Talk:Baruch Spinoza

No Such Thing as a Secular Jew

We need better specificity of language. If someone of "Jewish" descent takes no part in the religion of Judaism, s/he may be Semitic (an ethnic/linguistic category), but the person is not Jewish. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:15A:9EBE:744A:EBB2 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but Jewishness is both an ethnicity and a religion, and there have been many proud ethnic Jews who wouldn't dream of denying their historical affiliation, but are not religiously observant. We even have Category:Jewish atheists on Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ludwig Wittgenstein (a Jew, for some definition of that word) might point out that we here appear to have two different concepts identified by the same written symbol "Jewish". Who's to say which is the "correct" mapping from word to meaning? GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In ancient times, the Hebrew word Yehudi could mean "Judahite" (a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent), "Judean" (an inhabitant of the kingdom or region of Judea), or "Jew" (adherent of the monotheistic religion originally developed in Judea)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal Communication

I have used my personal communication with Jonathan Israel as a citation in the section "Speculation about his sexuality." Is there a way I can make that more credible, how, etc.? Or in short, what should I do? Fomer-k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Fomer-k, that's original research. I don't know who Israel is but if they published this, you can cite that. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From the Netherlands

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)

I think stating that he was born in the Dutch Republic is the obvious solution here and can't be controversial. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@YourJudge It should be in the first sentence. Not sure why his Portuguese origin defines him more as a person than his place of birth? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

Anyway. For now I am fine with the compromise. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Why? I really don't understand why something as uncontroversial and obvious as this is contested so much. Why should we compromise with things that are simply absurd, such as disputing the Dutch nationality/ethnicity of Spinoza? Gybebaggy (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Gybebaggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.

@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 made few or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.

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 @Gybebaggy YourJudge (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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 chapter The 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 per WP:ETHNICITY. Gybebaggy (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — Gybebaggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.

@PepGuardi, you are active on this article, do you agree with this change? YourJudge (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Here is another source who calls him Dutch. By the historians Jan Romein and Annie Romein-Verschoor[1]

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)

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)

@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.

Anyway, please present reliable sources that state that Spinoza was not Dutch. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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 (also WP: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..."

Buruma 2024, p. 7: "The life of the man whom Heinrich Heine liked to call "the little Dutch Jew"".

• Nadler, Steven M. (2018). Spinoza: A Life (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-44246-6.
• 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. ISBN 978-90-04-50095-2.
• Israel, Jonathan (2023). Spinoza, Life and Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-885748-8.
• Buruma, Ian (2024). Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-30-024892-0.

YourJudge (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

and Ramakers, J. "Parallel processes? The emancipation of Jews and Catholics in the Netherlands 1795/96-1848." Studia Rosenthaliana. PepGuardi (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@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?

@Shoshin000 @Gybebaggy

Pinging them to make them aware of the discussion. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ETHNICITY seems relevant here. Please take a look. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I will kindly ask you to stop your disrespectful tone tone towards my opinions.

secondly, be aware of the WP:CANVASS guideline and WP: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 considered VOTESTACKING. I let a formal notice on your talk page about it.

Third, Spanish-Jews and Portuguese-Jews are not designation of nationalities, it is an ethnicity definition. (PepGuardi (talk)|) 20:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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 to WP: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.

And before you leave messages on my talkpage again, please make sure that you read the guidelines that you accuse me of breaking. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

I think I proposed that. I take that wording back; it's awkward and probably doesn't conform to MOS: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)

@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.

Dutch-Jewish philosopher would also be acceptable. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The original wording was fine with me as well, I didn't understand why it needed to be changed. However, it is against WP: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 Oxford Reference, and there you see it used almost exclusively. I really don't understand why we should deviate from that.

Especially not considering the fact that now four editors here, excluding Flanamsterdam and an unknown IP who began these recent edits, are all more or less in agreement. And for the lack of convenience, I'm ignoring all the people over the past few months who have been aggressively insulted and put down by the only (!!) user who is against this - very obvious - change. Gybebaggy (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Gybebaggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidDijkgraaf.

Gybebaggy account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted.

Ongoing investigation to confirm who’s the sockmaster and possibly further sock puppets not identified yet. PepGuardi (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@PepGuardi Interesting, I just noticed that, in addition of accusing me of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia: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]

Since the investigation is closed now, will you actually give us reliable sources that dispute that Spinoza was not Dutch? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@PepGuardi YourJudge (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@PepGuardi Why are you still ignoring the talk page? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

"Spinoza" is a place name?

His surname is "de Spinoza". Therefore, Spinoza is a place name, correct? There is a place in Portugal named "Espinhosa" (see https://www.google.com/maps/place/Espinhosa,+Portugal/@41.0892384,-7.5304652,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0xd3b5e58748b0fdf:0xe33a0e096fd79fe0!8m2!3d41.0899113!4d-7.480993!16s%2Fg%2F1ywqfhgh_?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D) (it's roughly in the region of Porto, Portugal). Is that the place referenced by "de Spinoza"? 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Mksword (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the sources say anything about that. YourJudge (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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."

Israel 2023, pp. 79–80 YourJudge (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2025

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)

@Hansmuller

Please present significant evidence that Benedictus was his prefeed name to overweigh the contrary evidence brought by YourJudge, or else we'll need to revert your edit. Vegan416 (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)