Talk:Castile (historical region)

This is very concise and helpful, but I would love a map... probably not an easy request to make, but something showing where old/new Castile was would really help.

Section on "castilians"

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)[reply]

Number of Castillians

What percentage of Spaniards is ethnic Castillian? Someone has the figures? --Burgas00 12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what definition of "Castillian" you use, something between 8% and 80%. The sad truth is that, in modern Spain, when someone says I'm castillian, no matter how 'proud' of it he claims to be, what he really means is I'm from a part of Spain for which there is no better name. Jotam 01:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ! Perhaps that can be true in some cases, PERHAPS when somebody says You're castillian he really means You're from a part of Spain for whom I find no better name, but I'm castillian (I say it not proud, but very happy), and I know CASTILLA is the best name for my land. This land has been named this way since VIII century. Here the language we called castillian was born. There is not a common agreement in Spain about what should be considered Castilla, but this is very different than you assumption.

note that the ethnia "castilian" does not exist.

america

it may be worth mentioning of cristopher columbus here as i reckon is an importan fact in Castillian , spanish, european and world history

"Castell" is a Catalonian word meaning "Castle". Bay the way, the name "Castile" means "land of castles"... but the name "Catalonia" means the same!!

Exact Limits of Castile

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)[reply]

I actualy agree that biscay and alava should be included in the concept of castile, for most of their heritage is undoubtedly castilian. You just have to stop and think about the names of villages as Valmaseda, Portugalete or Vitoria ; or the surnames of the natives (if they have not changed them as a result of the nationalistic and excluding education imparted at basque schools for 20 years), and you will soon realise how castilian (and not basque) they do sound. I think that you can be independist, if you feel like it, but you should neither try to change history nor impart that kind of propaganda at schools as if they were facts.

Hello from Castile

Hi, I'm Castilian. Flag of the entry is of Castile-La Mancha (not of Castile).

On the other hand, one thing is Kingdom of Castile and other is Castilian Crown. It is not the same! Castilian Crown included the Kingdom of Castile and other kingdoms: Kingdom of León, Toledo, Sevilla, Jaén...

I think territory of Castile is as long as the Kingdom: Cantabria, La Rioja, Burgos, Segovia, Soria, Ávila, Madrid, Guadalajara and Cuenca, and pieces of Valladolid, Palencia, Albacete and Valencia. If someone thinks it is as long as the Crown, it must be included Galicia and Asturias (they were in the Kingdom of Leon), Canarias, America...

Another thing. It is not Castile-León. The real name is Castile and León. Leoner people angry a lot if they listen to Castile-León!

Anyway, I'm happy you include this entry. Sorry for my English.

hey man the flag is ok .the color of castilla is RED not purple....(uno de Avila)

I think that the article needs a new map

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)[reply]

The province of Albacete is not formed until 1833 with lands of the kingdom of Castile and Murcia. Some of the lands of Castile were ruled by castilians laws and lords since they were reconquered, like the city of Alcaraz, "Señorio de las cinco Villas", etc. So the main part of Albacete was always Castile under the province of La Mancha or Cuenca or as medieval castilian fiefs until the province was artificially constitued.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincia_de_Albacete

Bronko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.127.189 (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people confuse the historical region of Castile with the Crown of Castile.

