Talk:Pope Julius II

Being gay

Why is there nothing on his homosexuality? (anon. User Kennethj Alan)

Wrong Julius, that's why. Wetman 01:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's the right Julius. Julius II was condemned by the Council of Pisa as ‘this sodomite, covered with shameful ulcers.' Vatican diarist, Girolamo Priuli, reported that Julius disported with Ganymedes ‘without shame’ at Ostia and Città Castellana. You're thinking of Julius III who was also gay. (Anonymous User) 11 June 2006

Because it is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. OttOO 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why it is inrrelevant??? This article is all about his biography. It seen very relevant to me! Unless it is speculation, of course... SSPecter ^talk ♠ _{17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)}.

Placing to the fore accusations obviously made by Julius' enemies is highly suspect in this encyclopedia. How could it be that a large amount of content is attributed to the insults by his enemies when there is more to the factual Julius? There is nothing wrong with homosexuality but the subject of his alleged "his homosexuality" is not even a credible meal on scholars' plates as clearly they are made to insult him with the most fashionable insult of the times. Not to mention he has fathered several children. Things like this put wikipedia to shame. Max 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isidore2k (talk • contribs)

Protestant polemic by itself would certainly be suspect - I agree that contemporaries were at pains to discredit religious 'enemies' by tainting them with the corrupt vice of sodomy. Such accusations were used without reserve in the 16th and 17th centuries. In Julius II's case, however, not all the observations come from so-called 'enemies' but there are primary sources from diarists and court observers (a couple of whom are included in the article). I agree though that it's difficult five centuries on to prove either way with any certainty as to whether Julius II was sexually attracted to other men (physically or emotionally). Certainly proof of children is not sufficient in itself to presuppose exclusive heterosexual behaviour (nor is it sufficient to suggest that being the Pope he would have remained chaste). The article does, nevertheless, highlight a notable aspect of Julius's life - consistent with wikipedia guidelines. I don't see why this puts wikipedia to shame. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Popes and beards

In the book 'Michaelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling' it states that the Popes were not allowed to wear beards (but Julius did, for various reasons). As several subsequent popes were bearded, did the policy change? Jackiespeel 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Illegitimate daughter of Pope Julius II, Felice dellar Rovere

This is borrowed from the book "The Pope's Daughter", and hopefully someone will be able to post this information to the site:

The Pope's Daughter !

The illegitimate daughter of Pope Julius II, Felice della Rovere became one of the most powerful and accomplished women of the Italian Renaissance. Now, Caroline Murphy vividly captures the untold story of a rare woman who moved with confidence through a world of popes and princes.

Using a wide variety of sources, including Felice's personal correspondence, as well as diaries, account books, and chronicles of Renaissance Rome, Murphy skillfully weaves a compelling portrait of this remarkable woman. Felice della Rovere was to witness Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel, watch her father Pope Julius II lay the foundation stone for the new Saint Peter's, and see herself immortalized by Raphael in his Vatican frescos.

With her marriage to Gian Giordano Orsini--arranged, though not attended, by her father the Pope--she came to possess great wealth and power, assetswhich she turned to her advantage. While her father lived, Felice exercised much influence in the affairs of Rome--even negotiating for peace with the Queen of France--and after his death, Felice persevered, making allies of the cardinals and clerics of St. Peter's and maintaining her control of theOrsini land through tenacity, ingenuity, and carefully cultivated political savvy. She survived the Sack of Rome in 1527, but her greatest enemy proved to be her own stepson Napoleone.

The rivalry between him and her son Girolamo had a sudden and violent end, and brought her perilously close to losing everything she had spent her life acquiring.

With a marvelous cast of characters, this is a spellbinding biography set against the brilliant backdrop of Renaissance Rome.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The material quoted comes from the dust jacket, and was probably written by an editor at the Publisher's offices. I don't think it can be considered a source. But the content of the book is acceptable, and very interesting. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Machievelli

Machievelli discusses Julius II extensively in The Prince, should this be mentioned?

Yes if its accurate. Other than that you can say how Machievelli was impacted by him to write about him in the Prince and then be clear that its just fiction. Bolinda (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Prince isn't a novel you know. We can hardly describe it as fiction. It's a political commentary. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Julius II was described by Machiavelli in his works as an ideal prince. " - wasn't it Ceasare Borgia who was the model for the ideal prince??

