Talk:Machiavellianism (politics)/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Quasi-Misnomer?

Do you think these things should be noted (and written properly) in the article?

1. The term derives from the realpolitik of The Prince, a very small, somewhat different, work in the grand collection of Machiavelli.

2. Some historians believe The Prince to be satirical. ProfNax (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

______

"End justifying the means", means that where a moral objective is reached via immoral means, the end justifies, or validates the means. Dearsina (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A merge would be acceptable as long as it is made clear that the philosophy of Machiavellianism does not directly reflect the intended philosophy of Machiavelli. These are two separate ideas, but people may search for them together. A merge would make the site as a research tool more efficient.

Merge Machiavellianism and Niccolò Machiavelli

This article should not be merged with the article on Machiavelli himself. Machiavellianism as a philosophy has acquired a much larger scope than the biography of Machiavelli. Merging the two articles would be like merging the life of Freud with an article on Freudian Analysis- The two are related, but Freudian Analysis has been developed and referenced by a great many practitioners and has grown outside the life of Freud himself. Ofcourse it is a given that articles can reference each other heavily. Alevion 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge: One article is about a man and the other about a philosophy he inspired. Niccolò's article is big enough already. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: As the article itself states, the concept of Machiavellianism dates back to ancient times, and has also been used by many others after Machiavelli. The concept is a philosophy that is not exclusive to Machiavelli, hence it shouldn't be merged. That would be like merging Buddha with Buddhism, Confucius with Confucianism, Aristotle with Aristotelianism, Christ with Christianity, Muhammad with Islam, etc. Jagged 85 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Merging this article is a really bad idea. This article is about a "spinoff" theory of Machiavellianism; a psychological model about degrees of Machiavellian personality. Moreover, this article is very narrow, incomplete, and only loosly related to the historical character. --NoiZy 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging the article would be correct. I agree that topics such as Buddha and Buddhism and Freud and Freudian Analysis should not be merged, however, the term "Machiavellian" is directly related to the man himself and his theories. Also, many people may search for one or the other and merging the two would create easier access to the relevant information.

No. I'm not sure how many people discussing this have actually read Machiavelli. This article has almost nothing to do with his teachings. The Prince was written exclusively for rulers and aspiring rulers. Machiavelli never believed the common man should act in these ways, which in my mind really debunks the entire connection this article has to him. Spyde 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Noizy. This article isn't at all philosophical, it is psychological. More to the point, it is a psychological model based on a narrow aspect of Machiavelli's characterization of mankind. I think the strongest reason to reject merging the articles is that fact that psychology, as a western science, was coined, at its earliest, after Machiavelli's death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychology#The_Beginnings_of_Western_Psychology). Machiavellianism, the psychological idea, is distinct from the man after whom it is named. SJCstudent 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge: 'Machiavellianism' is a position in the moral universe, which existed before Machiavelli and is not inspired by him - the label has stuck and we should leave it as it is, unless someone comes up with something more suitable. Caritato 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge: Agree with Spyde. Article written by an amateur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.233 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Machs

Any notable people taken the Mach IV test? Some examples (especially politicians) would be interesting, but I guess they wouldn't be too keen to make their results public... LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Merge

This article is exceedingly poorly written, and contains only a single source, linked to a popular personality test site, thus carrying very little weight. The article is divided to two highly specious categories, on what basis I cannot quite determine, lacking sources at it does. Bearing in mind the article's poor state, its lack of sources, and that Maciavellianism is not, as far as I can determine, a recognised psychological category or personality disorder (and nothing in the article to suggest otherwise), I cannot see what would be lost my merging this article with Niccolò Machiavelli86.0.203.120 (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What about...

What about the people who are so Machiavellian that they know not to tell the psychologists that? 68.97.181.129 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag added

Because the article defines 'high machs' and 'low machs' in the intro as being determined by a multiple-choice test (without a citation, no less), then later generalises about the personalities of those who fall into the two aforementioned categories. It's silly, and it's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.114.119 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.184.80 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro Cleanup

I removed the line "Some definitions describe "machiavellianism" to mean boring to the point of tears." from the introduction. It doesn't cite a source, has a grammatical error, and it just seemed really out of place in the article as a whole. This page still needs a lot of work if anyone is up to the task. 155.92.113.164 (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Someone who has time should probably fix this article. It seems like one person wrote the whole thing without citing any sources. Jermor (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. There are no citations (you can't count a personality test as a citation) and the whole article should be deleted if there fails to be sufficient and legitimate citations. Doctormanhattan (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

redirected

Following WP:V I've redirected this article to Niccolò Machiavelli since it has had three whole years to gather some sourced and meaningful content but has not done and instead was never anything more than a personal essay with unsupported discussion of a non-notable personality test. Since there was no cited content, there was nothing to merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source

