This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
Vote to change name of article from Isabella to Isabel. Request made by Stbalbach.
Reasons for Name Change:
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)
Comments:
The result is 10-3 against moving; the page is not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"... 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)
"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
Link text emphasizes and should not be used for every thing or person that does or does not have a page.
It's an error, Isabella is the name in italian, not in spanish. The name in spanish is Isabel, in englis is Elizabeth.
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.
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, 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
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?.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
I think the first paragraph is highly POV, but I'll wait for a response before editing it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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) |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
Per the Alkire source;
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
Vote to change name of article from Isabella to Isabel. Request made by Stbalbach.
Reasons for Name Change:
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)
Comments:
The result is 10-3 against moving; the page is not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
"... 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)
"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
Link text emphasizes and should not be used for every thing or person that does or does not have a page.
It's an error, Isabella is the name in italian, not in spanish. The name in spanish is Isabel, in englis is Elizabeth.
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.
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, 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
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?.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!
I think the first paragraph is highly POV, but I'll wait for a response before editing it.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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) |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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;
Per the Alkire source;
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
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)