Jump to content

Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Machiavelli's intentions.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Correspondence "well known"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed two sources that were grossly misrepresented.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reading of Macchiavelli's letter and sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I guess you can add it back at your discretion. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No problem! Plasticwonder (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I found the conversation so have replied there. Jim Killock (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RFC on video inclusion

[edit]

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 and unknown Youtuber, who 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks for doing the work. However, I don't think it would likely be appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wasted; the video is probably sufficiently relevant elsewhere if not here. Jim Killock (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) 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) [added template summoned by bot on 08:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)][reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
JimKillock Thanks for the secondary reference. If it is not in the article, I suggest adding it. That would certainly add justification for at least a pointer to a source that has the primary text of the letter itself, such as the one you mentioned: this academic and recent translation here. It looks like some of the others are opposing inclusion of the youtube for reasons similar to my own, yet I do agree with the next respondent that the letter itself and a translation could be included, since you seem to have a good secondary source that mentions it. At this point, I would prefer a subject-matter expert who translates the letter rather than one from a wikipedia editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is understandable. You've been clear about needing to validate the translation; I wonder if others are also questioning the validity of the translation and subtitles, rather than the video and verbatim Latin reading itself? Jim Killock (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Tornheim,
The secondary source was already in the article previously. I am opposing this in particular because it was made by an anonymous Youtube hobbyist whom we do not know the identity of, not a scholar of the field. Plus I am unsure how that will enlighten more readers about NM, seeing as most if not all are not Latin speakers. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasticwonder So the MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE policy is to present both languages when quoting original sources. Plus, hearing a text is a useful experience, as you get to "hear" the cadence in a way you cannot in a translation. Thus for a reading it ought to be in the original language, with English subbed so that the translation is correctable.
EDIT for completeness: another factor is that the letter contains several allusions and quotations from Ovid's Metamorphoses, (soli michi Pergama restant) ie, is poetic in nature; Najemy asks (p. 294) Did Machiavelli write this letter in Latin because he was now immersed in Ovid. Poetry is usually best heard aloud.
On the question of the person doing the reading, it would be helpful to know what would be suitable evidence that the performance and rendition is good. Or if you just don't like how it sounds, just say so. Jim Killock (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as you say, the pronunciation is different from what Machiavelli would have employed. Therefore Oppose since the elements this video adds are actually a piece of OR beyond what is in the material itself. It would be different if you had a reliable secondary source discussing the cadence of the letter when read and then a recreation made on the basis of that discussion. I could see an argument in that case. Fangz (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed pronunciation with some Latinists on la.wikipedia to get their opinion; their view was that the reading was good and the particular pronunciation system not important. Jim Killock (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposer. I believe there would not have been any issue with the video if it were made by a known scholar or a expert on the subject, and though the video is in good faith and is well made it is ultimately from an anonymous user whom no one can verify their identity, nor their stature in the historical scholarship. Even though they cite their sources, that is not sufficient for mention on the Wiki, for the reasons stated. Plasticwonder (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think at this point, it is too early to add the video. The article currently lacks discussion of the Vettorio letters, which are an important aspect of what we know about Machiavelli, but came to light relatively recently (late c19th). The video's inclusion, to be clear, is proposed as an illustration, not as a source. as such it would not appear as a citation and WP:RSPYT therefore as discussed here, does not apply. Guidance on video for illustrative purposes is limited but WP:Images is most relevant. The performance is decent, the letter itself is discussed in secondary sources, and an academic translation is available to check the Wikipedia translation against for accuracy. However, the page content needs developing first. Some change to WP:RSPYT might also be helpful Jim Killock (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello JimKillock,
    I don't think it would be best to expand this article further on a rather technical topic just to include a video reading of a Latin letter which will not be adding to the overall gist of this article.
    Also, I still don't see how WP:RSPYT doesn't apply here, let me explain. The Youtube user is not a scholar or an expert. Unless this video was made by the author of the secondary source, it is not something we should promote. It would be the equivalent of a random Youtuber named Jane Doe recording herself singing "Thriller" by Michael Jackson, and placing it on his wiki page.
    To be clear, there would be no opposition (especially from me) if it were say, John Najemy or Felix Gilbert reading this.
    Besides, I think there is clear consensus (at least at this point) to not include the video here, though this RFC is not done yet and there may be support your contributions.
    Best regards--- Plasticwonder (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSPYT does not apply, because it is a policy about sources, not about content. See link above.
    As far as I can tell, Machiavelli's letters have been a source of considerable academic attention, so almost certainly worth including in some detail in an article on him as a person. They clearly show him in a very different light to his works published in his lifetime.
    That's a different matter as to whether this video is worth using. In terms of what makes a video reading worth including, the question is whether the material is relevant, and the performance is good. This is the same as whether a photograph is taken well, or a musician has played it well. The musician or photographer does not need to be a historian to perform this task well, or the original artist; but they need to be good at their craft.
    Historians don't necessarily make good readers-out. A language expert might be preferred. How you judge the quality of the reading, IMO, would need to rely on asking people who know Latin whether the rendition is good or not. These could be academics, who would probably point out the pronunciation is modern and not fourteenth century. An improvement to the video could be made by asking an Italian Latinist to read it out, in an Italian pronunciation, for example.
    On relevance, I think we need to wait until we've gone through the sources on M's letters and summarised the main points. Jim Killock (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "On relevance, I think we need to wait until we've gone through the sources on M's letters and summarised the main points"
