This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Michael was not invited to the 60th anniversary of the V.E. Day by any Western Ally.[edit]
But people if you remember, the 60th anniversary the most Western heads of state celebrated in Russia. I see no surprise thus that he was also invited to Russia and not to a Western country at that anniversary. How they could invite him if the main celebration was in Moscow anyway?--MathFacts (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted recent changes by a user. First, whole paragraphs have been added that have no sources. Secondly, where sources have been added, those are outdated soviet era books. Last but not least, the language in those additions is simply so poor that it cannot stay in an encyclopedia. E.g. Romanian August UprisingorRomanian August Coup is a major political-military event happened atRomania during the late period of August 1944. This event began with a successful coup organized by king Mihai I of Romania toghether with the National Democratic Bloc (including Communist Party, Social Democracy Party, National Liberal Party and National Peasant Party) to overthrow the pro-German goverment of Ion Antonescu and create a nationalist and anti-Nazi government led by Constantin Sănătescu.. --Estlandia (Miacek)(dialogue)13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are many other paragraph have source. A lot of them.
Second, poor language can be improve. You cannot delete a whole work which costs a lot of time and health of the writer. Why don't you improve to show that how it can be corrected ?
I never know that wikipedia have the policy of delete source because of Soviet this, Soviet that. The only way to do counter POW is adding information from many points of view, not by selectively deleting some sources. Deleting like that is not neutral. It is censorship. Do not make this neutral wikipedia become a propaganda machine of CIA. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I was extremely rude. But my opinion is: if an article is not neutral, the good way to do is add information and sources in other points of view, not deleting cited information. You can see that I did not delete the cited paragraph of the previous version. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A different version available in Romania media.[edit]
Here is the official version of facts excluding lots of facts.
Local media shows a completely different historical facts corroborated by UK and US archives.
The version shows very low importance of Comunists and many political errors of the king that pushed Romania into a major post war mess. 392Michael (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
King Michael's Coup → Coup of 23 August – Alternatively the Insurrection of 23 August. There seems to be preference for the term "Coup of 23 August" by English-language researchers covering the coup (see e.g. the use as article or chapter title by Dennis Deletant). This would also bring the title in line with usage in Romanian scholarship - the current title simply does not have a proper translation in Romanian. The only English language source currently in the article naming the event uses both "Coup of 23 August" and "Insurrection of 23 August" Anonimu (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.BegbertBiggs (talk)23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposed title is too obscure. While the date may be very familiar to Romanians, it would not be recognizable to anyone outside Romania. The standard is not Romanian academics, but English-language works of general reference. King Michael's coup, or Romanian coup of 1944, etc. would all be more recognizable to Wikipedia readers. Walrasiad (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not equally obscure. King Michael of Romania may not be a household name, but he is known. And I'd bet my last long dollar that practically everybody outside Romania who has heard of him, and even those who know he did a coup, and even those who might know it was in 1944, would still have no idea what day he did it on. It's simply not recognizable as a title. Walrasiad (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Practically every English-language reader who has enough knowledge about who exactly this non-descript king Michael was is somebody who has better-than-usual knowledge of the modern history of Romania, and I bet two dollars over yours that he also knows the meaning of 23 August, date which in Romanian history is as recognizable as 18 Brumaire. Also, you have failed to provide sources to support your point.Anonimu (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a reader like that would be me. And no, I had never heard it referred to as 23 August before now. How do I collect the two dollars? Walrasiad (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Current title is then even less relevant. Per WP:TITLE "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles". Reliable sources, when naming the event and not referring simply as "a coup" or "the coup", prefer the "Coup of 23 August". The current title doesn't precisely identify the subject more than 23 August, it's not shorter, more natural, nor any more distinguishable, since neither the king nor the date is recognizable by the regular English-language reader (and while this is the only coup by a king Michael, it appears to be the only known coup on 23 August; reliable sources prefer to use the second identifier, as shown in comment above). Regarding "resembles titles for similar articles", the de facto standard on WP seems to be "[Year] [Country-attribute] coup d'état", thus the title would be 1944 Romanian coup d'état; however this formula is not used by reliable sources.Anonimu (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the one thing you cannot use is any title resembling the one you have proposed "_______ 23 August" etc. This is not the Romania-history-pedia, it's designed for the average reader not narrow specialisms. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, you propose we should ignore our policy requiring following reliable sources for the sake of clarity to the average reader?Anonimu (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
