Talk:Michael I of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Romania This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Michael I of Romania:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Talk:Michael I of Romania/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Debate on the sources used for editing

This page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to pursue endless feuds about Romanian history. Adam 10:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

i was trying to get mr. stefanp to improve the article by removing some statements that are wrongly formulated. the only way to do that (it seems) was through this endless feud. but i have been already convinced that none of us will ever convince each other so in a way i agree with you. ilya 13:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me, but rather the Wikipedia readers. Any statement made in an article must be backed up by "verifiable, reliable, published sources." All my statements were backed up with such sources. You can add your statements, too, just make sure you have equally reliable (non-Romanian, free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias) sources to prove them . Stefanp 21:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proofs for my edits to the coup and armistice: "On August 23 King Michael, a number of army officers, and armed Communist-led civilians supported by the BND locked Ion Antonescu into a safe and seized control of the government. The king then restored the 1923 constitution and issued a cease-fire. The Red Army occupied Bucharest on August 31, 1944. In Moscow on September 12, Romania and the Soviet Union signed an armistice on terms Moscow virtually dictated. The Red Army also transported about 130,000 Romanian soldiers to the Soviet Union, where many perished in prison camps. After its surrender, Romania committed about fifteen divisions to the Allied cause under Soviet command." (U.S. Library of Congress) Stefanp 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The royal decree of King Carol II, given on September 5 1940 just before vacating the Romanian Throne, states that the King, besides other prerogatives, was "Head of the Army" and "named the plenipotentiary president of the Ministers' Cabinet" (i.e. Prime-Minister). The Prime-Minister exercised "the other powers of the State." Thus, King Michael had the supreme and decisive command of the Army, not Prime-Minister Antonescu, as the latter had only prerogatives "other" than the King's, who was "Head of the Army". Moreover, King Michael could legally change the Prime-Minister. On the basis of these two legal powers, King Michael was to command the Romanian Army to cease-fire before any armistice was signed (i.e. to surrender to the Soviets) as well as to change Prime-Minister Antonescu on August 23 1944. Stefanp 23:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Romanian Kings were constitutional "Kings of the Romanians" ("Regele Romanilor"), not feudal ones "of Romania", just as the constitutional King Louis-Phillipe was "King of the French", unlike the absolutist feudal Kings "of France": "Reverse: the inscription "MIHAI I REGELE ROMANILOR" meaning "KING OF THE ROMANIANS", MIHAI I head facing right. Under the neck lies H. IONESCU, the engraver's name." (Romanian coins) Stefanp 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


This needs more rigorous verification and discussion before having a place on the article page.

MarinaC 19:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not need more verification. The information contained in an article must be "verifiable, reliable, published sources." All the sources quoted in this link are reliable: the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, US Library of Congress, etc. According to the above Wikipedia rules, "verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Therefore, there is no need for "more rigorous verification" of these sources quoted in the above link. Of course, we can always discuss them here in this area, but one should never vandalize the article when such reliable sources are posted there, even more so when the information presented in them is not to one's liking - as is clearly the case with you and the respective information. Stefanp 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

so what you're telling me is that it doesn't matter whether the information is true, if it's published in the new york times? that's absurd! ilya 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I am perfectly aware of Wikipedia fundamentals regarding"verifiability" versus truth.
Secondly, my edits do not constitute "vandalism"; please be more dispassionate and refrain from personal attacks. I am trying to improve the article.
Thirdly, no-one has a monopoly over posting about King Michael,or his family,and I fully intend to exercise my democratic right to edit on this subject, even if you do not like it.
Next, you wrote above: "Any statement made in an article must be backed up by .. "verifiable, reliable, published sources.".....You can add your statements, too, just make sure you have equally reliable (non-Romanian, free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias) sources to prove them". Please abide by your own rules. The first source you cite (Rompres) is Romanian. The second, BBC's report of declassified Foreign Office documents indeed said that "When he (King Michael) left Rumania (sic) his only asset was 500,000 Swiss francs” but it was NOT stated from where these funds originated, or when I see that you have yourself "toned down" your previous sentence about the 500,000 francs probably because you are aware of this latter fact.
Furthermore,in Ivor Porter's recent biography"Michael of Romania" (ISBN 0-7509-3847-1) page 171, you will find that when King Michael went to Princess Elisabeth and Prince Philip of Greece's wedding in London in November 1947, his private secretary withdrew 140,000 Swiss francs, 150,000 French francs, and 50 Pounds sterling to cover their expense for the trip.

MarinaC 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


You said that we should not use Romanian sources.... in your view they are neither reliable nor verifiable, as they are not free from decades of Communist propaganda and bias. Removing information derived from them is therefore not vandalism, but clean editing. This reliability rule must also apply for your above quoted sources (http://stiri.rol.ro/stiri/2005/04/185333.htm Rompres news agency,] quoted by [http://adevarul.cluj.astral.ro/arhiva/2005/04/13/p4.pdf Adevarul de Cluj) . In your view they are neither reliable nor verifiable, so why use them? Please be consistent with yourself!
Your attempts at accounting are neither convincing, nor, more importantly, verifiable. None of us have seen the accounts re:how much was spent during the London wedding trip....Part of the amount I refer to could well have - or may not have- still existed after January 1948, as you say "as it must have been spent and covered with official expense receipts". You say "Must have been", but you have no accounting or other sources to back this up. We are not allowed such speculation on Wikipedia.
 : Please provide a reliable, verifiable source for your statement about the post-abdication Communist Government endowment of 500,000 Swiss francs; that would be the best course to reach an agreement on the article's wording and content. In the meantime I have made a slightly more neutral modification.

Thanks MarinaC 20:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am being consistent with my own rules, as my own standards of reliability of using only non-Romanian sources apply only to the most important and disputed royal act - the royal and Communist coup of August 23 1944. To refresh your memory, here is what I had answered to Ilya in the Discussion archive: "1. With regards to the most critical issue of King Michael's second reign - the royal and communist coup of August 1944 -, I quoted non-Romanian sources, as they are free from 50+ years of Communist bias and indoctrination. Therefore, I expect the same from you. With regards to other issues of lesser importance besides the coup (e.g. the paintings), I did quote Romanian sources of English language (e.g. "Evenimentul Zilei") and non-Romanian equally, so please feel free to do the same." For brevity's sake (having already taken up a whole Discussion Archive with disputes around sources), I deemed redundand to re-iterate this very important aspect - non-Romanian sources only about the August 23 coup - in my brief answer to Ilya above posted. However, it is not my own standards of reliability, but rather Wikipedia's which matter here. According to Wikipedia, one can post anything as long as it is "published" somewhere - anywhere - in the world, by anybody "reliable." These recently declassified transcripts above mentioned were revealed, as you can see for yourself in the two sources you dispute, at a historians' conference organized by the well-respected Institutul National pentru Memoria Exilului Romanesc (National Institute for the Memory of the Romanian Exile). The Institute was recently founded, being thus free from Communist dictatorship constraints and bias, comprises many respected historians (one of whom was quoted by Ilya - the same one who revealed the transcripts!) and numbers as honorary president nobody other than ... King Michael himself! How can you then claim this Institute and the transcripts revealed under its patronage are not reliable?! In conclusion, this source is at the same time "reliable", given the above facts, is "published" and can be "verified" by clicking on the two links (sorry for those of you who don't speak Romanian - I translated the essential part of the article in the Discussion Archive). It, therefore, meets Wikipedia's three standards for information which can be posted in an article. Thank you! Stefanp 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing text!

