Talk:Erasmus

Birth date
The more I read, the less comfortable I am that he was born in 1466. 1469 is very plausible.

As I understand it, the year was calculated by taking the year of his ordination (1493 according to Beatus Rheanus) and subtracting the 25(or 24?) year minimum age for ordination: 1469 is barely possible.

However research of the Gouda archives (New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth In: Erasmus Studies 2017) makes the 1493 year implausible, and suggests 1496: which means Erasmus could be born before 1471.

The attraction, to me, of a 1469-ish date is it makes much more sense of his biography: if his parents left Rotterdam after his first year (when his father started in Wouden,) he started school at 6 not 9, started Deventer at 9 not 12, was orphaned at 13 not 16, went to 's Hertogenbosch at 14 not 17, went into the novitiate at 17 not 20, fell for Rogerius and professed at age 18 not 21 (Thomas Cromwell professed at age 14 b.t.w), went to Cambrai at 24, became a priest under Bishop Henry at age 25 and started studying in Paris at age 26 not 29: otherwise why would such a brilliant man have such a delayed education?

I am not sure how to handle it: a little table with the two sets of dates for his life events? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Erasmus born in Gouda?
I heard on the news that Erasmus was born in Gouda,Is this true?

Make this shorter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 (talk • contribs) 9:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "A well-known wooden picture indicates: Goudæ conceptus, Roterodami natus (Latin for Conceived in Gouda, born in Rotterdam). According to an article by historian Renier Snooy (1478–1537), Erasmus was born in Gouda." But Erasmus (and most historians) says Rotterdam.

What should be shorter?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "wooden picture" doesn't create confidence in this source! Presumably a woodcut rather than a panel painting. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * -) I expect it has been through several layers of translation: Snooy's Latin (probably), then perhaps Dutch, then English? Nevertheless, it is quite specific on the source. I don't agree that unusual idiom impeaches a source. (Sometimes translation does require poor idiom, e.g. where the source language has a general term and the target only has several specific ones.)
 * I don't intend to put it into the article, but only because I think it is not interesting: Erasmus has his finger in so many pies that there is no shortage of far more (to me) important things that could be added instead... But, of course, if someone thinks Gouda is important or interesting then they can go ahead: perhaps in a note rather than in the body? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pacifism
I have added a section on Erasmus' pacifism. There is much else that could/should be added, and perhaps ultimately deserves its own topic.

It includes a citation to a WordPress site. This is a site of a university-sponsored project, and not a personal blog etc. so I believe it fits the criteria for being a Reliable Source (or reliable-enough!)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your are fine from me. I also tend to argue that Wordpress from RS institutions should be recognized as RS. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have revised section on heresy in Religious Toleration, to explain better his attitude: we modern people do not distinguish enough the historical connection between heresy and sedition, and treat "heresy" as if it were merely abstract and mental. However, the history is one of them being intertwined: seditionists would justify themselves using some theology, which would cause revolts, which would cause state crackdowns, which would be justified as heresy-hunting, which would lead to threatening unorthodox views being regarded as heresy and so munched by the inquisatorial machinery designed against sedition. Erasmus' writing to counter fr:Noël Béda and also against the Salamanca monks are the primary sources: the Erasmus and Heresy article I put as the citation is pretty good, but there are many others. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

War
The last sentence "James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances), but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus talked in a matter-of-fact manner about such a subject and used their imagination to give the people's fear of the world of power politics an appearance of rationality" needs to be re-written, I think.

What is "that", what is "such a subject", who are these "people", and what does it mean to use your "imagination" to "give an appearance of rationality"? Rick Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that = think that = say that
 * Such a subject = mistrust of the government = the belief that princes were corrupt and created wars to extract money (mentioned in the previous sentence)
 * The people = the populace (aka "the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group" - Oxford dictionary)
 * imagination = Tracy thinks that the way Erasmus and Barlandus accused the government of trying to ruin/destroy their own people etc. was totally ludicrous (not unlike those who believed witchcraft was real). But this unreasonable belief was shared by the populace. Erasmus and Barlandus only provided the fancy details (the Habsburg government's devilish plans) that gave this belief an air of being reasonable. Tracy uses the word "spin", but I don't want to repeat it (according to Tracy, Erasmus and Barlandus and co honestly believed in these ludicrous stories. They did not create those stories for sinister purposes).

-Deamonpen (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I have moved the last sentence to a note, and simplified it to say
 * "James D.Tracy notes that mistrust of the Habsburg government (partially due to the fact Maximilian and his grandson Charles V were absentee rulers, the secret nature of diplomacy and other circumstances) was widespread, but it is notable that intellectuals like Erasmus and Barlandus also accepted the allegations. "
 * I found the original sentence very hard to parse: I think "used their imagination" is not really what you or Tracy is trying to say: that they were inventing mischief they had not been transmitted. If you think that my tweak is not right, please adjust (e.g. with a direct quote from Tracy or to say "also accepted the outlandish allegations." or whatever.)
 * In the preceding text, I also used "allegation" instead of "mistaken" and removed "devilish" to be more NPOV. You could certainly have used "spin": if you are worried about it not being understood, you could link the word to Spin_(propaganda)
 * Note: An interesting thing: if these were letters that Erasmus published after Maximillian's death (rather than unauthorized publications), then he would have edited them to also suit some more contemporary agenda...in the context of Charles V's (or some other King's) reign. The agenda might be just that war-waging Kings should not get glory from history (see his recently-discovered death poem for Henry VII, or see Julius Exclusis) to discourage new wars, or that there was some present conflict at the time of editing that he felt had some similarity. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Enhance section on Erasmus "Religious Toleration"?
Erasmus is so great that it would not diminish his greatness to mention that he expressed antisemitic sentiments. Please consider adding a sentence or two in the section “Religious toleration”.Gery.shachar (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The nature of his alleged anti-semitism is very debatable. He tended to use "Hebrew" when he meant the race or ethnicity, and "Jew" when he meant a religious distinction. Though not always. Frequently, he used Jew in a theological sense of a Judaizer, by which he means a Christian who expresses their religion through ceremonial and ritualistic activities (e.g. by analogy with temple Judaism.)
 * Erasmus is impossible to decypher by taking his words literally: he habitually expressed himself with paradoxes, provocative expressions, literary allusions and jokes. Luther called him "slippery" because of it.
 * For example, one of his famous comments, that he did not want to go to Spain because there are too many Jews, has nothing to do with actual Jews: he is using his typical paradoxical jokey expression to say that the trouble with Spain is not all the Jews (which would indeed be the common ant-semitism of the day) but the (Salamanca) theologians and monks (who were raising his case to the Spanish Inquisition)
 * His theological attitude can be seen in part from his comment that "A good Jew makes a better Christian, but a bad Jew makes a worse Christian." This means that a sincere Jew becoming a Christian benefits from their heritage and morality, unless they bring ritualism or dogmatism with it; it is also a statement against forced conversions, which Erasmus certainly opposed: a person was not improved by a forced or feigned conversion, so the policy was wrong-headed. But it was said in particular reference to Pfefferkorn (see below.)
 * It is worthwhile noting that many of the leading conversos Jesuits were Erasmians. They found his scholarship and irenicism attractive.
 * He specifically recommended a Jewish scholar to teach Hebrew at the Tri-lingual college he helped set up at the University of Louvain, which may mean something, too.
 * But the main reason for not including something on his supposed anti-semitism is that it simply is not a big feature of his work or thought. It would be unbalanced. "Jew" could be replaced by "Judaizer" or "Ritualizer" without changing his meaning, in most cases: to the extent that he is anti-semitic, it is en passant and blind. Contrast with, for example, Martin Luther, whose vitriol against Jews was against Jews; and he was in a position of more political effect than Erasmus was.
 * The book Erasmus and the Jews by Shimon Markish says, apparently, that charges of anti-semitism cannot be sustained. (I haven't read it).
 * Contrast with Erasmus of the Low Countries which asserts that (in the notorious Reuchlin affair) because Erasmus nastily questioned Pferfferkorn's motives for converting, he questions all Jews' conversions; and where the author utterly fails to see Erasmus' (condemnatory) thought behind If it is Christian to detest the Jews, on this count we are all good Christians, and to spare.  Having read quite a lot of Erasmus, I can see no justification for the statement that "Erasmus hated Jews." (Remember that Pfeffekorn was himself extremely anti-semitic, and was against Reuchlin because of his position as a Hebrew scholar who had trained with non-Catholic Jews and was interested in Kabbalistic studies. Pfefferkorn, who Erasmus was being nasty about, had said that Jews did not convert because of usury, the lack of forced conversions, and their reliance on the Talmud. So it is madness to extrapolate a comment about him by Erasmus as a comment on Jews or Jewish converts in general: Erasmus is anti-semitic because he says something nasty about an ex-Jewish anti-semite who is attacking an academic gentile who had great respect for Jewish language, culture, scholastics and religion?)

All that being said, "Jew" was, when not used neutrally to mean Jews, not a positive term for Erasmus. But it was a term of reprobation not hatred, as far as I can see; so I am certain that Erasmus would not use it in that way were he alive today, as it would fail to convey his intent.
 * Note that Erasmus used the term "half Christians" for both Jews and Moslems: and his consistent call was that the way to convert half-christians was by peaceful example, not the sword. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Jews and Turks

 * ✅ I have added a small section "Jews and Turks" on the topic Gery.shachar requested. It is a complete minefield, of course, and I hope I have been NPOV in my selection of material. Please review and improve. (No flames!)


