Talk:House of Medici/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about House of Medici. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fleur de Lis

How is there an entire 'article' on the famed Medici clan and not one picture of a fleur de lis, anywhere? I plan on adding an authentic one unless anyone can raise a valid objection. DavoudMSA (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming

See Talk:Lorenzo de' Medici for some other background on this.

I see that almost all the Medici pages use plain "de", but two (Giovanni di Bicci and Piero the Unfortunate) use "de'". Just to make things complicated, it appears that the correct usage is actually "de'" (short for "della", I think).

DonatelloNYC (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, " De' " is short for "Dei", which comes from "De i" meaning "of the" - the word Medici is plural in nature, since it ends in the letter "i" - (singular would be Medico). Lorenzo's name literally translated into English is "Lorenzo of the Medici." I studied Italian language and grammar in Florence Italy (at the Lorenzo de' Medici school actually!, among other places). It would be incorrect to say "Della Medici" since Medici is masculine plural and Della is used for feminine singular. (Della Medica would work, or Delle Mediche, but the name is Medici, so it's De'.) DonatelloNYC (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally I thought the easiest proposal would be to use plain "de" throughout, which would mean renaming the "Piero de' Medici" page; but now I think I'm ready to be really energetic and fix them all. I'd leave redirects under the incorrect variants so that naive readers wouldn't lose out. Is everyone OK with this?

Also, given the recurrence of names through the dynasty, we might want to consider using the form most historians use, which is the full X di Y de' Medici - e.g. Piero the Unfortunate is properly "Piero di Lozeno de' Medici". If we did this, I'd leave redirects under the "common" names, so that "Lozenzo de' Medici" get people to il Magnifico. --Noel 03:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, last warning - I'm about to rename things as proposed above - use proper de', and add 'di x' to all entries (will leave forwards, of course). Speak now, etc, etc. Noel 18:47, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Most widely used

By Wikipedia naming conventions, an article should be named by the most widely used name in the English language. "Catherine de' Medici" has about 8,000 hits on Google. "Caterina Di Lorenzo de' Medici" has no hits at all. I think this page (and the other Medicis) should be moved back to their English names. -- JeLuF 21:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that due to reuse of first names, the family has: 2 Alesandro's, 5 Cosimo's, 3 Ferdinandinos, 6 Giovannis, 2 Giulianos, 2 Giulios, 5 Lorenzos, 2 Pieros, etc, etc. You get the idea. Over a third of these deserve pages, and as I started to add them, I started running into name conflicts when we were just calling them "X de' Medici".

I can see (and sympathize) your point about "Catherine de' Medici", but then instead of having one simple rule for almost all the Medici pages (which is that the page is under their full correct names, with redirects - which will become disambiguations in some cases - from the shorter names), we'd have all sorts of confusion.

Since any reference to "Catherine de' Medici" does wind up on the correct page, as do attempts to look her up, the fact that her data is under name which is not the most common form seems to me a lesser evil that having all sorts of inconsistent namings for the pages of the family members. --Noel 21:49, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See Talk:Caterina di Lorenzo de' Medici for more about this.

Slight problem

Arck. Slight problem in the renaming scheme. There are two "Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici" (Cosimo 'Pater Patriae', and Cosimo 1st Grand Duke of Tuscany) and also two "Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici" (Lorenzo 'il Magnifico', and Lorenzo Duke of Urbino).

The real problem is that I'd like to call the second Cosimo "Cosimo I" because he's "1st Grand Duke", but that's inconsistent withe calling the second Lorenzo "Lorenzo II". Help! Do I just throw up my hands and live with that little hiccup? --Noel 22:51, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree

Renaming reverted. It violates these naming conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). The di scheme produces complete gibberish such as Caterina di Lorenzo de' Medici: English speakers use "Catherine" not "Caterina" and her name never has di Lorenzo in it. Google, furthermore finds zero references to a "Caterina di Lorenzo de' Medici" anywhere on the billions and billions of webpages it indexes. Using "de Medici" and ordinals is all the disambiguation needed in the great majority of cases (probably all for Medicis we would like to have articles on). --mav 23:56, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey. look, you want to rename Catherine de Medici, fine, go ahead.

