This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theBaruch Spinoza article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJudaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles onReligion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help usassess and improve articles togood and1.0 standards, or visit thewikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article falls within the scope ofWikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to theNetherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page where you can join the project or contribute to thediscussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
While attributing Dutch citizenship to him may be anachronistic, Spinoza lived his entire life in the Netherlands, spoke Dutch, and his perspective on the surrounding world is inevitably linked to the physical reality he lived in (the streets of Amsterdam and the Hague, and all the figures that walked through them and the institutions they housed).
Maybe a wording like "Dutch-based philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin", or "philosopher or Portuguese-Jewish origin, living in the Netherlands" could do it. They may not sound well but would at least bring a reader's understanding closer to reality.Shoshin000 (talk)14:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph already says he was born in Amsterdam. I think the issue is his nationality or citizenship and place of birth isn't satisfying enough for some people.YourJudge (talk)19:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't a full Dutch citizen since he was non-Protestant. His community retained elements of Iberian culture and language (see below in the article he was taught in Spanish in a religious-segregated school). Also below, the community was instructed by Dutch authorities to police its people more strictly, illustrating that the Jews' presence was out of tolerance not like trying to integrate them into Dutch culture. I think a good compromise is to just say "...a philosopher who was born in the Dutch republic."YourJudge (talk)20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters. We consider him Dutch now, and you can call that anachronistic, but there is nothing objectively wrong with that. We (not us two, but society) decide how we describe him, even if we concede your points. And there are reliable sources that call him Dutch, so that isn't the problem here.
@YourJudge Why a compromise? Almost every source refers to him either as a "Dutch philosopher" or "Dutch Jewish philosopher", which he simply was. Apart from that, your claim that "he wasn't a full Dutch citizen since he was non-Protestant" is simply not true (read for instance "Dutch Jewry: Its History and Secular Culture" by J. Israel), Spinoza had - like all Jews at the time in Amsterdam - Dutch citizenship; I don't know where you are basing your claim of not full Dutch citizenship on?Gybebaggy (talk)22:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)—Gybebaggy (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.[reply]
Sorry, I think I had the facts wrong. We should refer to him as a Dutch philosopher based on Nadler 2018, p. xiii, stating he was a "Dutch intellectual" and since there was no previous consensus established on this talk page. I'll cross out my previous comment. @DavidDijkgraaf @GybebaggyYourJudge (talk)22:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and by the way, not only Nadler, also Popkin and Curley (amongst others) are referring to him as such. For the record, the work by J. Israel and A. Huussen is stating in the chapterThe Legal Position of the Jews the following: "In 1657 the States of Holland and the States General confirmed this fact by publicly declaring the Jews as 'their subjects and inhabitants' (dat die van de voorsz. Joodsche Natie waarlyk zyn Onderdaanen..en ingezetenen dezer vereenigde Nederlanden)." Of course, the legal position is something different than the ethnicity of a person, in that light other arguments can be relevant, perhaps as perWP:ETHNICITY.Gybebaggy (talk)23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)—Gybebaggy (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.[reply]
I just catch up the conversation now. Thank you for tagging me @YourJudge, I can’t thank you enough for the great contributions you have done for Spinoza article since you arrived here. In the past 7 years I’m taking care of this article, the past 3 years or so have been quite peaceful after we have given a series of bans for disruptive editors and their sock puppets. There is a previous consensus not to attribute him any nationally. However, for some reason, the consensus was taken out from the talk page (it’s common to happen to old discussions). Basically, calling him a “Dutch philosopher” is very disputable, as we all know. At Dutch republic Jews didn’t get Dutch citizenship just because they were born there. Of course we can carry on disputing it with changes made at a later time in Dutch Republic, same discussion we have had in the past. Ever since, I am actively checking this article on daily basis, here and there an attempt of disruption starts. And not shocking it always comes from editors with frequent contributions to Dutch related articles and / or editors based in the Netherlands. We know it, because the mess was huge on this article, we are actively getting in touch with Wikipedia administrators when the same kind of edits start, usually we find out sock puppetry. After some year of disruptions, we found a way to identify even the location where the editor is making changes. Administrators have records from the former disruptions based on we have called “the Dutch thing”. There was an editor that we discovered to have 8 different sock puppets, and one of the strategies he used was editing from a different computer located in his university, a few miles from the initial “Dutch thing” disruption started. So the decision was made not to claim any nationality exactly because there was many disruptions based on this. I’d strongly recommend not to start this again. But if anyone is into understanding how much mess trying to claim nationality for a stateless refugee caused to this article, please check