Jump to content

Talk:Michael I of Romania/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Lil' mouse: Stop the edit warring

One more time: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it is not a battleground WP:SOAP. You are supposed to assume good faith on the part of other editors: WP:AGF, not engage in endless reverts on the fallacious grounds that anyone who disagrees with your edits violates WP:NPOV. In fact, your relentless bandying about of POV/NPOV as an almost insulting way to dismiss any edit that doesn't conform to your own point of view is a violation of WP:CIVIL. You are supposed to try to reach consensus, not endlessly fight to impose your point of view. The way you edit -- and this is basically the only article you've been editing lately (with some minor spillover of the same old, same old stuff in one or two other article) -- is not not at all helpful to building a better encyclopedia. At the end of the day, after all the Sturm und Drang, you haven't measurably improved even this single article, let alone other ones, while distracting through your actions other editors from doing more productive stuff here at WP. So I urge you, one more time, to take some time and read carefully the rules here at WP, meditate on what the purpose on this encyclopedia is, and try to change the way you approach editing. I won't be repeating this message many more times. Turgidson (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, Turgidson: your rant is beside the point. I never in the above dispute accused Fsol of violating WP:NPOV. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) I'm very calm, thank you. (2) The above is not a rant, but a reminder of WP policy, that you keep violating, despite repeated warnings. (3) You did revert my edits repeatedly, with over-the-top WP:NPOV warnings such as here and here (very similar to those here and here, by someone else, I wonder what happened to the other editor with very similar opinions and edit summaries?), which in itself is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, two WP rules that you still need to master. Turgidson (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please, Turgidson, calm down: you are losing your patience, according to this recent edit of yours. Your initial rant was a rant because it is completely beside the point. You were trying to make the point that I engaged "in endless reverts on the fallacious grounds that anyone who disagrees with your edits violates WP:NPOV." "Anyone" also includes Fsol: I never not accused Fsol in the above dispute of violating WP:NPOV. So, please, calm down: being impatient doesn't help you produce quality edits and your last few ones are a clear proof. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hearing lessons about staying calm from you is rich. (But yes, I'm losing patience with your uncivil, disruptive attitude; you can quote me on that.) Hearing lessons about producing "quality edits" from you is simply hilarious. Turgidson (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue anylonger with somebody who is not calm and who resorts to unproven slanderous accusations. Just make sure, please, that next time when you edit this article, you are not going to push your obvious pro-Michael POV as you did in this edit by deleting well-referenced unpalatable information. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in improving Wikipedia! Lil' mouse (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If 'edit warring' occurs on this article? the article will eventually be locked and the warriors will be blocked, simple as that. Good luck folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In this so-called edit war (more of a dispute here on the Talk page around the meaning of some reference quotes, without an actual back and forth of repeated edit reverts), a consensus was eventually reached, as mentioned here. Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please against sockpuppet OWNership

