Talk:El Cid

I've put the images that were deleted back in; what was wrong with them?
And for a Spanish hero, why is a statue in California better than the one in Burgos? Swanny18 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The three images that were on this page up until May were deleted without explanation. The eclipse picture is impressive, but, as said above, I don't see that a statue of a Spanish hero in America should take precedence over one in Spain, so I've put it back. However the San Francisco picture is better than the San Diego one, so I've swapped them. And the line drawing has some provenance, so I've replaced that as well. Swanny18 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can see no merit in the line drawing whatsoever. There are no contemporary likenesses, so it is no better than any scribbling I could do. The statue in Burgos is not bad, but it is a much later statue, so I don't see the relevance of its location. Nor is the picture nearly as good as the San Francisco one. Artistic merit is all we need to justify placing it at the top. I have re-done the images throughout the article. What do you think now? Srnec (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough about the lines drawing; an authentic signature carries a lot more weight.

And the San Francisco picture does have artistic merit, so I wouldn’t want to lose it. But I disagree that is the criterion; it has no more relevance to Rodrigo’s story. I think the Burgos picture carries more weight because it is where Rodrigo came from; also it is the original picture of the article ( from Feb 2006 anyway) so I think there needs to be a good reason to change it.

I’ve re-written the paragraph about the statues and put the San Francisco picture there; I’ve also put it on the Palace page where artistic merit probably is relevant, and I’ve moved the San Diego picture to the Balboa park page. Swanny18 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS Or we could have both, like I had here and here...Swanny18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC).Reply

I'm not sure the Burgos statue (which I included), is more relevant than the San Francisco statue. The Cid wasn't from Burgos (the city) and the statue erected in his honour there is a very late creation. Since there are no contemporary likenesses of the Cid, there is no easy choice for lead picture in his article. Therefore, when assessing the options artistic merit has greater than usual weight.

There are a few more reasons to prefer the San Francisco picture. First, it is facing into the page. Both of the Burgos pictures show the statue pointing away from the page. This does not draw the reader in (which is part of the point in having a picture). Second, the Burgos picture at the top of the article (as opposed to the one I put in the main section, on the left side so as to face into the page) is a particularly bad picture: it is grainy and it is mostly blue sky. So I suggest returning the San Francisco picture to prominence or just using another picture altogether (see Carmen Campidoctoris, Historia Roderici, Cantar de mio Cid, Mocedades de Rodrigo) and removing the bad Burgos one. The good Burgos one should stay, but left-aligned and not in the lead. I don't mind if the Balboa picture comes back or stays off. Srnec (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of any illustration in any Wikipedia article should be to provide the reader with some kind of information that can't easily be presented textually. We have no images of El Cid (as far as I know), so what we're left with is artists' interpretations, so a statue is a perfectly reasonable thing to have as the lead image -- but Jesus, Mary and Joseph you cannot put an artsy-fartsy shot like that at the top of an encyclopedia article! It's ridiculous. It conveys minimal information about the statue or what the artist is saying about El Cid, let alone anything about El Cid himself. The image screams out "Pay attention to the photographer!", which is hardly the point. (I almost deleted it from down farther in the article, but as a smaller, second image of the statue, it has some small value - and it is a nice shot.)

So, please, stop being silly about this. If you keep insisting on pushing that picture back to the top, it's just going to end up being deleted from the page altogether. This is an damned encyclopedia article, not a weblog. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, please bear in mind that images illustrate the article, not necessarily the section they happen to be near. Proximity to the relevant text is a good thing, but not absolutely necessary. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Disagree about the purpose of images, since many present no information that cannot be presented more accurately in text. Of course, many (probably most) do. But certainly not all.

I agree that a statue is a perfectly appropriate lead image. That's why I was insistent on one. What an "artsy-fartsy" shot is I don't know, having no photographic capabilities myself.

Why should we care what the artist is conveying about El Cid through their sculpture? Or, better, why should the sculptor's message be more important than the photographer? Does one or the other have a greater interest in El Cid?

I thought the image screamed out "This is a warrior", since it was clearly a knight silhouetted against the sun.

Proximity to the relevant text is necessary. The lead being a summary of the whole, the lead image should be relevant to the whole, i.e. it should not be too particular and should represent the whole subject (the person in the case of a biography).

Facing into the page is for the reader. An image facing out draws the readers attention away. This is basic. It cannot be followed religiously. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The current lead illustration seems fine to me. The previous one, the silhouette against the solar corona, is very artistically effective but of less use as a part of an encyclopedia article. Let us leave things as they now are. Incidentally, facing in or out is of no consequence whatsoever. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The facing in or out is of consequence. Are encyclopaedias supposed to be artistically ineffective? It's time for change. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’ve put the original lead picture back in; if we are going to have an edit scuffle on the subject, we should start with the status quo, shouldn’t we?
So we seem to have 3 candidates now for the lead picture:

• The Burgos statue that was there originally
• The San francisco statue picture with the corona
• A (different ) shot of the Balbao park statue

And we all seem to like something different.

