Talk:Andrew II of Hungary
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew II of Hungary Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Article history Template:WikiProject banner shell
Untitled
I'd also add Pal Engel's 'The Crown of St Stephen - A History of Medieval Hungary' (I'm pretty sure that's the title, I have it in England but I live in Japan at the moment) as a thorough source in English for this reign. I'm not adding any info to the Hungarian kings, because pretty much anything I could write would just be taken ad vertabim from Engel's book. I reccomend it though, for anyone with an interest in this area - especially as it gives a lot of info on the more obscure kings such as Stephen II or Bela I etc
Simon
Illogical
" After a drawn battle with the Turks on the Jordan River on November 10, 1217 and fruitless assaults on the fortresses of the Lebanon and on Mount Tabor, Andrew started home (January 18, 1218). On the way home, he negotiated with King Levon I of Armenia, the Emperor Theodore I Laskaris of Nicaea and Tsar Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria and arranged several marriage contracts between his children and the courts he visited. When he was staying in Nicaea, his cousins, who had been living there, made an unsuccesfull attempt on his life."
Then why he is the "King of Jerusalem"? And why all preceeding kings have called themselves, too, "King of Jerusalem" Abdulka (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither he or his predecessors styled themselves "King of Jerusalem". The first King of Hungary who used the title was Charles II, but he inherited it as King of Naples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.28.71 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You are incorrect, all Hungarian kings after him called themselves, as one of the titles, "King of Jerusalem". Did Naples conquer Jerusalem? Abdulka (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
After the crusades, the title "King of Jerusalem" was just a symbolic title, which was confered by the papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.227 (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Death
According to the article, he died on September 21. Articles on other wikipedias are talking about October 26. Moreover, he is to be found at the deaths on October 26 of the english wikipedia. What is true? Any source?--Kostisl (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary
Template:U, as I mentioned it during our last discussion, WP:NOR is a basic policy of our community. Please avoid adding unsourced material to a well-referenced article. All unsourced information will be deleted. Please also take into account that this is the English version of WP, consequently we should use the English version of the names. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Template:U, please also read WP:3RR, because unexplained reverts may have had serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC on verification
The following discussion 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.
Should the names of (alleged) ancestors of a monarch be deleted from an Ahnentafel ("ancestor table") in an article if their relationship with the same monarch was not verified by a citation to a reliable source? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes - only confirmed ancestors should be included, and sourced ambiguity can be addressed in notes or footnotes. Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Remove per Yvarta. Pincrete (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, per Yvarta. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes Confirmation is necessary when dealing with ancestors. Notable ambiguity (Oxford and Princeton and other professors say Bob was his uncle, but we don't have definite proof) can have a footnote as Yvarta stated above. L3X1 (distant write) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes Candidly, I haven't researched whether a particular WP policy or guideline applies, but on the face of it, removal seems fully reasonable, and supportive of community consensus to make the encyclopedia more reliable, not less. DonFB (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
conquered Principality of Halych in 1188?
Andrew was invited to Galich. His reign was not a consequence of conquest More detailed: Bela was invited as an assistant to Prince Volodymyr, deprived of the throne. However, coming to Galich. Bela made an agreement with the residents of the city about the transfer of power to them ("даде весь нарѧдъ Галичанамъ"), the guarantee of which was the presence of Andrew.
- Is there a reliable source verifying the above claim? (Please remember that Béla had invaded the principality before granting it to his son, according to all sources cited in the article.) Borsoka (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
"Of Hungary Andrew II" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Of Hungary Andrew II. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)