Andrew II of Hungary is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Andrew II of Hungary is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
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
" 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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
I don't think there needs to be red links throughout the article if there is no article for it.
The two or thee line paragraphs could be consolidated into previous paragraph or into one paragraph. For instance, in "New institutions" and campaigns in Halych (1205–1217), the paragraph beginning "Andrew and Leszek of Poland" and the following beginning "A new officer of state," could be just one paragraph together.
Same for the first two paragraphs of Golden Bull (1218–1222). It just looks more concise.
Thanks for your patience. To be honest, that's all I can fault! If one could even call them faults. This article is well written. I think you should take this forward for FA (obviously do peer review first). But for a GA, I can't find anything else that needs work. On hold for 7 days. I have over 2,300 articles on my watch list so ping me when you need me. — ₳aron 13:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, thank you for your review. Upon your suggestion, I changed the red links and consolidated the short paragraphs. However, I have not found the DAB link. Please let me know if further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It may have been one of the red links. Great, well done :) — ₳aron 09:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
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 hook seems to come from the lead, which is inconsistent with body content:
The lead - "Andrew's first wife, Gertrude of Merania, was murdered in 1213, because her blatant favoritism towards her German kinsmen and courtiers stirred up discontent among the native lords."
"Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords."
Andrew is out of town and, "During his absence, Hungarian lords who were aggrieved at Queen Gertrude's favoritism towards her German entourage captured and murdered her and many of her courtiers in the Pilis Hills on 28 September." Exactly what was the favoritism of Gertrude towards her entourage? It's unclear why she was murdered, or who really doled out the favoritism goodies, Gertrude or Andrew. Everything, of course, is sourced offline.
Maile66, sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The context of the second quote from the article is the following: "Queen Gertrude's two brothers, Ekbert, Bishop of Bamberg, and Henry II, Margrave of Istria, fled to Hungary in 1208 after they were accused of participating in the murder of Philip, King of the Germans. Andrew granted large domains to Bishop Ekbert in the Szepesség region (now Spiš, Slovakia). Gertrude's youngest brother, Berthold, had been Archbishop of Kalocsa since 1206; he was made Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1209. Andrew's generosity towards his wife's German relatives and courtiers discontented the local lords." The sovereign (=Andrew II) was in the position to make land grants to his wife's relatives. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka, I'm going to stick a tick at the bottom of this page to make sure someone knows a review is still needed, and that I've only commented. A DYK hook must be stated in the article and sourced at the end of the sentence in which it is stated.
The hook says she was murdered " because of her affection for German kinsmen and courtiers", which is not the same thing as her husband doling out favors.
The article's lead says she was murdered because of her "blatant favoritism" towards them, which also is not the same thing as her husband doling out favors. Nor is "favoritism" the same thing as "affection". The word "blatant" does not seem NPOV, either.
The article needs to be consistent in its flow on why she was killed. What you have quoted above does not state her husband's motives were because of her "affection" or her "favoritism".
That having been said, I otherwise hold by my concerns about how the GA review was done, based on the GA review and the criteria linked below. I leave this up to a reviewer at DYK. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The nominator of this DYK is also the editor who did the GA review. As far as I know, not a situation covered in the DYK rules and regulations. But I have serious issue with how the GA review was done. That review doesn't even skim the surface of the GA criteria.
I think the entire article needed a more thorough copy editing before passing GA. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Full review still needed. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a review.
A1 The article has been promoted to GA status. I'm not going to challenge this as that's a job for GA reassessment. Y
A2 The article is plenty long enough. Y
A3 The article seems reasonably compliant with policy though I'm having to take much of the factual content on trust, not being an expert on Hungarian history or speaking the language. Y
H1 The format of the hook seems ok though it would be better if it were shorter. Y
H2 The hook's accuracy is disputed. Apart from what is said above, please see Queens as Scapegoats in Medieval Hungary which states "The motives of the conspirators are obscure and have been over-interpreted in the light of national historiography and romantic xenophobia." and goes on to discuss the various accounts of the matter in detail. N
Andrew Davidson, actually, the source cited above confirms the hook if we continue the citation: "The motives of the conspirators are obscure and have been over-interpreted in the light of national historiography and romantic xenophobia. Domestic and foreign chronicles, donation charters for those who remained true to the king and queen - and then, twenty years later King Béla's (Gertrud's son) against actions after his accession to the throne against the conspirators - offer bits and pieces of evidence. They talk about a group of magnates (according to some sources including the highest officer of the realm, the count palatine, Bánk, himself, who irritated by the queen's favoring her "German" relatives (among whom Berthold of Andechs became archbishop of Kalocsa) - attacked the encampent of Gertrude while her husband was waging war abroad, cruelly murdered her and cut her in pieces. It was a typical palace revolt by the highest dignitaries of the realm who felt bypassed by the king's and the queen's favorites." Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
O1 A QPQ was done though it took me a while to figure out that Aaron=Calvin999. Y
O2 There isn't an image but there ought to be as there are plenty available for this topic. ?
So, more work on the hook is needed. The fact of the assassination should still make a good hook as it's a gory story in the style of Game of Thrones and Wolf Hall. Perhaps the explanation might be hedged or qualified by attributing a particular source such as the chronicle of Henry of Mügeln?
?? Andrew Davidson, sorry, I do not see any reference to the Magna Carta in the article. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of references to this out there and I have added a suitable sentence to the article. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Actually, I do not understand what is the meaning of the above hook, especially if the sentences from the article are taken into account: "they are commonly (?) compared, but they are not the same". Could we also say that "London is Berlin for the UK" or "the University of Oxford is the University of Bologna for the UK" or "The Thames is the Seine for the UK"? :) Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The source which was added to support the hook says, "Andrew was forced in 1222 to concede the Golden Bull, Hungary's Magna Carta." Such comparisons are sensible because this is the English Wikipedia and so our readership will tend to be familiar with such English precedents. Andrew D. (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)