Talk:Obnovlenie

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Moldova

	Moldova portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Opposition party

To the editor who doubts that Renewal is an opposition party: All available sources state this, starting with [1] and dozens more. No sources don't. A claim that Renewal is not an opposition party would fall under the heading of original research. Yes, they have the majority of parliament. This is similar to situations (common in recent U.S. history) where the President is a Republican and the House/Senate is in Democratic hands. In such situation, the Democrats are considered a party in opposition. It might behoove the editor to learn about the differences between the legislative power and the executive power before making similar edits. - Mauco 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the refference you gave is written that Renewal is an oposition party. On contrary, is written that "the one party state risks becoming a one company entity", which is an indication of the close ties between actual political power and Sheriff, the company which send 2 employees as MP for Renewal. Please do honest research, stop pretending that your references show something else than is written in them.--MariusM 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This report was published in January. We are now in October. Since then, Renewal obtained status as a full party (as did several other parties). They also established a parliamentary bloc. As far as this specific reference is concerned, I quote: "However, by 2005 a significant opposition to the Smirnov faction had appeared in Transnistria. Although there still seems to be a taboo against using the word ‘party’, the Renewal bloc or movement (founded in 2000) is a political ‘party’ in anything but name. It is now led by the young Yevgeni Shevchuk, former Deputy Speaker of Parliament. Smirnov loyalists, too, organised themselves into another bloc, Respublica. As before, candidates stood as independents but there were now fewer than in previous polls. In March, 2005, Renewal gained the largest number of votes in local elections. Emboldened by this victory its 17 MPs attempted to force a vote to change the status of the republic from a presidential to a parliamentary republic. However, they failed to get the necessary quorum. Had they succeeded, Mr. Smirnov’s power would have been reduced and he would likely have been removed as chief negotiator in the status talks over PMR’s future."

If this is not opposition, then I don't know what is... - Mauco 23:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is not in the link you gave, but I discovered it in the second chapter [2]. There are speculations of BHHRG, not facts. If Renewal really want to oust Smirnov they should put a candidature against him at presidential elections. Until now, they didn't. They win the parliamentary elections but they don't want to take the power? No, they already have the power. Some analysts (including one from Moldpress) believed that Renewall is against Smirnov, but facts are showing is not the case.--MariusM 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Moldpres is another source which sees Renewal as an opposition party. How are "facts showing that this is not the case" just because the party has decided that this is not the right time to launch a presidential bid yet? All over the world, lots of parties bid their time and play their cards when the timing is right. This is part of the polical realities everywhere, not just in Transnistria. You should really take a look at http://www.vspmr.org and see, in public, the tough laws and law proposals launched by Renewal-led parliament. Every single week they are biting into Smirnov's power. They are hitting him and his people on almost every single flank except the presidential bid (yet). - Mauco 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A party who just gained the parliamentary elections is not normal to refrain launching a presidential candidate. Only small parties with no chances are not registering presidential candidates in normal world. The fact that Renewall don't compete against Smirnov shows that they are only "pre-approved" opposition (in fact, this was also the conclusion of Moldpress analysis). I would accept to list Renewall as oposition party if they register a candidate against Smirnov, until then, their "opposition" status is only speculation--MariusM 03:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of what you will accept or not, but about what can be verified. We have sources who support the current statement in the article, and I can assure you that Smirnov is not happy with the activities of Renewal in parliament. By a statement like the one which you just posted, you are merely showing how much you have bought into the Moldovan myth that Transnistria is monolithic and you are showing how little you know of the workings of the internal politics of Transnistria. I am not deliberately trying to be rude to you, so I apologize in advance, but you are clearly not up to speed on the friction going on inside Transnistria right now. - Mauco 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that while in talk page you may chat politics ad nauseam, in the article you may write "opposition party" only if reputable sources call it so. Or, if it calls itself "opposition", you may write "calls itself opposition". `'mikkanarxi 16:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of sources backing this up. I have already listed one (http://www.bhhrg.org) and more are listed below. - Mauco 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, of course, we can expect the usual nay-sayers to come out of the woodwork and discredit the sources. That is fine. There are plenty more where these come from, and it is a fact that we only need one or two in order to support the statement. - Mauco 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Here are some of the many, many sources which refer to this party as an opposition party. I have deliberately given a broad mix of pro-Moldovan sources, pro-Transnistrian sources and neutral sources which have no preference. They are all 3 represented here, so there is a little something for everyone.

