Talk:Pazzi conspiracy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 12 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmybunny.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Francesco Nori

In the general information box, it lists Francesco Nori as being killed during the Pazzi Conspiracy. However, by clicking his name to his Wikipedia page, it says he died in the 17th century. Over a hundred years from when the Pazzi Conspiracy occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdom of Neph (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that, Kingdom of Neph – the blue link was of course taking you to a page about a different Francesco Nori. It's easy for these mistakes to creep in, and very useful if someone takes the trouble to mention them – thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I noticed that the history shows frequent additions and removal to the popular culture section. What is considered to be valid popular culture references and what is not? 2600:8801:3B00:4B9:CD77:B1C:BDBB:46B7 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't include trivia in this project, and "popular culture" sections are usually the epitome of trivia. If this conspiracy is mentioned in a video game, then the place to cover that would be the article on the game. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So... how a event is depicted in media is completelly unimportant for you? That's not right. It's nothing about trivia but if an event is important enough to get depicted in Books, Movies or games this should be described. --2A02:2028:82A:2201:444B:E516:BBA:A6B8 (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There have certainly been numerous novels in which the plot features, and maybe films too. These should be included, along with notable paintings etc. The section is currently called "In culture". Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY agree. All the historical figures described here in any detail probably have pop culture sections in their own articles. How is a conspiracy any different to any other historical event or person...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Korhedron (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

This should be listed under conspiracy theories since there's no real proof or evidence of the plot. 97.115.73.229 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Some eighty

I noticed this. How many were killed, and what was their status? The "some"; does it mean "approximately"? Justlettersandnumbers, what does the source say? John (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, John, thanks for asking! The source cited is this, available on JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library; on page 456 we have "However, the blood spilled in the cathedral during the botched double assassination was minimal compared with that demanded in retribution by the regime. In all, according to the records of the Compagnia de’ Neri, eighty executions occurred between 26 April and 20 October 1478 as a result of the conspiracy." The footnote (#41) makes it clear that not all of those executed were in fact conspirators sensu stricto, which is why I reverted your change; there were also a few more executions attributable to the plot after that period. And yes, "some" before a number means (in the kind of English I speak) "about" or "approximately". Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm not sure if it's what you're asking, but idiomatically "some" would usually mean "at least but not many more than"; not quite the same as "approximately", but similar ~ Lindsay^Hello 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If the source says "eighty", why would we report that as "some eighty"? Surely we should just give the number? John (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Because, John, what the source says is that "... eighty executions occurred between 26 April and 20 October 1478", not eighty in all; as mentioned in the footnote, there were also later executions, including those of four of the principal conspirators, Bernardo di Giovanni Baroncelli, Battista Frescobaldi, Morotto di Guido Baldovinetti and Antonio di Giovanni Balducci. Just a note: if you want me to see or respond to a talk-page post, it's probably best to ping me. I'll go ahead and restore the previous wording. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't realise you weren't watching the talk page. The current wording is clumsy and confusing. Can you suggest an improvement that you can live with? WP:SYNTH might be worth a look. We generally just summarise what sources say rather than trying to "improve" them as your wording is trying to do. John (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist, along with about 54000 other pages; I don't necessarily notice every talk-page post. Anyway, you're going to have to be more specific as to what you perceive to be the problem. In my opinion the text I wrote represents as clearly as possible the facts reported in the source without going into unnecessary detail (such as the exact dates between which the first eighty executions took place). I don't know what you think I have tried to 'improve', nor what you think I've synthesised – please enlighten. You've made two different edits that changed the meaning so that it was no longer representative of what the source actually says; do you think that either of them was nevertheless an improvement on the text I wrote? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Snap, I have 56,731 on mine. According to your source, we have 80 executions (not all of whom were conspirators), and then at least four further executions of high-profile conspirators, and you want to summarize this as

In the aftermath of the plot many of the conspirators – and others accused of being conspirators – were executed, some by hanging from the windows of the Palazzo della Signoria; there were some eighty executions in all. (my emphasis)

This is in the lead, so it should be a concise summary of

Between 26 April, the day of the attack, and 20 October 1478, a total of eighty people were executed.  Bandini dei Baroncelli, who had escaped to Constantinople, was arrested and returned in fetters by the Sultan Mehmed II, and – still in Turkish clothing – was hanged from a window of the Palazzo del Capitano del Popolo on 29 December 1479. There were three further executions on 6 June 1481. It was the "some" and the awkward construction of the sentence that caught my attention; why would we imply imprecision if we know (reasonably) accurately what the true number was? There's also the awkwardness of saying the same unnecessary thing twice, in "many" and "some eighty", and then again in "the conspirators – and others accused of being conspirators" (I'm sure all were accused of being conspirators, those who we now think were involved and those who we don't, sensu stricto!). I propose something like

After the plot, more than eighty people implicated in the plot were executed, some by hanging from the windows of the Palazzo della Signoria.

Or "...at least 84 people"? Either would be an improvement, I think, on what we have. John (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented an even tighter summary which is true to the sources and to the fuller description later on. I didn't spot that my proposed text itself contained a reputation, "plot... plot". Repetition is bad, especially in the lead. What do you think Justlettersandnumbers? John (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"Failure" or "partial failure?"