I made a couple of minor edits, today Monday 17 April 2006, and the whole of the bottom part of the article disappeared....puzzled, I tried to revert the article to it's previous complete form, without success. Now horrified by either my incompetence or a fault in my computer (always blame your tools...) I used another computer and created a second account, and then managed to return the article to it's previous contents... Sorry for any inconvenience, it was not intentional.

Marina C (2) 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne's Birth Title

Anne's style was never "Anne of Bourbon, Princess of Parma", nor was she ever known as such.

  1. The change made in the article's reference to the consort of King Michael of Romania as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented elsewhere, but here goes:
    1. The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage.
    2. As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature.
    3. It is how they are referred to legally:
      1. One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine).
      2. Similar title in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine).
      3. And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme.
    4. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911.
    5. Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review.
      1. The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine).
      2. But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine).
      3. The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
    6. No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.
    7. The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Michael's consort Anne was born 60+ years after exile. Lethiere 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] King Michael and the Soviet Order of Victory

My edit today regarding the reason King Michael received the Soviet Order of Victory is based on many verifiable sources, the formulation "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies" is to be found in such sources as:

Library of Congress Country Studies - Romania. "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies" . Use Google

Nations Encyclopedia http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/ http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11127.html

Also at AllRefer.com http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/romania/romania35.html

as well as http://www.ciaonet.org/atlas/countries/ro_data_loc.htmland: " the Soviet Union later awarded Michael the Order of Victory for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies"

and others.

Further explanation can be found at: http://www.vor.ru/English/whims/whims_026.html "The Victory Order was awarded also to international leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, among them the Commander in Chief of the Yugoslav People’s Liberation Army, General Josip Broz Tito, Marshal of Poland Michal Rolja-Zymersky, British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, US General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower and King Mihai I of Romania......" Marina C (2) 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII heads of state

The article currently states that he is one of the last two living heads of state from the World War II era (the other being Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan). What about Simeon II of Bulgaria?

Also, the succession box at the bottom of the page regarding Michael's titles in pretence is poorly phrased. Why does it say "never ruled" above "King of Romania" (1947- ) when the row above that indicates that he did in fact reign from 1940-47? Is that supposed to mean that he never ruled while also being deposed? That's tautological. --Metropolitan90 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


You are absolutely right on both counts - King Michael and King Simeon were heads of states of countries "taking part", if you will, in WWII. So strictly speaking Mohammed Zahir Shah of Afghanistan is in another cartegory. Afghanistan did not in fact play an active role in the war, however its position meant that it was not completey untouched by the war. This needs translating into Wikispeach.
Secondly, I agree that it is incorrect and tautological to have "never ruled" above "King of Romania" (1947- ) when the row above that indicates that he did in fact reign from 1940-47, which he undoubtaedly did. It needs redoing. Will you have a shot at it? If not, I'll try. Marina C (2) 14:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would rather someone else figure out what to do with the succession box. I note that a similar "Never Ruled" appears in the succession boxes for Simeon II of Bulgaria and Constantine II of Greece, the latter also being a deposed king who did reign before the abolition of the monarchy in his country. The treatment of all three should be consistent. --Metropolitan90 15:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that's part of the template. I'll address that issue at the appropriate template page. --Metropolitan90 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Wales offered Romanian throne

I removed the following:

Romanian monarchists, however, presumably disillusioned with Princess Margarita's choice of a prince consort, are said [1] to have offered the vacant Romanian throne to HRH The Prince of Wales, an offer which he declined.

which was added by User:Stefanp in June. I don't read Romanian, but as per his user page and Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales, the referenced article does not say this. (The logic on the latter page – getting "A was offered B" from "if A were to accept the offer of B..." – is quite absurd.) -- Jao 22:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The pertinent fragment in Tom Gallagher's article about this offer reads in English as follows: "And if, utopically speaking, His Royal Highness had decided to give up waiting for his mother to pass away, had learned Romanian, and had accepted the invitation to become the head of a state he had fallen in love with - see his repeated visits and gestures of protection extended to a patrimony oftentimes endangered - perhaps he would have ended up proving himself to be the best sovereign Romania had since Carol I." Thus, Gallagher says that it is an utopia for Prince Charles to accept the offer to become sovereign of Romania, not that the offer is utopic. There is no adjective next to the noun "invitation" such as "presumed" or "hypothetical" to put the offer in doubt. So the offer existed. The "utopical" pertained to "if he had accepted" it. The acceptance of such an invitation is clearly a utopia, for it would be very unlikely for Charles to desert his duties towards the British Kingdom, albeit a beautiful utopia as the author further explains. MihutM 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jao and have removed the speculation. Lovellester 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi ,I wrote to Professor Gallagher and got some answers. I sent first a message to Stefanp's user page to say that I had some correspondence with Professor Gallagher since end August, and I got the text of the article in english meantime. I was quite amazed he answered me (2 times). He is a great guy -superior intellect obvously, but a bit vague through decency i think and refuses to be drawn in. He said no offer that he knows of was made to prince Charles to accept the Romanian throne, Prof was just talking "hypothetically" in the article he published, which was about quite another subject. I was sort of disappointed as the idea was really interesting.
Here are Professor gallaghers words, from his first email to me of 23 august:
Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête
Expéditeur T.G.Gallagher@.........uk
Date Mer, 23 Août 2006, 10:11
Dear Mr Perlier,
I'm glad that you've been having rewarding times during your visit to Romania. it is a multi-layered country and it is only rarely that some of its finer aspects get the treatment they deserve in the world's media.(...)
I had a look at wikipedia and couldn't find the reference to my recent article in which i alluded to an invitation to Prince Charles to come and fill any monarchical vacancy in Romania. (...) maybe I didn't look at the particular sentence with the reference to Prince Charles closely enough. It was a detour from the main point in the article and I was just saying that if there was a vacancy and a call came, he might want to consider accepting it.
all good wishes,
Yours Sincerely,
Tom Gallagher
Second email 3 days ago:
Sujet Re: Romania - King and Prince Charles Afficher l'en-tête

Expéditeur:T.G.Gallagher@........uk Date : Sam, 28 Octobre 2006, 18:38 Priorité: Normale

Dear Ian Perlier,
Thank you for your absorbing message. (....) As for the main point of your letter: sorry to disappoint you, but I am reluctant to get further involved.As you know, I didn't call for Prince Charles to become a contender for the Romanian throne, I just floated it as a hypothesis. Perhaps it was inevitable that royal bloggers from different camps in Romania would choose to argue that I had done the first. But my words stand for themselves in the newspaper and you have managed to find the translation, due to your tenacity.
What I say or don't say from now on about the subject will make little difference to how it is treated and I am reluctant to plunge into wikipedia armed with a denial. It was a very rare intervention by me on the royal question and I don't have strong views on the matter, except perhaps that in certain specific circumstances a royal restoration could end an injustice and prove beneficial for the future development of Romania.
Best wishes,
Tom Gallagher
So there was no offer, Prof G would have confirmed it. i guess this counts as a primary source ? So not valid on wikipedia? Interesting for us all anyway, and so editors can remove speculation and stick to the published text only.It has been a cool experience for me in any case.Iapethus 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC).213.130.141.157 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been following this debate for some time, and searched the whole of the internet and all possible written sources. It is very clear that there is NO WAY that anybody can possibly sustain that the prince of Wales was offered any throne in Romania (there is none to offer in any case). It was a careless way of writing by this Gallagher analyst.
Those who cry "Vandalism!" should review the Wikipedia pages on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
I have drawn attention in capitals for those who keep deliberatley re-inserting the same unsustainable meaning to the Gallagher text as these editors are vandalizing Wikipedia by continuously reverting, and by this persistent insistence on something which is just NOT contained in the text /they are using as reference. Among other clarifications they should note that:
"Vandalism is also defined as any ADDITION, deletion, or CHANGE of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably ex::plicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion ONCE is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right, or false but well-intentioned, or outright vandalism.

