Talk:Michael I of Romania/Archive 1

message: No mention of Margareta and the other daughters. --Wetman 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

message: The article has quite a bit of info that makes me question how Romanian he is.  (I mean in an ethnic and linguistic sense.)  Is Romanian even his first language?
Just curious, so would love to see this info in the article.
King Michael's first language was Romanian, but his mother's preferred language was English, which is why His Majesty speaks fluent English as well. King Michael has always been very pro-British, even during World War II when Romania was being run into the ground by the self-declared 'Conducator', Ion Antonescu, whom King Michael had arrested in 1944. - (Aidan Work 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Hohenzollerns were not seen as foreigners and did not even acted like foreginers. In order to gain Transylvania, they fought against their mother country, Germany, in World War I at a time when many Romanian politicians (the "germanophile" faction) were against that. Also, during WWII, after the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum, the king wanted to fight the Soviets and not surrender the territory, but the Romanian politicians cowardly refused to do that (in the end, Romania lost much more lives and territory than expected...) bogdan 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he Romanian? 

message: It appears that the nearest male heirs to Michael would be the descendants of the older and younger brothers of King Ferdinand I.  Since the older brother, William, rejected the throne, does that elminate his heirs?  If so, then the succession should fall to the family of the younger brother, Charles Anthony, who had a son, Albrecht.  But I don't know if Albrecht's children were male or female.
If none of these apply, then it would appear that the heir would fall back to some other Hohenzollern branch.  I have posted this question at alt.royalty.  Zoe 02:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently Michael has issued a statement making his daughter his heir, something he would have had no power to do under the monarchist constitition. Since the Romanian monarchy is extinct, however, this is a matter of antiquarian interest only. Adam 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession

message: King Michael's title remains that of 'King'.He cannot be titled as 'Prince'. I regard downgrading his title as wrong. - (Aidan Work 01:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King Michael's title.

message: As a Royalist, I believe very strongly that King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid, as King Michael was forced to sign it under duress, as his Commie Prime Minister held a gun to the Queen Mother's head. Had a referendum been held, there would be a majority in favour of King Michael being restored to the throne. - (Aidan Work 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King Michael's 'instrument of abdication' is not valid.