 * To make my own angle clearer, if that helps promote a NPOV in the article, I take Shimon Markish's interpretation more gladly than than Nathan Ron's, but Ron makes many worthy points too in multiple solid works, so I have featured a reference to Ron's work (and him by name) in order that it is not buried. (Even Markish finds something sinister underneath Erasmus' en passant comments in his unguarded private writing: for what it reveals about the undercurrent of anti-semitism of the times and where that undercurrent lead) Erasmus was more scrupulous in his public writings not to demonize Jews but instead to ironically reflect casual anti-semitic tropes back against Christians (in an edifying but sharp rebuke for them.) I would hope that someone literate reading Erasmus in good faith at that time, and aware of his ironic mode, would come away less attached to anti-semitic tropes and more concerned with peace, friendliness and concord.


 * I did not put in much about the Turks, perhaps a sentence that he was against enforced conversion, massacres etc might be appropriate. But there already is a paragraph on On the War with the Turks that makes the important point that the Ottomans were currently attacking Central Europe. (So Anti-Turkish feeling was as much about racism as, perhaps, the anti-Russian feeling a Ukrainian might be tempted to feel at the moment would be. I.e. not primarily.) Erasmus felt that Christians living in the Ottoman Empire should not rebel, certainly where there was no chance of success, but live peacably and by their good lives convert the Turks, who were already half-Christian. Some editor who is better aware of the situation might add something, perhaps?


 * I put in, then took out, examples of his ironic use of Jew, and I did not put in material on the Reuchlin/Pfefferkorn affair, as it would be unbalanced coverage. I would have liked to put in too about how many of the Spanish conversos scholars, particularly the Jesuits, were Erasmians, but it was tangential. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have also added a note on his converted Jewish doctors: there may be others too. I don't expect it is a big deal. But when Markish said that Erasmus never met a Jew (and never went out to find one), it is not right, unless we take Markish to mean a Jew in the religious/cultural sense of a presenting Jew, not some ethnic/familial sense. Also, on reading the source more, perhaps Markish's positive comments were mostly about Erasmus' considered public writings, to make it less "Markish says good; Ron says bad". And please comment if there is some landmine I am stepping on out of ignorance! Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire section, Jews and Turks, should be deleted, in fact, as I write the comments below to justify the deletion of the section, it is clear that the section is neither scholarly nor encyclopaedic in nature or quality and I am going to delete it.

To state Erasmus views about Jews or Islam based on the opinions of two individuals, Shimon Markish and Nathan Ron, does not meet the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material. Assumptions of a historical figure's opinions surely would require support by quoting their actual words or deeds and including a direct reference to their words or deeds rather than to opinions of others.

Additionally, the section tries to paint Erasmus as a racist with the phrase, "harsh and racial in its implications." If the author of this section wants to make the claim of racism, then find actual racism in his words and deeds and quote his actual writings, words, or deeds. If the author wants to talk about Erasmus dislike or distrust of Turks, then remove the racial comment and back up the claim with actual quotes from Erasmus, himself - there are some.

Any claim of hatred or dislike that Erasmus had for the Turks, and clearly, his own words can be quoted to show that he disliked them, must include the context of the Turks as invaders and occupiers of significant parts of Europe from the 14th century until long after Erasmus wrote about them, and even long after his death. To write that he is a racist or even to quote his own words showing his dislike for Turks without that context seems disingenuous.

There is a statement that Erasmus likely never met a practicing Jew. For a man who travelled as much has he did, that seems very likely to be false. It is far more likely that he met many Jews in his lifetime. Either way, though, either the author should be able to back it up with documented evidence or it does not belong.

This is a great example of why it is inappropriate, in an encyclopedia, to write about what a historical figure thought but, instead, it should be written about what they did, what they said that can be supported with trusted and reliable documentation, and what they wrote - quoting what they wrote instead of some unknown person's opinion of what they wrote. Diprestonus (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "the standards defined by Wikipedia that require quoting the original material rather than quoting quotes or discussions about the original material": That would by WP:OR, which is expressly verboten on wikipedia. On the contrary, citations of reliable secondary sources are exactly what such a section should be based on.


 * It is possible that the text of the section should be revised, but you need to cite reliable sources for that, not his own writings and not what "seems very likely" (there are plenty of widely travelled people who have never met, say, a university professor). Furius (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Furius. Markish and Ron are not just "individuals" but two serious multiply-published scholars with opposing opinions who specialize precisely in this topic; both have written complete books on Erasmus; both provide different voices to the gentile/Western sources that dominate the Erasmian literature. (My own preference would be for the section on Pacifism to become its own article, allowing better treatment of the Turkish nuances etc.)


 * Yes, there needs to be mix of primary and secondary sources, especually given tat Erasmus was such a stylist: and without WP:OR; however the lack of a primary quotation or a secondary source citation is not justification for deletion: the correct approach is to add a "dubious" or "citation required" tag. Here, I think adding extra primary quotations would tend to unbalance the article; making what is IMHO a material but small aspect of his thought or biography into a big deal, which would then require a much more substantive treatment to include Erasmus' slippery language.


 * I have weakened the text to clarify it is Markish's claim, and added parenthesis around the added "practising" which is something reasonably (given that Markish knew of Erasmus' contacts with conversos and converts) implicit in Markish's comment.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ordination and Monastic Experience
"It is said that he never seemed to have actively worked as a priest for a long time" The citation here does not specify a page number, but I am very doubtful that this is what the reference says. He certainly never worked as a parish priest or, perhaps, cathedral canon, but the are more kinds of priests than that: for example, Jesuits are priests who are usually not parish priests. We know that Erasmus preferred to assist at mass rather than preside, he heard confession, sometimes preached (in Latin), and said the hours. Erasmus never sought, nor was granted, any papal dispensation from his priestly vows, and he never seems to have mentioned that being a priest was a burden, or that he was tricked into into (unlike his religious vows as an Augustinian Canon.) So I think this needs to be corrected, for example, "Erasmus does not seem to have actively worked as a parish priest." Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Sexuality v Passionate Attachment

 * Concerning this paragraph in the article, I see it fit as needing its own section since it directly implies that Erasmus had disordered inclinations, this must be rectified since the sources manifested in the paragraph are quite antithetical to the text and could definitely be expounded upon to achieve a neutral point of view. What do you think? Raulois (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think what matters here is NPOV and avoiding speculation. This means giving both sides of the picture, where there is credible evidence and reasonable differences in interpretation, and providing some context with good sources.
 * The older versions of the article erred on the speculative side IMHO, so I think it is much better now, but certainly can be improved: for example, I think the speculation about Thomas Grey has no place in Wikipedia and should be removed. Ditto "perhaps distances": utter speculation.
 * Older biographers (such as Facer or Froude, I forget) used to interpret comments he had made about an "Antonia" in Paris (plus the English habit of kissing, plus some comments where he says he was not immune in his youth to wildness) to say that he had some heterosexual flings when a young student, despite being a priest; then the 1990s-style gay theorists saw in his "love" letters vindication as a queer hero. (There are much more elaborate theories that put him into a gay network with Pirckheimer, Albrecht Durer etc. !)
 * My view? I think it does not matter what Erasmus' inclinations were, for the article. First because we simply do not know for sure. (We do know that he had enough vicious and vindictive enemies that if there had been any hint of scandal or unchastity it would have been publicized. Obviously his male friendships were deep and intensely important to him: sweet. Did he move to Cambrai to get out of a too-torrid situation? We don't know.) So, even if true, it is no more of issue than for, e.g. St John Henry Cardinal Newman or St Aelred of Riveaux: for Catholics at least it is no sin to love chastely: both Newman and Erasmus even wanted to be buried in the same grave as their beloveds...  Second, because if we might consider homosexual orientation as relevant for figuring out his psychology and therefore useful for the article, there are plenty of other candidates (his illegitimacy, his weak stomach, his experience of orphanhood and war, etc.) that could be claimed as just as or more important, if someone wanted to make the case. Psychologizing about Erasmus is the bane of his biographies.
 * If we look at his writing, the only candidate I see where we could get some insight into his mature mind is the Sileni of Alcibiades, which riffs on an aspect of that General who rescued and fell in love with Socrates. But I don't think it reveals either any agenda other than his usual one: equipping our brains with forms to help appreciate Christ.  Investigating whether he was gay might drive some interested readers to the article looking for information, so it is appropriate to have some treatment, and I am completely sympathetic that we should not "straightwash" history0; but I tend to think the article has if anything too much gay material on it, rather than not enough, because its focus should be on what he did write (not what he didn't write) and what we know (not speculation on what we don't know.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree with you and that speculation should be eradicated. Also, what you said about not straightwashing history reminds me when a YouTuber called Richard the Lionheart “gay” even though he had an illegitimate son. Now while I agree with you, I would like to tell you my opinion on this matter. I would like to remind you that this conception we have of “heterosexuality” is quite recent being promulgated by 20th century “gay” activists as you should already know who, in turn, have their foundations in Freud et al. Most of them have been deliberately gaywashing pre-20th century history even applying it to the Ancient Greeks… Thus, I find it extremely dangerous and precarious thus we must thence act with prudence. I hope to hear to your opinion on the matter. Raulois (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if Richard the Lion-Heart (whom I was named after!) was not gay in the sense of it being an identity, Blondel certainly went beyond the call of duty to find him ;-)
 * The article does not use the word "gay", so I don't think it is germane to discuss the article as if it did. I edited in Erasmus' own description of his relationship with Rogerius, which was a "passionate attachment", and I put in text in a footnote about the Augustinian/Cistercian tradition of value-ing (or expecting) deep emotional friendships between monks, on the road to "spiritual friendships". So I think that goes somewhat to meet the Wikipedia NPOV criterion, that where there is a contentious issue you provide coverage of a range of opinions.
 * I tried to do this for the creepy sentence on Erasmus and young men: I added material that the accusation never came up in his lifetime, at a time when some of his enemies were trying to get him burned.
 * So while I think there is nothing wrong with raising the Rogerius material, and providing a variety of interpretations where these are sourced (just as with, say, Shakespeare's sonnets), I *do* think the speculation (namely the Thomas Grey stuff, should be removed ASAP (unless credible evidence can be found.) I have been loath to do this, because I have already edited that section rather a lot, and it is the kind of thing that can benefit from discussion. If someone else wants to remove or re-phrase the Thomas Grey sentence, I would be delighted.
 * So while I think there is nothing wrong with raising the Rogerius material, and providing a variety of interpretations where these are sourced (just as with, say, Shakespeare's sonnets), I *do* think the speculation (namely the Thomas Grey stuff, should be removed ASAP (unless credible evidence can be found.) I have been loath to do this, because I have already edited that section rather a lot, and it is the kind of thing that can benefit from discussion. If someone else wants to remove or re-phrase the Thomas Grey sentence, I would be delighted.