(...)

Types of vandalism
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
Blanking
Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
Sneaky vandalism
Vandalism which is harder to spot. ADDING MISINFORMATION, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos, hiding vandalism e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one, or REVERTING LEGITIMATE EDITS TO HINDER THE IMPROVEMENT PROCESS.
What vandalism is not
Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently:
(among others)
(...)
Bold Edits
Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.
If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.
And:(PLEASE NOTE THIS WELL!)
Content disputes are not vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism very carefully to exclude good-faith contributions. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, that is, a deliberate attempt to degrade the encyclopaedia, not a simple difference of opinion.
Let common sense prevail.Tobias Greene 17:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maniu "Cursing the King"

I highly doubt that Maniu did such a thing. The reference provided needs careful translation. The context in which Maniu's words are described in the Jurnalul National piece is not rendered in the reference used in Wikipedia. "Peste cativa ani s-au trezit iarasi ca au nevoie de Maniu pentru un alt proces politic. Venise randul primului ministru comunist al Justitiei, Lucretiu Patrascanu, sa cunoasca "dialecticele" raporturi dintre cetateanul unui regim comunist, adevar si dreptate. Pentru "a dovedi" apropierea lui Patrascanu de "reactiune" la 23 august 1944, o echipa de anchetatori s-a deplasat la Sighet, interogandu-i pe toti detinutii implicati in evenimente. La inceputul lui 1953, Iuliu Maniu era insa prea grav bolnav ca sa mai poata vorbi. Ultimul intemnitat in aceeasi celula cu el fusese, la Galati, Nicolae Carandino. Ce spunea Maniu despre 23 august? – este interogat gazetarul. Nimic, nu povestea despre asta, raspunde Carandino. Si totusi despre ce vorbea Maniu? – insista anchetatorii. Il injura pe Rege, pentru ca nu facuse nimic in apararea taranistilor, desi multe fusesera serviciile pe care ei le adusesera monarhiei – a declarat ultimul vorbitor cu Maniu. " It seems that the communist inquisitors forced Maniu's last cellmate to make this statement. A statement made under duress is not very credible, the Wikipedia article needs to include this context. Translation needed, or I will remove the reference. Marina C (2) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there are no "inquisitors" mentioned in the article, which only a "Grand Inquisitor" fan like you would see where, in fact, there are only prosecutors ("anchetatori" in Romanian). Granted, they were Communist prosecutors, but no further details are povided in the article as to their interrogation methods. Thus, there is no indication of force or duress applied to the witness. As to the translation of the relevant part edited into the Wiki article, the last sentence shows what it is said (as the Wiki edit reads) by Maniu's cell-mate: Maniu "was cursing the King for not having done anything in the defense of the PNT members, although many had been the services they had rendered to the monarchy -- stated the person who last spoke to Maniu." I would hope that despite your biased, pro-Michael views, you agree with the translation. Stefanp 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWII Historical Facts and Interpretations

An expert is sorely needed to edit the section about Romania, and King Michael's role in World War 2. The "facts" quoted in this article have references ok, but they are selected facts, deprived of an overall context and are not completed with others thus the articleis one sided and is unbalanced and biased towards an anti Michael viewpoint. Examples: "facilitated by the King's cease-fire order given before any armistice was reached."

"...on terms the Soviets virtually dictated[6]. The coup effectively amounted to a capitulation[7], an unconditional surrender[8] to the Soviets. King Michael was spared the fate of another former German ally, Prince Kyril, Regent of Bulgaria, executed by the Soviets in 1945, ..."

"However, some claim[9] that Michael's failure to be invited, with a few exceptions, to most of the Victory in Europe Day celebrations in the West throughout the years, could be seen as a tacit condemnation of the consequences of his coup, which afforded Stalin's troops a faster advance[10] into Romania and Europe, to the detriment of that of the Western Allies."

"Stalin decorated him with the Soviet Order of Victory, for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu, for putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies, and as a sign of gratitude for the King's cease-fire order[11] given during the coup, which had speeded the Red Army's advance into Romania[12"

"Moreover, there are several reports[13][14][15][16] that the Romanian Communist authorities obedient to Stalin presented King Michael with 42 valuable Crown-owned paintings shortly before the King's abdication, some of which[17] were reportedly sold through the famed art dealer Daniel Wildenstein." Only negative stuff. and so on.Marina C (2) 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, before you demand "Expert" opinions, why don't you first make the minimal effort to research the topics and come up with pro-Michael opinions/facts properly referenced? I'll delete the "Expert" opinion demand to give you the chance to do some research work first, ok? Intellectual laziness is not a good enough excuse to demand "expert" opinions. Stefanp 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Marina! You claim that "the articleis one sided and is unbalanced" and that there is "Only negative stuff." I beg to differ: the article is fairly balanced, in that for each accusation against King Michael, there is also an opposite, pro-Michael argument. The difference between the two kinds of arguments lies in the amount of evidence on each side: there seems to be more evidence against rather than pro. There is, though, one exception to this balance rule: the story of the Crown paintings is remarkably one sided. Since you seem to be a fan of King Michael, perhaps you could try to find out more pro-Michael evidence, especially about the story that it was Carol II rather than Michael who took the Crown paintings out of Romania? John Mathis 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The article it's not balanced at all. It's obvious the article describe the negative part of Michael. Most of the references lead to online articles with no sources at all. There is no serious work about King Michael used here as a source.--Roamataa 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Roamata! I agree that this article could use some quotes from scholarly works. However, the referenced on-line materials do meet the Wikipedia standards for acceptable sources. Besides, a lot of them are very reputable, being true standards of professionalism in their respective fields of journalism or history: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, the Congress Library. John Mathis 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all the sources pointed to are in Romanian, and the arguments themselves are either matters of opinion that shouldn't be in the article, even if sourced, or highly dubious factual claims, like the one about the paintings. john k 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the paintings, the van Rijn article claims that Michael abdicated in 1945, so I don't see how it can be treated as reliable. i've always heard that it was Carol who took paintings out of the country. Furthermore, that article claims that the Romanian government was asserting its rights over the paintings, which hardly suggests that they gave them to Michael, as this article asserted. john k 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who are the experts on Michael's reign?