Our sockpuppet is back under a new name, as usual. PLEASE HELP prevent him from dominating and prejudicing this page for another three years! Enough is enough. Be bold! FactStraight (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your grievances in the talk page, or both of you may be blocked for revert war. `'Míkka>t 02:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since 9 March 2006, the content of this article has been effectively controlled to reflect as negative a POV on Michael as possible, overall and with specific non-mainstream allegations, by Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky. While some of these accounts were banned for sockpuppetry, and despite the fact that the article and its talk page are among the most heavily edited bios on Wikipedia, the same anti-Michael edits are re-inserted over and over (against the futile protests of other goof faith contributors -- see the archives of this talk page and its archive for proof) by the above, so that the article remains in violation of our no undue weight rule (specifically, "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all"), in violation of Wiki's NPOV rule (specifically, "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly") and, because of the domination of this one-track perspective, the article is in violation of the no one owns articles rule (specifically, "Ownership examples...Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version"). This can be undone if other editors simply refuse to be wikilawyered away from contributing their edits, and not allow them to be reverted in favor of Stefanp's POV and undue weight content. It's not easy. As the history of edits since March 2006 shows, someone devotes much of his waking hours to propagating through Wikipedia (although previously he did it for years in online forums as well) this perverse notion: as a young king, Michael betrayed Romania by helping oust the pro-Nazi Antonescu, for switching sides near the end of WWII from the Axis Powers to the Allies at a moment which aided the domination of Romania by the Soviet Union, and for not leaving Romania utterly empty-handed when exiled at gunpoint by the Communists. This is not the prevalent view of King Michael's actions and intentions, yet Wikipedia has, for 2½ years, been made to reflect this obscure spin on history through the relentless ownership of this and Michael-related articles. It's time for it to stop. Please help! FactStraight (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the 3RR reminder. I will abide by the 3RR rules in reverting your mass deletions, which border on vandalism.
You have a very biased view of King Michael. You deleted unpalatable information about Him that is well referenced. You went as far as to delete information referenced by King Michael Himself! In the Preamble to the 12.30.2007 Statute of the Romanian Royal Family, He states clearly that He reigned solely "by the Grace of God," not by parliamentarian/popular will, meaning that He reigned (and still reigns for Romanian royalists like myself) by divine, not constitutional right in His second reign. Your bias against the very nature of Michael's reign proves that you cannot be at all objective about this article and cannot adhere to the WP:NPOV rules. Please, refrain from further violating the WP:NPOV rules with your mass deletions. No further reply is needed, just some self-control on your part. Thank you in advance! Nontricky (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"By grace of God" is a standard formal phrase and means nothing informative. `'Míkka>t 18:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, both of you have to explain every disputed change rather than engage in revert war. `'Míkka>t 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I protected the article since your revert war have led to the corruption of the page. I am notifying the wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board with request for action and giving the permission to any admin willing to handle the case to change protection as they feel right. `'Míkka>t 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: tha page was technically corupted: the whole bottom piece was lost. Because of your stubbort revert war I had to protect the page but it would have been insanity from my part to protect a page with half article missing. `'Míkka>t 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael I of Romania violates these portions I've italicised of BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides...Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." The standard for determining violation is not whether the content is sourced. Rather, NPOV says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties" Specific objections raised in sections 1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,21,22 and 23 of Talk:Michael of Romania and sections 1,5,7 and 8 of its archive show that "the concerned parties" have repeatedly but unsuccessfully tried to de-slant the article. The mainstream view among "experts" is typified in the online Encyclopedia Britannica's article, whose "take" on Michael is nearly opposite from our article. BLP violations are not subject to the usual Wiki edit rules; they may be corrected by immediate reversion despite 3RR (although no 3RR violation occurred here) and even to the extent of article deletion (so I apologise for unknowingly "corrupting" some text, but that's not grounds for restoring all of it). I tried to correct this by 1. reporting it at the BLP Noticeboard and 2. toning down the hostile slant by deleting some of the negative content to achieve NPOV balance. In response, I have been threatened, reverted, and the BLP violations have been protected. FactStraight (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You are misleading: there is no "mainstream" view of King Michael's coup of August 23, 1944. The very same Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) you use to paint in Him in a hero espouses differing views on Michael's actions. The main EB article on Bulgaria I have just quoted in my edit calls the coup the same way New York Times and Washington Post had called it decades ago: a "surrender" (a capitulation). So to be objective and abide by WP:NPOV rules, all the differing views must stay in. There is no mainstream view. Not in the West at least. In Romania, however, it's pretty clear: about 85% of the Romanians, according to an opinion poll, were against the Monarchy (that is against King Michael as Its sole representative). So the prevalent view is, in fact, one against, not in favor of King Michael. Therefore, the negative aspects of His reign deserve as much if not more importance in the article as the positive ones, per WP:UNDUE rules. Nontrickyy (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That reference is to surrender to the Allies ("capitulation" is your spin), as compared to the alternative of remaining on the Nazi side under Antonescu and allowing the Soviets to occupy Romania (which they were going to do anyway) as an active enemy nation. Michael tried to negotiate with the UK and USA about surrendering to them, but their deal with the Soviets prompted them to refuse; they told Micheal to deal with the Soviets. FactStraight (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
To make the article more WP:NPOV, I put back the quotes on the "unconditional" "surrender"/"capitulation", since they come from undisputable sources: the U.S. Library of Congress, Encyclopaedia Britannica, NY Times, Wash. Post. I did not put back the "to the Soviets," as the articles do not mention explicitly to whom the King surrendered His country. Also, it is not my spin, but a quote from Wash. Post that King Michael capitulated: "London, Aug. 24 (AP). -- The Germans, trying to salvage what they can from capitulated Romania, promptly announced today the vague formation of a puppet regime opposing King Mihai's new pro-Allied government, appealed for Romanians to remain in the war on the Axis side, and said that rioting had broken out in the Balkan nation." Nontrickyy (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Notricky is not defending their cause, I am removing protection and restoring to the version of FactStraight (with technical corruption fixed). I am also quite surprized that Romanian wikipedians completely ignore this page despite my notice in their notice board.