 * I should say, I also think that the (uncited) sentence about Erasmus condemning sodomy should be removed or revised or put into a cited reference too, for the reason that it might give readers impression that the condemnation of sodomy was one of his pet subjects or a frequent feature of his work, when it simply was not. He was shocking for the times for writing books praising sex in marriage (which Francis de Sales took up), for those who could not remain virgins, but no books on sodomy. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ User  Okiyo9228   has made an edit to remove some speculative material and found a citation in Erasmus' work: thanks. I have re-phrased the remaining text again a little, removed the speculative "perhaps" and moved some links around. The sentence with Thomas Grey is still now a little abrupt, but it is hard to clarify it without just putting back that entirely speculative citation. If someone can find a citation with any non-speculative evidence, it would be appropriate to have it.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Now I see a further problem. The current text (even after the recent tweaks to remove speculation) still contrasts his emotional love-letters with his cool later persona. However, in his Copia, which are a series of exercises or examples designed to expand the students ability to say anything in many ways, he gives 200 different ways to say in Latin "I will never forget you, Thomas More." This is so sweet, but, emotionally, it still seems to be closer to the tropics than to the poles. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said you wanted the speculation removed; I removed it and now you put it back again. Raulois (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Personally, I really don't like removing even uncited things that contributors have put in, unless I have actually quickly looked to see if there are no citations that could back it up: it is better to first flag them as uncited or raise a discussion, trim the most unencyclopeadic speculations, see if anyone can find any evidence, and put in compromise wording. Having done that, and coming back with a fresher mind, the remaining sentence still seem just vaporous speculation (what would be next: Erasmus as a student molestor??) -- fine for an academic exercise but not encyclopedic--, and I think your preference to just remove it was the better choice, so I should not have re-added it: have re-removed it. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Gaywashing

 * A user has added text "he fell in love" with a comment like "lets not try to erase homosexuals from history".
 * This has been discussed at length here. There is no attempt to erase anyone.
 * Erasmus himself called it a 'passionate attachment', which is used in the article: I don't see why that is not the same as "falling in love", therefore the edit is redundant.
 * The article uses the phrase "love letter", so the word love is indeed there; therefore the edit is redundant.
 * The article does quote MacCulloch in notes.
 * The article does mention other possibilities apart from the binary homosexual/heterosexual split: that young monks having emotional relationships was common and expected, indeed regarded as healthy. (The article also brings out a rather speculative comment about Armonius.)
 * Whether Erasmus was homosexual or bi or transitory or homosocial etc. is entirely speculative: there are other quotes from him that suggest (in the interpretation of previous scholars who wanted him to fit in with *their* druthers) he visited a female prostitute in his student days. I think they are too speculative to have a place. If he was homosexual in orientation, even with Rogerius, there is no indication he acted (He says to Rogerius his love was rebuffed): indeed he left the monastary and refused to return.
 * Erasmus, of all people, had a lifelong history of writing according to literary forms. So it is difficult to automatically assume his love letters were not, in some part, an exploration of a gushy literary form.  Men in those times were much more prone to speak in terms of love: if you have ever lived in an Asian country where best friends disconcertingly walk hand-in-hand showing their love without connoting a sexual attachment, you become less keen to necessarly conflate deep mateship with sex.
 * No-one (and this is important IMHO) has ever shown (or even claimed) that his sexual orientation ever played any role in his work or thought. (Contrast with his weak stomach, which played an enormous role in his attitudes.) So its appropriate status in the article is a passing reference in his biography.
 * So I don't think the added "fell in love" is necessary, and if someone removes it for redundancy or anachronism, that would be fine by me: I defer to other editors.
 * But I do object to the idea that there is "gaywashing" going on. It is not gaywashing (deliberately or unconsciously removing references that any inspiring figures were gay when it is established they likely were, because of an anti-gay agenda) to reject speculation in an encyclopedia, and to put academic speculation in footnotes, is it? (On the other hand, it would be entirely appropriate to put him on a list of famous historical figures claimed to have been homosexual).
 * Erasmus had a capacity to form deep, lifelong friendships with men his own age: More (Erasmus, my darling), Colet, Armonius, etc., and to feel really hurt when slighted. He was definitely homosocial, as you might expect a monk and priest. And you would expect that a young male celebate's male friendships would need to carry more emotional intensity than a married man's. It would not surprise me in the least if Erasmus were indeed homosexual in his orientation too, from our modern perspective: why not?: though nor should we rule out that it was a young man's bromance, either, only atypical because of his literary bent. If it were intellectual-biographically important according to anyone, it might deserve more space in the article. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at this further, is the problem that passionate attachment is too weak a translation of Erasmus' expression 'fervidos amores'? I don't know. Any Latin experts out there? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the summary and quotes from CWE Poems editor Vredeveld to better capture his nuance: first he points out that it is a false opposition to say that literary exercises cannot have an autobiographical basis, and second to remove the initial "However" which suggested Vredeveld was necessarily downplaying the love or bromance.


 * Interested readers might also like to consider how Erasmus and Thomas More expressed their affection for one another without causing any scandal: see the note in de Copia and the quotes in Thomas_More Their famous friendship was the basis of the "Erasmus, your darling" hissy fit by Tyndale against More.  Also Colloquies is a good general read on what Erasmus thought schoolkids should be taught about friendship as a rare and enobling thing.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Attempts at impartiality
The phrase that Erasmus' criticism was also directed towards many of the Church's basic doctrines is, I believe, historically wrong but also is not supported by what the citation actually says.

The citation says he "questioned" many of the Church's basic "teachings": "questioning" (a theologian's job, surely) is not "criticizing", and "teachings" is way broader than "doctrines". Erasmus certainly did not question the articles of the Creed, and he repeatedly said that once the church defined something (even though it were better if fewer things were defined not more) then we were duty-bound not to oppose it, for the sake of concord at least.

When Erasmus was attacked for using different words in his NT that undermined what had been proof texts for some doctrines (i.e. the Johannine Comma, repentance for penance, presbyter for priest, favour for grace) his response was that the doctrines still stood (because of Tradition and the magisterium), just that those particular passages were simply not as direct evidence for it as had been thought (but also evidence for other things that should be taken on-board.) The same charge was made against him multiple times, and he denied that he was disavowing those doctrines.

(Even in the famous case of transubstantiation, he made it clear that he certainly believed the Real Presence, but that the (theo)logical meaning of transubstantiation made no sense to him, according to his understanding of what "substance" could mean. He also said that if he had had any idea of how his words would be twisted, he would have expressed himself very differently.)

On the issue of payment for indulgences (Luther had taken many of his 95 Thesis direct from Erasmus' writings), Erasmus was actually mainstream Catholic: multiple church councils had anathemized simony, as had the recent Lateran Council IIRC. But Erasmus' own Liturgy for the Lady of Loreto (which he made as a model of how to turn a superstitious veneration of Mary into a devout veneration of Mary) was actually published with an indulgence from the local bishop: again, it was abuses not proper uses that he was against. Certainly his view of where the line between use and abuse stood was to err on the side of primitivism and gradualism.

So what "basic doctrines" (as far as had been defined before the Council of Trent) does that leave?

What that phrase also misses is that much of Erasmus' opposition was to scholastic theology itself, which he had studied at the Sorbonne. A theological tradition is not quite the same a doctrine. (He was a proponent of mystical theology appealing to the affections, such as he saw in the patristic and pre-scholastic monastic eras, but non-fanatical and non-partisan.)