Hi, Marina! Would you, please, be so kind as to name some experts (either Romanian or foreign) on King Michael's reign that you wished would edit the "Rule" chapter and, if possible, mention some of their credentials (books, articles written on this subject)? Thanks in advance! John Mathis 19:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello John Adams
Ivor Porter would be one such expert, Dinu Giuirescu would be another one, as well as historians of WWII in general, of which I will supply you a list asap, but this is the reponsibility of all editors=to find the best sources possible.So up to you too. Who would you suggest? Secondly , according to Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy , the burden of proof is on the editor making any claims in his/her edits. You make edits and quote sources , fine, but you need rock solid sources, several of them to back up any edit which may be contested. Read the rules boyo. Marina C (2) 21:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Marin, please, quote sources you, too, before making any edits. As far as I can tell, all of the statements deleted by you and other King Michael fans (some would call these vandalisms) have rock-solid proofs, reputable sources behind them. John Mathis 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Coup effectively amounted to a capitulation"

This comment is a judgment made by the narrative voice of the article, and is blatantly a POV attempt to make Michael look bad. The description of what happens makes it clear enough that the purpose of the coup was to end Romania's participation in the war on the German side. Romania was in no position to do this on its own terms. We should let people judge for themselves, not tell them to think that this was some kind of betrayal of Romania, which strikes me as a bizarre perspective. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV, but a fact that the New York Times and the Washington Post had labeled the coup as a "capitulation" and an "unconditional surrender" in the absence of any prior armistice or truce. An armistice would be signed only 3 weeks later. Here are the full quotes: "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." ("Hitler Resorts To 'Puppets' In Romania," Washington Post, Aug 25, 1944) "BERNE, Switzerland, Aug. 23 -- In a brief proclamation to the Rumanian people broadcast from Bucharest at 9:25 o'clock this evening, King Michael of Rumania ordered his armed forces to cease fire against the forces of the Allies, saying he had accepted their terms of unconditional surrender in the name of the nation." ("King Proclaims Nation's Surrender and Wish to Help Allies," The New York Times, Aug 24, 1944) Stefanp 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't the facts. The point is the spin you are trying to put on them. Also, the coup itself was not a capitulation. Michael staged a coup so as to take charge of the Romanian government and surrender to the allies before the Soviets overran the country. Your whole purpose in this article is to spin facts to make it look as though Michael sold out the country to the Soviets. john k 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no spin in the sentence about the capitulation, only quotes from two most reputable sources. Which you have just vandalized. If you want your POV included in the article, please, find references for it and stop destroying other people's research. Stefanp 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read what vandalism is. I don't have a POV - I have no dog in this fight, except opposing POV pushing. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, you, too, read what blanking vandalism is - which is what you've been practicing here: ""Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Also, I'm not seeing any sources quoted in support of your POV's regarding King Michael: "Michael staged a coup so as to take charge of the Romanian government and surrender to the allies before the Soviets overran the country." Stefanp 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing parts of an article because one thinks they are bad and don't belong is not vandalism. You've been around long enough that you should know this. john k 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VE Day

I have no idea what the basis of this claim is. The idea that Michael's coup and signing of an armistice is negatively viewed in the west is flatly false - he has generally been honored for it, and it was his courage in overthrowing Antonescu that led to a great deal of sympathy for him in the west - much more than that for other overthrown Balkan monarchs. The link provided provides no support for the idea that the west somehow resents Michael's coup as having somehow hurt the west. The basic fact is that the Soviets were going to overrun Romania one way or the other. The article seems to be trying to claim that somehow the Soviet take-over was Michael's fault. This is just utterly bizarre. The Soviets took over because their armies were right there. It'd have just taken longer if he hadn't, and perhaps been done in a way that was even harsher to Romania.

None of these weird insinuations belong in the article. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, no insinuations, but facts: King Michael had only very seldomly been invited at the VE Day celebrations in the West and was notably not invited at the grand 60th VE Day celebration in 2005. Stefanp 23:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But there is absolutely no support for the reason this might be that was in the article. I assume he hasn't been invited for fear of offending the Romanian government. john k 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong assumptions: all the Romanian governments since the 1996 elections have been monarchy-friendly, restoring Michael's citizenship in 1997 and making his son-in-law a government special representative since 2002. So no such fears of offending the Romanian government. The only offense here is that against King Michael, who has not been deemed worthy of any invitations at the VE Day celebrations... Stefanp 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, certainly prior to 1996 that would arguably be a reason. At any rate, there is still no reason to believe your supposed reason for Michael's absence - that the western allies somehow resented his coup and surrender, a surrender which they welcomed at the time. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
At any rate, Michael's absence from the post 1997 celebrations, especially the biggest ones of 2005, speaks louder than any of your words. And besides, as long as I can find a "verifiable, published, reliable" source that supports my edit, my edit meets Wiki standards and your blanking it equals vandalism: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." Vandalism rules So stop vandalizing this article. If you want your pro-Michael POV's included, that's fine, as long as you find a reliable, published source that says what you want. Stefanp 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it says absolutely nothing. Perhaps Michael is excluded because Romania was, for most of the war, an axis power. Perhaps because he was 75 years old in 1997, and has only gotten older. Who the hell knows? The particular reason you give seems incredibly unlikely. Romanian newspapers are not a reliable source as to the feelings of western governments about King Michael. And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense. It isn't removing parts of an article because one thinks they don't belong. john k 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, well, well. The mere fact that you don't even seem capable of reading carefully says enough about your POV's and your edits. You wrongly claim the following: "And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense. It isn't removing parts of an article." Read again, please, the following Wikipedia rule: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Learn first to read carefully before doing anything else to Wikipedia, ok? Stefanp 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is when you randomly remove large chunks of an article for no reason. If someone adds paragraphs of garbage to an article, it isn't "vandalism" to remove them. Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically says that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." So you are accusing me of bad faith, and of trying to make wikipedia worse. john k 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You claimed above that only "replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense" is blanking vandalism. That's not true: removing parts of an article can also be vandalism. Learn to read first before vandalizing anylonger in order to further your pro-Michael POV's, unsupported by any references whatsoever. Stefanp 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael's financial status in 1948

Does the fact that 5th Avenue is expensive and that a gossip column from 1948 claims that Michael considered buying a plane really serve as evidence of Michael's financial situation in 1948? This seems like a novel synthesis of primary sources, and as such is original research. This whole business is incredibly tiresome. Can't we just ban Stefan and get on with it? This entire article is a tendentious mess. john k 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your unsourced pro-Michael POV's push you to vandalisms (i.e. deletions of referenced statements, alterations of original quotes) as well as unacceptable edits (e.g. based on so-called emails, which cannot be used as sources cf. Wikipedia rules). Any more of these abuses and I will have to report your vandalisms. Stefanp 09:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
A synthesis of primary sources requires: 1. an unreferenced personal opinion added by the editor to the primary sources so as to advance 2. an unreferenced conclusion also formulated by the editor. (Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) Please, quote both the unreferenced personal opinion and the conclusion statement. If you cannot quote both, then there is no such synthesis and, hence, no original research. Stefanp 09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You are making the implication that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a lightly made remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money. This is clear original research. And please, please, please report me. john k 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
John, Stefan, let's put aside personal threats of banning or reporting. They are quite silly. I have read the Original Research rules and I have to agree with Stefan. John, you need to show that A) a personal editor's opinion, and B) a personal conclusion, both unreferenced, were inserted in the edit along with the primary sources, in order to qualify as synthesis/original research. I see no such two statements, only quotes from primary sources. So no synthesis/original research here. Carbunar 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What "personal threats"? No threat was made. The edit twists the facts, King Michael went shopping? What did he buy? That is not reported. If I had come out of such a difficult time in Romania I would probably also have headed for the bright lights (Broadway, 5th Avenue,etc), and if I express the wish to buy a yacht, that does not imply that I have the money to do so. You are indeed implying that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a perhaps frivolous remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money-it IS original research. No synthesis? Putting one statement next to another can distort the real meaning of the original reference, this amounts to the same. Report me as well, it's not personal and it's not a threat.Marina C (2) 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
MarinaC, you and the other King Michael supporters must quote two unreferenced personal opinions statements: one that links facts from the primary sources and one that states a conclusion. Simply enumerating the facts/primary sources does not constitute synthesis/original research. Parisian2006 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is original research when you are clearly constructing sentences in ways to make insinuations that are original research. Just because you don't state your insinuations straight out does not make them any less original research. Also, you are the same person as Stefanp, right? john k 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and undue weight

