Talk:Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain/Archive 1

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain
Some linkable names and cities would save this entry from its orphan status. Wetman 05:47, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I agree about the bias. Why is it necessary to sew the seeds of hatred against Muslims at every turn? I speak as a christian of Jewish descent. Even if there were two massacres, that still leaves a lot of peace and tolerance from Muslims toward Jews over the other eight hundred years of Moorish rule. Look around Jerusalem at the number of ancient churches and synagogues, still in use after 1500 years of Muslim rule and ask yourself, why are there no ancient synagogues or mosques still in use in Cordoba? Reason: they were cleaned out by Christians within a hundred years of their conquest. There is one synagogue the tourists all go to n Cordoba which stands in mute testimony to Christian persecution of both other religions.

The page is clearly loaded with Bias. According to this article, the Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain was in fact a time of torture and persecution. I'm reasonably sure there are some factual errors to boot, but I'll look into that more and come back to it. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this article even encyclopaedic? The very title is extremely dubious.  I'm sorry, but wasn't the whole Reconquista a good thing, for the people of Europe as much as the French leaving Indochina to its native inhabitants?  Yeah right...like a Golden Age of Ottoman Greece?  I sincerely propose that this be put up for VFD.  What say thee, Irishpunktom?  I have NEVER heard or read of this stuff before.  TheUnforgiven 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this article were to be believed, then the "Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain" was in fact a time when Jewish Culture was violently oppressed. This seems like an abusurdity, when all that is wrong with this is that it badly suffers from a POV problem. Is there a grouping here that want it to appear as though every Jewish community were victims of Prejudice everywhere till the Advent of the state of Israel? The book I'm reading on Jewish history by Edith Chachanoff tries to paint that picture, which fortunetly I know to be grossly inaccuarate.  I'm hoping such warped opinions on millennia of history are not influencing articles here. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you able to point out any factual errors?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Reread what I've already said and make sense of that please. TheUnforgiven 05:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you asking me to "make sense" of the fact that you "have NEVER heard or read of this stuff before"? After seeing some of your edits, that makes sense.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA TheUnforgiven 05:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand this discussion. It is a fact that most Jews refer to that time of history as the Golden Time in Spain. When they began calling it that, and why, and which scholars now cast doubt on that -- these are all good questions and the answers should be added to the article. To nominate this for deletion is absurd. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The article should mention more of the development of Jewish culture. The part on persecution overcasts the rest. --Error 23:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Slr is right. If the title strikes you as POV, do a request for page move. JFW | T@lk  23:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is NOT violating NPOV, it is just incomplete, as most Wikipedia articles are. I agree it is woefully incomplete so lets try to get people to work on it. Adding an NPOV tag is meaningless and diverts attention from the real issue, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The article's title is worsely POV than ever before...OMFG! TheUnforgiven 23:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about that. Do you want to redirect the redirect? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about Judeo-Islamic Spain? TheUnforgiven 00:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't find a worse title than "Judeo-Islamic Spain" for this article. I think the current title is appropriate. I also agree with previous criticisms about "Golden age being an age of persecution and torture". Though, I'd like to comment on Bernard Lewis' argument about  "Islamic tolerance". The tolerance against Jews and Christians (the people of the Book) stems from Qur'an and is not novel. The term "tolerance" may have appeared in Islamic writing recently, but it is simply the modern terming of an Islamic value. The question here is not whether "Islamic apologists" have started to use this term recently, but it is whether Muslims have treated Jews and Christians well relative to contemporary practice by others.

