User:02barryc/Dahnresponse1

not at all a union, not even a personal union per se (given that Mihai did not rule all the lands himself)
did not bring any change into the legal system in Transylvania
if mentioned at all by contemporary sources, it is only as a brief and largely ineffectual episode (no interprataion of the texts will ever justify assertions such as "union", "political awareness", "freedom of Romanians", "political ideal")
its status symbol relies on sophistry and POV natonalism of the kind that is not shared by many (and most modern-day) Romanian analyses
mention in the lead would imply Romanian jingoism, as there are many, longer and much more relevant events in Transylvania's history that would also need mention through way of consequence (getting all of them in there would clog up the text and add redundancy to both a section and an article on the region's history)
it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead

Comment on the links provided by Criztu: they are all vague comments of facts, and mention is made of documents that don't seem to be quotable (the largest text still says "a document" without specifying how and under which formula); the British texts appear to be directly and undiscriminately quoting Romanian nationalist POV. Gentlemen, I have given you the sources, not the perspectives on sources. I am not asking for removal of text: I am asking for uncertain-at-best things not to be casually dropped into a brief leading section as if they were the unquestionable truth. Future work should further evidence these problems in detail, but, as it is, the articles are either schematic or messy; pushovers such as the one Criztu is attempting here will only make this harder to accomplish. Dahn 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)