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (Undue weight) According to the last opinion poll taken in Romania that I am aware of on the topic of Monarchy vs. Republic, somewhere around 15% of Romanians are monarchists vs. 85% republicans. This proportion is a very good proxy for the views of the published sources on the issue of King Michael and the Monarchy he incarnates as its last legitimate representative, since the Romanians have shaped their views on the matter from these published sources. Therefore, the weight given in this article to the views against King Michael must be signifcantly higher than the weight given to the pro-Michael views. I hope this poll results calm down the completely unfounded objections of the pro-Michael fans here present (MarinaC, John Kenney, Lovellester, e.a.) that this article presents too much evidence against Michael: it has to do so to comply with the Wikipedia NPOV rules. Therefore, the objections of the pro-Michael fans to the neutrality of this article, through the warnings inserted both at the top of the article and in the "Rule" section, must be removed. Stefanp 10:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the respective article from the Socialist (Republican) party press organ "Dimineata", the April 4, 1997 issue: "Thus, for a credulous anti-royalist the figure of 5% monarchists would make them jump for joy; 85% are republicans. (...) In reality, the proportion of the royalists is as high as 12-15% (...)." If anybody has more recent such poll results on the royalist vs. republican percentages, please, post them. Stefanp 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The evidence you cite indicates current views in Romania on restoration of the monarchy as an institution (if accurate). It is an unjustified leap in logic to attribute those views to negative allegations about Michael's deeds in the 1940s. In 1993 Brazilians voted overwhelmingly against restoration of the monarchy, which was abolished during the reign of Pedro II of Brazil. But Pedro was personally popular and is historically respected as a model constitutional monarch, notwithstanding the coup that ousted him and the subsequent expression of Brazilians' opposition to restoration. The institution and the individual are not the same. To attribute views of the former to the latter requires specific proof that the two are related causally or by correlation, which is missing in these allegations. Lethiere 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
When Romanians were asked about their views on Monarchy vs. Republic in the 1997 poll, it was because of the Socialist party's allegations against the ruling govenrmental coalition and its President of Romania that they wanted to restore King Michael I on the throne. This was especially true with the then-president of Romania, who had literally declared before the 1996 elections something to the effect that once he wins the Presidency, he will give the power back to the rightful ruler, King Michael. So there you have it: when Romanians said "No" to the Monarchy in the 1997 opinion poll, they really said no to King Michael, who was the hot topic of the entire political class back then. Hence, it's very clear what the majority vs. minority views are. And yes, they are current views. After all, the NPOV Undue Weight rules use the present tense, so they mean current views. If the rules meant past views, then they would create havoc, as editors would argue and fight, as you try, to pick and choose a particular set of views in the past that's convenient to their own views as editors. Carbunar 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV's? Quote them!

I invite MarinaC and the others who claim this article is "full of POV's" to quote them here so that they be corrected individually. Thanks! John Mathis 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs work

Sourcing does not an NPOV article make.

Here are the worst parts:

Moreover, there are several reports[13][14][15][16] that the Romanian Communist authorities obedient to Stalin presented King Michael with 42 valuable Crown-owned paintings shortly before the King's abdication, some of which[17] were reportedly sold through the famed art dealer Daniel Wildenstein. One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Crown which was supposedly taken out of the country by King Michael in November 1947, returned to the national patrimony in 2004 as a donation[18][19][20] made by John Kreuger, the former husband of King Michael's daughter Princess Irina.

Other sources, such as the memoires of the King's aunt Princess Ileana[25], quoting the high-ranking Communist Party politburo member, Soviet spy, and minister of defense[26] Emil Bodnaras[27], rumored to have been Ileana's lover[28], claim that if the King had refused to sign the death warrants for the political prisoners condemned for "war crimes," the Communist government would have upheld his decision: "Well, if the King decides not to sign the death warrant, I promise that we will uphold his point of view."

In December 2003, Michael awarded the "Man of The Year 2003" prize to the then-prime minister Adrian Nastase, leader of the ex-Communist PSD party, on behalf of a minor tabloid. Recently, Adrian Nastase has been sent to trial[51] on charges of bribe-taking, blackmail, and abuse of public office. Some monarchists regarded[52] Michael's gesture as a break with the traditional political neutrality of the monarchy and a financially motivated compromise with his former Communist enemies.

Good luck improving the article. - Francis Tyers · 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck? Thanks for the help. The article isn't going to be improved as long as Stefan and his merry band of sockpuppets are constantly reverting. john k 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis Tyers! Indeed, a NPOV requires not only statements properly referenced (which all of the above are), but also properly referenced opposite views. Would you or others, please, find primary sources of opposite views that tackle these issues? I would love to make this article as compliant with NPOV rules as possible with your help. Thank you in advance! John Mathis 00:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not what he was saying at all. The point is that an article can be completely referenced, and opposite views can be completely referenced too, and it can still be completely POV because of tendentious interpretations, and undue weight on minor points, and so forth, which this article has in spades. john k 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any mentioning of "tendentious interpretations" in Francis' statement. However, since you claim these quotes are examples of such "tendentious interpretations," please, be so kind as to quote their exact words. John Mathis 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
John k is right, "One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Crown which was supposedly taken out of the country by King Michael in November 1947, returned to the national patrimony in 2004 as a donation[18][19][20] made by John Kreuger, the former husband of King Michael's daughter Princess Irina." for example is boring, tedious and confusing, why is it here? It doesn't add to the biography, its like you might read in Private Eye (a splendid publication, but this style of editorialising is not appropriate for Wikipedia). Francis Tyers · 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On what concrete example(s) do you rely when you claim that John K is right about the presence of "tendentious interpretations" in the above-mentioned sentence? Stefanp 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gossips