I noticed that the infobox stated that the outcome of this conspiracy was a "partial failure." This contradicts the lead, which calls it a "failed plot." So I changed the infobox to match it. User:Justlettersandnumbers reverted me, saying "there were two targets of the conspiracy, one of them was murdered, so the attempt was partly successful, not a complete failure."

This reversion brought the contradiction back. Either the infobox needs to be changed, or the article lead does.

I see the logic behind Justlettersandnumbers's reasoning, but don't really agree with it. As our lead says, this was a conspiracy "to displace the Medici family as rulers of Renaissance Florence," not simply a conspiracy to kill two men. It's true they partially achieved the latter, but they failed utterly at the former. To give an analogy, the July Putsch succeeded in killing its #1 target, but it did not succeed in its bigger-picture goal of overthrowing the government, so we simply describe it as "failed" in the text and as an "Austrian government victory" in the infobox. Maybe using similar wording here could sidestep this issue entirely - "Medici victory" for the outcome in the infobox? -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting point; in a way the tension between the lead and the infobox reflects the initial uncertainty of the outcome. That's not, however, how we write an encyclopaedia, so i agree we might resolve it. My initial thought was to remove the word "failed" from the lead but, in fact, as the plot was designed to remove the Medici and it did not, it was a failure ~ a complete failure, in fact, as it made Lorenzo stronger. I know we could just call it a plot and depend on our readers to continue reading, but...will they? Sidestepping in the infobox, as you suggest, might do the trick, as the deaths of Nori and Giuliano are mentioned on the next entry in it, but that leads to the oddity that Giuliano's death would be called a "Medici victory"! I hope Justlettersandnumbers chimes in here; failing that, i suggest leaving it as it is, because we're not looking for absolute consistency but the best presentation of the facts and an infobox is merely a tool to aid in that ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Elmer Clark, for starting this, and LindsayH for your thoughtful reply. I believe the crux of the problem here is the statement that the plot was "to displace the Medici family as rulers of Renaissance Florence" – do we actually have a source for that sweeping claim? As I see it, the plot per se was to assassinate Lorenzo and Giuliano; the conspirators or their influential backers may indeed have hoped that this would weaken or end the grip of the Medici on the city, but I don't see sources that say this was the primary aim. I suggest rephrasing the lead sentence to something like " ... was a plot by members of the Pazzi family and others against the Medici family, the de facto rulers of Renaissance Florence". I also suggest leaving the Outcome parameter of the infobox blank. Would that help? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Justlettersandnumbers, i think that would be better, especially emptying Outcome= which, as i take it, is the primary issue raised by Elmer Clark. Your suggested rewrite of the lead sentence makes a good deal of sense, too ~ Lindsay^Hello 06:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

LindsayH: You make a good point about "Medici victory" having its own problems. I agree that leaving "Outcome" blank sounds like a better option there.

As for the change to the lead suggested by Justlettersandnumbers, I think it's a good one if we actually cannot sustain the claim that the plot was "to displace the Medici family as rulers of Renaissance Florence." But can we not? Pazzi and House of Medici both make the same claim. Pazzi even sources it to a specific page (254) in this article's source #2 by Hibbert - does anyone have access to it to check if it in fact backs it up? If it is in fact the historical consensus that displacing the Medici was the underlying goal, then I do think it detracts from the article not to prominently mention that in the lead. (And if it's not, those other articles need adjusting too.) But I don't know nearly enough about the topic say if that's the case. -Elmer Clark (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Elmer Clark, LindsayH. I have to take responsibility for a good part of this: I introduced the 'replace' claim to this page when I split it off from Pazzi, where it had been (unsourced, like almost everything else) since 2004, whither it was copied from here. I have the Hibbert book, the page number is 131, the only supporting text is "... [Francesco de' Pazzi] thought that the time had come for the Pazzi to take over as rulers of Florence from the Medici". I've removed the claim from Pazzi, but not from House of Medici – I don't have the American edition of the book and there's anyway no page number. I'll try to dig out Cronin and check that too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Lauro Martines (2003). April Blood: Florence and the Plot Against the Medici. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195176094, an entire recent book on the plot, leaves no doubt at all that displacing the Medici was the aim. You may cite pp 151-153, though the theme runs throughout the book. That replacing them with the Pazzi was the aim of all the backers is less certain. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnbod, for that cite; i read Hibbert twenty years ago, now i'm going to have to seek out Martines to scratch that itch. I have boldy added the cite (not a huge fan of putting it in the lead, but it seemed most appropriate) and emptied the parameter; Justlettersandnumbers and Elmer Clark, if you agree it's acceptable, that's great, or please feel free to revert me, i certainly won't be offended ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I second the thank you and am much happier with this outcome than what was previously discussed. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Difficult to read wording and language

The article has issues in wording throughout and needs to be rewritten. I will add the relevant template. ZImperator (talk) (contrib) 13:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Like to give some examples of what you mean, ZImperator? I don't see any substantial problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I was incorrect in my exact wording. The issue is tone, specifically in the background section. It seems to be copied verbatim from the sources, which doesn't really fit with the manual of style. ZImperator (talk) (contrib) 14:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)