Talk:Grigory Marakutsa

Founding father of Transnistria

To understand the role of Grigore Mărăcuţă in the history of Transnistria do not remove this sentence without discussion: "Along with president Igor Smirnov he is considered one of the founding fathers of Transnistria, having signed its original declaration of independence on September 2, 1990." It is key to article, and if anything, since this is a stub, it should be expanded. I hope that Jamason will find time in the future. This is a subject which is his specialty. - Mauco 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing his point here (which he has now had 12 days to do), MariusM has instead merely repeatedly reverted and deleted. This is not good Wikipedia practice. When an issue is opened in Talk, it is because another editor (in this case, me) wants to discuss it and hear your side of the argument. Continued refusal to debate this, and continued reverting, is considered vandalism. You can be blocked for un-Wikilike behavior like that.

To get a third and qualified opinion, I have now asked one of the world's foremost Transnistria scholars, Jamason, if he would agree that Grigore Mărăcuţă can be considered one of the founding fathers of the PMR and/or that played an instrumental part in its proclamation. If so, I have also asked if he would then agree that this is one of his defining characteristics or at least important enought that it should be mentioned in his Wikipedia encyclopedia entry. My entry to this effect has repeatedly [1] [2] [3] been deleted by MariusM, even with the usage of misleading edit summaries[4]. - Mauco 13:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While requesting a third opinion is a good procedure, I have a problem with the fact that you chose the person who should give a third opinion, and (in other articles) you refused a neutral person, like one from the Mediation Comitee [5]. In my opinion Antyufeev and politicians from former political bloc Soyuz are the real founding fathers of Transnistria. Jamason did study Transnistria but his sources are mainly Russian, this is why his study is one-sided. He is aware of that and he told that will learn Romanian to be able to check both sides of the story. By the way, you double counted one of my reverts.--MariusM 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You have read his thesis, so you know the caliber of scholarship that you are dealing with. Yet you are still calling Jamason "one-sided". Isn't this a bit rich, coming from you? - Mauco 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The "one sided" argument was used by me almost one month ago [6]. Most inteligent people can arrive at wrong conclusions if they have wrong data. As I told, Jamason himself want to improve his understanding on Transnistria trough learning Romanian (at least, this is what he wrote me through e-mail). You, Mauco, are challenging BBC and other such sources, but I don't tell that this is unbelievable, is a normal thing in a democratic society with freedom of expression.--MariusM 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I can understand both Romanian and Russian. Being able to read the Romanian sources has not given me any reason to see Jamason's work as one-sided, much less as being wrong. And with regards to BBC, there is no reason to issue a blanket "fatwa" on me: I challenge specific points in specific articles which I and other informed observers already know to be factually wrong. I admire their coverage in general but will continue to call them out on factual mistakes. You make it sound as if this somehow makes me less qualified as an arbiter or editor. I believe the opposite: That my knowledge of the subject matter, and my ability to correct BBC, actually gives me something which I can bring to the table in order to help make Wikipedia better and more useful for others, and that is why I am here. Now, to get back on topic: would you or would you not agree that former Speaker Mărăcuţă had an influential role in the formation of the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, and that his role ought to be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry? - Mauco 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not one of "few" ... one of "many" Moldovans

Do not write that "Grigore Mărăcuţă is one of the few native-born Transnistrians from the leadership of unrecognized breakaway region of Transnistria". There are two things wrong with this: First, we do not quality the political status of Transnistria in any of the stubs. We merely bluelink it and leave it at that. This is standard practice everywhere, for practical reasons since the current status is as of yet unsettled. Second, the statement that he is one of few native-born Transnistrians is untrue. Mărăcuţă is a member of parliament. The other 42 MPs are to a very large degree also native-born, and with a proportion of ethnic Moldovans which is not all that different from their proportionate representation in the country at large. Source:[[7]] Finally, the EU list is old and notoriously unreliable. It has from the start been faulty, in all of its three versions. It is not a reliable source, as has been pointed out to MariusM in Talk:Yevgeni_Shevchuk and Talk:Transnistria(archived). Use an official source: The 43 VSPMR biographies. Or: To avoid an edit war over this, do not use either "few" or "many" but just leave the article as it is: Neutral. Merely state, as it does now and as it should in its preferred version, that: "Grigore Mărăcuţă is a native-born Transnistrian and an ethnic Moldovan." This is true and uncontroversial. - Mauco 12:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Only politician with Communist background

A wholly accurate sentence (unlike the one above about how very few politicians are native-born) would be "Grigore Mărăcuţă is one of the few politicians with past experience as a Communist politician". In fact, he is the only one to reach high office in Transnistria. No one else in leadership were professional politicians in Soviet times (he was) or ranking members of the Communist leadership (as was his case). All of this can be sourced. Jamason has done extensive research on this. If other editors agree, this sentence or one like it can be included. - Mauco 12:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if an extensive research was done about the involvement of Transnistrian leaders in Communist Party. Former KGB officer Antyufeev don't qualify as Communist background? No agreement yet about the fact that the sentence about few native-born Transnistrian leaders is wrong--MariusM 12:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the Communist background (lack of), you should know. Alan sent you his thesis. From there, you can pick up all of the secondary and tertiary sources, too, which are heavily documented in the footnotes, and satisfy yourself that his research is accurate and consistent with the true state of affairs within both past and current Transnistrian leadership. Once you agree that this is, indeed, the case, you can add the sentence. I am not doing so because since this is apparently turning into yet another controversial topic, it might be best to discuss first and then only edit later. As for Antyufeev, he was OMON (which was MVD, not KGB) and not a politician. Sure, he worked for the Communist system, but then again, was that not the case of 90% of everyone else in Soviet times? He was never a politician or a ranking member of the Communist Party leadership. - Mauco 12:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)