Motricky or any new account who will revert this version wholesale without detailed explanation for each difference will be blocked for disruption. `'Míkka>t 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I came back to defend the cause of objectivity and a NPOV, so badly hurt by FactStraight's biased view of King Michael's reign. Nontrickyy (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [P.S.: My old account Nontricky is unaccessible since I reset its password to a since forgotten combination, so I created this new one, which is not a sock puppet, since I cannot use the old one].
See the talk page and its archive. Look for all of Stefanp's sockpuppets to see how he has OWNed this article since 9 March 2006, successfully fighting & reverting any other interpretations of "objectivity" but his own.
Wasn't an article on my watchlist. I rather suspect some other editors didn't want to merely inject themselves as yet another party in an ongoing revert war. Perhaps we'll make some progress now on sensible and agreed to changes. On either side, inserting/deleting/reverting massive changes per WP:THIS and WP:THAT in accordance with WP:SOMETHING is not appropriate without discussion by a larger community of editors. The "right" to summarily change because the person is alive is (alas, in 99.9% of the cases I've seen) used to insert an author's own POV, not to upgrade content to be more encyclopedic. I'll have to go through all the history and comments to make an assessment for myself. —PētersV (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for being willing to take a look. I, of course, believe that after reading the talk page, seeing from the edit summary what kind of content has been included/excluded, and tracking the sockpuppetry of Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Adversus hereticos/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky, Nontrickyy, which has dominated input on both article and talk page since 9 March 2006, you'll conclude that this case falls in the 0.01% where a living man is genuinely being libeled by a disillusioned Romanian-American royalist who devotes super-human amounts of time & effort to damaging an old former king's international reputation via Wikipedia. As for using the rules to push my own POV, assume whatever you want about me, but those aren't my sockpuppets all over the edit & talk pages. Look at the standard established by NPOV and BLP for bio content to see if this article complies with Wiki's policy that content should reflect prevailing scholarly opinion. If you compare, just as examples, the online Encyclopedia Britannica article, and Wiki's references to Michael here and here, the discrepancy is too flagrant to dismiss as an edit-warrior's sour grapes. I agree that a solution isn't easy: this guy lives to accumulate snippets of anti-Michael data, which is why it has been so difficult for others to dislodge his ownership of the article. You can't correct it merely by searching for "unverified" distortions to delete. Only by insisting that overall the article not be dominated by such content can Michael's wiki bio become NPOV. And don't neglect the Michael-related articles, such as Radu Duda, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen, whose bio has 74 footnotes (inserted by you-can-guess-who), yet who was unknown to the public before he married the ex-king's daughter 11 years ago. Good luck. FactStraight (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at the article. I agree with FactStraight's exemplification of the way reputable historians look at King Michael's coup. Encyclopedia Britannica he quoted earlier calls His coup a "surrender": "At the end of August, the sudden surrender of Romania, which brought Soviet troops to the Danube months before they had been expected, created panic in Sofia." Nontrickyy (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"NPOV"ing and my revert