• My argument for keeping the Burgos picture is, it’s dynamic and is Spanish (like Rodrigo) (and if it ain’t broke….)
• Srnec’s argument is the SF picture has artistic merit
• Ed: you seem to object to both of them. Did you particularly want this one? (I have to say it looks like a picture of a horses arse to me!)

So can we come to some agreement on this, or failing that ask for a neutral opinion? Swanny18 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

That picture is OK as well, and, as you say, was originally there. And unargued for some considerable time. Surely the point is that, given that there is no contemporary picture of the Cid, whatever picture we use should enhance the basic message, that he was a warror and famous as such, which the article expresses. The corona picture, while very arty, does not do this. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

A statue of the Cid in Burgos, shot from a bad angle, with more blue sky than statue, has no merit. It lasted so long because nobody apparently cares enough about this article to improve it much. Just read it! (If you know anything about the Cid, that is.)

The SF picture is not he best one and my argument for it is not solely artistic merit (though with a lack of other options...). This image does express what Anthony asks for: that he was a warrior (and it does a better job than either Burgos image, if you ask me) and that he was famous (he's got a statue half a world away). So, the corona picture does exactly this. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's pure malarkey, the corona pictures shows nothing. This is an encyclopedia, and the lede should have a straight-forward image. The current image is a very bad picture, but at least it shows the statue (a little). Frankly, the best one was the one I put there, but if you want you article to start off with a sub-standard picture -- either one that shows nothing because it's too artistic or one that shows almost nothing because it's badly framed and uncroppable because of it -- go ahead, I really don't give a damn. But if you care about this article, find a good image to lead it off. Take a look at what's available at the Commons, I think the one I chose and cropped, is the best, but whatever you do, find a good image - what you've goit now is bad, and the corona image is worse. Stop thinking of you own damn egos and think of the article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nothing? It shows a man on a horse, clearly a knight. It is very clear because the statue is silhouetted against the sun. The image is practically black and white. How much more straightfoward can you get? Why do you think that showing more detail of a statue with only a symbolic connexion to the Cid is brtter than showing a statue silhouetted so that none of the meaningless detail is captured? The silhouette is not the best picture of the Cid, but it is one of the best available to us. I have no connexion to that picture and I have no idea what this has to do with my (or anybody else's) ego. I think Historicist's comments below demonstrate how the corona image may improve the perception people have of the article.

If you don't care, shutup and leave. Srnec (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

• In my opinion, the photo with the eclipse is a WOW! I mean its gorgeous. Of course it should go at the top of the page. It has something of the power and drama of El Cid and his glory. The other photos are important, and should be on the page. They show the charisma El Cid continues to exert. But, for anyone who thinks the Cid and what he accomplished is important, there is a real virtue of haivng the most potent photo in the lede.Historicist (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

•  
  1
•  
  2
•  
  3

So, do we vote here?

• 1 Yes : 2 No (better where it is): 3 No (borderline insulting). Swanny18 (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're saying that the image is "borderline insulting"? Hmmmm. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and the purpose of this section is to allow people who haven't been involved in the discussion so far to express their opinions -- hence "Third opinion". Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

While the image is not insulting (or borderline), it represents the Cid walking away with his horse's backside facing the reader. This is just not the best option for lead image. I have looked over the commons images many times and cannot find a better lead image than the silhouette, all things considered. (Since neither statue has any relation to the hisorical Cid, the ability to perceive their details is not important for an article on the Cid.) Srnec (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This really is a matter of subjective judgement, is it not, and I should apologise for putting my oar in twice. But I really do think that picture number one, above, particularly in its cropped form (below), conveys a dynamic impression of The Cid which is in keeping with the tone of the article. The corona picture, while ideal for winning photo competitions, does not convey the essence of the person within the article. But this is only my opinion. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

None of these photos conveys the essence of the person. I'm not sure a photo ever could. The tone of this article needs work (as does its sourcing), so I see no need to reinforce it. Srnec (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  4   5 Added 09.09, 18 June 2009 by Ed Fitzgerald : Labelled by Swanny18 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The first of these images is too anachronistic. It is positively misleading for the reader unfamiliar with medieval history. The second is just a cropped, low-resolution version of the disputed current lead image. It is an improvement, but I cannot see how it is superior to the silhouette image. I will switch the lead image to the cropped version now. Srnec (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Srnec: No, you should leave the image alone until we’ve agreed on what to do about it

Ed: So, two more images (they weren’t signed, which was confusing, so I’ve labelled them):

The first (no4, now) is, like Srnec says, anachronistic; it depicts someone in , at the earliest, 14th century armour.

The second (no5) ; Well, I prefer the original (no 1) as an image, but this one is still dynamic, and is from somewhere with a connection to the man, so I could live with it, at a push. Swanny18 (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

 

 

Why do you prefer the original? Can we get an argument for its superiority (to the cropped version even)? The existence of a statue that could be anybody (depending on the wording on the plaque) in a city with some connexion to the Cid is not enough when the image is otherwise so poor.