However, you've gone on to rename all the Medici pages, including a whole bunch which I created. I wish I'd thought through this whole Medici naming conflict before I did, but I didn't. I am still creating new pages (e.g. I was just adding Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici when I had to drop it because of this), and I propose to keep using the new naming system as I do, because that's what these people are listed under in the Medici reference books I have.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says "that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Using Piero de' Medici for 'Piero the Gouty' *does* conflict with Piero de' Medici, 'the Unfortunate'.

Now I'll just have to add disambiguation blocks to the head of the following pages: Alessandro de' Medici, Piero de' Medici, Cosimo de' Medici (by the way, which famous Cosimo do you want to give that name to, Cosimo the Elder, or Cosimo I, first Grank Duke of Tuscany), Lorenzo de' Medici, Giovanni de' Medici, Giuliano de' Medici, and Piero de' Medici, all of who have (or are about to have) pages for two different people with those names.

PS: <Sarcasm>Thanks for discussing it with me before you did it.</Sarcasm> --Noel 00:13, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Every Italian Renaissance history book I've looked in so far (4, couldn't be bothered to look at more) gives the names of all individuals as "X de' Medici", including Schevill's "History of Florence", the standard work on the subject. These book are all in English.

I see you've decided to go with "X de Medici" (even going so far as to rename the "Piero de' Medici" page, which was called that before I came on the scene). Am I to take it from this that Wiki policy is against the correction of errors, if the error is widespread enough?

--Noel 00:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I thought that the de' was only used when de follows di (such as Piero di Lozeno de' Medici). If this is not the case, then I'll fix the page titles. --mav

No. Those were two separate things which I combined in one pass to kill two birds with one stone's worth of moving things around and fixing up dangling links.. Both Schevill and Hibbert give the names as "X de' Medici" in the text - which it what I've been doing in article text when it was clear from context which <X> was being talked about. I think it makes sense to leave the "de" form as redirects, both for people looking them up, and in case anyone does a new article and gets it wrong, but I don't care if you want to get rid of them. --Noel 01:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

mav, when you renamed everything back, you broke a bunch of things by creating circular redirects, and redirects to redirects. You broke them, so please fix them. --Noel 03:39, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Done. I think I fixed all the broken redirects. Please tell me if anything still needs to be fixed. Italian naming seems odd; the first person to have a name does not have an ordinal, but the second person to have the name has the ordinal "I". Weird. --mav

This business of "I" is what I was referring to in the section above, when I was talking about the two cases where there are two <x> di <Y> de' Medici. Everyone calls the *second* Cosimo di Giovanni "Cosimo I" because he was the *first* Grand Duke. Even I elected to let that sleeping dog lie. --Noel 04:50, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Talk:Lorenzo de' Medici is broken,others may be too. --Noel 05:57, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please don't rename these

Mav, before you go renaming the latest Medici pages I've added, think about this: Google shows 63 references to "Giuliano di Piero de' Medici", and only 7 to "Giuliano I de' Medici"; likewise 6 "Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici" and only 1 to "Giuliano II de' Medici". So please leave them alone, they follow exactly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) which you cited to me.

PS: You still haven't addressed the same issue with your renaming to "Lorenzo I de' Medici" - see Talk:Lorenzo de' Medici. --Noel 06:00, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't rename the first Medici for the same reason. Lorenzo is fixed. --mav

No doubt his full name is commonly used to prevent confusion with his great-grandson, Pope Leo X, who's also Giovanni de' Medici. Right now Giovanni de' Medici is a redirect to Leo XI - would it be more appropriate to make it a disambiguation page, or put a note on the Leo page to the effect that "Giovanni de' Medici" might also be his great-grandfather? --Noel 15:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Making Giovanni de' Medici into a disambiguation page is fine. Nothing links via that redirect except this talk page. --mav 20:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, done. --Noel 21:53, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, a Google survey (attempting to avoiding those which involve verbatim reproductions of Machiavelli's dedication of The Prince) showed 38 references to "Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici" and 54 to "Lorenzo II de' Medici", so the latter does seem to be, by a small margin, the preferred form of his name. --Noel 21:53, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cursed Medici!

