Talk:Paul Philippe of Romania

message: I'm really inclined to revert this recent edit to Paul Lambrino. Referring to Mircea Grigore Carol Lambrino as "illegitimate" strikes me as rather bogus (yes, Carol II's marriage to Zizi Lambrino was annulled, but that was basically just politics). Calling him "Mircea Grigore" instead of "Carol Lambrino" just seems snide. "King Michael is a recognized protector of the Jews during WWII" seems dubious ("recognized by whom")? And removing  and  seems just polemical.  - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: The people editing this article ought to heed the fact that referring to Paul of Romania as “Paul Lambrino” is contentious and hence in contradiction to Wikipedia’s rules. The British passport of Prince Paul states clearly “Paul Philip of Romania” (issued in Paris in August 2008). His Romanian passport states “Paul Philippe al Romaniei” which is the same name stated in the birth certificate of his son (no. 355734), registered in Bucharest, Sector 1. 
It is evident that someone here is rather against Paul of Romania. If he is a self-styled “prince” why isn't her cousin Margareta, or the other royal princesses? All of the princesses were born after the monarchy was overthrown so the case could be made that such titles are "self-styled", isn't it correct? However Wikipedia as well as the written press, the television, and other encyclopedia acknowledge these titles of pretense. It is particularly bogus to hang on so stubbornly on the surname “Hohenzollern” for Paul of Romania without even mentioning that for instance “Crown Princess Margareta” herself was born as “Margarita Hohenzollern”; it goes to bias against Paul of Romania. 
As rightly mentioned on Wikipedia’s article on King Michael I, he changed his surname to that of “Hohenzollern” after he abdicated. As to my knowledge, Princess Margareta and Princess Elena and Princess Irina were all registered under the family name “Hohenzollern” whereas Sofia and Maria who were born in kingdoms were allowed to be registered with the last name of “de Roumanie”. Similar cases exist for other former ruling houses; for instance, the Archduchess Gabriela of Austria, the daughter of Archduke Dr. Otto, was born in Luxemburg and was allowed to be registered under the name “Erzherzogin von Österreich”. Nevertheless such names were inadmissible for the children of Archduke Otto born in the Federal Republic of Germany (see Otto von Habsburg Die Biographie, p. 217). 
Furthermore, claiming that court has ever granted Paul of Romania “rights of succession” to the throne is ludicrous. First of all, no republican court shall ever grant “rights of succession” to whichever throne to whomever. Second of all, there is no throne to succeed as Romania is now a republic; all titles used presently are titles of courtesy or pretense with a social and historical value but lacking legality in most countries. 
As a son of the then Crown Prince Carol, his son Carol Mircea, was logically a prince at birth. Even if one argues he was not “Prince of Romania” since the annulment of his parents’ marriage, he was indeed a “Prince of Hohenzollern” in accordance to the Hausgesetze of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty. Additionally it is odd that people are arguing so much about his “self-styled title” but readily accept Radu Duda to be styled “Prince of Romania” on Wikipedia or even Princess Elena’s son to become “Prince of Romania” in spite to the fact that both titles lack all sort of legality. Moreover, the current political establishment seemed to have acknowledged the de facto rank of "Prince Paul" as the current president became godfather of his son, who at all times has been presented as a prince without disclaimers by the official Romania thereto. 
It also seems rather biased against Paul of Romania that whereas people seem to take much care in declaring him “self-styled prince”, no one seems to react about the fact that Wikipedia acknowledges the title “Crown Princess of Romania, etc.” to Princess Margareta, isn’t that title also “self-styled”? 
Even in monarchies titles are often not part of the name or even legally bound for members of reigning families. For instance, "Princess Astrid, Mrs. Ferner" in Norway; her legal name is "Astrid Ferner", and that is the name wherewith she is registered in Norway (look for her at www.eniro.no). Equally in Sweden, "Princess Désirée, Baroness Silfverschiöld" is simply registered in Sweden as "Désirée Silverschiöld". The same is true for her sister, "Christina Magnusson" and certainly not "Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnusson" at the Swedish registration office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.143.231 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paul Lambrino" 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support As nominator and per my reasoning as to the move process and also for the majority usage of "Paul Lambrino". Charles 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment I am unable to locate it. Please provide a link. Charles 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suspect you lack OTRS access, rendering the issue moot. OTRS is the e-mail system by which people contact Wikipedia with questions and concerns - it's locked except to authorized users because it has a ton of sensitive BLP issues in it. Phil Sandifer 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will be requesting access to review it. Charles 15:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK. I'd have a look at Wikipedia:OTRS first. Phil Sandifer 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am unable to locate a page which appears to definitively have a process for signing up/volunteering for the system (sometihng I am interested in anyway) other than one with what appear to be requests dating back to July. I can understand the subject being sensitive to material in the article, but the title is in no way libellous or even malicious and reflects most common usage. Any guidance in volunteering for the system would be appreciated as all links I have opened thus far have literally led me in a circle. Charles 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *. Phil Sandifer 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There have been major additions to this article with almost no addition of citations. We need to sort this mess out. - Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a lot of "fact" & "weasel" tags in the article. All of these things need citation & attribution, respectively. Also, because a Washington Times article cited for several points is apparently not available online, it might be useful if someone with "no horse in this race" might seek a copy and make sure it says what it is cited as saying. And/or we might seek a second source to back this up: the Washington Times is hardly one of America's most respected newspapers. - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some facts could be cited from his website. The Washington Times Article can be found on the talk page of his fathers article. - dwc lr (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This has become an uncited mess