Since the above discussion is getting long, continuing here. "N"POV does NOT mean an equal number of positive and negative things said about a person (whether alive or dead) to achieve a good-side/bad-side yin-yang balance. "N"POV does NOT mean giving historical facts and opinions/interpretations of historical facts equal weight. If we want to note that some disgruntled leadership level but still nevertheless Soviet apparatchik said Michael surrendered just to get his reward AND there is historical fact to back it up (for example, had the Soviets had already invaded Romania, taken over, and Michael's deposing of Antonescu and turn on Hitler was purely after-the-fact face-saving), it can be mentioned appropriately. As it stood, it frankly constituted repetition of biased libelous claims. —PētersV (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what also-espouses-"differing"(non-positive)-views-of-Michael Encyclopedia Britannica article someone has been reading, but it's not the one linked to above. It's a short article, highlights are:

  • Royal family got summoned into and involved in anti-Antonescu movement, Michael was its leader and ultimately led coup.
  • After Soviets invaded and occupied, Michael fought for Romania's independence, this time from Soviet domination, but ultimately was unable to thwart Soviet might and was forced to abdicate and flee into exile.

I would add that in that context Michael's award from Stalin was oh-so-typical rubbing salt into the wound of losing Romania to Soviet domination if not annexation--and was Stalin's means of manufacturing and propagating the Soviet version (that is, myth loosely based on facts if at all) of history that Michael was an anti-fascist and therefore pro-Soviet hero. —PētersV (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. And a brief check of some of the other articles referenced provides apparent confirmation (if you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source, which thankfully Wikipedia states in its own policy it is not) that had the Romanian monarchy been eliminated, not only would all Romanian woes have been prevented but Pandora's box itself would have been closed and sorrow and evil purged from the world. You'll pardon the only slight hyperbole. —PētersV (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly: your PPS is completely unwarranted. I am a monarchist and I view myself as H.M. King Michael's loyal subject, since He still reigns as an anointed King, by the grace of God alone, not by popular will.
Secondly, your justification ("the coup turned on Hitler BEFORE Soviet inevitability") for the removal of Enver Hoxha's words is proven wrong by the Encyclopedia Britannica: the Soviet conquest of Romania was inevitable and expected (at least by the Bulgarians, possibly by others as well -- the article is not clear), only not so soon. Michael's "sudden surrender" hastened the conquest: "At the end of August, the sudden surrender of Romania, which brought Soviet troops to the Danube months before they had been expected, created panic in Sofia." Thus, both Hoxha and Encyclopedia Britannica say the same thing, that Michael surrendered in a situation in which He could do nothing else: the Soviet conquest had become inevitable.
Thirdly, unlike many others, I do firmly believe that King Michael's surrender was beneficial to Romania in the long run, for a number of reasons, of which the preservation of the Christian Orthodox faith is foremost. Compared to the free Western Europe, the subjugated Eastern Europe has maintained its Christian faith much better. And no, I do not view Him as a traitor of Romania, for it is absurd to think one can betray oneself. After all, King Michael, as an absolute monarch ruling solely by divine right, incarnates alone and in its entirety the Romanian State. King Michael is Romania. How could He betray Himself?! It is utterly absurd! Nontrickyy (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
None of which alters the fact that since March 9, 2006 Stefanp/Carbunar/Parisian2006/John Mathis/CrownJewel/Throne&Altar/Adversus hereticos/Lil' mouse/Lil' mouse 2/Lil' mouse 3/Nontricky/Nontrickyy has consistently reverted edits to this article of what are contemptuously called Michael's "fans", and uses Wikipedia to purvey the notion that Michael deliberately surrendered Romania to the Communists after ousting pro-Nazi Antonescu (and "failed" to try to protect Antonescu from execution for war crimes!), smuggled money & treasure out of Romania to which he had no right, and was bought off by the Communists to abandon his nation during war time; whereas the prevalent view is that Michael ousted Antonescu to switch Romania from the Nazis to the side of the Allies before the war ended, was driven into exile when threatened at gunpoint by the Communists, and took with him out of Communist Romania what the Communists allowed him to take (how else could he do so?). Subjects have often been bitterly critical of their kings, and apparently, Stefanp is one of those Romanian monarchists who thinks being loyal to his "rightful sovereign" entails defaming his international reputation at every opportunity.FactStraight (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Your entire reponse is off-topic: it fails to address the specific edit mentioned in my posting above and it diverts the discussion towards unfounded generalities you keep rehashing on and on. Also, your posting is an ad hominem atack: if you believe that I am a sock puppet, there are administrative boards where you can file a complaint. This page is not the proper place for such complaints. Please, be so kind as to stop cluttering this page with your generalities on King Michael and to also address your complaints elsewhere. If you replied on the specific topic/edit at hand, that would be much more constructive and much appreciated. I would certainly reply to your on-topic postings, but otherwise not. Thank you for your cooperation in making this article better! Nontrickyy (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
To Nontrickyy, exactly what were the Bulgarians expecting ("months later"?) with between somewhere (as I recall) around 3 1/2 million Red Army crossing the Dniester? On the one hand, they're thinking "inevitable", on the other, there's panic in the streets of Sofia? I'm sorry, but whatever misconceptions the Bulgarians were under, those were/are not King Michael's problem--that's your personal interpretation of the Bulgarian situation. Then there's your (to me) sarcastic use of "H"imself to refer to Michael, which (to me) casts doubt on your profession of devoutness. —PētersV (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I repeat myself: the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB) article does not say who expected the Soviet troops to arrive on Romania's border with Bulgaria (i.e. the Danube, not the Dniester). The fact mentioned in the EB is that, as of August 1944, the Soviets were expected to reach this border, meaning to conquer Romania, months later.
Re: your last comment, all personal pronouns pertaining to a reigning monarch should be capitalized (see, for instance, these Letters Patent signed by King George VI). As King Michael is a reigning sovereign, I capitalize the personal pronouns pertaining to Him, whereas for a monarch no longer reigning, such as King Carol I, I do not capitalize the pronouns. Nontrickyy (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Evenimentul Zilei