message: Also could we please try to find a PD photo of him as an adult? Why don't one of you royalists write to him and get a copy of his official photo? Adam 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the copyright status of those photos? (I think, by the way, it is debatable whether he is giving a Nazi salute in the first photo - his arm is not in the "rigid" Nazi salute position. It looks more like a Mussolini-style fascist salute, or even just a general salute of greeting.) Adam 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those photos are in the public domain: there is no known author and they have been circulating free of copyright rights for over six decades. The salute seems more like the Roman salute, which was adopted by all fascist movements. Stefanp 12:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Roman salute is what I called the fascist salute - arm extended and raised high, palm facing outwards. It was significantly different to the Hitlergruss (Nazi salute) - arm extended rigidly, usually not raised so high, palm facing downwards. Adam 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say all fascist salutes (Nazi, Mussolini's, Romanian, etc.) were variations on the same theme - the Roman salute. Different nuances, but the same essence. Stefanp 13:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Then it means Wikipedia is also wrong, for this is what it says about the Nazi salute: "The Hitler salute (Hitlergruß), also known in German during World War II as the Deutscher Gruß ("German Greeting"), and in English as the Nazi salute, is a variant of the Roman salute adopted by the Nazi party as a sign of loyalty to its leader Adolf Hitler." Stefanp 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the following special report on the history of an idea - the European union - of the very reputable magazine The Economist, the Nazi and fascist salutes were the Roman salute: "Hitler's loyalists gave the Roman salute and their cry “Heil Hitler!” was modelled on “Hail Caesar!”. (...) Of course, the Romans have inspired not only despots but also democrats, among them the architects of the Capitol in Washington, DC. And the Romans and Charlemagne also inspired the fathers of the EU, whose objectives were the exact opposite of war." Thus, I can confidently say that King Michael gave and received the Nazi salute to and from the adoring masses of the pro-Nazi Iron Guard party that had swept him into power and had repatriated his mother from a long and painful exile. Stefanp 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I think when his death was reported on 29 January 2006 people were confusing him with his half brother Carol Lambrino, who died in London on 27 January 2006 aged 86. --82.4.86.73 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: i don't think it's a correct statement. king michael and most of the people who supported him in his coup d'etat (with the obvious exception of the communists) did so wanting to ally themselves with the allies. that the only allies that ever got to enter the country were the soviets was an unfortunate happening, but not king michael's wish. the statement you make implies that when he made the coup d'etat he did it with the specific desire to hand the country over to the communists, which is most definitely not true. if you want to point out the unfortunate consequences of the move you can mention that his act led to the country being invaded by communists, because the allies had made an agreement with the soviets which involved letting romania mostly under their influence (i believe the proportion they agreed upon was 70% soviets, 30% others - not that it actually was that way). ilya 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (The extent to which King Christian "defied Hitler" has been greatly exaggerated. Like everyone in the occupied countries, the Danes compromised with the Germans to the extent they thought necessary for their own safety. So no doubt did Michael and the Romanians. Adam 12:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, Romania was not an occupied country - it was a Germany ally, so comparisons with Christian X are not apt.  The appropriate comparisons would be to Victor Emmanuel III, Boris III, and Admiral Horthy, I think.  But it should also be noted that Michael was not really his own master.  Power in Romania up until the coup was really in Antonescu's hands.  john k 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ, Adam. You make the same mistake as Morgandy when comparing apples with oranges: Romania, unlike Italy or England, was not a constitutional monarchy, but a military dictatorship. The Constitution and Parliament being both suspended, the power resided with the Army - this is what a military dictatorship is after all. Thus, whoever had the confidence and affection of the Army enjoyed real power in the country. Both the King and Marshal Antonescu enjoyed the Army's trust and affection, so both had actual power. The King had, besides real power, moral power as well, as he embodied the Nation and was, under the laws of the time, supreme Head of the Army and, thus, Antonescu's boss. The King simply chose not to use his real and moral power over the Army and, thus over Romania, as it provided him with a carefree life of automobile driving, airplane piloting, and hunting pursuits. He chose not to use his actual and moral power over the Army and, thus, Nation until his Throne and life started being at stake: after Stalingrad, when it became clear the Soviets were to rout the Nazis out and occupy Romania. Stefanp 07:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be careful when using terms such as "nonsense": somebody else might perceive them as insults and complain officially about such language. I won't. As about your assertions, they are utterly wrong. Firstly, Antonescu was a Marshal of the Army, whose Head was the King, as confirmed by the royal decree of September 6 1940. Thus, the King - also a Marshal - was Marshal Antonescu's boss. Secondly, there were no "other powerful people" who decided to challenge Antonescu's authority. The King was the sole really powerful person who decided to do so, who only sought the democratic parties leaders' advice, but decided to go ahead without them when they couldn't be found and consulted at their residences in Bucharest on the fateful day of August 23 1944. The coup was largely a personal act of the King, not of "other powerful people", carried out with the support of the Communists, to whose armed gang Antonescu was handed over. Thirdly, Michael was not "a figurehead monarch", for his very own son-in-law Radu Duda claims otherwise in a public interview: "Monarchy is the crown, as well as political power. This is the way monarchy in Romania was until 1947. If this is the monarchy you have in mind, this model is no longer possible. No E.U. institution will accept the idea that a person should receive as much power as King Michael had on 29 December 1947. In the EU model, the monarch does not have this sort of political power, so returning to such a model is no longer possible."  