User talk:Iconoclastodon

Welcome!

Hello, Iconoclastodon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Sincerely, Ryan 07:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Yudo vs Jodo on Emerson page...it's been changed to Yudo.--Mike Searson 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited read "Korean Judo". Way back when we were working on this someone from the Martial arts project changed it to Jodo. I'm not a student of Korean arts so I don't know...it got convuluted during a recent copyedit. Thanks again and for your words about the article...beats being called a "macho" "retard"ed "redneck" "obsessed with weapons and hunting". --Mike Searson 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli

I don't see how you can say that to call the interpretation of Machiavelli that gave rise to the term "Machiavellian" a misinterpretation is not a POV. Peer-reviewed articles and books argue that Machiavelli did indeed advocate the use of whatever means were necessary to achieve your political goals, whatever they might be. Hence, there is scholarly disagreement, and so statements cannot support one interpretation over the other without violating WP:NPOV. Your revision does precisely this. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. That "Machiavellian" has certain connotations, and that they were formed as a result of what people took from the Prince and the Discourses, is a verifiable fact and not, so far as I am aware, the subject of any dispute. Statements about whether it accurately captures Machiavelli's thought, on the other hand, touch upon a matter of dissension. My point was that it does not violate NPOV to point out the former, while it does to insist upon the latter.

As to your argument regarding Agathocles, it is neither here nor there whether interpreters who say Machiavelli was more Machiavellian than his modern apologists acknowledge are right. The debate exists, and we are not supposed to take sides. Making the sentence more idiomatic is one thing: casting it in a particular light is another.

I will say, however (entirely off-topic), that in the very sentence after saying that we cannot call it virtue to do these things, which you quote, Machiavelli speaks of Agathocles' virtue and objects that one cannot see why he has to be judged inferior to any most excellent captain. Machiavelli never says that what Agathocles displayed is not virtue, just that it cannot be called, cannot be celebrated, one cannot attribute, etc.; he does say that it is virtue. Then, after showing a modern, Christian failure, he asks why it was that Agathocles never came to any harm, and notes that those who proceed like Agathocles, who used cruelty well, can have some remedy "with God and with men." It seems that Machiavelli is being clever. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that looks better. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) P.S., I think you see his Machiavellianism in the Discourses, too. For a book about republics (which he never claims it is), it talks an awful lot about princes. [reply]