Talk:Castile (historical region)

message: Hope everyone agrees with my section... We can discuss it here. Someone should add the war of the comuneros in the history section.--Burgas00 11:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "castilians" 

message: What percentage of Spaniards is ethnic Castillian? Someone has the figures? --Burgas00 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Castillians 

message: The text on the article says that "The territory traditionally regarded as Castilian is now divided into the Spanish autonomous communities of Cantabria, Euskadi, Castile-Leon, Castile-La Mancha, Madrid and La Rioja", but I find this is a little incorrect since I believe that the traditional Castile includes some more territories.
In the map of Spain showing Castile in red, not even Euskadi (Basque Country) is shown as part of it.
If I could give my personal opinion, I would assert with much certainty the following:
1 - At the beginning, Castile was but a small county located where today is the confluence of the provinces of Burgos, Santander and Álava. It belonged to the Kingdom of León.
2 - It eventually expanded to occupy an area equivalent to the modern provinces of Burgos, Santander, Álava, Palencia, Valladolid and Logroño. Then it became an independent Kingdom, and expanded further to include the provinces of Biscay, Guipúzcoa, Soria, Segovia, and Ávila.
This is called "the Old Castile".
3 - Castile kept growing to the south, and added the territories of the modern provinces of Madrid, Guadalajara, Toledo, Cuenca and Ciudad Real. These five provinces are called "the New Castile".
4 - By that time Castile, who had once become independent from the Kingdom of León, was already greater in area, population and power to any other State of the Iberian Peninsula, including the Kingdom of León itself.
It was on that background that the Kingdoms of Castile and León became united (whether Castile annexed León or it was a union of both Kingdoms is a question I shall not deal with here - anyway, I believe the Court was established at Toledo, the greatest city of the Peninsula by that time).
Thus, one could consider that the eight provinces that conformed the Kingdom of León (León, Zamora, Salamanca, Oviedo, Corunna, Lugo, Orense and Pontevedra) might also be named as Castilian territories.
But the problem doesn't end here, because the United Kingdom of Castile and León kept growing southwards, conquering Extremadura, Albacete, Murcia and Andalusia. Can these annexations be considered Castilian?
Usually they are. Actually, in addition to "Catilla la Vieja" ("the Old Castile") and "Castilla la Nueva" ("the New Castile"), the realm of Andalusia is sometimes called "Castilla la Novísima" ("the Newest Castile").
5 - As the article says, the Canary Islands were added to the Crown of Castile (while the Balearic Islands belonged to the Crown of Aragón).
6 - After Queen Isabella of Castile's death, her husband King Ferdinand of Aragón conquered the realm of Navarre, but he annexed it to the Kingdom of Castile instead of his own. Some historians say this was in hommage to his beloved dead wife, others say this was because he considered Navarre more similar to Castile in traditions, laws... etc., so the Navarrese people would accept the conquest more easily if they became part of Castile, not Aragón.
CONCLUSION -
The exact limits of the territory named bay the word "Castile" are difficult to draw on a map. It depends on what you consider "Castile".
AT LEAST it includes the area occupied bay the modern Spanish provinces of:
-Burgos, Palencia, Valladolid, Soria, Segovia and Ávila (all of them part of the Community called "Castile-León")
-Santander (Community of Cantabria)
-Álava, Biscay and Guipúzcoa (the Basque Country)
-Madrid
-Toledo, Guadalajara, Cuenca and Ciudad Real (part of "Castile-La Mancha")
AT MOST it includes, in addition to the aforementioned lands:
-Albacete (part of "Castile-La Mancha")
-Murcia
-Cáceres and Badajoz (Community of Extremadura)
-Cordova, Seville, Huelva, Cádiz, Málaga, Granada, Almería and Jaén (Andalusia)
-Navarre
-León, Zamora and Salamanca (part of "Castile-León")
-Oviedo (Community of Asturias)
-Corunna, Lugo, Orense and Pontevedra (Galicia)
-Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Canary Islands)
-The Northern African cities of Ceuta and Melilla, and their dependent territories.
If you add the lands of the former Kingdom of the United Crowns of Aragón and Catalonia (Aragón [Huesca, Zaragoza and Teruel], Catalonia [Barcelona, Tarragona, Lérida and Gerona], Valencia [Valencia, Castellón and Teruel] and the Balearic Islands) you will have all territories of current Spain!!
This is Rubbish...  Territories acquired by Castille do not make them part of Castille. Especially if they retain a particular language, cultural heritage or identity... You can only be Spanish  to be saying something so preposterous.  Please do not write things like this on the English wikipedia,...It only confuses people who dont know our country. Actually it seems that you dont know our country, except the one you have created in your mind... Stick to extreme-right forums in the Spanish language...--Burgas00 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact Limits of Castile 