There was no agreement to leave it alone. So who had the nerve to change it after I first changed it (over a month ago) to the silhouetted image? Srnec (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Burgos picture (1) was the original, so that's were we should stay, until there's an agreement.

As for my own preference, Ive already said, but I’ll recap: I want something dynamic for the top of an article about a hero (an equestrian statue fits the bill on that); For a Spanish hero something in Spain preferably from somewhere that has a connection to the man.

This picture does that; the corona picture (2) is dynamic, but not Spanish; the other Burgos picture (in the text) is Spanish but less dynamic. We’ve no picture in Commons from Valencia (there’s hardly any even in Google images; most of them are actually of somewhere else).

As for the cropped picture (5): it's OK, and I could live with it if that's what we all agreed on; but we haven't, yet, have we? Swanny18 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS And (not to be limiting) if there's a broad consensus on any of the other images, I can learn to live with that, too. Swanny18 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

PPS As for the de Neuville picture, it's dramatic, certainly; but if a picture of the Cid showing us the horse's arse isn't insulting enough, maybe one of him burning a Muslim leader at the stake would be, in this day and age...Swanny18 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ed likes the horse's backside. You like the current pic. Anthony appears to prefer the cropped version, while Historicist likes the silhouetted statue, as do I. And we're supposed to go with the status quo? I would much prefer Ed's choice or the cropped Burgos statue over the status quo. What's wrong with the cropped pic? Srnec (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

...“go with the status quo”? Well, obviously; if we can’t do better, we’re left with the status quo, aren't we? And 'better', in this context, is a picture that both enhances the article and is agreeable to everyone. It’s a pity your idea of a better picture isn’t acceptable (nor your option of no image at all), but that’s the way of it…

So what now? Are you suggesting we use the reduced Burgos picture (no 5) now? Have you dropped wanting the corona picture in the lead? Swanny18 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

We should not go with status quo, since three users have come out in opposition to it (i.e. they think we could do better). I believe the cropped image would suffice as an improvement to all but you. We do not need a consensus on what is best. Indeed, despite claims to contrary, I deny that consensus plays much of a role at Wikipedia anyway. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(I'm not necessarily suggesting the pictures at right are the best lead options, but I put them here since I haven't uploaded them to the Commons.) Srnec (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, what are you proposing? If what you want isn't acceptable, are you wanting to propose something else that would/might be? Swanny18 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is unclear about this? I am trying to find a solution acceptable to everybody, whereas you are trying to impose a solution acceptable to only a minority by appeal to "consensus" and "status quo". I think the current image is unacceptable (as do others) and am happy with just about any other image instead. Srnec (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then, make a suggestion, so we can discuss/vote on it; it's you that wants the change, after all... Swanny18 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No voting. Many suggestions have been made (not just by me) and the discussion has gone on long enough. Two users have tried to remove the image that you keep putting back. Another user has posted here in support of my preferred image. One other user has supported your image, but seems to find the cropped version superior. Since I think that all three users who would like a different image agree with this, the cropped version at least should be substituted for the current version in the lead. I guess it comes down to: will you change the lead image in light of the opinions of others to something you can accept? Srnec (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You want me to change it?? WTF for? You're the one that wants a change, not me! Decide what you want, secure an agreement on it, and away we go. Bloody hell!Swanny18 (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: And I've reverted the changes you've tried to sneak in under the radar...Swanny18 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Three people want a change, not just me. You cannot just disregard the discussion above. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not disregarding the discussion , but (call me paranoid if you like) I am questioning what you are up to.

Anyone else, given the situation last week (Friday 18th, ish), when your first choice was knocked back, would have said “In that case I’d like to change to image X …any objections?"; and (if it was a bit after the event) they’d post the other people in the discussion asking for comments.

Instead you’ve been browbeating me over the subject for the past week.

Why are you so averse to making a simple suggestion and asking a simple question, unless you trying to pull a fast one?

Swanny18 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

See John Calvin (talk) and Joseph Priestley (talk). It proves I'm not the only one who understand how images should be used. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure of the point being made here

Is this an abstract comment on images in general, or is it specific to this article?

If the former, then yes, it's fair comment; a side image looking right is better on the left. But it isn’t always desirable, as left-side images can disrupt the text and break up the flow of the reading, which is arguably a more important consideration.

If it’s specific to here, the right-facing images here and here are on the left. As far as the pictures discussed for the lead, none of them are so definitely looking right as to make a difference, (except 3, maybe); 1, and 5 are looking out at the viewer, so the should be on the right side to emphasizes that; 5 is facing left.

Is this a conversation best continued on our user talk pages? Swanny18 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The point was that a left-facing image would be ideal. The current image is running away from the text. Srnec (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... Swanny18 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does this article really need to have two pictures of the statue in Burgos?Ekwos (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope. But read the above discussions. I want to replace the lead image (which I believe is horrible) with a better one, but there is opposition. Srnec (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ekwos:Possiby not; What did you have in mind? Swanny18 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Deleting one of them. Preferably the one at the top of the article. The way the base of the statue is cutoff to make look like the statue is "really" riding somewhere looks like kitsch.Ekwos (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you are unhappy with the top image, then I’d suggest re-opening the discussion on Lead Image, which, you should note, has been discussed extensively here,here and here. If you have a replacement which is generally acceptable, and improves the article, then suggest it. Swanny18 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Srnec: You do not have a mandate to delete the lead image and leave the article with nothing.

