Talk:A Playne and Godly Exposition or Declaration of the Commune Crede


 * Commentary is welcomed on the authenticity of the claim that this reflected Erasmus' view of the Catholic crede in 1533. It should have a citation. I have made the logical connection from my copy, but a more scholarly reference is needed. BibleBill talk 13:22, 16th of the 10th, 2009

The article contains too much original research relying on one editors personal inspection of a copy of this document. This is contrary to No original research. Interesting as it is, without verifyable sources it has to go, I'm afraid. NtheP (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The commentary on the dispute between Martin Luther and Erasmus and the relevance of this work is cited on the main Erasmus page, as is his death in 1536. If you feel I should carry them over to here, then I will. The work is cited on the main page, this is meant to be a commentary to expand on where copies may be found and the contents of both those original copies as may be downloaded in first and second editions. Hardly original research. The comments on the differences between the two editions are trivial, I could care less. But if you care to download them from the references given, you may note them yourself. See section 1.4.2 of the main Erasmus page and section 1.5 of the main Erasmus page. I used my personal copy of the second edition because quite frankly getting it out of Australia is a pain. Scanning the title page in Australia for inclusion here would have been a bigger pain. [[Image:Erasmus-commune-crede-title-big.jpg |thumb|right|270px|Title Page To Second Printing]]]]BibleBill (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have referenced his death as per the source on the main page and referenced the main page as to the disagreement with Luther. I probably lack the right reference to get to section 1.4.2 directly. The 1726? date is given in the Australian catalog. I might put it earlier, but could live with that as a date. They are making a wild ass guess. I am just giving a range. Lets leave it as unknown.BibleBill (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I think you've misunderstood me. The first was for the very point that you make at the top of this page i.e. that this document reflects Erasmus' view of the creed in 1533, not the fact that he died in 1536. The second was for a citation that if a (the primary?) reason for Erasmus writing this text was his dispute with Luther then that does need to form part of this article. Wiki articles should be to a greater extent be freestanding and complete in there own right. If the only reason for this article was to list sources for the book then it could be reduced to a footnote in the main article on Erasmus. NtheP (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I will be happy to scan the balance of the book if somebody can tell me an appropriate place to put it. BibleBill (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think though that one of the reasons for the citation here was the kiss up he did to Henry .viii. in the dedication. It obliquely shows his political astuteness without downright coming out and making a claim to that fact. It also expands on the method he used in his writing of the Q&A method which is vastly different than his writings in other areas which are a dialog: "Julius Exclusis", oration: "In Praise of Folly". and so forth. I think that with the reword I used it is consistent with the exposition of his Catechism in 1533. Q&A about what you need to be Catholic besides the dunking. But whatever you please on this. Having a second edition in my collection, I wanted to expand a bit on the main wiki without digging into it. I grant it is short. If it would be better placed as a footnote to the main page, who am I to argue? However, with the image of the title page, I think it clutters the main article. 24.60.167.163 (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is of benefit, I have a much larger/higher resolution scan of the title page that I can upload to the Wiki Commons. I just dislike cluttering people's storage without good reason. 24.60.167.163 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the full resolution 600x600 DPI scan. As a note the metadata states photoshop. I used it to rotate the image to the correct orientation. No editing involved.
 * see your talk page.

On the article in general if there is verifiable evidence about the background to Erasmus writing the book and getting Anne's father to be the dedicatee that's the sort of information that makes for an interesting article. Just be aware that you would need the independant verifaction to back it up. If it's your own research then that can be used as long as you've have it peer reviewed/published elsewhere e.g. academic journals etc. NtheP (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the title page which gives the dedication. I have been snowed under a bit and am late on scanning the second edition. Once I do I will link it. Being a PhD in EE from MIT does not get me published in many of the publications of this sort so citation to any of my work is pretty near zero save what I can glean from the work itself and display. I understand the problem with the random person putting the random thing into the wiki. I conjecture that this was part of the back and forth between Luther and Erasmus over things, but I do not have a citation for that. Certainly, given that it is his writing at 1533 just prior to his death in 1536, it probably reflects what he considers to be the catechism of the church in his view at that moment. I know of no other works later that supersede it. I see that it was cited as part of the dispute on the main page. 24.91.53.91 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)