propose:

"Along with a nomadic Nogai Tatar population, the area was populated by Romanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. Columbia University Professor Charles Upson Clark, claimed that the lower Dniester, was "an almost purely Romanian stream" since 1792[3]. Nevertheless, an conflicting modern other view states that the largest group living between Dniester and Bug in the 18th century was made up of Slavs, primarily Ukrainian peasants. According Soviet census of 1926, in the districts of Camenca, Rîbniţa, Dubăsari, Grigoriopol, Tiraspol and Slobozia, a teritorry roughly similar with actual Transnistria, there were 44,11% Moldovans (Romanians), 27,18% Ukrainians, 13,69% Russians, 8,21% Jews, 3,01% Germans etc."--MariusM 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But that wouldn't really be an opposing view, it is easily possible for those two theories to both be true at the same time. I believe that the authors of the second article were specifially referring to the area that is not part of Transnistria, as they are giving the background of the Moldo-Transnistrian conflict. However I did not see a specific statement to that effect so I cannot be certain. TSO1D 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, those views are not necesary in conflict, I removed the word "conflicting" from my proposal. Contrary with User:Greier, I assume good faith of Kolstoe, even if he wrote his book together with a Russian. Both Kolstoe and Upson Clark can be right. Adding Soviet census data from 1926 will make things clear (not for 1792, but at least for 20th century).--MariusM 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From prior discussion some time ago, east of the Dniester (to the Bug) there is an overlap of Latin and Slavic.
    Magocsi's ethnic map of Europe, circa 1900, shows a strip of trans-Dniester territory (in line with the eastern PMR boundary) as ethnic Romanian, so he does deal with the ethnic issue, although (as Mauco appears to have observed elsewhere) not in text. Mauco, you indicated you had read Magocsi, so I assume you have his book now. I can provide a page reference for the map if needed.
    On the original "part of Kievan Rus" reference from Charles King's The Moldovans (which I've essentially disputed based on Magocsi) I checked the footnote for King's statement. It references something else by another author but within a series for which King was overall editor--so, somewhat self-referential. Furthermore, I have not found anything else yet that supports the left bank of the Dniester as a defining boundary of Kievan Rus influence.
    What I have found so far is that there are two "camps" in scholarship on the Black Sea area west to the Danube. Russian scholarship puts everything along the Black Sea into Kievan Rus--not just south to the Dniester, but down to the Danube--as the result of Sviatoslav I's ultimately ill-fated campaign. Non-Russian scholarship appears to take a much more measured view, that is, campaigns, incursions, but not a lasting established Kievan Rus presence--as reflected in Magocsi's maps of the region over time. As I've mentioned earlier, Galicia Volhynia controlled a swath of territory to the Black Sea coast, but for well less than a century, and it was the area between the Dniester and Prut (that is, right bank, not left bank). Also, this really is a reflection of Galicia Volhynia's power at its height as the dominant Kievan Rus province more than it's an indication of administration by Kievan authorities. Indeed, one of Sviatoslav I's reasons for heading west was to (a) be where the commerce was and to (b) be where the real power was.
    So, with respect to corroborating King's reference, all other references so far are "all or nothing" (Galicia Volhynia excepted). It may have something to do with King's reference specifically coming from a work on the Ukranians, which, while accurately relating the extent of Slavic settlement west toward the Dniester, may have inadvertently injected some ethno(Slavic)-centricity in attributing to that settlement a corresponding control of territory by Kievan Rus--whether administrative or tributes ("anti-invasion insurance").
    That said, in defense of King, this is not exactly an in-depth topic in The Moldovans. King's entire discussion is the one sentence Mauco has (accurately) quoted, which in turn footnotes as its source the work on the Ukranians.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected again

I protected a half-way version. Please, Mauco and Marius, try to solve the problem on the talk page instead of reverting, which leads us nowhere.

The best solution would be to search for more sources. I'll try to look for more sources at the library next week. bogdan 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The revert warring would've gotten both of us blocked eventually anyway. I've been blocked 3 times, and so has MariusM = 3 times, too. If you look at our block logs, you'll see that they dates and the times coincide. We both got blocked for tangling with each other. - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, about Upson Clark. I'm OK with having him in there, if we can have Pal Kolstoe in the same breath. I realize that Kolstoe is somewhat inaccurate (due to the geography) but I find Upson Clark no less reliable. He is 1) old, 2) not cited in any recent works, and 3) the claim that he is peer reviewed is hoary. If his book is on the Internet, that doesn't rate it as academia. Look at all the fairy tales on Project Gutenberg. Old books get transcribed online for two reasons. To preserve the historical record, and because their copyright has expired. If we can not have Kolstoe, which is an official OSCE publication and an often-referenced specialist on Transnistria, then I will oppose Upson Clark as well. Why? On POV grounds. We need to give both sides. In this case, the bias that Upson Clark gives (an American) is offset by the opposite bias of Pal Kolstoe (a Norwegian). - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact that Clark wrote in 20's is a + in my view. He wrote in a time when no conflict was in Transnistria, nobody disputed the status of this region, Transnistria was not subject of propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Really, there are no reasons to consider Clark as bias. Not all old books are on the internet, only the important ones. While Kolstoe wrote his book together with a Russian in times of high conflict in Transnistria, the main objection to Kolstoe is not that it is bias, but that it is irrelevant - he states the situation of a much bigger territorry. Anyhow, Upson Clark comments are offset in our article by 1926 Soviet census results (I was the one who finded those) and also, by other 2 (you want 3, but let them be 2) links in External links section.--MariusM 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, about the links. Official/biased links are allowed. The best solution is to have some official/biased link from the other side as well, for balance. I fully support TSO1D's suggestion here. But until they are there, I am upset that MariusM keeps removing a valid link which gives a lot of detail and researched background info, some of which is not found on this particular page. I am referring to this now-censored link: http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/300 - Mauco 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we already have 2 officially biases links pro-PMR. There are enough.--MariusM 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If A is true and B is a lie, then (A+B)/2 is not informed objectivity, it's no better than a half-truth.
   Since you advocate for the truthfulness and accuracy of the Tiraspol Times article in question (#300)--and please correct me if I've mischaracterized your position--then as part of my (non-original) research on the history of the area I'll take on the challenge of going through the article at piece at a time to indicate where truth meets fiction. Fair enough?
   P.S. Ethnicity is not an accurate indicator of non-bias, as you yourself prove. :-) Norwegians (Kolstoe et al.) have no monopoly on objectivity, nor do Americans (Clark et al.) on bias. If you have a specific issue with something Clark states, let's discuss it, not dismiss the entire source (as you complain I try to do regarding your citations).  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about Mauco's ethnicity, as he didn't disclose his real identity.--MariusM 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't. You do. ;-) --Illythr 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that my real identity is a subject of research for Mauco (and others). I will not comment on the results he founded.--MariusM 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then self-professed ethnicity. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pal Kolstoe and Charles Upson Clark