So it would be better to have something like was also directed towards some of the Church's recent theology with a suitable citation. I have not done this. (Rick Jelliffe)


 * ✅ I changed it to "in the view of some was also directed towards many of his Church's basic teachings"Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Church versus reformers is over-simplification (before the Reformation) not NPOV?
A difference issue in the same section: I have changed a sentence from "The issues between the Catholic Church and the growing religious movement which would later become known as Protestantism, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate."

to the more NPOV

"The issues between the reforming and reactionary tendencies of the Catholic Church, from which Protestantism later emerged, had become so clear that few could escape the summons to join the debate. "

This is because the old sentence frames what went on from the sharp black-hat/white-hat POV of much later Protestant commentary: Erasmus is surely a poster-boy that many pre-reformation reformers did not became Protestants, and that the issue was not between the Catholic Church (by which is meant the hierarchy? the Sorbonne/Salamanca/Louven university theologians?) and the "outsider" reformers (noting that the English Bishops funded Erasmus, that the Pope put in a glowing letter of recommendation for Erasmus' New Testament which included lots of reforming annotation, that they wanted to make Erasmus a Cardinal: not good evidence of Erasmus as a maverick outsider...)

After the Reformation some things did indeed become more describable in terms of "Protestant" (or "Lutheran") versus "Roman Catholic", of course, even for Erasmus...

There is a relevant passage, in an article on Erasmus' works' secret trial at Valladolid before all the important bishops and religious theologians, and chaired by the head of the Spanish Inquisition IIRC) that while most of the Bishops found some passages in his work unacceptable, they all disagreed on which passages were unacceptable, sometimes strongly: in other words most (even, or especially, conservatives) agreed on most of his reformist statements: so there was almost universal agreement on the need for reform, but pockets of resistance to most specific reforms. (That 'trial' fizzled out without being able to reach a consensus on almost anything; when Erasmus' Enchiradon was placed on the Spanish Index, it was only one provocative sentence "Monkishness is not piety" that was required to be censored in order to de-contaminate it.)

(Another, perhaps partisan, article I have read said IIRC of the difficulties Pope Adrian had when attempting reform was that the powerful would agree to reform of other's abuses but not their own. This diversity of reform agenda was reflected in Protestants and pre-Protestant movements too: consider that the Hussites were willing to give up their struggle if Rome allowed them married priests, communion under both species, etc.: demands that were nothing to do with sola fide.)

Cardinal Cajetan is another good example of how it is an over-simplification to speak of reformers versus the monolithic Catholic Church (hierarchy): an establishment figure who negotiated the aborted compromise with the Lutherans.

So I think it is more NPOV to couch the sentence in terms of reformist and reactionary "tendencies", and not a simple trajectory that you had reformers and they all became Protestants.

Apologies for the long justification here, which probably seems excessive for the small change. But it is symptom of much partisan/revisionist writing on Erasmus to sloppily substitute blanket "Catholic church" for the more varied and complex targets of reform that modern historians describe. The article is improved by a little more precision on these things. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Routemap
I have added the following routemap

The justification for this is that Erasmus rarely stayed longer than three years in any location (and he lived to 70) and that these locations were key parts of his story, and this is can very easily be confusing, especially for those of us outside Western Europe who may not have a good grasp of its geography. (Plus he regularly popped over to whichever city his books were being published in, to oversee production.)

Also, so many of his colloquies and event are tied to places (the pilgrimage to Wokingham, the pilgrimage to Canturbury, his participation in the Field of the Cloth of Gold near Calais, his year spent with Aldus Manutius in Venice, and so on.)

I didn't see any way to show his individual trips (e.g. he went to England 5 times, to Paris numerous ties, to Italy twice, and so on) so I think this is a good compromise. I used the places in the Wikipedia article, plus several biographies as source, such as | CCEL and Huizinga, so I don't think there is any original research it. It uses the Wikipedia Routemap tags, so it can be maintained by anyone. It is pretty much North-South like a map: the red are trips he would have made on horseback or carriage, the blue is trips he would have made by boat (English Channel, Rhein River). (The Green is his first 25 years in the Netherlands.) Places he stayed only passingly are shown in a lighter colour. The thin line at the bottom is when he crossed the Alps.

On a larger level, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially if you are a "visual thinker" I guess. So also I hope it might stimulate contributors on other pages to take up this great facility of Wikipedia's!

Anyway, talk and help is very welcome.
 * After reading this, I understand what is going on and agree that it adds value. But I think the meaning of the colours, shading, etc need to be explained in the article, since they're not obvious. Does the template allow one to include a legend? Furius (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Routemap does allow a footnote: I have added some extra info (and may try to improve it following reflection, as of course, can anyone: though I think it is best if super-terse?) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Furius (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede: Was Erasmus a philosopher?
The initial sentence of the lede calls Erasmus a philosopher, but I question that this is so; or at least that it is remotely the most important way to categorize him.

What do other language Wikipedia articles say? This is not to use the other articles as sources, it is just to see if they have some phrases that would better summarize the English-language article. The Dutch article (through Google translate) starts:

"Desiderius Erasmus (Rotterdam, October 28, 1466,[1] 1467 or 1469[2] – Basel, July 12, 1536) was a Dutch-born philosopher, Catholic theologian and humanist. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the Northern Renaissance. With his famous satirical work Praise of Folly, which he wrote in Latin around 1509, he laid the foundations for the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

Desiderius Erasmus lived in a time of great change, in which new ideals came to the fore. He traveled through Europe as a scholar and gained prestige in intellectual circles through his humanist critiques and advocacy. Throughout his life he kept in close contact with kindred spirits through many correspondences, including the English statesman Thomas More. Erasmus developed a biblical humanistic theology in which he advocated tolerance, truthfulness and free thinking. In his own moderate way, he tried to reform the Catholic Church from within."

The German article has "Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam or just called Erasmus[1][2] (born October 28, 1466/1467/1469 in Rotterdam; † July 11/12, 1536 in Basel) was a Dutch polymath and is the most famous and influential Renaissance Humanist. Erasmus was a theologian, philosopher, philologist, priest, author and editor of over 150 books. As a critical thinker of his time, Erasmus, also known as the “Prince of the Humanists”, is one of the pioneers of the European Enlightenment. Its impact extends to the present day."

The French has "Erasmus (Didier Erasmus), also called Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), born on the night of October 27 to 28, 14661, or in 1467n 1, or 1469, in Rotterdam, died July 12, 1536 in Basel, is a canon Regular of Saint Augustine, Dutch philosopher, humanist and theologian, considered one of the major figures of Dutch and Western culture.

He remains mainly known today for his satirical declamatio Éloge de la Folie (1511) and, to a lesser extent, for his Adages (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand Greek and Latin quotations, and for his Colloquies (1522), a collection of didactic essays on various themes, although his otherwise vast and complex work includes essays and treatises on a very large number of subjects, on the problems of his time as well as on art, education, religion, war or philosophy, eclecticism specific to the concerns of a humanist author."

The Italian page adds "essayist" which is good. The Spanish page has "Erasmus of Rotterdam1 (Dutch: Desiderius Erasmus van Rotterdam; Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus; Rotterdam or Gouda,2 October 28, 14663-Basel, July 12, 1536), also known in Spanish as Erasmus of Rotterdam, was a Dutch Christian humanist, philologist and theologian philosopher, considered one of the greatest scholars of the Nordic Renaissance.

As a Catholic priest, Erasmus was a major figure in classical scholarship who wrote new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament that raised issues that would be influential in the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. He lived in the context of the growing European religious reform. While he criticized abuses within the Catholic Church and called for reform, he stayed away from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin and continued to acknowledge the authority of the Pope.

His much broader and more complex work includes essays and treatises on a very wide range of topics. He remains known mainly today for his Praise of Folly (1511) and to a lesser extent, for his Adagios (1500), an anthology of more than four thousand glossed Greek and Latin citations, Colloquies (1522), a collection of didactic essays of varied subject matter, and De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio (1524), a response to Luther's teachings on free will.

The Latin article is kinda funny in translation:

Desiderius Erasmus Rotterdam (Batavice Gerrit Gerritszoon, born in Rotterdam on October 27 or 28, 1469; died in Basel on July 12, 1536), a famous teacher of both languages, as well as a theologian and a great believer in the restoration of the church, but not in dividing it, who, because of his talent and merits, "the leader of the humanists ” is called

As a young man enrolled in the sacred family of St. Augustine, he became a priest there and followed the bishop of Cameracense; then he studied at Paris, and traveled all over Europe towards the west of the sun and the south. He certainly wrote many works which aim at the transmission and cultivation of the Latin language, and at the improvement of the manners of the church and of the people who were then; in addition, he also provided many works of the ancients with commentaries, and in particular, following in the footsteps of Laurentius Valla, he took care to publish the New Testament in Greek and Latin.

In short, he is considered to have been a reformer of the Christian church who, criticizing the vices of the church, yet refusing to divide it itself, was at that time not acceptable to many Protestants or Catholics. Therefore, a little before his death, he left Basel, where he was living with his friend and printer John Frobenius, after the city joined the Protestants, and moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. He died there in 1536, and was buried in the cathedral of Basel. Although he was always suffering from kidney stones, he did not die from them.

Interesting that the Portuguese is quite wrong, if Google has translated correctly (Portugal, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark?? He corresponded with them and influenced, not travelled):

Erasmus of Rotterdam (European Portuguese) or Rotterdam (Brazilian Portuguese) (October 28, 1466 – July 12, 1536 in Basel),[1] born Gerrit Gerritszoon or Herasmus Gerritszoon (Latin: Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus), was a Dutch humanist theologian and philosopher who traveled throughout Europe, including Portugal, England, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Bulgaria, Denmark and others.

