Talk:Cosimo III de' Medici

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well done.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Consistent and stable prose. Again, very well done.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Yes. Just for future reference, the first time that a source or citation is listed on the references list, it should be written out in it entirety. That must be done for nearly all of the references given. Second, you rely heavily on Acton for information, and a substantial majority of the article's citations are from his book. While this is somewhat fine for GA-class, it needs to be greatly diversified to pass an A-class or FA-class assessment.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, all quotes, statistics, and facts likely to be challenged have been cited.

   C. No original research:

   None.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers the major aspects of his life.

   B. Focused:

   Covers the minor and detailed aspects of his life.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Generally, however, see my second point on 2A for my analysis.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars whatsoever. Quite stable editing pattern.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Everything's in order.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Pictures show his life story well.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, a very good article and I am glad to pass it as a Good Article. The only two major problems I've had with it both regard references, the lack of writing out sources in their entirety the first time they are listed and diversity in references and citation. Fix these, and this article should be able to pass an A-class assessment. However, I would suggest a Peer Review beforehand, just to make sure that the article is up to snuff. Passed! Laurinavicius (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Counter Reformation

I don't think the Counter Reformation ended around 1648. The Dutch and German Wikipedia tell me the Counter Reformation ended somewhere in the 18th century. The English article needs to be changed! Niels Stensen, Ehrenfried Walther von Tschirnhaus and Leibnitz were their exponents in Germany and around 1670-1680 there was a lot of discussion on science, geology, anatomy, the creation and the bible. Lorenzo Magalotti and Antonio Magliabechi probably read each book on these subjects. Some books were banned by the Inquisition and by Cosimo III; something not mentioned very clearly in the article. The university of Pisa lost many students because of this, Taksen (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In light of this, I have no problem with the restoration of the line to the introduction. Have a nice day, Taksen! Yours, -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I hope I am not going to much into detail, but you needed some references from other authors, so I took the advantage.Taksen (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that there isn't more written about Cosimo. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alliot le Vieux

Hello Jack, who is Alliot le Vieux, a physician? I was not able to find anything on him? Does he need a lemma? Taksen (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He was personal physician to Anne of Austria in her final years. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to mention her supposed breast cancer, or did you already?

What is a May celebration? Is it religious or a fair? What objections did he had? Why was it banned? Taksen (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A May celebration, otherwise known as May Day, was a festival celebrating the start of Summer; it was an integral part of peasant life. As for why be banned it, I have no idea. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you stress his importance for art history in the heading, as your English is better than mine?

Sure, what do you want me to say? -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I still need to find a good paragraph about his importance for art history.

May be you can leave out some references to Acton, then the references become more balanced. Everybody can see you studied the book, but I dont think, all the references are usefull to a student. The ones that have not disputable information could be left.Taksen (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For it to be a good article it needs a myriad of references -- and even more to be featured! -- its best to keep them all, after all, the article is composed of published opinion and stats, which, according to WP:GA?, should be sourced. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I suppose you agree with my additions, but historians don't agree if Cosimo was a good king, boring, or reactionary. Probably a mixture. At least the account on his travels to the Netherlands and England are important and unique. He met some many interesting people, he cannot have been ignorant or foolish.

May I ask which historians? Au contraire, Henry VIII of England knew Erasmus and Thomas Moore, but he was as bigoted and cynical as can be. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I got a copy of Acton book "The Last Medici" which was first published in 1932, which does not become clear from the article. I need some time to study it.

Well, it isn't clear from the article because a different edition is being used -- that of 1980; they are a bit different. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you take a look at Lorenzo Magalotti? It has a lot of details, (and it still needs some addition on his later life). You could copy some sentences with references you like into the article and/or should we decide to make a subheading to his trip and lemma?

I'll look at it. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources, even for other Wikipedia articles. Thus, copy-and-pasting sentences and referencing them from another article should not be done, unless they are paraphrased and use reliable third-party sources. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an unreliable source

If I understand you well Wikipedia articles are not considered to be reliable sources. We should not trust its content? What are we doing here, why don't we go milk cows or dig peat?

Exactly, Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources, even for other Wikipedia articles. I guess the decision behind this rule is to prevent the spread of vandalism and misinformation. Let me give an example: say that a person adds some incorrect information into an article, which another editor then uses as a reference in another article, and then another editor does the same, and so on and so forth. Thus, false information is spread throughout articles. As a result, scholarly third-party sources are the only reliable sources on Wikipedia. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Jimmy Wales likes what you wrote. If he does, it is about time to leave this pretty but sinking ship soon. I also wonder why the English Wikipedia never introduced the German Wikipedia practise, not showings additions, from people with less than five hundred edits, unless they are checked by someone with more experience. It seems to work. The teenagers with crazy information and without references are frustrating.Taksen (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I may be incorrect here, I would assume that Mr. Wales would agree with what I have stated, regardless of whether or not he likes it. Not only is this Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or source information from Wikipedia), but Mr. Wales himself has discouraged the usage of Wikipedia as an academic resources in [[1]] newspaper article.

Second, why the English Wikipedia never introduced the German Wikipedia practice of not showing the additions of editors unless another, more experienced editor reviews the edits is irrelevant to the discussion, unless you're insinuating that both Jack and I have less than five hundred edits. This insinuation is quite false, seeing as both Jack and I have made more edits in the past six months than you have made in the whole of your three years as an editor.

This was not ment to take personally, really. I was talking about other people. You probably can guess who and I hope I dont have to explain more. By the way I think the discussion might have taken a wrong direction when Jack accused me of using a peacock term. I never saw that before. I was shocked, changed the wording, but the atmosphere was spoiled and aggravated more and more. So what follows should be regarded as unjustified.Taksen (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Third, please, no personal attacks. You are continuously making sarcastic insults to both Jack and myself, and I ask that you stop with this rude and uncivil behavior. While we are doing our best to remain civil and polite, you continually offend and provoke us. Again, please stop. While Jack and I may be teenagers, that gives you no right to describe us "frustrating" or having "crazy information and [no] references".

We have credible and reliable third-party sources and citations for this article, yet you refuse to accept them for no reason and choose to substitute your own copyright-infringing information. We try showing you Wikipedia policies and guidelines that show what's wrong with what you're saying and doing, yet you choose not to accept them, and denounce them as "tribal rules" and akin to the "GDR". Frankly, Taksen, it is you that is "frustrating". While it pains me to say this to another Wikipedia editor, you are interfering with the improvement of this article by adding copyright-infringing information to the article and instigating disputes on the talk page. Please, for the sake of improving the article and encyclopedia as a whole, stop. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"yet you refuse to accept them", nonsense, I only wrote the article is unbalanced.Taksen (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, next time, please be more careful before you say something, as I took that as a personal affront. Simply, think before you speak, please. However, I don't understand your remark saying: "You probably can guess who and I hope I dont have to explain more". I honestly have no idea who you are talking about, and assume it to refer to a) User:Jack1755; b) myself; c) the both of us; seeing as Jack and I are the only teenaged editors who, as far as I know of, are working on this article.

Second, the usage of a peacock term, however true that may or may not be, is not the focus point of the discussion and not where it took a wrong turn. The entire focus of the discussion, originally, and its current main focus is how to revert all of the copyright-infringing material that you have added into the article. As a result, ten days worth of edits will now have to be mass reverted, simply because you copied sentences directly from books and cited them incorrectly. And to make matters worse, this article recently attained GA status; if someone were to give this article a GAR right here, right now, it would surely fail due to all of this plagiarism. That's what other editors, Jack in particular, are worried about; that after so much time, effort, and energy were put into working on this article, some other user just came in and added plagiarism, thus causing the article to be demoted from GA status.

Third, ""yet you refuse to accept them", nonsense, I only wrote the article is unbalanced": nope! Here are some statements of yours to prove it: "there cannot be added something to a book that was written 80 years ago, with only small additions in the first edition of 1958"; "I cant believe it is Wikipedia's intention to publish on internet stuff that is old. Then it would be much better to buy a recent encyclopedia"; and "Everything on internet was made to use [as an alternative to Acton]". In summation, you state that Acton should be used as it was written 80 years ago, and, as such, is too old, and that "everything on [the] internet" can and should be used as an alternative to him. So, just to clarify for myself and others, you're suggesting that we do away with Acton entirely as it was written 80 years ago and is too old, and replace Acton with information from the internet, regardless of its reliability. That certainly sounds like "only [writing that] the article is unbalanced". My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. It is very unclear to me. The rule is: if one uses a sentence (or a few) from a book or a website, you have to make a reference. Then you payed tribute to the author. (A lawyer told me: It is all about respect). You cannot accuse me of plagiarism, when I have made a reference. If I have mentioned him at least once (or twice), I don't have to make references to him all the time. The author is satisfied, right?

Secondly. I have nothing against using old books or authors that died. I like to do it myself. But it should be checked, "compensated" or "illustrated" with more recent or other authors, unless there are no other books or authors that describe the event or person.Taksen (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I feel that I'm coming across quite clear, but I'll just clarify myself. Generally, most of what you stated in your fist paragraph is entirely incorrect. First of all, you have plagiarized blatantly (you admitted to it yourself, by saying that you copy directly from sources). Second,I don't think you understand what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is when someone copies directly out of a work without putting it in quotation marks and giving the actual source in a reference. If you copy a sentence directly from a source and fail to a) put it in quotation marks; b) referencing it; or c) both, then you have plagiarized. In every single case, you have not put it in a quotation marks, and, for most, you have not done either. Third, the point of referencing a direct quote is to pay tribute to the actual writer/speaker of the quote and to give the source in which that quote can be found. Other than that, references are generally meant to show the reliable, credible third-party source where that information (whether it be a quote, statistic, or fact likely to be challenged, as these are the types of information that need references), not to pay tribute to the author. Fourth, every single time that there is quote, statistic, or fact likely to be challenged, there needs to be a reference. You're quote stating "if [you] mentioned him at least once (or twice), [you] don't have to make references to him all the time" is completely incorrect. A work needs to be referenced each and every time that a quote, statistic, or fact likely to be challenged is mentioned. Fifth, in your second paragraph, could you clarify what you mean by "I like to do it myself", as I don't understand what you're trying to say. Sixth, "[you] have nothing against using old books or authors that died"; well, you're contradicting yourself here. Throughout this discussion, you have attacked Acton on multiple occasions for being too old, and here you go again. An older book does not need to be checked and compared to a newer one just due to its age! History does not change, people's take on historical events may be different, but what occurred historically does not change and is indisputable. As a result, there is no need to check Acton's work with others. Seventh, I asked a bunch of individuals yesterday and today who I personally know who are either university students majoring in history or university professors of history who specialize/have a particular interest in Italian history about their opinions regarding Acton and particularly The Last Medici. I asked about a dozen or so in total, and of those, only one said that he prefered other sources on the same time period (Hale's Florence and the Medici and Strathern's The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance) but still thought highly of Acton. The eleven or twelve others all agree that Acton is widely considered, at least in the United States, to be the best source for information regarding the Medici. Again, this supports the fact that there is no need to check the information given in Acton with a newer source. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear L. I never wrote Acton is an unreliable source, this must be your fantasy. Even if you would quote Acton 300 times the article doesn't become more true, but more unbalanced. It makes it look like an outline of a book, and a limited article on the person. It seems to me it became very fashionable, to use an author 50 times, so many articles have more than 100 references. In my point of view this is suspicious. It does not add much to its credibility or readibility. It would look more reliable to me when each reference came from different article, book, or website.

While there was not a paragraph on art and science, I started one and I added already to his travel accounts. If you decide to leave this out, the article does not give a good view of Cosimo at all. Yesterday I started to add to Cosimo in the Dutch Wikipedia. It was a great help to look around here. I'm quite sure, it will not become as long and have as many references. Cultural differences or background do play a role. Greetings from Amsterdam.Taksen (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Taksen, I understand where you're coming from with this whole thing about the references, but, simply, this is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. Second, there is no need for discussing in the article what was going on with arts and sciences during his reign, unless they directly affected him or he directly affected them. Otherwise, they have no place being in the article. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What the article should show

Is there an expression in English which says: tell me who you friends are, and I will tell you who you are? This is my view on writing an article. It is always very helpful to understand a person or an event. It is beside the truth to state that Cosimo ordered a series of reactionary decrees. Chianti is perhaps the world's first legally defined GI (?), by virtue of a Decree by Grand Duke Cosimo III de' Medici from 1716. The article should show these contradictions or "inconsistencies" and could inspire others to do more research.

In my point of view Cosimo had to deal with many problems, that are not solved, discussed or count today. How much nude is right to show on the street or in church. What do we believe: creation of evolution? What do I do after it becomes clear my marriage is an unhappy one. How do I organize the upbringing and the education of the children without a mother. (Cosimo asked Steno, a very influential scientist in those days. Action does not mention the name of the person, but states it was through his wife). Cosimo liked to write letters and kept diaries. He was an early rationalist, interested in science, see the Italian and Catalan articles, who do mention it. It seems his wife was not interested in science at all, or shared his interest for gardening. May be she did not like his favourite wine, or food, (and brought in her own cooks) and his interest for paintings and painters, but preferred to go shopping instead, walking around with the family jewels. Cosimo had her locked up, but turned out be helpful when she discovered a knob in her breast and invited Alliot. Cosimo bought a collection on Amboinese plants from Georg Eberhard Rumphius. I will look for more information, there is a book published in Italian. I am aware this cannot be all in the article, but some could, to create interest. Taksen (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Taksen, I'd just like to let you know that I have read your comment and will respond in full once I get home from school later today (in approximately twelves hours or so). It's actually about 3:30 AM where I live so I was about to head off to bed. Anyways, I'll just respond to your comments later on. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Swap

In 1736/1737 there was a swap between Poland, Austria, Lorraine and Tuscany, may be it needs some more clarification. I added an explanation to Maria Theresia, but someone did not agree, so now you can find it on her talkpage. It could be used for Gian Gastone when, someone improved the wording and I take another look to the references. It is possibly best to add it to the German Wikipedia. It took some time to find out what happened, and it would be a pity, the information disappeared.Taksen (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Cosimo's attitude towards science art could be more elaborated and explained Taksen (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC), with which I started yesterday. Taksen (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Its linked; they have their own aritcles, we shouldn't laden the this article with uneccessary detail; Cosimo was dead for 12 years when the Treaty of Turin 1735 was ratified, which resigned the Grand Duchy to Francis. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "unneccassy details" may lead you to other sources, which you need here. I am not too interested in reading some sort of "tale" of decadent princes and princesses. There was more going on. They had knowledge or hired people, like Lorenzo Magalotti, who was in charge with decorating the palace, with knowledge of music, art and sciences which the article should show, less dull topics in my point of view. I'm not saying this article is dull, and it's better than mine in the Dutch Wikipedia. Now I could add there too, I have more understanding what happened. Taksen (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is little to no need to go off on a tangent to describe who Cosimo hired to decorate his palace or that sort of thing. This is an encyclopedia article, meaning that the article must be a comprehensive discussion of Cosimo's life. Not what his decorator was working on in his palace, but what Cosimo was doing. Simply, there is no need to discuss in detail this sort of information in the article; briefly touching on/summarizing it and adding an internal link is entirely sufficient. If this article is to pass an AN or a FAN, then going off in detail about how Lorenzo Magalotti was decorating Cosimo's palace or how Maria Theresa was attempting to gain the throne of the Austrian Empire or that sort of minor detail of little importance is exactly what should not be in the article. In summation, there is no need for these "unnecessary details". My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm tagging the heading; it doesen't comply the the WP:MOS, nor WP:LS. Some of the information just shouldn't be there: if the article doesen't say he banned books on Cartesian dualism, it can't be in the intro. Plus, why are there italics? Are they supposed to be quotes? And, Taksen, you copied and pasted a sentence from Brittanica.com. You seem to have deleted my citation needed tag also. What do you mean by this sentence: "Tuscany witnessed deterioration to previously unknown economic lows, but no biography of Lorenzo will ever be definitive, for the questions in dispute are rather of feeling than of fact"? Who's Lorenzo? Why is he mentioned? -- Jack1755 (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jack. If one leaves out everything about sciences, conter-reformation, inquisition, and travel details, Cosimo becomes a boring king, obsessed with heriditary questions. All the European monarchs envied Tuscany's wealth, and culture and Cosimo knew and tried everything to keep the legacy of the family together. What makes him interesting are not only the people that surrounded him: his wife, his children, the artists, the scientists, the bibliothecary, and probably the prime-minister. He locked himself in his art-collection and his belief, which makes him human and should be stressed. What Charles VI did not allow Cosimo, he allowed himself. The result: the Austrian War of Succession. Taksen (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stick to the matter at hand. You aren't addressing the issues I raised. I never said I was going to leave out "everything about sciences, conter-reformation, inquisition, and travel details"; I merely pointed out that you aren't following wikipedia's established policies & guidelines. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Unless the opinions you have expressed are published in third-party, reliable sources, they have no place at wikipedia; and constitute original research -- which is explicitly forbidden. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jack, several months ago, you deleted the only two references in the article which I added. Then you started to edit on this lemma and added mainly from one book. Now you are praised for all the work, but were critized (at least 80%) of all the references are from one book. Then I added my two former references, and several others to explain that Cosimo should not only be remembered because of heriditary questions. I started two articles to get a better understanding of Cosimo, and improved some of your mistakes. Because my English is not as elaborate as I wish I like to use other authors and copied some of their sentences & references. Now there is a broader and wider view on Cosimo. It seems you are still unsatisfied with what I do. You use Acton like a bible and hardly willing to cooperate. I am not so sure I am the one who is trouble. Taksen (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I take "hardly willing to co-operate" as a personal upfront. You cannot copy and paste sentences from published soruces without quotation marks -- it constitutes copyright violation, which, unlike original research, is illegal. And you still are to address the issues I raised in regards to the introductory paragraph. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited other users to comment. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose reverting all edits made after 18 October 2009. That's when this article was listed as a Good Article. Then you should discuss what else should be added to the article, what should be removed, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• From what I have read, I think there's no dubt that the issues raised here should be cleared up. Though I have no knowledge of the specific editorial history on this article, but since Jack 1755 who raised the question agrees with the "outsider" suggestion here, I think it's reasonably to support, and then eventually start again from there. -GabaG (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I do feel that it is necessary to make some reverts to the article (particularly regarding Taksen's copyright violations, as I assume there are quite a few), reverting all of the edits for the past week is not the best way to go about doing this. Now, Jack and I were discussing this on my talk page and another solution was brought up: "Now, there have been 111 edits made to the page since the 18th and 101 since Taksen made his first edit to the article. However, (I'm just guesstimating here) about fifty or so of those edits (only half of the total) have been made by Taksen and possibly violate copyrights. The other fifty or so have been made by other editors and do not constitute copyright violation. If all of these edits were to be deleted, that means that fifty or so helpful edits would be reverted, which, simply, would make all of these good edits just a waste of time and energy. So, why not just go through the article and remove his edits one by one? That certainly would take much longer than simply reverting all of these edits, but would not remove all of the edits that have improved the article." What do you guys think of this idea? My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: About 80% of the other 50 edits are mine; I wouldn't mine losing them. They are, in their entirety, correcting Taksen. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Now I have no qualms with supporting the proposal. Therefore, I change my vote to Support. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Why allow a Good Article to be de-classed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well then, I think it's safe to beign the proccess. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Taksen's reply

I guess you are waiting on me for an answer. I dont like User:Surtsicna's idea. It would destroy all the relevant information I added from Cochrane, etc. I was studying Acton during the weekend and tried to improve the leading today. I have never been accused of copy violation, I like to make references, and try to keep straight; if not today I will add the relevant references the next day. As you know English is not my mother tongue which makes me a bit slower, but usually I'm able to find a better solution or description.

Acton wrote an interesting book, but I have not finished reading it. It is not possible to get an balanced judgement on Acton within a few days. I did find some interesting material and prove for my statement: Cosimo was not as boring as many people think. In the 19th and early 20th century the historians needed to write down a moral judgment, and this judgement on Cosimo got stuck somewhere, sometime, somehow. Im not interested in a final state, but in the process. Is someone in a hurry, why? I would not be surprised Cosimo will stay a topic for debate.Taksen (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All you succeded in doing today was inserting misinformation; Marguerite-Louise hardly had a "crush" on Charles-Alexander of Lorraine -- he was 9 years-old when she died. The web citations use bare links, grounds for revocation of Cosimo' good article status. And yes, you were accused of copyright violation, did you read all of "Lead section"? More importantly, you are still to answer my queries on the introduction! Does the book explicitly say that Cosimo's isn't as "boring" as 19th century historians thought? I already drew attention to your original research. And at least have the courtesy to apologise for your "hardly willing to co-operate" insult. It was hurtful and gratuitous. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You said you were violating copyright yourself: "copied some of their sentences & references." -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to reread the rules and decide to publish somewhere else.
• I did not want to hurt your feelings, I expected more patience and understanding. Usually I work on Dutch scientists and painters, where it is even quieter.

Your conduct must comply with WP:CIVIL, expecting "more patience and understanding" isn't my fault; it certainly didn't stop you from being rude once again below; in the last paragraph! -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• So which Charles is it then, any idea? This is what I mean with not-cooperating. Then I have to look for another, sorry.

How the hell am I supposed to know? I didn't put it in the article!! --

you seem to have a copy in your vicinity of Acton and it was written there.

Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is allowed to copy sentences, when you make references. It is not to good custom to to use whole paragraphs, the article or to copy without any reference. It is all about paying respect to the author and attention for the book.

No: copying sentences from books, without quotation marks, is illegal in Florida, where wikipedia's servers are based. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew he lives in st Petersburg but I dont understand what the consequences are. I need to find out. I did mark the sentence but the wrong kind of quotation marks. I hope to convince the judge, when someone will suit me; the intention to mark was there.

• Everything on internet was made to use. Scientific books, articles and libraries on internet are also a reliable and interesting sources.
• Yes Conchrane writes something like that, I will look for the page number.

Ok. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• So you think, there cannot be added something to a book that was written 80 years ago, with only small additions in the first edition of 1958. I still have to find out if the pagenumber is the same in mine and your edition

I don't undestand what you're saying. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

let me put it another way. I cant believe it is Wikipedia's intention to publish on internet stuff that is old. Then it would be much better to buy a recent encyclopedia.

I must say that, Taksen, what you just stated really irks me. It's not "Wikipedia's intention to publish...stuff that is old", but rather to use reliable third-party sources. And, as Acton's work is a reliable third-party source, it should be used, regardless of its age. Age has no say whatsoever in whether or not a scholarly work is a reliable third-party source. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do apologize and I hope you will apologize for deleting two references which I made two years ago without a good reason. And I like to use art, science, and music in my articles, and mention the connection with authors and poets. It cannot be true that what you have never heard of or cannot be found in Acton, is not true and would be unencyclopedic. I hope I answer all your questions. Greetings from Amsterdam.Taksen (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Taksen, I won't. You just waltzed in here after I spent weeks working on the article, getting it to GA status. If it really pained you, why are you only bringing it up now? I'm going to be frank with you, Taksen. First and foremost, how dare you presume to tell me what I do and do not believe -- ASSUME GOOD FAITH!; you don't know. Secondly, words like "crush"; prattling on about immaterial artists (like you did in the See also section); writing in an essay tone; and being uncivil, like you have to me, is not allowed, why won't you accept that? I have confronted you about some of these infractions already...I have a feeling the arbitration committee is about to stuble upon a new case. -- Jack1755 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"It is allowed to copy sentences, when you make references" - This is only true when you quote the sentence like I did with yours now, otherwise you have to rewrite it, or just take out some vital statements from it. "And I like to use [...] in my articles" - I don't know if it's a result of the reportedly poor English that has been expressed earlier, but I would like to make it sure that no articles on Wikipedia belong to anyone in a personal way. And when obviously wrong, or dubious, statements have been added, like the crush on the 9-year old, I think it would be wise to become increasingly more cautious when writing things. "I have to reread the rules" - after what seems to be the case here I think that would be a good idea. Regards, -GabaG (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont like to spent to much time on this discussion. I'm waisting my time. I can add rather unknown or new information if they are well sourced, and this seemes to be the problem. It seems to me Wikipedia began to cycle backwards. Wikipedians became for some reason more conservative than necessary. And they do have a problem, with rules that became quite complicated; sometimes it reminds me to the GDR. I cannot believe the rules are more important than the information. Not everybody likes to study all these different tribal rules, sorry. I'm around here for four years, I missed something.

Taksen (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never needed to read any Wikipedia rules substantially. Common sense and just a bit of normal understanding is really all it takes. One of the most important things, as everyone should know, is that only factual, or true things can be written. If someone want to read a fictional novel for instance that should be done outside WP, that's because WP is an encyclopedia. -GabaG (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Taksen, the rules are there to keep uniformity and order; they ought not be changed to suit your caprices. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the reason the rules are being so astringently applied is because Cosimo III heretofore was a good article -- it's content is somewhat non-compliant with WP:GA? as of late, hence the heretofore -- and to be a good article it must comply with all of Wikipedia's abundant guidelines. It's not that wikipedians are growing more conservative, Taksen; you're working on a meticulous article; an article that, as aforementioned, must comply with the project's doctrinaire regulations. It's imperative that we endeavour to salvage Cosimo III, and ensure that he shall remain endorsed, together. Yours faithfully, -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Hello! I am the mediator for the dispute involving this article. The case page can be found here. I hope all parties quickly post their acceptance of mediation on either their talk pages or on the mediation page itself. I hope to bring this dispute to an end game that all can agree with. Thank You and please remember to remain civil during this process. Reubzz (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.tuscany-toscana.info/history_of_the_medici_family.htm

  Triggered by \btuscany-toscana\.info\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While opposition relied heavily on WP:NCPEER, supporters of these moves made arguments based on concision, WP:AT, and WP:SOVEREIGN, and consensus appears to be in favor of these moves as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Cosimo III de' Medici
• Gian Gastone de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Gian Gastone de' Medici
• Francesco Maria de' Medici, Duke of Rovere and Montefeltro → Francesco Maria de' Medici
• Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Ferdinando II de' Medici
• Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Cosimo II de' Medici
• Ferdinando I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Ferdinando I de' Medici
• Francesco I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Francesco I de' Medici
• Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany → Cosimo I de' Medici

– The current titles are grotesquely large. The title Francesco Maria de' Medici, Duke of Rovere and Montefeltro takes up two rows - and for no good reason. These names are unambiguous. There is no other Cosimo III de' Medici from whom this Cosimo III de' Medici should be disambiguated. What we have now is akin to having Donald Trump, President of the United States. See WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE policy. Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP: NCPEER: ""Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title". It is not "Arthur Wellesley", it is "Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington". No reason to eliminate titles of dukes. Moreover, this is particularly egregious to eliminate since many art history works also use numerals to refer to non-ruling Medici family members, e.g. some refer to Cosimo de' Medici, the grandaddy of them all, as "Cosimo I de' Medici". Given the penchant for erratic numbering of Medici family members, the ruling Grand Dukes of Tuscany must be clearly designated and distinguished as such. Can't oppose this proposal more. Walrasiad (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCPEER is explicitly about British peers, not sovereign grand dukes. WP:SOVEREIGN applies here. There is a reason to eliminate the titles and it is stated in the opening comment. Cosimo I de' Medici may be left out, but all others are perfectly unambiguous, including Cosimo II and Cosimo III. Surtsicna (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

How about don't move any of them, they are fine as is. It's only going to make a muck of everything. Walrasiad (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

These behemoths of titles are not fine as is. The title Francesco Maria de' Medici, Duke of Rovere and Montefeltro taking up two rows in the article title space is not fine as is. What we have now is a muck. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If that disturbs you, then you should probably stay away from nobility articles. They all have long names here per WP:NCPEER. If you're such an eager cleaver, I expect you to be taking an axe at "Clementina Drummond-Willoughby, 24th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby" or "Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans", etc. Walrasiad (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not intend to stay away, thank you. I will instead work to ensure that article titles follow the project's policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to shorten the titles. For example, there are so many dukes named Francesco/Francis/Francois--it would be very confusing. They are not behemoths; they are titles. This is creating a problem where there is none.

I also strongly oppose this proposal. Kcomerfo (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The proposal is not to move these articles to "Duke Francesco". It is to move them from Francesco Maria de' Medici, Duke of Rovere and Montefeltro to Francesco Maria de' Medici. There is no need for gratuitous disambiguation. Literally no other language Wikipedia calls him anything but Francesco Maria de' Medici. None of them include the "duke of Rovere and Montefeltro" in the article title, so evidently it is not very confusing. Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reason i have opposed other needless moves of titles. Every one of the "desired" titles here already redirects to the correct target article, so there is no issue at all with anyone being unable to find them. I don't understand the comment about two lines ~ it is one line as i look at it, and if it were two, so what? I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but so many move suggestions and discussions seem to be pointless makework, and i don't see the need when there are other, real, issues with our encyclopaedia that we could be working on. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 20:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I put out half a dozen new articles every month and do not feel that proposing bloat reduction on existing pages takes away any precious time. Besides, opposing a proposal just because it was proposed neither saves your time nor is it in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, in line with WP:CONCISE and WP:SOVEREIGN. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. These are their common names. They are not like British peerage titles, where the title is usually better known than the name. In this instance, the name is far better known than the title, which is frequently not used at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Semi-support I support shortening Francesco Maria, but I oppose the rest. The grand dukes aren’t that long and since they were the sovereign Medici duke I think they should stay as is. Francesco Maria was granted that title because he was the second son of Cosimo II, and it’s too long in my opinion. But honestly, it’s not that important. They’re more important things in Wikipedia. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. In line with WP:AT and WP:SOVEREIGN. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The ordinal makes no sense without the associated title. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dimadick and Walrasiad. The numerals relate the given name to the grand duchy, not to the family name. See Cosimo de' Medici. Best to leave them as is for clarity and consistency. I can support moving Francesco Maria de' Medici. Srnec (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support No need to carry that train of a title after those names. Clearly goes against WP:CONCISE. Keivan.f^Talk 01:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  What do you say to the fact that Cosimo I de' Medici wasn't the first Cosimo de' Medici, only the first Cosimo to rule Tuscany? Srnec (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  But were the other men named Cosimo de' Medici also sovereigns? Because regnal numbers are typically used for rulers. Other than the Medici family's "founder", the other 'Cosimo's I see listed at the disambiguation page are all grand dukes of Tuscany. Keivan.f^Talk 07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That is because ten years ago I went around removing all the ordinals from the non-ruling Medici family articles and replacing them with disambiguating names without ordinals. It was a massive mess, but often found in many books. I remember thanking the heavens that at least the "Grand Duke of Tuscany" was in the title for this lot. Walrasiad (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2023 (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.