Talk:Niccolò Machiavelli

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)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not include the media. Plasticwonder (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• (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)]

  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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• (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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  "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)

  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)

• Oppose - Per User:David Tornheim; doesn't really pass the sniff test for RS. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  (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)

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)

Thank you. This is the same thing I was trying to say. Plasticwonder (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• There is the text of the letter published by the University of Michigan [3]. I could not find a translation into English in RS. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  See the translation in copyright here. I have transcribed the Latin text from an earlier PD publication here; the scans and source of this are linked. Jim Killock (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The concerns about the lack of a published academic translation are convincing. Even if we had one of those, if this letter were of interest we'd be better off presenting it as quoted text or a link to wikisource rather than in a video, which is a poor medium for presenting the text of a letter. - MrOllie (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is a published academic translation, see comments at 1, 2, 3 and especially 4. On value, you might consider 5; that the letter is poetic Jim Killock (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding Accuracy and faithfulness to the Latin source Several commentators, including MrOllie, Ktrimi991, David Tornheim and Plasticwonder have correctly identified that there is a need to be able to validate the subtitle translation, in order that the video be understood as accurate. It is expected that Wikipedians translate material, as set out at MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE but no process for validation is suggested. Rather, it is assumed that skilled language users would validate against the (primary or secondary) source quoted. To that end I have asked for a check by Latinists here It is also possible for a Wikipedian to check the in copyright academic translation here against the subtitles here and raise any questions. AIUI that is how Wikipedia sourcing problems are resolved: challenges are specific and based on evidence. Jim Killock (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hello Mr Killock,

  Respectfully, I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not questioning the accuracy of the work. I am also not saying that there is something to improve. This is not a question of quality. The video seems to be made fine. I am saying that we do not know the person behind the rendition of this video, and we should not give them undue weight by placing them on the mainspace.

  In fact, I could care less about the accuracy. I care if this video was made by a known NM expert. To be clear, we do not know who "Onagrus" is. My position is one specifically of WP:NOTADVERT and WP:DUE since by placing their video on the page we are essentially stating "we trust your content", without even knowing who the person behind the video is, nor their intent.

  If the person behind the video is you for instance (not saying that is the case by the way) having Latin speakers from Wikipedia verify the translation would not change my opinion. It would still be a self published source. It is the same thing as changing the main portrait on the page (the Santi di Tito one) to one drawn by an anonymous artist.

  Then there is the question of significance. Consider this :

  "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources:if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" (my italics/bolding)

  If this letter were of any relevance it would have been mentioned in full by several Machiavelli books. The fact that the vast majority focus on his political/historical influence pretty much shows that this letter in particular is of little significance to the topic,

  I hope I am not giving you a hard time here. Plasticwonder (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  On the first point, I don't think this is relevant. The video is not a source. It is a derivative work. We are able to assess if it is accurate; and you think it is accurate. This point is important to me because of the use of similar videos by Onagrus elsewhere, for example at Martin Luther and Thomas Hobbes. For this reason, it would be helpful if you could explain your point at the Village Pump discussion of this; the policies may need adjusting to be explicit one way or the other.

  Regarding its' relevance, we discussed this earlier and agreed we needed further work to decide this; see #1 and #2 Jim Killock (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment I would like to point out my response here to readers of this thread. Plasticwonder (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

"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)

Nearly all of Wikipedia is non-expert content contributed by non-experts. Jim Killock (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not at all true with all due respect. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is the basic premise: "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" Jim Killock (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes but it has to be sourced with secondary material from experts, not Joe Shmoes. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And that has been done regarding this video. Jim Killock (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

(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)

@Plasticwonder: what says we can is that none of the guidelines you cite are absolute bans. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't include - Seems undue to include a gigantic quote for Machiavelli on a page, and would also be undue to include a large recording of a quote on the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it frustrating editors involved in this discussion have avoided explaining their proposals in terms of the effect on article quality. There is no absolute ban on this type of link, but I am also not seeing clear benefits to having this Latin version linked to. (And I have similar concerns about other similarly recent links on articles such as Thomas Hobbes.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  One is not meant to repeat remarks in an RFC, apologies. See #1 not ready yet (need to assess sources); #2 benefit of hearing audio for a poetic reading and of original language.