So I think it would be better to revise the English lede with some cherry-picked parts of the other articles. Such as "Dutch-born" rather than "Dutch". And "theologian-philosopher" rather than "philosopher".Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have adjusted the lede with material phrases from the other major languages. This includes


 * (from the Dutch page) Make "Dutch-born". Use "thinker" instead of "Scholar". Steal sentence "He developed a..". Remove "and its cleric's abuses" and just have "reform the Catholic church from within" (because superstitious lay practises and corrupt monasticism was even more on his radar than clergy.)
 * (from Latin and spanish page) remove "philosopher" and add more accurate items
 * (from French) use "vast"
 * Moved the sentence on "Prince of Humanists" to section Legacy, as it is a much later appellation that is relatively unimportant.Rick Jelliffe (talk)  19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not especially arguing with the results, but looking at what other wps do is usually the last way to resolve such matters. You should look at major WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rick Jelliffe, sorry to respond after changing it, but I realized only now that there was a discussion. Having said that, I do think the changes are quite absurd. Looking to other 'major languages' as a source? I'm sorry but a. you should try to base yourself upon authoritative sources and b. there's not a single 'major language' that refers to him as 'Dutch-born' (except the Dutch wiki, but Dutch is not a major language). One quick look at the Oxford Reference learns that most (if not all) encyclopedia's refer to him as a Dutch humanist or Dutch scholar.
 * With regard to theologian, philosopher or humanist. I would say, choose either a single denominator (so 'Dutch humanist of the Northern Renaissance') or choose an enumeration in which you're summing up everything he made a contribution to (e.g. Dutch philosopher, theologian, humanist, etc.). 213.124.169.240 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod I am fine with your reversion.
 * But on the issue of WP:RS I do disagree that it applies here in the way suggested, probably my fault in how I described what I was trying to do. According to the Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
 *  In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies 
 * So issues of the source of the phrases are pretty much irrelevant: what matters is whether the lede fairly summarizes the contents (and whether the contents use WP:RS. If I look through other Wikipedia language's ledes and find phrases that better summarizes the English article, in what way does that go against WP:RS?  I am not looking for definite sources, but cherry-picking for phrases that best explain the English article, which is the function of the lede. (By the same token, whether the language is major or minor is irrelevant.)
 * So from that POV, calling him a "philosopher" is not a summary of the contents while e.g. "humanist" is; calling him Dutch (a nationality or ethnicity) is only implied by the contents, while Dutch-born is explicit. (And, as far as "citizenship", his status as a religious and priest made him an international rather than a national). Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Issues of the source of the phrases are pretty much irrelevant', even if this is true, then there's absolutely no reason to call him 'Dutch-born', you copied that with an erroneous translation from the Dutch Wikipedia, who in turn are not basing it upon anything. Where is that derived from in the main article? It's simply based upon your own deductions and falls therefore under own research.


 * With regard to Erasmus being called a philosopher. I could understand this because he contributed to some philosophical matters, most notably the discussion concerning free will. Also, he is included in overviews of philosophy as an important link between late Medieval philosophy and Early Modern philosophy (cf. Renaissance philosophy). And on top of that, there are sources that refer to him as a philosopher.


 * Last but not least a personal frustration. Why don't people look at the sources anymore? In the words of Erasmus himself: 'Sed in primis ad fontes ipsos properandum.' This is the entire basis of Wikipedia. There was a discussion recently at the Spinoza article. Apparently Spinoza cannot be called a 'Dutch philosopher' anymore, even though all the major scholars on Spinoza and all the references I checked at the Oxford Reference refer to him as such. Are the people who refuse to consult sources and just write what they think in charge of Wikipedia these days? Apparently...213.124.169.240 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "Erasmus of Rotterdam" is a bit of a clue that he was Dutch-born, yes? It is not a deduction, not WP:OR, it is a statement that he was born somewhere stated in the article body, that was then and now regarded as part of the Low Countries.
 * Btw The nl.wikipedia article says "in Holland geboren", so in what what way is "Dutch-born" a mis-translation? Do you prefer '"Holland-born"?Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points made by the IP user today. Also, I find it a bit redundant and trivial when you base it off on how other Wikipedian leads are structured and I believe the way it's structured right now as being fine. Raulois (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No language version of Wikipedia is a WP:RS, and most of them are translations of another language version. Some, especially thye "home language" are worth looking at, but they are not usually the best guides. In English, "Dutch-born" implies he then emigrated somewhere else, which doesn't really fit with Erasmus, great traveller though he was. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue for the lede is whether it reflects the article contents. Whether the phrases come from other national articles or from tea-leaves on Mars is not material, if they are apt. WP:RS and WP:OR are red herrings in that regard.
 * For WP:CITE, could you put in some text with a citation in the body to explain why he is foremost classed a philosopher in the lede? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rick Jelliffe, to answer your last question first: I have no idea, but the entire enumeration is completely random and weird (Erasmus the Educationalist?...).
 * Again, no-one writes 'Dutch-born' and then no nationality, this makes no sense; not on Wikipedia and also not with regard to the sources where Wikipedia ought to be based upon. This is in my view the most fundamental aspect of this project, but some people (again, consider the Spinoza case) apparently either don't care for that or think they know more than academics who are writing about these matters as a profession.
 * Then the translation. I know there are some people on the Dutch Wikipedia who have a fetish with being historically informed. So then Leonardo Da Vinci is not an 'Italian painter', but 'a painter from Florence'. There is definitely some logic in that, but they're not consistent (Michelangelo is suddenly Italian) and usually you won't find these kind of references in tertiary or secondary sources (who are in my experience far more pragmatic); and apart from that: 'Italian' not only refers to a nationality, but also to an ethnicity. Thus: 'Holland-born' refers directly to the historical County of Holland where Erasmus indeed was born, whereas 'Dutch-born' is a reference to modern day the Netherlands, which is of course anachronistic (if you really want to do this, then 'a humanist from the County of Holland' would be a correct translation). And no, I do not prefer any 'x-born', I prefer the way he is being referred to in sources that are authoritative. This is the way it should always be on this project; not deducing or making up stuff yourself but presenting information based on references. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are making mountains out of mole-hills.
 * 1) Of course he was an educationalist: in the article is reference to his association with St Pauls, with Cambridge, with the Trilingual college, that his copia/adages/colloqia/grammar were basic texts, his pronuncation system, etc. He was not an educator (i.e., a direct teacher) of any note, but concerned with providing textbooks, exemplars and theory. Not "random", not "weird." He was more important as an educationalist than as a philosopher proper (and more important as a theologian and philologist than as a philosopher, for that matter.)
 * 2) To get rid of any Dutch nationalism, lets look at "Australian-born" on Google. Eliminating dictionaries and statistics: In no case (in the first few pages I looked at) is nationality next, but issue of countries of residence or lineage. For example: https://australian.museum/about/history/exhibitions/trailblazers/andy-thomas-ao/ says  It was the first time an Australian had been in space as a NASA astronaut (although Australian-born Paul Scully-Power, an oceanographer, flew in Challenger...)  (It also calls him  An Adelaide-born boy who grew up playing with rockets and dreamed of becoming an astronaut  )  Your comment that no-one writes X-born without a nationality is objective false on easy-to-find evidence. Now it may be that in your neck of the woods that is the only usage, but certainly not in my neck of the woods.
 * 3a) Dutch certainly can refer to an ethnicity.
 * 3b) On the subject of what Erasmus considered himself, it depended on who he is writing to. You might care to look at Erasmus becomes a Netherlander https://doi.org/10.2307/2543449 (a good source, though marred by guesswork.) "The first reason that Erasmus never became a German was that he was born one." Erasmus at various times called himself a Netherlander, Batavian, a Hollander, from Brabant, from Burgundy, a German and even French.)  The final paragraph has this: "A term that would be better discarded altogether in Erasmus scholarship is "Dutch". .. Calling Erasmus a Dutch humanist is an anachronisism. ... Erasmus was a Hollander and a Netherlander but not something "Dutch" in between."   So if you disagree with both "Dutch" (for reasons of anachronism) and "-born" but only when coupled with "Dutch", what about we just put "born in Holland" (with a link to County of Holland) or "from the Netherlands"? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I. It seems thus that you’re beginning to complexify the matter than it was originally; for now you’re beginning to enter into locus of historiographical nationalism. I, on the other hand, cannot comprehend what fruit this will bear on discoursing about his ethnicity when it’s putatively understood that his ethnicity was Dutch and it would subsequently follow that we don’t have to need “Dutch-born”, however, if you want to add a footnote and insert the quote on the nationality part then that’s fine.
 * II. An exemplar of a good article on Wikipedia that uses ethnicity and nationality in a fitting manner is the James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth article by which it states he was a Dutch-born but his nationality was English by virtue of him staying in England for the rest of his life until he was killed. But, as @Johnbod said: “In English, "Dutch-born" implies he then emigrated somewhere else, which doesn't really fit with Erasmus, great traveller though he was.” Erasmus was a peripatetic and if he had time, it’s likely that he would’ve left Basel for another location. In any case though, I’ve cited definitions of what ethnicity and nationality means according to those two dictionaries. Per those two dictionaries, Dutch would be the best option since he was born in the Burgundian Netherlands (modern-day Netherlands) would make his ethnicity and nationality Dutch. Raulois (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * II. An exemplar of a good article on Wikipedia that uses ethnicity and nationality in a fitting manner is the James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth article by which it states he was a Dutch-born but his nationality was English by virtue of him staying in England for the rest of his life until he was killed. But, as @Johnbod said: “In English, "Dutch-born" implies he then emigrated somewhere else, which doesn't really fit with Erasmus, great traveller though he was.” Erasmus was a peripatetic and if he had time, it’s likely that he would’ve left Basel for another location. In any case though, I’ve cited definitions of what ethnicity and nationality means according to those two dictionaries. Per those two dictionaries, Dutch would be the best option since he was born in the Burgundian Netherlands (modern-day Netherlands) would make his ethnicity and nationality Dutch. Raulois (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No, "Dutch-born" does not imply he emigrated in English, if that means giving up citizenship and deciding to move forever to some other location; a straw man. At most it implies that he moved, which he clearly did.As the examples I gave show, "X-born" does not always even imply movement. He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rick Jelliffe, to be frank, I think this entire discussion actually is making a mountain out of a molehill. First, I'm not disputing Erasmus was an educationalist, but I think it's quite weird to call someone as such, because there's not a single source (that I know) that introduces him like that (like I said, most references say: 'Dutch humanist' or 'Dutch scholar').
 * Your example of Paul Scully-Power really illustrates my point actually, as Scully-Power worked for a very long time in the United States, for Erasmus, who worked in so many different countries, this would be impossible to determine (and where do you draw the line? is René Descartes also 'French-born'? is Vincent Van Gogh also 'Dutch-born'?).
 * With regard to your example of Erasmus being a German, yes, this is of course true; but then again it isn't, because the Holy Roman Empire is of course not the same as Germany. And secondly, it is highly counter-intuitive. For example, if we were to call Erasmus a German, then strictly speaking we have to call Leonardo Da Vinci a German as well, because Florence at the time was also part of the Holy Roman Empire; now this, of course, would be absurd.
 * Last but not least: I already said multiple times that I agree with the common way of referring to him (or any person for that matter), like it is done in the academic community, in that light no-one is referring to him as 'x-born', but simply 'a Dutch humanist or 'a Dutch scholar'. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, this is blatantly false. Erasmus was a peripatetic:
 * In fact, this is blatantly false. Erasmus was a peripatetic:
 * In fact, this is blatantly false. Erasmus was a peripatetic:

Raulois (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The function of the lede is to summarize and unlock the article. So what other sources "introduce him as" is useful for finding phrases, but is no restriction. (And particularly when so many sources merely parrot what Wikipedia says.)
 * But there are citations easily findable: in fact some of them suggest that Erasmus was not just any old educationalist, but was THE greatest educationalist of his age:
 * "Translator Betty I. Knott writes in her introduction to the CWE (Complete Works of Erasmus) edition, "On its (de Copia's) first publication the work was received with great acclaim, not only in England but on the Continent, and ... it established Erasmus as a leading humanist scholar and educationalist" quoted in The Writer and His Style: Erasmus' Clash with Guillaume Budé,Laurel Carrington, Brill, p70' https://brill.com/view/journals/eras/10/1/article-p61_5.xml?ebody=previewpdf-63165
 * "..more characteristic of Erasmus as an educationalist is his collection of dialogues" ... "Finally, we should not overlook the fact that the system of secondary education, as developed in a number of European countries, is inconceivable without the efforts of humanist educationalists, particularly Erasmus." FIVE HUNDRED YEARS OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING IN THE NETHERLANDS, 1450-1950, Edited by Jan Noordegraaf & Frank Vonk, Stichting Neerlandistiek VU, Amsterdam https://research.vu.nl/files/73664413/500
 * "As the most illustrious rhetorician and educationalist of the Renaissance, Erasmus was the key player in the formation of the new school system" The Medium was the Message: Classical Rhetoric and the Materiality of Language from Empedocles to Shakespeare, Miles J.J..,Layram, Uni of York https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/11008/1/440731.pdf
 * "Despite this, Erasmus' reputation as an educationalist (particularly among Jesuits)"  Censorship, A World Encyclopedia, 2001  https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Censorship/gDqsCQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
 * "Erasmus ' adage What has a dog to do with a bath launches two important themes, championed by Europe' s most prolific and popular educationalists." Erasmus, Man of Letters, The Construction of Charisma in Print, By Lisa Jardine · 2015 https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Erasmus_Man_of_Letters/UqDGBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
 * "Erasmus wrote as an educationalist and a devout Christian, not as a politician." from “To catch eels” Erasmus, religion, and political education, Nicolette Mout  https://www.academia.edu/9589092/_To_catch_eels_Erasmus_religion_and_political_education_in_A_Badurov%C3%A1_e_a_eds_Humanismus_v_rozmanitosti_pohled%C5%AF_Farrago_festiva_Iosepho_Hejnic_nonagenario_oblata_Prague_2014_33_49
 * "Erasmus has basked in the posthumous glow of credit as a liberal educationalist..." Review: The Impact of Humanist Values, The Historical Journal, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2640041
 * "Nearly five hundred years ago, Desiderius Erasmus, acclaimed writer, theologian and educationalist " Eleanor Merchant, Introduction, A Handbook on Good Manners for Children, Random House, https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/A_Handbook_on_Good_Manners_for_Children/Tn6fZZrxP1sC?hl=en&gbpv=0
 * Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To the comment that  no-one  refers to Erasmus as Dutch-born, could you at least Google before making those kind of statements?
 * Erasmus "program, which is financed by the European Union and named after the 16th-century Dutch-born pan-European scholar," New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/30iht-educside30.html
 * " In my experience, few witnesses have been greater than the Dutch-born writer known as Erasmus (1466?-1536)" https://pietistschoolman.com/2012/11/06/the-education-of-a-christian-president/
 * "He was a Dutch-born scholar who withdrew from a monastery and wandered to.." https://quizlet.com/195433797/chapters-13-and-14-flash-cards/
 * "Nobody in the sixteenth century carried the humanist torch higher than Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466–1536), the Dutch-born scholar best known for editing" Faith and Reason Through Christian History: A Theological Essay https://books.google.com.au/books?id=IQGWEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=erasmus+%22dutch-born%22&source=bl&ots=kTNxighEvI&sig=ACfU3U1dyRq-4Fxrgkbjxj5BHQd4ZtS2ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiUwfGRn6qAAxWzm1YBHVicArE4HhDoAXoECAYQAw
 * ... many many more
 * Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On the topic of his being German, please read the article I referred to.
 * Thanks for showing the timeline I made. Which part is "blatantly false"? That he only spent 4 of the last 40 years is obvious from the line. Or are you saying the timeline is wrong? (It would be better if the timeline had six or three month increments, not yearly...) In which case, please point out the problem in the Talk page so it can be fixed.
 * Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I. You see, now, it begins to be a problem because in order to see which is used more we would have to use a ngram but due to "Dutch-born" having a hyphen, it will not be able to go through since they don't accept hyphens on NGRAM, therefore fighting over which is used more is fatuous.
 * II. No, you said "He only spent, what, 4 years of the last 40 in his life in that area (and mostly in Louvein, which is modern Belgium, because Charles V ordered him.) And he took his stuff with him when he moved. And he bought a house (in Freiburg), which is not very peripatetic of him." To elucidate, it shows he was a peripatetic because he rarely spent a substantial amount of time in one place with having to go to another place a few years later and then staying that place for x-amount of years. Thus, Dutch-born isn't needed since it's his nationality. 
 * III. "I think it's quite weird to call someone as such, because there's not a single source (that I know) that introduces him like that (like I said, most references say: 'Dutch humanist' or 'Dutch scholar')." The IP user is quite correct, I just searched up on Google "erasmus" and these are the first few that come up:
 * "Erasmus, in full Desiderius Erasmus, (born October 27, 1469 [1466?], Rotterdam, Holland [now in the Netherlands]—died July 12, 1536, Basel, Switzerland), Dutch humanist" https://www.britannica.com/biography/Erasmus-Dutch-humanist
 * ''Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1469-1536) was a Dutch humanist scholar considered one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance. https://www.worldhistory.org/Desiderius_Erasmus/
 * However, as I said before, "due to "Dutch-born" having a hyphen, it will not be able to go through since they don't accept hyphens on NGRAM, therefore fighting over which is used more is fatuous." Therefore, we cannot say whether Dutch humanist or Dutch-born are predominant even though I truly believe that they mostly begin with Dutch instead of Dutch-born. Also, it seems you misunderstood what he said, he never denied the existence of Dutch-born in books or articles, he meant that most usually have Dutch humanist or Dutch-born, I agree with him. Most Wikipedian articles that use (ethnicity)-born usually show that they moved to a different state and stayed there for a long period. Raulois (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be shifting the goal post. First because the IP claim is that no-one introduces him as a educationalist, which my examples disprove. The second is that no-one introduces him as dutch-born, which my examples disprove. That other people call him other things is irrelevant to the claims about "no-one": counting which is more used is a red herring: books about education will talk about him as an educationalist, books on theology will discuss him as a theologian. If it is "weird" that the greatest educationalist of his age gets called an "educationalist", doesn't that mean it is high time he does get called that? Any "weirdness" that is felt is a sign of the shortfall, not evidence against it. This is one of my problems with "philosopher": it sounds like it says something but it is so vague it just obscures the several things he should be known for: scholar would be better. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you insist on calling him 'an educationalist', I have no problem with that, but I'm not seeing it anywhere in the references I consulted (I have to say that I only consider references from academic sources, I see that your references, although some of them are academic, but some of them are also (sorry to say) quite absurd (sorry, but what the hell is this: 'https://quizlet.com/195433797/chapters-13-and-14-flash-cards/'?). Also, what is 'an educationalist'? Do you mean 'a teacher'?
 * I'm seeing the following on the Oxford references:
 * - The Oxford Guide to Literary Britain & Ireland (3 ed.): Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ), Dutch humanist
 * - A Dictionary of Writers and their Works (3 ed.): Desiderius ( circa 1467–1536 ) Dutch humanist
 * - The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ). Christian humanist
 * - World Encyclopedia: Desiderius ( 1466–1536 ) ( Gerhard Gerhards ) Dutch scholar and teacher, the greatest of the Renaissance humanists.
 * - A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.): Desiderius (born Gerhard Gerhards ) ( c .1469–1536 ) Dutch humanist and scholar.
 * - The Oxford Companion to German Literature (3 ed.): Desiderius (Rotterdam, 1466–1536, Basel), Dutch humanist
 * - The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance: Desiderius ( c. 1466–1536 ), Dutch humanist and theologian,
 * - The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation: Desiderius ( 1467?–1536 ), humanist, reformer, moralist, and satirist.
 * With regard to Erasmus being a philosopher, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467?–1536) was not a systematic philosopher although we discern in the large body of his writings a certain Erasmian habit of mind. He often reflected on subjects that invite philosophical inquiry: the influence of nature versus nurture, the relationship between word and thing, the ideal form of government, the nature of faith, and the theory of knowledge.
 * - The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation: Desiderius ( 1467?–1536 ), humanist, reformer, moralist, and satirist.
 * With regard to Erasmus being a philosopher, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467?–1536) was not a systematic philosopher although we discern in the large body of his writings a certain Erasmian habit of mind. He often reflected on subjects that invite philosophical inquiry: the influence of nature versus nurture, the relationship between word and thing, the ideal form of government, the nature of faith, and the theory of knowledge.


