Talk:Peter III of Aragon

message: See http://libro.uca.edu/chaytor/hac7.htm. Srnec 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: What exactly does this mean.  Everything in the article seems fairly uncontroversial and, to my eye, looks to be correct.  I understand that there are no citations, but it seems to me a bad idea to put a "this article is probably wrong" notice on every article that doesn't have citations.  Is that wikipedia policy now?  john k 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  For what its worth, I have added a reference to Runciman which includes some of these facts.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we remove the notice, then?  I mean, I'm not opposed to making sure that more articles cite sources.  But we shouldn't have this kind of blanket policy of just inserting disclaimers randomly into any article that isn't sourced.  Any article without citations needs citations.  But there's a ton of articles without citations.  We should only add specific disclaimers if we think the article is actually wrong. john k 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi John - I did remove it.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing verification? 

message: The article says:
Peter was the direct descendant and the heir-general of the Mafalda, daughter of Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia, the Norman conqueror, and his official wife Sigelgaita, daughter of a Lombard prince, Guaimar IV of Salerno. Thus, he stood at the end of the Hauteville succession to Sicily. After the ducal family of Apulia became extinct with William II in 1127, Mafalda's heirs (then counts of Barcelona) apparently became de jure heirs of Guiscard and Sigelgaita. 
I looked at the geneology to try to trace how exactly he was descended from this pair.  One of Peter's great-great-grandmothers was Constance of Antioch; Constance's paternal grandfather was Bohemond I of Antioch, who was the son of Robert Guiscard and his first, repudiated, wife, Alberada of Buonalbergo.  Is there another line of descent from Robert and Sigelgaita that leads to Peter, or is the mention of Sigelgaita in this paragraph an error? --Jfruh (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona was the son of their daughter Mafalda.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the genealogical connection, it appears to be original research that they held a de jure right via this marriage, nor that they ever claimed to.  That this is described with the word "apparently" suggests it is original research, an original claim of the editor who included it.  This is the kind of thing that needs a reference or shouldn't be in the article. 50.37.112.102 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heir to Robert & Sigelgaita? 

message: --EeuHP (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no problem with a clarification that the portrait is later. It must have that clarification. The coin is of his time, but is less showy and does not guarantee physical fidelity. The other two portraits are nearby in time and have better the descriptive function.--EeuHP (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "does not guarantee loyalty". Do you mean that the fact that it's contemporary does not guarantee that this in accurate depiction of him. I already said that. In fact it's a crude imitation of late Roman coin types, but that's beside the point. It illustrates the way he was depicted in his lifetime. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *And what about Jesus Christ? If only we were to use representations made in person's life, many articles have no image. The mission of the "image" of infobox is to give to the reader a good representation of the person. And a picture does it better than a coin. The most nearby portrait is better than a coin made ​​during his live (unless the coin were very realistic, but this is not the case).--EeuHP (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had an image of Jesus from his lifetime, I think we'd use it. All biblical figures have pictures that are essentially imagined versions of what they looked like, but readers generally know that. Yes, there is no rigid rule here. There are many articles illustrated by images that are simply from the artist's imagination, but that's not the issue. No one is trying to disallow any image. The issue is which is best for the infobox. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and in my opinion is better an image that illustrates the aspect of a medieval king without losing quality, size and solemnity. Like the two late images. You itself said that the coin is a crude imitation of late Roman coin types. Why are we going to use a bad picture if there are other better and almost of the same time?--EeuHP (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because artistic merit is not the main issue. This is a biographical article about an historical person, not about art. There are lots of pictures by great artists depicting Roman emperors, Greek philosophers etc, but we almost always use contemporary or near-contemporary portraits in the infobox, rather than paintings by Raphael or David. See Plato and Socrates. It's not a rigid rule, but it's best-practice, I think. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two images, one contemporany and bad image and two almost contemporany (the last pictures are made in the first or second decade of 1300s and Peter III died in 1285) and good images. In this case, must prevail the art, because an encyclopedia must offer to the readers the better face to associate the character. Moreover, if you see the real face of the king (recently reconstructed), the two portraits are more realistic than the coin.--EeuHP (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule that says we have to "offer a better face". If so, we'd have a picture of Shelley Winters in the Ma Barker article, and Paul Newman in the one on Billy the Kid. I understand your wish to have a more attractive image, but I think you should also acknowledge that historical authenticity is a relevant concern. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I must agree the Nuova Cronica image is the most suitable representation of Peter III for the article, especially as it is a portrait nearly contemporaneous with the king. The exceedingly crude image on the coin is not even a likeness of the man. Carlstak (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the infobox 

