Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keefera. Peer reviewers: Werdna6102.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Machiavelli's intentions.

I think the article can be improved by an additional paragraph or section that explains what we know about Machiavelli's intentions behind his advice to the Prince. The article seems to imply that it doesn't matter to Machiavelli what vision or intentions the Prince has for his realm, or whether the Prince has overpowering narcissistic tendencies or not. There are a few mentions that Machiavelli considered some Princely behaviors "good." By what criteria, "good"? Only to maintain reign, or "good" as in any kind of humanistic concern for the Prince's subjects? Why does Machiavelli want to instruct the Prince how to behave? What were Machiavelli's own intentions in writing the book? It seems to me this is a glaring omission in this article. Or maybe that's why Machiavelli is hard to understand, because he keeps his cards close to his chest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasathought (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please write in terms of what published expert sources say. That is what we try to summarize. I think there is indeed a lot of discussion about how important his intentions might have been, just a lot of disagreement about the details of what those intentions were? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the thoughts of another, we can only speculate. Machiavelli never left clear answers to the questions you asked, the best we have are various analysis which speculate about the questions above.2601:140:8D01:C90:6924:6988:965D:535 (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There certainly have been a lot of authors who've published their opinions about his real intentions. He was clearly avoiding being clear about them. It is a long running controversy. Rousseau saw it him Machiavelli as a joker, and in the 20th century Strauss apparently had a lot of sympathy for that reading. I think this is to some extent already covered in the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Correspondence "well known"

After Machiavelli retired, he corresponded with friends. This correspondence is described as "well known." It is not clear — was it well known by his contemporaries or by today’s scholars? Does the phrase matter? What does the phrase add to the sentence? Wis2fan (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It is very famous among modern scholars. Of course it would not have been famous when it was still private.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed two sources that were grossly misrepresented.

The old sentence in the lead which stated "He also notably encouraged politicians to engage in evil when it would be necessary for political expediency." was backed by both the sources by Strauss (pg. 297):

Machiavelli is the only political thinker whose name has come into common use for designating a kind of politics.... a politics guided exclusively by considerations of expediency, which uses all means....for achieving its ends.....why is it called after Machiavelli who thought or wrote only a short while ago, about 500 years ago? Machiavelli was the first publicly to defend it in books with his name on the title pages. (paraphrasing to avoid copyright issues)

And Mansfield (p. 178):

".....but at other times he urges us to share in that evil and he virtuously condemns half-hearted immoralists."

Because the other lede sentence is apparently more important, I am removing the following two references, neither of which mention founding republics by violence. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finally using the talk page, but you can please explain a bit more clearly what you are thinking?

• What do you mean by the "old sentence"? Isn't that the new sentence which you inserted only one day ago (without any edsum) in the place of the sentence which you are treating as new? [1] He also notably encouraged politicians to engage in evil when it would be necessary for political expediency. Please explain. Have I misunderstood something?
• In your recent two edits you have only removed sources. I presume that this first talk page post above is aiming to explain why you have removed them, but I don't see any such explanation. What you seem to be explaining is why your new sentence was not wrong? But no-one said it was wrong? I said it repeated the previous sentence. Are you deleting the sources as a kind of revenge edit? I am sure that can't be it, but please make your explanations more clear.
• My real edsum explaining my concern about your new sentence was actually as follows: the new version changed the meaning of the sentence, essentially repeating the previous one (apparently without thinking about what the sentence was saying), and apparently paid no attention to the sources being cited for the sentence. Don't change the meaning of sentences with careful sourcing unless you are checking or changing the sourcing The previous sentence was He claimed that his experience and reading of history showed him that politics has always involved deception, treachery, and crime. Immediately after it you placed He also notably encouraged politicians to engage in evil when it would be necessary for political expediency. That does not seem to add much? Please explain if there is some information you want to add which you think the text did not include. Is it the encouragement aspect? This was not clear so far.
• What do you mean by this? the other lede sentence is apparently more important Which other lede sentence, and why is this apparent?
• Concerning the sentence you wanted to change, please note that I am not necessarily opposed to changing it to make it better, but you've not yet explained what is wrong with it, or what you think needs to be added or removed. Shouldn't you be explaining what is wrong with it rather than deleting sources? Here it is: He also notably said that a ruler who is establishing a kingdom or a republic, and is criticized for his deeds, including violence, should be excused when the intention and the result are beneficial to him. For my part I think it is an important point which should be mentioned and not deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