Title
Golden age of culture in Spain cannot be the title for this page. The article about Jews in Al-Andalus should be moved elsewhere and Golden age of culture in Spain should point to Spanish Golden Century, that is another concept. --Error 01:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The title should be The Golden Age of Spain because this is how Jews, Muslims, and Spanish historians refer to it. There are many books on "the Golden Age of Spain," I don't know any that are specifically "The Golden age of Jewish Culture in Spain" or "The Golden Age of Culture in Spain." As I have said all along, the problem with this article is not that it is POV or that the title is wrong (well, it is wrong now; the title "The golden age of Spain" would not be wrong); the problem is that this article is woefully undeveloped. In the old days, we used to call things like this "stubs" and they were seen not as candidates for deletion but rather invitations to contributors. There really is a body of research out there on "the golden age of Spain." Let's get this title right, and then either hope that among Wikipedians there are those who have actually done research on the Golden Age, or who are willing to do the research. "The Golden Age of Spain" gets 4,460 google hits; "the golden age of Jewish culture" gets only 421 hits (many of them pages that borrow content from Wikipedia); "The golden age of culture in Spain" gets no hits; "Spanish Golden Century" gets only 141 hits mdash; but this refers to the seventeenth century &mdash which is very different from "The golden age in Spain" Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, much of what you write here could be cut and pasted into the article to its advantage. Better there than here on the Talk page. Paul B 00:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Read some of those 4,460 Google hits on "The Golden Age of Spain". They don't refer to to the period covered in this article. This artiucle is specifically about Jewish culture and experience. It should indicate that fact in the title. Paul B 10:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Golden age spain: The first 4 items are about the 1500s and 1600s. Name it Golden age of Medieval Spain or The Spain of the three cultures. --Error 03:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have Spanish Golden Age about the culture of the 1500s and 1600s. --Error 03:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. If there was a specifically "Jewish" Spanish golden age then there should be a separate article about this Jewish Golden Age is Spain, not one called "Golden Age of culture in Spain". If the article is about the experience of Jews during the Spanish Golden Age, then it really should be added as a section to the Spanish Golden Age article. If it's about the persecution of Jews in post-Unified Spanish culture, then surely it should be called something like "Anti-Semitism during the Spanish Golden Age", and linked to the Anti-Semitism and Spanish Golden Age articles. However, this article clearly does not refer to the "normal" Spanish Golden Age, but to the period of Arab/Muslim control of Spain some centuries earlier. If some historians have labelled this period the Jewish Golden Age in Spain, then we need to know who has called it this. Is it a well established concept, or just a rhetorical term used to counter the positive implications of the term "Spanish Golden Age" for the Christianised period? Paul B 10:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reverted to the earlier title, added this article to the "see also" section in Spanish Golden Age, and added a para referring to it in Siglo de Oro. I've also added a disambiguation tag at the top. Paul B 13:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Paul, I have no problem with this. But to be clear (to others): this refers to a period when Spain was under Mulim rule; it was called "the Golden Age" because of a general flowering of knowledge, thanks in part to the Mulsim access to classical Greek literature (e.g. Aristotle, of whom Christian Europe at the time knew nothing). This was a "golden age" for Jews because, thanks to the tolerant policies of the Muslim authorities, and thanks to the general support for cultural creativity and of philosophical and scientific inquiry, Jewish scholars and poets lik Rambam and Ibn Gabirol flourished, marking one of the high-points in Jewish life, maybe the high point, between the end of the Amoraim (6th century) and the Enlightenment (18th century). But it would not have been a golden age for Jews were it not also a golden age for Muslims as well. Apparently, some scholars now question just how great a time this was, and some have claimed there is evidence of oppression. The article should cover these scholarly debates. But no matter what the debates, Jews still refer to it as "the Golden Age in Spain" and all Jews know that it refers to the time of Rambam and Ibn Gabirol. So -- Paul's new title is fine by me, and the article does not violate NPOV, it is simply in need of a lot more work. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Till that work appears, the NPOV tag should remain, because it is badly affected by apprent bias, wheter intentional or otherwise. As it is we have a small sentence or some on the "Golden Age", and a lot more written on presecution and the end of this Golden age.  --Irishpunktom\talk 20:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Afaik, an NPOV tag does not mean the same as a "Not Very Good Article" tag. You say the article is "biassed", but how? Who or what is it biassed against? Five days ago you said it was "clearly loaded with bias", but when asked to say what the bias was you did not reply. You still haven't. What are these "factual errors" you mentioned earlier? It's not appropriate to put an NPOV tag on an article because it could be improved. Cleanup, yes. I think you are right that it's weirdly negative for an account of a "Golden Age". We need more on the achievements of the era. Paul B 10:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Afaik? I know what the NPOV tag is for, and this article warrants it. it is heavily biased with regard to it's wording as mentioned above. There was never a , nor even a  tag here, and thus no need for me to present evidence of factual innaccuracies, however just for you.. Well, one glaringly obvious one is the inclusion of the word Spain in the title. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * afaik = "as far as I know". You still have not said who or what it is biassed against (or for). And apparently you think you have the right to say that there are factual inaccuracies, but not what they are. How strange. And it wasn't 'just for me'. Remember Humus_sapiens? Despite the fact that this is about what went on in Spain, it is "glaringly obvious" that the use of the word Spain in the title is wrong? How odd. Should it be Iberia then? I think that's rather pedantic. We have to use the most intelligable, common and establishd terms. Yes, the rather grudging tone of the article is, I think, inappropriate. I wish I were qualified myself to add more material on the achievements of the era. Paul B 23:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
Okay, I waded in and tried to answer some of the issues on this page by directly answering some of the questions about the Golden Age (was it a Golden Age? when did it start? when did it end? why?) with some scholarly source.s Let me know your thoughts. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * An amazing improvement! I may be able to add some older historical stuff.  Unfortunately, I am not familiar with any of the current history or revisionist history, which should be developed.  Still, a great improvement Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Spain!!?? Let me laugh!
This article has several instances of Spanish-centered POV, beggining with the title! The Iberian peninsula or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512; only in 1874 was the name Spain changed into singular in the Bourbon monarchical titulary, before that they spoke of "the Spains"), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors, who called it Al Andalus. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should not emply that Spain is Iberia! The Ogre 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The title follows standard usage, with is "the golden age in Spain". Yes, it's true that the modern nation of Spain did not exist at this time, but the word "Spain" is just an Anglicised version of "Hispania", which described the whole of the peninsula. Paul B 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not an acceptable answer. Standard use in English for Blacks some time ago was Negro or Nigger... and it's nor acceptable! Furthermore, the link in the article is for Spain, not Hispania or the Iberian Peninsula. That is why the article "Moorish Spain" is now called Al Andalus! And Umayyad Conquest of Iberia is not called "Umayyad Conquest of Spain"! And Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula is not called "Timeline of the Muslim presence in Spain"! As it is said in the article Hispania "To substitute Spanish for Iberian or for Hispanicus is anachronistic and often misleading, since Iberia and Hispania refer not just to modern Spain but to the whole peninsula" - mind you, the Spanish Wikipedia article says exactly the same thing. I propose, in the spirit of collaboration and consensus, to change the name of the article to Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula. What's your say? The Ogre 22:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "nigger" analogy is childish. The word was never standard use, and Negro is just Spanish (or maybe Iberian or Hispanic) for "black", so the claim that it's somehow not acceptable - for being the exact same word in Spanish is totally illogical. Most of this ridiculous offense-finding in perfectly inoffensive words is more about aggressive self-assertion and identity politics than anything else. Words have multiple usages. "India" can mean the mmodern nation or the whole subcontinent in some contexts. Such pettiness destroys prose, creating dead beureaucratic legalese rather than "brilliant prose", but do what you like. Paul B 22:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article has to be changed to "...in the Iberian Peninsula", as it was with similar articles. Why argue about this? Velho 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "negro" analogy (by the way it's Spanish and Portuguese, don't know what you mean by Iberian or Hispanic, there are many Language spoken in the Iberian Peninsula; and "negro" or "nigger" is much more than just "Black"! It's negative, that's why it's unacceptable, not because it, so you say, "is just Spanish ... for "black") was just a way of saying terminology changes over time and discussions. This is not pettiness! It's exactitude and NPOV! How would Scotish and Welsh (and Irish!) people react if people just started calling everyone in the British Isles English? And most of all, it is unaccurate! I'm changing everything. The Ogre 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As intellectual as this conversation is, I hate that it is spoiled by improper English. "Unaccurate" is not a word, and it is impossible to do if it were. Inaccurate is the proper term for this sentence.-OCD Superhero GrammarMan