You should read up more on Romanian history before making any such false claims. They make you lose your credibility as historian. Stefanp 07:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I deny your slanderous accusation of being almost impolite. However, such accusation does not surprise me in least, as it is obvious that you do have a pro-Romanian royals agenda - agenda for whose furthering you have recently joined Wikipedia. Here are your contributions to Wikipedia so far: they are limited only to positions in favor of the Romanian royals. Stefanp 13:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: @ ilya & Arkadiam: It is obvious that you are both fans of the Romanian royals. Rather than employ name calling, which doesn't help anybody and reflects poorly on you, why don't you better come up with reliable sources in King Michael's favor? I always backed my opinions with English-language sources, most of them not of Romanian origin, independent of the old Communist anti-monarchical propaganda, and, therefore, unbiased. Please, do the same: back up your assertions with English-language sources, if at all possible non-Romanian in origin, unbiased, to counter my sources so that the Wikipedia readers may judge for themselves. Thank you for reading my answer and have a good day! Stefanp 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Evenimentul Zilei" I quoted above is not a tabloid, but a serious investigative journal, for the well-reputed press freedom watchdog group "Freedom House" from the U.S. does not defend politically insignificant tabloids. For the reliability of "Evenimentul Zilei", please, see the positive "Freedom House" reports. From these reports, it is clear that "Evenimentul Zilei" is the leading anti-communist newspaper (it took the most numerous positions against the neo-communist SDP party; its journalists were beaten up for their investigations into the shady affairs of the SDP). Therefore it cannot be suspected of being biased and continuing the old communist propaganda against King Michael. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, you can quote whatever you wish, as long as they are not Romanian publications and are in English. Observers from outside Romania are usually more objective and neutral than Romanians, who have been indoctrinated for decades about the merits of the "glorious" August 23 1944 royal & Communist coup. A coup whose merits, let's not forget, made the Communists establish August 23 as Romania's national day during their dictatorship. Since I quoted unbiased, non-Romanian, English-language sources about the August 23 1944 coup, I expect the same from you. For the sake of objectivity. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I never accused you of being a "King Michael fan", but of being a fan of the Romanian royals - which you are. Stefanp 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 1. With regards to the most critical issue of King Michael's second reign - the royal and communist coup of August 1944 -, I quoted non-Romanian sources, as they are free from 50+ years of Communist bias and indoctrination. Therefore, I expect the same from you. With regards to other issues of lesser importance besides the coup (e.g. the paintings), I did quote Romanian sources of English language (e.g. "Evenimentul Zilei") and non-Romanian equally, so please feel free to do the same. 2. Despite the evidence I put forth about the reliability of my sources, you continue to wrongly claim "Evenimentul Zilei" is a tabloid. I repeat: the reputable US press watchdog group "Freedom House" (led by high ranking Republicans and, thus, anti-communist figures), does not defend politically insignificant or unreliable newspapers from around the world. According to "Freedom House" reports, "Evenimentul Zilei" is the most anti-communist newspaper of Romania, and I can, therefore, say, free from any anti-King Michael Communist bias. 3. My sources are not unknown or unheard of, as you wrongly claim, but are standards of professionalism in their field - the BBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. 4. I am not surprised at all that you continue to make wrong claims about my sources, since, as a fan of the Romanian royals and monarchist, you are evidently biased in King Michael's favor. Regardless of your bias, I am still looking forward to your quotes and sources and less so about any of your wrong claims over my sources. Have a good day! Stefanp 21:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Antonescu did have full powers as Prime Minister, but the supreme power as Head of the Army, by the September 6 1940 royal decree, still rested with the King - King Michael. You are wrong to claim the Army had any reason whatsoever to defy King Michael, just like it had, indeed, defied his father, Carol II. Michael had been a victim of Carol II, just like all of Romania had been - growing up deprived of his mother, exiled by Carol - and was, therefore, much sympathized and even loved by the Army and the people. The huge masses of Romanians acclaiming King Michael and Queen Mother Helen on her return from exile, which you can see in the documentary movie, prove you wrong. The acclaiming Iron Guard masses at the Iasi rally prove you wrong again. Michael enjoyed the affection of the Army and people, as well as moral and legal authority with the Army, whose supreme Head he remained, above Antonescu. Michael, thus, had both moral and legal power over the Army - the deciding body during any military dictatorship - and was, therefore, not a mere puppet. Michael's son-in-law Radu Duda strengthens this conclusion in his public interview above quoted. Stefanp 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  handing the country to the soviets 

