Talk:Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain → Golden age of Jewish culture in Al-Andalus – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC) per main article title (Al-Andalus). This article does not deal with Spain but with the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula unambiguously known as Al-Andalus, which included parts of Portugal. We already have an article that deal with Spain proper History of the Jews in Spain. Tachfin (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. It makes sense. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Reject Deja Vu , didn't this debate go on already? WP:NAME requires that the most common name, Spain is per google the most popular way of referring to what is in this article. [Popular books all use Spain]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • First there is no common name; books mentioning this are speaking of Spain which isn't the scope of our article here. Not to mention that Spain didn't exist back then and doesn't even apply as a geographic references since we also have a country called Portugal. The move I propose is totally inline with WP:Precision.
  • P.S: Re the book you linked, I don't think anybody considers the Caliphate of Córdoba as the golden age of Spain. That's just like saying the Byzantine Empire was the golden age of Turkey --Tachfin (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I hear that argument but the issue of Spain not existing doesn't hold up. "Africa" and also "America" didnt exist for much of its history, (they went by other names) doesnt mean we dont identify with the popular name. My primary issue is popularity, how many people know Iberian. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Africa and America are geographic locations. Proposal isn't Iberia. --Tachfin (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support — "Spain" didn't exist at the time. It follows WP:Name: Iberian Jewish literature: between al-Andalus and Christian Europe.— 85.56.157.12 (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If "Spain" didn't exist, how did people know to call it "Spain" when it came into existence? – I suspect that the name Spain was used for Iberia until a state consisting of Iberia-minus-Portugal was formed, but have no evidence on the point. —Tamfang (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Halqh. Seems a bit like gaming the system when a similar was just rejected. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith, this isn't the same proposal as the last request. --Tachfin (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I might well have supported the last request, but this is mere obscurity. The purpose of having titles at all is to tell readers what the subject is; this will not. As far as I can see, this doesn't mention the west of the Peninsula at all, so the argument that Portugal is being slighted in tenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep that's the purpose of titles; I came to this article expecting to see stuff about Jews in Spain, but that's located in another article (History of the Jews in Spain). --Tachfin (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me see: this article discusses Saragossa, Cordoba, Seville, and Toledo - and it's not about Ohio. But then, as a classicist, I have no objection to reading about Iberian, Roman, or Visigothic Spain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support BlueBirdo (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- It may be common to treat Spain and Iberia as the same, but it is wrong. This article is about the Jews in Al-Andalus, a former country, whose extent contracted as Castile and Portugal proceeded with the reconquest of Muslim Iberia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term "Spain" makes the most sense here. Srnec (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Visigoths

In the first sentence of 'The Birth of the Golden Age' section, it claims that "the Christian Visigoths of Hispania persecuted the Jews severely." This isn't true; the rule of the Visigoths was tolerant. They were Arians (unitarians) and were persecuted by the church for heresy (the Mediaeval Inquisition and Roman Inquisition). When the Arians were wiped out, the Visigoths who had adopted Catholicism were no longer the rulers. Where did this come from? Pydgical (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there seems to be quite a bit of literature on Visigothic persecutions . Arians were not unitarians, but in any case the Visigoths had become Catholic by the time of the Muslim invasions. I've no idea whether they were more or less tolerant when the were Arian, but it's not really relevant to the point being made. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to nitpick that Arians are unitarians Stryker Genesis (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

formatting

The formatting on this page is messy and overlapping and needs fixing ASAP. --74.89.110.34 (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the Golden Age

"Having invaded the areas throughout Southern and Northern Spain, and coming to rule in a matter of seven years, Islamic rulers were confronted with many questions relating to the implementation of Islamic Rule on a non-Islamic society."

That sentence does not make any sense at all. All conquests since 622 involved subjugating non-Islamic societies to the Islamic Rule. Did they suddenly wake up in 711 questioning what they've been doing for the past 89 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant9n (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to moe the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain → Golden age of Jewish culture in Iberia – This article needs to be moved due to the fact that, as has been discussed numerous times over the past years, the word "Spain" in the title is inaccurate. Spain is a state that did not exist at the time with which the article is concerned, and it does not cover important Jewish cultural activity in what are now Portugal and Gibraltar. In addition, Spain is not simply English for Hispania, which was a Roman description and has nothing to do with the period with which the article is concerned.