Dear Nontriccky, the "one" I refer to instead of "some" is the author. The Evenimentul Zilei piece you quote is little more than a blog ranting about King Michael wasting away his monarchy as if it were some cheap battery that quickly goes dead from use and can never be recharged. It's not any sort of respectable editorial essay, even finishing off paragraphs with hyperbolic questions of the form "is this what we REALLY want in a King?" An encyclopedia article, especially about a living person, is not a repository for monarchist longings for the good old days when kings were kings, men were men, and mice were mice. You're inserting completely inappropriate content. Quoting it doesn't improve it. Please stop attempting to portray Michael as a pox on royalty. —PētersV (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the piece is not at all a "rant" on a blog, but an article in the December 18, 2003 issue of one of the leading dailies in Romania, Evenimentul Zilei. Unfortunately, the new on-line archive no longer mentions the authors of old articles.
Secondly, to ask oneself what one wants from a king is not at all hyperbole, but mere normalcy for a self-declared monarchist.
Thirdly, I see no reason why this piece is inappropriate: King Michael took a political position by awarding a prize to a political leader, hence this info rightly belongs in the Political Positions section. The info is noteworthy/significant as Michael broke the political neutrality expected of a constitutional monarch in awarding this prize. We may argue as to how to best reflect this piece, but there is no question as to its appropriateness: the majority of the readers expect kings in this day and age to act in constitutional manner (if at all for the republican readers), unlike Michael. Nontrickyy (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

I see that there was some edit-warring on this article, such that it is now protected "until disputes have been resolved", but I'm not seeing any discussion here on the talkpage. Have the disputes been resolved elsewhere? Is the protection still needed? --Elonka 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected Tiptoety talk 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Don't we have any more recent photos of Michael? He's not exactly a recluse. Hasn't anyone had a chance to take his picture? - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