Sources

This article is in need of a cleanup, as it currently contains too much possible original research. Controversial claims, such as "...in order to discredit him, or maybe..." need references, otherwise the sentences are unreliable. A rewrite might be in order if someone knows enough about Pope Julius; otherwise, at the very least, all controversial claims should be sourced. I've added fact tags where necessary. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that proper citation is critical, but this has to be done in a balanced way. It is not appropriate to reference every sentence - otherwise an article would become unreadable (and certainly even if you look at the best articles on wikipedia, they do not have referencing of every fact). It may be sufficient to provide references at the end of each paragraph block, alongside the sources and material that are cited at the end of the article. If you are not indeed trying to vandalise this article, then could I suggest that you take a look at the article and propose citation only where this is properly required. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Original Research"

Wiki editors like to throw around the term "original research," but can they identify even a single ordinance in Canon Law that bans bearded clergy? Hell, I bet the person who wrote this article is an undergraduate doing a research paper on "Magic Merlin and his crystal balls"!!! So much for Wiki's "high" scholarly standards .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.26 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Michelangelo

This article claims Julius was a "friend and patron" of Michelangelo. I do not dispute the patron part, but they were not friends. Their relationship was tumultuous at best. When Julius stopped production on his tomb, he left Michelangelo in a bad position. Michelangelo fled to Florence and refused to return to Rome for some time. Their relationship was all business. Read Michelangelo and the Popes Ceiling.

Ross King, "Michelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling" (New York: Penguin Books, 2003)

Duke of Bracciano

CarlosPN - thanks for drawing my attention. It's not clear cut. On the one hand wikipedia does suggest that the Duke of Bracciano was not created until 1560 when it was awarded to Paolo Giordani I Orsini. However, Giangiordano Orsini did marry Julius II's daughter Felice and was a significant figure in the papal army. In fact he is described in this source as the "duke of Bracciano":

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-mq7ctwMNdoC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=bracciano+duke+julius&source=bl&ots=1VYHIQN2zM&sig=KmHrk1e6N9bG88AJk_HQTqHk2Hg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CpTWUfu3M4mm0wXujIHQAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg

So clearly he would have known Julius first hand - thus the weight of his testimony. But I can't find a source aside from McCabe that talks about this - and it's not clear if the comments are to be attributed to the son in law or the grandson of Julius? So I agree that for the time-being we leave out. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not my intention to depraciate any testimony, but actually the source used for this must be treated with caution. The anachronistic title of duke of Bracciano makes for the reader unclear who gave this testimony and what actually he had said. McCabe did not cite his source in this case and we have to keep in mind that he's strongly partisan author (some kind of "Ludwig von Pastor a rebours"). Once better (I mean simply more accurate in citation) source would be found for this information, I'll not revert it. BTW, the book of George Williams about Papal Genealogies is inaccurate on many points. CarlosPn (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Helpful, thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding peacock tag

Let's see, why add the peacock tag? Maybe it's this language in the article: "From the beginning, Julius II set himself with a courage and determination rarely equaled, to rid himself of the various powers by which his temporal authority was almost overwhelmed." Really? According to whom? Or this: "But, by a brilliant campaign in 1506, Julius succeeded in freeing Perugia and Bologna from their despots (Giampolo Baglioni and Giovanni II Bentivoglio, respectively), and raised himself to such a height of influence as to render his friendship of prime importance both to Louis XII of France and the Holy Roman Emperor." Again, brilliant and height of influence according to whom? This as well: "While Julius II's political and warlike achievements would alone entitle him to rank amongst the most remarkable of the occupants of the papal chair.." So, peacock tag, perhaps? PJtP (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I know what to focus on. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the peacock terms (none were sourced) and some other extraordinary statements. I will be removing the tag. If there are any more issues, please post them on the talk page. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What you have likely missed, @Kansas Bear: (also calling @PJtP:), is the likelihood that the flowery prose connects the writing to its source, and that these lines were plagiarised. I will do the necessary checking. In future, when responding to a tag, be sure and examine the likely deeper, and more egregious problem of plagiarism, especially in articles with large blocks of unsourced text, like this one. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure enough, "courage and determination rarely equaled" takes us to the Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, see [1]. Now the fun begins. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not enough evidence to put him in the LGBT category