Even though the latter included Andalucia, Galicia, Asturias, these are NOT Castilian. Castile is Castile. The Crown of Castile map is OFFENSIVE in this article. The maps of the provinces which identify as Castillian, Old Castile and New Castile are better and more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.40.87 (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion as valid as any other. Castile region may refer to the territories of the county, the kingdom, the crown, the first Old Castile and New Castile in the 18th century, the Old Castile and New Castile of 1833 (your maps), the autonomous communities that recognize themselves as Castilian since 1981 ... There is no consensus.--109.175.254.219 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the Galicians and Andalusians never ever identified as Castilians, even though they were in the Crown of Castile. There is an article on that historic state, this article is about the modern regional identity of Castile which smaller. Indeed it is offensive to portray the modern Castillian identity as Crown of Castile as it is saying that Andalusians are Castilians and Galicians are Castilians. I am half Castilian and I find my regional identity insulted by some ignorant American who thinks that Andalusia is a part of Castile, which is deeply offensive to Andalusians also, not to mention the Galicians. Also, the maps are to do with the Crown of Castile. I explained in the map of Crown of Castile that Castile was only ONE of the regions in that historic state. It was a federation of different peoples, Andalusians, Galicians, Castilians, Leonese. If you find the New Castile and Old Castile maps ridiculous, go to Madrid on San Isidro and see if you can see Castilian folk dancing and the flag of Castile. Salamanca and Zamora are Leonese. Castilla-Y-Leon. So it isn't just 1833. Yes, those maps are ugly and combersome, but please do NOT equal my region in Spain with the Crown of Castile. The old map of Spain from 1770 is useless because you cannot see what is written on it. It is also in French, useless!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.40.87 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to find them "ridiculous", nor "offensive", nor Madrid not to be Castile, I'm just saying that there is not consensus in the boundaries of the Castile as historical/cultural region as you can read in the text. Why a historic map in French is useless?, are two handmade blank maps based on two random divisions of 19 century more useful? If we are talking about the modern Castilian identity or culture I can tell you, unlike Madrid, that the Castilian feeling in historical regions like Leon or Cantabria is virtually inexistent and they often feel offended being included in Castile as well. Thus, without a existent precise definition of the boundaries the use maps do not make sense.--109.175.254.5 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format and content of the article

From my amateur vision on Wikipedia I would like to make some comments on this article and I would highly appreciate if more experience members could decide if the problems I see on the article are objective to put it under discussion or revision.

First of all, I think the format of the article about Castile is not correct to define the former kingdom of Castille or the historic region if Castille. I think that it should be ordered into sections about the history, geography and context of Castile, like it can be seen in the German version of this page or in the article about the crown of Aragon.

I don´t understand very well the section about Castilians as an ethnic group in the context. I think this section should be in a separate article (as the catalonians as an ethnic gruop is from Catalonia), or at least it should be moved to the end of the page. I think when someone searchs in Wikipedia Castile, the part of the ethniticity is not the main information they are looking for, but rather the history.

Appart from that, I believe the definition of Castilians should be made according to the definition of ethnic group in Wikipedia: "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices." I think the castilian ethnic group should be defined based on this terms. And I think it should be first fundamented if Castilians do form an ethnic group by themselves, with sources. From my point of view, the main purpose of the ethnic group section is exclusive, which means it tries to define who is not castilian, rather than define who is.

I think the information in the page may be a little subjective from someone who has some prejudices about Castilians. I don´t want to offend anybody and I say it with respect, but I understand in Spain the nacionalist sentiments are very strong and sometimes the information is biased with this sentiments. I base this on the poem which according to the author defines Castile and Castilians in Spanish history. Well, I think that is a personal view and many people won´t agree that poem defines Castile. In fact I think very few Castilians will have that opinion, and as is stated in the article, they make a big part of the Spanish population (impossible to say which part by the way, hehe, it seems a big controversy).

I think the castilians deserve an equal treatment as other nationalities in Spain do, and a review of the Catalonians or Vasqs people information will show how they are defined in a rather positive way, while Castilians are in a negative.

For all the above reasons, I think the content in this page should be discutted and considered the possibility of giving a more historical and factual view. The objectivity I think should be also under discussion. As I want to make a constructive comment, not just critisize, I would have no problem to contribute giving new contents to this page if other members agree with me (and always from my limited knowledge, since I am not a historian ...).

Sorry for possible grammar mistakes, Clara.

Poem Translation

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)[reply]

Yup dominating is ok! I like this poem, and it is well known in Spain and quoted often in popular speech.--Burgas00 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dios sobre la guerra"... is not "God to war" it is "God over war" or at least this is the primary translation, other would change the original and literal meaning. Sergio Alves

Yes but God over war doesnt mean anything in English and doesnt sound good. God to war captures the original meaning in Spanish.

Lo digo en castellano, porque esto lo ha tenido que escribir algun español. ¿Lo flipáis? ¿Qué es eso del grupo étnico castellano? No mintáis por favor.

Read the section properly, tío.

Completamente de acuerdo: afortunadamente los castellanos no presumimos de ser una etnia o una raza, ni de tener rh negativo o neutro.