New title

I have moved this article to Michael of Romania. A simple Google test shows that "Michael of Romania" is much more common than "Michael I of Romania" - and "Michael of Romania" always refers to the last King of the Romanians. In fact, there are 5.570 hits for "Michael of Romania" and only 2.560 hits for "Michael I of Romania". Besides, there was no other King of Romania named Michael. Surtsicna (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The desire to make this move should have been expressed here before making it. Some monarchs who are the only ones of their nations to rule under a particular name don't use a numeral, and some do, e.g Juan Carlos I of Spain. Michael's legal title was "Michael I", so this article is now in violation of rule #2 under Naming conventions. Why? FactStraight (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Most general rule overall is to use the most common name used in English. Juan Carlos I of Spain is the most common name used in English when referring to the King of Spain, while Michael of Romania is the most common name used in English when referring to this person. One can argue that Joanna of Castile's legal regnal name was Joanna I; however, she is rarely referred to as Joanna I in English. If the title of the article must be this person's legal title, then it would have to be Maiestatea Sa Mihai I Regele Românilor. Once you chop off the style Majesty and translate the rest, not much of the legal title is left anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the complete, correct rule says, "Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules below cover a specific problem." Since Michael's ordinal is covered by, as I mentioned, rule #2 under Naming conventions, the name of this article is now in violation of the applicable Wiki guideline. FactStraight (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case, this article is not the only article that's in violation of the applicable Wiki guideline. Hugh Capet violates all guidelines except for the most important one: the most common name used in English. According to you, lots of other articles violate Wki guidelines, including Joanna of Castile, Urraca of Castile, Petronilla of Aragon, and Martin of Aragon. However, you do not realise that the guidelines were only intended to bring consistency and to help users decide which title to use. We don't use official names if there is a widely established English name and it is quite clear that "Michael of Romania" is the most common name used in English for this person. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"Most common name used in English" is not "the most important" of Wiki's naming conventions, or Princess Diana and Queen Mum would be the names of two of the most widely read royal biographies on Wikipedia. Rather, "most common name" is a general guideline, to be relied upon when other conventions are not more specific. Nor has anyone claimed that this is the only royalty article out of compliance with Wiki's rules: feel free to bring others into compliance. But this one was in compliance until you moved it.
Nor is it correct that Wiki's naming conventions with respect to monarchical titles are intended to "help users decide which title to use" and to "bring consistency". The reason that a person's "official" title is not always the article's name is that our guidelines are, generally, designed to use the name under which readers are most likely to search for a person/entity in Wikipedia. Once a reader finds the article, the correct version(s) of the name is provided in the article's lede. As has been pointed out repeatedly in Naming Convention discussions, it is not Wikipedia's function to correct reality or to impose consistency where history and usage have not already done so. "A monarch is only accorded an ordinal if there have been at least two of the same realm bearing the same name" is not true, and Wikipedia has no business trying to make it look true in the name of "consistency". FactStraight (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Comparing the title of this article to Princess Diana and Queen Mum makes no sense at all. For start, "Princess Diana" would be ambigious, because there were and still are princesses known correctly and incorrectly as "Princess Diana", while "Queen Mum" is a title which has it's own Wiki article.
Nor is it correct that Wiki's naming conventions with respect to monarchical titles are intended to "help users decide which title to use" and to "bring consistency".. Oh really? So why do they exist? The reason that a person's "official" title is not always the article's name is that our guidelines are, generally, designed to use the name under which readers are most likely to search for a person/entity in Wikipedia. I completely agree with this statement. It only strenghtens my arguement that the most common name used in English for this person should be used as title of the article. ...it is not Wikipedia's function to correct reality or to impose consistency where history and usage have not already done so. This statement is also in favour of the usage and historical practice, isn't it? The reality is that this person's "official" name is Mihai Hohenzollern, while the most commonly used name in English is Michael of Romania. If you insist on using the "official" name, then move it to Mihai Hohenzollern. Inventing a name that is neither official nor the most commonly used simply makes no sense. Surtsicna (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent picture

Have we no picture of him from recent decades? It isn't as if he's been in hiding... - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sofia's marriage