the talk page history and the article history. Let’s not forget the very basic fact that Portuguese-Jews and Spanish-Jews after been expelled from their homelands became stateless people with a sort of refugees status in countries like Italy, France or Netherlands. Given how big Spinoza became in the history of critical thought, I of course understand why since the past century Dutch people have tried to claim Dutchness (even building statues) for someone who was in fact just a refugee stateless-born person victim of inquisition. However, I definitely understand and support the Jewish people who don’t accept this and see the “Dutch” claim from the past century as coming from freeloaders trying to inherit the prestige that their rejected stateless-born Jew refugee ended up getting in the Modern world. Not to mention the issues raised in the past discussions we had such as the crypto antisemitism that it is trying to turn a stateless-born Portuguese-Jew refugee into a “Dutch Man” (something that Bento de Spinosa was far away from being). And as you guys can see this is a very deep and difficult issue that we decided to avoid by not taking anyone’s side, making a very straight forward introduction. Ever since, this article has lived its most peaceful time.PepGuardi (talk)05:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PepGuardi A bit rich when you want to make this about the nationality of the editors if you yourself are likely Portuguese. And accusing others of disruptive editing doesn't help the discussion. There are reliable sources that call him Dutch and the only one who objects to the change is you.DavidDijkgraaf (talk)07:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling him a Dutch-Jewish philosopher is the most obvious solution here. Denying his Dutchness his ridiculous at this point, unless you have reliable sources that explicitely deny it.DavidDijkgraaf (talk)10:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dead friend, there is a consensus that was not changed, you reopened the discussion here, and instead of waiting to see what other editors have to say you simply started a edit war on the article, changing a stable version that is there for years. So please, prevent yourself from disruptions and be open to discuss respectfully. There’s no consensus here to change the stable version. You are having the kind of behavior that will lead you to have your account blocked. So please, don’t try to restart disruptions on an article that has been really peaceful for the past years.PepGuardi (talk)16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PepGuardi You are creating an alternative reality. There was never a consensus and as long as I have been watching this page there hasn't been a stable version. Also, it wasn't me who restarted the discussion as you can see if you scroll up.
Thank you PepGuardi for looking after the article for so long. I think you and I most of all would appreciate a renewed consensus. The previous consensus you mentioned can barely qualify since it has disappeared from the talk page and been many years (alsoWP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE). Right now, 3 editors including myself have a reasonable argument versus your reliance on an old consensus. Putting a note next to the first sentence with the sources might be a good idea.
Here are the sources:
Nadler 2018, p. xiii: "Metaphysical and moral philosopher...Dutch intellectual."
Huussen 2002, p. 38: "In 1657 the States of Holland and the States General confirmed this fact by publicly declaring the Jews as 'their subjects and inhabitants'."
Israel 2023, p. 11: "The contrast between Spinoza’s Ibero-Jewish background and the Dutch social context in which he lived...".
Israel 2023, p. 79: "It would be a gross oversimplification to interpret Spinoza’s life and thought as essentially shaped by his family's "Marrano" (Iberian crypto-Jewish New Christian) background in Portugal."
Israel 2023, p. 134: "...in 1615, Abraham [Spinoza's uncle] was viewed by the Dutch Sephardic community with confidence..."
Huussen, Arend H. (2002). "The Legal Position of the Jews in the Dutch Republic c. 1590-1796". In Israel, Jonathan; Salverda, Reinier (eds.).Dutch Jewry: Its History and Secular Culture. The Netherlands:Brill Publishers. pp. 25–42.ISBN978-90-04-50095-2.
Hey @YourJudge it’s always all my pleasure to exchange ideas with you, as by doing so I always learn something with you. That consensus was a way to avoid any disruption and has worked pretty well so far, which is a great achievement having a peaceful wiki article about likely the most controversial philosopher of all times (who I admire so much). I could retake many arguments from past discussions, but I really appreciate your initial thoughts on this. Please, allow me to quote you “He wasn't a full Dutch citizen since he was non-Protestant. His community retained elements of Iberian culture and language (see below in the article he was taught in Spanish in a religious-segregated school). Also below, the community was instructed by Dutch authorities to police its people more strictly, illustrating that the Jews' presence was out of tolerance not like trying to integrate them into Dutch culture.”
This is fully accurate. In practical terms, Jews were not fully Dutch citizens until the French Revolution influence. This is over 100 years after Spinoza death. In 1657, Jews in fact got more rights but declaring them 'their subjects and inhabitants' is more of what we would call nowadays a ‘settlement status’ rather than citizenship. Jewish emancipation in the Netherlands, which finally made them full Dutch citizens, only happened in 1795.
There are many interesting studies about that, but I’d recommend Odette. "The Jewish community in transition: from acceptance to emancipation." Studia Rosenthaliana 30.1 (1996)
@PepGuardi Your own judgement is not relevant here. This discussion should be about the secondary sources. We have secondary sources that describe him as a Dutch philosopher and none who dispute it.
On what basis are you refusing to change the article at this point and what justifies that his Portuguese origin is in the first sentence and not the place were he was born and spent his whole life?
