Talk:Isabella I of Castile/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expulsion of the Jews and Muslims

It is quite misleading to have an article about Isabella, a section called 'Expulsion of Jews and Muslims' when in reality the decree only expelled Jews from her Kingdom. Were Muslims indirectly affected by the decree? Possibly. Was it official state policy? No. Therefore I believe that the section would be better off with an explanation of what happened to Muslims but the title of the section should be changed to 'Expulsion of the Jews.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Some Muslims probably were forced to leave. Some were told that they could stay, but they were subjected to racist treatment. They were fully expelled in 1611 by Felipe III. Many mosques were converted to churches, and bathhouses were shut down because they were seen as sinful (Ferdinand and Isabel rarely bathed, and Ferdinand was a frequent philanderer, even having an affair with a former Moorish princess and raising their illegitimate child as a Catholic). Spain recently offered to citizenship to the descendants of Spanish Jews, but they have yet to do so with the Muslims. Many Muslims and Jews, at least nominally, converted to Catholicism.

I think you should refer to the treatment of Muslims as Islamaphobia instead of "racism" because Islam is not a race, it's a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowgirl44x44 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Epulsion of the Jews and Muslims

i like chease is blatantly POV.

It is misleading to describe Torquemada as "the converso". There is tenuous and unconfirmed evidence of some possible Jewish descent on one side (see the article on Torquemade himself), but there is no sense in which he himself (born and raised a Christian, nephew of a cardinal) could be described as a 'converso'. I propose that "the converso" is simply deleted, on the basis that it is plainly inaccurate and misleading.

Converso

To previous comment. What a knowledge!!! In Spain of that time everyone who had some Jewish blood was considered a "converso." There is enormous literature on that subject. Please read some scholarly works before you make such ignorant claims. Start with Norman Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion. 1995, the University of Wisconcin Press. Alonso C. 1.10.07

Violation of Wikipedia policy on moving process

Stbalbach has violated Wikipedia policy on process to follow when requesting an article move (name change). Stbalbach at no time sought to build consensus.

I quote from Wikipedia:Requested moves: "It is best not to begin by announcing a vote and then ask (sic) people to discuss the matter. Votes are not a good way of building consensus and should only be used as a last option. Make sure you've given enough time for people to acknowledge your intentions to move before following the steps below." (emphasis added)

Not only did Stbalbach violate Wikipedia policy but he fraudulently attempted to attribute the request to me. QRod 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Declaration

OPPOSED to title change. I am new to Wikipedia. Less than three weeks. I was set up. I never requested an article name change. It was a unilateral decision by Stbalbach. Instead of collaborating with me to resolve a legitimate naming problem Stbalbach and his friends have embroiled me in an endless bureaucratic maze designed to discourage me from working constructively on improving the article by reversing all of my improvements to the article with lame excuses. QRod 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Reluctant response (for the record)

There was no "policy violation". "my friends" and I did not "set you up". There is no "endless bureaucratic maze designed to discourage you from working". The reverts of edits made by 198.172.203.200 were clearly explained and were not "lame excuses", rather they violated wikipedia rules. Many votes and comments from this page were deleted by someone with an IP of 198.172.203.200. Care to explain your actions here? Stbalbach 22:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone removed the response. Please address the issues raised by QRod and your violations of Wikipedia policy. 05:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The above post was by 198.65.166.199 which according to reverse DNS is a Verio IP located in California. In addition 198.172.203.200, the account which has been deleting comments from this page, is also owned by Verio and also located in California. This is verifiable at DNSStuff reverseDNS. If an Admin checked the IP of "QRod" (which is just a name for User:Rodric the First) it will probably also be a Verio IP from California. Most likely the same person using a dynamic IP account to harras myself and members of this page because he/she didnt get their way in renaming the page. I'm done here. Stbalbach 05:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested article rename

Vote to change name of article from Isabella to Isabel. Request made by Stbalbach.

Reasons for Name Change:

Isabel is the Spanish form of the name.
If the name is to be Anglicized it should be Elizabeth.
Isabella is not the English form of the name.
Isabella is not the Spanish form of the name.
Foreign names are often Anglicized in order to facilitate their pronunciation in English which is not the case here.
Isabella sounds harsh to the ear of the Hispanophone.
The use of Isabella can be attributed to the anti-Spanish Black Legend.
Even though Isabella has been used traditionally there is no technical problem in redirecting it to Isabel.
The many comments below over the months and years expressing dissatisfaction with the use of Isabella is ample proof of the desirability of changing the name.
Since most editors in the English Wikipedia are monolingual Anglophones a simple count of those in favor versus those in opposition to the proposed name change based on a naming policy which favors the view of the majority would be unfair to the minority of Hispanphones who access the English Wikipedia.
Simple respect for the wishes of Hispanophones should trump all other considerations.