Comparison between those 2 guys:

1. Kolstoe - Norwegian, Clark - American. Both are from nations not involved in Transnistrian conflict.
2. Kolstoe wrote his book together with a Russian, Clark wrote his book alone. Russians are involved in Transnistrian conflict, it may raised suspicions that some bias appear from Kolstoe's co-writer, however ethnicity is not a clear indication of bias.
3. Charles Upson Clark has an article in Wikipedia, Pal Kolstoe not. It seems that Clark is more famous than Kolstoe (this is valid only for those who trust Wikipedia).
4. Kolstoe wrote his book in a period when Transnistria is a region of conflict and propaganda and disinformation from both sides is active. Clark wrote his book in peacefull times, when no conflict was in Transnistria and nobody disputed the status of this region. I think this is a + for Clark, there were no reasons in his time to take sides.
5. Clark is reffering at ethnic situation specifically on the "left bank of Dniester", that mean roughly the actual territorry of Transnistria, while Kolstoe is reffering at the situation of the entire Dniester-Bug territorry, that mean a territorry much bigger than actual Transnistria. What Kolstoe wrote is simply not relevant for the subject of our article.
6. For the concern of Mauco that Clark's book should not remain the only refference: We added in the article the Soviet census results of 1926, which are indeed relevant for this region. And also we have other 2 links made by Transnistrian authorities to which we are reffering (I didn't count Tiraspol Times as it was removed by admin Bogdan and I hope it will stay removed). Why are not enough 2 pro-PMR links?--MariusM 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To summarize main argument against Kolstoe is: saying "according Upson Clark Transnistria was inhabited mainly by Moldovans (Romanians) but an oposite view (Kolstoe) is telling that between Dniester and Bug Slavs were the main inhabitants" is like saying: "According X Portuguese is the main language of Brazil, but an oposite view of Y is telling that in Latin America Spanish is the main language". If the subject of discussion is Brazil, Y view about entire Latin America is irrelevant, same with Kolstoe's view about entire Dniester-Bug teritorry.--MariusM 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been off building a new computer, the old one gave up the ghost after many years of service (starting @ 400 MHZ when that cost $250 just for the CPU!... two motherboards and three CPUs later, disk technology had caught up with my storage needs and I didn't need 9 hard drives + 2 CDs + a removable bay--for more--anymore, not to mention it's too loud to hear yourself think from all the fans). Still have lots of reading to do on the whole Kievan Rus and who was when where topic. However, let's be clear, all the sources agree:

1. Magocsi circa 1900 map shows Romanians the primary inhabitants of today's PMR territory
2. Using the term "Transnistria" to refer to the entire territory between the Dniester and the Bug and saying it was primarily Slavic is totally true (and it was only used in that sense as an extension of its historical meaning during WWII)
3. Using the historical term "Transnistria" to mean along the left bank of the Dniester, Upson Clark is totally correct

There is no opposing viewpoint, all are consistent with the left bank being Romanian regardless.

As for Kolstoe, he also was rather taken aback when visiting the PMR and, upon being told of the free and democratic elections, he was also shown proof--that is, look at all the people who voted! And here are their names and exactly who they voted for. Not a good precedent for "free and fair," no? Perhaps he's a reference worth keeping after all. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "historical term Transnistria", Vecrumba. It is an artifical name, and fairly recent too. The name was not in use when Upson Clark wrote his book. - Mauco 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you should be bold and add Magocsi refference after the protection is lifted. I can not add it myself as I didn't read Magocsi. Regarding Kolstoe, where did he tell that Transnistrian authorities are keeping exact lists with political prefferences of people? That's interesting, it should be added in Politics of Transnistria.--MariusM 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it has nothing to do with politics today. If anything, you can consider adding it to History of Transnistria because it is old news. And Kolstoe wasn't being as definitive as anyone here on this page claims. He certainly did not state categorically that Transnistrian authorities are keeping exact lists with political preferences every voter. - Mauco 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)