Done it! The Ogre 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article contains many inaccuracy. Sites like http://www.peacefaq.com/golden.html is not a reliable site at all. Why not use jewishvirtuallibrary.org site, they contain precise details about Golden Age,

"Jews had to wear yellow turban" <- This is not true. Jews had to wear the yellow turban after the Golden Age collapsed, but NOT before. Jews started wearing yellow turban after 1147. Source: JewishVirtualLibrary,

abraham zacuto missing from the notable figures section

Visigoths' persecution of jews?
What exactly did the visigoths do to harm the jews? Was it any different from what they did to any other non-germanic people living in the iberian peninsula? If you consider visigoths anti-semitic how did they become anti-semitic so quickly while only living around the jews for a short period of time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.186.15.200 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Bernard Lewis?
Why is Bernard Lewis, a controversial scholar by many accounts, given a full paragraph quote discussing the Nature of the Golden Age in Spain? That's like giving Noam Chomsky a full paragraph on the Renaissance. The controversy behind whether or not Jews were treated better by Christians or Muslims in Spain should be relegated to a small section at the end of the article. The main body should be about the topic, Golden Age of Jewish culture in Spain. What it is now is less encyclopedic than modern right-wing diatribe. What a shame.


 * I wasn't aware that Chomsky is a scholar of the Renaissance, so I don't get your point. Lewis is ceratinly a scholar of the history of Islamic-Jewish relations. Yes, he can be controversial, but it's a controversial subject and several other writers are also quoted. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my criticism of Lewis' criticism: What really matters is not whether "tolerance" is a recent addition to Islamic writings or it being being used by "Islamic apologists", but it is whether Muslims did treat Jews better than any other contemporary people. History tells us that they did so. Tolerance is a modern terming of an old Islamic tradition that stems from Qur'an and Tasavvuf (Sufism), its mystical interpretation. The Qur'an calls Christians and Jews "the people of the book" and distinguishes them from other "non-believers" and gives them a higher status. During times of peace, there has been very little friction between Muslim rulers and "the people of the book". Some good examples are Muslim Spain and Ottoman Empire during their height. Contemporary Muslim scholars (i.e. Fethullah Gulen) have adopted the term "tolerance" out of necessity, that is to educate their fellow Muslims using modern vocabulary and to communicate Islamic values to the West. I don't know why Lewis have gone astray and messed up his excellent previous scholarship with the books he has written in the past ten years, which have little scholarship but lots of ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe because the idea that Jews had it so much better and were so loved is propagated by Islamists and people who want to make Europe look bad compared to everyone else.