This is what is written in Wikipedia entry: "Despite an illegitimate daughter (and at least one mistress), it was also suggested that Julius may have had homosexual lovers - although there is no evidence that he was sexually active as pope. His confrontational style inevitably created enemies and sodomy was the "common currency of insult and innuendo".[33] Such accusations were made to discredit him, but perhaps in doing so accusers were attacking a perceived weak point. The Venetians — who were opposed to the pope's new military policy - were among the most vocal; most notably the diarist Girolamo Priuli,[34] and the historian Marino Sanudo.[35] Erasmus also implied sexual misconduct in his 1514 dialogue "Julius Excluded from Heaven"; a theme picked up in the denunciation made at the conciliabulum of Pisa.[36] Criticism was furthermore made of the sinister influence exerted by his advisor, Francesco Alidosi, who Julius had made a cardinal in 1505. However, it is likely that the closeness was down to the fact that he simply knew how to handle him well.[33][37] This sexual reputation survived Julius, and the accusation continued to be made without reservation by Protestant opponents in their polemics against "papism" and Catholic decadence. The French writer Philippe de Mornay (1549-1623) accused all Italians of being sodomites, but added specifically: "This horror is ascribed to good Julius." Wikipedia can't use only rumours and accusations, often made by his enemies to discredit him, as being enough evidence that Pope Julius II belongs to the LGBT Category.Mistico (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with analysis, and as there is no such category as of this date, no action take. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Came through on a vacation day, after Mme Le Prof insisted on seeing the film adaptation of Irving Stone's eponymous book, The Agony and the Ecstasy. Found vast tracts of text without sources, and so unverifiable. She is an art historian, and says that there us no excuse for such—that there are mountains of scholarly sources for this historical figure. Article tag has been in place for years, and, with paragraphs marked as of April 2016, have added an expert tag to call for scholarly attention. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hell aside, see the Talk section above, entitle "Original research," for the impact of unverifiable text on our reading public. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In re Copyvio tag: Some portions of the text have been traced to the Americanized Encyclopedia Britannica (1890). Beside being ridiculously out of date scholarship, pasting it part and parcel is plagiarism. Please see: Wikipedia:Plagiarism_problems/Header#Plagiarism_that_does_not_infringe_copyright, which states:

Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators. Failure to include the origin of a work is misleading and also makes it more difficult for readers and editors to refer to the material's source. It may also violate the terms of the GFDL. / Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found.

Please do not remove citation tags at various places, or the copyvio tag, until this mater is full rectified. I will try to find a transcript of the 1890 article, and paste it in, to facilitate comparison, but in the mean time, it would be reasonable to assume that all large blocks of text that appear, without usual 2-3 citations per paragraph, are cut and pasted from this (or another) source. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note, the Duplication Detector tool does not work here; one has to use other tools, or do comparisons manually. WIll try to get the ball rolling. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue, not article deletion issueContested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because copyright says 1890, and thus is in the Public Domain. --CourtlyHades296 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see the indented paragraph above. Out of copyright does not justify (or nullify conclusion of) plagiarism. See below regarding the speedy deletion artifact. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read and fully address the issue. You may be correct, that the page needn't be deleted, but the tag should remain, because this is the tag specified to place when an out of copyright source is plagiarised and so used in Wikipedia. The call for speedy deletion is just an artifact of this old Wikipedia process; despite formal guidance from Wikipedia that the text can be moved to Talk, but should not be deleted (see above), the problem with the article remains real. Note the indented quote above, and go to the tag template page, and read what it says. Bottom line, the issue of plagiarism remains real.

I have started to deal with it by converting the cribbed texts to obviously marked quotes, which other editors can then adapt to the article. I will only deal with the plagiarism. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The first three cases of plagiarism form the url noted in the plagiarism tag have been addressed, via conversion of the cribbed text to quotations. Search "Belford-Clarke" in the text, for at present, until the plagiarism review is completed, the source authors names will appear at each case of plagiarized text appearing. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Five cases have now been corrected, along with a further one from encyclopedia.com. In addition to these two sources, a third plagiarised source has been identified, volume 13 of the 1898 Adam and Charles Black (Edinburgh) edition of Britannica. These will be corrected, see edit summary, where the pattern of correcting cribbed material to quotes will continue. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism checking done through the start of the "Papacy" section, allowing many of the inline tags calling for citations (dating to 2014) to be removed. For the obvious reason of so much material being unequivocally drawn from ca. 1890-1900 era sources, a tag now appears calling for expert, modern, scholarly attention. All for today. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Bishop of Carpentras

The dates for Giuliano della Rovere's appointment to the diocese of Carpentras, resting ultimately on Pius Bonifacius Gams, are incorrect, and have been superceded by more correct evidence. Carpentras was a little gift from Uncle Sixtus just after his coronation. It was granted on 11 October 1471, and he was translated to Lausanne on 31 January 1472, a bit more than three months later. See Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica Volume II, second edition (1913), p. 119. This is what happens when eager and ignorant amateurs pile on with whatever modern book they can find, or alternatively copy out of an encyclopedia (no scholarly work, actually) that is more than a century old. I do not, however, subscribe to the Wikipedia notion that newer is better; newer works are frequently filled with miscopied and misunderstood data from older and more accurate works. This entire article needs a massive rewrite by an expert, and not one whose views are based on a video of The Agony and the Ecstasy, or the bushwa transmitted by the (so called) History Channel. --Vicedomino (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cardinalate: citation of encyclopedias

The entire section is just a series of quotes from two encyclopedias, of inferior quality and considerable age.