Terrible Mess. Please, make Disambiguation Page!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maps

I noticed that Zamora and Palencia are not included in the map. They may have been part of the kingdom of Leon at one time but people from these provinces would definitely consider themselves Castilian nowadays.--Burgas00 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Perhaps the solution would be the introduction of several maps: one for each historical moment or concept. It would be very useful for non-Spanish readers. Cheers!--Garcilaso 09:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okk but i dont know how to make these maps:(--Burgas00 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I! :-( I haven´t learned how to upload images to Commons. I have been thinking about the "ethnical" stuff, and as both agree in the non common origin of the inhabitants, intending a clearer exposition a possible begining could be:

Castilians identity and cultural expansion (instead of "Castilians as an Ethnic Group")

Castilians are a community of inhabitants with common Culture and History. Their origin is, as well as most of other parts of the Spain, a heterogeneous mixture of Celtiberic, Roman, Visigoth, Arab, Jew, and European roots. Thus, it is not correct to establish a strict common origin, but a common cultural identity. Over time, most Castilians have mixed with other Spaniards due to their past political dominance, and present-day cultural dominance. Castilians and their cultural influence spread throughout the entire mesa of central Spain during the Reconquista, carried out principally by the Kingdom of Toledo which was renamed "New Castile". Their language, (modern day Spanish) has been adopted....

And so on. ¿What do you think about this change? Saludos--Garcilaso 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estoy de acuerdo. Que cazurros somos yo tampoco se usar el commons. Se nota que somos Españoles...--Burgas00 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno aquí mejor voy a hablar en inglés:

I noticed that you are right that the section is a bit chaotic and should be structured in a clearer way.

Points which are not mentioned:

The Castilian dialect (not only language) has become Standard Spanish.

Castilian "ethnicity" is the product of the conquest, by a small kingdom in northern Spain, of vast tracts of sparsely populated lands (the central mesetas). These lands were populated, during the reconquest, by peoples from all over the peninsula (even from southern Spain - see exile of Mozarabes (christians) from Al Andalus and even the dispersal of Moriscos from Granada in the 15th century). Another example, at one point 25% of surnames in the province of Albacete were Basque. Castilian ethnicity is thus not the product of any common origin nor even any sense of common origin. Its basis is simply shared culture, history and language.

What do you think? --Burgas00 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree, and add some of your sentences to the text. Only two points:

-I still find unapropiated the word "ethnicity" if it is not based in common origins.

-The "Standard Spanish" if something like this exists, I suppose that you mean the Spanish that is taught to foreigners or listened in TV and Radio, I think it is not exactly the Castilian accent and vocabulary. It probably has of it the part of non-characteristic accent, with a complete pronuntiation of all consonants, but this is not the way all Castilians talk. Some of them, mainly in La Mancha, make that strong J instead of the S, and there is the question of "laismo", and "leismo", a characteristic way of speaking of certain places of Castile that is not in the Standard. Besides that, plenty of local phrases and expressions are far away from been accepted in "Standard Spanish". Now, if Standard Spanish is the Dictionary of RAE (Royal Spanish Academy), expressions of all the parts of Spain and Spanish-speaking America are accepted, though there is more influence of American local expressions because of the existence of several Academies in that continent. So, I think that Standard Spanish is a "Coiné", in which only the accent (or aspects of it) is taken from the way Castilians speak). See you!--Garcilaso 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian Dialect of Spanish

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)[reply]

Well, well.... I think that this only makes clearer the importance of the presence of an expert (an historian or a sociologist) in this matter: You say that you don't find Manchegos proper Castilians. But this is in direct contradiction with the expressions "Extremadura, a poor region in western Spain is considered to be Castilian in the north and Andalusian in the south" So, you think that people from Cáceres are Castilian, but not people from Ciudad Real...interesting. Even more if you find that Madrid is the heart of Castile, while Madrid has much more to do with La Mancha, (don´t forget that La Sagra is a region that is partially in Madrid and in Toledo, and La Alcarria is another region that is mainly in Guadalajara, but also in Madrid) and don´t forget that Madrid (Magerit) was created as a moorish defence of Toledo, which was a more important city at that time. Madrid is ofter ironically referred as a "poblachón manchego" (Pío Baroja created the expression, I think), and although it is not an exact assertion,it has to do with its humble origins as a city dependant from Toledo. Its historical main way of construction, is the so-called "aparejo toledano", but it can be found in other regions, mainly to the south. So if Madrid is in "The heart of Castile",La Mancha also is. I don't have a personal preference about it: I am more interested in culture and history than in defining the limits of a region, but I think that there is a contradiction in this.