Damn, blast and set fire to it! These flipping Medici and their name reuse! Now it turns out that Alessandro de' Medici had a very young illegitimate son, Giulo - from whom most of the royal houses of Europe are descended! So he'll have to have a page too someday - and there is already a Giulio (Pope Clement). Arrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh. I have made sure all references to "Giulo de' Medici" in text go through a redirect at his full name, so if we decide to make "Giulo" a redirect page, we won't have to fix any links. But the decision of what to do with Giulio de' Medici can wait. --Noel 21:23, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In this case we are fortunate because the Giulo who became pope is far more famous as Pope Clement VII than Giulo de' Medici. So Giulo de' Medici can safely be a disambiguation page. --mav 21:45, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, done. I'll write the page for the second Giulio later. --Noel 03:04, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

DonatelloNYC (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Just a thought - If I were in your position I would use the nicknames as often as possible - the Italians do! (Sometimes you might have to do more research to find out what they were each actually called - but they almost all had nicknames!) And don't despair - I know Italian professors and scholars who have difficulty keeping the Medici family tree straight! You've got to give the family credit - 500 years later and we're still talking about them, and they're still causing all kinds of mischief! DonatelloNYC (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad names

Here are two more where the name the article is currently filed under is considerably less common than an alternative:

"Piero II de' Medici" - 15
"Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici" - 70

"Piero I de' Medici" - 7
"Piero di Cosimo de' Medici" - 95

Of course, "Piero de' Medici" is far more common than either (1,480), but given the rough equality in the numbers above between the two people who can be referred to by that name, I would expect that a good share of these short name references belong to each of the two, so I think a disambiguation page for that name is proper (unless someone can figure out that plain "Piero de' Medici" means one or the other, most of the time). --Noel 15:40, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As I said, the more obscure the Medici, the more likely they will be most widely known by their full name. --mav

If you are OK with this alternative naming, I would ask you to please do the rename - I have had my fingers burned on renaming and would rather not do any. I will go ahead and fix all links to them to be to redirect pages (which the move, if any, will then replace). --Noel 21:53, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead - I trust you. :) --mav

Well, yes, but I don't. Sorry, it'll be a while before I have a sense of humour about this all - too painful. Anyway...

I did the first rename (for the Gouty), but I got an error message on trying to do the second one (the Unfortunate) - I think because there's an edit history on Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici - just a redirect change is all, but probably enough to screw up the replace. Can you wave your magic wand at it? (That's all you need to do, I'll fix all the links, including to the Talk: pages, etc.) Thanks.... --Noel 03:04, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici has been deleted. Move away. --mav

Great, thanks! All done. Now to write some more pages... --Noel 04:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

De' - what does it mean?

This is a little late in the day to be clearing this up, but "de' " stands for dei (the form of the Italian preposition "de" + article that one would expect to have before the noun medici, "physicians"). - Montréalais 03:36, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Really? I would have assumed it was short for "della", which one sees a lot in Italian names. Noel 15:57, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The de' stands for dei (of the), not della. Just so you know! An english student :D

Front Medici page could use more depth

Just browsing the Medici front page I noticed that there is still a lot of important information about the family that is left out. Could it possibly be because of copyright (plagiarism) issues? I would have loved to have read about their relationship with the rival Albizzi family as well as other rival families out their during that time. If I had more information at my disposal I would definitely have posted it myself. Hmmm....