Dhimmis (Non-Muslim who live in peace within Muslim authority) were generaly treated with respect within the Muslim World. They were granted fewer rights then the Muslim, but never in a way that prevent the Dhimmi from living a prosperous life (eg. Dhimmi's are not allowed to join the armed forces). In fact, many jews become a wealthy traders and craftsmans. this was not just happen in Iberian peninsula alone. it happen throughout the Muslim world. The current conflict between Jews and Arabs started quite recently at the end of the WW1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.38.132 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Golden Age?
This is mostly a discussion of politics during this period with little (no?) attention to the actual accomplishments in art, literature, poetry, music, philosophy, science, etc that is usually what evokes the term "Golden Age". Unless this is an attempt merely to say that the political accord itself was the golden age? Please provide documentation on achievements during this time if possible. Thanks! --Michaelrayw2 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing Golden here.
The page reads more like a POV thesis rather than a source of information. The title should be called "Golden Age: Myth or Fact", with the writer apparently heavily in favour of the Myth part. Instead of telling us what happened during this time, the author is attempting to disprove the Golden Age and promote an alternate Point of View. The emphasis should be on presenting the traditional and widely accepted narrative of history and then summarising the alternate views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.30.211.131 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?
"Toleration" hardly constitutes a Golden Age, and the tone of the article itself is generally a bit dubious. It does indeed seem like the whole concept was politically motivated, unless we are to consider countless other periods in history where this or that group was a bit less oppressed than usual "Golden Ages", to say nothing of the incredible success of Jews in modern America being taken for granted. Until someone can produce a long list of the actual accomplishments this age generated - the obvious example being the Spanish Golden Age article - I'd say this article is a mistake. Logos384 (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Title
I have reverted the title. There was an ideologically based move, supported with preposterous comparisons to the use of the word "nigger"! But WP:NAME requires that the most common name be used precisely to avoid such ideological neologisms or claims that the "true" name of some person or event is x, y or z. The common usage refers to the "golden age in Spain" or variants. Unless one can provide evidence that "Golden age in the Iberian peninsula" is commonly or increasingly used in scholarly literature MOS requires that the most common name be used. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Move article

 * 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 concensus to move to new title Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain → Golden Age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula – Current title is quite inaccurate, it excludes Portugal. Jews were living in Al-Andalus, present-day Spain, Portugal and Gibraltar. In addition it doesn't match with similar historical articles (e.g. Timeline of Germanic kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula, Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula). —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternative title could be Golden Age of Jewish culture in Al-Andalus. —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment this discussion section is from 2006. Why are you using it to discuss your move? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No particular reason (moved it downwards). —Jɑυмe (xarrades) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. You are replacing one inaccuracy with another inccuracy.  The range does not cover the Iberian peninsula - the north is not encompassed in this article.  Moreover,,Iberian peninsula is a narrow geographic term that excludes Balearic island and the Narbonne corridor - which just happen to be two of the leading centers of Medieval Jewish culture. Generally speaking, I am comfortable and indeed prefer using "Spain", as a manner of speech to refer roughly to that geographical era (Portugal included), as this is well before the modern country was created (analogously to pre-1860s references to "Germany" or "Italy"). However, as an article title, I can see room for confusion and maybe it does need to be made more precise.  I like al-Andalus a bit better than Iberian pensinsula, since that gives it more accurate precision, but I wonder if that fails on the recognizability front for articles on Jewish culture?  Sepharad does translate to "Spain", after all. Walrasiad (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I partly agree with you... Al-Andalus is the most accurate term here (I wouldn't oppose to use it). However, I think using Spain is less precise than using Iberian Peninsula: the modern term "Spain" doesn't include Portugal.
 * BTW, Sepharad means both Spain and Iberian Peninsula, it is equivalent to Hispania (Latin) or Iberia (Greek). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Agree with Jɑυмe's proposal. The Ogre (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose I like it just the way it is. No term will perfectly hug any topic. Jews in Spain is how most books and scholars refer to this period. So why complicate it. If every wiki article title was picked over we would have excessively long titles just to be specific. Golden age of Jewish Medieval Culture and Philosophy in the Iberian Peninsula under Muslim Rule - to be technical. The change is not needed as it does not cause that much issue in its current state.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:44, 29 November 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.