I insist that the Spanish that is spoken mainly on media is somehow the accent of certain parts of Castile (could it be Valladolid or Salamanca?) but not the "dialect", because if it exists (I think it doesn`t, only "habla castellana") it is formed by particular vocabulary and expressions. Enabujar esgorronar tieces, pucelana, pavo for tío, melgo or the different strong accents of words like Madriz (Madrid), ejque (es que) doztor (doctor), testo (texto) or the finishing -ao instead of -ado are far away from being the Standard Spanish. So, I accept that a variety of one of the accents of Castile has been taken as standard, but not "Castilian Dialect". You are right when you say that some andalucians have that complex about their accent and expressions because of that "Standard Spanish", but, as you say, nowadays more and more andalusians (and extremeños, wich are NOT andalusians, and Canarios...) are conserving their own accents when they speak in the media, proud of it as a particular way of speaking and part of their cultural heritage, and the homogeneity is given nowadays more than from a certian region, from a sociolinguistical new phenomenon: the "Journalist dialect", wose "cultural dominance" nowadays makes us accept without hesitation new invented expressions as Patera, or Cayuco for big motor boats full of inmigrants, or immediate succesful local expressions like Chapapote (galician). Or places that have been rebaptised, like "Bagdag" (former Bagdad) people like talibanes o mujaidines (Talib means student, taliban is the plural, talibanes is "studentses"). A reporter says it, other listen and like it, and the next week, a new word has been created (or and "old word" has been definitely destroyed). I think that is the actual modern "cultural dominance", the modern standard Spanish in Spain. Sigh!. See you!--Garcilaso 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garcilaso. It is a pleasure talking to you. I think we should work together on other articles related to Spain as well as this rather obscure one. Some of the things I say are imprecise and you are right to point out my mistakes. I said that Madrid was more Castilian in the sense that it is now the seat of political and mediatic power. It is however more Manchegan than Castilian historically, as you say. I do not wish to say Caceres is Castile. I just say that Extremadura is a transition zone between Castilian and Andaluz culture. I dont know if you have visited Badajoz, its white washed towns such as Zafra and ,above all, met its people. But it is Andalusia in everything except by name. One of the projects for the andalusian autonomous community in the 70s actually included Badajoz as the 9th province. As for your main point I can only agree. I was being a bit too reductionist in my approach and there is more to this centralized cultural dominance than Castile. Why Bagdag? I have heard that often and it has always really irritated me. As for Talibanes... that is more understandable considering that the word Talib is not used in the West. Enjoy your weekend!

--Burgas00 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanca and Zamora are obviously not Castile. Please don't mess up things. --Salmantino 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of kings

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) -- the numbers for the kings (emperors) of Spain come from the triangle Asturias-Leon-Galicia. - the numbers in Castile are much shorter.77.231.81.87 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castilian identity

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Xareu bs (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the truth about Castile

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)[reply]

Comunidad de Villa y Tierra in English is said "Community of Town and Land".213.37.183.2 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC) -- the article is written as well in Catalan language.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.183.2 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it it important as well, if you can read the article "Behetria" in the Spanish Wikipedia.- 213.37.183.2 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another very interesting article is "Comunidad de Aldeas" (= Community of Hamlets or villages): "Anarchist" Castilian institutions in the kingdom of Aragon.83.60.47.78 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

map of Castile

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)[reply]

lying books

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)[reply]

an interesting proof: the King of Spain.

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to delete section

/* Castilian identity and cultural expansion */ Is this section even necessary in an article on Castile? It appears to concern other regions almost exclusively, to contain not a single verifiable fact, and to express the opinions of its author as opposed to being a neutral distillation of reliable sources. IMO, this entire article is in danger of devolving into a forum for misplaced political and regional grudges more appropriate to a Talk section. I move to delete the entire section on "Castilian identity", and shall do so within a week if no cogent objections are expressed hereunder. "Identity" is subjective and has no place in an encyclopedia. Alphaten (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section you mention is basically an essay, I guess written mostly by an editor who is no longer active. However that's not my main concern. You have deleted the single most important statement that a reader should learn from this page, namely that Castile is today a vaguely defined region. What exactly are your sources of information about Castile? How do you know the exact limits of Castile? --Jotamar (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on this question. The section requires extensive cleanup, abbreviation (there are lots of redundant and repetitious sentences), improvement in the standard of English, and above all inline citations for reference. Without citations, Wikipedia policy is to delete paragraphs that lack them. What do you think is the rationalization for the existence of this section?