Please add more to the article. Perhaps a summary of the greatest feats of the Medici family as a whole? For instance, what of Michelangelo's commission by the Medici's? By the way, does anyone know if the Medici's (or another prominent family) took interest in Bourges, France back in the day? --Adraeus 08:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus: Yes, but their interest wasn't a significant one - more worried than anything. Raymond de Roover mentions Bourges on pg 307-308 of his The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank and roughly summarized, the situation is this: the Lyons branch of the Medici Bank was, like all their bank branches, heavily concerned with trade, not just finance, and Lyons was a center of commerce for textiles. This business which brought in major profits for the bank was conducted in the fairs of merchants located in/near Lyons; the fairs were banned between 1484 and 1494, and in theory were moved to Bourges. It obviously didn't last long since Bourges apparently wasn't well-located and the Lyons fairs were never completely eliminated even before their restoration, and the Bourges fairs apparently didn't thrive, so... there you have it. -- Gwern (contribs) 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We didn't leave out "important info" because of copyright or plagiarism reasons. (Almost all of the material I added came from a few reference books, listed in the "Further reading" section.) I don't think we gave it a lot of thought, but I think the natural tendency is to put things on the pages of the individual family members. If there are things that apply to the family as a whole (e.g. the Albizzi rivalry), by all means feel free to add them here. (If we think they are in the wrong place, we'll move them! :-) I will go ahead and add a brief reference to Michaelangelo (who, as you point out, did work for a number of family members). In general, I would guess that most such points would want to be equally brief, merely alerting readers to the point, and providing a reference to the appropriate page. --Noel 14:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I have added some generic text - about their accomplishments in fields other than politics, which is what I am most familiar with. Y'all should feel free to add other stuff. --Noel 16:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Florence Art Guide - The Medici. Looks like a good resource. --Adraeus 20:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have used that page to introduce some content, rather than just doing extensive editing to existing text, introducing a large number of errors (formatting, grammatical and factual) in the process? For one, "Cosimo the Elder" is a completely different person to "Cosimo I" - he's the father of Piero di Cosimo de' Medici (known as "the Gouty" - there being several "Piero de' Medici"s). For another, Alessandro de' Medici is almost never called "Alessandro the Moor" - do a Google search, and you'll only find about 10 instances of the latter, as opposed to over a thousand for the former. And it's silly to put in Donato de Betto di Bardi - I (and I suspect most readers) wouldn't have a clue who that is (and you'll notice from the red link that Wikipedia doesn't even have a redirect under that name); likewise with Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. --Noel 23:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could allow the fact that I'm human instead of biting my head off for innocent errors? You seem like the type of person who takes offense when someone edits what you would call your text... I meant to write "the Great," not "the Elder," for Cosimo I. Also, Alessandro the Moor was not an addition of mine. That was there before I corrected the irrelevant name format. Please don't take my edits out of context as you obviously did. I did not link Donato de Betto di Bardi. I linked Donato de Betto di Bardi, which is quite different from the former. By the way, the goal of an encyclopedia is not to dumb down content for less educated readers. "Donato de Betto di Bardi" is Donatello's proper name. If you don't like it, take it up with Donato. --Adraeus 06:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Cosimo the Great" would also have been a poor choice too. Google reports the following counts:

"Cosimo I" Medici - 11,000

"Cosimo the Great" Medici - 47

It's true that "the Moor" is a nickname for Alessandro, but just because Foo's nickname is "the Bar" doesn't mean they are referred to as "Foo the Bar". The original text called him "Alessandro de' Medici (the Moor)", so there's no precedent there. As to Donatello, I just looked through a number of my Renaissance art books, and all of them refer to him simply as Donatello. I'm not a Renaissance art expert (my art expertise is in other fields), but I know a lot more about it than the average person, and I've simply never heard that full name. I didn't say you linked to it - I simply used the linked form to show that the full name is so obscure that Wikipedia doesn't even have an entry for it, even as a redirect. If you think Donatello should be referred to as "Donato de Betto di Bardi", why don't you try renaming his page, and see how that flies? --Noel 12:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed "Cosimo I de' Medici" to "Cosimo I the Great." I hope that's acceptable to you. Additionally, I renamed "Alessandro de' Medici" back to "Alessandro the Moor." Mentioning that they're Medici in the Medici article is redundant. There's also only one Alessandro de' Medici so there's no room for confusion. Also, of all the art history courses and art history experts I've spoken with they use "Donatello" as a shorthand name when speaking to either a less informed person or when speaking extensively on the subject. His full name is used first and then the name "Donatello" is mentioned. Nevertheless, I agree with your reversion of the names of Donatello and Michelangelo. --Adraeus 19:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you point to one history or reference book which refers to Cosimo I as "Cosimo the Great", or any variation thereof? I just looked through 5 books on Florence (some by Italian authors, some by others), and they all refer to him as "Cosimo I" (no "Great"), as does every history book I have about the period which mentions him (only a few). Some of them are pretty formal tomes (e.g. "Palaces of Florence"). Some (e.g. the intro to my edition of Vasari's "Lives of the Artist") call him plain "Cosimo", but do not use "the Great". If you want to change it to plain "Cosimo I", be my guest, but unless you can show me some significant reference work that calls him "Cosimo the Great", I don't think that term is appropriate. As to Donatello, his full name should be mentioned in the article, and a redirect posted under that name - you should make that happen. Noel 20:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS: I note that neither of the two Medidi links you provided below calls him "Cosimo the Great". Both use plain "Cosimo I". Noel 21:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does Encyclopædia Britannica count as "significant reference work"? ;p Adraeus 21:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Research resources for contributors

Feel free to add to the list. Adraeus 07:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there no cross language collaboration?

I was wandering why the Wikipedia doesn't have more language cross collaboration? On the German version of the Medici family, they have some wonderful resources linked in and yet are missing others.

de:Medici

Does this mean that everyone should always click on each language available to see what has been missed?

I noted that the German version went further back, does this mean since Germany was once a greater part of the Holy Roman Empire that they have more ducumentation and resources available to dig out information? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nexus5 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Echo will identify featured articles on other wikis and put up notices suggesting translation. A lot of it is a question of time, energy, and expertise. If you could move in things from de_wiki, feel free! (Be bold!) That German has more just means someone in Germany had better access to documentation or simply cared more. A quick tip: always sign your posts by typing ~~~~; it helps make talk pages much more clear. Happy editing! --Mgreenbe 16:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Nexus5 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

If anybody has the time, I'm curious in knowing the correct original Italian pronunciation the family's name. Could somebody post the dictionary-style pronunciation please?

I always thought it's pronounced MEH-dih-chi. However, I've heard various people pronounce meh-DIH-chi.

In Italian, the stress is on the first syllable: ME-di-chi. Putting the stress on the second syllable would be to treat it as if it were a Spanish word, and that often happens in areas (such as the US), where people are more familiar with Spanish than with Italian. Interlingua 12:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: pronunciation

Actually, I went ahead and researched my own question. The accent's on the first syllable, according to Bartleby's. I can't post the symbols properly with my browser, but this was the source: http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/M0191600.html --User: Undeclared

But if you add the de', as used by the modern family and much discussed here and elsewhere, the primary emphasis moves there and a secondary one appears on the two "i"s at the end of the name. I've worked with one of them for ten years, and that's the way she pronounces it: DEYi-MeydEEtchEE. --User: Jel 0705 1 Nov 2006 UTC

The accent is always on the first syllable "Me", also when you add the "de'". I am italian and I have been pronouncing it for 43 years... SteMan 12:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)SteMan

Calendar info?

I'm not at all sure why the Florentine reckoning section was placed in this article. The information is good to have, but the section fails to name any connection to the Medici family. --Corvatis 03:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Galileo's moons?

I'm a bit confused. The article says that Galileo named the largest four of the moons of Jupiter after Medicis, but the largest four moons of Jupiter have always been either called "Jupiter I through Jupiter IV" or "Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto" - Galileo named them Jupiter I, II, III, & IV and Simon Marius named them after the characters from Greek mythology. Galileo's names were the official titles for a long time, then they were changed to Marius' recommendations.

Galileo did call these moons the "Medicean planets," but I have found no sources claiming that each moon was given the name of a child Galileo tutored as the Medici article seems to imply.