message: And my reasons are the followings:
* At least eastern part of Salamanca, Zamora and Palencia, and practically all the province of Valladolid are more probably in Castilian "sphere" than Leonese.
* Historically, only the eastern lands of Albacete belonged to the Kingdom of Murcia. The remainder (including the city of Albacete) were located in the province of La Mancha, the direct ancestor of the province of Ciudad Real, except some territories in the north that belonged to the province of Cuenca. Both Ciudad Real and Cuenca are part of Castile.
* Requena-Utiel, a castilian-speaking region now situated in Valencia, were part of Cuenca until XIX century reforms.
* Molina de Aragón, a territory in the NE part of the province of Guadalajara, is in fact a historically separated region. It belonged to the Kingdom of Aragón until XIV century, when it be conquered by Pedro I of Castile, that takes the title of Señor de Molina and administrated the city and its zone as a new territory of the Castilian Crown. Even today, Juan Carlos I own this title along with King of Castile, King of Aragon and others. 
Please, excuse my bad English.--Menah the Great 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that the article needs a new map 

message: I'm making an effort at fixing the translation of the poem in the first section.  When it comes to translations of poetry this can be iffy and I want to avoid counterproductive reversions.  I will be using inverted sentence structure because it is allowed in English poetry and it helps to get across the meaning of the native Spanish.
Please discuss any further translation changes here.
Thanks,
--Diabolic 14:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poem Translation 

message: I have just entried into this article and I am amazed because of the mess it is. Several problems converge: The fact that the name Castilla (Castile) has had several different meanings throughout History, and sometimes several meanings at the same time. I think that the only way to solve this is to convert this article in a disambiguation page to:
*Castile Kingdom ( Historical kingdom from IX to XIII century).
*Castile Crown ( Historical Kingdom formed in 1230 with the union of Castile and León.) This two articles could be one.
*Castile (historical region) The abstract-and-non-well-defined region that says the article. the article in this point is despective, and the quote is presented as a definition, not as an opinion made in one of the most auto-criticist moments of Spanish history)
*Old Castile (Castilla la Vieja) Political name of the region formed by Santander, Burgos, Logroño, soria, Segovia, Ávila, Valladolid and Palencia. It had some territorial changes in its History, and had this name from XVIII century to 1983. It no longer exists. 
*New Castile (Castilla la Nueva) Political name of the region formed by  Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Guadalajara, Madrid, Toledo and part of Albacete. Took this name in XVIII century and desapeared with democracy. It no longer exists.
*Castilla y León Autonomous Community. It was formed in february 25    of 1983. It is nowadays formed by 9 provinces: León, Zamora, Salamanca, Ávila, Burgos, Palencia, Segovia, Soria and Valladolid.
*Castilla-La Mancha Autonomous Community. It was formed in 1982. It is nowadays formed by 5 provinces:  Albacete, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Guadalajara and Toledo.
It is impossible to talk properly of Castilla mixing all the meanings. Anyway, it should be explained.
The second problem is more difficult to solve. And I don't think it is innocuous. I thik that the intention of defining Castilians as an ethnical group in this article is to opose it to other "ethnical groups" in Spain. That is what most of the nacionalists want to. There is not such a breed of cat: The emphasis in inventing and splitting defined ethnical groups in a mixed hybrid population, made of iberian pre-romans, romans, goths, arabs, jews and medieval european inmigrants among others can be very dangerous, and modern History proves it. Please, dont make that error. You can find anywhere that there is no ethnical castilian group.  And there is no public discussion on that point. I have only seen it in this article, and I read press and watch the news everyday. There was a  discussion some years ago, when Xabier Arzallus, one of the hardest representant of basc nationalism said that bascs have a distingüised RH type of blood, that made bascs ethnically different. This is not the place to discuss that, but the fact that some people think that endogamy and historical isolation of the bascs in the mountains could have made them "different", is not a point to make an "ethnical group" of every province.
I finish: I think that the problem with this article will solve automatically making that disambiguation page. unfortunately, I don`t know how to do it (I`m rather new in Wikipedia), but I ask for somebody else to do it.  Thank you. --Garcilaso 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved the problem of disambiguation, although the Kingdom of Castile hasn´t got a specific article by now. Now, trying to solve the incorrections in this article, I confess that I am going to give up. There are too many for me and my poor English. Trying to find a template that defines better the problem, I have found that almost half of Wikipedia´s templates fit to "Castilians as an Ethnic group":
To express that ideas about a Castilian ethnical (or sub-ethnical) group, it would be desirable to quote references, because that "ethnical group" is strangely unknown in books and papers.
It mixes all the meanings of Castile (see disambiguation page Castile, and throws the reader to confusion.
So, I think that I am going to give up, because my time is limited (and my English too), to solve all these structural problems, but I thought that it was my duty to express the problem here.--Garcilaso 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Mess. Please, make Disambiguation Page! 