I have issues with the two encyclopedias. Neither one of them provides the name of the author of the entry (unlike, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia). The repeated statement that Belford-Clarke Co. or Kellogg, Baynes & Smith have such-and-such an opinion is wrong and highly misleading. The persons named are actually the publishers and/or editors, not scholars, or authorities. Their names should not be used to validate the opinions in the quotations.

I would strongly suggest that other and better references be provided, using works that have authors identified. One of the best things one can do is read Ludwig Pastor's volume on Julius II and use it as a source for refs. and quotes.

--Vicedomino (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Erasmus, Council of Pisa, and charge of sexual misconduct

In the article the statement is made:

Erasmus also implied sexual misconduct in his 1514 dialogue "Julius Excluded from Heaven"; a theme picked up in the denunciation made at the conciliabulum of Pisa.[36]

I have read through the documents of the Council of Pisa (1511-1512), and I find no charge of sexual misconduct made.

Edmundus Richerius (1683). Historia Conciliorum generalium (in Latin). Vol. Tomus IV, pars prima. Cologne: Bernard Hetsingh.

As to Erasmus' authorship of "Julius Exclusus", he never claimed ownership. And, "Catherine Curtis has suggested that Richard Pace wrote Julius Exclusus. There are linguistic similarities between Julius Exclusus and other works by Pace. While Erasmus always denied writing Julius Exclusus, Pace did claim to have written an anti-Julius treatise." Gregory D. Dodds (2009). Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England. University of Toronto Press. pp. 348, n. 45. ISBN 978-0-8020-9900-6.

In the satire (and it is a satire, not history and not biography), Julius himself complains that Pope Alexander VI had accused him of simony, pederasty, and mental instability. Elsewhere he complains that he was called an epileptic and a syphilitic.

--Vicedomino (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Election of Julius II

The following occurs in the article:

As Belford-Clarke describes it, "Della Rovere then succeeded by dexterous diplomacy in winning the support of Cesare Borgia, [who he tricked by his "promise of money and continued papal backing for Borgia policies in the Romagna,"[13][better source needed]] and was elected to the papal dignity [as Pope Julius II] by the unanimous vote of the cardinals."[6]

As I checked the reference, I noted that the material in brackets is not in the original. Some of the bracketed material is (unnecessary) elaboration, but [who he tricked by his "promise of money and continued papal backing for Borgia policies in the Romagna] is editorializing on the part of the referenced second source. It is not fair to a source which is being quoted to insert an opinion from another source, thereby distorting what the first source did not say, and perhaps did not intend to say. The facts are in Gregorovius, Pastor, and Petruccelli, and they should be preferred as authorities to 'Belford-Clarke' and the 'Encyclopedia of World Biography'.

I would parenthetically note that "who he tricked" is ungrammatical; it should be "whom he tricked". But it shouldn't be there at all.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to election of Alexander VI (Borgia)

The article makes the following statement:

Della Rovere, jealous and angry, accused Borgia of being elected over him.[13]

with a reference to Sabbatini's book on Cesare Borgia. What Sabbatini actually says is that Borgia had defeated della Rovere in the Conclave of 1492 and for twelve years had kept him out of the papacy. Della Rovere "found expression for his furious jealousy at his rival's success.... endeavouring to his utmost to accomplish the deposition of the Borgia Pope...."

The statement in the article is weak, in terms of what Sabbatini wrote, and implies (wrongly) that della Rovere made an accusation to Borgia's face. How could it be an accusation that Borgia had been elected over him? That was an accomplished fact. Either the quotation should be omitted, or the quotation should be made to say what Sabbatini wrote.

If there were a face-to-face confrontation, that would be worth a quote.

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What is 'Italy'?

In the section on the League of Cambrai, the following statement is made:

Italy gained ocntrol of Parma and Piacenza in central Italy, but now Spain took an interest in occupying troops on the peninsula.

What is meant by "Italy"? There was no such country in the 16th century, nor any such Prince, Potentate or Power.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Italy was perfectly well understood as a geographical concept at the time. Which Italian states took nover these cities should be clarified. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. Incidentally I'm worried that large sections of the article seem to have been copied direct from third sources. I've tried to improve these where I can. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced ?

