Talk:Antonio Barberini

message: User: Pgarret (talk) 09:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on this crusade again? Seriously? You need to do more than just post a disconnected, non-specific editorial on sexuality on a talk page before deleting categories, especially when tagging them as "minor" edits. In this particular case, his sexuality has been the subject of a number of sources. It is clear you don't like people being categorised as "gay" or LGBT for whatever personal reason. You were previously encouraged to address these concerns on talk pages. The above (which says nothing about this article and is just a cut-paste rant) is not close to enough. Please stop. Stalwart111 23:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hi all, I've left messages on various pages suggesting people comment here. There seems to be some contention about whether the word "scandalous" or "alleged" should be used in relation to Barberini's various homosexual relationships. Rietbergen's book (the source for that line - p. 163) uses both "scandalous" (to describe such liaisons generally) and "allegedly" (with regard to Barberini's liaisons specifically). Given I was already quoting the "talk of the town" part, I thought "allegedly homosexual" (which would also be a direct quote from the source) would be too close to block-quoting. So I picked the word "scandalous" from the line prior. I really didn't give the paraphrasing a lot of thought and wasn't concerned about it being changed, though I did suggest a more generally paraphrased line would be better. Having thought about it, my concern with "allegedly" is that it actually produces two direct quotes in a very short line of text. While I certainly don't mind my paraphrasing being changed, I would rather we use a paraphrasing that isn't a direct-quote-by-accident. Any thoughts on a suggested wording? Stalwart111 10:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason for change was the impression of certainity about the character of Barberini's relationships, which actually does not appear from Rietbergen's book. Clearly, Rietbergen makes no judgment on this matter CarlosPn (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, your edit-summary was kind of what I meant - it's exactly what appears in the source. Obviously accurate but we shouldn't be quoting unless we're quoting, if that makes sense. Can you suggest a third word that everyone might be happy with? (Also, might be best not get into revert-revert until we've had a chat about it, yeah?) Stalwart111 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... what do you think about it: According to one historian, his presumbly homosexual relationships were "The talk of the town"? CarlosPn (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "presumably" probably changes the meaning. We could think about both - according to some historians, the scandal of his alleged homosexual relationships was the "talk of the town". Better? Pluralised because Rietbergen summarises other accounts. Stalwart111 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm happy with this solution. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scandalous" or "alleged" 

message: * :Category:LGBT Roman Catholic clergy	
* :Category:LGBT Roman Catholic bishops
* :Category:LGBT Roman Catholic cardinals
* Advocate.con: 21 Gay Popes, Cardinals, and Assorted Catholic Leaders, By Jacob Ogle
Barberini was a LGBT Roman Catholic cardinal. That should be sorted in cats. --188.96.230.248 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The user blocking this change has violated the 3RR rule. natemup (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorted in LGBT cats