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)

• • • • ALERT: Too many of the supposed CITATIONS lead no where! All of the supposed citations about the GAYNESS of this Pope do not lead to the stated source! These should be removed and, by the way, if three-hundred years from now historians want to prove that Tom Cruise is an alien from another planet, then all they have to do is SOURCE it with one of our scandal sheets, like the Enquirer or the Star. One tiny intellect here stated that having children is not a sign of heterosexual: WITH THAT LOGIC, US FANS OF THE WIKIPEDIA AND WIKIPEDIANS SHOULD THUMB THROUGH ALL THE PAGES WHERE NON-HETEROSEXUALS ARE BIOGRAPHIZED (IS THAT A WORD, WHO CARES?!) AND PLACE DOUBTS ON THEIR ACTUAL HOMOSEXUALITY. Did you gay-rites types (AND I DO MEAN RITE) ever think that you are all nothing but closeted heterosexuals!!!!????

SIGNED, A FED-UP CITIZEN OF THIS GALAXY THAT..., ACCORDING TO THE HISTORY CHANNEL, IS DOOMED TO COLLIDE WITH ANOTHER GALATIC STRUCTURE! THEN, WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE BUN WARMING OF PEOPLE IN THEIR BEDS? If you non-heterosexuals state people should stay out of their bedroom, then why are you obsessed with what is going on in the bedrooms of Popes, actors, politicians and men on mars?

Must be me with the 'limited intellect' - at least I make constructive rather than abusive comments. If you want to have a constructive dialogue then happy to do so - but not interested in your tiresome rant. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 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)

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)

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)