message: :I made a couple of minor edits, today Monday 17 April 2006, and the whole of the bottom part of the article disappeared....puzzled, I tried to revert the article to it's previous complete form, without success.  Now horrified by either my incompetence or a fault in my computer (always blame your tools...) I used another computer and created a second account, and then managed to return the article to it's previous contents... Sorry for any inconvenience, it was not intentional.
Marina C (2) 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disappearing text!

message: Anne's style was never "Anne of Bourbon, Princess of Parma", nor was she ever known as such.
#The change made in the article's reference to the consort of King Michael of Romania as "Princess of Parma" instead of "Princess of Bourbon-Parma" is inaccurate for reasons that have been documented elsewhere, but here goes:
##The evidence shows that "Prince X of Bourbon-Parma" and "Princess Y of Bourbon-Sicily", or variations thereof (always including "Bourbon" and usually "name-of-realm") is how members of these branches of the Bourbon dynasty are overwhelmingly referred to (rather than as "Prince X of Parma" or "Princess Y of the Two Sicilies") in even the most precise venues, but also in general reference, the latter being what is most relevant to WP usage. 
## As indicated on the Bourbon-Parma website and the  Bourbon-Sicily website, this is how they refer to themselves, and how they instruct others about their titulature. 
## It is how they are referred to legally:
###One of them filed a lawsuit in France: "Cour d'appel de Paris (1re Ch. sect. A) 22 novembre 1989 Présidence de Mme Ezratty Premier Président Prince Henri d'Orléans, comte de Clermont et Prince Sixte Henri de Bourbon Parme c. Carmen Rossi". (emphasis mine). 
###Similar title in the Netherlands: "Bij Koninglijk Besluit van 15 mei 1996 nr 96.000163, zijn de vier kinderen van HKH prinses Irene, te weten Carlos Javier Bernardo; Margarita Maria Betriz; Jaime Bernardo en Maria-Carolina de Bourbon de Parme ingelijfd in de Nederlandes Adel met de title van prins en prinses en het preikaat Koninklijke Hoogheid" (emphasis mine). 
###And in Luxembourg: On 28 July 1986 Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg issued a decree dropping use of the title Prince de Bourbon de Parme for himself and his descendants (but not his siblings). But on 18 December 2000, Grand Duke Henri decreed that among the titles his son and heir, Guillaume (born 11 Nov. 1981), would henceforth bear would be that of Prince de Bourbon de Parme. 
## The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica's article on the principality of Bulgaria states: "In the spring of 1893 Prince Ferdinand married Princess Marie-Louise of Bourbon-Parma..." (emphasis mine). Note that in English, the second "de/of" in the name had already morphed into a hyphen by 1911. 
## Until it ceased publication in 1944, the Almanach de Gotha was regarded as the premier source and authority on proper use of dynastic titles, relied upon by courts and diplomats. Since it began publication in 1951 the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is now regarded as the most authoritative genealogical work on royalty. Both publications did and do submit entries to the Head of House of each dynasty for prior review. 
###The 1878 Almanach de Gotha included its entry on the Dukes of Parma, who had been in exile since 1859, under "Bourbon". But it did not define the official titles of Parmesan dynasts, nor did it report titular suffixes for females. But I found one relevant example: in the Portugal entry the marriage was recorded of the Infanta Adelgonde in 1872 to a younger son of Duke Charles III of Parma, who is listed as Prince Henri de Bourbon, Comte de Bardi (emphasis mine). 
###But the 1912 Almanach entry does define the official title of Parmesan dynasts: "Les cadets portent les titre et nom de prince ou princesse de Bourbon de Parme, Alt. Roy." (emphasis mine). 
###The 1991 Handbuch does likewise on p.13: "Die Nachgeborenen führen den Titel und Namen Prinz bzw. Prinzessin v. Bourbon v. Parma und das Prädikat Kgl. Hoheit." (e-mphasis theirs).
## No decree has been adduced that ever legally granted the title of "Prince/ss of Parma" to cadets of the Bourbon dynasty. So far as we know, that style was borne by Farnese cadets in the 18th century as a matter of courtesy, and was then assumed by Bourbon cadets on the basis of tradition (Parma was a papal fief. But it was allocated by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748 to Infante Felipe, youngest of the Spanish Bourbons -- without the papal investiture that would normally specify the titular details that treaties omit). Sometime after the loss of the throne of Parma in 1859, cadets of this family came to be known by a combined form of their dynastic surname and their forfeited territory. Throughout the 20th century, and seemingly earlier, "HRH Prince X de Bourbon de Parme" became prevalent enough to replace the earlier tradition of "Prince of Parma" to such an extent that members of the family now use the latter almost exclusively instead of the former.  
## The House of Bourbon reigned in Parma (with interregnums) 1748-1859. So it would be reasonable to use "Prince/ss of Parma" for members of the family born prior to 1860. But the dynasty has now been in exile from their realm longer than they held its throne, and Michael's consort Anne was born 60+ years after exile. Lethiere 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne's Birth Title

