[edit] Michael the Brave/First unification

Certainly, the event was marginal at the time of it’s making, and, of course, was transformed in a myth by the national-communist propaganda, but is also true that it had an influence on Romanian nationalistic historical figures in the 19’th century and contributed to the ulterior making of Romania. Only because we talk about nationalists and nationalistic ideas, it does not mean its influence was not real or shameful, and I think it deserves a place in the timeline of Romanian history. Maybe not under the “first unification” or “Michael the Brave”, but I have no better title idea, I admitt.--79.116.53.154 (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line: I could take just about any "mythical" figure in Romanian history and explore the same argument ("marginal at the time of its making", "transformed in a myth by the national-communist propaganda", "had an influence on Romanian nationalistic historical figures" - the "contributed to the ulterior making of Romania" can mean just about anything). Would that validate the inclusion in the template of say, Stephen the Great, Vasile Lupu, Horea, Cuza, Carol I (if not also Petru Cercel and Samuil Micu-Klein)? No. The contextual importance of one rule and one ruler, as opposed to events involving collective actors, can be picked out from the period articles (in this case, the "Early Modern period" article). Otherwise, we renounce a minimal criterion and open the floodgates to "I likes it"-type inclusions. Dahn (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me add: the very core of the argument, which admits that the event was not important in its time but "served to etc.", is proof of Whig history (so is calling an event which may not have been a unification at all "First Unification" - oh, and those lovely capital letters...) Dahn (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)