Talk:Peter III of Aragon

Source

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

Needing verification?

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)

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)

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)

Hi John - I did remove it. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Re this line "He conquered Sicily and became its king in 1282" - it is sort of correct. He became King after the Sicilian Vespers, but he was actually invited in by the Sicilian barons to become King and assist in the defence of Sicily from the inevitable attempt to reconquer the island by Charles of Anjou. So is the line as it currently stands completely accurate? πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

CATALAN Monarchs?

I see that wikipedia is having a tough time fighting the expansionist aspirations of some ethnicities. Crown of Aragon, Aragonese monarch.

Eboracum 09:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you changed that, but I think "Catalan" is better for various reasons. First, know that I am not Catalan and I detest the nationalist (often language- or ethnicity-based) bent of some contributors and its effect on Wikipedia as much as anybody. However...

• Peter was a Catalan, by language and by descent (he was a direct patrilineal descendent of the Counts of Barcelona and his dynasty is usually called the House of Barcelona). Culturally he was also Catalan, just look at his poetry and his capital (Barcelona).
• The Crown of Aragon was ruled by Catalans at the time and that is how most historians treat it: as a Catalan state predominantly, because the ruling dynasty was Catalan and favoured Catalans.
• By reducing Peter to a "Catalan monarch," which he was, we allow for the possibility that there were greater monarchs before and after the Catalans, thus, contrary to expanding Catalan greatness, it limits it.

There are other reasons, but I hope this convinces. Srnec 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not agree. Elizabeth II of the UK is, patrilinealy, a descendant of the House of Wettin in Germany. Does this make her a German monarch? Juan Carlos I of Spain is, patrilinealy, a descendant of the House of Capet in France. Does this make him a French monarch?

Never have I heard the Crown of Aragon (a term itself that I have issues with)as being a state of, for, and by Catalans.

Eboracum (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---charles--- c. of anjou could not flee from sicily. he was never on that island! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.71.224 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heir to Robert & Sigelgaita?

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)

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)

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)

Image of the infobox

--EeuHP (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First and second are editions in conflict, the other two are alternatives)

 Comment: I would definitely opt for the croat. --Maragm (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: I would definitely opt for the first picture or for one of the two alternatives, that are closer to reality (Peter III dyed his beard and hair to blonde, originally black). You see.--EeuHP (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have no history with this article, and I really don't feel strongly about it. Yes, the painting is more imposing, but the coin is contemporary. Neither are likely to tell us much about what he "really" looked like, but on balance I prefer the coin as it is from his lifetime. If the portrait were to be used we should have a caption identifying it as a "1634 portrait based on a original of 1586". The clothing is much more Renaissance than medieval. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Obviously #1, seems rather absurd to use a tiny picture of a coin when we have an option of a portrait if the actual person, why was this even in debate? Look at the "Global file usage" section of each image. Only one Peter III article in another Wiki even uses the coin image at all, and that is just within a gallery of Iconography. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• 3 or 4 since they are portrait from the era that he lived. 1 looks very 1600s and the coin is of a low quality. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I like the coin best. User:Ealdgyth, explicitly on my talk page (addressing EeuHP), prefers the coin image as well. User:Lecen, by restoring it to the article several times, implicitly prefers it. Srnec (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Generally, contemporary images are better - as they are less likely to be anachronistic or incorrect in details. Rather than usage on other wikipedias - you should see what the high quality printed sources use any more - you will rarely see a non-contemporary image used for something like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or for scholarly biographies of medieval rulers. Medieval Spain isn't my area of specialty - but none of the recent (post 1960 or so) biographies of medieval English royalty that I have use such late and non-contemporary images to illustrate their biographies. (Cnut's biography by Trow is a bit of an exception - it does have one Victorian illustration of Cnut trying to stop the waves - but it's used as an illustration of how the Victorian's saw Cnut, not as an illustration of Cnut himself. The cover illustration is a medieval portrait of Cnut). Stick with contemporary or near contemporary - or if lacking such, something that is clear to the reader that it's not pretending to be something it isn't - a realistic portrait. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• I'd agree with Ealdgyth's comments. I can't see any value in using a 17th century copy of a 16th century painting here. I'd go for number three or four, but could happily live with the coin. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the croat image should be included in the article, because it brings important information, but not on the infobox, as representing the king himself. Normally infoboxes which are dedicated to a person wear a contemporary picture of that person. Images 3-4 can be considered contemporary, as they are taken from the Nuova Cronica, written around 1300; Peter III died in 1285, so we can consider the chronicle contemporary to Peter III, due to the short distance of time of barely 15 years since the death of the king (not like image 1 from the 1600's for instance). On the other hand, the croat's image, as all other medieval coins which bear images of kings, is not a reliable source to determine his real appearance. I clearly then vote for image 3 or 4, as most people have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethra2016 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I see Snerc has reverted the contemporary image I included on Peter III's infobox to the older croat version. The image I had included is taken from a non-Catalan contemporaneous source. The Nuova Cronica was written by Giovanni Villani, an Italian banker, official, diplomat and chronicler from the Republic of Florence. Giovanni Villani himself in the 36th chapter of Book 8, states that the idea of writing the Cronica came to him during the jubilee of Rome in 1300, and so he wrote: "... thus in the year 1300, on my return from Rome, I began to compile this book in the name of God and the blessed John the Baptist and in honor of our city of Florence." I am aware of the discussion on the talkpage, and I have respected the opinion of the majority. Actually counting the users' opinions, more users prefer contemporary images 3 or 4 (I had inserted one of those, both from the Italian Nuova Cronica written by Villani). (Users that prefer contemporary images 3 or 4: EeuHP, HChc2009, Tarc, myself, and even Ealdgyth, who seems to be discussing between the croat and a 1600's portrait, aparently ignoring images 3 and 4, says ... Stick with contemporary or near contemporary - or if lacking such, something that is clear to the reader that it's not pretending to be something it isn't - a realistic portrait. The image I inserted is, as it should be in any enciclopedia, a contemporary image of the king (Villani started writing the chronicle just 15 years after Peter's death, so obviously they had been contemporary and had lived both at the same time). Enciclopedic policies demand contemporary sources, and that is what has been done. The initial discussion between Maragm and PaulB are not aware of those images, and only discuss between two other sources: the croat or the 17th century portrait. Of course, in that case I would also think the croat to be a better option. Paul B doesn't seem to be aware of the contemporary Villani's chronicle images of the king neither. Maragm hasn't shown up since he started the discussion defending the croat against the 17th century portrait (not mentioning images 3 or 4 from the Cronica). I think the 17th century portrait is now out of the best enciclopedic possibilities, and I agree it should be discarted as an option for the infobox image. Please, give me a reason why a contemporary portrait shouldn't prevail? Why do you prefer a bad quality croat image, with an unclear image of the person? (as Paul B agrees (quote) "In fact it's a crude imitation of late Roman coin types,..."). Consensus has been reached on the talk page. Respect. Ethra2016 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

