# Talk:Coloman, King of Hungary

I removed the note "posthumously, (1172-1155)" which stood after Boris' name since he couldn't have been born in 1172 when his father died in 1116. Also, I don't remember he was born after his father's death. As far as I know Kálmán thought Boris is not his son b/c Euphemia cheated on him, but I'm not sure, if someone knows better, please correct the article. Alensha 20:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't Librophile latin for Book-lover?George Adam Horváth (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bizso deleted refrence! Coloman of Hungary was King of Slavonia, Croatia and Dalmatia from 1108 see Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press) [1]
Also see: [2]
--Dvatel (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did I delete it?--Bizso (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Here [3] 
--Dvatel (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who is vandalizing, because I added britannica and encarta references to support my edit. You revert the text, but you also leave my sources in the article, which, however, now do not support your revert vandalized version.--Bizso (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Bizso, hello Dvatel.. did you know that Colomans was elder son of Géza I of Hungary and Sophia (sister of croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.53.181 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 

Sorry, but I try to understand what is happening here? For years, there was a consensual approach with regard to the medieval kings of Hungary who ruled after Ladislaus I: among their several titles only two titles were added King of Hungary and King of Croatia in the article. I think this was a realistic approach, because after 1097 (or 1102, or 1108 it is debated) the kings of Hungary were also kings of Croatia, that is they ruled over another kingdom which had earlier been existing as an independent state for centuries. Although the kings of Hungary also used the title "king of Slavonia, Dalmatia, Rama, Serbia, Bulgaria, Cumania, Halych and Lodomeria", but these realms' case totally different from the case of Croatia: Slavonia, Dalmatia were only provinces of other kingdoms; Rama and Cumania never existed as independent political entities (Rama is an alternative name for some parts of Bosnia, Cumania referred to territories inhabited by Cuman tribes who accepted the overlordship of the king of Hungary); Serbia, Bulgaria, Halych and Lodomeria were independent countries whose rulers sometimes accepted the overlordship of the king of Hungary. At the end of the day, I suggest that we should not refer to all the titles of the kings of Hungary (because before the 14th century they had been changing year by year), and we should only refer to their two most important titles: king of Hungary and king of Croatia. E.g., the kings of England used the title "king of France" from about 1337 until cca. 1553, but articles describing their life do not mention this. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries are usually longer and more detailed..
--78.1.155.138 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it an important information that "it is possible that the first possible voivode of Transylvania was mentioned in Coloman's reign"? :)Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that information illustrates the expansion of the Hungarian bureaucracy (first voivode) and literacy (royal charters, which gave rise to the development of Hungarian historiography) during the reign of Coloman. On the other hand the article is full of "possible" statements. For example, (1) Font writes that Coloman seems to have set up a new diocese at Nyitra (Nitra, Slovakia) in the period between 1111 and 1113 (2) Kristó writes that it is probable that the Lesser Legend of Saint Gerard of Csanád (Cenad, Romania) was also written in Coloman's reign (3) Kristó and Font write that he was most probably named after Saint Coloman of Stockerau, or (4) It is also possible, as it is proposed by Márta Font, that Coloman could only be crowned after Pope Urban II had exempted him of his clerical status. Of course, the relevant chapter is questionable ('Family affairs' or 'Legacy'). --Norden1990 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I would like to congratulate for your work. This has become a great article and I'm glad because my favourite Hungarian king is Coloman, beside Andrew II and Charles I. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
My favorite is Charles I. All the same, we should avoid weasel words or attribute them to a scholar. I think the best place is the part where the two charters for the Zobor Abbey are mentioned (Mercurius is mentioned in those charters).