message: There is a citation in the lede, "General", Evenimentul Zilei. The link is to a password-protected page, the title given is beyond vague, and there is no date. As a citation, it's hardly any more useful than saying "Evenimentul Zilei once said this." If anyone has a better citation or can clarify this one, it would be good. - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the address needs updating to http://www.printulpaulderomania.ro/album-foto/ to see pictures of his meetings with royals. - dwc lr (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic citation 

message: Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikipedia Foundation.
He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.
In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards HRH Prince Paul, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia. Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers in the UK.
Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" by "mistake" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against Frédéric Mitterand, in 2005 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never been born the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikipedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.
The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien).
You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names
145.116.225.193 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit you've requested has been made here. Please refrain from posting your requests repeatedly. It is vandalism. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 16:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The Ancestry section was removed because it was unsourced, and I said so in the edit summary. Not sure what "annoying Americanism" you're referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It seems to have been legally disputed and the subject objects strongly to it. His Fathers name is there and there is a wikilink - it was removed previously after OTRS communication - its not especially must know content either. I suggest we keep it out and have removed it again. Perhaps some wording out of the lede that explains the name may be a resolution suitable to both parties.   Youreallycan 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 28 January 2012 

message: Per the news results here, I think it is entirely reasonable (and indeed necessary, per WP:NPOV) to include "also known as Paul Lambrino".  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the OTRS communication and how that plays in this issue, but I agree with Pat and with Nomosk that the reference to Paul Lambrino belongs in the article AND in the lead. What the subject "prefers" and claims should not prevent inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: You've been warned before to stop using terms like defamatory and libelous. Keep it up, and you'll be blocked. First, it doesn't matter whether Paul Lambrino is his legal name - it only matters whether he's referred to by that name. Second, one of the sources was the Chicago Tribune, a major English newspaper. Third, it's only your interpretation that some of the newspapers are "aggressive towards the article's subject". You probably mean that they are simply suspicious of his claims. That doesn't affect this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Your own opinions about the sources are irrelevant -- see WP:OR.  If sources refer to him as a "self-styled prince", then Wikipedia will report that he is a self-styled prince.  If he is also recognized as a prince by various governments and such and this is reported in sources, then Wikipedia will also note this (without however removing the former).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It does seem that "Paul Philippe Lambrino" was the name under which he was first known  and even registered after birth . It does not seem that this was the subject of the lawsuit against Stéphane Bern; rather it was the claim that Paul had not been recognised as a prince by any royal house which led to the court awarding damages of €1500 (nearly US$2000), reflecting the severity of the slur. NebY (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It might be helpful if you could expand on this. Specifically, did the court find that Bern's use of the name "Paul Lambrino" was defamatory? Was part of the €1500 award for this rather than for Bern's statement that he had not been recognised as royal by any royal house? Where can we see reports of these details? NebY (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't see any real call to use it as a source on the article itself -- though it does help establish that reputable sources write/speak of "Paul Lambrino".  Of course, if another editor wanted to use it, then your own dispute with the publisher would have no bearing on such use.  Anyway, the source I do intend to exploit further is the article in the New York Times -- already in use, but there's potential there for expanding the article.  It too establishes that people refer to him as Paul Lambrino.  Incidentally, what was the outcome of the European Court of Human Rights case? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to act actively biasedly against Prince Paul of Romania. I kindly ask you to revert your change. I have read thoroughly NYT's article which you are now citing, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author. 
The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before.  
He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording). 
He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all. 
There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether to include "Paul Lambrino" 