  Note that there is little guidance in MOS on inclusion of audio-video material. There is in history pages however generally something of a desire to include source material. A lot of source material, such as books and documents, from prior to 1750 in Europe, is in Latin. This material cannot be read or heard by most users, except in translation, which loses key elements, especially sonority (how it sounds); rhythm and cadence; flow, etc. Yet documents, even formal ones, were often written to contain these features, as a part of the rhetorical training of the authors.

  In the case of Latin writing in general, the average reader are unlikely to know the level of Latinity that authors had. There is an assumption that Latin was purely bureaucratic and written, while in fact there was a high level of orality, from reading out of poetry, lectures, etc, through to combative exchanges between clerics, or regents and diplomats. Within these recordings of letters and documents, that can be sensed, through the articulate constructions, combined with the sonority. With a video, providing subtitles allows the hearer to match the meaning to the sounds. Overall, this provides greater access to the culture of the subjects we are discussing.

  There is also pure curiosity for users. Why not given them the chance to hear the original? It is just a nice thing to be able to experience.

  On the page, a video thumbnail is very little real estate. Users can choose whether to watch them or not. They are not obtrusive additions. Unlike links, they do not take the reader away from the page. Yet in my experience checking stats, they are very popular - something like 10% of a page users will choose to watch or listen to audio or video on a Wikipedia page, if it is provided. Jim Killock (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not Neutral Stating that the source is from YouTube in the RfC has confused people and is not neutral. If a wikipedian had created it and translated the letter it would be allowed. It isn't being proposed as a source, but as a media file. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Stating that the source is from YouTube in the RfC has confused people and is not neutral"

  It seems you are way out of the loop here! Plasticwonder (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  You misunderstand. Describing this as a "source from YouTube" makes this seem like a question of reliable sources. Rather, it is a media file that has been uploaded to Wikimedia. The RfC describes the media only as "the following media without describing it. However, it refers to the YoutTuber as both anonymous and unknown, and seemingly contradictorily points out that he isn't a historian. The relevance of all these points as well as the RSPYT seem to actually be part of the debate. This clearly violates WP:RFCNEUTRAL. You even repeat the same points emphasized in the RfC statement as your argument. A better phrasing would be:

  Does the community believe that a recording of a YouTuber reading a letter written by Machiavelli should be included in the article? It is in video format and in the original language, and accompanied by a transcription and a text translation written by a wikipedian.

  Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Close as premature: Note that per WP:RFCBEFORE discussions on the use of this media file were not complete (see discussion above). Work on the sources to establish relevance was not suggested nor done. An RfC was not discussed nor terms of reference suggested, which would have been helpful. We did not establish a common understanding of the difference between a media file and a citation, which is creating distraction here. Engagement on this question, eg does WP:RSPYT apply was raised at the Village Pump but unfortunately Plasticwonder did not seek to engage with this before raising this RFC. As neither myself nor the RFC caller are actually asking for the file to be added at this point, and are agreed (#1 myself, #2 Plasticwonder) that the sources need consulting to establish relevance, this discussion is both premature and not a good use of everyone's time. Jim Killock (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  at this point if you want to say you won't seek to add the file again in the future, we can close the RFC to save time. But otherwise this looks like an attempt to close a RFC that isn't going your way on a technicality. Also, you might want to have a look at WP:BLUDGEON if you haven't before. When I look at the recent history of this talk page the great majority of edits come from one username, and that should not be the case. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would rather to resolve the WP:RFCNEUTRAL point above, which for me is the cause of over-contribution. Jim Killock (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  At this point, my advice is for you to wait a few days, before saying more. I don't think there is anything more that you can add, unless someone asks you something. That is the best way to avoid bludgeoning, that and avoid repeating yourself. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that Jim Killock isn't the right person to suggest this, but the RfC has problems. There appears to be a lack of patience, because on December 1, various different ways were tried to resolve the disagreement. First, an admin was asked on his talk page[4], then a discssuion was opened at the Village Pump198#Videos_from_YT_and_WP:RSPYT and before that was ended this RfC was started with a non-neutral RfC statement.

  Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Oppose: inappropriate for inclusion because it's an anonymous self-published translation (WP:RSSELF). Regardless of whether or not this happens to be a good translation, for a well-studied, major literary figure such as Machiavelli, I would expect any substantial translated quotes in our article to be directly attributed to high quality academic sources or established subject-matter experts. Regarding the argument that a translation by a Wikipedian would be fine, using an anonymous Wikipedian's translation wouldn't be good practice either. I have seen misleading/false claims promoted by highly popular self-made YouTube documentary channels – this source doesn't even claim to be authoritative, simply an "independent student". Jr8825 • Talk 23:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I am willing to close this RFC early per the previous comment by JimKillock, but my proposal is similar to MrOllie's. If he can agree that he would not attempt to re add the article in the future, this RFC will be closed.Plasticwonder (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Never is a very long time; I would be prepared however to:

• Agree not to suggest posting the video clip to this page for 24 months; afterwards, to do so only if relevance was established through sources reflected in changes to the page; and not without prior discussion of the proposed addition; and, given the problems with this RFC, if
• @Plasticwonder likewise agrees for the next 24 months, not to post an RFC without first concluding discussions with parties involved, discussing the content of that RFC with an admin to ensure it meets WP:RFCNEUTRAL, and disclosing to that admin the prior conversations and edits made relating to the RFC proposal and the content being discussed in the RFC to ensure it meets WP:RFCBEFORE; and pointing that admin to this RFC for context.

Jim Killock (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• As of now, I will just wait out the current RFC. Plasticwonder (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: In order to bring this to a conclusion, then, how about:

• I agree not to suggest posting the video clip to this page for 30 months; afterwards, to do so only if relevance was established through sources reflected in changes to the page; and not without prior discussion of the proposed addition; and, given the problems with this RFC, if
• @Plasticwonder likewise apologises for first agreeing for me to post the video and then changing their mind and reverting the edit without discussion; posting this RFC without first concluding discussions at the Village Pump to resolve the relevance of WP:RSPYT, breaching WP:RFCBEFORE; framing the RFC in a non-neutral manner that breached WP:RFCNEUTRAL; and thereby wasting a lot of people's efforts in discussing this. Jim Killock (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment is kinda why I want to wait out the rest of the RFC. Not only because I do not agree with the terms, but more importantly it seems like you have taken my disagreement personally where I tried my best to not give you a hard time and hear you out. I really don't know what else to say, so I am respectfully exiting this thread. Plasticwonder (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I probably have taken this personally; but that is likely to be the result if you pre-emptively throw an RFC at someone who was trying resolve a problem with you through the normal channels, where you frame the RFC to weight at your view of things, and where the policy substance matters for other content they are using (video readings of non-English primary source material). That is why care in the process to conclude discussions and narrow the potential framing is necessary.

Nevertheless my offer is in good faith. If you can find a way to recognise where you have made errors, I am entirely willing to let this drop for a very long period, to allow this RFC to close. Permanently drop, perhaps not, on principle, as the diagnostic process has not been a reasonable one. However, to avoid a repeat of premature RFC-calling, I feel I need to know you understand what you have done wrong here. Jim Killock (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This reply doesn't make me feel that your many responses in this RfC were in good faith. I don't think personal attacks bordering on casting aspersions on an editor for opening an RfC, a valid form of dispute resolution, is a good idea in general, much less in an RfC where you've WP:BLUDGEONed the process. This comment and your previous ones criticizing the RfC process feel like misunderstandings about what the policy surrounding this form of dispute resolution actually says.

• WP:RFCBEFORE - Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC : In my opinion, this seems satisfied. This discussion was had on the talk page in the section previous to this RfC, as well as on the village pump. No consensus was arrived at there, so opening an RfC doesn't seem like a misuse of the process. WP:Third opinion doesn't make much sense because other editors had already gotten involved, and the only other place it probably could have been done prior to RfC was WP:DRN, but personally speaking RFCBEFORE was satisfied by the talk page and village pump discussions, so this point is irrelevant.
• WP:RFCNEUTRAL - Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short : Was the RfC statement neutral? In the current way it was worded, probably not. But the actual question being asked, i.e. Does the community believe that the following media should be included in the article? is neutrally stated. The other information shouldn't really have been included in the initial statement and instead in a reply, but that doesn't really make the entire RfC malformed.