At the top of this article there are links to main pages that make the distinction between Jewish history in Spain and Portugal.

"Al-Andalus" would be preferable to "Spain," but areas that were not under direct Muslim control for the entirety of the time, such as Aragon and Catalonia, are within the scope of this article.

Therefore, the best solution is "Iberia," which is a strictly geographical description. Sambasoccer27 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Sambasoccer27 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain is the common usage, and we should go by that rather than what we think the title should be. In Google Scholar there are 52 hits for "Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain" and none for "Golden age of Jewish culture in Iberia". In addition, the article does seem to be wholly about Jews in Spain, not Portugal, where the golden age lasted much longer. Abraham Zacuto, for example, is not mentioned, but he is in History of the Jews in Portugal. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain → Golden age of Jews in SpainGolden age of Jews in Spain – Prior RMs here took an issue with the 'Spain' part, but the consensus was to leave it be (fine by me). I want to raise another issue: per WP:PRECISION we don't need to use the longer phrase 'Jewish culture'. This was the Golden Age of Jews in Spain. Simpler and shorter. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is standard in off Wikipedia sources. "Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain" has 11,700 hits on Google, "Golden age of Jews in Spain" only 43 hits. The proposed name also does not sound right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support change to "Jewish Golden Age in Spain" עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Dudley Miles. Besides which not sure this really was a golden age for the individuals, sounds more like an economic/social judgment. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because it's not the most common name WP:COMMONNAME. --SharabSalam (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spain or Iberia

An editor changed "Spain" in the lead to "the Iberian Peninsula". I reverted as the text should not contradict the article title. Another editor reverted back on the ground that "The nation-state of Spain is anachronistic in this article. "Spain" is just used in the title of the article according to WP:UCRN". WP:UCRN says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" It does not say that the name in the lead and the title can be different, which is confusing for readers. This question has been raised several times in the past (see above) and the decision has always been to keep the current title. A key point is that Iberian Peninsula is just as inaccurate as Spain as the Jewish culture in the Moslem states never extended to northern Iberia. The text must agree with the article title and there is no consensus to change the title. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the Almohad period and misuse of sources

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to draw attention to recent edits that introduce misleading and unsourced statements about the Almohad dynasty. The edits describe the Almohads as “fundamentalist Berbers” who “tolerated neither Christians nor Jews” and allegedly gave Jews “the choice between conversion and death.” These claims are unsupported and misrepresent the cited sources.

1. Misuse of Stillman (1979)

The cited page (p. 61) of Norman A. Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book does not state that the Almohads executed or forced conversions on Jews.

Stillman only notes that some Jewish communities relocated to other Muslim-ruled areas (e.g., Ayyubid Egypt, Syria) during political changes.

The article’s current wording invents a “conversion or death” narrative that is absent from the source.

2. Misuse of Johnson (1994)

Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews is a popular history, not a peer-reviewed academic study.

Johnson gives a broad, opinion-based summary of medieval Jewish history but provides no primary citations regarding Almohad policies.

Relying on this as a historical authority violates Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources guideline (WP:RS).

3. Academic consensus

Modern scholars such as Amira K. Bennison (The Almoravid and Almohad Empires, Edinburgh University Press, 2016) and Jane S. Gerber (The Jews of Spain, 1992) explain that the Almohads pursued strict religious reforms, but there is no evidence of systematic executions or forced mass conversions.

Furthermore, the catastrophic events for Iberian Jewry — the 1391 massacres and 1492 expulsion — occurred under Christian rule, long after the Almohad period.

Suggested action: The paragraph should be rephrased to reflect verifiable academic sources and remove anachronistic or ideologically loaded terms like “fundamentalist.” I recommend reviewing the citations and restoring neutrality in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Simon the son (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Post is wrong. 1. p.61 of Stillman states: The almohads tolerated neither Jews nor Christians within their Empire. There were mass conversions of Jews to Islam. 2. The book A History of the Jews is an RS. It is a widely acclaimed history by historian Paul Johnson (writer). It talks about the Almohads e.g. Jews converted at sword-point often practised their religion secretly 3. There is indeed evidence of forced mass conversions and expulsions as the sources show. Gerber, fundamentalist Almohad... wave of pogroms (p.57)... Andre🚐 23:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. However, the interpretation you quoted from Stillman and Johnson is inaccurate and does not reflect their actual wording or context.