Votes:

OPPOSED to title change. I am new to Wikipedia. Less than three weeks. I was set up. I never requested an article name change. It was a unilateral decision by Stbalbach. Instead of collaborating with me to resolve a legitimate naming problem Stbalbach and his friends have embroiled me in an endless bureaucratic maze designed to discourage me from working constructively on improving the article by reversing all of my improvements to the article with lame excuses. QRod 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the name Isabella is offensive. It's an issue of civility. Rodric the First 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
How is it offensive? To whom? --Error 03:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not a Spanish name. It is offensive to Spanish-speakers. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.
  • Oppose. Reason is that she is best known in English as Isabella, which according to naming policy is how articles should be called. Stbalbach 04:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
How about a "counterbalance" in English? Or on the moon?
That does not sound to me like a language policy. It sounds more like an Anglo-Saxon ethnic policy. English is a universal language. I disagree with the statement that English usage "is, and always has been, Ferdinand and Isabella". The use of Isabel in English may not be common but it is certainly there. With the use of appropriate Wikipedia links there is no practical reason not to be reasonable, flexible and respectful in matters of this kind. As I have stated elsewhere, in the final analysis we are dealing here with an issue of civility. Policy that promotes incivility is bad policy. In your face policies ought not have any legitimacy in Wikilandia. Rodric the First 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I concur that this is a matter of civility: as too often on Wikipedia, a small number of self-appointed nationalists are making non-negotiable "in-your-face" demands in the name of superior national rights. I oppose all such on principle. Septentrionalis 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
You sound angry. How principled is that? Do you have a personal stake in the outcome?
  • Support I agree with the arguments given above, and I am not even a Hispanophone...Gryffindor 01:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It's that simple!
There is no Wikipedia article called "ethnic POV pushing". In the final analysis it is an issue of civility between language groups, in this case, between English-speaking and Spanish-speaking groups, i.e., Anglophones and Hispanophones. That is how I see it. Rodric the First 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like to preserve traditional English names like Biscay over modern foreign versions. And the contemporary Castilian form was Ysabel. Should es.wikipedia change its article on es:Isabel I de Inglaterra? --Error 23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The proposal is to change one single name. Isabella to Isabel. There may be a valid linguistic reason for "Biscay" instead of "Vizcaya". Moreover the word "Biscay" is not offensive per se. ""Isabella" is offensive in the given context. Rodric the First 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, Ferdinand and Isabella in English. --Henrygb 02:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"Isabella" is not English.
  • Oppose. I'm not a monolingual Anglophone, but that's just not the way it works. –Hajor 00:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Not sure what's going on here -- are we just being trolled? -- but reinstating my vote after the 198 anon deleted it and a couple of others (johnk, jtdirl) here)
  • Oppose. Commonly on English sites referred to as Isabella and not Isabel or otherwise. Even book titles refer to her as Isabella. Quadra23 21:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Still Oppose. And don't particularly like that my vote and comments were deleted. john k 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ditto. Still oppose — reinserting censored vote. Could whomever is using sockpuppets on this page please restrain them. Doctoring votes is simply not on. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • If there is a historiographical debate about the name, then the nature and details of that debate should be discussed in the article, so as to educate readers, in a NPOV fashion. Article titles are often "wrong" or politically incorrect, but we still use them. For example Dark Ages. So we use the opportunity to educate the reader on what it should be, and why the old name is wrong, if thats the case. I note many of the reasons for changing the name are not discussed at all in the article; the article contents is more significant than the title of the article. Stbalbach 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like an valid alternative to voting which appears to be a losing proposition given the emotional and irrational nature of the opposition.
The vote is for the name, you cant edit the article contrary to the results of the vote. As for everything else, they are reverted because they are POV. The hardest thing is write a neutral NPOV account of the debate that fairly represents both sides. Using words like "perverse" is clearly POV. Finally the references provided were added just to make a point, that some people use Isabel, and have nothing to do with the content of the article. Thats not the point of the references section. Add the references here in the discussion page. Stbalbach 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
THAT IS THE NEW CONTENT WITHIN THE ARTICLE THAT YOU ASKED FOR ABOVE!!! I reverted the article out of sheer frustration with your mass reversions and not to change the vote. The vote is a lost cause in any event. When someone else does a mass reversion you obviously don't like it. I did it to give you a dose of your own medicine. It's a form of vandalism because you remove everything, even legitimate additions or corrections. Please reconsider the very negative aspect of what you are doing. It is easy to make mass reversions and demand sources. That takes no effort. Making thoughtful corrections and additions and citing sources takes time and effort and you wipe everything out in one easy stroke. That IS vandalism.
Please read WP:Point. Even if you have been "set up", this is the wrong way to handle it. Septentrionalis 19:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


The new content you added, as explained above, has problems. It is NPOV, it is using Isabel which has been voted against, and it lists resources not used in the article. You have not addresses those problems, so it will be reverted. Stbalbach 05:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You are wrong on all three counts.

