Talk:Pope Julius III

message: There doesnt appear to be a reference in the article to Julius being a "pederastic lover", a category someone has placed him in. I'll remove him unless this is referenced in the article in the next few days. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment was unsigned and therefore I am going to remove the reference. 38.100.34.2 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pederast 

message: Maybe von Pastor is a papal apologist, but he's a notable author and I see no reason why he can not be cited to show that homosexuality of Julius III is not generally admitted by all historians. I think that neutral point of view requires to include also Pastor's opinion. Even in the web page of glbtq.com included to references we can read: 
"A recent biography has argued that the relation was not sexual, but the outrageous extravagance of Julius's dotage suggests otherwise: Julius bestowed benefices on Innocenzo that gave him one of the highest incomes in Europe--beyond even that of the Medicis" 
admiting that the sexual character of relations between pope and his adoptive nephew is not universally recognised CarlosPn talk
:I've made an extensive re-write of the article, drawing on more sources, excluding none of the existing sources, but sometimes correcting what I believe to be errors - e.g., I understand that Julius is buried in the Vatican Grottoes, not in the Del Monte chapel in Montorio. I think this section may now be too long - the whole subject merits a paragrpah, not all this. Perhaps it should be condensed, concentrating on the political implications of the scandel for Julius' papacy, and moving the rest to the article on Innocenzo. PiCo (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh - we've got major WP:UNDUE issues here.  That first paragraph or two is great for the article on Innocenzo himself, but may not belong here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Drastically shortened Villa Giulia and Innocenzo sections and amalgamated them into a new section on J's papacy - I think the best way to approach those topics here is to hone in on their relevance to his achievement, and let anyone with a keen interest in art history and papal smut go to the two full articles. PiCo (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliabilty of Ludwig von Pastor

message: Please stop removing the tags. When two editors have a content dispute, one can't declare himself the winner and remove tags without consent. The tag links the article to disputed pages and allows other editors to find the article and weigh in. Consistently removing the tags prevents this from happening. Bellae artes (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the same editor as 50.44.145.236 above? I'll leave the tags for a little while, but we really need to have clear details of where neutrality is a problem. Despite my best efforts this has still not been clarified. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - looks like we have 3 editors now that believe the text we have does not present serious issues in terms of balance and neutrality. I'm happy to try and make it even better (and welcome thoughts), but for the timebeing I think it means we can remove the tags. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag says "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message." Please follow those instructions. Notice it mentions a single editor is all that is needed to place the tag, and note that the tag can not be removed until the issues are addressed. This does not mean take a vote, that the discussion should be one or two yelling about this or that for an hour and then the tag removed, but that the issues be resolved. Bellae artes (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Ah, the liberum veto. It is good that Wikipedia has adopted so modern, progressive, and efficient a procedure. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the section is problematic. The tag can be removed: Bellae artes is the only editor complaining, as far as I can tell. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a puzzle or riddle, the tag actually says not to remove it. Follow directions. Bellae artes (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use the imperative with me. You're wrong and everyone says so. You've caused enough disruption and it is time to drop the stick. I understand that the combination of zeal and only 134 edits can lead to this and that's fine; now you have been told by a number of editors, one of whom an administrator (me), that you were wrong. For your moment of zen: the tag does not say what you want it to say. For another: no single editor can hold up progress in this way. Wikipedia reaches decisions by way of consent, and there is a clear consent that your tag was wrong. Time to move on. Replace the tag one more time and I will make sure you are blocked temporarily edit-warring and disruptive editing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: This article should at least reference Julius III's prohibition of printed Talmuds and the subsequent burnings in Rome.  ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilahg (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  --Talmud burnings--   

message: There should be some mention of the Schism of the (Nestorian) Church of the East in 1552, and one of the schismatic faction's re-entering into communion with the Roman Catholic Church via embassy to Pope Julius III to consecrate the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church. Jhanschoo (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in Church of the East's Schism in 1552 

message: * :Category:LGBT Roman Catholic popes
Pope Julius III was a LGBT Roman Catholic pope. That should be sorted in catsegory.
* Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle
--188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The gentleman trying to block this change recently violated the 3RR rule. natemup (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Better sources are needed as per WP:LGBTCAT. Needs academic consensus, no a single non-academic magazine.Eccekevin (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources and content already in the article establish that he was deemed homosexual, which is why he was categorized as LGBT long before today (until you removed the cat without consensus, ironically enough). natemup (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide several secondary academic sources that describe him as LGBT. Inferring from rumors and scandals as you said before is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Such additions are debatable as you've also been told by User:Ohnoitsjamie. Magazine articles like Advocate are non-academic sources. Placing long-dead figures in distinct bins like categories should be done very carefully (especially for categories like LGBT identity, which can be tricky since they depended on context and understanding of human sexuality, which can vary greatly through time and cultures). You need to gain consensus before such a change.  Eccekevin (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorted in LGBT cats