message: He puesto un heading para esto porque es un tema complejo.
En esto último que has dicho discrepo solo en parte. 
*Good point with the leísmo and laísmo I hadnt thought of that... But even though the leísmo isnt in standard international Spanish it can be considered to be in standard national Spanish. For example, in Andaluz "culto" (perdona el espanglish es para que nos entendamos) leísmo from Madrid has leaked into the speech. You will find, among the well-educated in Seville, many people who commit this error by cultural influence of what I call standard castilian Spanish. (I think there is an article on Andaluz speech in the Spanish wiki, échale un vistazo.) I wouldnt be surprised if this was true for Canario culto. I believe that Leismo will end up being accepted by the RAE precisely because of the cultural dominance exerted by Castilian.
*I also agree that Spanish from Mexico and Colombia is as Standard as the Spanish of Spain. But I make the distinction in the sense that official "Spanish Spanish" (el Español de España) is Castilian.
*En cuanto a Bono y la Mancha, in my opinion la Mancha is not Castile proper... and this is felt in the expressions and in the accent of its inhabitants. The heart of Castile is Castilla la Vieja and maybe now Madrid.
*This unintended cultural dominance over the rest of Spain is receding with democracy and the reinforced position of the España de las Autonomías. I recently noticed that the weatherman of Cuatro was canarian and gave the weather in a strong Canarian accent. This has never been the case, the most famous weatherman in the past (I forgot his name) also being Canarian, had to speak with Standard Castilian Spanish phonetics and speech.
*To believe in the existence of a standard Spanish separate from Castilian is a way of denigrating other dialects spoken in Spain, since they will immediately become deviant from the norm. The main focus of this denigration is Andaluz. El Andaluz es un dialecto que siempre se ha asociado a la incultura en nuestro país. Un ejemplo mas bien patetico del Franquismo. Estaba viendo en la tele un homenaje a Rocío Jurado donde mostraban extractos de una antigua peli que ella protagonizaba. Rocío tenía el papel de una Andaluza (posiblemente tambien Gitana no recuerdo). Me quedé estupefacto al constatar que a Rocío le habían doblado la voz. Su voz era aquella de una persona claramente castellana (o con acento estandar como prefieras) hablando con un falso acento folklórico-andaluz (con mucho Ozú etc)... 
Por lo demas estoy de acuerdo contigo... Bueno ya he pasao del inglés completamente.
¡¡Chao!!
--Burgas00 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castilian Dialect of Spanish 

message: :Modern Spanish monarchs are numbered according to the system of Castile.
Really?
I thought that the highest number was taken.
However I found the case of the Carlist pretender Jaime I de Castilla y III de Aragón, but the Carlist valued the tradition and the regions, so they may follow different rules.
Error 23:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of kings

message: The statement Castilian identity is now defined negatively rather than positively. The reason for this is that Castilian nationalism was the first to have been destroyed by the Spanish Crown during the revolt and war of the Castilian War of the Communities against the Spanish Monarchy, between 1520 and 1521. is arguable. Indeed many Spaniards who don´t have Castilian as first language regard Castilian negatively, but this is due to historic (specially in Francoist period) represion of non-Castillian languages. Holding the view of the Comuneros as a nationalist movement is also,at least, arguable.--Xareu bs (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: defined negatively means defined as a subtraction, that is, Castile is all that is not Galicia, Andalusia, Valencia, Asturias, etc. etc.. Like the negative of a photograph. --Jotamar (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks.--Xareu bs (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castilian identity 

message: the true Castile is the Kingdom of Castile. The other kingdoms are not Castile: the Kingdom of Asturias, the Kingdom of Leon, the Kingdom of Toledo (La Mancha), Kingdom of Navarre, Kingdom of Aragon... etc
the Kingdom of Castile was extremely popular: the Constitutions (called Fueros in Spanish) were of a radical Democracy, according to current standards (some scholars have called them "Anarchist"). Castile is NOT the craddle for Spain; it is Leon and Galicia, -both coming from Asturias-, and not Castile; except only in language.
Since I dont have the time, the best thing you can do is to read the article "Comunidad de Villa y Tierra" if you can read Wikipedia in Spanish; to know what Castile really was. There you will find much of information, and bibliography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.183.2 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the truth about Castile 