message: Among established editors contributing here, there is almost complete agreement on including "also known as Paul Lambrino".  Even the IP acknowledges that "most of the few articles to which you are referring give the impression his real and legal name is 'Paul Lambrino'"; this editor might not like the implication one draws from that statement, but it does support inclusion.  In addition, we have the fact that there is a redirect: Paul Lambrino brings us to this page.  Any reasonable reading of WP:V and WP:NPOV makes it reasonable to add this; indeed NPOV requires it, insofar as excluding it gives undue emphasis to a position at variance with the sources (i.e., this person really is "Prince Paul" and is not "Paul Lambrino").  We might also consider WP:AUTO and WP:OWN.  We are not here to facilitate someone's claim to royalty.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to act actively biasedly against Prince Paul of Romania. I kindly ask you to revert your change. I have read thoroughly NYT's article which you are now citing, but it contains several mistakes. One further guidelines for reliable sources is not only that they are published in reputable places (such as NYT) but likewise one ought to analyse the content and take into account the author. 
The article claims Prince Paul brought forward a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights to advance his royal claims. The lawsuit was in fact filed by his father as you can see in the English summary of the decision I have posted before.  
He claims Prince Carol Mircea "persuaded" courts in Portugal and France to back up his "rival" claims. I wondered which rival claims, for the cases were mostly about inheritance (and Prince Carol Mircea won in all cases). Furthermore, courts of law in Portugal, France or the UK are not "persuaded" (contentious wording). 
He claims the courts decisions in the countries named above were meaningless because they have not been ratified in Romania. However, Prince Carol Mircea did share the estate of his father with his half-brother, so not meaningless at all. 
There are further mistakes in the text about historical facts. He claims the Romanian monarchy was imported from Germany. There was a monarchy before Carol I ascended the throne! Only a German prince was imported but not the royal institution. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution

message: Could the later heading be changed? It is misleading. 
1. There is no Romanian throne to pretend (claim), for the monarchy was abrogated in 1947. 
2. As the article rightly states, Prince Paul does not seek restoration of the monarchical system under his leadership. In fact, he has accepted the republic and ran unsuccessfully for president in 2000. 
3. Furthermore, Prince Paul is the founder and director of the "Prince Paul of Romania Foundation for Romania"; the latter foundation has made him known around the world. Recently, he was appointed "Friendship Ambassador for China" due to his committment to furthering Sino-Romanian relations: 
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/
Some suggestions from my part are for the headlines "known for" are "Romanian royalty", "Prince of Romania", "Pretender to the Headship of the Romanian Royal House"--145.116.225.193 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known for "Pretender to the Romanian throne" 

message: I beg you to consider changing the article's name to "Prince Paul of Romania". I suggest the following change: 
Prince Paul of Romania (born in Paris on August 13, 1948), under the name Paul-Philippe de Hohenzollern, is the son of Carol Lambrino and Hélène Nagavitzine. 
- The second name Philippe ought not to be emphasize because it is NEVER used in daily life by Prince Paul, and it only appears rarely in articles about him (normally in article wherein he is called "Paul-Philippe de Hohenzollern", so I postulate they use Wikipedia as a source). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people). "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources: if that is with a middle name or an abbreviation, make the Wikipedia article title conform to that format." Most sources including the ones mentioning the Lambrino appellation do not mention "Philippe". 
- Several editors here are persistent upon using the appellation "Paul Lambrino" because it appears in few unreliable sources, however, hitherto they like to ignore the fact that Prince Paul is known with the name and title "Prince Paul of Romania" in major English sources. In fact, that name is the common denominator used by major legitimate sources as per Wikipedia's guidelines ("Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). 
http://www.romania-insider.com/prince-paul-of-romania-to-his-uncle-king-michael-you-did-nothing-for-our-people-during-50-years-of-communism/38635/ 
http://www.bursa.ro/prince-paul-has-proposed-to-the-chinese-of-huawei-to-invest-in-jucu-152124&s=print&sr=articol&id_articol=152124.html 
http://www.nineoclock.ro/hrh-prince-paul-is-honored-in-china-then-meets-president-carter/ 
http://www.princepaulofromania.com/images/stories/press/dailymail/04_dailymail_nastere_carol_ferdinand.jpg 
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities-news-in-pics/15-01-2010/52986/ 
http://www.nineoclock.ro/prince-paul-filed-suit-to-be-acknowledged-as-royal-house-member/ 
http://www.princepaulofromania.com/images/stories/press/dailymail_26-05-2010/0000003-daily-mail-26-may-2010.jpg 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281403/The-tangled-love-life-school-s-boss.html 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/8097787/Dashwood-Houston-has-a-problem-with-Romanian-royalty.html 
Furthermore, I can offer copies of articles published in reputable British magazines wherein Prince Paul is referred to as "Prince Paul of Romania". In addition, over 80 FRONT PAGE articles in Romanian national papers going back to year 2000 wherein Prince Paul is known as "Printul Paul al Romaniei". 
- Moreover, all members of the Royal Family of Romania who hold a princely rank as named as such in their Wikipedia's pages (i.e., Princess Margarita of Romania, Princess Elena of Romania, Princess Irina of Romania, etc.). Even those persons whose title might be disputed such as Prince Radu of Romania or Prince Nicholas of Romania. Wikipedia's NPOV demands the name of Prince Paul's page be changed! There are more than enough reliable sources which ONLY (as opposed to the Romanian-Adevarul sources) refer to him with his REAL name and title. 
- I can imagine some of you shall claim that making such change would further Prince Paul's claims, so I ask in advance, claims to what? He IS a Prince of Romania just like his royal cousins. 
According to Wikipedia's own standards for Royalty and Nobility(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Other_royals), there should not be a problem to change the pages title and lead. --145.116.225.193 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the common name for people. I really don't think Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern is the common name so this should probably be moved to something else. - dwc lr (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure a discussion at WP:NCROY would be useful. WP:TITLE addresses the factors that should be considered when naming an article, and a discussion about this article's title should probably be resolved on this page. Without an in-depth analysis, renaming the article to Prince Paul of Romania would hardly be a neutral choice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's name ought to be "Prince Paul of Romania" 

message: I'm concerned that the following statement is unsourced and in conflict with an available source: "Nevertheless, he states that he accepts Romania's republican form of government and does not wish to see the monarchy restored."  I have added a citation request, and I'm tempted to replace it with the statement that he does hope to become king -- something evident in the NYT article which gained his own views on the point: .  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- the fact that the source you quote is subsequent to the NYT (and indeed quite recent) is probably sufficient to alleviate the concerns I had.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can the reference to "Pretender to the Romanian throne" be changed to something more accurate please! --145.116.225.193 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's supported by high-quality reference (e.g. the NY Times article).  If there are independent reliable sources that tell us he is the "Prince of Romania", then it can be considered -- though as others have pointed out the fact that Romania is a republic is likely to make this a difficult choice.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intentions about becoming king (or whatever) 

message: ... are nil.  Paul claims he is; others claim he isn't -- in particular, his uncle, per this New York Times article.  Since there are sources that support Paul's claims to be "Prince Paul of Romania", this of course can be included -- but again not in an unqualified way, per WP:NPOV.  Deleting the other names by which he is known, so that "Prince Paul of Romania" is the only thing left, is not appropriate.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prospects for an unqualified "Prince Paul of Romania" on this page 

message: One of the IPs who is interested in this article is trying to change the main name used in the article to Prince Paul. At first, he was only trying to refer to him as Prince Paul in one part of the particle (ostensibly because the cited source refered to him that way), but then the IP went further and made significant changes to the lead. I've reverted and warned the IP, but I can't revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More problems over the name 

message: I'm not sure the current edit is accurate, see  which says nothing about 'possesions', whatever they are. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the Romanian source via google translate -- it seemed to support the "possessions" claim, though I think the way the article currently reads most people won't understand what "Romanian Royal possessions" are (I certainly don't).  Anyway the source you provide shows that "Prince Paul of Romania" is still contested, despite today's ruling.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded (twice because I screwed up with Google translate the first time). I added the English source Doug cites above. I've tried to keep it bare bones in terms of the ruling, but if you think it needs rewording to be more source-compliant (it's hard to sort out the Romaninian source), feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court decision 

message: A few weeks ago an issue relating to the subject's name was raised above by our IP friend: the Philippe part is not commonly used.  I have done some searching in GBooks and GNews and I can see some merit in that claim.  A GBooks search suggests that the most commonly used form is simply "Paul Hohenzollern" (with a significantly lower number of results for "Paul de Hohenzollern").  In news (archive) results, there is an even split between "Paul Hohenzollern" and "Paul de Hohenzollern".  "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern" is much less common.  On this basis I would propose moving this article to "Paul Hohenzollern".  But I'm in no rush to do this and would appreciate hearing the thoughts of other editors.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which form of his name to use 

message: There's been a bit of a back-and-forth over whether we should have this press release cited in corroboration of a statement released by King Michael regarding the recent court decision. I believe it should be removed, for two reasons:
*We already cite two sources - one in Romanian, one in English, both independent - quoting the same press release and presenting the same information
*Directly citing press releases, without the filter of a third-party source, is simply not something we do, at least not in most cases. Press releases are inherently biased, they have no independent editor reviewing them, and for that reason WP:SPS states that "self-published media... are largely not acceptable as sources", and goes on to say in a footnote: "Self published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self published sources include press releases..." (underlining mine)
Oh, I know none of us is trying to push King Michael's claim and that the citation is there simply to present a fact — I'm not alleging any malfeasance. I'm simply saying this is both irregular (see the policy) and unnecessary (see the two sources we already have). - Biruitorul Talk 04:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't doing any harm, and I prefer to keep it as most of the other sources are in a foreign language. DrKay (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does do harm -- it erodes our ability to keep people from using press releases as sources, something we don't want in general.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that the press release is citable in this context. It is essentially Michael's response to the lawsuit, for what that's worth. As for Pat's puzzlement, I think we'd have to understand more about what the lawsuit was about and how the Romanian legal system works to be able to resolve the issue. Not easy to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: On citing press releases

message: *: Mircea Lambrino was an illegitimate son born out of wedlock, there's no tendentiousness intended (i didn't use the word bastard). Mircea Lambrino and his son were never formally recognised by any head of the Royal House of Romania (Ferdinand, Mihai or Carol) as members. That's also a fact. I don't see the problem in my edit.--Mihai (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819013348/http://www.printulpaulderomania.ro/ to http://printulpaulderomania.ro/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Even the courts that sentenced him to prison didn't deny that he is , whatever that means in a republic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royalty 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Philippe of Romania →  – Propose to move the article back to this title, which it appears to have been moved from without proper discussion.  The current title is also POV, it's not the job of Wikipedia to decide who is entitled to royal titles, particularly in countries which are now republics. PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 July 2021 