The following sentences appear in the section called "Early Life":

Short, stout, with a liking for strong military-bearing, della Rovere read the Discourses of Macchiavelli published at the time, schooling himself in the "Art of War". He sported a long beard as a sign of masculinity: "with his beard and blasphemies he wants to instill fear in other men", wrote Macchiavelli. Theology played a lesser role in his upbringing, for one of his imagined must have been Frederic Colonna the Condottiere.[10] Della Rovere admired the manliness and professionalism of warriors, the intention being "not to let leisure pass, without doing something constructive." "Good generals never engage in battle unless necessity compels or opportunity beckons", opined Macchiavelli's philosopher-prince; a lesson Della Rovere seems to have learnt by 1500.[11]

Since Machiavelli did not start publishing until 1499, and then with a discourse on the history of Pisa, I find the claims hard to accept. ...published at the time...? When was that? The famous discourses, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, though written in 1517 (four years after the death of Julius II) were not published until 1531. The Prince was likewise was not published until after Machiavelli's death, fourteen years after that of Julius. Machiavelli's Dell'Arte della Guerra belongs to 1519–1520, and certainly did not influence Julius, who was already an active campaigner when Machiavelli was still acquiring his knowledge of warfare with his management of the Florentine militia from 1503 to 1506.

What did Julius learn from Machiavelli, and when did he learn it? I am very dubious about the cut-and-paste job in the section quoted. It certainly does not belong under "Early Life". Most of it seems to belong to 'Julius' Influence on Machiavelli'.

--Vicedomino (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

When was Giuliano della Rovere consecrated a bishop?

In the article the following statement is cut-and-pasted:

Belford-Clarke, and Kellogg, Baynes & Smith, continue, "In the capacity of papal legate [della Rovere] was sent in 1480 to France, where he remained four years," and "acquitted himself with such ability that he soon acquired a paramount influence in the college of cardinals, an influence which rather increased than diminished during the pontificate of Pope Innocent VIII."

The article also states that he was consecrated by his uncle Pope Sixtus and that he was consecrated in 1481.

BCKBS is correct that Della Rovere was named Papal Legate in 1480, on 28 April 1480 in fact. He left Rome on June 9 (Eubel, II, p. 43 nos. 423, 426). However it is on record that Della Rovere returned to Rome on 3 February 1482. (Eubel, II, p. 44 no. 454). Their statement that he remained in France for four years is incorrect; he was gone less than two years.

This seems to exclude, however, the possibility that Pope Sixtus consecrated Della Rovere a bishop in 1481, since Della Rovere was nowhere near the pope during that year. I am willing to grant that he was consecrated by Pope Sixtus, but not in 1481. Della Rovere was promoted Cardinal Bishop of Sabina on 19 April 1479 (Eubel, II, p. 42, no. 404), and one would normally expect his consecration to follow not long after, at any rate between 19 April 1479 and 9 June 1480.

I am aware that David M. Cheney, Catholic-Hierarchy.org, "Pope Julius II: Giuliano della Rovere" presents the date 1481, as does Gabriel Chow, G-Catholic, Pope Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere, O.F.M.). Chow is wrong, as the Wikipedia article points out, in calling Della Rovere a Franciscan; he never completed his novitiate or took vows. Both Cheney and Chow are self-published web pages.

It occurs to me that 1481 might be somebody's mistake for 1471. It was in 1471 that Giuliano delle Rovere was first named a bishop, Bishop of Carpentras, and that would be the natural time for him to be consecrated.

--Vicedomino (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• The date of 1481 goes back to Francesco Paolo Sperando Sabina Sacra e Profana, 1790, p. 234-235. Charles Branson, author of the blog Apostolic Succession & Episcopal Lineages in the Roman Catholic Church took his attention on it and was then followed by Salvador Miranda and others. I can find two solutions: 1) Sperandio was simply wrong and the date of consecration should be taken as 1479; the fragment in question seems actually to be a reference to the appointment as bishop of Sabina, not necessarily to the rite of consecration, or 2) Giuliano was consecrated shortly after his return from France in February/March 1482, but the date of his consecration has been registered according to stylus Florentinus, with the beginning of the year on 25 March (not 1 January) CarlosPn (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As to (1), Sperandio may well have been guessing, and he may have been fooled by della Rovere's appointment as Bishop of Sabina in 1479; but he's still wrong on the 1481 date, as are Branson and Miranda, and Catholic-Hierarchy and G-Catholic. Why should one accept the 1479 date, if it has no documentary support? So far as I have seen, della Rovere is not ever mentioned as bishop-elect in references after 1471, only as bishop, especially not by Burchard, who is careful about that sort of thing. As for (2), Why would his date of consecration (by Sixtus IV) be entered in a Vatican register using the Florentine system, when all of the other dates are in the Roman system? Sorry, but that solution does not impress me at all, however ingenious it may be. But anyway, for Wikipedia purposes, it would be counted as speculation or original research. But thanks for the input. My question still stands. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a small remark - Florentine style was widely used in Roman Curia from 12th until 17th century. Solemn papal privileges from the pontificate of Innocent II onwards were dated according to it. Inquisitorial nomination of Heinrich Kramer by Sixtus IV also is dated using stylus Florentinus. But I think that a right conclusion is that we simply do not know when episcopal consecration of Giuliano della Rpvere really took place and the person of his consecrator also seems to me undocumented. Everything goes back to inaccurate and unreferenced notice of Sperando which actually proves nothing CarlosPn (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Julius elected unanimously

