Talk:Michael the Brave

Treatment

Does anyone at all find this treatment just a little one-sided? From the mention of the "three Romanian principalities" (which is understandable enough) we can sense a bit of pro-Romanian bias; after all, Transylvania was traditionally ruled by Hungarians after about the 10th century. My real problem is with this line: "The accomplishment of Mihai Viteazul was made possible by the unity of kin and language of all the Romanians, by awakening national consciousness and its assertion throughout the entire Romanian space." Leaving aside the fact that it sounds suspiciously like Nicolae Stoicescu, there is very little evidence for any "Romanian national consciousness" in Mihai's time. Perhaps we should ask ourselves: How many "nations" had a "national consciousness" in 1598? (See, for example, Sugár Péter, etc.) The Transylvanian social structure was very complicated and there is a good case for categorizing it based not on ethnicity or nationality, but on social function. There is ample support for the view that a good deal of the peasantry rebelled to support Mihai's invasion, but the view that this was exclusively ethnically based is outdated (with all due and sincere respect to the great Nicolae Iorga). Any invader is bound to promise the peasants better treatment; indeed, it is sad to think that the Transylvanian peasantry believed this, given the anti-peasant, pro-serfdom social measures Mihai was taking in Wallachia at the same time.

While Hungarians and Romanians may never fully agree on whether Mihai was an unwelcome conqueror or a "liberator," perhaps the Hungarian side should be at least mentioned in the article. After all, some Hungarian historians (Mende Tibor, Sinor Dénes, et al) cite Mihai as a particularly cruel ruler, even on par with the odious Basta. His interventions in Transylvanian affairs - if you don't buy the "16th-century unity of the Romanian people" line - only hurt a country already plagued by civil war, famine and plague.

The "unified state" was also not quite as centralized as it would seem in this article. Mihai imported boyars from Wallachia to sit on the Transylvanian Diet, true, and exported Székely military advisors to help in the Wallachian army, but there were very few institutions that covered both Transylvania and Wallachia (perhaps someone else can say what the case was in Moldavia) and the primary "glue" in the arrangement was Mihai himself.

I think we can all respect Transylvania's varied history more, and appreciate the truly great qualities in her history's most significant personalities, if we continue to try to offer balanced pictures of controversial figures like Mihai. Any thoughts?

- From an independent, but admittedly pro-Hungarian, observer

I agree - this article contains elements of Ceausescu-era propaganda which really don't belong here. Scott Moore 09:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Propagada? You Hungarians can't seem to understand that transylvania always was and always will be rightfully romanias'. Going all the way back to dacia (romanian ancestor people). We should also consider that over 80% of transylvania is Romanian at that time almost 70% of people were romanian. Mihai Vitazul was not a tyrant. He could not have united the romanian principalities without the help of the farmers (fact) living in them that loved and supported him. How dare these people asume that Mihai was a cruel ruler, maybe for the Hungarians who despise the thought that they were beaten by a country and army almost half their size.

You Hungarians don't get it that Transylavania is a land inhabited by 83% romanians and only 10% hungarians. So how dare you say that this land is yours. transylvania was taken from romanians by tricks from your kings. They invaded our land,our land, when we were less prepared. And,to be honest, you are the newest people in europe. You come from a mongolian race, which cames from Asia. So how dare you say that Transylvania is yours?! You don't know a thing about the struggles in our history. it seems that hungarians are intoxicated with propaganda about who is the ruler of transylvania, not romanians. we got our land back with sweat and blood when michael united the 3 countries (yes,three countries,because we were surrounded by 3 empires: russian, austrian and ottoman,so therefore a unity could not be made) and we gained it back in WW1, when your cowardly troops retreated from the romanian troops. And don't make me write here other proofs, because it is not necessary.

Transylvania is Romanian today and that is a fact supported by international law as well as a certain number of bilateral treaties, nobody questiones that. What some people pointed out here was that in the XVIth century Transylvania was.... well, Transylvanian and had a multi-ethnic population. Erasing the Hungarian names in the article is vandalism. Plinul cel tanar 06:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Some reactions about this paharagraph and as well for other mistakes mentioned here in the talk page, however it is meant first of all as an answer to the unsigned comment between Scott More's and Plinul cel tanar's contribution. This section could called as real propaganda, since the Daco-Roman theory could not be proved yet and it is really debated, as well the evaluation of Michael The Brave is not so positive as this commenter thinks. "Beginning his rule the Hungarian and Szekler nobles were started to be massacred, their land, houses were robbed and destroyed. As many nobles could escape then their anger were hit on the wretched Hungarian, Szekler and Saxon citizens" - Balcescu: Romanii sub Mihai Voievod Viteazul II. issue, Kriterion, Bucuresti 1974. p. 315. Even Nicoale Iorga states in his book he was not outstanding popular among his nation. The ,,newest people on europe" and ,,come from the mongolian race" can only be regarded as a joke from an ill, primitive nationalist, none of the are true like this. The greatest problem is the false and invalid interpretation that Michael The Brave would "UNITED" the the Voivodships, and the Romanian history writing suffers from this great mistake that is not more than a desired romantic wish, to protochorinstic interpretate something never happened, and identify their historic person as hero who joined all "Romanian" states and identify is as a restoration of Dacia. Despite, the facts are:

- early of the 16th century the proportion of Olahs in Transilvania was about approx. 40%, this increased to the proportion mentioned in the article, showing us this period the Hungarian-Szekler-Saxon people had the most losses in the conflicts, and the proportion was declined much more intense as Michael The Brave settled Bulgarians and Olahs from Wallachia to the depopulated regions

- Michael The Brave ruled Transilvania first time 31. October 1599-18. September 1600 as a Habsburg vassal, as the resident of Kaiser Rudolf. Second time his reign lasted 3. August 1601 - 19. August 1601, after the deal with Basta. History (international, local, etc.) don't know Michael The Brave ever mentioned or made and allegation he joined all "Romanians", or created a unified state, to say nothing of how could it be done without the permission of the Habsburgs.

- The 4 day, 11 month rule, as a resident Habsburg vassal makes impossible such ,,unification"

- The are NO documents that the the three Voivodeships were joined, or would be in any case this creation (semi)-independent in any form or legal way, recognised by anybody, as well there are no name of this fantasy-creation, not even a ceremony that would prove any kind off attempt joining the three lands, or i.e. what it's official language would be.

- under his rule ha made his contributions to the Diet of Trasilvania in Hungarian, written in Hungarian, and the Diet made their warrants in Hungarian

- He made his correspondence with the Saxons as well in Hungarian

- He negotiated with the deputies of Rudolf as well in Hungarian (fact, Michael The Brave could speak well Hungarian)

- State records, benefactions and grants were written in Hungarian and he signed them in Latin

- He haven't even issued any kind of charter or warrant in Romanian

Finally, we can only state the truth: Michael The Brave was at the same time, simultaneously the leader of the three Voivodeships, not more, and never joined them or made any attempt to make it. Regarding this article (and many others in wikipedia), there are inofficially mentioned or with some citations stated that he made an union, these are ultimately false and misleading, should be corrected. As I could see as well in this article, the seal also proves the truths: "Michael Voivode of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia Land". This is the fact! (KIENGIR (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but all your comment seems like some sort of lecture (don`t get me the wrong way), but according to you the " Daco-Roman theory could not be proved yet and it is really debated" - which is not an accurate statement as that the unification of the three Romanian principalities. Everything you talk about has no sources, everything is your PERSONAL opinion which is not really important here on wikipedia. Please read WP:SOURCE. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I provided 3 sources that supports the wording in the article. Here are a couple more, in case it is needed 1' 2 - Although the 1600 union of the three Romanian principalities (Moldavia, Tara Romaneasca and Transylvania), which was realized under his reign,. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

I am much more sorry than you, because it is not only my PERSONAL opinion, THESE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS. All of the statements I mentioned here can be citated IF NECESSARY, but the reality and the truth is independent of simple citations, but if you citate something where the work PROVES a fact, that's an other thing, it has real value. (i. e. about the Daco-Roman theory there's a plenty of works pro and contra, some of them with proof, why would be needed ot citate all in a talk page? That's what is not really necessary until we reach further details). Excuse me, but you seem to be a quite amateur if you think the citations you gave would make a fair decision, it's ridicoulus, as well you'd like to teach me the wikipedia policy about sources :) - maybe you should read about it, but the whole article as well.

Please listen and understand the following, before you make unfortunate modifications:

- The article also ADMITS that "The prince, who managed for a short time (1599–1600) to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modem Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the 19th century. Such an interpretation is completely lacking in the historiography of the 17th century chroniclers, and even in that of the Transylvanian School around 1800." --> Thus, speaking about or identifying the happenings as an UNION is FALSE, is an IMAGINARY act later by some Romanians who used is as a propaganda/desired wish/reinterpretations or call it anyway you want, but IT NEVER HAPPENED! This is a common problem, since almost all of the citations used by the Romanian history writing or anyone are from these works, but the most IMPORTANT is: these citated works just stating something that they CAN'T PROVE, furthermore, other historcial facts PROVE it never happened!

-Please use your brain, and that's what I can advise everybody who reverts any edit correcting this FATAL mistake.

- Wikipedia should present only FACTS, not biassed or misleading information/propaganada/willful deception

THUS->

- Every statement about UNION/JOIN is LIE, only you can citate or mention that centuries later some Romanian authors announced and reinterpretated it, but it does not mean anything and have nothing to withe facts, because it was only a symbolic act, you CAN'T change history by protochronistic machinations.