You have not made any proposal for change since your corona image was rejected; you could have suggested something at any time, and you’ve failed to do so.

If there is a new proposal, and if it is agreed then we can change.

Till then, stop messing about. Swanny18 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The corona image was rejected by some, supported by some. It is no more rejected than the current lead image. That is part of the problem.

I didn't leave the article with nothing, I left it with a contemporary image of the Cid's own handwriting, which is more worthy of the article than any other image we've got, if you ask me.

I have made several proposals since the corona image caused a kerfuffle. Since we are largely the only one's discussing this, the problem is that you have failed to budge on the lead and simply offer to accept a better one. Nobody else cares enough to wade into this. But Ekwos' comment is indicative.

If you agree to a change, then there will be a change. You are the only one opposing a change. Even user Anthony, who was okay with the current image, implied that the cropped version is superior. Neither he nor Ed (who opposed the status quo as well as the corona) nor Historian (who supported the corona) can be cited in your favour. Now Ekwos too has added his opinion in favour of change.

Stop the procedural interference in the name of "consensus". Srnec (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You‘ve “made several proposals..”? well, you’ve made a number of unilateral edits, do they qualify as proposals?

So, what is your proposal now?

• To delete the present lead image and have the signature only?
• To change to the cropped image of the Burgos statue?
• To go with your corona image after all?

And is this a change for the foreseeable future, or are you just wanting to clear the ground so you can put your preferred choice in later?

What would be “a better one”?Swanny18 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is all this proposal nonsense? I uploaded three images. That they were suggestions was implied. Any one of the "proposals" you just suggested is an improvement on the current situation and I advise it. Srnec (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, we’re back to where we were 6 weeks ago

Your corona image has been knocked back, but you won't let go of it;

You want a change but won’t say what;

You accuse me of obstructing the process, but don’t believe in consensus or voting and prefer making unilateral edits whenever you see a loophole.

I suggest this festering, drip, drip, argument is a colossal waste of time. Either put forward a concrete proposal, which can be discussed and, if agreed upon, implemented; or walk away. Or, if you are convinced that I’m the problem, try dispute resolution.

It's up to you. Swanny18 (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How have I not let go of the corona image? Have I tried to reinstate it? Have I proposed it since? I have said many "whats", but you won't bite. You seem to be demaning a poll or some such nonsense when we are clearly the only interested editors discussing this issue. I am asking for a consensus of two on any image but the current one. But you won't play, preferring to ignore dissenting editors and hide behind the status quo (reverting my varied attempts to improve on the lead image situation). Srnec (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Still no proposal then; and no justificastion for why you want a change other than you thinking the current image is “horrible”.

A "consensus of two"? "the only interested editors"? I'm not interested at all in a change; why are you asking me?

And yes, I am demanding a poll, on whatever picture you eventually decide you want instead. Swanny18 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

On second thoughts, I’ll do it myself. I’ve put your offerings below, with what I assume is your reasoning. If I’ve misrepresented you, you’ve had 6 weeks to do it yourself. Swanny18 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got rid of the ugly kitsch pic and moved the other one of the same statue to the top. You can revert it, but that is my vote in whatever non-existant poll there is.Ekwos (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were asked for a proposal a week ago and haven’t deigned to reply: so you have no room to make unilateral decisions on what image should be in the lead here, particularly as it’s been the subject of dispute for about 2 months now before you chipped in.

If you want to propose an image, give a reason why it should be accepted, and ask for comments. Swanny18 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Really? Hmm, I'll quote myself:

"Deleting one of them. Preferably the one at the top of the article. The way the base of the statue is cutoff to make look like the statue is "really" riding somewhere looks like kitsch"

That sounds like a proposal to me. And what did I do? I replaced a picture of the statue with a picture of the very same statue. That strikes me as a fairly minimal change. The only difference is I replaced a god-awful picture of the statue with a relatively neutral one.