message: My edit today regarding the reason King Michael received the  Soviet Order of Victory is based on many verifiable sources, the formulation "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies"  is to be found in such sources as:
Library of Congress Country Studies - Romania. "for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies" .  Use Google
Nations Encyclopedia
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-11127.html
Also at  AllRefer.com
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/romania/romania35.html
as well as
http://www.ciaonet.org/atlas/countries/ro_data_loc.htmland: " the Soviet Union later awarded Michael the Order of Victory for his personal courage in overthrowing Antonescu and putting an end to Romania's war against the Allies"
and others.
Further explanation can be found at: http://www.vor.ru/English/whims/whims_026.html
"The Victory Order was awarded also to international leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition, among them the Commander in Chief of the Yugoslav People’s Liberation Army, General Josip Broz Tito, Marshal of Poland Michal Rolja-Zymersky, British Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, US General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower and  King Mihai I of Romania......"
Marina C (2) 18:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King Michael and the  Soviet Order of Victory

message: I highly doubt that Maniu did such a thing. The reference provided needs careful translation.  The context in which Maniu's words are described in the Jurnalul National piece is not rendered in the reference used in Wikipedia. "Peste cativa ani s-au trezit iarasi ca au nevoie de Maniu pentru un alt proces politic. Venise randul primului ministru comunist al Justitiei, Lucretiu Patrascanu, sa cunoasca "dialecticele" raporturi dintre cetateanul unui regim comunist, adevar si dreptate. Pentru "a dovedi" apropierea lui Patrascanu de "reactiune" la 23 august 1944, o echipa de anchetatori s-a deplasat la Sighet, interogandu-i pe toti detinutii implicati in evenimente. La inceputul lui 1953, Iuliu Maniu era insa prea grav bolnav ca sa mai poata vorbi. Ultimul intemnitat in aceeasi celula cu el fusese, la Galati, Nicolae Carandino. Ce spunea Maniu despre 23 august? – este interogat gazetarul. Nimic, nu povestea despre asta, raspunde Carandino. Si totusi despre ce vorbea Maniu? – insista anchetatorii. Il injura pe Rege, pentru ca nu facuse nimic in apararea taranistilor, desi multe fusesera serviciile pe care ei le adusesera monarhiei – a declarat ultimul vorbitor cu Maniu. "  It seems that the communist inquisitors forced Maniu's last cellmate to make this statement.  A statement made under duress is not very credible, the Wikipedia article needs to include this context.  Translation needed, or I will remove the reference.  Marina C (2) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there are no "inquisitors" mentioned in the article, which only a "Grand Inquisitor" fan like you would see where, in fact, there are only prosecutors ("anchetatori" in Romanian). Granted, they were Communist prosecutors, but no further details are povided in the article as to their interrogation methods. Thus, there is no indication of force or duress applied to the witness. As to the translation of the relevant part edited into the Wiki article, the last sentence shows what it is said (as the Wiki edit reads) by Maniu's cell-mate: Maniu "was cursing the King for not having done anything in the defense of the PNT members, although many had been the services they had rendered to the monarchy -- stated the person who last spoke to Maniu." I would hope that despite your biased, pro-Michael views,  you agree with the translation. Stefanp 00:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maniu "Cursing the King"