message: you can see a map of Castile (the kingdom of Castile), in the SPANISH Wikipedia, the article "Anselmo Carretero". - Thankyou -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.183.2 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  map of Castile 

message: if you have read the previous articles in the Spanish Wikipedia, you dont need to be Aristotle to understand that the books of History of Spain are FILLED with lies.
but you ought to be very cautious -it is important--. These informations are super- censored in Spain.-- 213.37.30.13 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  lying books 

message: An interesting proof of what the History of Spain has been, is the official titles of the king of Spain: he is not "king of Cantabria, king of Castile and Leon, king of Madrid, king of La Rioja nor king of Castile-La Mancha". His historical titles are king of Leon, King of Castile and king of Toledo (the name of the kingdom is Kingdom of Toledo).- nothing else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.30.13 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  an interesting proof: the King of Spain. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Castile (historical region). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211230846/http://narros.congreso.es/constitucion/estatutos/sinopsis.jsp?com=74 to http://narros.congreso.es/constitucion/estatutos/sinopsis.jsp?com=74
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :What worries me most about your suggestion, Asqueladd, is that 'imprecise territory' introduces yet another weasel-word ('imprecise') and I'm really not sure how that term can be convincingly worked in to the lead's second sentence. Any ideas? Feel free to lay them out here... You say you can source it: what is the source? A book? Alphaten (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how about: "Though imprecise [source], the area covers the modern autonomous communities of Cantabria and La Rioja with eastern Castile and León, Castile-La Mancha, and Madrid." ? Alphaten (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

text: And really, no one can deny that the former areas of Old and New Castile do encompass present-day Madrid geographically. So there is no imprecision there, in terms of area. Lay the shape of Castile over a modern map of Spain, and Madrid is covered by it :) Alphaten (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Britannica article is really poor. It basically gives you the folksy information that any random Spaniard will tell you: Old and New Castile, and land of castles. The rest of the Britannica article is about history, so not really relevant here. If you read any in-depth and modern study about the subject, both ideas (the name and the extension) crumble quickly. For instance, it has been pointed out that the area originally called Castile in northern Burgos province contains hardly any castle at all! About Old and New Catile, though both names are older, their limits were established in the provincial division of 1833; once the territory of Spain was divided in provinces, those provinces were grouped in larger units for convenience, and the names were assigned by a politician in Madrid: he could have decided to use Región de Toledo instead of New Castile, for example; that name would have had at least as much historical tradition. In sum, the current lead is in my opinion a simpleton's version of what Castile is. Now you are going to ask for sources, but I don't have the time to research this properly. Asqueladd is in a better position for it, as he has written most of the Spanish WP article about Castile. Anyway, I'd like Alphaten to at least acknowledge that the Britannica article is not a good starting point. --Jotamar (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say pass in specific territoriality in the lede, and thus avoiding the application of a fixation of current borders missing the actual point of sourced issue of territorial imprecision (wanting to haphazardly overcome it). I know it can sound frustrating, probably an English language reader wants to know "what is Castilian and what not" because "Castile has to exist as well-defined entity" (just like England is?), because "at the very least a default version of Castile is surely well defined" but the article does not gain accuracy from trying to do it in the lede but haphazardness. Alphaten, If you are talking about Madrid because I put a citation needed in that gallery pic, although everything is weasel, in this case the "dubiousness" goes further, becase it relates to the "self-defined" bit, very much wishful thinking. AFAIK, dealing with it in es:wiki and with (the lack of) reliable sources in the matter, the self-definition bit is a wishful & veeeeery stretched interpretation of a primary source by Wikipedia editors that at some time was quite spread in several geographical articles in es:wiki probaby trying to prove differents points (tentatively, I even suspect that those irrelevant purposes include the scope of a WikiProject :S)--Asqueladd (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "An imprecise territory"

message: In my opinion the introduction is unnecessarily academic and as someone unfamiliar with this topic I find the language very inaccessible. The fact that you can look up definitions as it is an intro section in an encyclopedia and therefore should strive to be legible to non-experts. morsontologica (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: could you suggest an alternative wording? Thanks. --Jotamar (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro very dense and difficult