Talk:Grigore Mărăcuţă

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.


Contents

[edit] 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)
Maybe you understand Romanian and Russian, but it seems you don't understand English. I didn't issued a blanket "fatwa" on you. On contrary, I wrote that your challenge against BBC "is a normal thing in a democratic society with freedom of expression". Should I translate this in Romanian?--MariusM 07:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently my dry wit doesn't translate well in any language. - Mauco 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guys. Here is my two cents: I would also agree that attempts to add such information as "one of the only natives..." are politically motivated and inappropriate. By the same token, mentioning that he is native at all seems redundant since the first sentence has his place of birth. Let's axe it. Regarding his founding father status, maybe as a compromise the article could include the "one of three architects" sentence but leave out their respective ethnicities (or even names). This allows us to leave in useful information without describing his as a "founding father" and without making the ethnicities of these architects an issue. Jamason 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am OK with the current version.[7] I would be less happy to leave out the names of the other two, but we can leave out their ethnicities for the simple reason that the creation of PMR was not driven by their ethnicities, primarily, but rather by their political convictions. - Mauco 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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 qualify 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:[[8]] 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)

I don't agree that the information "one of the few natives" is inappropiate. In the list of 17 persons from the leadership of PMR with travel ban in European Union, only 2 are natives transnistrians [9]. Mauco told that is a mistake in the list, Shevchuk also is native transnistrian (that mean 3 out of 17), however, is clear that the majority of the leadership of PMR is composed by newcommers. This is a fact, and I don't agree to hide it for political reasons. Emphasis on the nativness of few transnistrians who are in PMR leadership is an old Soviet propaganda tool - it was used in Basarabia also. Few moldovans were members of the communist party in interwar Basarabia but, in order to show that Communism was appealing to bessarabians, in Soviet books they always pick the few Communist Moldavians and asigned to them a more important role than in reality (see Mikhail Bruhis - Russia, Romania and Basarabia, printed in Russian in Tel Aviv in 1979, translated in Romanian in the nineties; Mikhail Bruhis was a researcher at the Institute for the study of the history of the Communist Party in Moldova before going in Israel, he knows what he write). Same situation with the politically motivated emphasis on Maracutsa and Karaman, I don't agree that only those + Smirnov were the arhitects of PMR.--MariusM 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That dog won't hunt, sorry. 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:[[10]] Finally, the EU list is old and notoriously unreliable. It has from the start been faulty, in all of its three versions. Do you prefer a list which we know to be terribly wrong, compiled by who knows what flunky from Lord know which source, against the officially published and detailed bios on the official Parliament website? - Mauco 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand Russian, please provide an English language source. Eu list is not "terribly wrong" or "notoriously unreliable". You claimed one mistake in it, the other 16 positions (and the general picture) seems OK.--MariusM 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Russian is the de facto language of state in Transnistria and of the major news sources with first hand information on the matter. You must accept first hand sources rather than third hand sources, such as the hopelessly wrong EU list. It is sad and disruptive that you insist on disputing edits made by myself and Jamason, yet you yourself admit to not being able to read or understand the primary and most important sources on the subject. - Mauco 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to the CURRENT parliament, even in the past, Moldovans held a large proportion of the leadership posts. I quote from John O’Loughlin[11]: "The president, Smirnov, is Russian; the president of the Supreme Soviet, Marakutsa, vice-president Karaman, and the president of the Defense Council, General Kitsak are Moldovans, as are the majority of the other leaders of the TMR and the personnel of the armed forces" (emphasis mine). - Mauco 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
So, it has been 15 days since I proposed it. By now, are there any objections to including this sentence in the biography? - Mauco 15:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed paragraph?

MariusM removed the following information with a (misleading?) log comment that "keep disputed paragraph out"[12]

Along with Alexander Karaman and Igor Smirnov, Mărăcuţă was instrumental in Transnistria's declaration of independence on September 2, 1990, and has held high leadership positions in its government since that date.