The following occurs in the article:

He was elected by unanimous vote of the conclave of cardinals."[10] This was, in Ludwig von Pastor's view, a certainty, by means of bribery with money, but also with promises. "Giuliano, whom the popular voice seemed to indicate as the only possible pope, was as unscrupulous as any of his colleagues in the means which he employed. Where promises and persuasions were unavailing, he did not hesitate to have recourse to bribery."[29] Indeed his election on 28 November 1503 took only a few hours, and the only two votes he did not receive were his own and the one of Georges d'Amboise,

Either Julius did not get d'Amboise's vote, in which case the election was NOT unanimous, or the statement about his own and d'Amboise's votes is incorrect. The notion of unanimity (based on one of the silly encyclopedias) is misleading; it is based on the formula that always accompanies an election, that he was elected concorditer et unanimiter.

I am going to delete the encyclopedia's confusing remark.

--Vicedomino (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Monstrous quotation

The following text from the article is presented as a quotation:

"Accompanying the young king on his military campaign, [della Rovere] entered Rome along with him, and endeavoured to instigate the convocation of a council to inquire into the conduct of the pope with a view to [deposing him], but Alexander, having gained a friend in Charles VIII's minister [Guillaume] Briçonnet, by the offer of a cardinal's hat, succeeded in counterworking [defeating] the machinations of his enemy [della Rovere], the death of [Pope] Alexander VI in 1503, where his son Cesare Borgia wished to be elevated, fell ill at the same time Della Rovere supported the candidature of Cardinal Piccolomini of Milan, who was consecrated under the name of Pope Pius III on 8 October 1503,…then suffering from an incurable malady, of which he died in little more than a month afterward."

It is not grammatical. It is confused. It does not represent what happened. It needs to go, and something better needs to be substituted.

--Vicedomino (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Venereal disease

In the text of the article, the following sentence is currently found:

During lascivious days spent in the denizens of Rome he managed to contract venereal disease from visiting prostitutes (despite being a bishop).

First, a denizen is a person, not a place or a thing. Second, which venereal disease is being talked of? Third, how is it known that he was already a bishop when the alleged infection occurred? Fourth, how is it known that it was in Rome that he was allegedly infected? Giuliano moved around. Could it have been a French woman from Avignon or the French Court? And how is it known that the alleged woman was a prostitute?

This sentence looks a lot like slander turned into libel, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Just because libel can be sourced does not mean that it is true.

I point out as well that the statement is unreferenced by any reliable source.

--Vicedomino (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure contemporary slanders are not allowed. But agree with you that this one adds little. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that it's a contemporary slander? --Vicedomino (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm guessing people in the pub today are not talking about the sex life of Julius II and implying that he sleeps around. It's obviously a contemporary slander. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My remark about the misuse of 'denizen' hinted that it was not simply a case of copying from a reputable source (i.e. that it was not a remark contemporary with Julius II). And I would add that neither does the parenthetical remark about him being a bishop when the delict was committed. That just appeared in the article one day. And as to people in the pub not talking, well, to reference T.S. Eliot, the women in the pub were talking about Michelangelo. Why not Julius II? --Vicedomino (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not challenging it's removal, and I don't know where it came from. Incidentally in Prufrock the women are not in a pub :) Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Complaint about use of old books and books in French

An editor complains about the use of 100 year old materials in French, and requests use of Shaw; "Start section for sources (ie those used). All this 100 y/o stuff in FR should be cut if not used. Can more use be made of solid modern sources like Shaw?"

Some observations:

(1) Shaw is in print, and not available for reading on-line; (2) Shaw is a university press book, printed in non-commercial quantities, and not held in many public library collections, school libraries, or personal collections; referring a reader of Wikipedia to a book which is not available to the reader is not particularly helpful. Providing other references to material which is on-line, on the other hand, can be very helpful to users. (3) Shaw's coverage of many topics is not of sufficient depth to be satisfying (for example, Petruccelli's 1864 treatment of the conclaves of 1503 fills 48 pages; Shaw's does not); see some reviews of the book. (4) This article is part of the Wikipedia Biography Project, which sets as its goal for a "B" class article: "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines." For a Featured Article, the goal is: "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." (5) The article on Julius II is tagged as a Vital Article, level 4 WP:VA. (6) The jettisoning of old materials, and materials in French, leads away from the goal of completeness, since it may silence alternative analyses and opinions, and may remove sources of information which are not to be found in Shaw. This is especially true of complex figures, like Julius II, whose policies with regard to France, Spain, Venice, Switzerland and other states continue to be controversial. (7) There are only two other French works older than 100 years in the "For further reading" section, and one of them is actually used for a reference; I really don't see the emergency.