Wikipedia is not a place for gossips. The gossip that Bodnăraş was the lover of Ileana is off-topic and inappropriate for this article. bogdan 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. - Francis Tyers · 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It's more than a rumor, it's a secret intelligence report. Also, I think it's totally appropriate, as it lends credibility to Bodnaras' promise made to his alleged lover, Princess Ileana. Without it, there are only negative qualifiers preceding his name. A positive one such as this one is sorely needed to balance the statement. Without it, it's pretty clear that these negative qualifiers are meant to destroy any credibility whatsoever of his statement in order to save Michael's reputation - clearly a biased approach. Need I remind you, gentlemen, that a NPOV is always needed on any issue? Stefanp 10:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The newspaper labels them as "gossips" and casts a doubt over that report. We're not supposed to post dubious information. bogdan 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael I or Michael Hohenzollerin

The Simeon II of Bulgaria page was moved to Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as Simeon is a living former monarch of a former monarchy (Bulgaria). Should a similar page movement occur here? as Michael is a living former monarch of a former monarchy (Romania)? GoodDay 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Simeon II was elected prime minister of nation which is not a monarchy and therefore he does not use his title as prime minister. Michael I, however, never abdicated and still uses his royal title. One cannot also apply the name "Hohenzollern" to Michael as if it was a surname. Charles 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, if Simeon II had never served as Bulgarian Prime Minister, his article would still be Simeon II of Bulgaria. That's cool. GoodDay 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
But when Simeon abdicated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 14:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23 August, today is the occupation day of Soviet Union

23 August, today is the occupation day of Soviet Union —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.17.140.181 (talk) 08:14, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where in Britain

where in Britain did King Michael live?

[edit] Tuva

Tuva's independence was not recognized by the world, only by its Soviet creators (USSR) and another Soviet state (Mongolia). See "Eastern Destiny: Russia in Asia and the North Pacific" By G Patrick March, page 200. Therefore, its leaders do not belong in the list of WWII leaders - only independent states qualify. 68.60.131.225 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More "WWII" stuff

  • Facts: Simeon Sakskoburggotski was Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1946. This OVERLAPS WORLD WAR II. Yes, he was a minor, but he was a head of state, and it is common knowledge that is still living! He was prime minister of Bulgaria until a few years ago! Therefore, Mihai I is NOT the last surviving head of state from World War II. Sources, even newspapers, can be inaccurate! If you are not willing to allow the truth to be included in the first paragraph, the entire sentence will be removed. —Sesel (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
These are not "facts", just your own statements, based on "common knowledge", whatever that means. Let me remind you, Sesel, of a basic Wikipedia policy, namely, WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have 4 independent, reliable sources asserting one thing, against your word. There is no dispute here -- for that, you'd have to bring some sources, to back up your contentions. Finally, let me remind you of yet another WP guideline: WP:POINT, which says, "If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point." You've been pushing your theory for a long time now; it's time to let go. Turgidson (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree with you, but it is a well established fact (any encyclopaedia can prove this, such as the well reputed Britannica), not a matter of opinion, that Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria was head of state during WWII (since 1943 until 1946). He is still alive today, thus Simeon II also qualifies for "surviving head of state from WWII", regardless of what a couple of poorly educated American journalists, even from the New York Times or Fox News, have to say. Between the opinions of New York Times and Fox News media outlets and the facts presented by Encyclopaedia Britannica, there is no question which source is more reliable, since you bring up the issue of reliability... Adversus hereticos (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdication

It is not a well-established fact that Michael was blackmailed with the death of 1,000 students to abdicate. There is no independent corroboration aside from his own statement, which, as we see, is contradicted by other media reports (Time, etc.). The wording of the abdication part should reflect this contradiction and lack of a final proof, by saying "apparently". Adversus hereticos (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adversus hereticos: some of the edits and reverts you have recently made are not helpful to the article. Moreover, some of your edit summaries, such as here and here, are not conducive to a productive discussion. Accusing other editors of "vandalism", "POV pushing" and whatnot -- with absolutely no basis in fact -- goes against several Wikipedia core principles and guidelines, such as WP:AG, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. Please consider these guidelines more carefully. Turgidson (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You should stop labeling unpalatable info from reliable sources such as Time magazine under "original research," "dubious," etc. There are clear doubts over Michael's version of the abdication story expressed in the Time article. Your edits push obvious pro-Michael POV's here and elsewhere. Please, adhere to WP:NPOV. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Say again, Lil' mouse, how exactly do you arrive at your conclusions, based on my editing? From what I can tell from your edit history, you are interested in a single issue here at WP, namely, the Romanian Royal Family. Fine with me, and I have no idea what your point of view about that subject is (and frankly, I don't really care). Just please don't come here and bring your theories about what my POV is or isn't on the subject, and definitely don't start saying I'm "push[ing] obvious pro-Michael POV's". Not only is this totally off the mark, it also goes against WP:AGF policy, which I strongly urge you to review before continuing this discussion (if we must). While at it, WP:CIVIL would also be worth consulting before brandishing around those POV/NPOVs the way you just did. Turgidson (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lil' mouse, I am afraid you are mistaken. There are no doubts over Michael's version of the abdication story. Nobody denies it, it's just that nobody confirms it either. The reasons for which I would put the story about blackmail inside are:
1.Nobody denies the story happend in such a way.
2.Since Wiki is about verifiability we should mention it, for this info is adequately sourced.
3.king Michael, is considered a trustworthy figure in Romania (he was never caught publicly lying or something like that).
4.The man sent by the soviets for overthrowing Romanian monarchy and installing the communist regime was Andrei Vyshinsky, the notorious prosecutor of Stalin’s 1930s show trials. Who was used to using such methods as extreme blackmail and worse to get people to cooperate.--Fsol (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Fsol, I am afraid you are mistaken. There are plenty in Romania who doubt Michael's abdication story. If you actually read the entire Abdication section, you will be struck by the inconsistencies between the conditions of Michael's abdication (lots of money and cars he left Romania with -- all well-referenced) and the alleged blackmail: the financial generosity manifested by the Communists doesn't jive at all with blackmail. Also, there is no independent corroboration from archives of this alleged blackmail: it's all based solely on statements coming from Michael and his immediate entourage. So it is of paramount importance when a report like that from Time is quoted, as it is a reliable, independent source. To smear it with OR and Weasel tags is just too much: it's aggressively pushing pro-Michael POV's. I am eagerly awaiting for Turgidson's proofs for these (mis)labelings. Sadly, though, Turgidson does not even understand what WP:OR entails, since he labels as OR a clear-cut fact, such as Tsar Simeon's status as another surviving head of state from WWII, logically inferred from his regnal years overlapping WWII... Lil' mouse (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lil' mouse, I may be mistaken but I don't know. First for what you call "inconsistencies" in the abdication story, I don't think the fact that he took cars and apparently lots of money with him is inconsistent with him being blackmailed. Communists could have very well said something like: "If you leave we give you this if you don't we do this". So the "financial generosity manifested by the Communists" may jive very well with the blackmail, even more it would be more coherent this way.
Second of all, the fact that the blackmail is based solely on what he says. Of course it's based on what he's saying, it can only be based on what he is saying. When documenting something done by someone, it stands to reason to ask the person itself why they did it. That is all that I'm saying to put into the article: the mention that blackmail was exercised according to the king. This is our case, Michael tells his story which nobody denies. So putting this passage into the article both enhances comprehension of events presented there and is properly sourced.--Fsol (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Fsol, that there may well have been some sort of combination of a generous offer and a blackmail, although the latter seems difficult to prove beyond any doubt -- see the "Compression" report from Time, January 12, 1948, whose quotes were apparently obtained from King Michael himself. In these quotes he speaks of future arrests of thousands, not of 1,000 existing student prisoners. This questionable blackmail has surely been combined, though, with a substantial money offer (500,000 Swiss francs, according to both Foreign Office and Soviet sources), which some may call, well, a bribe... Not to mention the Crown paintings (according to the Queen-Mother's daily diary, read and quoted by the King's biographer Ivor Porter) presented to him so as to speed up his departure, which may also be called a bribe... So here you have it: blackmail and bribe together. Lil' mouse (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof of your obvious pro-Michael POV: you deleted the second (anti-Michael) half of the sentence on the reasons for his August 23, 1944 coup, leaving in only the pro-Michael reasons in this edit. Your excuse for doing it is deceiving: there is nothing "weasly" in that half sentence, except for simple paraphrasing of a reputable source, Jurnalul National. Now start adhering to WP:NPOV, please. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
One more time: please stop this nonsensical attacks on my good-faith editing. Unless you start by assuming that, again, per WP:AGF, and not read all sorts of conspiracy theories in my edits, there is absolutely nothing I have to say to you. Turgidson (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The proof in my last message above speaks for itself. I will not continue to argue with you anylonger, as you clearly do not understand, nor respect WP:NPOV. Any further attempt to push your obvious pro-Michael POV here or elsewhere will be reported to Wiki administrators for mediation and correction. This is my last warning to you. Lil' mouse (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research/synthesis, Weasel