I will kindly ask you to stop your disrespectful tone tone towards my opinions.
secondly, be aware of theWP:CANVASS guideline andWP:VOTESTACKING, pinging people that were not involved organically in the discussion may have no effect on the possibility of a consensus since it may be consideredVOTESTACKING. I let a formal notice on your talk page about it.
I don’t believe I have been disrespectful. In fact, you were the one who made various threats and accusations. Furthermore, it is entirely appropriate to ping editors who have participated in the discussion.
According toWP:ETHNICITY the place were Spinoza permanently lived should be in the first paragraph. To quote it:this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable.
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
Hello @DavidDijkgraaf, I think we might have been misunderstanding your claim. I have just checked the article history and I realized that your initial edition was this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Spinoza&oldid=1271335047) and you leave the following comment: “This problem is gonna keep coming up and is easily solved by just stating where he was born”. So I guess you’re defending this specific mention to be included in the new version of a possible new consensus, is this right? If so, I think we can achieve a new consensus using this new intro that you proposed.PepGuardi (talk)21:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I proposed that. I take that wording back; it's awkward and probably doesn't conform toMOS:FIRST. You should agree with the other editors and myself to just say "was a Dutch" or "was a Dutch Jewish" philosopher.YourJudge (talk)22:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PepGuardi That was a compromise I was initially willing to accept, but after further reading and familiarizing myself with the guidelines, I'm reconsidering. The original wording, was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardi origin, was fine.
The original wording was fine with me as well, I didn't understand why it needed to be changed. However, it is againstWP:ETHNICITY and also slightly weird, because no-one is referred to as such. My preference is therefore still "Dutch or Dutch-Jewish philosopher", as almost all secondary sources are using that. I've checked OxfordReference, and there you see it used almost exclusively. I really don't understand why we should deviate from that.
@PepGuardi Interesting, I just noticed that, in addition of accusing me ofWikipedia:Canvassing andWikipedia:Edit warring (both of which I have clearly not done), you have now accused me of using sockpuppets and tried to get me blocked.[2]
But you have to concede that the sources are mostly in agreement. These don't really contradict mine because the general status of the jewish community is not the question here.YourJudge (talk)20:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this discussion been resolved? I would like to add some information to the article, but unfortunately this is not possible.Chiliagon (talk)20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is mentioned in Israel's book on pages 79-80. "Accordingly, the name "Espinosa" or "Espinoza" may well have been the family’s surname prior to their expulsion from Spain...Assuming Spinoza’s surname is indeed a toponym in this sense, the family may have originated in either Espinosa de los Monteros, a village north of Burgos, close to Santander and the Spanish north coast, or Espinosa de Cerrato, near Palencia also in northern Castile but south of Burgos. Alternatively, if not a genuine toponym reaching back to the Middle Ages, the family’s pre-1492 Spanish Jewish surname by the seventeenth century had simply been lost to the mists of time."
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In the first paragraph, please change "known under his preferred Latinized pen name as Benedictus de Spinoza" to "also known under his Latinized pen name Benedictus de Spinoza" regarding Spinoza's so-called "preferred" name. This claim is clearly refuted by Jonathan Israel in Spinoza: Life and Legacy (p. 353), where he writes: “Henceforth, when offering his first name, he styled himself ‘Benedictus,’ though there is little sign that he was fond of, or became used to, this slightly pompous designation either. Rather, when signing, his usage noticeably vacillated.”YourJudge (talk)16:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please present significant evidence that Benedictus was his prefeed name to overweigh the contrary evidence brought byYourJudge, or else we'll need to revert your edit.Vegan416 (talk)06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hansmuller has not presented any evidence, so I reverted their edit.
I've noticed that the discussion above is the result of the fact that this article has an extended confirmed protection. Can the discussion be resolved so the page can be opened again? I would like to add a few things to the article, which is impossible now.Chiliagon (talk)15:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not responsible for the extended protection of the page and, in fact, opposed it, having previously contributed to its content. The underlying discussion was never properly resolved. Instead of addressing the points raised by other editors, one user made an unfounded accusation that two individuals—located on different continents—were the same person. Shortly afterward, the page was placed under extended protection for a full year.YourJudge (talk)02:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Perhaps it's an idea to ask an admin for a dispute resolution? The situation now is slightly absurd in my view.Chiliagon (talk)19:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2025
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Change "The Ethics, a "superbly cryptic masterwork",[citation needed] contains many unresolved obscurities and is written with a forbidding mathematical structure modeled on Euclid's geometry." to "The Ethics contains many unresolved obscurities and is written with a forbidding mathematical structure modeled on Euclid's geometry."Cimobaha (talk)21:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
DoneLova Falk (talk)12:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: No reason was provided for the proposed deletion.Day Creature (talk)05:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