From looking things over it strikes me that you are the only person that actually likes the present picture. It looks like you are just trying to hold the article hostage to your view while pretending to find consensus.Ekwos (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that three separate users have removed the image (here, here, and here), each saying essentially the same thing about how bad it is. Only Swanny has returned it each and every time. Whose edit warring? Does this deserve an administrator? Srnec (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

•  
  Statue in Burgos ("original image")
•  
  The Cid's signature ("srnec, opton 1")
•  
  Statue in Burgos up close ("srnec, option 2")
•  
  Statue in Burgos uncropped ("ekwos")
•  
  Statue in San Francisco
•  
  Statue in Balboa Park
•  
  Cid after conquering Valencia
•  
  A 16th-century title page
•  
  Fanciful engraving
•  
  Page from Carmen Campidoctoris
•  
  Statue in Balboa Park up close
• Mural in Spain
  Mural in Spain
•  
  Vicents Cots painting
•  
  Page from Cantar de mio Cid

Editors srnec and ekwos both wish to have the lead image changed, as they dislike the current image. As the discussion has been smouldering on for about 2 months now, (See here here, here, here and here) and neither have made a concrete proposal, preferring bold edits, I am posting their offerings to date and inviting comment. Does the lead image need changing? And if so, to what? Swanny18 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• "Statue in Burgos uncropped", definitely (fwiw, I'm uninvolved) (changed with new options) Jeni ^(talk) 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Oh come on, it is a freaking statue on a pedestal. That is what it is. To crop the photo and pretend it isn't a statue on a pedestal with buildings behind it is just awful looking. Let the thing be what it is without all these stupid tricks. What! He's riding on a rooftop! Magical! Anyway, the picture with my name on isn't that great at all, but if it has to be a picture of the statue, I say go with one that doesn't look like crap. Of the four, I'd go with the signature. Also, how is this artsy fartsy cropping different from the artsy fartsy corona pic?Ekwos (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Everything on the list is better than either of the two cropped Burgos pics.Ekwos (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I have no idea why either of the options has my name on it. I have no idea what Swanny thinks a "proposal" is, but he seems to have some queer idea that it is something formal. I have added many more suggestions, some are bad (but still better than the present) and some are decent. An image that can support an interesting and informative caption is also and improvement. Srnec (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Come off it srnec, you know perfectly well why those suggestions had your name on. Swanny18 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• As for my opinion, seeing as you’re asking me to weigh in (and for anyone who hasn’t heard it):

I think the article needs a lead image that’s dynamic (an equestrian statue fits the bill) and something Spanish. We only have pictures of the Burgos statue in Commons: I think Ekwos’ picture doesn’t work well on the right, and I don’t think there’s a good enough case to go against guidelines and put it on the left.

But if it’s only a question of personal like or dislike, I like the original image; what can I say? I like blue...Swanny18 (talk)20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Personally I've always hated the use of picture and statues that bear no resemblance to the actual person (as we have no idea what they looked like). It would be better to use artifacts that had something to do with the person (things they owned, buildings they lived in, a tomb...the closest we have is a signature). Really, what does the impression of some artist living many centuries later do for anyone? As for guidelines, I still say that the fact that the image I put up doesn't look like shite whereas the alternative does pretty much overrides the guidelines.Ekwos (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Finally (after 2 months) a cogent argument for why we should change, rather than simply “I don’t like it”.

By that criterion though the choice would be between the pictures of his signature, his sword and the tomb of his horse.Do you feel any of those are striking enough to be the lead image?

Also, are they striking enough to dissuade anyone coming along in a couple of months and changing it to something “artsy” because “the article needs a bold image at the top”? Swanny18 (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Everybody is free to change the article. That is the anarchy at work here. You seem to be the only person here with delusions of some kind of "ownership". The only practical way to keep a change that someone might not like is to sit on the article. The fact of this silly debate boils down to three people hated the picture, you liked it. At this point, I just want the shite picture and its near twin to go away. That, and I want you to stop being so self-righteous.Ekwos (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Swanny, I argued from the beginning that non-contemporary images of the Cid had no inherent value as representations of him. I also argued against images facing out of the page. I never once suggested that “the article needs a bold image at the top” or that that image should be “artsy” or “artistic”. I only argued that the San Francisco statue image had artistic merite which the Burgos statue one lacked and that alone was justification enough for replacing the one with the other. To reduce all my argumentation to “I don’t like it” when your only argument is that the current image is "Spanish" (I argued against the relevance this at the start) and is "dynamic" (that trumps artsy, eh? and as if the corona image is not), leaves me little reason to assume good faith. Srnec (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, if you two (at least) disagree with the current image, and (I presume from what you said) Ekwos and myself (at least) disagree with the corona image, what can we agree on?

Jeni (who is the only other person to be bothered, this time round) goes with the other Burgos picture; do either of you want that?

Or, if it needs to be an artifact picture, which one?Swanny18 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ekwos has already said that "Everything on the list is better than either of the two cropped Burgos pics." With this I agree, so we can agree to anything as an improvement. To go further than that—to go for the best—will take more discussion, if anybody even cares. Jeni's preference is an improvement, but it is not the best. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The current one is just ghastly. Anything would be an improvement over that. I personally have no preference as to whether artists interpretations or historic artifacts would be better placed in the lead in this case, but at least a better photo! The current one doesn't even well illustrate the statue as it's so dark, and the statue itself has been half cropped out (the pedestal is certainly part of the work) and takes up such a small section compared to the sky. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I asked for comments on Thursday from everyone who has been involved in this so far. I suggest we give it a week; if we are no closer to an agreement we should refer it for comment Swanny18 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, given the agreement about the current picture, I went ahead and repeated the same minimal change (to the better Burgos picture with the pedestal included) that I had done before. We can go ahead and discuss what we think is an even better solution.