In case anyone gets to this before I do: Daniel Goleman's 2006 book Social Intelligence goes into some detail about the psychological trait of Machiavellianism. Useful information, and also a WP:RS to confirm that this is a notable term. FreplySpang 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Definition

I just want to say that this article does a very poor job of actually defining what Mahiavellianism is. The OED quote given makes it seem like calling someone a Machiavellianist is exactly equivalent to calling them a liar, and no other definition is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.58.1 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Conscientiousness, not Extraversion

Machiavellism is negatively correlated with Conscientiousness at r = -.34, and not with Extraversion at r = -.34.

This has been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.242.204 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tupac

The opinions of a rapper regarding Machiavelli and how he applied Machiavelli to his personal life hardly counts as "political thought" so I have edited the article to appropriately reflect this. 24.107.180.221 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right and others will support you on that. However, I did not see your edit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"The famous American poet and hip hop artist Tupac Shakur is famous for embracing Machiavellianism personally into his own life." - That is the second worst sentence that I have ever read on wikipedia, and I was online when 300 baud was king. Are you kidding me? It's like a dog wrote it. I don't care if Tupac understood Machiavelli or not, but have an adult with a functioning human brain write the blurb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.138.92 (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And you are content just blurbing about it out here? Removing stuff like that on sight doesn't even count as being bold. trespassers william (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Marlowe and general attitudes

It seems very difficult to determine the particular significance of Marlowe's Machiavelli references. I recall some ambiguity between good and bad in The Jew of Malta for instance. Marlowe is commonly considered to have been an atheist who rejected many social trends of his time, although even this quality is rather obscure. Something as obvious as naming a character 'Machievel' might quite reasonably have only been an appeal to a base audience (an act which, although speculative, would imply some potential Machiavellianism) rather than a personal statement. A general lack of strong historical sources means that Marlowe's character will probably never be completely clear and so designating Marlowe himself as 'an enthusiastic proponent' of anything is probably unfairly bold. Marlowe's writing could be used as an indication of English sentiment, but there are sufficiently many inconsistent interpretations of his personal philosophies that this article uses him irresponsibly.

I believe an additional section on public/literary perception (or references) of Machiavellianism would be more appropriate. I don't think Marlowe belongs under Political Thought anyway. That section should focus on academic analyses. For instance, political elements of game theory might make sense here. The way Marlowe, Renaissance England, etc. felt about Machiavellianism is definitely distinct from political thought, which implies scholarly study.108.8.48.47 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of See Also section

The See Also section was recently removed completely by user:Ceoil with the claim that it was "too broad to be meaningful". I find this puzzling. Most articles do have a See Also section with links to related constructs, and some of the links that were removed were clearly relevant to the article, e.g. antisocial personality disorder, cynicism, and social dominance orientation are constructs in psychology that are relevant to this topic. Some of the other links were to political concepts that seem relevant. I don't think that complete deletion of this section is constructive or that the explanation provided is satisfactory.--Smcg8374 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added some back; others were or are now linked above, or seemed too remote. Johnbod (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Machiavellianism vs Machiavellian intelligence

The "Psychology" section of this article has a tag saying "Main article: Machiavellian intelligence". Yet that article is much shorter than this one section, and it's uncited. I suggest that either the material be merged there or the "main article" link tag be removed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:ED6D:9D06:362C:5C7E (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Machiavellianism (politics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The following words from the article are about face: 'High Machs tend to take a more detached, calculating approach in their interaction with other people. In terms of Big Five personality traits, Machiavellians tend to be low on agreeableness and high in conscientiousness'. Should state 'high on agreeableness(socialization) low on conscientiouness (self serving animal mind)' Greylynner (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

dab remark

Instead of having a longish section about the real Machiavelli shouldn't we just have a dab hat redirecting there for that subject, and saying this article is about the psychological trait? We should avoid having a "B" article because then it makes it harder to maintain quality of all related articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You bring up a good point.

Well, seeing as "Machiavellianism" is usually known as the philosophy of Machiavelli, there at least needs to be some mention of his thought. Plus it would possibly confuse other readers whom arent necessarily well read in the psychological trait, but in Machiavelli himself instead.