message: His surname “al României” should not be translated to ‘of Romania’ given that he has never been recognized as a dynast in this family and the current naming makes him look like a monarch. 2607:FEA8:C240:B700:DC52:E94B:A311:30EC (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Romania is a republic, it has no dynasty, so there is none who could approve or disapprove such translation. tgeorgescu (talk)  19:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Also there is no Wikipedia convention which says that describing a person as "somebody of somewhere" implies that they were a monarch or royal, see e.g. Hildegard of Bingen.  Wikipedia has not taken sides in these disputes between descendants of King Carol II of Romania. PatGallacher (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Also if you think it is inappropriate to call him "of Romania" then translating this into Romanian doesn't really resolve the issue. PatGallacher (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  His civil name should not be translated in this instance 

message: A "genuine" royal house for a republic is a pipe dream. Monarchy in Romania ended with Michael I. One could not establish a royal house of Romania in 2011, since the whole year the country was a republic. One could merely pretend to establish a royal house for Romania in 2011. So, Margareta's and Paul's claims of being the true royal house are equally bogus.
@IP: The last King of Romania was Michael I. This is a fact. But it is not a fact that there would be a "genuine" royal house of Romania. There are just several people who claim to be the genuine royal house of Romania, which is not recognized by the Romanian state, since the statute of the royal house has to be approved by the Romanian Parliament, which did not happen after Michael I was dethroned. And don't shoot the messenger: it is not my fault that Romania is a republic.
In Romanian law, titles of nobility are not protected. So the Romanian state cannot affirm that Paul is either a genuine or a fake prince. The title  means nothing in Romanian law: there is no procedure for validating or denying such title. Same applies to the words : the Romanian state holds no opinion whether a certain royal house of Romania would be genuine or fake. The words  are not legally protected. Romanian courts of law lack any authority to decide which is the "genuine" royal house of Romania. That is simply a matter which cannot be solved juridically. Since juridically speaking, the words  are much ado about nothing. Property rights are another matter, but  is juridically meaningless.
The conclusion is that both royal houses of Romania, Paul's and Margareta's, are nothing more than pipe dreams, and they are equally so. So, I'm not saying that only one of the two houses is a pipe dream: both are. So, we are left arguing about which is the most genuine (or realistic) pipe dream. The claim that Romania has a genuine royal house is a big load of tosh. The Romanian state does not care about which is the "real" royal house of Romania, nor about how many royal houses of Romania there are. For the state, such problem is like  like there could be only one genuine association, instead of a plurality of associations. The House of Romania is nothing else than a private club for hobbyists: there could be multiple clubs of hobbyists. Juridically speaking, claiming to be Romanian royalty is quite similar to having a hobby, it is just that this is a hereditary hobby, and there are multiple hereditary lineages of hobbyists. So, we have the hobby club House of Romania at Margareta's and the hobby club House of Romania at Paul's. None of them is more real/genuine than the other. The courts don't care that both use the words , same as they don't care that there are two bridge clubs in the same city.
And, IP, enlighten us: provide the number of the law and its year. E.g. Law no. X of 20XX. The proof is in the pudding. We have no use for a project of law which died in the chambers.
The document you provided is anonymous. It is written under it  and  but no real name is given. They both remain anonymous since presidents of flesh and blood of the chambers never signed it. That law never passed.
The PDF itself is signed (authored) by , who never was a member of the Parliament.
And, remember: a number and an year, that's all you need to prove me wrong. You need to provide up to 8 digits in order to show everyone that I'm mistaken. First four digits: the number of the law. Last four digits: its year. The number of the law probably has only one or two digits, and two digits of the year are known: 20. So, you only have to provide four digits. Or, at most, five. The year being 2016 or later. So the third digit of the year is either 1 or 2. If it's 2, then the fourth digit is either 0 or 1. See how easy I made it? You only have six choices for the year. According to http://www.expert-monitor.ro/LexMonitor/Demo/index.jsp , only 1718 laws were published to become enacted between 1 January 2016 and today, so there are not that many choices. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipe dream 

message: Somebody should change the site, as this is clearly a hidden ad 2A02:2F0D:B215:E700:AC53:68FF:5D17:7C01 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The website redirects to a business site. 

message: We are using both styles. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good question. I don't know the answer. Official sources use both versions. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen or not in his name? 

message: @IP: His claim of belonging to the House of Romania is neither true, nor false, it is simply a disputed claim. See #Pipe dream. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  True House of Romania