Turgidson, please, justify your tags, as per my invite of a couple of days ago. My acceptance of your tags was conditional upon your proving them using the WP rules for these tags. If in three days you don't justify them with arguments here, I will rescind my acceptance and delete your tags. FYI, I am cross posting this on your user Talk page as well. Thank you! Lil' mouse (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Fsol's recent work on the article, there is no need for this anylonger. Lil' mouse (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Government records of royal artwork

Fsol, the reference speaks of official, not private records. These were the results of a governmental commission that invetoried Peles castle between January and April of 1948 and whose results were published by the Government in its official publication, Monitorul Oficial ("The Official Observer") of June 19, 1948. Here is the relevant quote from the article (in Romanian): «"Bunuri inventariate si evaluate de Comisia expertilor de arta" publicata în Monitorul Oficial din 19 iunie 1948, pp. 5223-5224». Translation: «"Goods inventoried and evaluated by the Commission of art experts," published in Monitorul Oficial of June 19, 1948, pages 5223-5224.» Lil' mouse (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the Government didn't inventory the goods only after it took them over from the royal family? Because if it did, how would anybody know what is in fact missing? Anyway this does show inconsistency with Tariceanu's statements.--Fsol (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference doesn't speak of any thefts by the Communists prior to the inventory, so we must assume that, at least as of June 19, 1948, the official records included everything taken over by the State from the Royal Family. The article author is, in fact, a former member of this governmental commission, speaking very sympathetically of King Michael, Queen-Mother, and the Monarchy in general, against the Communists, so his testimony on any possible Communist thefts is believable. However, later on during their dictatorship, the Communist leaders certainly appropriated some of these goods for their private use and enjoyment. Not yet, though, at the time of the commission's work and official June 1948 report. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Modifications

First, I took the reference about the Soviet transcripts of the talks between Groza and Stalin that are mentioned in the text because it had no reference and the link was bad. Besides the fact they are sourcing is already sourced by Lil'mouse's reference from the Foreign Office. Now the source isn't more credible ("Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is far from being a reliable source) So I propose we take it out since it is both unnecessary and inadequately sourced.

The source is very credible: Rompres is the Romanian national news agency. The fact that the old link died does not make the source any less credible. I found a new link, of a perfectly credible journal, albeit smaller one, which quotes in its entirety the Rompres communique, but this link is not necessary per Wiki rules. I could have simply left the old Rompres reference without any link whatsoever (see the Le Figaro reference at the bottom of the Reference list). Most importantly, though, the Institute which published the Soviet transcripts, "Institutul Naţional pentru Memoria Exilului Românesc" (INMER) is presided by nobody other than ... King Michael himself: "INMER se afla sub Inaltul Patronaj al Majestatii Sale Regele Mihai I." This should ensure the report's credibility for any die-hard King Michael fans, like Turgidson or yourself. Therefore, I am putting back in the Soviet report, since there is no question of reliability of the original source (Rompres) or of the Institute's findings. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on, "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is far from being a reliable source. If you get the Rompres link I'm fine with it, but still its only a report of talks, not a KGB report or anything.
Second, even if I were what you call a "die-hard King Michael fan" which I'm not, I fail to see how that would make "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" a better source.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine, delete the Jurnalul link, but the Rompres reference stays as Rompres is reliable, even without a weblink. WP:V does not require a weblink for a source to be reliable. Regardless of whose archives the Institute used -- the KGB or the Soviet (Communist Party) ones --, the WP:V rules say an edit is valid as long as the source (i.e. Rompres) is reliable. So my edit stays, unless you want to rewrite the Wiki rules. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't see the relevance of me wanting or not to change any wiki rule. Second, how do we know what Rompress is saying?--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
First why don't you prove here your assertion that "Jurnalul de Botosani si Dorohoi" is "unreliable," since I disagree with you, and then we'll talk more on this issue, ok?
The idea that he had 500,000 swiss francs is already sourced. I don't see why we need Stalin and Groza's talks to confirm something which is already established in the Time magazine which everybody accepts as a reliable source.--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The two sources are not saying the same thing. You insisted below to say that it is not actual money Michael had, but rather "assets" of any nature, according to the BBC (not Time, nota bene). The Soviet archives speak instead of actual money -- two different things. That's why both must be included. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, the sources don't say the same thing. If you source Stalin and Groza's talks correctly I will accept your edits. Otherwise how am I, or you for the matter, suppose to know what Stalin and Groza spoke about.--Fsol (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I sourced correctly the news of their talks being made public and what the historians saw in them, not their actual talks verbatim. You are not supposed to know what's in them, but trust what the historians saw in them. And you must trust their account because the source is reliable (Wiki is not supposed to state the truth of these talks, only reliability/verifiability of the source - see WP:V). Therefore, please, prove that my Jurnalul source is unreliable if you are going to delete this one source. As to the Rompres source, you agree that it is reliable - so you don't need to read its text (again, WP:V does not require the instant visibility of the original source - i.e. no weblinks required). If you want to read what's in it, you can go to their website and pay for the service. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Second, King Michael doesn't style himself. 1)"Prince of Hohenzollern", for it is a title that he has by birth from his family. 2)the Time article that would serve as source for this doesn't say King Michael started styling himself it just calls him "Prince of Hohenzollern". 3)These accounts have no business in the abdication section.