I got tired, I depart: "The confrontation of these groups is obvious to many, although it flows in concealed, latent form."

Not a confrontation of Renewall with Smirnov. "And then, a small thing will remain - in the new-year congratulation, Smirnov will apologize and will say: "I got tired, I depart" - science fiction or wishfull thinking, not a serious analysis.--MariusM 23:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pro-Moldovan, anti-Transnistrian source which you are critizing. You know that, don't you? I personally agree with you that puls.md is not serious, but it is considered a reputable source by many (and fall without Wikipedia's criteria for reputable sources). At any rate, it doesn't really matter if you agree with them or not, or if I do. What matters is the following quote from their article: "The confrontation of these groups is obvious to many" which confirms that Renewal is in opposition to Smirnov and the rest of the executive branch. - Mauco 23:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: is not mentioned that Renewal is between those groups.--MariusM 15:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article again. There are two main groups in the power struggle in Transnistria today. Guess who one of them is... - Mauco 04:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova's uncertain future: "Other incidents suggest that the split between Smirnov and Obnovlenye is real."

Transnistria 2006: Is Regime Change Underway?: "However, by 2005 a significant opposition to the Smirnov faction had appeared in Transnistria."

Political Crisis around the self-proclaimed republic of Transnistria: "In the elections to the Supreme Council of Transnistria that took place in December 2005, the pro-Smirnov Respublica party lost the Transnistrian business community’s movement Renovation (Obnovlenie), whose leader Evgeny Shevchuk became a new chairman of the Supreme Council."

Parliament Takes on Smirnov Over Pension Reform: "Opposition-controlled parliament clashed with president Igor Smirnov over a proposal to increase pensions."

The Old Guard Wins in Transdniestria: "The conservative elements in the Transdniestrian leadership are frightened by the young reformers" + "Smirnov and his circle consider it a real threat and used their Moscow connections for a counterattack and Alksnis read a report in the Duma that accused Shevchuk and Sheriff of plotting a coup d'etat in Transdniestria."

Renewal, Pridnestrovie's reformist opposition party: "The country's main opposition party, Renewal (founded in 2000), is led by the young Yevgeny Shevchuk, 37"

Yevgeny Shevchuk: We will work for more and more democratization: "Leading the opposition in Pridnestrovie is Yevgeny Shevchuk, 38 years old, a Tiraspol-educated lawyer."

Tiraspol Times. I don't buy them.--MariusM 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy moldova.org or puls.md either, but I included sources from all political viewpoints and they all agree that Renewal is in opposition to Smirnov. If Moldova AND Transnistria say it, and independent third party outsiders as well, then you can not the sole voice who want to exclude it from Wikipedia. - Mauco 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am including a sampling of sources from all 3 sides in order to show that they all agree on the fact that Renewal is a party which is in opposition to the president of Transnistria, Igor Smirnov. Only one or two sources are needed in Wikipedia to support a specific point, but on this issue we are lucky to have many, many more. - Mauco 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you can find articles saying that Renewall is in oposition with Smirnov, PMR regime started propaganda about it and there are also some non-PMR journalists who swalowed the bite. I consider this irrelevant as long as Renewall don't make any attempt to replace Smirnov. If they put a candidature against Smirnov or if they anounce to sustain somebody else than Smirnov for presidency in December 2006 ellection, I would accept to list it as an opposition party. If not, they are not an opposition party. I consider possible that Renewall will anounce they back Smirnov for presidency. We should wait and see, not make assumptions and not let in Wikipedia unfounded assumptions of other journalists, being them from Tiraspol Times or moldova.org. There is not long time to wait.--MariusM 15:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So 8 sources are not enough? You can be an opposition party and not field a presidential candidate. Lots of examples from all over Europe and the world for that. Besides, it is not really a matter of your statement that " I would accept to list it as an opposition party". As Mikka pointed out, what really matters here is if there are sources which support the statement. - Mauco 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to '"we should wait", the answer is no. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We edit on the basis of what we have today, not on the basis on what might happen in the future. This is even more true for exclusions of edits. Do not keep an edit out (which we have sources for today) based on what might or might not happen later down the road. This insistence of not accepting fully sourced facts is getting ridiculous. - Mauco 05:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed statements

