Talk:Compromise of Caspe

message: There is a little mistake: Pere Bertran was substituting Gener Rabassa, not in the opposite way. --83.36.31.145 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The question is not the position of this deed in the article but the description that some users are enforcing in it calling the Compromise as a unanimous election. This point of view is not concordant with the vast majority of historians, actually only one takes it. I ask to  and  to stop this ideological fight for actual politics and respect the neutrality of the article as the rest of historians explain in their books (more than the shown at the references of the article!).--Galazan (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you accept the document image appearing first were it to have a different description? Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we can put the photo of Fernando and the photo of the document (with the current size):
 
--EeuHP (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article can have both, but Maragm and Escarlati seem to prefer the featured (first) image to be of the document, while your clear preference is for Ferdinand to be featured.  Galazan is opposing the document with its current text, so I am trying to figure out where Galazan falls with regard simply to the picture choice itself, setting aside its description for the time being.  Contrary to what is said above, the positioning of the deed image does appear to be a matter of contention independent of Galazan's concern over the text.  So, if Galazan would prefer the Ferdinand picture at the top then its 2 vs 2 and I am actually going to have to look at the issue and reach my own conclusion before weighing in, which I would rather not waste time doing if it won't make any difference.  If Galazan prefers the document or doesn't care as long as the legend is rephrased, then you would be alone in your preference, against the majority, and should yield so we can collectively turn to address Galazan's concern over finding an acceptable description. What I don't have the time (or stomach) for right now is another edit war where nobody is interested in finding a consensus or that will continue independent of a clear consensus (or at least majority preference). I came here because my input was sought, but I will just as willingly walk away.Agricolae (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Escarlati and Maragm consider very important the document because they are supporters of the theory of unanimity in the election (in which the document is "irrefutable proof"). In es.wikipedia they wrote that this theory was true and the other theory was false (based on the testimony of a single historian and discarding all others). For now, I'll wait.--EeuHP (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (conflict of edition) Actually the article already have both pictures (and it had them when I finished it). Featuring first the deed is not important but Escarlati and Maragm are intoxicating it with biased information, so when  undid their editions I understand he was doing good to the article. I don't care about if it is featured first, and I suppose that EeuHP doesn't care neither. Not one reference had been deleted like Maragm assured in an edit summary, because Sesma is referenced at the article but in the due place, not in description of a picture. Please remember that this well known deed is not questionated by anybody (it is simply a proclamation), so it's not a matter of consensus among wikipedians but a matter of what the historians had agreed by overwhelming unanimously, and the references allow to verify it. I also want to call the attention to the fact that the repeated and coordinated editions of Escarlati and Maragm and the anonymous IP were aimed to circumvent the three revert rule.--Galazan (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The intention is very clear: we want to raise at truth level a discussed theory. By the time at the Spanish Wikipedia has already been established, no matter the neutral point of view: you must give importance to recent revisionism, the rest are wrong.--Mafoso (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, Agricolae, but I don't understand (by my moderate level of english) what is your proposition. I think that the text Original deed of the election of Ferdinand of Castile as King of Aragon (or Original document of the proclamation of Ferdinand of Castile as King of Aragon) is a very appropiate text for the image of the document. After all, that's what image is. Regarding the position of the document, I think that the portrait of Fernando is perfect to lead the article (or share this position with the document -in smaller version-).--EeuHP (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (conflict of edition again, EeuHP is more quickly than I'm ;) Obviously the description should be "Original deed of the election of Ferdinand of Castile as King of Aragon" because I made this one neutral and true at the same time. But I disagree about your way to solve this problem. Why this sentence, which is verified by all the books written by historians except 1, should be changed for seeking to be balanced precisely with the last one? That doesn't make any sense and gives a lot more visibility to points of view that are in fact revisionism. If the historians agree that the deed doesn't prove any unanimously election why this point of view should be one of the poles in this balance?--Galazan (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly did not edit as an IP and have no intention of becoming involved in an edit war. My point is that since the article is about the Compromise, the deed should go on top.  I will leave it to Escarlati to argue about the historic issues since I do not have the sources that he included of very reputable historians. --Maragm (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a consesus that to place the deed at the top. In order to limit conflictiveness, I'll try to include a summary using the template for treatys. Let's see if this can work as a consensus.--RR (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, RR. The structure is good, but I have a doubt. The structure is about the compromise or about the document? If it is about the paper, I no see sense. You understand me? If not understand, I try to explain better.--EeuHP (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We must not forget that although the 9 compromisers signed the document, there were certain constraints: Castilian  troops had entered had invaded Aragon and Valencia, the Catalan Parliament submits to the dictates of the Aragonese Cortes to avoid a break and trying to reach a solution harmony, accepting as their own send three delegates chosen by the justice of Aragon in Alcaniz appointed by parliament, and Benedict XIII wanted a king who owed the crown to this the Schism help. All in all, I think that to assume that the nine signatures are good will and without coercion is revisionism.--Ignasi masip (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unanimous