As to your other query: "vaguely defined", without strong citations for accuracy, are both weasel words and have no place in an encyclopedic article. (Maybe they would pass muster in the Spanish wikipedia, where standards are lax, but they cannot be permitted here.) The idea is perfectly well expressed in any case by the clause which I left standing - namely that Castile has no officially defined borders in modern times. As to my qualifications, I have lived in Spain, and studied its history and literature at university. What are yours? (not that such things matter: we follow sources, not our own 'expertise', and there don't seem to be any sources whatsoever for this section, nor indeed for the Castile article in general). Alphaten (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You very pertinently characterized this section as an "essay". Essays by their nature are comprised largely of original research and conclusions - by themselves very good reasons for deletion of the section containing them, according English Wikipedia policies. Alphaten (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a further observation: This section, beginning as it does with the words 'Castilians are...', is more about people than it is about geography or history. So do note that the article's title is 'Castile (historical region)' not 'Castilian people', for which a separate article exists. An essay on people therefore has no place in an article whose subject is the region itself. Alphaten (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is a shoddy piece of work with a severe lack of nuance and citations. I hope this does not speak volumes about the "lax" standards of English Wikipedia.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To what are you referring precisely? I have spent many hours cleaning up an execrable article comprised of sub-standard English and copyediting to a higher level of idiomatic English, shortening as I went along. Please do not revert my edits en-masse before discussing the reasons for each change here on talk. Alphaten (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I haven't reverted your edits en masse. I just removed the infobox and referenced the lead. Is this a reversion of an extensive cleanup? You are full of yourself, aren't you?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. And please try to keep a civil tongue in your head. Alphaten (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No? Well, perfect. If not a reversion of an "extensive cleanup" would you care to tell us what is it according to you? According to me, it is the removal of an impossible infobox and the sourcing of the first line of the entry, until then unsourced.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need whatsoever for sarcasm. We don't arbitrarily delete existing infoboxes and their graphics without replacing them with something better. ie. if the existing box was faulty, you should have replaced it with a working one. In the meantime, the existing box is just fine - the page displays no error messages that I can see. Alphaten (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every Wikipedia article requires an infobox. Yes, an infobox can be useful in certain articles, but many of them are just unnecessary repetitions of facts already presented in the article's lead—or worse, an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance. The result: A Wikipedia infested with disinfoboxes that waste space and result in miscommunication, ambiguity, inaccuracy and redundancy. (Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes) A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a timeline that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse. (a courtesy of User:Wetman) A textbook case of disinfobox this one, if you ask me.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but this page already had an infobox (with a very useful map) when I came to it. So I really don't see the point of deleting it unless you're going to replace the working box with a better one. And to answer one of your prior questions, if you would check the edit log for this article you will notice that I have worked hard copyediting and trying to get the prose into acceptable English. When I found this article it was even more sub-standard than it is now - and I'll be the first to concur that it needs a LOT more work, particularly in the area of citations and better English... Alphaten (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a "very useful map", mostly because a Wikimedia Commons user deciding "two possible interpretations of Castile" entails no more than bonafide haphazardness derived from original research. And the reason to remove the infobox (and not "replacing it with a better one") is the article not gaining the much required nuanced "accuracy and complexity" when either of them being featured in that prominent place (but the contrary).