However you are right that making it a B level article would cause difficulty, which is why i really refrained from expanding the article. What i can do is take out some portions. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well your answer seems to show that indeed there is an issue! I think this article is NOT an article about Machiavelli's philosophy, because we already have ANOTHER article for that? (Machiavelli has more detail about his philosophy than this article and that seems to give no problem.) What you seem to be describing as your understanding of this article is for good reason opposed to Wikipedia policy. See: WP:CFORK. The reason this article was justified and not deleted, the way I see it, is that it is about OTHER things. Furthermore, I think it is true that in fact "Machiavellian" is a word normally applied to ideas and ways of acting which are not necessarily Machiavelli's own ideas and ways of acting. I actually do NOT think "Machiavellianism" is a word mostly used to define his philosophy. It is perhaps used that way rarely, but when people use it that way they are writing badly because unclearly. To put it poetically, Machiavellianism is the philosophy of the "folk legend" Machiavelli, such as the character who appears in Christopher Marlowe.

Another technical way to put it. This article is the Main Article for this section of the Machiavelli article.

In practice, my proposal is very simple: no part of this article should be about Machiavelli himself even though of course he will need to be referred to. Everything covered by Machiavelli should be handled primarily there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. So dab remark it is then. Really nothing is said here that doesn't appear in the Machiavelli article. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree. It is not true at all that "Really nothing is said here that doesn't appear in the Machiavelli article" - you can't have looked at that at all. And the people there understandably don't want to cover the important political buzzword that they tend to see as unfairly lumbering his reputation. Also the new lead seems overly narrow, even as regards psychology. The old political material could get its own article. You should not have moved the article without doing a proper WP:RM proposal. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

What i meant is that most of Machiavellis philosophy is talked about considerably on the Machiavelli article. Ill undo my edit, but i am not requesting any more moves. Thats up to you guys to decide.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is another way to put it: if there is anything in this article about Machiavelli's politics which is not in one or more of the SEVERAL other more read, watched and edited articles about that subject, what is it, and why is it only in this article? What is the purpose of this article? Again, see WP:CFORK. WP has a problem sometimes with "alternative" articles that are lower quality. Some editors seem to do this on purpose so that can have more control over the less-known articles. So we all should want to avoid this article of looking like one of those right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

At this point, there is really no reason to do anything to this article at this juncture. Although i gave most of my reasoning at the next discussion, I would again assert that if this article is content forking, then pretty much every side article is content forking, since it needs relation to the primary article to exist. To be precise I vehemently disagree with any merging or separation of this article, because there really isnt anything wrong with it. Though i initially agreed, it does not sit right with me. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the purpose of this article. Please explain what it covers that is not covered by other articles? I had thought it could make sense as an article about psychological concepts, but then it maybe needs a clearer name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we make a separate article on the psychological concept?

Machiavellianism has always been defined as the philosophy of Machiavelli, and when most people think of or hear the terms they think of Machiavelli. So adding content about a psychology term that is mostly unrelated to him (outside the fact that psychologists use some of his phrases as test items) seems clunky and unorganised (seeing as a lot of articles link here). For example, Authoritarianism and the Authoritarian personality are separated. Just an idea. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Machiavellianism has always been defined as the philosophy of Machiavelli" - not really. Machiavellianism has always been imputed as the philosophy of Machiavelli, maybe, but scholars of M have always argued strenuously against this. It is its own animal. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Scholars of M have always argued strenuously against this."

Like whom? As far as i am aware tons of scholars use Machiavellianism (or machiavellism) as refering to machiavellis theory, like Mansfield and Hulliung to name a few. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think there should be separate article. Polyison (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What would be appropriate name for new article? I was thinking Machiavellianism (psychology). Polyison (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I may be remembering this wrong, but I think article was originally about the concept in psychology. Somehow it has evolved into a sort of "fork" article about Machiavelli and that concerns. With that in mind I would see it as a better idea to rename this article to "Machiavellianism (psychology)" and remove everything which is not covered by that new title (making sure of course that it is first covered in other articles).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

When scholars use the term "Machiavellianism", such as here they are talking about a different concept. One covered in this article. And i disagree that this article is content forking. By that logic, the article "Aristotelianism" is also CFORK, as it talks about the impact of Aristotle on others. I think the article should stay how it is at this point. Its very superfluous making another article when there isnt really anything wrong with this one.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your example shows the problem? Aristotelianism is clearly a school of philosophy which had a life of its own over a thousand or more years. There is no such equivalent for Machiavelli, and also this article is not claiming that there was one. This is no article needed in order to tell us about Aristotle's direct impact. That is handled in the Aristotle article. The concern I have here is also NOT that another article needs to be made, but that Wikipedia does not need this article in its current form.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You are making some good points, I am supportive of your proposal to rename this article to "Machiavellianism (psychology)". Polyison (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not - far better to keep it as it is than do this. On a basic point, under WP disam rules, you can't call an article "Machiavellianism (psychology)" without there being other articles with "Machiavellianism" in the title. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Totally in agreement with User:Johnbod here. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you really? Don't you actually disagree about what the article is even about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Split. We should have two separate articles about the concept in political philosophy and psychology. I don't care how you do it (whether one is the primary topic, or this page is turned into a DAB), but it needs to be done. Both concepts are notable in their own right with lots and lots of sources. In particular, the concept in political philosophy has evolved and no longer just refers to the original thought of Machiavelli. Consequentially the resulting article would not be just a redundant fork of Niccolò Machiavelli#Beliefs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me why splitting this article or changing this article's content makes sense? The reason I originally supported splitting it, (and started this discussion) is because the article seemed too sloppy with it's content, but after editing this article and discussing it with Johnbod, I pretty much changed my mind. Honestly I don't think anyone is actually reading or looking at this article, because it itself is already split into two sections, the political section and the psychological section. Also I added text that acknowledges the namesake:

"Since both concepts are unrelated yet have the same name, see the "Psychology" section below for details."

Splitting this article doesn't really make any sense, other than being overscrupulous. There is no need to change the structure of the article. Let me rephrase myself: If the article stayed as it is, there isn't any Wiki policy being breached, nor are there any problems with references. And this discussion is essentially going in circles. If the reasoning for splitting this article is because of the difference of content, then that problem is solved by the edits i mentioned above. The article is already split.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not see anyone giving any clear definition of what this article is about, which makes any sense and does not overlap things being handled by other articles. So deletion of the article is an option. Anyone see a good reason not to simply delete it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the politics of Niccolo Machiavelli we already have several articles much more detailed and watched than this one. I see no reason for any new article. Maybe there is call for an article about the use of the term Machiavellianism in psychology and that was the article's origin but it does not seem to be working out after several years?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The two subjects of the article are fairly clearly stated in the lead, and seem to be fairly adequately covered in the remainder, though I'm sure both could be much better. It is just silly to talk of deleting an article that gets over 2,000 views a day. The initial subject is not "the politics of Niccolo Machiavelli" but the alleged political tactics and thoughts of others, supposedly using his thought. I'm not averse to splitting, but this must I think be done with a disam page for the main term, and then Machiavellianism (psychology) and Machiavellianism (politics) (or similar) - I'm sure neither is primary. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to at least keep deletion open as an option. If this article is getting a lot of hits this might be because it is deflecting readers from the better articles about Machiavelli. On the other hand, it is true that "Machiavellianism" is a word with a meaning and you are right to say that it normally refers to a type of behaviour described by NM, not a political philosophy. But if we are going to have an article about that then it needs to be clear and we need to make sure it does not become an article about Machiavelli.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and once again repeat that neither of the two subjects here are "about Machiavelli", but about his name being used, fairly or unfairly, to characterize behaviour in two different areas, by different sets of people, and largely at different periods. I'll copy some stuff from St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, which should make this clearer. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you disagree about? And by the way, please look at the current first sentence of this article. Do you agree with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Not sure that adding the word "alleged" really makes things more clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to address some things, just so we are clear. User:Johnbod noted that this article has nothing to do with Machiavelli's thought, which is isn't exactly correct, as many scholars use this term to refer to the thought of Machiavelli, see for example, here and here, and here as a few examples. I have more, but that is not the point. Like Andrew said, I am in disagreement with the word "alleged".

The addition of the St Barth. Massacre is not really needed. Not only because it is a content fork, but this article already covered it (though short), but that it has everything to do with Innocent Gentillets view of NM, which we are putting undue weight on.

User:Andrew Lancaster's claim that we should delete the article because the psychological concept isn't notable is not correct, as Machiavellianism has almost 50 years worth of research, and is a very popular concept in personality psychology, see here. However though I now see what you mean by Machiavelli's ideas being infused with the article, deleting the article on psychology is unneccessary, for reasons I said above.

I'm not sure AL holds the positions you ascribe to him, actually. I agree with him that we do not need an article under this title that is actually about Machiavelli's political thought. But we do need one on the - to various degrees - caricature version of it that was used as a term of abuse for several centuries after his death (and then re-surfaced as a psychological term). The whole political part of the article needs a rewrite, rather than reverting to the present hodge-potch. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster said "I am neutral about whether the psychological concept is notable enough for an article." Though you are definitely right that he wasn't necessarily referring to deletion in that thread, he did suggest deletion in the RfC (see above). Also this statement:

"But we do need one on the - to various degrees caricature version of it that was used as a term of abuse for several centuries after his death"

This is why I have an issue with the previous edits. It is pushing forth a certain point of view, User:Johnbod. One that, while it may be shared by a certain school of scholars, there are those who assert that his reputation was deserved, and that he was encouraging immorality for the betterment of human politics (and while i definitely agree, I make sure not to add a POV) which are being ignored. There should be a fair deal both ways otherwise it would make this article a soapbox, with it's premise being "Machiavelli is actually a good moralist unjustly smeared by his contemporaries who were wrong", an idea that will most likely be relentlessly rebuked by going to the relevant text, and referring to scholars who have contrary opinions. Even still, why are we making articles that dispute dictionary terms to their eponyms? Should we add an entire article that the word platonic (in the non sexual sense) has no relation to Plato? Why can't one sentence do the trick? If Machiavelli has been ""distorted"", making an article on it is useless unless we would like to promote said "distortion". Nevertheless I do not have any problems with the article, given that if there is a split, it should be a dab remark on the psych page.

Please remember to sign your posts everyone. To clarify my opinion, more than anything, I want us all to step back and think about all options. I think we don't have a single agreed direction for this article and I think we need that first? Three conversation points:

• If the psychological term deserves an article then I suppose the practical question to address is what it should be called.
• Concerning the political/philosophical concept(s) I think there is some confusion because Machiavellianism is not a word with a single clear political or philosophical meaning but simply means something to do with Machiavelli, depending on the context. Most commonly it implies comparison to the types of behavior he described, such as Cesare Borgia's behavior. Machiavelli founded no school or tradition in a simple way, so when a political writer is called Machiavellian it can mean different things.
• Machiavellianism in this second political/philosophical sense, let's call it his legacy, is currently better handled in the Machiavelli article. I don't see any way to expand it easily beyond what we have there without just adding lots of notes about other subjects with their own articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You're some way behind the curve here! See surrounding sections, and what this article now looks like. SuperWikiLover223, now KingofGangsters, has split off the psychological stuff to Machiavellianism scale, an acceptable if not ideal title, and I set up Machiavellianism and Machiavellian as a disam page. This article has had the content fork summaries removed (hidden anyway) and now covers just the "caricature" type of legacy, which is certainly not covered properly in the main NM articles, and does not I think belong there. This is still under construction. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is no consensus to split the psychology part of the article into a new article.

Cunard (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should psychology part of the article be moved into new article? Polyison (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason why, so no. The text I added a while ago solves the problem of having two differing concepts:

"Since both concepts are unrelated yet have the same name, see the "Psychology" section below for details."

If there isn't anything broken, why fix it? This was also discussed in the talk archive here, so no need repeating.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

!Votes

• Support as RFC opener, psychological and political concept are two different, unrelated concepts which merit their own articles. Discussion to which SuperWikiLover 223 is referencing indicates that there was some support as well as some opposition to this proposal so I started RFC to come to certain conclusion. I don't think that discussion should have been archived but either way RFC is good idea for more official consensus. Polyison (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose What I said above. The article has nothing wrong with it necessarily. and keep WP:RFCNOT in mind.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Concern about this voting. What is this article for?. Two relevant discussions which were still running were suddenly archived by User:SuperWikiLover223. I have reinserted them below. The topics being discussed in them make this RFC irrelevant and logically the questions raised there should be addressed first. What is to be handled in this article which is not already handled in another?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For example, what about deletion? Where is the reason not to delete this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Comment: Machiavellianism as political philosophy is obviously prominent, but I do not understand why the psychological concept is prominent enough to have its own article or its own section in this article? Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am neutral about whether the psychological concept is notable enough for an article. Concerning Machiavelli's political philosophy I think it is being handled already in other articles? I also do not think Machiavellianism is a term which is commonly used for any serious political philosophy. I think it is most commonly used to describe a type of behaviour associated with the descriptions made by Machiavelli. Can you find any source which shows Machiavellianism being used for a method or school of political philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I realized that I am too old. In the university, we were taught Machiavelli's political philosophy. Now I can only find books dedicated to psychology. :) Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2019 (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.

Splitting proposal-Attempt to reach consensus

I propose that sections Machiavellianism#Psychological scale be split into a separate page called Machiavellianism (psychology). as it is a popular concept in psychology. For the main page, their should also be a disambiguation page leading to Machiavelli, as the political section is, at second glance, a content fork. Machiavelli's works (The Prince and the Discourses) and his ideas are discussed on their respective pages. His reputation and influence is also discussed on the main article, making this article useless. Also, adding content on the St. Barth. massacre is also a content fork.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this. As I've said above, I'd be happy with a more sensibly phrased split. Is this really an "Attempt to reach consensus"? Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I can see something worth considering in the statements of Johnbod, but I don't see how it justifies the way the current article is, and I think in reality the impact and controversy created by Machiavelli is also better handled on his page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note This is not a "split" proposal in fact, as both supporters so far want in practice to delete/redirect the page after splitting the psycho stuff (where to though?). No one is happy with the page as it is, especially me after SuperWikiLover223's massive removal of highly relevant content - where exactly is it (the St Bart's stuff) supposed to be a content fork from? New joiners might look at a version pointing in the right direction, imo. I'd be happy to see the description of M's actual thought greatly reduced to a summary necessary for understanding the real political subject here - the caricature afterlife, which people at M's main articles would not want there. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support split in any way, shape or form, community will decide how it should be done. Polyison (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC) (WP:Sock !vote stricken.)

• Comment I think you are misunderstanding my position User:Johnbod, the text added was no doubt a content fork of the SBM article, however the "First appearances" addition was well done. Adding a small edit that addresses those who assert that Machiavelli's 17th century reputation was a result of overmoralism (such as Anglo) would have been fine (though Anglo's opinion is not nearly the last word, nor the more influential, nor is it unanimously accepted). But that shows the problem with the political section of this article. Can you please explain to me how most of the edits on the political section here (right before i started rewriting the article) describe Machiavelli's thought? They only describe the effects he supposedly had on others. If your reply is that the term is not related to his actual thought, I have 10 experts off the top of my head that I can cite that say otherwise, but that does not matter. Either way its the same content at the SBDM article, something that does not need its own article. Also, NM had a bad rep as soon as The Prince was published, wayyyy before Gentillet's attacks, why this article places emphasis on him is beyond me. However, I have no problems (absolutely zero) with keeping the political article, granted we do either a disam page, or a dab remark on the proposed new psych page.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support splitting psychology to a separate page and keeping this as the political article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Link for later

• [1] Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The question is why this type of Machiavellianism is not best handled on the Machiavelli article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That article is already probably too long, and looking at the talk & archives there is an understandable determination to keep it focused on the actual thought of M, and the reasoned reception of it. There's a guy called Andrew Lancaster in particular.... (2012 etc). Mind you, the article should briefly cover the pantomime version, which at present it doesn't really. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long yet. Maybe it could become too long, and that might then justify split out articles. But do you think this present article handles the topic of Machiavelli's legacy better than the Machiavelli's article for now? Second/connected issue is that if we create such an article I don't know if Machiavellianism is the best title, given that is clearly has other meanings. In the book you are citing this term is being used to refer to thinking influenced by Machiavelli, and it is not easy to know where to draw the boundaries on that. Do you agree you are talking about Machiavelli's influence and legacy? Put it this way: I see no urgent problem to fix on the existing Machiavelli page. Transferring focus to this article, would therefore be a bad step, - at least until we get some clear consensus on what it should be for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Successful split of psychology content

I split ONLY the psychology parts of this article into a new article,visible here and, since there are only two uses of the term, I added a hatnote to this one. I guess this will work-- for now at least. (unsigned, but by SuperWikiLover223) 18:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Above this point the combined politics and psychology article is discussed. Below this point just the political history content remained Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought we split the psych article.

If there was a split of the psychology pieces, why is there still a mention of it? Richard Christie has nothing to do with the supposed OR topic this article claims to cover. see here: https://books.google.com/books?id=d5tGBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=studies%20in%20machiavellianism&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false

And again the "in use" template is being abused to gain an advantage over editing. The template's directions say:

"The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done."SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2nd line of that link shows exactly why it is relevant, and why a single sentence with a link is appropriate here - please stop edit-warring to remove it. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The recent edit I made did not remove the template, Johnbod. Look at it, its still there. I originally removed it because I thought you were finished.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the way it works is I remove it when I'm finished. Johnbod (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are the owner now correct?SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

SuperWikiLover223 is now User:KingofGangsters

For anyone trying to follow this page, SuperWikiLover223's account is now renamed to User:KingofGangsters. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

This was added by a now retired/blocked editor. Of course the subject is inherantly not at all a neutral treatment of NM's thought, but a caricature of it, as the article makes entirely clear at the start. That is why it should have its own article. Does anyone have issues with the neutrality of the actual text? If not I will remove the tag after a few days. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My best guess is the same as yours. I see no problem with that proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This "caricature" of NM is an actual thing, much more well-known than NM himself. The current tone of the article basically dismisses the subject as nonsense. Just because it has negative connotations, or is somehow "unfair" to NM, in no way means WP should appear to promote a campaign to eliminate this use of the subject name. I'm okay with including the facts that it not considered a fair portrayal of NM, but that isn't the main point of this article on the common meaning of the subject. I think the tone is a problem, and the tag should stay until it's improved. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all - how does it "basically dismisses the subject as nonsense"? How is this "a campaign to eliminate this use of the subject name"??? The article makes a point of using quotations from very reputable academic sources or dictionaries precisely to avoid putting anything in WP's voice. Your assertion that the caricature is "much more well-known than NM himself" is pure OR, and pretty dubious. It is not supported by the relative article views btw. I can't understand what the sentence "I'm okay with including the facts that it not considered a fair portrayal of NM, but that isn't the main point of this article on the common meaning of the subject." means, even if the missing verb is supplied. Please elucidate. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there's a disconnect here, and that's my fault. First, I don't dispute any of the actual information in the article. Yes, that's usually what's implied by the Neutrality tag, so I must admit that a Tone tag would fit my concerns much better. If someone wants to remove the Neutrality tag and replace it with Tone, I'd be in favor of that. I made a mistake in conflating tone with neutrality issues.

I feel the lede of the article over-emphasizes the scholarly definition of "Machiavellian" over the common one. It's like having the Motor article open by insisting that anyone who confuses "motor" and "engine" is uneducated. The more common use of the term "Machiavellian" exists, and has a meaning that understood by most, yet that meaning is dismissed by the lede of our article. For readers that encounter the common use of "Machiavellian" and want to check on it here, we should clearly and readily give that definition, without interrupting it with the more nuanced definition. So, I'm suggesting refactoring the lede to present the ruthless/cunning meaning, then immediately go on to the better sourced scholarly definition, or some changes to this effect. That's all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see that. It starts with the caricature, but says it is a caricature, which it should. Note that there is above a considerable amount of opposition to having this article at all, once the psychology was taken out - it was taken to Afd very recently. This on the grounds that either this should cover the more academic meaning more, or exclusively, or that the main NM article was all that was needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed text, and other concerns with the article.

The text I removed stated that the concept is similarly used in psychology, which is wrong. Christie and Geis named the trait after Machiavelli for many reasons, one being that they were inspired by his works. Also the citation that supports that statement in fact does not say what this article says (I have read the "Dark Triad" paper tons of times, so I would know). Furthermore, you will not find any source that says this, so there is no reason to add it back. This article has a ton of issues, which I will list below:

• This article is mainly about a type of character in Elizabethan drama, and not about Machiavelli's supposed influence. As a matter of fact, besides the content fork of the St Bartholomew article, the only section here that deals with his influence is the short "Receptions to Machiavelli" section. Machiavellianism was never a drama term, and was always a political one. Yet this article talks about the "Duke of Essex" character. Doesn't belong in the article. Besides that, there is no reason why this article should have the (politics) in it's title.

• The lead of this article seems to propose the "Machiavelli isn't Machiavellian" interpretation. No matter how much you agree with it, it is still an interpretation, and shunning other interpretations makes this article not objective. Some experts (Such as Harvey Mansfield and Leo Strauss amoung the countless others I could cite) disagree heavily, and as a matter of fact it is of a big debate in his scholarship. Giving credence to only one minor view makes this article unbalanced, which is why I added the NPOV tag (why it was removed is beyond me).

• Constantly stating that the current article's content is a "caricature" is useless if other more experienced scholars say otherwise. This leads me to my next point:

• Maus, Grady, and Ribner are no where near specialists or experts in Machiavelli, yet their views are ubiquitous throughout the page. Anglo is the only scholar with some experience. Ironically, my addition of Leo Strauss's comments on Machiavelli were added back, even though it gives credence to the so called "trope" ("Teacher of evil")

Though this article has issues, they could be fixed if the name was changed to "Machiavellianism (drama)" for example (though "Machiavellianism" wouldn't be a good name for it, this article certainly does not talk about his influence or supposed "distortion").

KingofGangsters (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Only 4 paras, one of them one sentence long, are about Elizabethan drama. Who says the article is about NM or his influence? The article is about extreme attitudes etc attributed by people several centuries ago to NM, and that they are not a fair reflection of his actual views is well-referenced. There is certainly a debate about whether, or how much Machiavelli is or isn't Machiavellian, and how, but the article give such real philosophical questions a wide berth, just concentrating on caricature versions. It is not at all concerned with any serious, academic, "interpretation" of NM's thought. I don't know why you have so much trouble grasping this basic point. I have amended the pyschology reference, with a quote from Christie. The other ref remains to cover what the Dark Triad are, which of course it (and hundreds of other refs) do say. It is not me "constantly stating that the current article's content is a "caricature"" but different sources. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your answer shows the problem. The Christie quote is taken out of context, and adding it in is most definitely original research. He was noting how Machiavelli is commonly perceived, but it is not why he named the trait after him. I have read the literature endlessly and nowhere does any psychologist who studies the trait note that they are studying a "caricature" or "trope" or anything philosophical. This is irrefutable, especially after Christie subsequently states that his focus "is not on Machiavelli as a historic figure" (page 1). There is no good reason for this text to be added.

Furthermore, the reason I am not "grasping" the content of the article is simple. Machiavellianism has always been defined as the political philosophy of Machiavelli (well at least in the dictionaries, such as here for one example). What this article talks about however, is unclear. The "Machiavellianism" it claims to talk about doesn't seem like something coherent, and honestly seems conjured up. If you are to say that the terms "Machiavellian" and "Machiavellianism" are caricatures, and that this is the true meaning of the article, to that I would say that there are scholars who disagree with that view, which I referenced at the beginning. Even Herbert Butterfield, who is cited in this article, stated once that though the Elizabethan view of him is caricature, it "is not meaningless misrepresentation". Youre assertion that "The article is about extreme attitudes etc attributed by people several centuries ago to NM, and that they are not a fair reflection of his actual views is well-referenced." doesn't seem correct. Out of the four sources that is cited, only one studied Machiavelli. As I said earlier, Ribner, Maus, and Grady seem to be scholars of Shakespeare. And the view that Machiavelli's rep in Elizabethan era is unfair to him is not universally shared. I am not asking for any article changes, though.KingofGangsters (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well done! You've found an obscure dictionary from 1906 which gives the definition you are looking for. The article already quotes the OED and COD which give both definitions. Since the definition of Machiavellianism covered in this article is indeed not a fair representation of his philosophy, the appropriate scholars to refer to are mostly not specialists on that philosophy but historians & literature scholars who study the wider contexts where the trope flourished. Btw, I'm puzzled by your comment above "Ironically, my addition of Leo Strauss's comments on Machiavelli were added back, even though it gives credence to the so called "trope" ("Teacher of evil")". Wouldn't that more more sense as "my addition of Leo Strauss's comments on Machiavelli were added back, as it gives credence to the "trope" ("Teacher of evil")"? Totally failing to see the "irony" there. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Granted the same definition can be found in other dictionaries, such as the updated Merriam Webster and American Heritage dictionaries, as well, I couldn't find the link at the time. My main point is that the "Machiavellianism" that this article describes is not clear. Or to rephrase, the same scholars that I have cited earlier (Mansfield, Strauss, etc.) would state that the Machiavellianism covered by this article correctly describes his thought. Adding Leo Strauss's comments gives legitimacy to the so called "trope", which is why I stated that it was ironic. According to this article, or at least the tone of it, Machiavelli's thought has been unfairly distorted by early interpreters to make him look like a "teacher of evil", and Strauss notes exactly that he was a "teacher of evil". KingofGangsters (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but it seems complex to start out by defining something as a "supposed, but possibly not" thing. On the one hand you can say it is the supposed politics of NM himself, but then you define with a "supposed" in it. On the other hand might it be possible to define it as the type of person and behavior which Machiavelli famously described. (That he "supposedly" approved of it also, or was too neutral about it, is then moved into a later remark?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

NM did not describe the stage Machiavel (Iago for instance), so I'm not sure that helps. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

He described people acting in a calculating way socially and politically, and in a way where the morality or goodness of the means to the end was ignored. These are surely the common ground? If not, in any case it seems important to me to locate the common ground in order to make sense of things in a readable way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)