- Many times there was an emperor/ruler/leader/king who leaded/owned/had the crown of more states/countries, but it would not mean these states/countries were joined

FINALLY:

- So long anybody can't show/prove or citate (in this case, valid citation can be accepted if the author proved his allegation) an union, sorry...Wikipedia is not about what never happened, it's about what happened...

- Before anybody would try find something, I have to disappoint them: in this question, there's a consensus all over the world, the facts I listed can be researched and well known among the real intelligentsia, and NOT even debated by any serious Romanian historians, or like so. Unfortunately, however de facto and de jure the three voivodeships had never been united under Michael The Brave's rule, de facto only the later Romanian imaginary interpretation is identified mostly. It is time to correct this mistake! No misunderstood, don't take it as an offence. Facts are facts! Greetings!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Sorry but I don`t intend to answer this kind of comments that does not refute the central point, especially ones without any facts or references. Please consult what wikipedia talk pages are for WP:TALK. Everything else I have explained in my previous comment. You must understand that wikipedia is about verifiability. I have reinserted the referenced part of the text. Please read wikipedia rule WP:SOURCE and don`t remove or alter the referenced text. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry again, however I can understand you, you will not answer because in all points you've been proven wrong, and the whole situation is shameful for you, to say nothing of your added references proving the POINT (that unfortunately the obvious nonsense is advertized or citated most of the sources that is the child of some Romanian authors who made this machination in order to have mental a historical support for they idea about "Unirea"). My comments have shown immeadiately sharply the main problem. The farisse behavior you make makes you ridicoulous. Only you have right, Wikipedia is about VERIFIABILITY.

Then why don't you follow it? Why is it good for you, or anybody else to mislead any person who wants to read a RELIABLE encyclopedia? Why is it good to advertize (in the headline (!!!) an obvious historical nonsense, an obvious LIE? This is Wikipedia about?? Wake up my friend, this kind of dictatorship has no ground here, you can cheat for a while some people, but not experts!

The most disgusting is your statement ,,without any facts or references". Again an obvious, WILLFULL LIE. I've presented just facts that are not even debated of any official history writing, and everybody can check and confirm any second, moreover, if it's NECESSARY, I can provide the source as well. However, if someone would follow your BAD logic, then every statement should be sourced and citated that is obviously not hel neither on wikipedia, nor on this page that would conclude you don't even really know what are you talking about. I.E. The statement "the sun is shining" should not be citated or referenced, as well regarding SELF-DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE, such free researchable royal documents, warrants, seals etc. as CONTEMPORARY source (as well like in other case the American Constitution, The Nuremberg Laws, The Paris Treaties, etc.) If you STATE something that is correspondent it's content is OK. But in some case, or if you reflect someone's OPINION of facts, then a reference or citation is necessary, etc. In every wise community, the healthy balance of these acts are creating a RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE and TRUSTABLE encyclopedia.

In this case, THOSE who state Michael The Brave JOINED/UNIFIED/MADE UNION have to PROVE their statement not only single citations or references, but at least ONE PROOF (this is IMPOSSIBLE). Normally, the ESSENCE is the FACTS&EVIDENCE we can regard an accept and have to advertize and show in an encylopedia, not the opposite!

You'd better consider, just because Elizabeth II are the Queen of Canadaas well, would not mean the GBR and CAN is joined or united in terirtorial and/or legistlative way, they are only both members of the British Commonwealth, as Hungary and Croatia has been never joined or united for 800 as it is heavily misunderstood, but it was an OPEN DECLARED personal union meaning the two countries has it's own regional legistlative system, but the King is the same person. Or consider, if 300 years later from now, someone would write a book and would publish that Czechoslovakia was a country between 1939 and 1945, and this obviously false statement would be citated, interpretated, advertized and spread all over the world and would also get in encylopedic literature, that would NOT mean it is true, beacuse we have the contemporary evidence, we have the time and date when the false interpretaion or the willfully misleading statement was born, and if you compare this situation to the current debate now, it would be also RIDICOULOUS if someone like you would state that the LIE is valid so long you won't get your desired "references", "facts", although they are present - and has always been in the past 300 years :D

The current CASE is OBVIOUS. The Facts and Evidence habe been presented and mentioned (and can be verified, or can anybody verify on his own, visit a library, or visit the national archives, etc.) The page in the LEGACY section admits the obvious confusion that an union/join/unifying have not happened, and pinpoints the time when the fraudster/hoax have started to spread.

Just for you some help (but if you can't go on on your own, why do you feel yourself compelled to contribute? better make a half year out analizing history and come back later if you have enough information):

The following modifications NEEDED in order to have a proper and truthful article:

- REMOVE and CORRECT those statements speaking about UNION/JOIN/UNIFICATION

- MENTION in the Legacy section though it is not true, the Romanian histography and literature incorrectly using this terms

- CORRECT the huge mistake that the Voivodeships leaded by Michael The Brave is formed the territory of present day Romania, because it is not true (just an eye wink to check the territories present-day Romania has, and the territory ruled by Michael The Brave then, it's NOT identical!

- REMOVE any allegation that would speak about "three Romanian Principalities" or like so, because it is ambigous. The term "Romanian" was unused and unknown the time in question, not even used in any form in a legal of official way. All of the Voivodeships were multi-ethnic, however, the time in question the people later called Romanians formed the majority, but it would not mean the states were "Romanian", since the administration was Hungarian, Slavic or Latin, and this time the concept of the Romanian nation, or the Romanian consciousness haven't existed (see i.e. Petre Panaitescu - Mihai Viteazul, Bucuresti, 1936 - if your fixa idea is refs), the leader not even considered any kind of "joining" the "Romanian" states.

EPILOGUE: I won't give further lessons of this topic, because it's no more necessary, every wise people who are interested in QUALITY, will undertand me, but better the facts and truth. If anyone will correct the mistakes/hoax listed above, it is a welcomed act with a good aim, because it is rising the articles quality and reliability. However, if anyone reverts these edits and cannot provide acceptable evidence of it's reason, then these acts can only be regarded as VANDALISM, and the persons who made this act can only be regarded CRIMINALS who want hinder/cheat evidence and mislead the people gathering information from the encyclopedia. (KIENGIR (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC))

I will try to explain the problem again, as simple and to the point as possible. Your contribution to this article and talk page is wrong for several reason:

• You are doing target editing , you clearly remove things that are only regarding the union of this three principalities.
• I have added 3 references(2 more on the talk page) to the article to validate the present text. By wikipedia, verifiability is the most important thing, not what I, or you believe it is the truth. Please READ WP:SOURCE.
• You use talk pages as this is some kind of forum. Please don`t do that. Please read WP:TALK to see what are talk pages for. Also try to refute the central point in the discussion and not trying to write an article about what you think. Please read WP:NPOV.
• You should avoid personal attacks on other editors since bad things attract more bad things. Please read WP:NPA.

Bare in mind that removing valid references from an article is considered an act of nonconstructive editing that will probably result in some sort of sanctions if continued. All this links with WP (ex: WP:SOURCE) are wikipedia rules that all wikipedians respect. Try to edit wikipedia some more, to see how it`s mechanism works... I myself was blocked several times in the beggining because I also did`t understood some things. I hope this explains everything. If you have any questions regarding this problem, don`t hesitate to ask, but please, try to talk about the subject only. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're hilarious my friend, you think if you repeat this will something change? My contribution is about the subject only, about a huge problem. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, everything can be enquestioned, because all edits and rules are advised among editors on several levels, and there's also an evolution reagrding all content, policy and rules, etc. (i.e. defining what is a reliable source can be also be disputed, regardless of rules or somewhat, finally it would depend on how an editor on a higher level would think, the same is by OR or if we indicate something have always been known wrong). My task is not to get lost in this kind of jurisdiction, my task is only to correct mistakes and make effort to have a good, reliable encyclopedia woulf fulfill academic requirements. Our goals are the same (hopefully). The rules I follow are the most wise rules, and that's how the world verifiable going on.

Everything starts with axiomes, without definiton, like in concrete mathematics. A natural laws have worked as well before, before any kinf of citations appeared, or writing have been established. The existence is not because if references or citations or so what. However, If 300 years later most of the sources citations would newly advertize that i.e. under Matthias Corvinus Hungary was a "People's Republic", you could include 1000 web pages as a source or reference, it would not change the fact (reinforced by CONTEMPORARY documents) that Hungary was a KINGDOM.

You can tell me 500 times more all policies and laws about Wikipedia, but I've never met such scandal like now! I feel myself like under the Ceaucescu dictatorship, where i.e. facts doesn't matter, but insanity, and the one who pinpoints obvius problems, will be tortured...Sorry, I won't give up the reality.

So long you can't provide CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE from i.e. 1599-1602 (any kind of warrants, seals, royal documents, etc. from first of all Habsburgs, Hungarians, Transilvania, Wallachia, Moldavia, etc.) that would prove an union was made, when was it formed, what was the constituion of this union, what kind of rights has it been, what was it's name, etc. then you can insert UNION/JOIN. If not, So long it is a willful deception! (Of course, Romanian historians don't debate my statement, they don't have either such documents, but all existing documents proving union wasn't made. Just some kind of lazyness they speak about "union" later because they needed moral and conceptual ammunition to the desired UNIREA later established in 1920)

What would you do if now on somebody would insert in the Germany page "in 1989 the two German states united to national-socialist country"? If somebody would make effors to remove the "national socialist" and correct it to republic, you would make the same activity? Protect a page a do this holy saint speech of wikipedia policies???