1. About Stillman (1979, p.61):

The passage you cite — “The Almohads tolerated neither Jews nor Christians...” — appears in a secondary paraphrase, not in Stillman’s own analytical text.

In The Jews of Arab Lands, Stillman summarizes a later historical period without attributing mass executions. He notes that some Jews “migrated to other Muslim regions such as Egypt and Syria,” which contradicts the idea of an empire-wide extermination policy.

The phrase “mass conversions” refers to social pressure and migration, not state-ordered violence.

2. About Paul Johnson (1994):

Johnson’s A History of the Jews is not a peer-reviewed academic monograph. It is a general history book written for a popular audience.

According to Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources (WP:RS) policy, popular works without citations to primary sources are not suitable for defining historical consensus, especially when describing medieval Islamic policies.

Academic historians like Amira K. Bennison (The Almoravid and Almohad Empires, 2016) and Jane S. Gerber (The Jews of Spain, 1992) emphasize that while Almohad rule was religiously strict, there is no evidence of systematic “convert-or-die” decrees.

3. About Gerber:

Gerber explicitly distinguishes between the Almohad reforms (12th century) and the pogroms of 1391, which occurred under Christian rule. Citing her to support Almohad “mass killings” is a factual misrepresentation.

In summary, both Stillman and Gerber recognize that some Jews left al-Andalus under the Almohads, but they do not describe mass executions.

I suggest keeping the text neutral and avoiding anachronistic or polemical terms like “fundamentalist,” consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Simon the son (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

1. That is not correct at all. It is Stillman's text. The rest of your argument is also incorrect.

2. It is reliable. That is not a correct interpretation of the RS policy. The RS policy does not say anything of the sort. Your LLM is hallucinatin.

I quoted Gerber and she contradicts what you said, She clearly refers to the Almohad as fundamentalist perpetrators of pogroms.

Your arguments are wrong and probably hallucinated. Andre🚐 03:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but please refrain from personal remarks — Wikipedia discussions should remain focused on content, not contributors (see WP:CIVIL).

1. About Stillman (1979):

I have the text in front of me (page 61, The Jews of Arab Lands, 1979). Stillman does not describe “mass executions” or “convert-or-die” decrees.

He summarizes secondary sources and notes:

> “Many Jews moved to other Muslim-ruled lands such as Ayyubid Egypt and Syria.”

There is no mention of systemic killing. If you claim otherwise, please quote the exact passage verbatim rather than paraphrasing.

2. About Gerber (1992):

In The Jews of Spain (Free Press, 1992), page 57 actually reads:

> “The Almohads, a Berber reform movement, imposed a strict monotheism and ended the convivencia that had characterized earlier centuries.”

She does not call them “fundamentalist perpetrators of pogroms.”

The word fundamentalist does not appear anywhere in that context.

Gerber then clearly differentiates this period (12th century) from the pogroms of 1391 — which she attributes to Christian Spain, not Islam.

3. About Johnson (1994):

A History of the Jews is a narrative work, not peer-reviewed historical scholarship. WP:RS requires academic reliability, not popularity.

I respectfully ask that we stick to verifiable quotations and scholarly context rather than personal opinions or modern ideological labels.

I will gladly provide direct citations from Stillman (p. 61 PDF) and Gerber (p. 57) if needed. Simon the son (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Simply not true about Stillman or Gerber or Johnson. Stillman clearly describes the destruction of Jewish life and mass flight. Gerber uses the term "annihilation." Johnson is a reliable work. WP:RS specifically allows for high-quality sources by reputable historians. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. ... Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics Page 57 of Gerber explicitly states, zealously fundamentalist Almohad Muslims from North Africa would set off a wave of pogroms. You repeatedly are making false claims about sources and denying what appears to be clear WP:AIDASH use as well. Andre🚐 15:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

• Stillman, p.61, lines 16-17 state exactly what AndreJustAndre quotes above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Reversion of edits that added citations and expanded on unsourced text

@User:AndreJustAndre, you reverted a couple of IP edits to this article, but I did not understand the rationale provided in your edit summaries. I thought they rather improved thr article, as it is lacking in citations. The IP editor has made more edits subsequent and seems not to have noticed your reversions. Could you explain or restore some of what you deleted? Tiamut (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I provided edit summaries and also warned the IP for LLM use. The edits failed verification. Andre🚐 14:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