--Asqueladd (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just your personal opinion. Personally, I found the map quite useful, in that it shows the historic areas well, along with what one might call the more 'contested' areas of Castile. I have no emotional investment in the subject, by the way, being British. You may well have, but you shouldn't allow strong personal opinions of your own to reflect in an ostensibly neutral encyclopedia article. Alphaten (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If it is the image's caption that you object to (ie. "two possible interpretations..."), well, we can change that easily enough. Let's discuss some possibilities... --Alphaten (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the above is your opinion (difference being I have less of a burden of proof in claiming that unsourced map is haphazard, than you for claiming it is not). The problem is not the caption (in some ways it portrays the arbitrarianess of choosing two interpretations of an imprecise territory as head of any entry). I don't think I have a marked "emotional investment" in the topic either. In any case, I intend to pull again soon the tentative sourcing of the first line. You can see the version in the diff. If you deem that sourced version inadequate (on a basis different than the level of English displayed), provide a working and sourced alternative. If not, in some days I will pull again the change in the lede, and we will get back to discuss the issue of getting rid of the disinfobox, or if you wish, in how to improve the level of English in that lede.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to source the lead with an inline citation, but please do not change the lead sentence, which I worked very hard on (or unless you are sure your newer English version can top mine for brevity and concision). Alphaten (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I give you time to look for sources for the unsourced first line, but not a tacit agreement to concede you the right to impose an unsourced version (featuring two unsourced weasel terms "historical"&"traditionally", and an oversimplication leading to a lack of accuracy) because of it being good English. See you around here in some days.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced the lead's first two sentences with inline citations from the Encyclopedia Britannica online, and will be adding more sources as time goes on. Thank you for your input on this subject. Alphaten (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcing leaves holes. As you include "defined definitions" for Old and New Castile corresponding to current day borders (current day correspondences which are not included in the britannica source, by the way), you missed for example Albacete being in current day Castile-La Mancha, and not being in many conceptualizations of New Castile (but being in Murcia). Or the so-called "Castilla Novísima" in Andalusia, or the ruckus about Cantabria, La Rioja, Palencia or Valladolid being part or not being part of Old Castile. The source I used also divides between Old and New, but does not bluntly enters current day correspondences of those territories (I guess because of obvious reasons: it explicitly states it is an imprecise territory as it features undefined or changing borders dependent on the particular map). As said before not all information can be so neatly contained as one may wish. I get it gets back to the problem you had with the "vaguely defined region" thing posed by @Jotamar: which you deemed weasel but that can be already attributed to the source (as "imprecise territory")--Asqueladd (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's something which should - and I believe already is - discussed in the body of the Article itself, under Geography, not the lead section, which ought to remain as short and concise as possible. I think we've now done as good a job as possible on the lead... Alphaten (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I mean everything going further than Old and New Castile in the scope of territoriality should be dealt with in a place with nuances and conflicting views (most probably that place is not the lead). And I am going to get back to the "imprecise territory" bit, which can already be sourced (it already was!). Neither you or I are going to deliver a authoritative definition apt for the lede free of contradictory views of what does enter in Castile and what doesn't. It's impossible because sources cannot agree.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced I used introduced three important nuances about the concept. 1) It distinguishes the concept from the "Kingdom", 2) it establishes it is an imprecise "territory" 3) It divides it between Old and New. If you want further territorial adjectivation "covering a sizeable chunk of peninsular Spain" or smth like that (which it is somewhat mentioned in the britannica: "covering more than one-quarter of Peninsular Spain) could be used. But I stress the "imprecise territory" bit is an improvement in the lede and can be sourced.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's great, but as I said, questionable aspects should be left for the body of the Geography section. If people are interested in those, they will read further. The lead must always remain as uncluttered with uncertainties as possible, even at the expense of a slight bias (or whatever you prefer to call it -- 'imbalance'?) By all means, in a second sentence, allude briefly to any uncertainties, but really no one is interested in these at the lead level. What they want is broad strokes... Alphaten (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An imprecise territory"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alphaten is inactive since March the 1st, and he or she was very active before that date. I hope the user's not ill. This discussion though can't wait indefinitely for that editor, so reverting part of Alphaten's editions might be a sound course of action now. --Jotamar (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intro very dense and difficult