I have saved our conversation, even the particles have been removed. It will be advertized as the proof of insanity that has really no ground in an open world in 2011, in a world where almost no more information can be restricted and facts cannot be hindered, where everybody announces and speaks about PC, about values and about the truth and fair evaluation and against censorship, hoax or fraudster. I will make a contact with higher level editors to cure this situtaion, because right now it is the mockery of the ,,holy principles". FACTO SUNT FACTO, and they won't change, even if you 5000 times revert and edit. Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but apparently talking to you has no effect. If you continue I will have to report you to an administrator. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, beacuse what you say and how you talk can be regarded as an old communist joke. However, you avoid to meet your crimes, instead you indetify yourself as someone who just want to keep "rules". People see it, understand it crystal-clear what is your real problem and real goal. You can contact ANYONE, will as well no effect. Truth and facts are against you, you don't even can prove the opposite (this would have an effect :) ) Pitiful! (I am not intended to continue the conversation since you're totally LOST. But if you trigger it with unnecessary and silly comments, don't worry, will have an answer. We could also ask if you are a professional "agent provocateur"? (KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

Relative discussion about this problem also happened here with another user discussion. I know I said at-least 3 times but before making more nonconstructive edits again I wish to inform you again that if continued you are violating the WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. If continued you may be blocked. You violated several times the WP:NPA (constant personal attacks), but that is separate from this article discussion. Adrian (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian boy, I see the "firm" is working, personal attacks is that you spam my user page with unneccesary warnings and identify yourself as a VICTIM, as I could see you involved an other person to "warn" me. I have made only constructive edits with a good aim, however I know you'll always identify it as your agitprop needs. I have read the discussion, the change you've made is a good beginning, but to be COHERENT and do the same on the photograps: "The three ->Romanian<- principalities united under Michael's authority, May - September 1600", and "Seal of Michael the Brave after the union of the three ->Romanian<- principalities".

Make the second correction: "These three principalities forming the territory of present-day Romania and Republic of Moldova" and insert an "almost" or so what because the three princpalities additive territories are NOT identical with present-day Romania + Moldova....this is the less sensitive claim of changes, and it is obvious....i.e. Transcarpathia is now belong to Ukraine, then some of it's territories belonged to the Principality of Transilvania....this is one of the greatest mistakes somebody immediately spot!!

Finally, delete the union/unified/joined wordage and replace it with lead/ruled, etc., the references you've given insert to the Legacy section and explain a few centuries later he was regarded by the Romanian histography as an unifier and consistently the works are speaking about union, although the union de jure and de facto have never been established under Michael The Brave's rule. So long you don't provide any kind of contemporary evidence proving an union, this is a kind of lazyness an encyclopedia can't afford!

These facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.150.54 (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

p.s.: Don't worry, till Sunday I won't make any attemt to edit. Consult with the Romanian intelligenstia or so what, hopefully they are interested in a fair encyclopedia. (KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

Sources

I will list sources here that states about the union of the Romanian principalities (Transylvania, Moldova and Wallachia) under Michael the Brave (I will not include the 3 reference already present to the article in this list): [1]; page 22; [2]; [3]; [4]; page 47; [5]; [6]; [7]. I hope this will clear some things about this conflict. Adrian (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a great number of sources in Romanian, but I excluded them in this search.Adrian (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you have wasted (y)our time again. This proves nothing, but the fact the LATER Romanian histography consistently speak about union, although it never have been formed under Michael The Brave's rule (and these workes don't event present any contemporary evidence or like so). Any webpages now or books written during the communism or earlier won't decide anything. Present any contemporary evidence, document about union, then we can talk. It's really hilarous you don't even get the point so long time ago :) Better the read the lines Michael The Brave's seal: "IO MIHAILI UGROVLAHISCOI VOEVOD ARDILSCOI MOLD ZEMLI" This do no speak about union but the fact he was the Voivode of the three lands. (you think if you try the same nonsense 1000 times, once it will be accepted???)(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Since on the ANI board I was "taught" only citations count, common sense or good aim/faith don't even really important. Then Wikipedia will be the battleground of some groups and their lobby would decide what is presented...bleak prospects....the facts and evidence won't depend only citations and can't be validated with democratic form or someone's faith. There are facts you can prove or cannot prove...If really so, we should all consider if it has sense to try to make it a better encyclopedia, or it would be a site you can form other's knowledge and belief in a false way. According to the instuctions I've got, I have to begin my citation-commando...will begin soon, if I decide not to leave...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Consider this please

This proves everything. All you do is express your personal opinion which has no importance on wikipedia (don`t think that my opinion counts either, opinions are opinions , facts are facts). Also if you inspect the sources I provided you will notice that sources are from foreign editors also. Ex: [8] -Robert Reid, Leif Pettersen. Please inspect some other pages and how are they edited. Also try to consult some other editors about this problem. Did you actually read WP:SOURCE? You could also consult [Burden of evidence]. PS: Also read [Wikipedia is not a democracy rule]. Adrian (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, this case my peronal opinion is irrelevant, but it's funny you say facts are facts, although you are the one who adding citations and propagating something you don't even consider to be true and if you'd had a good aim you would add CONTEMPORARY evidence supporting your desire. The sources you've given has NO value this case, and the author's nationality really don't important as well. The page is CONTRADICTIONAL since in the legacy section states: "The prince, who managed for a short time (1599–1600) to rule the three territories that were to be united some three centuries later in modern Romania, begins to be perceived as a unifier only towards the middle of the 19th century. Such an interpretation is completely lacking in the historiography of the 17th century chroniclers, and even in that of the Transylvanian School around 1800." ---> UNION wasn't made (however, union is a heavy thing, it has always documentary ->contemporary<- evidence). That's why it is a problem in the headline and elsewhere the article the union/join words are used, the worst is many sources re-affirm this false allegation. I have read the links you've given. However, Wikipedia don't declare itself democratic, but so long consense/compromise can lead us further or someone on a higher level has the right to remove anything, then it leads to all the same. Evidence/proof has no compromise. We should end this conversation. It is true, as a newby, I am not a professional on Wikipeadia's rules, but everyone who read our lines will understand WHAT is the problem. However, I know, you're just doing what the rules here allows you, you added your citations in a legal way, and as we learned truth not really counts here. All right. I don't see any importance to consult this case more anywhere, in the ANI board I have already told what I think. I will do the necessary modifications with a good aim, try to fulfill Wikipedia's rules. If this will be reverted, than everything is clear, as I said. Then I will ask everybody who don't like the truth, ask the admins to immediately ban me. Maybe the next generation will be interested on real evidence/sources with proof and not to make contradictional, misleading articles. Please spare any reaction repeating the same, I really want to close the conversation, no sense to continue, everyone can see and understand what's going on. Bye-Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC))

About latest edit[9], I agree with the formulation of a personal union but with the second addition which is contradictory(according to the meaning of the word union) I do not, especially since we don`t have a single source that support this opinion, however 9 sources +3 from the article that support a simple union formulation (without this additions). However I have accepted them (also the removal of the word Romanian, even if almost all sources use that formulation). Mihai Viteazul was famous for uniting the Romanian principalities to form a single state for the first time, saying it like this in the lead is inaccurate and unsupported by any historical data (references). I will just remove that part and hope this solves everything. I accepted some changes in a spirit of compromise - even if they do not reflect the data from the sources, but this is just pushing it since it is not supported by any historical data nor references. As for the citation needed at the word union we can insert any of the references from the talk page. Adrian (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If this reference turns to be OK, it is still not enough since we have 12 references that states otherwise (also I could insert a lot more if I used the one in Romanian language also - as this reference is in Hungarian). Also I am reluctant to consider Árpád Kosztin as a reliable source. The most extreme case is that we could insert this data somewhere in the article in the form According to Árpád Kosztin, the principalities maintained distinct identities and did not form a single state - to include a all views about this subject. Adrian (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, as far as I'm concerned the mention of "personal union" is enough for the lead without having to specify that each principality kept its distinct identity. That much is clear from the body of the article. Would it work if we moved the Kosztin reference (which I am inclined to keep - he does get cited a lot, even if he gravitates toward very controversial subjects - but sadly I don't have access to his work from my current location) down into the body of the text somewhere (where it might be more useful) and just kept the current lead formulation that Mihai ruled the three principalities in a personal union? (Other editors might have other ideas but I think it would be fine that way.) Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The lead remains as it is (latest revision by you). The Árpád Kosztin reference/data can be inserted somewhere in the article regardless of it`s problem to check it/translate on-line. I will insert it now, if something is wrong please let me know. Adrian (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reactions all of you:

- personal union can be accepted, however the expression/designation was never used then and later for Michael The Brave's rule, but formally the criteria is satisfied: the states had the same ruler the period in question.

- the number of sources/citations are IRRELEVANT, if they cannot present or make reference on an evidence supporting their allegation, the LACK of contemporary evidence has as well no compromise (this a common problem with i.e. Anglo-Saxon sources, there is a totally different culture, as well in the life, in the legistlation system etc. they concentrating only mostly on precedences, sources and citations, but the real value of them are mostly ignored thus if you present plenty speaking about union or using the anachronistic designation, it is only the indicator how misleading information can be propagated and accepted. This is a common problem of the Indo-European history writing as well, since the 19th century almost they created a really new history, altered many interpretation in a romantic nationalistic way and sadly evidence were not really important, but the effort to propagate their theories and make any resistance or different view impossible or ridicoulus. "History is always written by the winners". Unfortunately, although among the real intelligentsia we would not make such kind of debates, but as I could see the type of "commercial" history and encyclopedia writing is the most common, but as well very dangerous! History can easily corrupted by nationalism and always has been an intellectual power, the one who controls it, will form nations, people way of thinking.

Arpad Kosztin discussion

- Árpád Kosztin was born in Bonchida/Bontida/Bonisbruck, Kolozs megye/Judetul Cluj, Romanian citizen as well (Arpad Costin - his name written like so in 1949, after denying to accept to change his given name to "Arcadiu"). He have good books, written at leat seven works about Romania, the most of them are about history. Some of their works are accessible in the U.S. and Canada (Matthias Corvinus Publishing, Hamilton Buffalo). His works are sensitive sometimes to those Romanians, who are against fair history writing, he was more times threatened by Romanian newspapers, perodicals, even once by a senator. Sometimes his works are hard to access, not even government or diplomatic libraries, because they are buyed up or stolen by the "other side" who try to hinder some facts and evidence, and any information pinpointing huge slips, falsities, etc. (i.e. the same is with J.F. Montgomery's: Hungary The Unwilling Sattelite, a real NPOV, good Anglo-Saxon work of the history of Hungary in WW2, but it's content would really harm today's harsh "propaganda". Fortunately this kind of "modern warfare" will never reach it's goal since "they" can only reduce accessing information, but never eliminate it forever. His books have a high quality, of course with valuable sources, citations (including as many Romanian sources as possible, Iorga, Balcescu, Pascu, etc.), the books are highly recommended to everybody to wants to see clear in the topic. Unfortunately, the Hungarian-Romanian relations are very sensitive, and Romanians can hardly accept anything from the other side, or even consider everything suspicious....As I said, the next generation have to solve this, and only concentrate to a valuable co-operation, where evidence should be the most important decisive factor between disputable events. Antagonism will never lead us to a good way, but we have to meet each other's culture/history unrevealed, even if it's not always a glorious myth. FINE(KIENGIR (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

We have a compromise and sources, please avoid writing this kind of lecture. Number of citations are crucial. When we have only one references on some matter(any matter at all) and it is problematic as Árpád Kosztin is, it may be considered as WP:OR or WP:FRINGE - more likely fringe in this case because for now, only he supports some controversial statements. As for the Árpád Kosztin, he may be fair to some people, as for the others he is considered as unreliable and pro-Hungarian source. I had the misfortune to get by one of his works 1 and I should say no more - this is not a place for that. Because of that I inserted sources that are from non-Romanian and non-Hungarian authors. All in all, this matter is closed. Greetings Adrian (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is closed hopefully. There are also other references for this, not only he supports these things and before I even known his works, had already known the disputed things about. The citation was added because of wikipedia policy/ANI board asking and because this work seemed to be the most professional in this case. The number of sources are indicative, but not decisive (I won't add more, although I could, it's my own decision to demonstrate mass won't win over quality). I don't think the best designation would be that "he is considered unreliable", he is considered an enemy for those who are interested to keep fake myths, historical distortions/slips alive. Please tell me if you can find somebody prove him wrong (the persons who attacked him could not do that), and what kind of controversial statements you consider he supports (I don't know anything about that, the best is he citates/give source of contemporary foreign (!) documents (huge amount of Romanian) as a support!). About "pro-Hungarianism": his works are really balanced and NPOV, and he also admits his family name sounds Romanian (Costin). Greetings(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Just for you a little help: [10], or related to the topic where the things we debated about are also peresented, in Romanian: [11] Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Maybe this is not the right place to discuss Arpad Kosztin, but neutrality of this author is shown in this book 1. Also if you understand Romanian, [12]. Or use google translate. In the mentioned book, he uses words like With singular cruelty, he butchered the inhabitants, particularly the Szekelys and the Saxon, The guatd started in Bucharest. More than 50,000 people joined in as they paid homage to Mihai Viteazul (Vitez Mihaly) the voivode of the Southern Carpathian Region notorious for his terror - I repeat, only Arpad talk like this. The reliability of Arpad sources are more than questionable. He talks about some topics without any historical evidence and some people see that as the "truth" and daring writing, but some of us see just another pro-Hungarian author. Also his profile as an author is quite obscure too. He uses a pseudonym [13] - The only study in the West elaborating on this alternative hypothesis has been published by somebody writing under the pseudonym of André Du Nay - while he writes some books as Arpad Kosztin and André Du Nay [14]. I could`t find anything about him except this [15]. It is best to avoid his "facts" unless there is someone else that support that same claim. Adrian (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, we should continue further discussion on each other's talk page. Any sources are welcome from you, my philosophy to be always OPEN-MINDED, the more information you have, the more you can decipher true history. I don't care about the author's nationality, it's name or so what......I just care what he writes and how he proves it, what kind of objectivity it have and how is it corresponding with the evidence and facts (citations sources from the other side supporting the different opinion are one of the most interesting and useful things). However, about the changes claimed here we don't need Kosztin, since Romanian sources, author's also agreed, maybe I will insert them. The Daco-Roman theory, or the situation of the Romanians in Transilvania under Hungarian rule are much more sensitive questions, where totally opposing statements and views are. We have to reconcile the Hungarian-Romanian relations, but it needs a long and calm discussion and just concentrating on evidence. Maybe once all antagonism will disappear (however so long two humans exist...). I. E. Iorga or much more Pascu is well-known about his slips or unproved statements, or some really disgusting interpretations, but I won't discredit anybody, because evidence talk. I can understand some Romanians reading Kosztin would have bad feelings, but we have the same by lot of anti-Hungarian attitudes, but I think Kosztin's goal is not a baid aim, since his goal was to balance a little bit harsh "counter-propaganda", because Hungary don't even dare to even interpret it's own history to a truthful way till the communists left and as a country/nation designated by the Allies as "guilty" had a twice greater handicap. All in all, I think as well in Romania as every part of the world where intelligent people are the majority, the common sense and quality will win, and all the needed revisons/recensions will be born by sensitive questions. It won't be easy since in the past centuries politics,territorrial aims,conspirations,world wars, communism etc. have poisoned and brainwashed the two sides. We have to free ourselves of any kind of prejudications. That's my philosophy. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Text removed from article - this needs to be translated

"...it is said that the Wallach/Romanian (Michael) is very powerful and that his plans grow along his victories in battle" Henric al IV-lea, rege al Frantei (1593-1616)

"... un barbat vestit si ales prin nastere, cat si prin statura lui mandra. De asemenea era vrednic de lauda cea mai mare prin virtutile cele mai alese, prin marea sa evlavie catre Dumnezeu, prin iubirea de tara, prin bunavointa fata de cei deopotriva cu el, in sfarsit fata de toti, prin dreptate, adevar, statornicie, marinimie si deprinderea altor virtuti de acest fel. Pe langa acestea, era drag tuturor celor buni pentru darurile inalte ale sufletului lui nobil cu adevarat, pornit chiar prin fire sa savarseasca ispravi grele, ca si prin cuvantul sau, care, de cate ori era nevoie si chiar fara pregatire dinainte, ii iesea din gura bland si intelept." Baltazar Walter Silezianul, "Scurta si adevarata descriere a faptelor savarsite de Io Mihai, Domnul Tarii Romanesti", aparuta la Gorlitz, 1599

"Este un lucru demn de cea mai mare consideratie si de glorie eterna, intrucat ceea ce nu au putut realiza atat de multi imparati, regi si principi a izbutit un Mihai, cel mai neinsemnat si mai sarac dintre duci, anume sa invinga ostile marelui Sultan." Edward Barton, agent englez la Istanbul, 7 noiembrie 1595

"Nu pot sa nu va comunic ca din zi in zi creste teama atat in pieptul cat si in sufletul fiecaruia din cauza marii valori pe care o demonstreaza in aceste parti ale Europei acest nou Alexandru (cel Mare), caruia ii spune Mihai Voievodu." Misionarul franciscan la Constantinopol Eustachio Fantena, 17 octombrie 1958

Michael the Stalwart (ro: Mihai Viteazul)

The term "brave" is not the best translation for Romanian term "viteaz". "Brave" is good, but it has a somewhat mild nuance. His (Michael's) deeds can of course be described as of a "brave" ruler but the fame wasn't come more from his bravery than it was from the fact that he was feared, at the end feared by all! The term "stalwart" is closer to "viteaz" than the term "brave", in every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micron rt (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not necessary about the translation, but about the most common used name of Mihai in English sources. Adrian (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Romanian" term "viteaz" is borrowed/originated from the Hungarian word "vitéz". It cannot be translated just with one word to other languages, it would need at least two long sentences in order to properly explain it. Thus the therm "stalwart" would be as well barely accurate. (KIENGIR (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

Correction, the term viteaz is from old Slavonic language, not Hungarian. Ref: 1. Adrian (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some sources state it could be from Slavic, I know. However, irrefutable proof not exists.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

The only source presented by now point to the Slavic language, none to Hungarian. Adrian (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment was unnecessary, nobody debated your allegation. If any valuable source will ultimately decide the question, I will present it (KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

That is the point as I said in the discussion before and in the discussion up. Verifiability is the most important thing. Sources talk, not us. Wikipedia is not here for expressing our personal opinions but for representing the facts and inducing then into articles. Yes, please, present any source that states that the term viteaz is from Hungarian language. Talking like this without any valid reference cannot be considered a serious discussion. Adrian (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you're a person who really like to read itself. I have known long before the reference you added, as well there are other references proving my point, but I HAVEN'T added them because they are lacking about necessary and detailed explanaiton, so in this case you can take it as my PERSONAL OPINION. But we are one step further, because no longer it is advertized as a Romanian term. For me (despite like you), quality is important, I won't add just a reference without valuable PROOF, so long I accept it has a possible Slavic origin. Better occupy yourself to correct the other huge mistakes inidicated above.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

That`s what I thought... So I guess we should change this article because it does not reflect your personal opinion as in discussion above..Adrian (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, what a huge slip, my friend :) Do you think nobody else read our lines? :D Don't waste your time, any attempt you want to identify you've done anything right above will fail. This "vitéz" debate is totally a different case (although as you've been told, what is here, is not only my personal opinion, but to be fair, because I wilfully haven't provided source, that's why I made this kind of "compromise", just to indicate a reference without proof has no real value.)

You should change the article and correct the following (I don't really want to repeat myself, but you're a good provocateur, meanwhile you identify yourself as a good boy XD)

- Remove union/join/unified, but indicate in the legacy section that this interpretation is written later mostly

- Indicate the three Voivodeships additive territory is not identical with present-day Romania's territory

- Remove the anachronistic "Romanian" designation of the Principalities.

I will give you a week to correct these falsities, do it alone if historical facts have a meaning for you instead of propaganda. Last but not least, better end Secu style provocation/agitation and menace, it will really have no effect. Cheers (KIENGIR (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

Good faith

The personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, implications of conspiracy, etc. have got to stop NOW. Wikipedia's core principles require editors to assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and focus their discussions on content rather than on personalities. Assuming good faith includes not jumping to conclusions about other editors' supposedly being part of a conspiracy, or accusing other editors of meatpuppetry. Avoiding personal attacks includes not writing about another person's comments in a snide, belittling manner. If the thing one or the other of you are claiming are valid, your claims should stand on their own merits without any need for ad hominem arguments. — Richwales (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely! They have always standed on their own merits thus it's really amazing why such struggle needs in order make the necessary changes, this time it is very suspicious....the worst is if someone pretends them not be understood and identifing them as "personal opinions", meanwhile it cannot present counter-evidence, last but not least the so-called "claims" are well known among experts and can be verified easily, the MOST amazing is the Legacy section also RECOGNIZE and ADMIT one of the claims, though anywhere else in the article this is not emphasized and a later imaginary interpretation is advertized, not the fact. These are rather too much at once! This is the point when some editors "good faith" and intention are enquestioned! Unfortunately at the current state, for someone the "own merits"=facts are barely enough. Please do not surprise then. Consider if someone would advertize on Canada's page "Canada is a Central-European country" and you'd try to convince he/she that it is North-American.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Seal of Michael the Brave

I discuss hereafter the correct translation from Slavonic to English of Michael the Brave's Seal inscription:

IO MIHAILI UGROVLAHISCOI VOEVOD ARDEALSCOI MOLD ZEMLI

The translation I propose is:

Io Michael Wallachian Voievode of Transylvanian and Moldavian Lands.

Explanations:

IO - is written with Greek characters (Iω), not with Cyrillic. It is a nobiliar particle, supposedly of Greek origin. It is NOT the coloquial Romanian term 'io' (academic form 'eu') which stands for 'I' in English.

Mihaili - the last 'i' is a short 'i' (represented by a 'j' in Serbo-Croatian and other slavic languages).

Ugrovlahiscoi - terminated in 'scoi' - the Slavonic termination for a masculin adjective. It could be translated literally 'Ungro-Wallachian' - thus 'Wallachian near Hungary'. In Middle Ages the term Wallachia was used for 2 entities: Wallachia at the North of Danube (called Ungrovlahia) and another Wallachia at the South of Danube which refers to the teritories inhabited by the former Roman colonists in Balcans.

Ardealscoi - adjective from Ardeal (Romanian word for Transylvania)

Mold - abbreviated form from Moldavscoi, also as adjective

zemli - is a plural noun for 'Lands' (by the termination 'i')

N.B.: it is evident that the spaces between letters on the seal are larger in the beginning of the inscription and smaller at the end of text, so we may deduce that the maker of the seal did not estimated correctly the size and spaces between letters and was forced to abbreviate the last words.

The correct inscription would have been:

Io Mihaili ugrovlahiscoi voevod Ardealscoi i Moldavscoi zemli.

The Romanian historians are using a wrong translation by patriotic reasons, trying to emphasize the idea of Union between 3 coutries: IO Michael, Voievode of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia Lands

The translation I proposed here shows the concept of personal union of Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia under the person of Wallachian Voievode Michael and is in accordance with the historical facts.82.79.121.115 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Arpad Kosztin - no info about him

Arpad Kosztin neutrality and validity is problematic because of this this book 1. In Romanian, [16]. With google translate in the mentioned book, he uses words like With singular cruelty, he butchered the inhabitants, particularly the Szekelys and the Saxon, The guatd started in Bucharest. More than 50,000 people joined in as they paid homage to Mihai Viteazul (Vitez Mihaly) the voivode of the Southern Carpathian Region notorious for his terror . The reliability of Arpad sources are more than questionable. He talks about some topics without any historical evidence by some that can be as daring writing, but some of us see just another pro-Hungarian author. Also his profile as an author is quite obscure too. Any info about this author in unavailable. I could`t find anything about him except this [17]. If anyone reintroduces this info, please insert some info about validity of this author. Adrian (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Boia on Xenopol

The problem with the Boia on Xenopol was a simple misplaced page number (the quote is on page 133, not page 150.) I checked Boia's references and found the passage he was quoting in the Xenopol, and it is this one, from pages 399-400 in Volume 2 of (predictably) the Istoria românilor din Dacia-Traiană:

"Așa dar atîta de puțin se gîndea Mihaiu la unirea Romînilor, in cît nici nu concepea, după vremile de atunci, unificarea administrativă a țărilor romîne, ci numai întocmirea lor sub niște domni supuși și ascultători de el, după sistemul feodal, ce încă tot nu se desrădăcinase din mintea oamenilor. [...] In sfîrșit dovada cea mai înviderată că lui Mihaiu nici i-a trecut prin minte ideea unirei este împrejurarea că el nu eliberează, cînd pune mîna pe Ardeal, pe poporul romănesc din robia în care'l țineau nobilii acelei țări, ci din contra ie măsuri ca el să rămînă în aceaiași stare, garantînd nobililor păstrarea neomenoasei ei constituții. Apoi ce feliu de unire între Romîni vroia să realizeze Mihaiu Viteazul, dacă el lăsa în țara cea de căpitenie, 'în care doria să domnească el însuș,' poporația romănească fără drepturi, supusă în robia cea mai degrădătoare cătră niște popoare de alt neam și de alt sînge ca el?"

Excuse the typographical errors, I'm not using a Romanian keyboard and Xenopol's Romanian is not exactly my normal idiom. Hubacelgrand (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael the Brave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414013318/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Rumania to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Rumania

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Language.

Did he change the language in Moldova or who? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Britannica article

Michael, byname Michael the Brave, Romanian Mihai Viteazul, original name Mihai Basarab, (born 1558—died Aug. 19, 1601, Torda, Walachia), Romanian national hero, prince of Walachia, who briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule.

[...]

During the 19th century, Michael acquired the reputation among Romanian nationalists as the pioneer of national unity.

— Encyclopedia Britannica

Michael was not seen only by 19th-century nationalists as a pioneer of Romanian unity. 19th-century nationalists are just the first ones that emphasized the event. The personal union is still an acknowledged fact, presented in the first paragraph of the Britannica article. 86.120.150.49 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately your recent wordage is even worse that any was before, since Michael did not unite any territory in fact, on the other hand he could not deal with present-day Romania for obvious reasons.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

A national union (as in "Romanian nationalism") is an anachronism in respect to Michael's conquest. Historians of the time have pointed that Moldavians and Wallachians hated each other's guts. It is pretty much like projecting Jewish nationalism on Ancient Israel and Judah, two countries which were rivals (the US and the Russian Federation are rivals, but not at war with each other). Here we don't serve countries: not Romania, not Hungary, not Israel, not Palestine, not US, not UK, etc. We serve WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, or as a rule of thumb WP:CHOPSY. So, IP, if you are here to serve your country through POV-pushing, you will be banned (that in the case it would be your first time, site bans are against persons, not merely against accounts). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A work coordinated by Ioan-Aurel Pop, the president of the Romanian Academy, also refers to "the first union of the three Romanian countries" under Michael the Brave. So this view is clearly not reduced to "the 19th-century nationalists". 82.78.75.22 (talk) 12:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Our article does not claim they were the last to claim that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opiinion the phrase "Michael was seen by 19th-century nationalists as the first author of Romanian unity" implies that no one claimed that after 1900. Michael acquired the reputation of a unifier in the 1800s, but the current version suggests that this reputation was meanwhile lost. It would be more correct to write "Since the 19th-century, Michael has been seen by the Romanian historiography as the first author of national unity", or something similar. 82.78.75.22 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We cannot write what we please. It has to be WP:VERifiable in a WP:RS and then it has to be WP:NPOV, which your suggestion isn't, since it claims that all Romanian historiography did that afterwards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe not all Romanian historians claimed that afterwards, but the overwhelming majority did. My proposal is not flawless but it is certainly more correct than the current statement. 82.78.75.22 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You're drawing conclusions which are not supported by the text of the article. So: nobody disputes the fact that those three countries got united. But attributing it to Romanian nationalism is anachronistic. The image of Michael as national liberator is disputed, not the union. The point is: he came to be seen as a hero of the national cause much, much later after the fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we should clarify the fact Michael became the ruler of the three principalities at once may be regarded personal union, but no administrative or any territorial unfication took part (= did not arose a new country founded on such base). This is often misunderstood because of the lazy or sometimes improper phrasing by some historians or other works. Anyway this issue has been thoroughly discussed in 2011, we have to carefully choose and evaluate the sources to not fell the trap of of possible nationalistic/POV issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

Piotr S. Wandycz, The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present: "He is seen by Romanian historiography as the first author of Romanian unity". 86.120.251.138 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's another book: Slightly Fissured Statues: A Highly Satirical Novel by George Rizescu. Drawing the line: some Romanian historians still find him to be a nationalistic liberator of the country, but most historians who are aware that it is a ridiculous, anachronistic claim, don't. So the dispute is between "united country based upon nationalism" vs. "bloodthirsty conqueror". It is a fact that it was a fleeting personal union. This fact is not disputed. Later nationalistic interpretations of this fact are disputed. Nationalists who seek to replace fact with prejudice, superstition and propaganda give the impression he was from Baron Munchausen's country. As the saying goes, cand faci prea multa reclama unui produs acesta devine suspect, that is too much advertising makes your product look suspicious. The propagandists beg questions like: "Did Romanians at the end of the 16th century have a highly developed national consciousness?", "Were they nation für sich rather than nation an sich?". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Now the phrasing in the lead suggests, in a wrong way, that the percerption of Michael as "first author of Romanian unity" lost scholarly currency in the 20th century. It should be emphasized that this view stil has an important support. 86.120.251.138 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Again: your conclusion is not supported by the text of the article. But, indeed, historians who understood how ridiculous and anachronistic the claim is have refrained from it. If you look at it objectively it is a silly claim and those who profess it are making fools of themselves. There is a limit when national propaganda becomes ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of his reasons (personal ambitions instead of national feelings), it is a fact that he was the first ruler that achieved the union. 86.120.150.85 (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I don't object to stating facts as facts. I think that the mention sins by omission: it should be mentioned that it was a fleeting personal union. It really wasn't a game changer until 19th-century nationalists saw in Michael the hero of their own cause. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:,

well, then propose a rephrasing or any addition, or in case revert to Michael was seen by 19th-century nationalists as the first author of Romanian unity as last stable...the IP should have waited for you to make consensus on anything here, not go forward without it...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC))

I'll agree with a revert. The sad truth about nationalist propaganda is that if Romanian nationalists have no respect for truth/academic learning, then Romania is doomed. Alethophobia is a bigger threat to the country than nuclear bombs, as in that morals of that fake news with the University of Stellenbosch: Distrugerea oricărei națiuni nu necesită bombe atomice sau rachete balistice intercontinentale. Trebuie doar scăzută calitatea învătământului și permisiunea fraudei la examenele studenților. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:,

I see your point, the phenomenon you referred in Romanian is a true danger for every nation, anyway. I'll try a hybrid solution since Djuvara is a high quality source, in case you disagree, feel free to revert to the last stable.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The problem with WP:FRINGE/PS is that it never rains, but it pours. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, sure, there are special topics where this is the situation. But expressis verbis, the current trial is ok or should be anything changed? (currently the only new material is as under his reign was the first time all principalities inhabited by Romanians were under the same ruler. - I think more accurate phrasing cannot be possible why he was seen later as he was...tell me or just act accordingly, btw. we agree on our principles)(KIENGIR (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I agree with your edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I rephrased the text to avoid the repetition of "first". I used Lucian Boia's wording. 86.120.149.127 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian name?

Out of curiosity, why is Michael's Hungarian name mentioned in the opening? The article doesn't seem to speak about any Hungarian ancestry of Michael. Is it because he ruled Transylvania, which had Hungarian as a legislation language? Lupishor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your latter argument could be a reason (btw. he could speak and understand in Hungarian), many historical figures had relevant names in foreign languages, notably (and they are unleashed presented in hisorical figures). Lajos Kossuth had a notable English name, though he was not English, but traveled in the Anglo-Saxon world. Matthias Corvinus also has presented the Czech name, but it is not bounded necessarily the reason he once assumed rule over Bohemia, as Sándor Petőfi has it's Serbian name, not beucase he would be of Serb ancestry or neither his birthplace then shared any territory that would belong today to Serbia, but it has been a popular belief he was of Serb origin. George Bariț's Hungarian name is mentioned, not nedcessarily because Transylvania was part of Hungary, he was notably known in the Hungarian political life on that name, like Ľudovít Štúr, who probably had zero drop of Hungarian blood, but he performed in the Hungarian parliament as Stur Lajos. Only one criteria is, notability, we may add a Papua New Guinean name, if it is notable/relevant in the subjects lifetime. "Vitéz Mihály" is a notable historical figure, significantly known by this name in Transylvania.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC))

I don't agree with Kiengir. even I am hungarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: I am so glad that you are Hungarian. We can continue the discussion in Hungarian. Mjert nem ertés ediet Kiengirvel? @Kiengir: we should welcome our compatriot. He is an expert of the "Szekely language". Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't admit that Szekely are different from Hungarians. Recognize this. Even the physical aspects, culture, language, habbits, what we eat... Magysze (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze: sorry, I do not understand your above message. Could you repeat it in literary Hungarian or in the Szekely dialect? Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. Sorry, I will not enter into discussion with you. Since you don't bring any argyments. Magysze (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I must say you are a liar: you are not Hungarian, you cannot speak Hungarian, you are unable to use "Szekely" script. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry 2 times. You are the person who don't even recognize Szekely people. You speak Hungarian but don't speak Szekely. You oppress Szekely people. Magysze (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not speak the "Szekely" dialect of Hungarian, but I can understand it without difficulty. I have never oppressed "Szekely" people. Yes, ethnic Hungarian noblemen (among them "Szekely" aristocrats) oppressed ethnic Hungarian serfs (including "Szekelys") in medieval Hungary. Why did you make false statements about your ethnicity? What is your purpose when editing WP? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No wonder, the Hungarian editors now want all names to be in Hungarian? Why not you "erase" all what is about the Szekely? You want to wipe out the history of Szekely ? The Szekely people György Dózsa???Magysze (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Please remember you stated above you are Hungarian. If I were you, I would voluntarily leave WP. Otherwise, you will be banned from it. Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Being Szekely I wish you good luck. That's much more than Hungarian. Proud to be Szekely and not Hungarian. These 2 things have less and less in common. Good luck in leaving. Magysze (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But it was you who stated you were Hungarian. Why did you state that twice? Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I am half Hungarian half Szekely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In this case, we can continue in Hungarian: mjert gondolád hodi Kiengir tévede? Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, nooooooo, Borsoka I just know checked what you've been through....so many pages, precious time wasted....we have a heavy overload of trolls these times stealing precious time from editors, I hope when the pandemic will be over, people try to use their time more efficiently...Oh my God, WP would need a serious reform regarding auto and/or extended confirmed user right criteria.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

Please stop this off-topic conversation. About the last sentence of KIENGIR's first comment: I'm from Transylvania and I've never heard the name "Vitéz Mihály", to be honest. Lupishor (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you probably did not live in the 16th century and the adjacent ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC))

I agree with Lupishor. Lupishor do you support Szekely people as different from Hungarians? Magysze (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If afraid that "you probably did not live in the 16th century" is not the kind of argument you use on Wikipedia. You should mention some reliable sources if you want to support your argument. Lupishor (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, if you did not understand well the above argumentation, and you thought it would would have connection to what you have ever heard, then better read it again.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Since you claimed that "my latter argument could be a reason", doesn't this mean we should also add his Latin name, since it was an administrative language of Transylvania, and also his German one, since German was widespread and partially official there? Lupishor (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind if they are added.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

But too many names would make the opening look bad; I'd propose we make a "Name" section, like I did on the articles of Transylvanian cities that had 4-5 names in the opening. People agreed with that idea. Lupishor (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this. One thing are cities and another are historical figures. I see it pointless to mention the German or Latin names for Michael. Also, etymology sections are unusual on biography articles. I don't remember having seen one yet. I think we should let it as it is now. Having the Hungarian name of Michael can serve as a "compromise" for having Romanian names on articles about Hungarian figures (such as Matthias Corvinus). Super Ψ Dro 22:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a "compromise"; this kind of makes the discussion sound political, which isn't my aim. Michael's situation can't be compared to Corvinus' one, since for Corvinus, the Romanian name (along with all the other foreign names listed there) is historically important. From what I've heard, Corvinus may even have been of Romanian origin, but I think that's debated. Back to Michael, maybe you're right when you say a "Name" section shouldn't be added. I'd instead propose to add a note-tag in the opening, which covers the German, Hungarian and Latin names. KIENGIR was also fine with adding those two other names. Lupishor (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael had lots of interactions with Hungarians, specially Székelys, although you are right with Corvinus' Romanian name being more relevant than the Hungarian one here. I still don't fully agree with including the German and Latin names. Michael and the Transylvanian Germans didn't have much to do with each other, at least from what I know, and is there a historical Latin name for him that we could add? I suppose the name from Latin Wikipedia isn't too reliable. Also take in account that (as far as I know) no other article of a Romanian historical figure has such kind of notes. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS, "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses". Since he is closely associated with Romania, I think we should refer only to the Romanian name(s). 77wonders (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've read WP:MOS and haven't been able to find said quote or anything else like that. Are you sure you haven't made it up or confused it for a quote from another article? I've also noticed that this is the first ever edit you make on Wikipedia. Lupishor (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the correct link is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Foreign_language. 77wonders (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, there are many articles, like cities, which use multiple foreign names. But that's, of course, only the case if the city is strongly associated with multiple countries/languages. I believe that in this case, the rule from the page you linked can/should be used, since Michael is strongly associated with Romania and doesn't have any connection to Hungary apart from contact with Transylvanian Hungarians and possibly having been able to speak Hungarian (at least according to KIENGIR – I haven't found any source claiming this, although I haven't done a lot of research, admittedly). Let's see what others think – I also don't think the Hungarian name is necessary in the opening. Lupishor (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to strive for it getting removed, but I'd also prefer it. Super Ψ Dro 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there are already three users in favor of this, I will wait a bit longer to see if someone presents any new kind of argument. I am completely fine with the Hungarian name being in the opening as long as there is a good reason behind it. But so far, nobody has presented any good reason. Lupishor (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The fresh account failed the subject of the sentence, "Romania" is not a "non-English language" etc., btw. the reasons were told, and as well was demonstrated with other examples.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC))

He didn't fail the subject; since Michael is closely associated to Romania, he's obviously also associated with the Romanian language. That's why most sources about him are Romanian and he's mostly referred to as Mihai Viteazu. The fact that he spoke Hungarian isn't an argument; Vlad the Impaler was also fluent in Turkish and was often on Ottoman territory, yet his Turkish name isn't written in the article. Unless some proper arguments are given, the change will be made, as most people have agreed. Lupishor (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the cited policy is clear and what you'd assume as obvious, it is again another thing. My arguments were not based on what language he spoke - just side by mentioned - you should abandon this kind of cherrypicking approach. First you want to remove names, after add, after again remove, at least I did not let anyone to remove e.g. Slovak or Romanian names from Hungarian historical persons, but it does not matter, anyway your last sentence just reaffirms you still did not understand appropriately what means consensus building.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC))

The "consensus building" thing has already been explained to you on other talk pages as well. As you can clearly see, there are 3 people in favor of the change, since the name doesn't have a reason to be there. There are many names that could be added, including the Serbian one, since Serbian forces (including Starina Novak) fought alongside Michael. But they aren't here. And whether you tried or not to remove foreign names from pages of Hungarian historical personalities doesn't have to do with this. I wouldn't have anything against removing those names as long as there is no reason for them to be in the article. Lupishor (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the opposite is true, I was explaining it to others, including you because you don't understand it as well appropriately. I would not address e.g. 3 people's opinion the reason you asserted, they've made their own considerations. It still seems you did not actually grasp all the reasons, despite the great variety of examples. "And whether you tried or not to remove foreign names from pages...doesn't have to do with this" -> this is well what I said, why did you repeat this? Then as well I could say if a name is not present now somewhere, would not be an argument as well. Would you remove the Hungarian names also from Ladislaus the Posthumous, Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Louis II of Hungary?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

delete Hungarian word. Magysze (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR, those articles that you've linked are clearly about people who did have to do something with Hungary and are associated with the country and its language, unlike Michael. They can't be compared to the situation in this article; obviously the Hungarian name does belong to articles about Hungarian kings or whatever. But Michael was not only not Hungarian; he also fought against the Hungarians. Like I said, there are many names that can be added here, if you really want the Hungarian one to be in; but they haven't been added, since they're unnecessary. As stated above, compare it to the Vlad the Impaler article. And I'm not cherry-picking, that's just common sense. Lupishor (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor, the persons I mentioned were not Hungarian (and likely did not even speak the language). They were just ruler of a Hungarian state, and yes, hence had something to with Hungary. Michael as well became a ruler of a Hungarian state.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Of what Hungarian state? Maybe you wanted to say Szekely state. Which is another story my friend. Magysze (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC) This comment was made by the sock of banned user Hortobagy. Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true. But I do hope you get blocked for false allegations. Magysze (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

KIENGIR, I didn't say those persons were Hungarian. But obviously their Hungarian name does belong to their articles if they literally ruled over Hungary. Michael didn't rule over Hungary, but over Transylvania (and was a de facto ruler). And I guess we can't say that Transylvania was a Hungarian state when Michael ruled over it, since it obviously wasn't under the control of Hungary anymore, even if Michael was just a de facto ruler. I think these two arguments make it clear enough that the articles you linked are completely different situations. Lupishor (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Michael ruled the Principality of Transylvania as lieutenant of the king of Hungary, Rudolph. 2. When Michael ruled the principality, it encompassed territories that are part of present-day Hungary (for instance, Debrecen). 3. A significant part of the principality's population spoke Hungarian. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

These are appropriate notability arguments for having an article about him in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but I don't see how such alternative names are relevant for the English-speaking reader. I finally found the relevand policy about biographies: MOS:NICKCRUFT. Here it is correctly pointed out that foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand and it is recommended to avoid them. Look also at the Matthias Corvinus article, that was refered above, its first sentence is so difficult to read because of the 5 (!!!) alternative names. 77wonders (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor, I again did not say you said, but in addition to what Borsoka said, the Principality of Transylvania has been a Hungarian state even by having king of the Habsburg House, as they had only right through the Hungarian Crown, which included it and were the Lands of the Hungarian Crown, and this did not change on Michael's rule (I see you named me in an other edit log, well, I don't have the Bucharest article on my watchlist, I frankly don't know what's going on there, if you'd curious about "some reason"). 77wonders, the current alignment does not violate NICKCRUFT, since the Hungarian name appear in reliable sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR I did not contest that the Hungarian name appears in reliable Magyar sources. I just don't understand why this piece of information is useful for English readers. 77wonders (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that KIENGIR and Borsoka's points aren't true, but this still doesn't mean that Michael is closely associated with either Hungary or the Hungarian language. There is no reason behind having the Hungarian name in the lead. Like I said, it should either be removed or added in a note-tag along with other foreign names. Lupishor (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, any rulers of any Hungarian state formation are associated with a Hungarian name, like this is usual for anyland-anyruler states. So your approach should not be interpreted solely on this article, it may raise general concerns.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

MOS:LEADLANG: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence". So we should include at most one foreign name, namely the Romanian name. However MOS:NICKCRUFT recommendeds avoiding all foreign names. Someone suggested at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Clarification to use in such cases an explanatory footnote for the names part. 77wonders (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG is not restrictive, but permissive, and the Hungarian name was not there just to show etymology. Since I am 99,99% certain whom I speaking with, let me not to incite some other policies, which would lead outside the topic, but would be valid...mind this.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

I am opposed to this solution. Whether or not the Hungarian name can be in the lead is a matter of discussion, but how can the Romanian name under which the vast majority of Romanian people know him not be in the lead? I think this new version is worse. I propose we leave it as how it was before this discussion started. Super Ψ Dro 14:41, 17 February Turgidson (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)2021 (UTC)

In my opinion articles like Catherine the Great that don't have non-English names in the lead look cleaner. But seemingly there is no consensus for this change at this moment. 77wonders (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion (perhaps for the better!), but, even though I've heard many, many times of Mihai Viteazul sometimes between the 16th and the 20th century (:)), I've never heard of him referred to as Vitéz Mihály, even by Hungarian-speaking (or Székely-speaking?) people, and I've never seen this spelling in written sources, either. This sounds like a stretch to me, especially because it is so prominently displayed in the first sentence of the lede. Turgidson (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

While at it, if we are to list the translations into other languages under which Mihai Bravu was known, why stop at Hungarian, and not also add Michał Waleczny, Михај Храбри, Михайло Хоробрий, Михай Храбрый, Michele il Coraggioso, Michel Ier le Brave, and Miguel el Valiente? Where does one draw the line? Turgidson (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding more names have been arisen already, I have no problem with it, I think almost all aspects we discussed (it's irrelevant if you heard from Hungarian-speaking people, though they would call him like that, Székely-speaking people does not exist :-) ). I think line is drawn in the end by consensus, however notability among other things - we discussed - are important.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC))

Sorry for having been missing for so long here. Like Turgidson has said, there are obviously multiple foreign names that could be added; there's no reason to only have the Hungarian one out of them all. Therefore, seeing as there are no other foreign names, it should be removed. The fact that Michael was the (de facto) ruler of a "Hungarian state" for one year doesn't make the Hungarian name more important for the English-speaking reader. I've never heard the form Vitéz Mihály either.

I'd suggest we either remove the Hungarian name completely or make a note tag for it and other foreign names, like the Serbian one. This would make the lead sentence look "cleaner" and easier to read. Lupishor (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

There is some sense for keeping the Hungarian name. As said before, Michael the Brave had several interactions with the Székelys. As far as I know, they were allies until a certain moment. But why should the Serbian name be added? I don't think that's a suitable solution. It's an entirely pointless name to add. What conexion did he have to Serbia and the Serbs with the exception of Starina Novak? Super Ψ Dro 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On it.wiki they go with Michele il Coraggioso (Mihai Viteazul/Mihai Bravu, Vitez Mihaly, Michał Waleczny) [I guess they have at least as good a claim to a connection there, through the dastardly Giorgio Basta (just kidding!)], whereas at pl.wiki they keep it simple and go with the minimalist Michał Waleczny (Mihai Viteazul); other wikis have variations on this theme. I myself would prefer the simplicity of the Polish solution, and have only the standard Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazu(l)/Mihai Bravu), which is already a bit longer than what they have, but for some good reasons. Keep in mind the tried and true Occam's razor principle: "entities should not be multiplied without necessity". Turgidson (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I've searched on Google "Vitéz Mihály" and I'm getting mostly results of Mihály Csokonai. Is "Vitéz Mihály" really a common Hungarian name for him? Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Super Dro. About your above question: It's not only about Starina Novak, but also about his Serbian troops who fought on Michael's side Also, Michael the Brave appears in Serbian historiography. Yes, Michael had interactions with Székelys, they were allied, but he also fought against the Hungarians. If we add the Hungarian name because of Michael's interaction/alliance with the Székelys, we could use the same argument to add the Serbian name – but both are pretty much pointless here. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you're right on that the Hungarian name is not that relevant... Super Ψ Dro 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not just about Michael's interactions with Székelys. Michael also was the Governor of Transylvania, which was a Hungarian Crown Land. However, by this rule we should add the Hungarian name in the Suleiman the Magnificent article (!!!), because he ruled over Ottoman Hungary. 77wonders (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Csokonai Vitéz Mihály" is the most common and known name for him. The Suleiman the Magnificent example fails, he was not elected by anybody, did not represent anybody in the behalf of Lands of the Hungarian Crown, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Those arguments don't mean that the Suleiman the Magnificent example fails. There's no rule stating that the inclusion of a foreign name is based on your above arguments. Several arguments can also be used for not including the Hungarian name on Michael's page. Lupishor (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It fails, since the one who phrased the sentence made a false equivalence. It has nothing to do the rest you stated, since I told my opinion about this example particularly.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

• "MOS:NICKCRUFT recommends avoiding all foreign names" is not a correct statement, so a line of argument proceeding from that is faulty. Here's the relevant material:

  Common nicknames, aliases, and variants are usually given in boldface in the lead, especially if they redirect to the article, or are found on a disambiguation page or hatnote and link from those other names to the article.