If people like statues the close up of the Balboa one is better because it focusses on the man more. Otherwise I like either of the two texts (which are actually artifacts as most of what we know about the man come from them). Ekwos (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright. I have changed the layout to make the image face in. I think it looks fine, but an image on the right might be better. I agree with you that either of the texts makes a good, if somewhat boring, lead image. Same with the signature, which also has the disadvantage of being small. And neither text is contemporary, unfortunately. Of the remaining options only the image labelled "Cid after conquering Valencia" above portrays a historical incident. Unfortunately, it is rather cluttered and the Cid does not stand out. The closeup of the Balboa statue is not bad, but it doesn't face left and it says nothing about the historical Cid. It is an image, but not an illustration. The corona image is actually a featured picture, but how good it looks depends on your monitor settings. It has no more relation to the historical Cid than the Balboa statue, but it does look into the page from the right. The only other one that I would consider would be the one labelled "fanciful engraving", because it faces in and is no less worthy than the statues. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I personally like this text for a lead image as it is clearer than the other text picture at an initial glance what it is. I also prefer lead images on the right (force of habit I suppose), and if it's all the same between the statues and engravings and such then it seems one that looks good on the left should be preferred...--Falcorian ^(talk) 16:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

WTF?You do not have an agreement for these changes.

And you do not have the right to hijack an ongoing discussion.

If you want to replace the current image with something better, then fair enough, but you need to come up with something better first: And not some nebulous “anything’s better”. Anything? Kittens?

Ekwos: If you want to agree to agree on that Burgos picture, then we should all agree and that’ll be the end of it. If you want to go for something better then we should first agree on something better. Its precisely this incremental approach, to evict the sitting tenant in order to get something on vacant possession down the way, that I’ve been objecting to these past two months.

and srnec: You do not have an agreement to go against guidelines, and ignore a long discussion you yourself brought to the page about not having left sided images, to co-opt this page into your campaign on that subject.

As for this devious campaign to get your favoured image, which has already been rejected, into the lead position, I notice your corona image is back on the agenda; and I notice your argument, despite your protestations (above) that you want something contemporary, that it’s now the logical choice

As it’s obviously getting more and more difficult to assume good faith here, we need a neutral opinion to close this, So I’ve referred it for comment; see below.Swanny18 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

We gave it a week per your request. The discussion is over. Nobody but you likes the current picture. Several people are in agreement that anything is better. We also have agreement that the other Burgos picture is better than the old picture, and I don't see anyone but you objecting that a change to that is okay while we discuss a possible still better solution. In fact it meets your criteria about being Spanish and "dynamic" (it is the same statue after all). Why must you keep changing the rules every time you lose? The consensus is for changing the picture, and the other Burgos statue picture constitutes the minimum possible change. Jeni voted for it, it meets Falcorian's "at least a better photo", srnec seems fine with it. That is 4 people of the 5 who chimed in on the discussion. I could also go through the history and find the various people who have tried to change the picture in the past to flesh out that number. As a result I don't see any good reason *not* to change it while we look for a possibly better one. This is wikipedia, there will never be a final picture, just a good one for now.Ekwos (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is the subject of a 2 month dispute, which is no nearer a conclusion.
Does the lead image of this article need changing, and if so, to what? Swanny18 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

WTF!?! Everyone agrees it needs changing. No one but you thinks it doesn't. Show me anyone but you who has voted in favor of the existing picture when presented with an alternative to it. Really, where do you get this shit about it possibly not needing to be changed when everyone seems to agree that the old picture sucks?Ekwos (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I find the current lead image [uncropped Burgos' statue] good enough, at least compared to the other alternatives previously mentioned. This doesn't mean I rule out the possibility that someone else could come up with a better one though. In any case, the corona one has no pedagogical value whatsoever; the mentioned criteria for its support are irrelevant for a biographical article on a lead figure in the medieval history of Spain; being a relevant figure in Spain's history adds support to the thesis that the Burgos one be preferred. The current lead picture could, however, be supported by any of the proposed close-up pictures; and the Balboa one might also have a place in the article: it isn't obvious that such a statue may be found outside Spain. Polnasam (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I have made my position clear above. I don't mind the statue, but the former lead (File:Spain Burgos statue the Cid.jpg) is not a great image, and further doesn't even well illustrate the statue. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The current photo looks decent enough. I am sure it is possible to do better, but I did not like any of the other suggestions better than the current lead. and BTW I agree with Falcorian that the former lead is a poor image that fails to really focus on the statue. Richard (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

why is the pic on the right? the infobox on the left is terrible placement, too. of all the pics on the talk page i think the closeup of the statue's face is best for the lead. this photo is nice, and should be in the article, but for people we normally have an iconic painting or statue with facial features in view in the lead. (see Jesus or Nero) untwirl(talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The previous inconsistency has been fixed. Actual text: A weapon traditionally identified as El Cid's sword, Tizona, used to be displayed in the Army Museum (Museo del Ejército) in Toledo[...] In 2007 the Autonomous Community of Castile and León bought the sword for 1.6 million Euros, and it is currently on display at the Museum of Burgos. So, I'll proceed to edit the to-be-done list to reflect this.--Infinauta (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that El Cid died from an arrow in the heart. I've never read that anywhere but in the article. As far as I know he died of natural causes. Is this folk history/the movie creeping in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo668 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nixed this, added some referenced info on his historical, as opposed to legendary (although I can't even find a legend that says he died in battle), death.