User:MariusM has repeatedly deleted key content from the article, arguing that there is a content dispute.[[3] ] I consider this to be disruptive behavior, but will assume good faith and will therefore ask him to identify what in the following sentence is disputed:

1. Renewal' or Renovation (Obnovleniye) is the largest opposition political party in Transnistria.

He deleted the word "opposition". The party's opposition status has been amply documented in the section above, with 8 different sources from a wide variety of the political spectrum. They all say the same. - Mauco 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. The party is pro-business and not allied with President Igor Smirnov

This is a fact, too. As the sources demonstrate, the party is not allied with president Igor Smirnov. I utterly fail to see how this be disputed, based on all available sources who testify to the confrontations between Renewal and Smirnov. - Mauco 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. whose party, Respublica, lost several seats.

This is also a fact, as demonstrated by the results from the December 2005 election. Or is this being disputed? If not, re-include and do not keep deleting. - Mauco 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In closing, I will add that this is an article about a political party. The inclusion of the political position of the party, especially in relation to the president, is of utmost importance in such an article and has been well documented by numerous reputable sources elsewere. - Mauco 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After several days, I see that there is still no reply to this. If this "dispute" is not discussed anymore here, on the Talk page, then it appears that (Personal attack removed) from the other editor (User:MariusM) in resolving it. It is (Personal attack removed) to claim that there is a dispute, and then not participate in the Talk page where this issue is open for debate. I kindly ask that my concerns be addressed by User:MariusM and any others, if they exist, who feel that the above should not be included and that they explain, in detail, what - if anything - is unsuitable for inclusion, and why. - Mauco 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is a witness that I already answered at all your question. I repeat my points, if you didn't understand:

Sentence 1. I object at the word "opposition", as (i)this party have the majority in parliament and (ii) didn't make any attempt to oust president Smirnov, not even puting an other candidature for December 2006 elections.

A party can be a majority in parliament and still be in opposition. Or are you not aware of the differences between the legislature and the executive? We have sources that support that this is an opposition party. You are not in a position to deny reputable sources. -Mauco 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A party can be an opposition party, and, for strategic and operative reasons, decide not to launch a specific candidate in a specific election. History is rife with examples of this happening, all over the world. We have sources that support the statement that Renewal is an opposition party. You are not in a position to deny reputable sources. -Mauco 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an example of a party who won both parliamentary and local elections, but has clashes with actual president, to abstain after only one year to put a candidate for presidential elections, while without their candidate the president with whom they "clashed" so much will have no real chalange. I believe the "clashes" are not so important as you pretend. Oposition does not mean that exist a small disagreement in some small issues. Opposition mean you want to oust from political power your opponent. Until now, Renewal didn't try to oust Smirnov. They want to organise the privatisation of Transnistrian economy, not to oust Smirnov. Is a different thing.--MariusM 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 2. I agree with "The party is pro-business". I don't agree with "is not allied with President. What if Renewal will anounce that it support Smirnov for December 2006 elections? As long as they didn't make any anoncement regarding this, we don't know with whom is allied Renewal.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As long as we have sources that speak of clashes between the party and the president, we can clearly state this to be a fact: It is not allied with the President. When they announce their support for him, we can change this sentence. Provided we have sources for that and can verify it. - Mauco 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are not reliable, we should not include them. See WP:RS. Anyhow, there is no long time until Transnistrian elections (december 2006). Instead of putting a wrong sentence and change it when we have an official Renewal anouncement, why not keep article withou speculation and add the correct sentence after Renewal is clarifying its position for presidential election? Why this hurry?--MariusM 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 3. This is article about Renewal, not about Respublika. You may add the info about the seats lost by Respublika in Republic (Transnistria) article, and in Politics of Transnistria article.--MariusM 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will make the article poorer for the reader if we leave out this information. As it currently stands, the addition of this part serves to illustrate to the reader that there are two main parties, and that only one of them is allied with the president. This is what our sources say as well. I do not think that it should be removed, but we can let a randomly chosen third party admin help us and ask for his or her opinion. Will you agree to that? - Mauco 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be even poorer for the readers if we include misleading statements. After Renewal will clarify its position is no problem to include a clarifying sentence. I agree to ask for a third opinion, but I don't agree that you chose who is the person who give the third opinion (as you have done in other disputes between us).--MariusM 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MariusM, thanks for taking the time to reply, but I can see from your reply that we are going in circles. Therefore, let us get that third opinion. The last time, I picked one completely from random. This time, how about if we use Firsfron again? After all, he has taken the time to look at the sources and more or less familiarize himself with the issue. Or, if you are not comfortable with him, how about if we let him choose one at random? I am happy with anyone, especially someone who can approach the subject with an open mind, no preconceived opinion, and is not Russian or Romanian. - Mauco 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if Firsfron is able to solve the dispute in article Sheriff. I agree that a third opinion should not be from a Russian or Romanian.--MariusM 22:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that proves links between Smirnov's family and Sheriff