Result

The result is 10-3 against moving; the page is not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing the Title

"... if you want to rename the article then follow proper procedures..."

I am unable to locate the procedure. Would you please tell me where I can find it? Thanks. (13 Oct 2005)

Typo

"Isaabela" is a typo, isn't it? Probably "Isabela" which I don't remember seeing as a person name, but as the island La Isabela -- Error

Links

Link text emphasizes and should not be used for every thing or person that does or does not have a page.

Isabella is Italian, not Spanish

It's an error, Isabella is the name in italian, not in spanish. The name in spanish is Isabel, in englis is Elizabeth.

In englis she has never been called "Elizabeth" but always "Isabella" whether that"s right or not. Wetman 01:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isabella is italian and she wasn't queen of Italy, she was queen of Spain. It's very simple:

- English: Elizabeth

- Spanish: Isabel

- Italian: Isabella

Isabella is not correct, is the worst form.

This argument is in error: English uses Isabella neither from Spanish which would be Ysabel, nor from Italian; but from Latin. Similarly Philippa of Hainault and Reginald of Cornwall. Septentrionalis 23:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
First you claim to be an expert on policy, then on nationalism and now on Spanish and Latin. That's three strikes against you.
For the point at issue, see E.G. Withycombe: The Oxford dictionary of English Christian names, the use of Latinate forms for mediæval people is discussed both in the introduction, and under the names mentioned.Septentrionalis 04:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
And why exactly does Rodric the First use an alias which violates his self-proclaimed principles? Surely it should be Rodrigo? Septentrionalis

I do not have any objection to Rodric the First myself, but it does seem inconsistent. Warning: Removal of Talk page comments can be seen as vandalism. Septentrionalis 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please use Isabel

Please, could you write the names in their language? Isabella is Isabel, Ferdinan is Fernando, Peter is Pedro, and so on... it's quite disturbing to talk about someone with a few names. ---silviam

Ferdinand could also be Ferran since he was Count of Barcelona. What was his first language? After all the Trastámaras were form Castile, weren't they?

Isabella vs Isabel vs Elizabeth

In spanish, if you search Isabel I, you go to... [[1]] Isabel in spanish is Elizabeth in english. In wich language is Isabella, I think is italian. If Elizabeth I of England is "Isabel I de Inglaterra", in spanish, "Isabel I de Castilla" in english must be "Elizabeth I of Castile". Why the name in italian?.

It would more sense for her English name to be Elizabeth, but she has been known as Isabella in English for centuries so that's her name. — Chameleon 09:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, there certainly is some problem with naming - this article states that Isabella's (or Isabel's, or Elizabeth's) mother was Isabella of Portugal. But the link is wrong, and points to a person who lived after Isabella of Castile. It should point to Isabel de Portugal instead. The difference may be subtle, but the 50 years between them really matter. wakko45498 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
She is referred to as Isabella in standard English-language reference works, so it is less confusing to keep that usage in English-language wikipedia. By all means make a section noting names by which she is known in other languages, but the main article name should reflect standard usage. DuncanHill 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Her name was Ysabel, modernized to Isabel. It is insulting to most Spanish-speakers to use the (perhaps) Italian variation of her name, particularly considering the modern research affirming Columbus' Catalan / Spanish ethnicity. The fact that standard English-language references got it wrong doesn't motivate me to repeat the error. "Standard usage" is how the error was initiated, not a reason for repeating it. Shouldn't we be trying to get it right, vice pandering to the ill-informed? And, by the way, husband Ferdinand should be Fernando.CarlitosCorazon 11:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
On this theme, it is interesting to note that in Spain, many believe that Isabella is a Spanish contraction of Isabel la Católica (Isabel the Catholic) as she was popularly known both before and after the appellation Católica was formally conferred on her in a bull published by Pope Alexander VI in 1494.CarlitosCorazon 11:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Understanding the use of Categories and their subs

  • Organizational note: this section and the contents (before my reply) were first placed by IZAK on my Talk page. I transfered them here as this is the appropriate place to discuss editorial disagreements of an article. Thanks. --AladdinSE 11:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, in your edits of Isabella of Castile you are misusing the Categories system. A "main category" does not always "eliminate" any "sub-categories". Actually, if you have a subject listed as a "sub-category", then you follow the link of the "sub-category" on the "sub-categories" page to see what "main category" it falls under. To do it your way would mean that any "sub-category" can be "eliminated" merely by claiming, as you do, that the main category is enough (sometimes it may be, but often it is not). However, when an article is also specifically linked to a uniquely different subject such as Category:Jewish Spanish history, then having the "main category" is not enough because the "main category" of Category:Spanish history does not lead to Category:Jewish Spanish history as it works the other way around. Thus, because Isabella of Castile was a key figure in the Spanish Inquisition with its vast impact on Spanish and world Jewry, she is thus unquestionably part of Category:Jewish Spanish history. However, there is no way to know this if all that is listed for her is Category:Spanish history. Please familiarize yourself a lot more with the methodology of "categorization" BEFORE you tamper with the system of categories on Wikipedia. Please read Help:Category, see Help:Category#Subcategories:

Categories themselves can also be specified to belong to another category. When displaying the page of a category to which other categories belong, a separate automatically generated, alphabetical list of subcategories is also produced. For example you could edit Category:Football (soccer) and add the link Category:Sports. The Soccer category would then be a subcategory of the Sports category. [2] Thank you. IZAK 04:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I had already read that description some time ago when some subcategories I had added were deleted by another editor. This other editor seemed convinced that if a main category is present, then sub categories should be deleted. Since that editor was senior to me, I deferred to his/her judgment on this procedural matter, and since that time I have deleted a few sub categories when I happened to spot them, as a wikifying edit. The section of policy quoted above doesn't actually seem to say that using categories and their subs on the same page is OK, merely that sub categories are a part of, and linked to, major CATs. Also, I was not able to understand your reasoning when you said: "However, when an article is also specifically linked to a uniquely different subject such as Category:Jewish Spanish history, then having the "main category" is not enough because the "main category" of Category:Spanish history does not lead to Category:Jewish Spanish history as it works the other way around." As far as I can tell, the main Spanish History CAT does lead to the jewish Spanish History sub-cat. --AladdinSE 11:00, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, ok: First of all from what you are saying it seeems you are still getting to know how the system of categorization works (maybe in your personal experience/s you were not going about adding the sub-categories correctly?) Second of all, you must appreciate that Jewish history is its own vast area of study with many articles of its own or related articles (like Isabella of Castile) connected to it, which then has its whole chain of Jewish-related categories, sub-categories, and sub-sub-categories etc. as part of it. Third, you must NOT confuse the Wikipedia pages of CATEGORIES with the article pages. Please look carefully at the category page for Category:Spanish history which is itself a "sub-category" of Category:Spain (by the way, we would not even dare slap Category:Spain onto an ARTICLE and "remove" Category:Spanish history because the ARTICLE is also a "sub-category" of Category:Spain). Now look carefully again at the CATEGORY page for Category:Spanish history and you will see that Category:Jewish Spanish history is listed on the top of the page, under "J", as a "sub-category" of Category:Spanish history and NOT the other way around. Fourth if you look at the page for Category:Jewish Spanish history you will see that it has its own four "sub-categories" NONE of which are Category:Spanish history (and they are in fact sub-sub-sub categories of Category:Spain, sub-sub categories ofCategory:Spanish history, and finaly sub-categories of Category:Jewish Spanish history.) You must note that on that Category:Jewish Spanish history category page you will see that at the BOTTOM of the page, meaning where you can "Edit" the page, it is listed as being a sub-category OF both Category:Jewish history AND Category:Spanish history. You are (mistakenly) assuming that because "Category:Jewish Spanish History" appears on the "Category:Spanish History" page then that means "all is well" and then there is "no need top place the ARTICLE Isabella of Castile in "Category:Jewish Spanish history". Now that is WRONG!!! Because if someone were to look ONLY into the Category:Jewish Spanish history section through another article then they would NEVER SEE Isabella of Castile in "Category:Jewish Spanish history" unless they went "searching for her" and they would never find her if she was "buried" some place with all the other articles that pertain to Category:Spanish history only. So for the benefit of those who are EITHER on a "SPANISH (history)" track only, OR on a "JEWISH (Spanish) history" track only, we must have Isabella of Castile put into both Category:Spanish history AND into Category:Jewish Spanish history because of her crucial significance to both subject-areas and hence also to their respective categories. Fifth, you must ALWAYS have in mind that categories are system of ASCENDING hierarchy -- meaning you start from the SMALLER units/categories and you go up to the bigger ones/categories as well as system over-lapping tapestries that SHARE/INTERSECT articles all the time from different perspectives/angles. Finally, I want to stress again, that it sometimes happens that an article (such as Isabella of Castile is directly connected to BOTH a sub-category of Category:Spain in this case Category:Spanish history and ALSO to the sub-sub category such as Category:Jewish Spanish history because in her case she was important to the general history of Spain, AND she was a CRUCIAL figure in the "History of the Jews of Spain" due to her key role in the Inquisition and as probably the main instigator of the "EXPULSION of the Jews from Spain in 1492", so she has to be included in BOTH the sub-category ("Category:Spanish history") and sub-sub category of "Category:Spain" ("Category:Jewish Spanish history"). (And evidently she is also important to three other intersecting categories themselves in turn, sub-categories etc. of other categries): Category:Castilian monarchs; Category:Queens regnant; and Category:History of Catholicism in Spain.) I hope you have followed my detailed explanation to help you better understand how the system of categories functions on Wikipedia. Thanks. IZAK 14:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never thought Categories would be so complicated. My initial opinion was that important sub-cats should be listed, but their seems to be a divergence of opinion on this. See what you can make out of the recent deletion [3] of sub-cats in the Israel article. At the time of my writing this, the current version had only the one Category:Israel and the four other subs were deleted. Is it unjustified? Is it a similar situation to the Isabela of Castile article? What is the proper action? --AladdinSE 04:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, will do, I have not been looking at the Israel article, but will take a look now. Thanks. IZAK 06:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • some additional names and info to verify