  • Sofia, whose marriage was not accepted by her father, has a daughter.[citation needed]

I deleted the phrase "whose marriage was not accepted by her father". This isn't mentioned in Princess Sophie of Romania, and appears contentious. If it's relevant and can be properly sourced then we can add it back.   Will Beback  talk  07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Claim of propaganda image caption

These sources,

  • Hentea, Călin (2007). Brief Romanian military history. Scarecrow Press. p. 19. ISBN 0810858207, 9780810858206.
  • Carell, Paul (1966). Hitler moves east, 1941-1943. Bantam Books. p. 290.
  • van Meurs, Wim P. (1994). The Bessarabian question in communist historiography: nationalist and communist politics and history-writing. East European Monographs/University of Michigan Press. p. 345. ISBN 0880332840, 9780880332842.
  • Boia, Lucian (2001). Romania: borderland of Europe. Reaktion Books. p. 106. ISBN 1861891032, 9781861891037.
  • "Background Note: Romania", United States Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, October 2007.

and many others, state that Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were liberated during Operation Barbarossa. There's even an entire article about the Soviet military occupation - Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

6-years when becoming King

By my count he was 6-years old when he became King. If born on 25 October 1921 and becoming King on 20 July 1927. Article states he was 5 years old. I change it. Please revert if I am wrong. MauriceM3 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Name

"...changed the name of his family to "of Romania", and gave up all princely titles conferred to him and to his family by the German Hohenzollerns." - Does that mean that he changed the name of the former royal house (which is not so relevant as the monarchy is abolished in Romania) or that he changed his name in the official documents (in Romania/Switzerland)? He has citizenship of these 2 states and what counts is the name in the passports. The dynastic name is something "abstract", his civil name is "concrete" and I assume, it is still (von/de) "Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen".--Severino (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't change his name, he merely broke off relations to the Hohenzollerns and renounced the H-S title and decorations, both for himself and for his descendants. His civil name at birth was probably Mihai or Mihai al României, most certainly not Mihai de H-S. His passports might not be a reliable source of his civil name, because they might diverge owing to political circumstances; a good bet for finding out his name are the judicial documents from his trials with Paul Lambrino, because the „metadata” might be accesible in the official internet database of the Romanian Ministry of Justice.--Mihai (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. The "name change" was a demarcation of his dynasty towards the german "mother house". Do you have a link to this database?--Severino (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've found it, but it's useless, as I've feared. Here's a link. I vaguely remembered that there was media controversy that a "republican" tribunal after 1989 bestowed upon Paul Lambrino/Hohenzollern the titles and styles of the royal family. The Romanian courts also have no problem referring to Mihai as "M[ajestatea] S[a] MIHAI I DE ROMANIA", which can't be his name. As an avid reader of many books about him, I am extremely confident that the title was never "de România", but "al României" (see the antet of his abdication document).

This is why I'm against the Tiles and Styles sections in articles regarding Romanian royalty. They're just original research, based upon the English model, and there doesn't seem to be any authoritative source.--Mihai (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, in the first link (an official document, more or less) he is called "M S MIHAI I DE ROMANIA" while they refer to another member of his family as "de Hohenţollern". By the way, in the case of the name change of the british royal house (from "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" to "Windsor"), the change by King George was accepted universally. So, in this respect the consequences of the name change should be clear.--Severino (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

@Everyking:. Those communist leaders were in a position to lie, first of all, as they needed to justify the imposition of the Communist system in Romania and Eastern Europe, and Michael had been the last beacon of democracy in Romania after March 6, 1945.

It's well established that the Communists instigated negative media campaigns to compromise Mihai (see Ivor Porter's biography, which is a reliable source, although slightly favorable towards Mihai), so according to the polices and guidelines of Wikipedia, one should cite reliable secondary sources when using such primary sources as the memoirs of self-declared enemies of the subject of this article, especially in the case of biographies of a living persons. (I quote: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source"). --Mihai (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence?

  • The former king took the decision that the royal family on the consideration that Romania needed a ruling marked by modesty and moral principles, respect and always thinking of others after the "reign and life" of his eldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita.