[CROSS-SPAMMING REMOVED]

That is about Sheriff. This article is about Renewal. I have deleted it, but for anyone who wants to see the whole rant, the exact same list is here. MariusM just cross-spammed Wikipedia. - Mauco 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three heads of the same "separatist dragon"

E-democracy commentary describes best the political situation in Transnistria: "interests of the "Smirnov clan" are represented in all three movements, including the victorious movement Obnovlenye is a proof in this regard. The famous firm "Sheriff" has among its leaders one of Smirnov's son, who has recently became lawmaker, supports the latter. Of course, no serious clan "keeps its eggs in one basket," and this thing also defines the Transnistrian pluralism that the so-called democratic elections in the region were based on. One can say the three heads of the same "separatist dragon" form the political pluralism in Transdniestria [4]. --MariusM 16:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we all know: "E-democracy" is a Moldovan effort, funded and produced in Moldova, and they do not believe that Transnistria has a right to exist as a separate country. Can we get a reliable source, please? Any nutcase can write anything on the web, and just because someone's opinion says so - on "E-democracy" or a some other website - does not make it fact. Lots of websites say that the Democrats and the Republicans are not two separate parties but just two sides of the same coin. Still, Wikipedia treats them as separate parties. You are forced to treat Renewal as a separate party, too, MariusM, despite your personal opinion on the issue. - Mauco 20:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I treat (not "threat") Renewal as a separate party, don't use again straw man argument. I only doubt their real oposition against Smirnov regime, based on serious analysis of reliable sites as "e-democracy". This site is made by a non-guvernamental and politically non-affiliated organisation [5]. This is not the only site which is questioning the reality of Renewal oposition. Just today, Andrey Safonov, who wanted to compete in Transnistrian presidential elections but had his candidature rejected by Electoral Comission, tell he is the "only oposition". That mean Renewal oposition is not real (indeed, is Safonov's opinion, I'm not backing Safonov, I want only to show that e-democracy analysis is not singular).--MariusM 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are lots of people (and sources) who also doubt that the Democrats and Republicans are really in opposition to each other. See Republicrat. That doesn't make them right. It is just an opinion, and it does not affect the main articles on neither of these two parties. Opinions like that does not "prove" anything or give you the right to remove the fact that Renewal is an opposition party. - Mauco 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Renewal (Transnistria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we Add Russophilia In terms of party ideology

So umm Obnovlenie I mean Transnistria as a whole is reliant on russia for support and etc and Obnovlenie has a pro-Russia stance so should we add it or nah - Umbro 14:56, 15/1/2022 (GMT)