Isabella I of Castile and Aragon (1451-1504): also known as Isabella of Castile, Isabella of Spain, Isabella the Catholic, Isabel la Catolica: ruled with her husband Ferdinand, drove the Moors from Granada, expelled unconverted Jews from Spain, established the Inquisition --Iggynelix 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OPPOSED to title change.

I am new to Wikipedia. Less than three weeks. I was set up. I never requested an article name change. It was a unilateral decision by Stbalbach. Instead of collaborating with me to resolve a legitimate naming problem Stbalbach and his friends have embroiled me in an endless bureaucratic maze designed to discourage me from working constructively on improving the article by reversing all of my improvements to the article with lame excuses. QRod 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

False modesty, censorship and trolling

Please, less of the false modesty. A series of "anonymous" edits have "appeared" and outrageously censored out votes against renaming this article and changed other people's contributions. You turn up in tandem and try unilaterally to impose a name that runs against standard historical referencing, and then throw a tantrum when your unilateral changes are correctly reverted. Have you any links to the sudden "anonymous" censors? And if Stbalbach called a vote, he was right to do so, to give a chance to the community to decide whether your unilateral renaming was factually correct. The clear consensus was unambiguous: no removal of the standard name used for this lady in English for hundreds of years. No breaking of Wikipedia rules on naming to suit your insistance on using a different name to everyone else. Quite a few people are suspicious that what has been going on here is mere trolling and nothing else. Your attacks on Stbalbach on a page where votes are 'disappearing', comments are being censored, and Wikipedia rules unambiguously broken all over the place, make that look more, rather than less, likely. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

seems like a pack of lies -but normal wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank User:Stbalbach for improving my contribution to Isabella of Castile. 198.172.203.211 07:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of consistently trashing my contributions as before. 198.172.203.211 08:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

she is a good person --68.119.75.230 22:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Isabella of Castille, James Barry and the Great Room at London's RS.

Hello all,

Anyone know anything about Barry's etchings which he produced for his publication explaining the murals he had painted in the RS? Bit of a long shot, am just curious. He includes a portrait of Isabella and Columbas (I presume it's Columbas anyhow). He was a bit of a renegade and I'm wondering if he had a subvertive motive for its inclusion. Here's a link for the image: http://search.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml?keywords=%4A%61%6D%65%73%20%42%61%72%72%79&artist=&country=&period=&sort=&start=1&position=2&record=62347

Thanks!


Isabella and contemporary politics and religion

I think the first paragraph is highly POV, but I'll wait for a response before editing it.

What POV do you see in it? Septentrionalis 21:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Incredible, Amazing Spanish Inquisition and Citations

I removed a paragraph - it may or may not be true, but without a citation it sounds pretty POV. Even if not point of view (after all, anonymous scholars say it's true!), it's such a sloppy mish-mash of modern and 15th century values that it makes me really sick that it's dressed up as scholarly in any way. The idea is that the Spanish Inquisition should be seen as good by modern standards, because by the standards of the day it was relatively good by modern standards. If I understand the way things work here, we're supposed to try not to pass value judgements in Wikipedia, especially when we're backwards projecting modern ideals onto historical figures. The writer of that paragraph and anonymous "scholars" can love the Spanish Inquisition all they want, and I can hate it all I want, but I don't think either of our opinions belong in the article. - Kyle543 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Isabella, Isabel, Elizabeth

I am not an expert on these things, but maybe the following should be considered:

To find out the true name of this sovereign, someone should really look at how she was referred to in England during her life time. There must be several documents with her name on, as her daughter Catherine of Aragon (Catalina de Aragón in Spanish - note the different name) was betrothed, first to Prince Authur and then to Prince Henry (later Henry VIII). It's interesting to note that Catherine has always been known in England by that name and not by Her Spanish name.