What, exactly, is the dispute? Is it disputed that Karaman, Smirnov and Mărăcuţă were "instrumental in Transnistria's declaration of independence on September 2, 1990"? If so, on what grounds? Or is it disputed that Mărăcuţă has held high leadership positions in its government since that date? I fail to see what the dispute is about. Please state your case, MariusM, or else refrain from removing this very important part of the subject's biography. - Mauco 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is difficult for you to understand. I kept the part that Maracuta has held high leadership positions in Transnistria's government since 1990, never deleted it, is a misleading comment that I was against that part. I consider inapropiate to mention Smirnov and Karaman in an article about Maracutsa, and I don't agree that those 3 were the only ones instrumental in Transnistria's declaration of independence. We should mention also the role of Moscow politicians then, but it seems that this will drive to other disputes, so, is better to refrain any other mention and to talk only about Maracutsa in this article. You can write on Karaman and Smirnov articles about their role.--MariusM 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. So, if I understand you correctly, we can say:
"Mărăcuţă was instrumental in Transnistria's declaration of independence on September 2, 1990, and has held high leadership positions in its government since that date."
and the only objection is thus the mention of Smirnov and Karaman in this sentence. Is that correct?
What makes it difficult for me to understand is why you had to delete all the rest, if only the Smirnov and Karaman inclusion was disputed. I try to assume good faith, but sometimes it is hard with certain editors. - Mauco 20:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I also find sometimes hard to assume good faith for certain editors. I don't know exactly how instrumental was Mărăcuţă for Transnistrian separatism, but I know he held high positions in Transnistrian government (vicepresident?). Sometimes, for propagandistic reasons, a "puppet" ("om de paie" in Romanian) is promoted in formal high positions, without having real power. To have some ethnic Moldovans in PMR formal leadership was definitely, a good thing for propagandistic reasons.--MariusM 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to guess if he was vice-president. He was not. Mainspace has info on his role. It is right there (hint: look for the word "Speaker"). And I can assure you that Mărăcuţă was no puppet. He was on good and friendly terms with William Hill, twice the OSCE mission head, who publicly testified as to his role as a real power broker and founding father. - Mauco 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If he was not vicepresident, what was he? In main space I found only "member of Respublika party". Is this enough for "founding father"? Regarding Hill, you should provide refference, I don't trust you.--MariusM 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says what he was. I even gave you a hint: He was Speaker. Jamason spells it out: Chairman. Same thing, same job. As for Hill, if you want to include it in main namespace, I will be glad to provide references (plural). Please do not say things like "I don't trust you" as that is not conducive to collaborative editing. Try, as often as possible, to please assume good faith. - Mauco 02:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Smirnov was (and remains) the president. Karaman was the vice-president. Mărăcuţă was the chairman of the Supreme Soviet. That is to say, together they represented the three most important leaders in the PMR executive and legislative branches of government. Jamason 22:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
MariusM, you did not comment on this. Yet at the same time, you revert any mention of Mărăcuţă's role. What gives? He is a key figure. Along with the two others, they are the three most important leaders. Are there others, MariusM? If so, tell us. Do not revert history but illuminate us with the facts. If you can not do so, then please let the work stand. - Mauco 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
MariusM, you are not participating in the discussion. Instead, you made an addition which seems to equal the role of Maracuta with "Aleksandr Rutskoi, Vladimir Antyufeev, Viktors Alksnis, Alexandr Bolshakov, Diukarev," and you did so without telling us in advance, debating it here, or giving us a chance to comment. What is up with that? Will you care to explain what their role is? There is clearly a difference, and if you claim otherwise, then please cite references and sources which back up your - shall we say, novel - interpretation of history. - Mauco 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Please comment those name, but don't delete them. I'm waiting. What you don't agree?--MariusM 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There are only 3 founding fathers. Rutskoi visited once, then left. Antyufeev was not even in Transnistria in 1990. Alksnis, Bolshakov, Diukarev have even LESS of a role. You can certainly NOT compare any of them to the active work done by OSTK and in particular by Smirnov, Karaman and Mărăcuţă. There is ONE fourth name which could be mentioned, and maybe ought to, but it is not any of the above. - Mauco 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Rutskoi is crucial, he helped from Moscow and Moscow role was crucial. For Bolshakov, see Jamason thesis. Antyufeev, if I remember well, was one who forced the police in Tiraspol to surrender, a crucial role. De facto independence was not in 1990, only after War of Transnistria was really a de facto independence (de jure is not even now)--MariusM 14:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. Please provide sources for each of these claims (except for Bolshakov, since I already have Jamason's work.) The burden of evidence is on you, as the editor who wants this to stay. Now please document the influence of Rutskoi, Antyufeev, Alksnis, and Diukarev. - Mauco 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Any feedback? Otherwise I suggest that we get rid of these redlinks for people who obviously are not 'founding fathers' in any way. Diukarev doesn't even appear with a full name. To the casual observer, the whole thing just look like spam which is added to detract from the true efforts of Karaman, Smirnov and the Maracuta. - Mauco 03:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we discuss this here, please, so as to keep the edit warring out of mainspace? Otherwise, how can this particular editor, User:MariusM, claim that there is "a dispute" if he is not willing join Talk to explain his stand and if he refuses to back up his edit with sources..? - Mauco 08:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I really have a problem with the style of User:MariusM. Every time we touch the page, he reverts and sometimes with angry comments (like "vandal" and "troll"). Then when we let his edits stay, and ask him to defend them in Talk, and provide sources, he ignores it. Meanwhile, he is active elsewhere - on other pages - reverting, editing, even reporting me for violations (for the fourth time, but the admins are mercifully showing enough common sense that they know the score and have seen his kind in the past). Now, what do we do? The page is effectively hi-jacked because we have an obstructionist user who demands that his edits stay (and gets upset if we remove them), yet at the same time, he is ignoring all requests to provide sources or to even discuss this anymore. This is now the 4th such appeal. - Mauco 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If MariusM will not join this discussion, nor provide sources, I believe that we are justified in removing the information which he is not defending and not submitting citations for. It has been several days now. Why the silence? - Mauco 16:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After many days and several requests, MariusM is on the record as not having been willing to join in this discussion or provide sources for why he claims that a list of other people are as important as the Karaman, Smirnov and and Maracuta trio in the events surrounding September 2, 1990, and why he believes that they should be included with an equal status. After this lack of cooperation, he instead made an edit [13] which can at best be described as disruptive, removing the full names of these 3 and instead adding a list of non-notables who were members of the first PMR parliament but who do not have the status of "founding fathers" as per any of the available histories of Transnistria. I am reverting and, once again, emphatically inviting MariusM to please join in this discussion to defend his edits. - Mauco 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep disputed sentence out, until agreement is reached

