Talk:Isabella I of Castile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Saints Isabella I of Castile is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article may need an appropriate infobox template.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Isabella I of Castile is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
This article is supported by the Kingdom of Naples WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Kingdom of Naples and Two Sicilies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.


(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Priority on the priority scale.


Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!
  • Oppose, ethnic POV pushing -- Petri Krohn 02:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Result

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Links

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] Isabella 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)