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deal of the peasantry rebelled to support Mihai's invasion, but the view that this was exclusively ethnically based is outdated (with all due and sincere respect to the great Nicolae Iorga).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 :)

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