This does not look like a complete sentence. Was the intention perhaps to say: The former king took the decision that the royal family succession must come to an end on the consideration that Romania needed a ruling marked by modesty and moral principles, respect and always thinking of others after the "reign and life" of his eldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita. (Or something to this effect?) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Foreign honour listed

I noticed that under Honours (specifically 'Foreign honours') it lists 'Sovereign Military Order of Malta: Knight Grand Cross.' I question the veracity of this considering the Order of Malta is a lay catholic order and the article subject is Romanian Orthodox. None of the article's references to this claim even mention this knighthood. I am new here and don't want to jump right in editing articles but I suggest that this honour be removed from the list.Tgc1601 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Like most of the honors section, it was added by a disruptive sockpuppeteer who routinely plagues this page. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael I of Romania. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Michael I of Romania. 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) 05:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael I of Romania. 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) 20:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael I of Romania. 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) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

King Michael I just died

http://www.telegrafonline.ro/doliu-in-romania-regele-mihai-i-a-murit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.78.212 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

BBC comment

In the BBC news posting it says he was 'one of the last surviving WWII era heads of state' (paraphrasing slightly). Who else is there? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I think he was the last one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What about Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep. You are right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Also the 14th Dalai Lama. Timrollpickering 22:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And King Simeon II of Bulgaria, although unlike his neighbour, King Simeon was a child during the War and never exercised power personally. Hogweard (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael I?

In Romania, he was and is called "Michael I of Romania". After all, he didn't know that communism would force him to abdicate. Shouldn't this page be moved? --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would they call him "I"? Doesn't that only kick in when there's a second one? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's up to the monarch to decide his/her style and title. If Queen Victoria had wanted to be called "Victoria I", no power on Earth could have stopped her. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
But he did not exactly choose to call himself Michael I. He called himself Mihai I. If the rationale for calling him Michael rather than Mihai is English language usage, then surely whether or not to use the ordinal should also be based on usage in English language sources. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course. He chose it? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thankfully, it's not for us to decide, we have somethign called reliable sources, and we go with their WP:COMMONNAME. For example: [1][2]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

The name that should appear is "Bratianu" and not "Bratianus". Thank you Bspirache (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: In the article, "the Bratianus" refers to members of the Bratianu family. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Speech impediment

I am sure that I heard on Last Word tonight (December 10) that King Michael had a minor speech impediment. If anybody knows anything about this it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

Mihai I of Romania 149.14.145.26 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: What you want to change? -- HindWikiConnect 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Legion of Merit

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1994-08-23/html/CREC-1994-08-23-pt1-PgS9.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.95.191 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

image

add File:Bucuresti, Romania. Candele si flori pentru Regele Mihai I. Ultimul nostru Rege. 14 Decembrie 2017. (3).jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.40.41 (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done DrKay (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

NAME

SHE USES THE TITLE OF HER MAJESTY THE CUSTODIAN OF THE ROMANIAN CROWN AS THE HEIR OF THE ROMANIAN THRONE. KING MICHAEL I DECLARED THAT THE HEAD OF THE HOUSE OF ROMANIA STYLES AS KING OR QUEEN AND HE OR SHE CHOOSE HIS OR HER STYLE. MARGARET CHOOSE THE STYLE OF MAJESTY BUT COMMONLY USES THE TITLE OF CUSTODIAN OF THE ROMANIAN CROWN. HER TITLE OF PRETENSE IS QUEEN OF ROMANIA.

THEREBY, SHE SHOULD BE IN WIKIPEDIA: MARGARETA, QUEEN OF ROMANIA / QUEEN MARGARETA OF ROMANIA / MARGARETA, CUSTODIAN OF THE ROMANIAN CROWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonarchyLover (talk • contribs) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You can type in capital letters all you want. Typing it big, don't make it right. Note that we've got the article Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, which hasn't been renamed Alexander II of Serbia. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Try [3] or [4]. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_I_of_Romania/Archive_3&oldid=1069864771"