message: thumb|120px|left|
 I would definitely opt for the croat. --Maragm (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no problem with a clarification that the portrait is later. It must have that clarification. The coin is of his time, but is less showy and does not guarantee physical fidelity. The other two portraits are nearby in time and have better the descriptive function.--EeuHP (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "does not guarantee loyalty". Do you mean that the fact that it's contemporary does not guarantee that this in accurate depiction of him. I already said that. In fact it's a crude imitation of late Roman coin types, but that's beside the point. It illustrates the way he was depicted in his lifetime. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *And what about Jesus Christ? If only we were to use representations made in person's life, many articles have no image. The mission of the "image" of infobox is to give to the reader a good representation of the person. And a picture does it better than a coin. The most nearby portrait is better than a coin made ​​during his live (unless the coin were very realistic, but this is not the case).--EeuHP (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had an image of Jesus from his lifetime, I think we'd use it. All biblical figures have pictures that are essentially imagined versions of what they looked like, but readers generally know that. Yes, there is no rigid rule here. There are many articles illustrated by images that are simply from the artist's imagination, but that's not the issue. No one is trying to disallow any image. The issue is which is best for the infobox. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and in my opinion is better an image that illustrates the aspect of a medieval king without losing quality, size and solemnity. Like the two late images. You itself said that the coin is a crude imitation of late Roman coin types. Why are we going to use a bad picture if there are other better and almost of the same time?--EeuHP (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because artistic merit is not the main issue. This is a biographical article about an historical person, not about art. There are lots of pictures by great artists depicting Roman emperors, Greek philosophers etc, but we almost always use contemporary or near-contemporary portraits in the infobox, rather than paintings by Raphael or David. See Plato and Socrates. It's not a rigid rule, but it's best-practice, I think. Paul B (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two images, one contemporany and bad image and two almost contemporany (the last pictures are made in the first or second decade of 1300s and Peter III died in 1285) and good images. In this case, must prevail the art, because an encyclopedia must offer to the readers the better face to associate the character. Moreover, if you see the real face of the king (recently reconstructed), the two portraits are more realistic than the coin.--EeuHP (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rule that says we have to "offer a better face". If so, we'd have a picture of Shelley Winters in the Ma Barker article, and Paul Newman in the one on Billy the Kid. I understand your wish to have a more attractive image, but I think you should also acknowledge that historical authenticity is a relevant concern. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I must agree the Nuova Cronica image is the most suitable representation of Peter III for the article, especially as it is a portrait nearly contemporaneous with the king. The exceedingly crude image on the coin is not even a likeness of the man. Carlstak (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: First and second are editions in conflict, the other two are alternatives)

message: thumb|120px|left|
It is a pity that, having so many portraits of Peter III, the article is illustrated by a coin. The coin is contemporaneous, but the portrait is simple and non descriptive. Could be any king of any time, the picture doesn't even have a beard, unlike Peter III). If the coin were the only visual material Commons, ok, but it is not.
However, the portrait of the Nuova Cronica is more adequate. Offers an image of the King, is the most old portrait of him in Commons (was painted only two or three decades after his death) and has resemblance to the true face of the King (recently reconstruced by computer using his skull) and shows real characteristics of his appearance (Peter III dyed his hair to blonde, which justifies that in the portrait the king appears with blond hair and brown beard).
--EeuHP (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: In defense of the old portrait

message: In this article it is mentioned that Peter III of Aragón died on November 2nd 1285. But I don't think this is accurate. Peter's will was drawn up on June 3rd 1282. And it was supplemented on November 2nd and November 3rd 1285. Therefore Peter cannot have died on November 2nd. He rather died either November 10th or November 11th 1285. One can find both data in the literature of historians. But, as I said, November 2nd can't be possible.
Kind regards,
Georg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.130.93 (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On which day did Peter III of Aragón die???