message: This comment is a judgment made by the narrative voice of the article, and is blatantly a POV attempt to make Michael look bad.  The description of what happens makes it clear enough that the purpose of the coup was to end Romania's participation in the war on the German side.  Romania was in no position to do this on its own terms.  We should let people judge for themselves, not tell them to think that this was some kind of betrayal of Romania, which strikes me as a bizarre perspective. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no spin in the sentence about the capitulation, only quotes from two most reputable sources. Which you have just vandalized. If you want your POV included in the article, please, find references for it and stop destroying other people's research. Stefanp 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what vandalism is.  I don't have a POV - I have no dog in this fight, except opposing POV pushing. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, you, too, read what blanking vandalism is - which is what you've been practicing here: ""Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Also, I'm not seeing any sources quoted in support of your POV's regarding King Michael: "Michael staged a coup so as to take charge of the Romanian government and surrender to the allies before the Soviets overran the country." Stefanp 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing parts of an article because one thinks they are bad and don't belong is not vandalism.  You've been around long enough that you should know this. john k 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Coup effectively amounted to a capitulation" 

message: I have no idea what the basis of this claim is.  The idea that Michael's coup and signing of an armistice is negatively viewed in the west is flatly false - he has generally been honored for it, and it was his courage in overthrowing Antonescu that led to a great deal of sympathy for him in the west - much more than that for other overthrown Balkan monarchs.  The link provided provides no support for the idea that the west somehow resents Michael's coup as having somehow hurt the west.  The basic fact is that the Soviets were going to overrun Romania one way or the other.  The article seems to be trying to claim that somehow the Soviet take-over was Michael's fault.  This is just utterly bizarre.  The Soviets took over because their armies were right there.  It'd have just taken longer if he hadn't, and perhaps been done in a way that was even harsher to Romania. 
None of these weird insinuations belong in the article. john k 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  But there is absolutely no support for the reason this might be that was in the article. I assume he hasn't been invited for fear of offending the Romanian government. john k 23:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong assumptions: all the Romanian governments since the 1996 elections have been monarchy-friendly, restoring Michael's citizenship in 1997 and making his son-in-law a government special representative since 2002. So no such fears of offending the Romanian government. The only offense here is that against King Michael, who has not been deemed worthy of any invitations at the VE Day celebrations... Stefanp 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, certainly prior to 1996 that would arguably be a reason.  At any rate, there is still no reason to believe your supposed reason for Michael's absence - that the western allies somehow resented his coup and surrender, a surrender which they welcomed at the time. john k 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  At any rate, Michael's absence from the post 1997 celebrations, especially the biggest ones of 2005, speaks louder than any of your words. And besides, as long as I can find a "verifiable, published, reliable" source that supports my edit, my edit meets Wiki standards and your blanking it equals vandalism: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." Vandalism rules So stop vandalizing this article. If you want your pro-Michael POV's included, that's fine, as long as you find a reliable, published source that says what you want. Stefanp 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it says absolutely nothing.  Perhaps Michael is excluded because Romania was, for most of the war, an axis power.  Perhaps because he was 75 years old in 1997, and has only gotten older.  Who the hell knows?  The particular reason you give seems incredibly unlikely.  Romanian newspapers are not a reliable source as to the feelings of western governments about King Michael.  And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense.  It isn't removing parts of an article because one thinks they don't belong.  john k 01:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well. The mere fact that you don't even seem capable of reading carefully says enough about your POV's and your edits. You wrongly claim the following: "And "blanking" an article is replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense.  It isn't removing parts of an article." Read again, please, the following Wikipedia rule: "Blanking Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit." (Vandalism rules) Learn first to read carefully before doing anything else to Wikipedia, ok? Stefanp 01:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is when you randomly remove large chunks of an article for no reason.  If someone adds paragraphs of garbage to an article, it isn't "vandalism" to remove them. Wikipedia:Vandalism specifically says that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."  So you are accusing me of bad faith, and of trying to make wikipedia worse. john k 04:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  You claimed above that only "replacing all of its content with nothing, or with nonsense" is blanking vandalism. That's not true: removing parts of an article can also be vandalism. Learn to read first before vandalizing anylonger in order to further your pro-Michael POV's, unsupported by any references whatsoever. Stefanp 09:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VE Day