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)[reply]

@Masonpew: could you suggest an alternative wording? Thanks. --Jotamar (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Literally just as it is, minus everything between "a territory of imprecise limits located in Spain." and "Castile's name is generally thought to derive". A series of others have attempted this, and explained why, only to have their explanations ignored and the changes reverted.

That portion provides no value towards introducing Castile to readers who have already been told its limits are imprecise. More, it serves negative value in driving away readers away who will wrongly, but reasonably, assume that if the introduction is written this way, the rest of the article must be even worse.

If the philosophy of territories being social contructs is going to be in this article at all, it should be in the body. It should also be less aggresively obtuse and should refrain from presenting a single subjective perspective as fact, but most importantly, it should not be the bulk of the intro. It does not need to remain there in a reworded form, it needs to be removed. 42Worms (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that Asqueladd is the one who can explain the mentioned text. --Jotamar (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the citation to Carlos Moreno Hernández (1998):

sino que apenas tiene en cuenta el aspecto geográfico, apuntándose a la confusión a la que el 98 ha contribuido de manera especial durante todo el siglo XX y que es, según pretendemos argumentar aquí, su principal peculiaridad: la de identificar Castilla con el centro mesetario, metafórica fortaleza núcleo del reino de Castilla y, por extensión, de España entera, confundiendo un concepto geográfico determinista del siglo XIX, basado retóricamente en una metonimia -la parte por el todo-, con una entidad histórica, variable en el tiempo y ya desaparecida

"only takes into account the geographical aspect, pointing to the confusion to which the 98 has contributed in a special way throughout the twentieth century and which is, as we intend to argue here, its main peculiarity: that of identifying Castile with the mesetary center, metaphorical core fortress of the kingdom of Castile and, by extension, of the whole of Spain, confusing a deterministic geographical concept of the nineteenth century, rhetorically based on a metonymy -the part for the whole-, with a historical entity, variable in time and already disappeared."

The bit above is important, insightful and I see no reason to remove the idea from the lead section. The underlying idea that the 19th-20th century idea of Castile was constructed as the confusion between two disparate concepts (a "defunct polity" with a "geographical unit") is not "dense" nor "obtuse". I can't speak about the inline wording.

Regarding the citation to Carlos Alberto Camazón Linacero (2013):

"La segunda es que Castilla es un proceso abierto de esa acción dialógica de los agentes. Las propuestas de cierre semántico de tal crono-topónimo suelen ser defendidas en la práctica con tesis esencialistas que pretenden cosificar —a menudo contropos que personifican— lo que no existe sino como una forma de la propia acción social. Esta clausura semántica [...] conlleva un intenso debate erudito sobre la imaginada esencia de Castilla, que afecta, principalmente, a límites espaciotemporales y socioculturales, pero también a su articulación con otras patrias". "Respecto a este punto, uno de los temas que siguen candentes en los discursosde los agentes es la relación de Castilla con España".

The second is that Castile is an open process of this dialogical action of the agents. The proposals for semantic closure of such a chrono-toponym are usually defended in practice with essentialist theses that seek to reify -often contropos that personify- what does not exist except as a form of social action itself. This semantic closure [...] entails an intense scholarly debate on the imagined essence of Castile, which affects, mainly, spatio-temporal and socio-cultural limits, but also its articulation with other homelands.” “Regarding this point, one of the topics that remain hot in the discourses of the agents is the relationship of Castile with Spain.”

Infofar "Castile" is a disputed concept, this is useful. The first part is indeed a bit dense. The underlying idea of the relationship of the concept "Castile" with the concept "Spain" being a hot topic is not "dense" nor "obtuse". I can't speak about the inline wording. The underlying idea that the concept of Castile is often constructed in opposition to it by those who see themselves as non-Castilians (Castile as the centre, "oppresor of peripherical peoples" [sic] Camazón Linacero dixit) is insightful and I can't see it as particularly challenging. I can't speak about the inline wording.

Desde los años veinte del siglo XIX, historiadores, literatos y otros intelectuales, junto a políticos que en ocasionestambién pertenecían a las anteriores categorías, han venido afirmando, matizando onegando la centralidad e, incluso, la «maternidad» de la primera con respecto de la segunda mediante argumentos que han fluido hacia discursos no académicos.

Since the twenties of the nineteenth century, historians, writers and other intellectuals, together with politicians who sometimes also belonged to the former categories, have been affirming, qualifying and refuting the centrality and even the “motherhood” of the former with respect to the latter through arguments that have flowed into non-academic discourses.

The underlying idea that the aforementioned relationship is historically polluted by non-scholar discourses is not obtuse either, although perhaps it is not pressing information vis-à-vis the lead. I can't speak about the inline wording.

We can also remove the unsourced body (which is bonafide original research and/or redundant content and/or weasel wording) and stick to a stub.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]