In the game Age of Empires II: The Conquerors- a game about historical battles as theme, it is said that El Cid was shot by a stray arrow during a surprise attack he made to capture gold and horses from the Berbers. That night he died. However to not let lose the spirit of his soldiers, Ximena herself put his body on the horse Bavieca and place his sword in his hand. Though it is a game, it is about reality (and legends) of great warriors and kings like the Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Montezuma (Aztec Ruler), John of arc, Saladin et al. Though it may not be seen as a reliable reference, I believe that it gives a proof for the existence of such a legend.→Vanischenu^TM 11:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Said game disregards history and geography multiple times in favor of playability, and the story part is modeled after the 1961 film anyway (with whatever ahistorical or questionable elements it adds on its own).--Menah the Great (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the style of the wikipedia is name the articles with the name of the person (Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar) and redirect the nickname (El Cid). I.e. the spanish wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_D%C3%ADaz_de_Vivar I propose a change in the name of the article to Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, and a later redirect from El Cid to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseja2010 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's only true where the nickname isn't dominant over the existing name, at least in the English speaking world. For example, the page for Madonna doesn't redirect to her full name. I think that's the reason for the choice here - convention is to favour nicknames where the majority of English-speakers (and therefore users of the English-speaking wikipedia) would recognise the nickname without necessarily recognising the name. 86.27.189.195 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)AlathaeaReply

In Don Quixote El Cid is mentioned as "Ruy Diaz". Is this notable enough for a redirect page? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's a statue of El Cid outside the Legion of Honor in San Francisco that has his birth date as 1040, contradicting the article's assertion of 1043. Wandering the net, there are birth years ranging from 1040 to 1045[123], as well as a few articles[4] that claim the birth date is disputed but somewhere in that range. To avert poor souls like myself from the urge to "correct" the article when confronted by something as authoritative as a statue outside a museum, would it be reasonable to put some indication of the range in the heading of the article? I imagine either adding a question mark (1043?) or a range (1040-1044) and a single sentence indicating the confusion would do it for me. Thoughts? (This was brought up in the archived talk page as well but never resolved.) Maplebed (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article could do with a section on references to El Cid in European literature. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• In this article El Cid, it is said in section Marriage and family that El Cid married to Ximena in July 1075. But in article Ximena Diaz, the year of marriage is 1074. Which is correct?
• In article El Cid they have 3 children. But in article Ximena Diaz, they have 4.
• In article El Cid, he died naturally. In the latter, he died on battlefield — along with his son.
• Also, El Cid is known to be very famous among the soldiers and the common people. However it is not discussed here in article.

• I have a question; If Ximena does not marry anyone else (and so do Cid), then why should it be written like "...was the wife of El Cid from 1074... She had four children with El Cid, and one of them died with their father on the battlefield." in the article Ximena Diaz? It feels to me that it is appropriate to replace the sentence "She had four children with El Cid, and..." with They had four children, if it is already discussed that she was married to Cid.

···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 10:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC), slightly modified on 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

According to this El País article (in Spanish), the statue on the top of this WP article (wich is not the original) has several copies. Depending on sources, the original was the one in Sevilla (according to El País and this source) or the one of the Hispanic Society in New York (according to this), with the others (San Francisco, San Diego and Buenos Aires) being copies made by Huntington. Also, Spanish sculptor Juan de Avalos made another copy for Valencia.

P.D.: Wow! There's even a prototype of the statue from 1927 (the Sevilla original one was from 1928) that its placed at the Brookgreen Gardens, South Caroline, see again this

P.D. II: According to this Flickr page, the San Diego copy is from 1930, two years later than the Seville one.

Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why was he a Spanish hero if he fought for the muslims at one point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