Could the Italian ring to her name be due to the influence of the renaissance? Ferdinand had several campaigns in Italy and influence might have come via the Catholic church. Also, although she is now considered to be the greater / more influential monarch compared to her huband, perhaps, as a woman, she was not considered as important at that time. Example can be taken from her daughter's title "of Aragón" and not "of Castille".

Although convention in English now tries to maintain the original name with monarchs(We don't say "John Charles I of Spain")in Spain names are hispanicized. Therefore Queen Elizabeth II is known universally amongst the Spanish as "Isabel II". Would this mean that the Spanish article referring to her should be renamed "Elizabeth II" because that's her name in English? It isn't correct for a non-native speaker to decide that they a linguistic convention of a language is wrong just because it is irksome to them.

88.5.137.95 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Isabella" is the name she is known by in English. It's also not Italian, it is Latinate. Additionally, it doesn't matter what she was called in English at the time. It matters what she is called now. And we never talk about "Ferdinand and Elizabeth." I don't see how this could be remotely controversial. john k 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I Was allways told that her name was Isabel, and the concept of Isabella was a bad translation since someone saw "Isabel la Catolica", and for some reason thought her name was Isabella. Candrade 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a bad translation or not, Isabella is the name by which she is known in English. If every book written on the subject in English refers to her as Isabella, the English Wikipedia must also call her that. Apparently, that's the way her name happened to enter the English language, and so that's how people are going to refer to her, regardless of whether it is incorrect Spanish. Ştefan 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy

May I suggest that we replace the text from the Genealogy section with a ancestors' infobox wich is more comprehensible and concise.--Cosmos666 16:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me: I made the family tree, but forgot to log in. -- Worobiew 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mythbusters

Anybody think the "Columbus" section ought to debunk the myth she pawned her crown jewels to finance the trip? (I would, if I could find my source...) notme 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Isabel[la] in Fiction

Is she not the Queen portrayed in Aronofsky's latest, The Fountain? queen isabella was a only child —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.158.114 (talk) 18:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Isabella never claimed the title Empress of the Romans

No contemporary or modern author described her as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not Isabella I of Castile?

Seeing as there's an article called Isabella II of Spain, this article should be named Isabella I of Castile. Are we now gonna change Elizabeth I of England to Elizabeth of England? GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got a good point, and I agree with you - it would be far tidier to title her article as 'Isabella I of Castile'. However...she is more commonly known as 'Isabella of Castile', rather than 'Isabella I of Castile' (unlike Elizabeth), and there are no other notable women of the same name (no doubt there are plenty of that name, but none would be anything like as notable as this woman). Basically, it would be far more accurate to rename the article, but there's nothing seriously wrong with this title. Michael Sanders 17:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Isabella I of Castile would be the correct title and it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.250.113.213 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who did Queen Isabella Sponsor

How does one find out who Queen Isabella Sponsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.59.79 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Converso Ancestry

Queen Isabella of Spain did not have Converso ancestry. Inez Pirez was not of partial Converso ancestry and neither was Maria Padilla. Welsh4ever76 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Inquisition, a Jewish Isabella?

The Inquisition was made in Languedoc France in 1184. "Isabella I" has Jewish ancestors? Who write this, a Jews? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, is not a blog for personal dreams or believes. Everything has to be proved with good and historic references an not with mind fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandix (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a comment about the Expulsion of the Jews and Muslims in this article, why did you insist in calling the Spanish catholic have Jewish and moors ancestors? Maybe some of them are, and can be also Romans, Visigoths, Phoenician, Greeks and also Vikings. Spain is one of the countries most invaded in Europe …, this is not and article about the Spanish ethnography, this is an article about the Isabella I of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandix (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

fusailf

fadsfsgsa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.250.93 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Her name is a italian,spanish, german, english, scandinaian, dutch and romian name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.200.130.193 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personality

I had read an article stateing that Queen Isabella would actually fight along side her husband and soldiers in battle. This is somthing of significance for a female from that point in history. I sugest that some one look into this and add it to the page.RY-149 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RY-149 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. She did not fight, though she traveled with the army and her presence was a great comfort to the soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird formatting issue

Hey folks, there's an odd formatting issue going on here. There's the fancy "Ancestors of Isabella I of Castile" box that currently also contains the gallery, references, and external links. By moving the "end box" tag to just encompass the box then those sections will be visible all the time instead of just when a reader happens to click on that box (and why would anyone think to do that? It took me going through the source to figure it out). Was this something done on purpose or can we just go ahead and change it? SQGibbon (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah heck, it was bugging me so I made the change. It's easy enough to change again if we want to. SQGibbon (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Isabella's stance on Black african slavery?