That is certainly fair. But MariusM merely removed the information that "Along with Alexander Karaman and Igor Smirnov, Mărăcuţă was instrumental in the declaration of independence." Would he please explain what, if anything, is incorrect about this sentence? - Mauco 22:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Would MariusM please explain what, if anything, is incorrect about this sentence? If there is no discussion forthcoming here, and thus no objections, the sentence goes right back in. - Mauco 02:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I alreay answered at "Disputed paragraph" section.--MariusM 02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well that answers it, then. I read it, and I could not find any statement that disproves the factual accuracy of the wording "Along with Alexander Karaman and Igor Smirnov, Mărăcuţă was instrumental in the declaration of independence." He was, and so were the other two, as Jamason has already pointed out and as other historians say as well.[14][15] - Mauco 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First PMR Supreme Soviet

From User:Jamason, a person who was recomended by Mauco, I received the complete list of the members of first PMR Supreme Soviet: N. Shestakov; A. Efanov; V. Sheremetenko; G. Pologov; Iu. Svishchev; I. Mil’man; O. Zapol’skii; V. Kogut; Iu. Levitskii; V. Kharchenko; F. Dobrov; O. Orlov; V. Finagin; V. Diukarev; S. Pokotilo; A. Belitchenko; N. Chegurko; B. Akulov; V. Voevodin; N. Bogdanov; V. Arestov; V. Emelianov; A. Morozov; An. Bol’shakov; V. Volkova; A. Saidakov; S. Moroz; V. Ordin; V. Zagriadskii; A. Manoilov; V. Potashev; Al. Bol’shakov; V. Iakovlev; V. Charyev; V. Ryliakov; P. Zalozhkov; I. Smirnov; A. Donnik; S. Leont’ev; B. Bodnar; I. Tsynnik; V. Peretiatko; V. Kozhukhar’; S. Sokolov; G. Marakutsa; V. Khlystal; G. Evstratii; G. Podgorodetskii; V. Gonchar; M. Malai; Iu. Zatyka; A. Salamandik; V. Baboi; N. Ostapenko; V. Balyka; M. Kirichenko; A. Bulychev; V. Labunskii; V. Karamanutsa; A. Karaman; N. Mitish; V. Efimets; V. Zadir. (Viktor Emel’ianov, Za rodinu i prava cheloveka: desiat’ let bor’by pridnestrovtsev za svobodu pod znamenem OSTK, 1989-1999 gg. (Tiraspol’: Tipar, 1999), 10.

I reproduced this list only because we have an argument on this talk page, User:William Mauco pretended that ethnic Moldovans are well represented in the leadership of PMR. While ethnicity is not mentioned, from the names we can have a hint. I guess Moldovans were: V. Iakovlev, V. Kozhuhar, G. Marakutsa, G. Evstratii, M. Malai, Iu. Zatyka, V. Baboi, V. Karamanutsa, A. Karaman, V. Efimets. 10 out of 63. 15.8% while the proportion of Moldovans in Transnistrian teritory (including Tighina) was 38%. Same trend of underrepresentation of ethnic Moldovans can be seen in actual PMR Soviet.

Mauco, you want to mention Karaman and Maracutsa alongside with Smirnov to create the impression that PMR creation was supported even by Moldovans in the region, and that the majority of leadership was Moldovan. This is a fallacy. I know that this is what PMR propaganda pretend, but it is simply not true. Antyufeev is more honest telling that he want to abtain this land for Russia, instead of bullshits with the defend of Transnistria's Moldovans. In the last MP list you can see the same trend of ethnic Moldovan underrepresentation (and organisations like "Union of Moldavians in Pridnestrovie" have nothing to say about it). If you insist of adding Karaman and Smirnov, I would add the entire list of PMR first Supreme Soviet.--MariusM 09:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How is this "a fallacy"? How is this "simply not true"? Please demonstrate WHERE you get your information that the majority of Moldovans in the region are eager to join Moldova or seek unification with Moldova. Real sources, please. A list of names is no indicator of anything, and the threat ("if you insist on X, then I will do Y") is not how Wikipedia is edited. - Mauco 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is a fallacy and is "simply not true" what you want to make readers believe: that the majority of the leadership of Transnistrian separatist regime is or was composed by Moldovans. The list of first PMR supreme Soviet is the refference: Viktor Emel’ianov, Za rodinu i prava cheloveka: desiat’ let bor’by pridnestrovtsev za svobodu pod znamenem OSTK, 1989-1999 gg. (Tiraspol’: Tipar, 1999). You should not pick up from the leaders list only what it fits your interest. My opinion is that in this article we have 2 choices: either we don't mention any other name, only the fact that Mărăcuţă had high positions in the leadership; either we mention all the leaders. Ethnic cleansing the history, in order to claim that Moldovans had a higher role that they really had, is an old Soviet trick used to falsify history, we should not accept it in WIkipedia.--MariusM 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Request for source, please. The list of first PMR Supreme Soviet from Viktor Emel’ianov is merely a list of mostly unknown names. It does not support any claim that Moldovans in Transnistria prefer to unite with Moldova. I request again: Please demonstrate WHERE you get your information that the majority of Moldovans in the region are eager to join Moldova or seek unification with Moldova. Real sources, please, not a list of names. - Mauco 13:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "along with..." edit war

I did not want to get involved with, what I believed to be a pointless and absurd edit war, but since I inadvertently supplied some of the information that has been used to fuel this conflict, I will weigh in.
This is Mărăcuţă's article. This is not the appropriate forum for listing every single person (no less!) "instrumental" in creating the PMSSR. Whether or not any of these (60-some!) individuals is "instrumental" isn't even relevant in my opinion. If they are so important, let's just give them articles of their own.
Put another way, I basically agree with Marius's original position that neither of the other two "founding fathers" need necessarily be mentioned in Mărăcuţă's article. But I would like to express my strong disapproval of his methods. If you are making a point, make this point ON THE TALK PAGE. The pointless listing of over sixty individuals here is to my mind something close to vandalism. Needless to say, my willingness to share research on request will not be so readily forthcoming if it is used in such a way. Jamason 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not vandalism, but equally frowned upon by the community. There is a guideline on the subject. It is called Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Mauco 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is good that finally we reached a consensus about removing the others from this article. It seems that methods used by me to achieve the consensus worked. I tried before discussion in Talk page, but I founded only deaf ears.--MariusM 00:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus? I see two of us in favor of removal and one against, and two of us convinced your behavior breached wikipedia guidelines. Unless you agree that your "methods" are unacceptable, there is no consensus. Jamason 01:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to say the exact same thing to MariusM: Not so fast, my friend. You, Marius, are not the judge of when there is consensus or not, and your actions (if you repeat them) will still be considered disruptive. You must not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. See the guidelines. As for consensus, I, for one, see Marakutsa as one of 3 (possibly 4) who should be credited as founding fathers of PMR. In this context, a reader or researcher who finds his biography here in Wikipedia will be helped in his research by learning of Marakutsa's role. Normally, such a person is researching the broader issues. In this context, a couple of helpful blue wikilinks to the others will enhance the article and make it much more useful to a researcher. Think of the Ukrainian high school student who is doing an assignment and using our entry for research: Will she be served better by us also including the links to the Smirnov and Karaman entries? Or will she be poorer off by us leaving them out? I believe so, and always try to edit from the readers' point of view and how we can help them understand these issues. - Mauco 01:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I quote from Jamason: "I basically agree with Marius's original position that neither of the other two "founding fathers" need necessarily be mentioned in Mărăcuţă's article". And after he made the edit I saw that Mauco didn't try to include again Smirnov and Karaman. This is why I believed we reached a consensus. Now, the same Jamason is telling that we don't have a consensus, somebody is against the removal. Is Jamason reffering to Mauco? And yes, we don't have a consensus regarding who breach Wikipedia guidelines.--MariusM 01:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The endless pissing matches are getting a bit, shall we say, repetitive. Instead of arguing in a he-said, she-said way, I would just like to focus on how we can make the article more useful to researchers who are just getting started, and who don't have as much knowledge about Transnistria as the three of us here. If we mention the 3 or 4 founding fathers in passing, we are not changing anything in the focus, tone or gist of the article, but merely making it more helpful and informative for newcomers. - Mauco 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)