You are mistaken. Nobody in the Romanian Royal Family had used the title of "Prince(ss) of Hohenzollern" after it had been withdrawn from them by the German Hohenzollerns during WWI. Even Carol II did not dare use it during his exile! So you have no proof when saying Michael had the title from birth. Moreover, Time says it was Michael's new title, so he had just started styling himself with it right after the abdication: "This week, as a special train carried the newly styled "Prince of Hohenzollern" (on his way to Switzerland) (...)." (Source) And yes, it does have a business with the abdication, because it proves that Michael did not regard himself as King anylonger right after the abdication and before its denounciation, because otherwise he wouldn't have felt the need to adopt a new title! If he had continued to regard himself as King right after it, he would have continued to use the King title, not adopt a new, lesser title of Prince! Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, unless new evidence is presented, I agree. But put it in a better section than the abdication one.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I will not put it elsewhere. In fact, I will include the implications of his new self-styling in this section, to make it obvious why it belongs in there, especially since you agreed with them... Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, as I do with everything, as long as they are properly sourced. However how he fancies himself issn't related to abdication. So it must be put in elsewhere.--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You just agreed with the implications of his self-styling two messages above, now you're changing your stance. Very unconstructive. The edit stays. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop caracterising my statements. I agree with everything that is properly sourced including the self-styling. Where am I changing my stance?--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Three statements above you did not split hairs like this and agreed generally, including with the implications. Are you now saying that you do not agree with the implications of his new self-styling (see above)? Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you are not answering my question. You say I am changing stance, my question is: where am I changing stance? I still agree with any sourced information but also that it has to be put in the right place, which is not the abdication section.--Fsol (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Back to your original question: how is this title issue related to the abdication? It is because only starting with his abdication Michael used the new Prince title instead of the King title (see both Time sources referenced). He went back to using the King title only after denouncing the abdication. I took out the implications thereof, since they are my own personal interpretations, but these facts are related to the abdication, so they must be in here. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Third, the assets that the Foreign Office refers to aren't financial, but just assets. So they could have been the value of the cars he took with him.--Fsol (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It could have been anything. The source doesn't say "financial." I'll take that word out. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth, Time Magazine doesn't allege that it took Michael 2 months to attack the abdication. It quotes a communist that does and afterwards gives the explanation: ""It seems rather peculiar," a Rumanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest, "that it took the ex-King two months to make up his mind that his hand had been forced." Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it. He had been negotiating with the Communists for the salvage of some of his Rumanian properties.".--Fsol (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you are mistaken: there are no quotation marks around the He had been... part, so you cannot say for sure whether or not Time quoted a Communist source for it. It is just your speculation based on its vicinity to a prior statement, indeed, made by a Communist. If anything, the "however" adverb suggests an opposition to the Communist's prior statement, lessening the chances of the info on the negociations coming from him. Since you or anybody cannot say with 100% certainty wherefrom Time got the information on the negociations, I find the current form of the edit appropriate. Lil' mouse (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not Time's magazine opinion which is stated it's a quotation from a Communist, which we can add to the article. Time's statement is that Michael couldn't condemn the abdication until he finished negociations.--Fsol (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Show me, please, the quotation marks or something like "according to X Y Z" in the He had been... sentence, and I'll believe it's a quotation from a Communist or whomever you want. Otherwise, no. Lil' mouse (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
""It seems rather peculiar," a Rumanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest, "that it took the ex-King two months to make up his mind that his hand had been forced." Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it." Is exactly the quote.--Fsol (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no quotation in the sentence in question He had been... which you have edited out both here and in the article. Do you see any quotation marks in this sentence? I don't, so no Communist's quotation, only what Time alleges. That's why I will revert your change. Lil' mouse (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look again at the article, it states what a Romanian Communist official murmured suavely in Bucharest. Then it goes to say its opinion which is that: "Michael's difficulty, however, had not lain in making up his mind, but in finding an opportunity to speak it".--Fsol (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, the article does not say "according to this Communist official," nor uses any quotes afterwards in the He had been... sentence. It is not explicit that it was this Communist source. It could have been anybody. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what the article says, what the Communist official murmurs.--Fsol (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it does not: there are no columns after the "murmurs," so you cannot tell if the next couple of sentences come from him or another source. You are making the same mistake I did by putting in things that were not explicitly stated in the abdication article. Since I agreed with you not to put in things not actually said in the abdication article (see History summary), so must you in this one, to be fair and also to adhere to the Encyclopedia guidelines you quoted. No explicit Communist source mentioned in the He had been... sentence, hence it is only what Time alleges. Lil' mouse (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackmail or negotiations?

This is what historian Mihai Pelin states: "S-a afirmat ca ar fi fost nevoit sa abdice, deoarece comunistii, in caz contrar, erau pregatiti sa ucida 1.000 dintre studentii bucuresteni. Cifra rotunda, nici 999, nici 1001. Dar cine poate sa creada o asemenea aiureala?! La data aceea, comunistii aveau toata tara in mana, armata era sub comanda lor, de Siguranta nu mai vorbim, nu mai exista nici o forta politica capabila sa li se opuna si, intr-o asemenea situatie, cine putea sa-i impiedece sa-l ia pe rege pe sus si sa-l arunce dincolo de frontiera?" ("Intoarcerea de la Londra si abdicarea", Jurnalul National, November 17, 2005) Web link: http://old.jurnalul.ro/articol.php?id=40670

Translation: "It has been stated that he would have been forced to abdicate because otherwise the Communists were ready to kill 1,000 of the Bucharest university students. A full 1,000, neither 999, nor 1,001. But who can believe such hogwash?! At that moment, the Communists had the entire country in their hands, the army was under their command, not to mention the Siguranta [the Intelligence Agency], there was no political force left capable of opposing them and, in such a situation, who could prevent them from taking the king by storm and from throwing him out of the country?" ("The return from London and the abdication", Jurnalul National, November 17, 2005)

These are the pertinent quotes from The Titoites by Enver Hoxha, The <<Naim Frasheri>> publishing house, Tirana, 1982.

  • on the forced nature of the abdication, including the army troops encirclement the royal palace: "After we had dinner with Dej in our new <<residence>>, amongst other things he told us how they had forced King Michael to abdicate." (p. 518) "We racked our brains about why he went out, and we had reasons for this, because he had telephoned the guard, ordering them to arrest us as we left, and his forces, which were surrounding the palace and in the city, were to stage a putsch. However, we had foreseen this,>> said Dej <<and had established an encirclement of the encirclement." (p. 520) "<<When the king returned to the chamber, I signalled to Groza to present him the document for his signature. Then, I began to speak,>> said Dej, <<and in a stern tone I told him that he had to sign the document, for otherwise we would overthrow him by force.<<'You must have no illusions, must issue no orders,' I stressed to the king,>> said Dej. <<'Anything you may attempt will be in vain, since we have taken all measures around the palace and the troops loyal to you.'<<He turned and twisted, but in the end he sat down and signed the abdication. Thus, the monarchy came to an end.>>" (p. 521)
  • on the properties and persons with which Michael was allowed to leave Romania: "<<We reached agreement with him about the day of his departure from Rumania,>> continued Dej, <<and we permitted him to take what he wanted of his personal property and some people who served him, including two or three of his mistresses. Before he left, he asked to go to the Sinaia Palace to get some personal property. We permitted this. There he had collected a number of gold watches from which he took the gold cases and the rubies. We sent him by train outside our borders, accompanied by our guards.>>" (p. 521) "Dej's king took the watches but he forgot this." (p. 522)
  • on the threat with a pistol by Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej rather than by Petru Groza, as Michael (wrongly?) recounts: "That same Dej who at one time had boasted of his <<valiant deeds>> with a pistol in his belt against a king fallen from power." (p. 572)

Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)