In defense of the old portrait

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)

On which day did Peter III of Aragón die???

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)

Irrelevant information

Still not seeing a reason for a run down on Peter II's last days to be included in this article. IF Peter III held any ill feeling towards the Papacy, and IF Peter III renounced Aragon's status as a papal fief, it should be demonstrably provable. The current sources do not include page numbers or quotes to satisfy verifiability. Judging from the editor's statements on my talk page, this person appears to be here to push a particular POV.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources I provided explained why Peter's renounce to the feudal obligations to Papacy his grandfather Peter II had taken oath to, is indeed directly connected with the way his grandfather Peter II died in the battle of Muret (in the Albigensian crusade), as he died opposing the crusader's slaughter and invasion of Occitania; these sources linked to books written by U.S.A. scholar Damian J Smith, specialized in the medieval Crown of Aragon, and Director of graduate studies of Saint Louis University. Happily, the BOT re-edited my references. Recently I've also added an image of a 14th century illuminated manuscript which shows Peter III holding his crown, coronating himself. The text of the parchment (which includes a translation to english) recreates the royal ordination in which Peter III declared that all the kings of Aragon (referring to the union of kingdoms and counties under one crown, called the crown of Aragon) will be coronated by themselves, therefore renouncing to be vassals of the papacy (who could elect and depose kings, as was deposed Peter III's father-in-law Manfred of Sicily from the House of Hohenstaufen, by the way, in favour of the french Charles d'Anjou, who was supported by the pope as King of Sicily). Well, I hope this information is enough to convince you of an historical fact: Peter III indeed renounced to Aragon's status as a papal fief, and I don't know why anyone should doubt it and erase the information. Peter III obviously had to have important reasons to do so on his coronation day, making it a royal ordination for other kings to come. The information on how his grandfather Peter the Catholic opposed the Albigensian crusade and died defending his vassal lords of Occitania against the crusaders commanded by Simon de Montfort on the battle of Muret in 1213, helps us understand the background of Peter III's family, the House of Barcelona and their opposition to some of the papal state's external policies. That's history, not a POV. Thank youEthra2016 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see a page number provided, nor a quote for either source.

• "Recently I've also added an image of a 14th century illuminated manuscript which shows Peter III holding his crown, coronating himself. The text of the parchment (which includes a translation to english) recreates the royal ordination in which Peter III declared that all the kings of Aragon (referring to the union of kingdoms and counties under one crown, called the crown of Aragon) will be coronated by themselves, therefore renouncing to be vassals of the papacy.."

Yeah, that is called original research.

• "Peter III obviously had to have important reasons to do so on his coronation day..."

Which you have provided no evidence for this either.

• ".... helps us understand the background of Peter III's family, the House of Barcelona and their opposition to some of the papal state's external policies."

Really? Source? Page number? Quote?

• "That's history, not a POV."

Nope, just your interpretation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Kansas Bear is correct. Writing an article for this encyclopedia is vastly different from writing an academic paper, where you can draw your own conclusions, make your own analyses. Here if you want to describe the background to an event you need to use sources meeting our criteria which describe that background. And even, for instance, if you find a source about his coronation day, you should directly attribute it to that source. And yes, references to books need page numbers. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)