message: Does the fact that 5th Avenue is expensive and that a gossip column from 1948 claims that Michael considered buying a plane really serve as evidence of Michael's financial situation in 1948?  This seems like a novel synthesis of primary sources, and as such is original research. This whole business is incredibly tiresome.  Can't we just ban Stefan and get on with it? This entire article is a tendentious mess. john k 08:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your unsourced pro-Michael POV's push you to vandalisms (i.e. deletions of referenced statements, alterations of original quotes) as well as unacceptable edits (e.g. based on so-called emails, which cannot be used as sources cf. Wikipedia rules). Any more of these abuses and I will have to report your vandalisms. Stefanp 09:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A synthesis of primary sources requires: 1. an unreferenced personal opinion added by the editor to the primary sources so as to advance 2. an unreferenced conclusion also formulated by the editor. (Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) Please, quote both the unreferenced personal opinion and the conclusion statement. If you cannot quote both, then there is no such synthesis and, hence, no original research. Stefanp 09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making the implication that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a lightly made remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money.  This is clear original research.  And please, please, please report me. john k 16:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, Stefan, let's put aside personal threats of banning or reporting. They are quite silly. I have read the Original Research rules and I have to agree with Stefan. John, you need to show that A) a personal editor's opinion, and B) a personal conclusion, both unreferenced, were inserted in the edit along with the primary sources, in order to qualify as synthesis/original research. I see no such two statements, only quotes from primary sources. So no synthesis/original research here. Carbunar 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "personal threats"? No threat was made. The edit twists the facts, King Michael went shopping? What did he buy? That is not reported.  If I had come out of such a difficult time in Romania I would probably also have headed for the bright lights (Broadway, 5th Avenue,etc), and if I express the wish to buy a yacht, that does not imply that I have the money to do so. You are indeed implying that because Time magazine in a gossip column quotes a perhaps frivolous remark by Michael about buying an airplane, that this implies that he had a lot of money-it IS original research. No synthesis?  Putting one statement next to another can distort the real meaning  of the original reference, this amounts to the same. Report me as well, it's not personal and it's not a threat.Marina C (2) 21:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: MarinaC, you and the other King Michael supporters must quote two unreferenced personal opinions statements: one that links facts from the primary sources and one that states a conclusion. Simply enumerating the facts/primary sources does not constitute synthesis/original research. Parisian2006 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is original research when you are clearly constructing sentences in ways to make insinuations that are original research.  Just because you don't state your insinuations straight out does not make them any less original research.  Also, you are the same person as Stefanp, right?  john k 22:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael's financial status in 1948 