If he truly named the four moons after four Medici children the article should probably give a source for this information. I've never heard of a third, even earlier, set of names - I didn't change it because I could be wrong, but if I am I'd like to know where I can go and read this for myself. --Curien1000 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a short discussion of this on the Galilean moons page, but I agree, this section is very confusing since the names used today do not stem from the Medici children. -- Jdvelasc 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Godfathers of the Renaissance "homophobic"? NPOV?

I've recently read Strathern's book and didn't find it particularly homophobic. Without wanting to make a mountain out of a molehill, the comment strikes me as being a bit NPOV. --144.98.76.45 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I've got myself an account now (that was me above). Can anyone give evidence that Strathern's book is homophobic. I've re-read quite a bit, and although he frequently draws attention to homosexuality he doesn't especially castigate it. I also didn't spot too many typographical infelicities, but then again I'm a bit of a speed reader and often miss them. --Rob Burbidge 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici (1667 – 1743) the last of the Medici line

The last of the grandducal line, not the last of the family.

Ottaviano de’ Medici di Ottajano, current head of the Medici family. 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

He's from another line, separated since XIV century and not included in succession nobility line when the family became dukes of Florence... also Medici-Tornaquinci line still exist, but none of them is from the central line of the family which expired with Anna Maria Luisa. see it:Medici for references. --Sailko 17:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Old and secondary lines

Just to let someone know, on theItalian wikipedia I just added the family tree of the side branches of the family.. it can be just copied and pasted, since names do not change Italian to English, if you think it would be useful.. also there I linked 2-3 useful external link about the portraits and the documents. Cheers! --Sailko 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

New family tree

I find the new family tree confusing. Who are collaterals and who are descendants? -- Donald Albury 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Family Tree

Retracted my last comment, I was having difficulty working out how to read the family tree, but, I think I sorted it out! --Amandajm 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the tree is really confusing: Cosimo I seems to be the brother of Giovanni delle Bande Nere, while he is the son. Better to reshape it.85.159.192.40 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)SteMan

I moved the old family tree to its own page, this is a much nicer thing to do rather than just remove. It does need some work though. Medici Family tree

I have created some descendants and ancestor pages, think the stand alone pages are much better and they can link to the main pages.

These are descendants,which eventually lead to Prince William of Great Britain:

and then these can lead to Ancestor pages:

Ancestors of Cosimo I de Medici

--Nexus5 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Usury

Out of curiosity (not challenging, just didn't see the information) how did the Medicis get around the problem of the law against usury? --Jachra 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to answer that in the Medici bank article. --Gwern (contribs) 17:32 4 February 2007 (GMT)

Personal slant/Bias

4th paragraph down on Art, Architecture and Science it takes a personal twist. The guy didn't provide specific examples, started using the word I, and was treating this like a discussion group rather than an encyclopedia. I don't know too much about the Medici, can someone here with more knowledge drop something useful and informative in there?

And further down, it says "Lorenzo was the “uncrowned king of Florence, genial tyrant of an adoring populace, statesman, diplomatist, baker, scholar, poet--it will be superfluous to speak; his mother, Clarice Orsini, a member of the haughty feudal Roman house, was the first ‘foreign’ bride to enter the portals of the Medicean palace.”", but who said that?

-Dwarven_Shindig

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwarven Shindig (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Baker?

Lorenzo the Magnificent was a Baker? The tone is uneven throughout. The Art, Architecture, and Science section is enormous and should be subdivided, or rewritten entirely. Large chunks of political history are inappropriately embedded therein. Jperrylsu 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shit article

This article is a disaster. I think, some jerk added in a casual position a bunch of Catholic POV taken from somewhere, regarding just the Popes; also, as typical in foreign analysis, there's much stuff about Renaissance Medici, and nothing after. Stay connected, as I'll soon provide a more throughout and less biased translation from the good Italian article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 13:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

15th Century Medici

This section has it as the fifteenth century, or the 1400s, but it only has the latter half of the fifteenth century and all of the sixteenth century. Why is that? 71.100.10.57 20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)unregistered guest