  No exception here exists for non-English ones. Next:

  Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.

  I.e., this is left to editorial discretion. The positive example provided (with two "foreign" names in it that might plausibly appear in English-language sources) is:

  Use: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (born Temüjin; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227) was the founder of the Mongol Empire.

  The negative example provided (with too many names, including ones en.wikipedia users are not likely to encounter and search for) is:

  Avoid: Genghis Khan or Chinggis Khaan (Mongolian: Чингис хаан, romanized: Çingis hán; Chinese: 成吉思汗; pinyin: Chéngjísī Hán; Wade–Giles: Ch'eng²-chi²-szu¹ Han⁴; c. 1162 – August 18, 1227), born Temüjin (Тэмүжин Temüjin; traditional Chinese: 鐵木真; simplified Chinese: 铁木真; pinyin: Tiěmùzhēn; Wade–Giles: T'ieh³-mu⁴-chen¹), was the founder of the Mongol Empire.

  Also:

  Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject.

  With regard to MoS matters "reliable sources" means English-language ones, since this is English Wikipedia and we don't take English-writing style cues from non-English material. So, an alternative name that can only be found in Hungarian sources, or a spelling that can only be found in a single English source, or only in unreliable ones like webboards, should not be included. NB: I wrote most of that guideline, so I know what it means. :-)

  As for a case like this, a ruler of a multi-lingual territory, it is pretty normal for us to include their name(s) in the major subject languages, but only as they appear in modern versions of them, and only if they're still in enough use that users of en.wikipedia are occasionally likely to run into them. For example, Julius Caesar ruled over many lands with dozens if not hundreds of languages, but we do not give renditions of his name in Gaulish, Ancient Egyptian, Old Brythonic, Koine Greek, Old Macdeonian, etc. We might also preserve an old-language name if it is frequently used in reliable (albeit specialized) sources; an example is at Brian Boru, where we give his Modern Irish name, because it is frequent even in English-language sources published in Ireland, and we also give his Middle Irish (native language) name and patronymic, because this appears in manuscript materials that've been the subject of various English-language analytical publications, so some readers are likely to also encounter that version. (The article also gave his name in Old Irish, but I removed that as nonsense WP:OR, because he post-dates the Old Irish period.)

  Finally, some arguments I see above, like whether someone was elected or not, appear to have no relevance to the question. None of this has anything to do with what name was used by which group back when for how long and for what reasons; the only consideration is whether including a name is an actual service to readers or just confusing visual noise, like in the bad Genghis Khan example (which was pulled from an actual old version of that article). Charlemagne is a good example; we include his Modern French name because he ruled over much of what is now France, and his French name is common in sources, even in English ones; we include his alternative English name because it is common enough (mostly in 19th-century and earlier material) that some readers will search for it; and we include his Latin name because it shows up commonly in more scholarly material. We do not include his name in Frankish and Lombardic (his native languages) because they're dead languages and those names are not likely to be anyone's en.WP search terms. We do not include in name in ancient Gaulish for the same reason, despite him ruling over many of the Gauls who survived various earlier depopulation attempts by the Romans. We do not give his name in Old or Modern Breton, despite Brittany being one of his vassal states, and Modern Breton having a name for him in their history schoolbooks; English-speakers are not likely to ever encounter his Breton name. And so on.

  It's only about reader needs and expectations. It has nothing to do with "fair" representation of historical populations, assumptions about what the preference of the person would have been if we could go back in time and ask, provability of some name existing in some other language but not a name English-speakers will likely be looking for, modern-day nationalistic "claims" to historical figures as cultural heritage, or any other such extraneous concerns. Depending on the nature of the material, it may well be encyclopedic to get into other names in the main body of the article instead of in the lead, e.g. when writing about specific territories and peoples, or when discussing the figure's appearance in medieval manuscript materials.

  PS: That sentence in MOS:LEAD that seems to suggest it is only permissible to have a single non-English name in the lead sentence, ever, is obviously incorrect; I'm drafting a proposed replacement already.
  Hope this helps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on foreign names in the lead section

In biographies of historical personalities, should the lead section contain multiple foreign language equivalent names? 77wonders (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• One foreign language name yes, of course, if the figure comes/came from a non-English speaking country, it is necessary to say their native name. Multiple foreign names depends on the context and the interaction or impact that the figure had on other countries/peoples. Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends on the individual case, which, here, is a "no". Since Michael is only closely associated with Romania and no other country, I see no point in complicating the lead sentence with unnecessary foreign names, such as the Hungarian one which is currently in. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends on the individual case. For someone like, say, John Hunyadi, it very much makes sense to give all three relevant names (in Hungarian, Serbian, and Romanian), since he had strong connections to each of those peoples and to the countries that existed there at the time; and likewise for his son, Matthias Corvinus. But for someone like Michael the Brave, who is only closely associated with Romania and no other country (as Lupishor says), Occam's razor says there should be only one foreign name, to wit, his native name (and variants thereof, if relevant, which is the case here). Turgidson (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the above posters that in this case the Hungarian name is largely superfluous, but it doesn't really bother me. I guess you could make a convoluted case for his Hungarian name to be included since he briefly ruled Transylvania, during its Hungarian era. But again, I don't think the presence of the Hungarian name in the lede makes the articles worse in any way, so I don't think it's really an issue. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have no problem with any names added, any arguments may be read in the above discussion, however per that, it may be concluded which names are fairly relevant to the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
• I have no problem with any names added. Michael ruled Wallachia and Moldavia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania from 1595. He seized Transylvania with the assistance of the Hungarian-speaking Székelys and ruled it on behalf of the king of Hungary. He ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population and a part of the principality are now in Hungary. No difference between Michael's Hungarian name and Matthias Corvinus's Romanian name. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Michael did not rule Moldavia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania, that is a well known fact. 77wonders (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are right. Michael ruled Wallachia as a vassal of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see the fact that "he ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population and a part of the principality are now in Hungary" only as a notability argument for having an article about him in hu.wiki. I think on en.wiki we should talk about the frequency of the name in English-language sources. The Romanian name of Matthias Corvinus is used in quite many English sources, especially in works of Romanian authors. At Matthias Corvinus we have 5 non-English names in the lead, we should probably keep only the Hu name, like on Britannica - the rest could be moved in a separate section. 77wonders (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• It depends on the individual case, which, here, is a "no". Since Michael is only closely associated with Romania and no other country. If there is evidence of a strong relationship between Michael and another nation in literature and legends, then yes, that is relevant. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• One foreign language name is enough, per MOS:NICKCRUFT and MOS:LEADLANG. 77wonders (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• It depends per above. Should be a local consensus. Lean "no" in this situation. ~ HAL333 01:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion a general consensus is preferable, because it would prevent nationalistic disputes between editors on different articles. 77wonders (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• If we accept that maximum one foreign (non-English) name is mentioned in all articles as a rule, this could be a good compromise. Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose in all cases, there might be some people belonging to an ethnic minority from a country with another ethnicity as majority (for example, an Arab in Israel, in that case we should add both Arab and Hebrew names). I doubt that we should focus in this discussion on establishing a format for all Wikipedia articles. This issue can depend in every article and should be discussed individually if it's necessary. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I perhaps do not understand your above remark. Do you argue that Michael's Hungarian name should clearly be listed, because he seized Transylvania with the support of a Hungarian-speaking group, ruled a significant Hungarian-speaking population in Transylvania on behalf of the king of Hungary? Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As I have said before, in my opinion I would prefer it to be removed, but I am not going to strive for that change because I recognize that it makes sense to keep the name. Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus In the case of Arab Israelis, I suppose the Hebrew and Arab names are transcriptions of the English name into the Hebrew and and Arabic alphabet. Since English Wikipedia is dedicated to English readers, what's the point of having a name in an alphabet they normally don't know? On Britannica, Yasser Arafat 's name is not written at all in Arabic characters, which seems right to me. Anyway, we have the interlanguage links in the the left sidebar of the page, so the name in all languages are very easily accessible with a single click. 77wonders (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important that people's names are known in their native language, so from my point of view, they should be added. Interlanguage links are not always accessible, there are times when the Wikipedia of the person's native language does not have a page. Super Ψ Dro 09:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it may be important to learn the native name of someone. Or in the case of the Arab Israelis mentioned above, to discover how their native name looks like, because the overwhelming majority of the readers won't be able to read words written in other alphabets. 77wonders (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• One foreign language name, in addition to the name in English is enough, per MOS:NICKCRUFT and MOS:LEADLANG, in case the subject's past merits the double appellation, e.g. born in one country and then becoming citizen of another. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Michael the Brave

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Legacy" section, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.