He is a Castilian hero. The original poem is a propaganda piece where the good El Cid, symbolizing the younger, poorer and more martial Castilian nobility is contrasted with the old, richer, politically scheming Leonese nobility, and forced into exile after Leon takes over Castile.--Menah the Great (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I admire your erudition, Menah! I didn't know that, and it makes sense. But let me submit to you, that above all, there is the great poem that some fine artist composed, a la Homer, from the vigorous ballads he heard in the streets. Imagine King Henry V without Shakespeare's play about him. Can't be done. It's really a literary character, El Cid, who became Spain's national hero. Wouldn't you agree? In the poem, he is not only the perfect warrior, he is the perfect husband, perfect father, perfect lord, who showers his legal fifth of all booty on all who fight for him, down to the lowest, and at least once, onto previously conquered Moors. He tricks Jewish bankers into loaning him seed money for his first battle in exile-- and at the end of the poem, paramount leader after the King, he repays even them. (Now there's a first for the Middle Ages.) And he's even an ardent monarchist, though his loyalty to the greedy Alfonso is subtly used to make Alfonso look even smaller. The poem is meritocracy for a warrior society. The two villains, the Infantes, are aristocrats who despise the Cid's origins in the minor nobility, and prate endlessly about their birth, though they actually soil their pants when the Cid's pet lion gets out of his cage. They flee any Moor who charges at them and revenge themselves not on a man, but on his wife and daughters, shamefully. It's just good poetry, too, much of it. Read the poem in Old Spanish to hear the many fine sections which have the surging quality of The Charge of the Light Brigade. In short, with such a poem behind him, the historical Cid was elevated to national hero. "Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of mankind." Profhum (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

According to Age of Empires 2 The Conquerors expansion he died of an arrow shot while mounting a counter attack against the Moors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.7.76 (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know this comment is ridiculous as it is, but that doesn't exclude the fact that the source used in the article, a biographies website, is 1) at least questionable, as while its entries do cite sources they do not include inner citations on the text; and 2) its entry on RDDV doesn't actually match the "he died because of the hardships of the siege part". It says that he died during the siege, after being informed that his son died in an unrelated battle. That's all. There should be a better source that settles this matter without doubt, and also casts light on when the "killed by an arrow" story appears and why (if it is indeed fictional).--Menah the Great (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

After being exiled El Cid entered the service of the Moorish, Taifa of Zaragoza this part of history should not be erased along with the fact that he was a leader of a multicultural army under the Moors.182.182.106.117 (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of theses debating the true meaning of "Campeador" as it appears to be a word created to describe him. This discussion can be found in this other wikipedia article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeador_(lexicograf%C3%ADa). Champion in spanish would be "Campeón", its close, but apparently there has not been found any direct meaning or true origin to this word.

• The (Spanish) lexicography article is interesting to read. It does reinforce the notion that the meaning is more likely to originate from contemporary vernacular than a more convoluted neologism of a later date.

I therefore think a simple review of other Spanish titles is called for. These examples found in bullfighting are worth examining.

picador, from picar (to prick), hence a person who uses a lance to prick or pierce the bull's neck muscle.

rejoneador, from rejon (a short barbed spear or lance), hence a person who uses a lance to fight the bull

matador, from matar (to kill), the person who kills the bull.

With those in mind, a campeador, from campeon (champion) would naturally be a person who does the job of a champion, i.e. one who fights for a cause on behalf of another person. There's no doubt that Rodrigo Diaz did exactly that. 2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:CDC0:68D3:2592:808B (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

How come there is not a word here about Pierre Corneille's play Le Cid, which is one of the most famous French classical plays?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Cid_%28Corneille%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.138.194 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dude. Tryna work out if this article match Age of Empires 2. Nobody got time track down every little thing about the man. Profhum (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Now it is expanded upon later in the article but in the beginning his translated title is capitalized. Including the word "lord" The capitalization of this word is confusing due to it referring to God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.22.132.74 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. 100% of people I know call him "El Cid". Most people don't even know that is not his name. lol. It should state his real name, but call him "El Cid". That is the wiki rules actually. 79.106.209.159 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed this. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have added a short section on the literary and musical works that have been inspired on the life of El Cid, since it seemed absurd that the article referenced some Video Games, but not important works of art such as El Cantar de Mio Cid or Corneille´s Le Cid. 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.53.142 (talk)

In Spanish the term used is "destierro," which I've frequently seen more translated as banishment. In fact, with U.S. states, where banishment is still a possible penalty, this penalty is called banishment. Banishment is also the penalty used on Romeo in Romeo and Juliet; so, I wonder if we should opt for banishment in place of exile. Just some thoughts. Does anyone have similar examples for exile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancoMacV (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems that there is no continuity in the use of Rodrigo or El Cid in the lead section. It seems clumsy? --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

"The terms for the return to the Christian service must have been attractive enough since Rodrigo soon found himself fighting for his former Lord." This sounds funny and doesn't elaborate with any facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC51:2B60:B952:8460:7878:9BDB (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article neglects to mention El Cid being German. Should be important. 79.106.209.159 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cid Campeador Buenos Aires.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found numerous mentions of the phrase "confirmed a document" or variations thereof in connection to activity in the royal Court in front of a king or queen. However, this seems a "lost in translation" issue, as this phrase doesn't particularly mean anything in English. Is this about giving testimony, or the simple fact of having an audience with the sovereign? If so, this phrase should be rewritten and replaced throughout the article. Deliusfan (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Article seems unfinished. Battles of Cuarte and Bairen (some of his most significant and magnificent victories) we’re not included 2601:80:4601:8A70:609D:C74:9FE9:2479 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why does this article have a summary section? This isn't part of the standard format for biographical articles. ____318____ 21:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These two sections seem largely identical. One should be removed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply