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)

Regarding the militia

"Between 1503 and 1506, Machiavelli was responsible for the Florentine militia. ... Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in 1509." <-- That 1509 being out of the interval mentioned needs explanation. Sz. (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been rewritten with citations.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

The lede contains who unclear/confusing sentences:

1. "Machiavelli's name came to evoke similar unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in The Prince." tells the reader these unscrupulous acts are similar - so the reader wonders if they have missed something... similar to what? Please change this sentence to "Machiavelli's name came to evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in The Prince." (That is, the removal of the word "similar" - it adds nothing but confusion.)
2. "With scholars such as Leo Strauss and others stating that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil"." This is not a complete sentence. It was contributed by @EnlightenedWikipedian: so maybe it's just a fragment that was not fully thought out. Please change it to "Scholars such as Leo Strauss stated that Machiavelli was a "teacher of evil"." (That is, remove the dysfunctional "With"; remove the superfluous "and others" made redundant by the "scholars such as"; and change "stating" to past tense.)

Thankyou! 49.181.229.71 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Appreciate the proofreading! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:11, 24 September 2020 (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)