By old, I meant the sentence from a day ago. (I couldn't describe it any other way) I first re edited the sentence to fit all of the sources, and since one of them mentioned chap. 15 of TP where N.M. makes a similar claim, I thought it would suffice. Nevertheless I am not opposed to the current version of this page as of now, to be clear. Plasticwonder (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But why delete sources in this particular type of WP:BRD situation? I think in any case we should try to work out what needs to be said here. I think there are otherwise going to be a few different ideas being mixed up. I have not really studied the history properly yet (no time) but I am thinking that if you had just added your sentence it might have made more sense, and I am also thinking the sentence you don't like, although it seems to be trying to say something worth saying (emphasis on importance of foundation for example) is not great at the moment. I am in a rush right now so I hope you can at least understand my basic concern was with the way one was replaced with the other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand you very clearly. In a few days will come up with ideas and bring them to the talk page first. I have to take a break for work related reasons. Plasticwonder (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading of Macchiavelli's letter and sources

Hi there, @Plasticwonder I saw you had removed the video reading of one of Macchiavelli's letters, as from an "unreliable" source ie Youtube; I don't think this is right as the video description gives two sources for the content, being this scan of the Latin, and this book for the translation. Easy to miss I am sure, but it seems reliably sourced to me. Jim Killock (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I get your concerns, but Youtube in general is not a reliable source unless it is a primary source (i.e. from the author himself), see here. Also see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Plasticwonder (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

But Youtube is surely not the source of this information. Rather: [ https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb10605281?page=130,131Machiavelli, Niccolò: Opere di Niccolò Machiavelli, cittadino e segretario fiorentino. 8, [Lettere familiari] Location München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- Opp. 654 z-8] is the source of the Latin words. What would be unsourced or unverifiable? For what is is worth I have read the Latin text and it is what he is reading out? Jim Killock (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but the video itself is from Youtube, which we cannot cite. It would not be an issue if the source you provided was cited, but citing a anonymous youtube channel with 97 subscribers is not really reliable, regardless of what sources they cite. By that same logic we could cite a video from any commentary channel, as long as they cite historical sources.

I don't in any way doubt your good faith, but that is just policy. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Plasticwonder You say "It would not be an issue if the source you provided was cited"

The source is cited on the original video and on the page at Commons? What am I missing?

To be clear, I can vouch that the Latin matches the Latin in the original document. (I don't think there is an equivalence between a reading (easily checked) and commentary (entirely difficult and easy to be wrong).) Jim Killock (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

To help a bit, I have transcribed the text of the letter at Wikisource, here: Epistula_XXXVI. Sources are linked from the PDF etc as usual.

I've also read the policies on YT and can't see an issue with using this file, as the policy deals with commentary, rather than verbatim readings or recordings of public domain music etc (many of which are used on Wikipedia AIUI). Jim Killock (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess you can add it back at your discretion. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for being flexible @Plasticwonder. I know it's difficult with random editors coming along with things, and they are usually not as helpful as they think. Jim Killock (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem! Plasticwonder (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Plasticwonder, I'm going to save the utility question you have raised for a moment, but I really do need the question about WP:RSPYT resolved as I have posted these videos elsewhere, for example at Martin Luther, Neo-Latin, and elsewhere without complaint. Would you mind letting me know who you have talked to and referring them to me? Jim Killock (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I found the conversation so have replied there. Jim Killock (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I've posted this to to the Village pump as it is important for me to get clarity. Jim Killock (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Plasticwonder I don't have a strong opinion on this matter, but I think you latest deletion is giving a faulty edsum [2]. It notes that an admin told you there is a problem with WP:RSPYT, but that's clearly not what the admin involved said here. Both there and on Village Pump the main issue raised was the usefulness of the link. So this would be something normally decided at article level, by involved editors. There is no ban on Youtube links. My own five cents at this moment is that topics like this one often attract readers who are interested in the original languages, and the link does not seem to bring many downsides with it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings Andrew Lancaster,

EdJohnson clearly stated that "The policy that applies is surely WP:RSPYT." I don't know in what other way that could be interpreted as.

