Talk:Pope Julius II

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popes and beards 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Illegitimate daughter of Pope Julius II, Felice dellar Rovere 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Original Research" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Helpful, thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Bracciano 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. Now I know what to focus on. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What you have likely missed,  (also calling ), 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)
replies: text: Sure enough, "courage and determination rarely equaled" takes us to the Americanized Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 6, see . Now the fun begins. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding peacock tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not enough evidence to put him in the LGBT category

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bishop of Carpentras 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cardinalate: citation of encyclopedias 

message: 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.
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." 
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)
thread_title:  Erasmus, Council of Pisa, and charge of sexual misconduct 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Election of Julius II 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to election of Alexander VI (Borgia) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is 'Italy'? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced ? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When was Giuliano della Rovere consecrated a bishop? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Julius elected unanimously 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monstrous quotation 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Age at death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  End of papacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation removed 

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

message: * :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)
thread_title:  Sorted in LGBT cats 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name Contradiction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Impartiality