What did Isabella think of Black African Slavery? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.90.104 (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Black slaves did exist at that point in Spain, I will try to remember where this was cited. However, the black slaves were scarce in the spanish kingdoms. I will look for some information, but maybe you were interested in Isabel II stance? She is far more relevant for that specifical matter. Leirus (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Having black slaves as servants at the time was very much a luxury and status symbol for the most part. They were not, except in a few rare cases in some localities near southern Portugal, used in any numbers for farm or other types of labour; they were much, much too expensive for that. It was much cheaper and simpler to hire day labourers; unlike expensively purchased slave, you didn't have to keep wage labourers if there was not enough work. So the issue of black slavery hardly existed in Spain at the time. Most black slavery related to Spanish interests was later and across the ocean, in the Spanish colonies in America. Provocateur (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Legacy

It bothers me a bit that there is such a large section on Isabel's potential husbands but such as small section on her legacy. Obviously her marriage was an important event, but I don't feel that an entire section should be devoted to all of the people that she could have but didn't marry. Perhaps some of the effort put into this section could be directed in finding out more about her legacy? Because this section seems to be lacking. IlliniChica (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

File:The return of Christopher Columbus;his audience before King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella..jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The return of Christopher Columbus;his audience before King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The return of Christopher Columbus;his audience before King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella..jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions

The following passage is self-contradictory:

"By the age of sixteen, Isabella made her debut in the matrimonial market with a betrothal to Ferdinand the son of John II of Aragon (whose family was a cadet branch of the House of Trastámara). At the time the two kings, Henry and John, were eager to show their mutual love and confidence and they believed that this double alliance would make their eternal friendship obvious to the world.[9] This arrangement, however, did not last long.

"When Alfonso V died in 1458, all of his territories, including the island of Sicily, were left to his brother John II. John now had a stronger position than ever before and no longer needed the security of Henry's friendship. Henry was now in need of a new alliance. He saw the chance for this much needed new friendship in Charles IV of Navarre, another son of John II of Aragon.[10] Charles was constantly in dispute with his father and because of this he secretly entered into an alliance with Henry IV of Castile. A major part of the alliance was that a marriage was to be arranged between Charles and Isabella. The fact that Isabella was only ten years old and Charles was nearly forty was never considered an issue"

Can someone put it right, please? --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just fixed this. I found the source on Google Books and it says she was six when she was first engaged to Ferdinand, not sixteen. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How Useful would this source be?

I've been searching for potential sources for this article, and wondered if this would be a beneficial towards the improvement of the article: [4]. Would the date of the book have any factor. I noticed that it wasn't a factor for the chronicles, but I'm not sure about it being the same for books. Please contact me as soon as you can, and thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

List of films: Could someone please insert "Carry On Columbus" (1992) where I think she was played by Maureen Lipmann, with Richard Wilson as Ferdinand?Smlark (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Her opposition to the expulsion

This unsourced sentence appears in the article: "Though Isabella opposed taking harsh measures against Jews on economic grounds, Torquemada was able to convince Ferdinand." I added a 'citation needed'. I have read in the Bible commentary (Hebrew) of Don Isaac Abrabanel that he personally witnessed Queen Izzy whispering in Ferdinand's ear to persuade him to carry out the expulsion. When I actually find the exact location (when I get my hands on a copy of the text) I will add a note to the article and cite it.69.118.3.165 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sex with her brother?

Someone had inserted a line about Isabella being "forced into sexual relations with her brother Henry". This is absolutely false and not based in history. Therefore, I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Isabelle by Dürer

But what is absolutely true is that this painting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isabel_la_Cat%C3%B3lica-2.jpg was made by Albrecht Dürer. So obvious... --178.197.225.27 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Not even close. Perhaps you're going from talk page to talk page to troll? JNW (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Isabel or Isabella

I see this has been discussed several years ago but I wish to reopen the topic. As I understand it from Spaniards, Isabel is the name that is used in Spain not Isabella and this queen is known in Spain as Isabel la Catolica. Accordingly it seems that the correct name that should be used here is Isabel I of Castile being the correct name rather than Isabella and that the names of other Spanish "Isabellas" should also be changed. Mztourist (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I don't care deeply about the form used for the title. The rule as I understand it is that the main title should use whatever is the most frequently used name. If Isabella is the name most frequently used by English speakers, then that should be the title, with suitable redirects.
However, I think reasonable evidence should be presented that Isabella really is the form of her name most frequently used by English speakers. This shouldn't be difficult to do, but someone needs to do it.
And I think the article needs to say that the name she used herself in Spanish was Ysabel, that Spanish speakers have modernized it to Isabel, and that she is known to Spanish speakers as Isabel and not as Isabella.
I think there should be an explanation of why she is known as Isabella by English speakers when that form has (I gather) never been used by Spanish speakers.
It is, to say the least, weird that English speakers use the Italian name for Isabel when we do not use the Italian name, Cristoforo Colombo, for "Christopher Columbus." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Following the Wikipedia dictum Wikipedia:BOLD I'm going to include a completely unreferenced section stating the things I think need to be stated. I'm not in a good position to research these myself, though if I find anything I'll add the citations. I hope others will choose not to remove them but leave them as a guide to readers and a reminder of material the article should include. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph added by IP

Westveld(source) is not an historian and Lulu.com is a self-publishing company. Stuart(source) is not an historian. Alkire source is unverifiable and with a quote from the book consensus can be reached. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to the IP that can not seem to find the talk page, the paragraph;

  • "Among the enduring legacies of her reign was the establishment of Castilian as the official language for the new united Spain and the Spanish Empire. Outside of Portugal, other Iberian languages such as Catalan, which had been an important literary and administrative language, declined in prestige. Castilian became the first living language in Europe to be formally standardized with a legally defined grammar. In the newly conquered Moorish province of Granada, educational initiatives were established to familiarize Arabic- and Berber-speaking subjects with the Castillian language and Christianity."

Per the Alkire source;

  • "As the Reconquista pushed southward, the retaken lands became nominally Castilian-speaking. Further centralization came when Castile united with Aragon and Catalonia (1479) under Ferdinand and Isabella - at that point Castilian, not Catalan, became the chancery langauge. In the annus mirabilis 1492, among other landmark events, the Reconquista concluded with the capture of Granada, and the first Spanish grammar was presented to Queen Isabella by Antoinio de Nebrija."

I see nothing that attributes Isabella I as the reason Castilian became the official language. This appears to be quite off topic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I am unclear what your motives are hear but ...
There is no requirement in Wikipedia that the author of any particular source be a historian or even that they are a leading expert on a particular topic. In general the main expectation is the source cited be a credible secondary source that reflects scholarly consensus on the topic (scholarly consensus being a judgement that must be rendered by the authors of the article). I agree that the fact that Westveld's book is self-published makes him a weaker source; a different source would be better. The Stuart and Alkire sources are solid. You have not demonstrated any reason to doubt their credibility or what about them is "unverifiable". And whether or not Isabella had a direct personal involvement in any particular aspect or not is rather beside the point. Regardless of how personally involved she was this is an important legacy of her reign (as well as Ferdinand's).
As a general rule it is extremely inappropriate to delete sourced content unless there is a genuine reason to consider the content dubious or inappropriate. This particular content is one of the most well-known legacies of Isabella's reign (setting aside Chris Columbus, of course). If you have a concern about the quality of the sources or how they are credited you can use "ref improve" or some other template. But deleting content unilaterally is unprofessional.
Please restore the content and follow WP procedures properly.
Thanks.
--MC
"But deleting content unilaterally is unprofessional"
No, what is unprofessional is using non-professionals(ie. non-historians) to write history.
"There is no requirement in Wikipedia that the author of any particular source be a historian or even that they are a leading expert on a particular topic."
Then any source is reliable? I seriously doubt that. "Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."
What part of self-published(Lulu.com) do you not understand? What part of "Stuart is not an historian", do you not understand? Nancy Rubin Stuart, is an author and journalist, has no qualifications as an historian, and therefore can not be considered a reliable source for history.
"You have not demonstrated any reason to doubt their credibility or what about them is "unverifiable"."
Apparently you can not read, I said that the Alkire source was unverifiable, and at the time, it was.
As I have clearly shown, the paragraph in question is 'not supported by the only reliable source(Alkire) and appears to be original research.
"And whether or not Isabella had a direct personal involvement in any particular aspect or not is rather beside the point.
Wrong. This article is about Isabella I of Castile and should be written in that context. In the Alkire source, Ferdinand/Isabella's reign is not shown to be any kind of direct force or influence on the Castilian language. On the contrary, Alkire, assuming you have even read the source(page 333), states Alfonso X, "was the greatest champion of the Castilian vernacular".
"Please restore the content and follow WP procedures properly."
Uh no. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Kansas Bear is correct. We don't use self-published sources except in rare situations, eg in the author's article. Stuart/Stetson (the book was also published under her married name of Nancy Stetson) also fails our criteria at WP:RS. And the Alkire source doesn't seem to back any of the text. More than that, if Isabella's reign was the main cause that Castilian was adopted this will be easy to find in clearly reliable sources and we shouldn't need to use anything less. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabella I of Castile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Isabella I of Castile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image, detail of La Virgen de la Mosca, depicts Katherine of Alexandria. It is widely acknowledged that Katherine here looks very much like Isabella. Perhaps the image is suitable for someplace else in the article, with an explanatory caption. But shouldn't we attempt to include an image in the infobox that is unambiguously a depiction of Isabella herself? 98.176.128.60 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isabella_I_of_Castile/Archive_1&oldid=1080615795"