That said, I see no objection to adding references to Shaw to material already in the references.

--Vicedomino (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, such books can be obtained through inter-library loans etc by most people in the main Anglophone countries. You are putting a lot of work into this article, and it seems a pity not to use the best available sources. Actually I see Amazon have Shaw's book on Kindle for $5 or so. Certainly there are decent recent histories of the papacy/popes that are easily obtained, and would be worth checking (John Julius Norwich is very cheap on Amazon, Eamon Duffy reasonable). Personally I think no article using almost entirely centenarian sources, on a subject that is hardly obscure, should be classed as a "B". How on earth do we know that "Julius II, whose policies with regard to France, Spain, Venice, Switzerland and other states continue to be controversial" with only these antique sources? Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. We shouldn't be using sources that are more than 50 years old let alone 100. There's plenty of good modern stuff around. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

We should be using accurate, available, and fully informational sources. Listen to the ethnocentrism in "obtained through inter-library loans etc by most people in the main Anglophone countries". Does this include South Africa, India or the Falkland Islands? And listen to the first-world attitude to money. Do you really think that people of limited means (and there are huge numbers of them out there) can afford to drop $5 for every reference to a current book on Kindle? Does everybody have a Kindle? Where does the new "50 year rule" come from? It is a ""modernist"" point of view that assumes that the latest is the best. That may be true in consumer electronics in the consumer age, but history is a different creature. --Vicedomino (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No of course not (Sth Africa maybe, I'd imagine), hence the phrasing. Do you actually live in South Africa, India or the Falkland Islands? I doubt that, given the info on your user page (in fact I see you sport a "lives in US" userbox). Could you afford to drop $5? Let's guess yes, though like me you may not use kindle (actually that seems rather probable). That every reader can verify every reference is not required by WP:V (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility) and should certainly not be prioritized over providing the best possible article text - on the contrary. My comments were aimed at you and the text you addding, not a hypothetical "verifier". The sort of reader who would want to verify references is much more likely than average to have access to university or other large libraries in any case. There is nothing new about a requirement for up to date sources - see WP:RS (Wikipedia:RS AGE in particular) and its subsidiary pages, and their talk pages. I won't comment on the likihood of people in South Africa, India or the Falkland Islands being able to read the French or Latin of many of the sources now used. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"I won't comment on the likihood of people in South Africa, India or the Falkland Islands being able to read the French or Latin of many of the sources now used." Why not? Since you have made this personal, I would guess that you can't read French or Latin, and you can't refute the statement logically and factually. I do not use Kindle (it's epensive), and I am on a fixed income. You say, "The sort of reader who would want to verify references is much more likely than average to have access to university or other large libraries in any case." More likely than average?? Do you have statistics? Post them. Please. Access to university libraries is frequently controlled and limited to registered students and staff. "Other large libraries" suggests that you live in an urban environment. I listed three places where that is not the case, and you deliberately refused to deal with them. Even on-line libraries, like JSTOR and Haithi Trust, are closed to persons who cannot pay. BTW, I note that Lord Norwich's book on Venice is now 40 years old. Will it be removed from references in 10 years? I note that Machiavelli, who was inter alia a historian, is considerably older. Are his opinions no longer worth noting? You write, "That every reader can verify every reference is not required by WP:V (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility) and should certainly not be prioritized over providing the best possible article text - on the contrary." This is a logical 'straw man'. You have created for me a criterion to which I do not subscribe, so that you can denigrate me. The point of references is to provide a source for a statement. If someone has a better source, by all means add it. I am looking forward to your many additional citations of Shaw. Just make sure that they are better than what's already there. --Vicedomino (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Phooey, actually I have decent French, fair Italian, and some Latin. In fact my most recent new article used entirely French sources, some rather old; but this was on a far more obscure topic. I doubt I'd find it necessary to make much use of them if I was the one expanding this article, rather than you. It has been possible for many to get free JSTOR access via the Wikipedia Library - now here. Don't you, like me, get free alumni access to JSTOR via your distinguished former universities (as advertised on your user page)? Otherwise, just read the policies, and don't complain if people think that updating to 1902 is not the most useful way to spend a lot of effort. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully behind Johnbod here. Vicedomino I appreciate your efforts to improve this article but (speaking as a historian) we rarely use sources more than 20-30 years old unless there is a compelling point to be made (eg use of von pastor as seminal in the history of the papacy). Your arguments above about anglo-centrism etc and the price of buying books are somewhat straining this. If you don't have access to good quality up to date material then you need to stop editing this article. Sorry, but there are standards to be observed. Can we start by replacing Ott, Michael (1910). "Pope Julius II". The Catholic Encyclopedia as a source. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither Ott nor Cath.Encyc. is my work. Blame someone else, and by all means replace it, if you have something better. And now I see the new rule, which I bet you made up yourself, is "20-30 years old". Two days ago, your rule was 50 years. Though you seem to have become the Ref Police, deciding which older material (Pastor) is acceptable, and which is not; and who should do the editing and who should not. Wikipedia's policy is that anyone can edit anything. And, BTW, note what Johnbod wrote, "In fact my most recent new article used entirely French sources, some rather old; but this was on a far more obscure topic." He admits to using old material and material in French, which is where my comment on his complaint against using old material and material in French began. So he allows himself privileges which he denies in others. I hate to be so personally aggressive about this topic, but your and his self-invented "rules" apply only to you. Let's end this; it's not going anywhere.