 * My suggestion: would 'teacher' be adequate for 'educationalist'? If you insist on 'educationalist', I don't particularly mind, but there is not a direct reference (as far as I can see). With regard to philosopher: this is problematic, because it is highly contestable who is to be called a philosopher. I remember I corrected one of my philosophy professors when he said that Bertrand Russell was the only philosopher who ever won a Nobel Prize. I said: but Bergson and Camus were also philosophers. He responded with: 'Camus is not a philosopher!'. (Similarly, coming from the analytic tradition, he also didn't think Heidegger was a philosopher.). So my point: being called a philosopher is a subjective matter. Erasmus clearly didn't have a systematic philosophy like Descartes or Spinoza, but then again, does that define 'a philosopher'?
 * I would suggest: call him either a humanist or call him many things; so either 'a Dutch humanist' or 'a Dutch humanist, scholar, teacher, philosopher, writer, amateur cook, golfer, etc.' 213.124.169.240 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed; these are all good points and reliable sources. And, I believe I could add a footnote to scholar and say that he wasn’t a “systematic philosopher”. @Rick Jelliffe, I sincerely believe this is the best option unless we have to resort to voting. Raulois (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree with 'educationalist', and if I understand Rick Jelliffe well, then he really wants to add this. I finished my contribution with a joke, but I am serious in that you run the risk of having an endless enumeration. Perhaps something like: 'a Dutch humanist, scholar, educationalist, philosopher and writer.' is good? Otherwise, 'a Dutch humanist' would be better. But I can agree with both. I do have to say that the entire lead of this article could be better, with a more clearly written summary of Erasmus's contributions and importance. What surprises me as well about this article is the relative small role of In Praise of Folly, whilst this is unarguably his most famous and lasting work (who reads anything else by Erasmus, except for maybe his letters?). 213.124.169.240 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Educationalist: Ah, so is part of the problem unfamiliarity with the word "educationalist"? It is used in distinction from "educator" or "teacher", so it is certainly *not* a synonym: an educator teaches students directly, and educationalist is a scholar who teaches indirectly (by making text books) and/or is concerned with the theory and practice of education.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/educationalist It is the standard, specific academic term. So Erasmus rarely actually taught directly: he did some lectures at Cambridge on Jerome, and may have tutored a little when chaperoning, but it was not his bag or vocation; he had a kind of apprentice system at Froben (as he had been, perhaps, at Aldus) where young academics would do preparatory research/editing/collating/advising for him, or act as his amanuensis, so they were his students by osmosis and on-the-job training, rather than by being taught formally. He was an influencer, not a teacher; in part because of his relentless attitude to his work, he tried to keep away from distractions, even when it meant poverty (which he would the complain about.)
 * Treatment: Good point: the subsections on In Praise of Folly etc. should use the "Main Article" template. I will add some.
 * Notability: I agree that Praise of Folly is the most commonly-read writing of his, but even that (like Utopia) is almost never read, really. His notability now is not that he is a much-read author, but his thought and methods are baked-into our mental cakes. For example, how common is it in schools is it to try to teach (especially teaching languages) by playing or by play-acting? That method in part derives from the dialogues etc. of his Colloquia: from shipwrecks to civil arguments. His political and moral ideas still reverberate: anyone who is a serious pacifist will have probably read at least exracts of his writing. About a third of the world are counted as Christian in lists (no flames please https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/) and all those from the Western traditions have been influenced by Erasmus: notably Catholics with both Trent and the Second Vatican Council. Luther is more widely known now, but even within Lutheran churchgoers, most Christians have a similar view to Erasmus' on free will, not Luther. His system of ancient Greek pronunciation has turned out to be more right than wrong. Erasmus' direct influence was to Latin-reading intelligensia, and that world has passed (even the Vatican writes documents in e.g. Italian then translates to Latin.) There are hundreds of academic papers written about him every year, because he was in the thick of so much in the 1500s: but that was 500 years ago, so while his influence is everywhere, he is not much read.
 * It is surprising that he is as famous still as he is: given that most of his writing has been translated into English only in the last 30 years, and that his books were suppressed in Catholic Europe and looked on with suspicion in Lutheran Europe: in both cases, his works was tweaked for partisan purposes and re-issued without his name (such as the Louvain Augustine), so the suppression was more of his name than his works...) I think part of his notability is that he was incredibly funny (with a dry wit) and shy, and loved funny bold people (like Colet and More): how many people have seen the movies "In the Name of the Rose" and realized it was inspired by Erasmus (and the pushback from the Sorbonne and Salamanca about the appropriateness of satirical theology)?
 * Perhaps he is most well-know on the Internet for quotes that he never actually said: all sorts of bizarre things. :-) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Systematic: I don't think we need to put in anything about Erasmus not being a systematic philosopher: isn't that already covered in the Writings section: "Erasmus has been called a seminal, rather than a consistent or systematic thinker" ? I would rather have more material on what he was and did rather than what he wasn't (or wasn't much.)
 * Another angle: editors should perhaps be aware that "philosopher" *may* have slightly narrower connotations for (some) native English speakers than for speakers with other first languages: in that in the Anglosphere "philosophy" has been dominated by Analytic philosophy focused on issues of logic (as distinct from e.g. Continental philosophy) which sets expectations about what philosophy is about. So, for example, in English Wikipedia Lenin is described as "Russian lawyer, revolutionary, politician and political theorist " but in Italian "un rivoluzionario, politico, filosofo e scrittore russo"  (though, to be fair, the French and German Wikipedia's don't call him a philosopher either.)  I may be going to far in this, but it is certainly a tendency I detect in myself. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Going a bit too far, no? Erasmus was born before any such dichotomies ever existed? I didn’t know one could conceive of such preconceptions as to treat the word philosopher semantically different when it redirects to this, not analytical philosophy nor continental philosophy… Raulois (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics.  Erasmus did not treat epistemology, logic or metaphysics (indeed was scathing about scholastics who concentrated on them); his treatment of ethics was as a theologian not as a philosopher proper. The complication is that in his role as a professional translator and editor, he produced many works by classical philosophers: it is notable that he did not produce any editions of Christian or semi-Christian philosophers such as Boethius, just the theologians.   Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added footnote. Raulois (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have made a new section "Erasmus and Philosophy" and pulled down Raulois' excellent note to its first sentence. This also unclutters the lede. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * People would've already known about this note due to it being in the lede, also you already stated in that section that Erasmus didn't consider himself a philosopher and included a citation in which if people desired to click on the citation then they would be directed to where it says "Erasmus was not a philosopher...". Thus, I believe there would be more concinnity if it stayed in the lede. Raulois (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Philosophia Christi
Academics have variously situated his thought as Christianized stoic, epicurean, platonic/nominalist; and some of his Collequies e.g. Epicureans have a philosophical MacGuffin. But were any of his books -as author- about Philosophy in the academic sense used in modern English? Probably need to add sentence to include reference to some of these p, e.g. | The Stoic Origins of Erasmus' Philosophy of Christ)  Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added material on philosophia christi.

Catholic Priest or Roman Catholic Priest?

 * Original lead said Erasmus was Catholic priest
 * User HenryRoan adds "Roman", saying "Article says that he was Roman Catholic"
 * User Johnbod reverts saying "same difference"
 * I undid reversion saying "Not all Catholic priests are Roman Catholic priests: there are Maronite Catholic priests for example. Erasmus clearly was a Roman Catholic priest. So the reason given for removing the "Roman" is not adequate; however, it is not a big deal."
 * User Johnbod re-reverts saying "I know, but Erasmus was clearly not a Ukrainian Uniate etc, & the rest of the article just uses Catholic, rightly. Take it to talk if you must." Unfortunately, this also removes some other changes.
 * I re-did those changes, but kept "Roman" deleted, to comply with WP:3RR.