Dear Surtsicna, would you please specify why do you think that the deletion of his titles adds value to this article? Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna, I suggest you should read the articles before editing the infoboxes. Coloman occupied Dalmatia and only thereafter adopted the title of king of Dalmatia. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Because redundancy substracts value. The same thing needn't be said twice in one infobox, and it never is in high-quality articles. I have referred to you to the documentation page twice, and I can cite as many examples as you want. If his title to Dalmatia is prominent enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, it can be done in a much clearer and much less redundant way - by adding another succession parameter after the one pertaining to Croatia. If not, Dalmatia can be mentioned in a succession box at the bottom of the article. Cheers! Surtsicna (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Surtsicna, I am afraid that real life and history are not so clear and logical than infoboxes. He occupied Dalmatia and adopted the title of King of Dalmatia, but no "Kingdom of Dalmatia" existed (in contrast to the Kingdoms of Croatia and Hungary). Furthermore, Dalmatia was not connected to the "Kingdom of Croatia": before the Hungarian conquest, most Dalmatian towns were under Byzantine or Venetian suzerainty. Therefore, I still suggest that his full titles should be mentioned. Would you please refer to an infobox where the "titles" section is filled? Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your fears are well-founded, which is why I don't we think we should attempt to simplify the matter by simply tossing it into an infobox. Compare this to the English claim to the French throne; France is not mentioned in infobox in the article about Mary I of England, who used the title of Queen of France and who actually ruled a piece of France. You can also compare it with various claims to Jerusalem, and to many minor titles adopted by Hungarian monarchs over time. The infobox in the article about Maria Theresa does not mention her as Queen of Galicia and Lodomeria, for example. Imagine if the infoboxes listed all of Maria Theresa's titles or all of Mary's titles. I understand that there was no autonomous "Kingdom of Dalmatia", which is why I think it would be best to have the infobox link to a section dedicated to Coloman's title and style. Something like [[King of Hungary]] ([[#Title and style|more...]])". We could also include "By the Grace of God", if he used that phrase, and be more specific about the changes to his titles - stating that his title did not include Dalmatia until 1108, for example. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(1) Coloman not only used the title, but he was the sovereign in Dalmatia (2) I well aware the fact that there are many articles where the "title" section of the infobox is not used. However, I would like to know, in what articles is it used in practese? I do not insist on mentioning all his titles in the article. I would like to understand how the infobox is to be applied. Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is used in articles such as Felipe, Prince of Asturias, to mention the most prominent, non-hereditary titles. Other examples include Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, Christian, Prince-Elect of Denmark, etc. I am not aware of any article that uses it to list all of the subject's titles, especially not if they were regnal or hereditary. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It is clear now. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and about Sophia - I wanted to include a reference, but could not bring myself to mess up the perfect citation system you introduced into this article. I hope you will nominate it for GA soon! Anyway, shouldn't the Looz theory be mentioned somewhere (along with alternative explanations, if any)? I see that the article about Géza says nothing about it either. I wouldn't be surprised if an article explained the origin of the subject's parent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a separate article should sooner or later be created. However, reliable sources contain not much information on her: she was the wife of Géza I and mother of 4-6 children. Borsoka (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an article about her would make a good DYK hook. If you believe that there could be an article about her, we should link to it. "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles." A user once pointed out to me that my FA nominee suffered from a lack of red links! Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not like red links. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody does, which is why they are good - they encourage people to make them blue! :D "They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it." Surtsicna (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coloman, King of Hungary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 00:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall: Passed--¿3family6 contribs 12:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

There is a citation needed tag in the paragraph dealing with the Rus campaign under the "Expansion, internal conflicts and legislation (1096–1105)" section.--¿3family6 contribs 00:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Image tagging issue
Sorry, I did not notice this before, but the following images are tagged as needing a US public domain tag: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].
3family6, thank for your review. I fixed the citation. However, I am not an expert in the field of US copyright laws, so I cannot fix the issue regarding the pictures' copyright position in the US. Borsoka (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the information, the illustrations should easily be in US public domain, since they are centuries old. Therefore, I think it would be okay if I went ahead and added the tag.--¿3family6 contribs 12:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you please refer to the academic work (author, title, publisher, page number) which states that the episode you deleted here [13] is connected to the First Crusade (as you claimed in the edit summary)?