Thank you for your comment about my efforts to improve this article. The section on "Cardinal" had three quotations from two century-old encyclopedias when I began; nothing else. I managed to replace them with genuinely sourced material, and I added everything about his earlier career. This after eight years of total neglect of the article. I added the entire section on the V Lateran Council, an Ecumenical Council, a major omission since the article was first posted.

--Vicedomino (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'd hoped I made clear, I only used old and French sources in the absence of newer English ones. As far as I can see, it isn't even a question of accessibility, they just don't exist. The situation here, with a very famous subject, is very different. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is only an essay, but it has been around for almost 10 years. It sensibly doesn't give a single cut-off, but sources pre-1990 are mentioned as an example. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Vicedomino - I suggest you step back and avoid what is in danger of becoming personal abuse. As a qualified historian I can say that it is highly unusual to use sources for a history article that are more than 20-30 years when covering a familiar figure/ event (of which Julius II is). Johnbod has helpfully referred to guidance on reliable sources - I suggest you use that as a guide. If you add additional material then please make sure that the sources are relatively recent. Likewise I think we need to review all sources that are more than 50 years old to improve this article, and probably remove some. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"To many Julius II has been described as the best in an era of exceptionally bad popes..."

"To many Julius II has been described as the best in an era of exceptionally bad popes..." God knows what this is supposed to mean. Any suggestions? Bits of the article are barely literate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.154.93 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Age at death

The last sentence says "The Cardinal called Pope Julius II "a Pope who strove to serve the Church and to sacrifice himself for her until the Lord called him at the age of 72"." -the infobox says 69. ??? Manannan67 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

End of papacy

For the end of the papacy, if one wants to be precise, there are only two possibilities: either writing "until his death", date which one can easily read one row above, or writing the precise date (day, month, year). The year only is imprecise (the papacy could have ended on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd of January, and so on), and impossible to adopt for papacies which lasted less than one year. Alex2006 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation removed

Hallo,

I removed the Sanudo citation, since it is out of place. Pulling one's beard as if one were a boy, has nothing sexual in it, but it's just a display of bullying. Failure to react shows the weakness of the future pope, not his homosexuality. Feel free to reinstate the sentence and the citation in the right context. Alex2006 (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is waaaaay too long. Looks silly. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit too long, but most WP leads, for example that for his predecessor Pope Pius III, are waaaaay too short. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorted in LGBT cats

• Category:LGBT Roman Catholic popes

Pope Julius II was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in category.

• Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle

--188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Name Contradiction

The introduction states, 'Nicknamed the Warrior Pope or the Fearsome Pope, he chose his papal name not in honour of Pope Julius I but in emulation of Julius Caesar.' However, further down in the text in 'A Renaissance Pope', we read, 'Giuliano Della Rovere thenceforth took the name of his fourth-century predecessor, Julius I...' Clearly there is a contradiction here. RobotBoy66 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The first one has a good ref, the 2nd no ref at all. They aren't exactly contradictory, but I have rephrased. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Impartiality

To most historians Julius was manly and virile, an energetic man of action, whose courage saved the Papacy. There was a sense that war caused him serious illness, exhaustion, and fatigue, that most popes could not have withstood. To many Julius II has been described as the best in an era of exceptionally bad popes: Alexander VI was evil and despotic, exposing the future Julius II to a number of assassination attempts that required tremendous fortitude.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage to immortalize someone's gushing. What on earth is this drivel doing here? Even if it were properly cited, this would certainly not be the way to present it to a reader.

Ysjet (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)