Besides, the video is one made by an anonymous user with 97 subscribers and the video itself has 2 likes and 34 views, and is almost certainly not something one should source on a mainstream Wikipedia page.

By that logic, why not also add Machiavelli docs made by popular youtubers? They cite sources as well. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Because popular Youtubers are not simply reading verbatim from a reliable and verified public domain primary source. This ought to be clear. Jim Killock (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can. It is up to us, but I don't think any of us are proposing that because it would not be good for the article. OTOH WP:RSPYT does not block us from using Youtube links if we the local editors want to use one. For many big decisions "local" editors should consider what is best for the article in question. It is not normally useful to try to close discussion based on technicalities on WP because there is no strong governmental apparatus here. EdJohnston only pointed you to the relevant reference you were already looking for, but then went on to say that he suspects the more important point is the usefulness to the article. I think that should guide further discussion here about this point. Does the link create problems or concerns? Does it bring any benefits?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The downside is that it is the only reading and not the absolute priority content, which ought to be for Il Principe in the original Tuscan.

The upside is that the content shows Machiavelli in his mournful last years, reaching out for favours from his remaining connections on behalf of rural friends, and feeling sorry for himself, being unable to delight in the successes of the Medicis and Florence. Jim Killock (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC on video inclusion

Does the community believe that the following media should be included in the article? To put this into perspective it was made by an anonymous Youtuber with a small following, and is not a historian of any kind. There seems to be confusion on what WP:RSPYT means, so this should open the discussion up further. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

as the original poster, the source is entirely verified. The content of the video is a reading of a letter, which is posted at Wikisource for convenience. The English subtitles are translated by myself and can of course be improved. An objection could be made that the modern Latin ("restored Classical") pronunciation is out of step with the kind of Italian pronunciation that Machiavelli would have employed.

• The downside of inclusion is that it is the only reading on the page and not the absolute priority content, which ought to be for Il Principe in the original Tuscan.
• The upside is that the content shows Machiavelli in his mournful last years, reaching out for favours from his remaining connections on behalf of rural friends, and feeling sorry for himself, being unable to delight in the successes of the Medicis and Florence. It also further illustrates the correspondence between Machiavelli and Francesco Vettori, which is discussed in the section on Machiavelli's life.

Jim Killock (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work. However, I don't think it would likely be appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not wasted; the video is probably sufficiently relevant elsewhere if not here. Jim Killock (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Probably No: Seems too close to WP:OR. If the translation is verified by a third party, it would be a possibility. And if there is a secondary source that mentions the importance of the letter. In general, unattributed sources are problematic. I do see that the file attributes to JimKillock as he/she mentions above. It would be better if the video had credits at the end to a real person rather than a wiki-user account, although I know that we do allow photos and videos from editors. I haven't looked carefully at the policy for including photos and videos. My main experience is their use for images of structures or places where there is not much subjective interpretation going on. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  The translation can be checked against this academic and recent translation here; I only retranslated it to avoid potential copyright infringement. I see what you are saying about the relevance issue being potential OR however. Jim Killock (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  The letter is mentioned in some detail in Najemy, John M. (1993). Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513-1515. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 293–95. The main points raised are: that the letter reopened his correspondence with Vettori; his personal distress; the unusual choice of Latin for this letter; potential relations to Machiavelli's work on Ovid; stylistical references to Ovid echoing M's gloomy mood. Jim Killock (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Oppose inclusion. It is a YouTube source, which may be a reading of a letter as JimKillock states, but this doesn't mean it should be included. It would be better to use an actually reliable secondary source that isn't a YouTube video from a non-verified channel, who makes no claims to be a subject-matter expert. If nothing else can be found, just the letter itself, as long as the prose it is supporting makes nothing more than statement of facts (per WP:PRIMARY) could still be used. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose YT is not a reliable source, even for just citing primary sources in the form of documents. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've listened to the text and it matches what is written here. What would be unreliable or unverifiable? Jim Killock (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)