Not to mention the fact you didn't actually bring either of those up when the RfC was made. It doesn't disqualify your arguments, but it is a bit odd to only bring up policy arguments to get an RfC struck after people not only oppose it, but you also try to get it prematurely closed. I feel if these were genuine concerns you had with the formation of the RfC, they probably should have been brought up in one of your many prior comments, or in your initial response.

The best course of action at this point is to just let the RfC take its course, and you can further dispute at relevant noticeboard(s), WikiProjects, and talk pages afterwards. Or if you're really dead-set on closing it, you can always post to WP:Closure requests. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So the Village Pump discussion was started by me at 18.57 1 Dec some three hours before the RFC was called at 20.46 on 1 Dec on the same topic. The Village Pump discussion ran in parallel to this as a result, and to my mind a careful reading shows it came to the opposite conclusion of this RFC on the point of YT acceptability eg here and here; but also showed me that one has to be super careful to explain that the video was not being used as a source.

The content was not on the page at the time the RFC was called. I was not even suggesting posting it. Rather, I was asking to untangle the question of whether source-policies applied. I wasn't in a position to discuss whether it should be posted. So how would I be able to respond to an RFC on relevance in a reasonable manner? The process from my perspective is bizzare.

I entirely admit I have as a result felt frustrated and responded too much.

Yes I should have understood the RFC policies better, but I didn't know these two at all. I've never raised an RFC, nor has a (potential) proposal of mine been the subject of one. You live and learn. Jim Killock (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@JimKillock, trying to force an apology out of someone else is never going to be helpful. It is also not reasonable to try to exact a restriction that would prevent a person from engaging with proper dispute resolution, which is an important and often necessary process on Wikipedia. It is probably best now that we let the RFC run to conclusion, which will likely cement a consensus that this video will not be in the article, if only to avoid another go-around whenever your agreement would expire. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Non-inclusion at this point would be a minor annoyance, but understandable (and something I can therefore agree to in order to close the process, altho I would like help with the two issues below first). Inclusion or not has not been my concern. Valid criteria being applied at the right time has been.

My concern here is that it doesn't resolve the underlying problems; which are

(1) that I have suggested or posted a lot of other video readings, for example Poetry of Catullus, List of poems by Catullus; Martin Luther; Frederick the Great (see Talk:Frederick the Great#Reading of a letter regarding the Polish territories) the external link section) in exactly the same configuration; sometimes people have queried these on relevance grounds (see the discussion at Talk:Samuel Johnson#Reading from Samuel Johnson's letter of thanks for his Oxford degree), in all cases I've let go when I can't show relevance, at no point have any of the arguments here on the need for academic translations to be used, invalidity of Youtube material, etc, been raised; and

(2) allowing an RFC to conclude in this manner is likely to embolden the same behaviour from PlasticWonder. They will conclude that they don't need to run through processes, but faced with a difficult to resolve issue, can simply misrepresent an issue in an RFC and see what happens. I understand I can't force anything out of them. But rewarding poor use of process does not seem good. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

"(2) allowing an RFC to conclude in this manner is likely to embolden the same behaviour from PlasticWonder. They will conclude that they don't need to run through processes, but faced with a difficult to resolve issue, can simply misrepresent an issue in an RFC and see what happens."

Personal attack aside, this is not what happened here. Plasticwonder (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This response is exactly what worries me. Jim Killock (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would it? I could have taken your attack personally, but I did not. I also saw the last edit you made, trying to use my clearly satirical page to further attack my credibility, keep in mind I have never done this against you. If this is how you want to discuss things, then I do not want to participate. Thanks,Plasticwonder (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you did not understand that the RFC was slanted, you certainly knew that there was a parallel, open and only just started discussion at Village Pump. Either you did not understand that this processes needed to run its course, or you chose to ignore it. Likewise, when you raised the YT question with an admin ("Is this an adequate source"), you either misunderstood their advice, or chose to read it how it suited you. Jim Killock (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