message: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (Undue weight) According to the last opinion poll taken in Romania that I am aware of on the topic of Monarchy vs. Republic, somewhere around 15% of Romanians are monarchists vs. 85% republicans. This proportion is a very good proxy for the views of the published sources on the issue of King Michael and the Monarchy he incarnates as its last legitimate representative, since the Romanians have shaped their views on the matter from these published sources. Therefore, the weight given in this article to the views against King Michael must be signifcantly higher than the weight given to the pro-Michael views. I hope this poll results calm down the completely unfounded objections of the pro-Michael fans here present (MarinaC, John Kenney, Lovellester, e.a.) that this article presents too much evidence against Michael: it has to do so to comply with the Wikipedia NPOV rules. Therefore, the objections of the pro-Michael fans to the neutrality of this article, through the warnings inserted both at the top of the article and in the "Rule" section, must be removed. Stefanp 10:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a translation of the respective article from the Socialist (Republican) party press organ "Dimineata", the April 4, 1997 issue: "Thus, for a credulous anti-royalist the figure of 5% monarchists would make them jump for joy; 85% are republicans. (...) In reality, the proportion of the royalists is as high as 12-15% (...)." If anybody has more recent such poll results on the royalist vs. republican percentages, please, post them. Stefanp 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence you cite indicates current views in Romania on restoration of the monarchy as an institution (if accurate). It is an unjustified leap in logic to attribute those views to negative allegations about Michael's deeds in the 1940s. In 1993 Brazilians voted overwhelmingly against restoration of the monarchy, which was abolished during the reign of Pedro II of Brazil. But Pedro was personally popular and is historically respected as a model constitutional monarch, notwithstanding the coup that ousted him and the subsequent expression of Brazilians' opposition to restoration. The institution and the individual are not the same. To attribute views of the former to the latter requires specific proof that the two are related causally or by correlation, which is missing in these allegations. Lethiere 15:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When Romanians were asked about their views on Monarchy vs. Republic in the 1997 poll, it was because of the Socialist party's allegations against the ruling govenrmental coalition and its President of Romania that they wanted to restore King Michael I on the throne. This was especially true with the then-president of Romania, who had literally declared before the 1996 elections something to the effect that once he wins the Presidency, he will give the power back to the rightful ruler, King Michael. So there you have it: when Romanians said "No" to the Monarchy in the 1997 opinion poll, they really said no to King Michael, who was the hot topic of the entire political class back then. Hence, it's very clear what the majority vs. minority views are. And yes, they are current views. After all, the NPOV Undue Weight rules use the present tense, so they mean current views. If the rules meant past views, then they would create havoc, as editors would argue and fight, as you try, to pick and choose a particular set of views in the past that's convenient to their own views as editors. Carbunar 19:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and undue weight

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

message: Sourcing does not an NPOV article make. 
Here are the worst parts:
Moreover, there are several reports[13][14][15][16] that the Romanian Communist authorities obedient to Stalin presented King Michael with 42 valuable Crown-owned paintings shortly before the King's abdication, some of which[17] were reportedly sold through the famed art dealer Daniel Wildenstein. One of the paintings belonging to the Romanian Crown which was supposedly taken out of the country by King Michael in November 1947, returned to the national patrimony in 2004 as a donation[18][19][20] made by John Kreuger, the former husband of King Michael's daughter Princess Irina.
Other sources, such as the memoires of the King's aunt Princess Ileana[25], quoting the high-ranking Communist Party politburo member, Soviet spy, and minister of defense[26] Emil Bodnaras[27], rumored to have been Ileana's lover[28], claim that if the King had refused to sign the death warrants for the political prisoners condemned for "war crimes," the Communist government would have upheld his decision: "Well, if the King decides not to sign the death warrant, I promise that we will uphold his point of view."
In December 2003, Michael awarded the "Man of The Year 2003" prize to the then-prime minister Adrian Nastase, leader of the ex-Communist PSD party, on behalf of a minor tabloid. Recently, Adrian Nastase has been sent to trial[51] on charges of bribe-taking, blackmail, and abuse of public office. Some monarchists regarded[52] Michael's gesture as a break with the traditional political neutrality of the monarchy and a financially motivated compromise with his former Communist enemies.
Good luck improving the article. - Francis Tyers · 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck?  Thanks for the help.  The article isn't going to be improved as long as Stefan and his merry band of sockpuppets are constantly reverting. john k 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Wikipedia is not a place for gossips. The gossip that Bodnăraş was the lover of Ileana is off-topic and inappropriate for this article. bogdan 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - Francis Tyers · 18:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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