I have more sympathy for allowing "Roman Catholic" there because


 * 1) it is respectful to HenryRoan
 * 2) it is more precise
 * 3) Johnbod's reason is not convincing
 * 4) I know that some Anglicans and Lutherans consider themselves or their churches Catholic (because they say the Creed, or are established): the term is not univocal and therefore it is not a great evil to be precise in the lead.
 * 5) That the article uses plain "Catholic" in other places does not mean that "Roman Catholic" must be banned. Anyway, it is factually wrong that only "Catholic" is used elsewhere: there is one use of "Roman Catholicism".

In reviewing the article for this, I note that the Legacy>Catholic section, "Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is incorrect (too general) and "Roman Catholic Easter Vigil mass" is correct (AFAIK the renewal of baptismal promises is not part of the rites of the non-Roman Catholic-Churches, so I will change that. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you are still edit-warring about this! There has been a vast amount of discussion of this at many pages, in particular Catholic Church; I don't remember seeing you there. One factor you don't seem aware of is that a high proportion of "Roman Catholics" find that term annoying, bordering on offensive, and that for someone (or two people) who are presumably not RC themselves to impose that term on a Catholic priest seems inappropriate/POV. User HenryRoan, a very new editor, needs to learn that when changing a high-traffic article, a better rationale than "Article says that he was Roman Catholic" (whatever that means) is needed. What on earth does "to comply with WP:3RR" mean?? Crazy. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is Wikipedia's 3 reversions per day policy. Look it up. WP:3RR, which is on the page on actual edit-warring.
 * By the way, I am a Catholic, and a Roman Catholic at that: I have never met a Roman Catholic who found "Roman Catholic" offensive when used by a Catholic or in a non-perjorative way, in Australia.
 * According to Roman_Catholic_(term) Roman Catholic is not offensive to Americans but is in fact the preferred distinguishing term.04:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? I find that hard to believe frankly. It certainly doesn't work that way in Europe. I don't know about Australia, but how often do you find "Roman Catholic" used in Catholic writing for a Catholic audience? Very rarely, I'd suggest. You should drop the time-wasting stick. Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is not what shorthand Catholics use privately, but whether "Roman" is always redundant. Clearly it sometimes carries specific meaning, and is useful to keep things clear if different populations of English-reading Wikipedia users have different understanding, therefore to remove it willy nilly without providing an adequate substitute is simply bad editing.
 * By the way Johnbod, it makes you sound like a troll when, right after saying something is borderline offensive (without providing evidence, i.e., a citation), you immediately accuse people (on no evidence) of being part or not part of some religious group. Could you please be less inflammatory in the talk? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I tell you what, you look to your own language, & I'll look to mine. I'll remind you (again) I was just reverting to the long-term version. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
The current article is over 100kb long which Splitting says almist certainky should be split. Plus the material proposed for splitting is non-controversial and a good chunk. So I propose that the sections "Writings" and "Works" including all the book and publication lists should be moved to a new Article "Works of Erasmus". Some of the material from the On Free Will and New Testament sections may belong there too. This would leave the Erasmus article to be mainly biographical.

I believe it meets the criteria where I can make a bold action, however I wanted to check if there are any better ideas or reasons not to, etc. before going ahead. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Go for it. You are a major contributor to the article, seem to know quite a lot about Erasmus. And I believe the split will serve the readership further..Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That size should only be determined by readable prose size, not byte size of the entire article. It says that on the page you linked. Is the readable prose size of this article too large? Because at a glance it doesn’t look like it. SaturatedFatts (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When I cut the (non-footer) text from the browser (so there is no markup), save to a text file, and do a character count (using linux wc), it gives a bit over 97,626 characters and 14,800 words. So, yes,I think the readable prose of the rendered pages is too big.
 * B.t.w. According to XText XTools https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/erasmus the total raw file size including markup is 125kb. But it gives a prose size (of the unrendered page) of 49,466 and a word count of 8,000 words.     I believe the prose count on XText  XTools  is wrong, and based on an old  version of the article: in fact there is a warning at the top of the XText  XTools  report page that "some data may be inaccurate".  (I checked that it was not encoding difference: that the cut-and-paste was not saving to UTF-16.)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Rick Jeliffe, the article has still many citation needed tags, is missing inline citations etc. and unverifiable sources. I guess a lot of what is written can be removed if there is no source for it. What sections do you intend to move to a works by Erasmus article? I'd appreciate if you move only sourced content. But I'll help you a bit to get the article in shape. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * I have been going through the article for the last half-year putting in citations where they are marked, and removing material where I cannot find the citation or where it is wrong. I think there are relatively few "citation required" tags now. I have also reviewed quite a few of the citations: The Wikilibrary access has been invaluable for this! Congratulations to whoever organized it! I have gone back to some previously blasted material to re-add it with citations, as I think there were some good contributions in the past.  I have also tried to put in more graphical material (routemap, timeline, pictures from Wikisource) and more list-y less text-y material.
 * So, because I am actively doing this, I would really prefer if inadequately cited material were kept (or checked!) for now (2023?), if you don't mind, not just blasted. (There is another page that was vandalized by a guy removing all uncited sentences, so that some of the sentences left were cited but utterly non-sensical in their meaning as they lost context. Obsessive slash and burn can be counter-productive.) It is one thing to cull an article no-one is maintaining, after a few years of inactivity, but another to cull one that is being worked on.
 * Also, I and others tend to avoid putting citations to the same book or article multiple times in a run of paragraphs: so this can make it appear that the article has uncited text. I want to audit the article for this, to make more use of < ref name="XXX".
 * So apart from not just removing uncited sections yet, what would be good? Yes: adding even more "citation required" tags where there are none. And double-checking that the cited journals etc do justify the phrase in the article.
 * As a side note, I would expect that the new article on Works of Erasmus would indeed (pretty much) be well-cited. It depends on how much material about on Free Will goes into: I think some of that material belongs in the existing strange article about On Free Will, or, better, into a new article on Erasmus and his alter ego Martin Luther. (That page would be subject to another split discussion, I am not suggesting it now.)
 * In general, I think the big problem with the articles on Erasmus is not that they are unsourced, but that the sources (explicit or implicit) often come from partisan sources (e.g. 19th Century Protestant and Catholic, both anti- or pro-Erasmian) that cannot resist sticking in unfounded commentary, or cod psychologizing. So even if officially WP:RS because they are academic books, we need to be careful to distinguish between what an academic historian says and what is true: those little phrases of spin... Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Readable prose size is 40kb, far under 100kb. What are you talking about?? –  Aza24  (talk)   03:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Where do you get your count from? As I wrote, the Xtools count is wrong (I called it Xtext by mistake: now corrected) : indeed, the Xtools report warns "This page is very old. Some data may be inaccurate due to how revisions were stored in the early days of MediaWiki." I have described my method of counting words above using wc in the rendered text, which excludes tags, which got, then, 97,626 characters and 14,800 words.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As of Feb 2024, the Page Length of the Info menu item gives 367,634 bytes. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

✅ Following the article being tagged recently as too long, I have split out two sections into a new article Works of Erasmus. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Next Split? An editor has marked the article as too long again, and deleted the quotes section. (I didn't care for the quotes section much, either, though I think talking about Erasmus without samples from him is a bit like painting about music.) I have recovered some of the quotes and put them into the relevant Works of Erasmus sections.
 * I have also reduced the entries in the Infobox, and rejigged some sections and headings to be more topical (which may help future splits?) in particular the "Interpretation Caveats" subsection that used to be a rather quibbly attachment under "Turks and Jews" is now an earlier subsection "Manner of expression".
 * But I don't see a clear way to split the article, unless it is to just take the whole Thoughts of Erasmus section into a different article. But that just leaves the article as a biography which (though quite interesting as a traveller and networker) is not enlightening about what makes Erasmus notable. Anyone have any ideas? I don't think there is much scope for the current article to grow more, at least: I think most of the important bases are covered, though it might be that article is relative light on political, legal and pedagogical details.
 * Another approach would be to split out the section on Catholic and Protestant Reform into its own article: it would not reduce the main article that much, however it might allow more material on Erasmus versus Luther, Erasmus versus Zwingli, etc.   It could have the sections on  Protestant and Catholic evaluation from the Evaluations and Legacy section too, I guess. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Splitting Proposal
I am proposing to split the article further, by making another page "Life of Erasmus". This is motivated that even after the previous split to Works of Erasmus, the article is large and an editor re-flagged it for splitting. I already added extra sub-headings, in case that was useful.

In concrete terms:


 * 1) Make new page Life of Erasmus with minimal lead.
 * 2) Move Biography section over
 * 3) Add Main tag and 1 para biography to main article
 * 4) Move over Personal/Clothing, Representations, signet ring and personal motto, and exhumation to Life of Erasmus
 * 5) Fix citations

I am thinking that making a Life of Erasmus article would be better than, say, a Thought of Erasmus because of topic cohesion (and ease) and because his notable thought is probably what people are more interested than his interesting life? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

4 periods
The current text of the Biography starts with "Erasmus's almost 70 years can be divided into quarters" then gives them; which has been tagged "according to whom". I think the tag misses the point: it is not an invocation to unspecified authorities, but a summary of the following information.

I think such a summary is highly needed due to the lengthy and complex bio section. I will change the "can "to "may" and add "overview" as an unnecssary heading. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)