A general discussion at the Village Pump in no way precludes an article-specific RFC. MrOllie (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't control where someone starts up a discussion. As the others said before, RFCBEFORE was already satisfied (with multiple threads). Though I believe the RFC was sincere and mostly neutral, some of the RFC contents were better suited as comments, but they did not overall affect one's view of the question at hand. Usually they don't:

Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment

What seems to have happened here is that the RFC did not go your way, and you are now trying everything in the book to try to discredit the result. Even if that means discrediting me. First you said that:

• Sources need to be established. (Which I agreed, unknowing of the fact that you only wanted the article changed in order to justify the placement of the video.)

Then you flip flopped between

• RFCNEUTRAL

and then

• RFCBEFORE,

and when that didn't work, you accused me of unsavory behavior.

Which its it? Plasticwonder (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Many times I've conceded that the video content is not evaluated and therefore ready to post, and at no time have I insisted that the video must be included. I suspect it would be a judgement call, rather than a certain inclusion. It is a shame you didn't wait find the time to have that discussion but rather moved straight to an RFC.

The losers here are Wikipedia's readers, not you or I, in that a slower pace of discussion could have resulted in improvements to the page content, especially regarding M's letters and some of his other works, which are fairly poorly covered in the article. Jim Killock (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

embolden the same behaviour from PlasticWonder. Using dispute resolution is something we should 'embolden'. Whatever minor molehill sized technical flaws there might be with this RFC are not the mountains you are making out of them. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I concur that dispute resolution is necessary and valid, that isn't what I am worried about; rather it is the selective use of policy processes and advice to get a particular result. This case of dispute resolution IMO has as a result been less than enlightening; and I also apologise for my role in that. I sincerely hope that PlasticWonder proves to be a constructive and considerate Wikipedian. I note that the inconsistency of this discussion and RFC responses with other discussions relating to videos in the same series has not been addressed, which is a shame and continues to worry me. Meanwhile, if someone wants to close this with my agreement that I won't be suggesting to post this video reading here I would be extremely grateful. Jim Killock (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Trying to "other stuff exists" something which is not strongly defined in policy doesn't seem like a reason for inclusion. There should be a strong reason based in relevancy why we should include a video in the article itself, and especially so since it's not being used as a source.

In your examples, there is only one you linked that actually has any basis in a discussion about the inclusion of [a] video(s), although it's a talk page post with one response to add it to an external links section. The rest have been done without discussion, and you simply just added them. This isn't meant to discredit or challenge their inclusion; I personally don't really think it detracts from the article, nor do I care to have it removed. But it doesn't really bolster your argument for inclusion to use examples which have no actual discussion behind them; this means there is not only no real policy about including videos like this, there is also not a strong (if any) consensus. Unless you can find other examples elsewhere where there is, I find this argument weak. The inclusion should be on a case-by-case basis of relevancy for each article, as it probably currently is across the site.

You're welcome to demonstrate this relevancy for inclusion, but as has been stated below (and above, technically), it's probably time to drop the stick and walk away from the discussion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of picking it up again, but also in the interest of exchanging a few kind words after this bruising experience, I'm wholly in agreement with what you have said here; the point about the videos elsewhere was simply that where there have been a few discussions they precisely about WP:DUEt, rather than whether YT source policies applied, or whether the videos were in some way in principle inadmissable content. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to do the research fully on WP:DUE beyond the one secondary source, so couldn't address whether the video actually should be included or not. I'd rather we hadn't closed the possibility off, but that is necessary so we can all move on. Jim Killock (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Final word on the matter I personally think we should wait out the RfC, as that will prevent any hasty decisions from being made, and for this discussion to cool down. No one is being forced to comment, and I don't want anyone to feel that way. I am also giving JimKillock a chance to change his mind, because currently he seems to be yielding to consensus for the non-inclusion of this video. If he changes his mind, he should make it known now, (and not after the RFC) though that will more than likely not change the result. If he gets this closed, then makes an attempt to argue the video's inclusion, I will see it as trying to bypass this consensus, and probably not in good faith. Plasticwonder (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think we need to do the world a favour and give this RFC the dignity in death it did not attain in life. Jim Killock (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll just pass the dignity comments off as you being disappointed and perhaps frustrated at the results (which happens to all of us at one point or another, just without the personal snipes). No need to be indignant.

  Nevertheless I will see what I can do, but I am giving it at least another 2 weeks to see what happens. You don't have to participate further, and no one can force you to comment. Unsubscribe from the thread if you wish. Plasticwonder (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  This needs to die. Put it out of its misery, someone, please. Jim Killock (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  This would be an excellent time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Jim Killock. MrOllie (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - This video presents an entire primary source text document as a video being read out loud. This seems to violate the spirit of MOS:TEXTASIMAGES; a text-only presentation seems more appropriate. However, putting the full text of this letter into this article would be an excessive quotation. I think it would be fine if it just lives on Wikisource or Commons and is linked to along with all the other material via the general links at the bottom of the article. -- Beland (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article improvement

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)

JimKillock bringing articles those extra "brownie point" miles has never been my thing on WP. For better or worse, I've made it my priority to help articles move beyond "crap" level. However, I can support others when they want to make the effort. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I have a lot of the sources in hard copy and can help find things like page numbers if specific questions are posted here on the talk page. I can also help evaluate proposals for other types of changes. However, my suggestion is please let's not spend time on things like the video proposal if we are going to work on real overall quality. (I do appreciate the good intentions.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, I won't revisit that discussion. I'm quite busy with some other work here as well, some medieval and some early modern; among other things I'm transcribing the 1560 Latin translation of De Principe at Latin Wikisource. I'll do that before venturing here too far. I've pushed two articles onto the GA level so beginning to get the hang of that. Jim Killock (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Split sections into new article

As it stood a few days ago, the "in popular culture" section had 990 words, which made it by far the largest section in this article, much more than the main content. With NM being mentioned in songs, modern movies and especially in video games, this section will grow much bigger, with no signs of slowing down. Thus I viewed it necessary make the section it's own article.

Article: Machiavelli in popular culture Plasticwonder (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd add that the "Influence" section might also be viewed as similarly over-long; while it's an important aspect of Machiavelli's legacy, it is probably also covered elsewhere (Machiavellianism?) and leans into out of scope for an article focused on Machiavelli himself; much of the "influence" mapped out relates to centuries after his death.

In contrast, a lot of information about his works and activities within his lifetime is absent. Jim Killock (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think his influence is covered elsewhere. Machiavellianism is about something entirely different. Arguably influence is one of the most important things about NM. (That is for example the position of Leo Strauss, and some others.) Furthermore, unlike his depiction in fiction and popular culture, I cannot really imagine any sensible argument for having a separate article about his greater influence on political and philosophical thinking because opinions are very diverse, and there are many different threads of proposed influence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. NM's influence is almost the most important thing about him outside of his works.

If I remember correctly, Machiavelli is going to be featured in another historical fiction movie (I don't remember the name), and he is constantly mentioned by songwriters (Rappers? Taylor Swift?), he seems to be the most popular thinker, and his depiction in media isn't likely to end anytime soon, so that section would have been the largest on the page.

I have however, kept the mentions by Shakespeare and Marlowe, since NM scholars talk about them. Plasticwonder (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What gets moved or not is certainly less important than the missing content. A quick comparison of the Italian version would give you a sense of what seems to be missing. His career, work on Ovid, Florentine history and his letters get a lot more attention there. As for what might move, the priority would be to add the missing parts and then evaluate on length and proportion on "sources focused on Machiavelli", I would suggest (which I have not done). Jim Killock (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have just read that version and do not see where Ovid is mentioned. His letters are indeed there in places, but do we really need to go deep into that on the English version when most of the scholarship (at least English) revolves around his political works? In other words, what utility does the reader get from it? I can agree on mentioning his most important ones (i.e. the 1512 Vettori letter, his earlier comments on Borgia).

However, I do agree with adding more about his political career, of course keeping within good summarization of it. I don't think anything should be moved, though, we have well enough space for more content (this article has 5800 some-odd words last time I checked). Plasticwonder (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)