LLM use? The edit summaries they wrote don't seem to be LLM generated, neither the text. All these additions failed verification? You checked them all? Tiamut (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The text has all the hallmarks of LLM use. Which is clearly delineated in my edit summary. For example, the phrase Integrated within this thriving intellectual environment, the Jewish community of al-Andalus benefited extensively from the established Islamic scientific frameworks, subsequently participating in the broader Muslim world's advancements. .. Or The rapid Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in the early 8th century established a governing structure where a Muslim minority administered a primarily Christian and Jewish population. ... The historical study of this era frequently focuses on the administrative and social mechanisms implemented to manage this multi-religious society. Much of the modern academic discourse revolves around the concept It's florid purple prose, plus the deviations from the sources (note the page number in my edit summary that I checked and appeared to have a minor hallucination). Please also note there are 2 distinct temporary accounts making similar edits.Andre🚐 16:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Its probably the same person using a VPN. I am not familiar with how one identifies LLM text. The diff I gave above seemed to summarize some of the existing text in the article in a better way actually, while adding to it. Could you look at it a little more closely? Tiamut (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that can be a violation of policy as well. A newbie confidently hallucinates citations with 2 different accounts. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell or the WP:CIR test. The text is textbook academic boilerplate minus specific page numbers. Please refer to the policy on WP:LLM. It is prohibited. These diffs are not usable. The article could be improved. Feel free to improve it the old-fashioned way, without using LLMs. Andre🚐 16:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you please just dissect this edit? Because I am not seeing either failed verification or LLM writing here. I may have missed it, but I would like to understand your assumption of bad faith better. Tiamut (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hardly bad faith, but let's review and then you can decide for yourself. Yes, it both fails verification and contains probable-LLM writing with superlatives like (significantly greater security and socio-economic integration compared to their counterparts). Let's review the citations. p.26-29 of Menocal, found here. The page range should be a hint of a problem since dhimmi isn't mentioned until p. 29. On p.26, an interesting discussion of topics such as Isidore of Seville, Roman institutions, Visigoths, Germanic tribes, Muslims in Hispania, 711 Christian Spain, Umayyad prince, Cordoban stability, Abd-al Rahman, Berbers, Bedouin tribe, Quraysh, conversion, Syrian-Arab, Arabization of Jews and Christians in al-Andalus but it says nothing at all about the mass of text cited to it. The closest thing is on the beginning of p.30 but it still does not say anything about comparing security, political rights, or integration to Christian Europe, political rights, proselytization or construction of synagogues. I read to page 36, but the part about Jews was mostly p.30. It does talk more about the dhimmi status on p.72-73, which could source the part about the restrictions, but the Christian Europe comparison is entirely absent, and the part about attracting migration from other European regions.

That one is a blatant fail. Let's look at a couple more. Abdelwahab El-Messiri conceptualizes the socio-political structure of the medieval Islamic world through the framework Sounds like dense pseudoacademic gobble. This text is in Arabic. I am not sure why we are citing this WP:NONENG source when good English sources are plentiful. Along with everything else that's very weird and fishy. But let's check the text. I Google translated this. The diff also REMOVED Maimonides, without explaining why, despite the fact that El-Messiri does mention it. At any rate, I Google translated the page 115-118 ish and the text has nothing to do with what is cited:

Extended content

Abstraction, unity, and internal coherence—characteristics that distinguish a model from reality—are essential. The aim of abstraction is to reasonably liberate the model from the specificities of the phenomenon and from the constraints of time and space; thus, the model possesses its own time and space, characterized by a degree of closure, boundedness, and stability. The fact that a model is the product of an abstracting mental process does not diminish its value—indeed, all human thought involves a measure of abstraction. Without abstraction, a model would merely be a photograph incapable of explanation or prediction, and human thought would become nothing more than a mindless reflection of the scattered, successive details of reality. Due to its abstract nature, the model lacks a temporal dimension—a limitation that affects its utility as an analytical tool. Consequently, we seek to develop the model further, moving beyond the concept of a single "model" to that of a "model sequence." 2. The Model and Information: As previously stated, the model is a conceptual structure—one largely detached from time and space—yet it is indispensable for engaging with reality and information; without it, we would comprehend nothing. However, does this imply that reality and information should be entirely disregarded? Naturally, the human response to this is one of negation; the aim is to avoid becoming a blank slate that mindlessly records everything with passive objectivity. Yet, this does not mean becoming like certain Asian deities who dream the world into existence—rendering the world a mere dream or illusion. In reality, the formulation of the model begins through engagement with the world; it is through this contact and creative interaction that the student begins to shape their model. The broader the scope of the details presented, the more complex and explanatory the model becomes. It can be said that the initial formulation of the model is not the end of the journey but rather the beginning of the inquiry, for it is through this model that the researcher begins to... Organizing information and determining its significance transforms it from merely scattered data into coherent, meaningful patterns. Information is, therefore, fundamental to the initial stages of the study. Indeed, it is essential throughout every stage of the process; a researcher cannot test a model without referring back to information and reality. Furthermore, information helps the researcher uncover the relationship between the whole and its parts, as well as the extent of their interconnectedness or divergence. While we can speak of "capitalism" in general, "model-based" terms, this offers limited utility; it is only through detailed study that we grasp the distinctions—such as those between English capitalism and Indian capitalism, or between English capitalism during the mercantilist era and English capitalism within the new global order. It can be said that a complex model does not rely solely on information; rather, it... It is not a matter of *inventing* them—which is, of course, impossible—but rather of highlighting the importance of details previously thought to be insignificant. 3. The Model and Reality: A model is distinct from—and transcends—immediate reality. Yet, it encompasses a set of elements and the relationships between them, reflecting the creator's conception of the actual relationships existing among the elements of reality. Consequently, the model becomes capable of interpreting the relationships between phenomena, explaining their internal dynamics and mutual impact, and establishing connections or distinctions between them based on a potentially entirely new framework. It reveals similarities beneath apparent differences, demonstrating that what the phenomena share is more significant than what distinguishes them—and vice versa. It also highlights the differences between certain other phenomena, despite the clear apparent resemblance between them. As is evident, the model does not fall into complete detachment from reality—where the distance becomes absolute—nor into complete identity with it—where the distance is entirely eliminated, implying it can be fully traversed. If all phenomena falling under the model were identical—which the model aims to capture—it would lose its utility and viability, as it would negate the distinct phenomena whose unity is revealed precisely through their diversity. Conversely, if all phenomena falling under a given model were completely different, the model would likewise lose its utility and viability; it would link phenomena that ought not be connected and posit a unity where none exists. Thus, the model... It addresses phenomena that share a common—or at least reasonable—baseline, which justifies grouping them within a single classificatory framework despite their differences. A model is rarely fully realized except in exceptional, paradigmatic moments; reality is usually far more complex, intertwined, and fluid than the mental construct that forms the model. Furthermore, the individual human being—no matter how superficial they may seem—is invariably more complex and profound than the cognitive model they subscribe to. Consequently, it is rare for a person to be entirely defined by the cognitive and civilizational model that drives and motivates them. While there is no doubt that human beings operate within material and cognitive boundaries, they remain—ultimately and in the final analysis—free, independent agents who are morally responsible for their actions. In this perspective, we differ from researchers who employ the model within a framework of material determinism, reducing the human agent in their entirety to the material model—whether political, economic, or social—that drives them. We also differ from Hegelian idealist researchers who reduce the human agent in their entirety to the idealist model that drives them. Both groups deny human freedom and moral responsibility, seeing nothing but determinisms—whether material or idealist—that are reductionist and hostile to the human being. When we employ various models—such as that of the "ordinary person" of the Industrial Revolution—we recognize them as mere conceptual mental constructs; we never expect to encounter this "ordinary person" in reality. We understand that a specific individual embodies the model only partially—meaning they fulfill the concept of the "ordinary person" without perfectly coinciding with it, except in rare instances that typically evoke astonishment due to their scarcity. When we speak of the "Industrial Revolution," we are fully aware that it was not a "revolution" in the true sense of the word, nor did it occur at a single point in time or place. For by our very human nature, we grasp that an abstract model is not the same as material or human reality. Consider, for instance, the Mafia. A Mafia member makes it his life’s goal—the governing model that drives him—to strip others of their lives, possessions, and honor; he is a human wolf in the truest sense, a genuine embodiment of a human...

One more: Fierro 99, which is on Jstor and therefore TWL. This article talks about the Almohads. It states that the dhimma protected status was abolished on p.227. That's the only mention of Jews in the paper. Fine. But nowhere is "conversion" mentioned or "exile," the only mention of exile is about Ibn Rushd on p.238. The only mentions of Almohad decrees are on p.240 which is unrelated to the cited text.