    Agreed. Plasticwonder (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On whether the rendition is any good, we have been having a parallel conversation on Latin Wikipedia about choice of accent for these videos; consensus seems to be that it isn't a major concern; one of LA's admins says: "I would add that in this case the speaker is also quite good at what he is doing." I'm sure we can ask for further reassurance there if it helps. Jim Killock (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per User:David Tornheim; doesn't really pass the sniff test for RS. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not a source). In case it helps, I've asked Latin Wikipedia to to give the text translation a check. Editors have already expressed their appreciation of the rendition. I've asked them to check it against this sourced Commons versions of the letter. I'm missing what is causing doubt for people or what might resolve it. Feedback would be really appreciated, in case of similar issues with other Latin readings. Jim Killock (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself put it, The English subtitles are translated by myself and can of course be improved. They need to be from a reliable, academic source so there is no need for "improvement". YT itself is not a RS, though it can be verified on GoogleBooks that the text of the letter was indeed written by Machiavelli. Now a reliably-sourced translation is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is the same thing I was trying to say. Plasticwonder (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, this is much clearer and helpful. Unfortunately, there are no public domain translations that I could use. As mentioned above, there is an academic translation in copyright, available here. This is less literal than the translation I have provided. However, you can check that they say more or less the same thing, or query why there are differences. On the one or two difficult points, in particular the reference to Troy, the secondary source above gives explanations of the reference and how it might be rendedered into English.
To be clear, most of this letter is quite simple Latin, and Wikipedia expects Wikipedians to make translations, viz MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. Like anything, the point is that it can be verified; there is not a higher bar for the text translation (ie it must be an external academic) just because it is in Latin. There are plenty of EN Wikipedians who could help verify this translation, although none have been invited to this RFC, unfortunately. Jim Killock (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can ping them here if you would like their inclusion, or by leaving a message on their talk page. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that kind of behaviour was frowned on as a kind of pile on tactic? Jim Killock (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Killock, at this point we have RS providing the original text of the letter and a translation into English. Now you have to argue why such content is worthy of inclusion in the article. In all these years, this is the first time I see a video of a letter reading be proposed to be added to an article. Does the letter have some particular importance or notability? I ask because on enwiki videos are very rarely used, and when they are, they are supposed to show something that can't be easily demonstrated with a pic or written text. Said in other words, we can't add a video of a random letter, just because a guy on YT is reading it. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for this comment.
At least on my part, I can attest that in all the Machiavelli secondary literature that I have read, this particular letter is usually not mentioned. His correspondence and mastery of Latin is talked about, but there isn't anything particularly special about this letter. It's not like, for example, the Machiavelli-Vettori letter of 1512 (Where NM announces he is working on The Prince). I also have never seen a video on the enwiki unless it is something dealing with mechanical terminology. Plasticwonder (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so I detail this at #1 and #2 and is in "Between Friends" in a four page discussion, ref above. In essence: it throws light on his work on Ovid; his poetical ability in Latin and drawing on Ovid; his disrupted relationship with Vettori; his exile from court life in Florence; his gloominess away from court. All this to say, at least one source is particularly impressed by this letter and its significance. It has a poetical side which lends to being heard even as a non speaker. I would remind that I didn't ask for this RFC and think it is premature to decide on its inclusion regarding relevance, as I said at #3 and with which @Plasticwonder agreed with at #4. Jim Killock (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasticwonder: with all due respect I think that those types of posts are focussing on quasi-legalistic technicalities based on simplistic interpretations of WP guidelines. They are distracting away from the issues which should be discussed. We can use self published sources, and we can use Youtube, if we think it is appropriate for the quality of the article. Please stop trying to make this a discussion which tries to present this as a "legal issue", which forces us to a specific decision whether or not this video is good for the quality article. The discussion here should basically be about whether it is good for the article. I also think your other reply which attempts to argue that the letter is never discussed in secondary literature is a bit strange. Please take a step back, think about this, and try to present a more balanced argument which does not ask other editors to ignore things like "accuracy" and "quality". Presumably we are worried about quality, or what is the point? In terms of quality, what is you main concern here really? I am finding it difficult to pin it down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We can use self published sources, and we can use Youtube"
What says we can? (specifically regarding non expert content) ?Plasticwonder (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of Wikipedia is non-expert content contributed by non-experts. Jim Killock (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all true with all due respect. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the basic premise: "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" Jim Killock (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it has to be sourced with secondary material from experts, not Joe Shmoes. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that has been done regarding this video. Jim Killock (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't. Onagrus is not an expert. I don't know why you are accepting that. Nonetheless, because it is not an expert rendition of this letter (and not to mention there is no explanation of it's relevance) I still oppose. I do not want to promote a random youtuber's video. That is it. There is also community consensus that is in agreement.
I really don't have anything else to say on this matter. Thank you regardless. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(relevance; sourcing #1, #2)
Onagrus does not need to be a Machiavelli expert, any more than you or I do, although he does need to have a good Latin reading ability. Does David Suchet need to be a Bible scholar to read the Bible into audiobooks? No, he needs to be good at reading aloud, just the same.
A word on this "random youtuber". Onagrus has donated over 300 readings to the community with a cc-by licence. These are substantial pieces of work and in my view well performed. This is something we should be very grateful for, and where helpful, put them to good use. Jim Killock (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement

[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to put this article through peer review and aim to move it to a GA standard. Most of it seems well written enough, and mostly sufficiently cited, but also is probably a bit unbalanced - it covers his reputation and ongoing influence in much greater details than it manages for his life and works. The references are in a bit of a state tho, from a formatting perspective and quite a lot of missing page references. With a bit work it could be a lot better and it is one of Wikipedia's more popular history pages, as you'd expect, so worth someone making the effort. Jim Killock (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niccolò_Machiavelli&oldid=1261234367"