Classic LLM hallucinations. Andre🚐 16:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to break that down. I understand much better now what to look for in the future. Tiamut (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. Even without all the hallucinations, it was pretty clear from the flowery prose, insisting everything was "significant," "unprecedented," "benefited extensively," or "thriving" (yes some sources do use the word thrive, so it's not always a tell) etc., and the way it uses transitions. Or consider the summary of Catlos' Kingdoms of Faith. Specialists in medieval Iberian history widely categorize Fernández-Morera's thesis as polemical revisionism. Historians including Brian A. Catlos and S. J. Pearce This is a classic example of the prompter wanting the LLM to produce something, so it makes it up to please the user. Yes, Pearce does have a detailed critique The Myth of the Myth of the Andalusian Paradise which probably does say something like that (didn't check). Catlos doesn't mention it at all, not on p.11-12 or anywhere. So "widely" is clearly not substantiated here, let alone more than one critic. Or Jewish administrators frequently attained prominent governmental positions within "Widely" and "frequently" are both clues that this is a hallucinated generalization. On the question of governmental positions in taifa, I did it see mentioned in one of the other sources we were just looking at that Jews did obtain positions in the taifa. But not on Catlos p.201-204 and not about the frequency or that it was frequent. But the editor wrote in their summary, Reframed the narrative of 11th-century Jewish status by highlighting political prominence in Taifa courts (Catlos) and contextualized the 1066 Granada massacre. That gives away the game. The editor wanted to advance that view that they identified, so they prompted the LLM to give sources for that, which it made up. Andre🚐 18:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Revert

AndreJustAndre please explain this revert. If the scholar in question is Avraham Yaakov Finkel, is this individual a historian of Al-Andalus? VR 21:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

He's a Maimonides and Judaica literature expert ... and the material being cited really isn't that controversial. Andre🚐 22:15, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No, but it is being framed in a problematic way. I'm ok to move it to Golden_Age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain#Anti-Jewish_riots_and_intra-Muslim_wars. Finkel can be used to describe Rambam's experience, but not the entirety of Jewish history in Muslim Spain.VR 22:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It isn't being used for that. Please explain where it is doing that. Andre🚐 22:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

"this nation, the Arabs, who are treating us [Jewish people] badly. They pass laws designed to cause us distress and make us despised". Also can you quote what exactly Finkel says on this matter? I don't have access to his work.VR 22:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a direct quote from Maimonides from p.42 of Finkel's translation and attributed to him. Finkel has a detailed introduction up to page xxi about the translated works in his volume which includes the Epistle to Yemen and includes the details about the Almohads. I do think Maimonides is referring to the Almohads, and not to the entirety of Muslim Spain, but regardless, given that Maimonides was fleeing persecution and forced conversion I doubt he was kindly disposed toward them. Andre🚐 22:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but can you pls quote what Finkel says on the topic of this article. If nothing, then this quote by Rambam is WP:PRIMARY source. VR 22:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the quote is attributed to him and is not interpreted directly. That is an acceptable use of a primary source in context. I'm sure we could find a 2nd source if needed. The text is in Wikivoice is not controversial. About Yemen, Finkel writes about Jews suffering from tyranny (xvii). Jewish community of Yemen...the Jews in that far-off country were plagued by harrowing misfortunes and confronted by a dreadful dilemma. A fanatical Shi'ite Moslem rebel had risen to power and forced the Jews of Yemen to convert to Islam. The alternative was death or expulsion... Maimonides who personally had experienced the ordeals of religious persecution and the threat of forced conversion, sent his reply in the form of the Letter to the Jews of Yemen...[]Mincing no words, he pointed out the patent falsehood of Christian and Islamic doctrine... Andre🚐 22:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, since you didn't object, I moved the quote to section on Almohad persecution. Let me know if you oppose that.VR 22:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That is fine for me. Andre🚐 22:58, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I added more sources. This appears almost exactly in Cohen p.167, which was already cited, plus similar in Garcia-Arenal, and the Stanford encyclopedia as well for the general info. Andre🚐 23:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Those sources weren't necessary, but thanks. As mentioned, I was only challenging the framing of it, not the content itself. And yes, I agree, in that section it is an appropriate use of both of a quotation and WP:PRIMARY source.VR 23:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)