Talk:Cardinal Mazarin

Untitled
I agree that the Nantes reference looks wrong. And it says that Little Red riding hood was a satire on Mazarin, yet the article on the story makes no mention of him. Gobanian (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean to say of the Protestants "for six years they believed themselves to be on the eve of recovering the protections of the Edict of Nantes, but in the end they obtained nothing." The Edict of Nantes was not revoked until 1685, so they had not lost it.

Maria Mancini
Maria Mancini, mistress of King Louis XIV, looks exceptionally like a man to me - was Louis losing his grip in old age? Apart from that, it's a very pretty family tree. Deb 19:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Tssk. Maria Mancini was an early mistress of Louis XIV. In his old age, Louis XIV was morganatically married to Madame de Maintenon. David.Monniaux 10:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Those pictures are of Louis XIV and Charles II, not Maria and Hortense Mancini, I hope... john k 15:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy! Louis XIV as Mazarin's bastard?
Now we have this naive thought in the entry. Was this "rumor" even part of the "Widow Capet" gutter-pamphleteering in 1793? Did it appear anywhere before that? Or is this a just a modern suggestion from the Mary Magdalene groupies? --Wetman 18:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article makes much of a gaming table flirtation between Marazin and the Queen. The link references the article on Marie de' Medici, who was the MOTHER of Louis XIII, and therefore Dowager queen of France when Marazin came to Paris as Richelieu's aide. Queen Marie died in 1642, one year before the regency for Louis XIV began. I shall amend the article --- Neal, 23 Aug 2006

Jules Cardinal Mazarin?
Shouldn't this be at Jules Cardinal Mazarin? john k 15:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that bring it into line with conventional headings of other articles on cardinals? --Wetman 16:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would. john k 17:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Could that be so bad? (i.e. any objections, gang?) --Wetman 19:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it. john k 03:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to use the title followed by the full name, esp. at first occurence: for instance one would not say Richard President Nixon. For cardinals, it's the same: for instance: "Cardinal Roger Etchegaray"; for this and other examples, see here. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To expand
This article is very old-styled, and largely incomplete (especially for what concers Mazzarino's early years in Italy). I marked it with the "expand" template. Attilios

Article name
From WP:RM backlog:


 * Cardinal Mazarin → Jules Mazarin. It is his real name, and it is more favourable to have as the title of a biography article the actual name of the person than his charge or title. Ralphloren171 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Incomplete. If this is simply moved, Jules Cardinal Mazarin would be better, as the talk page supports; but Cardinal Mazarin, like Cardinal Richelieu is normal usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This request was incomplete and seems unlikely to gain consensus if relisted. I suggest discussion here before any more moves or move requests. Previous names are of course Jules Cardinal Mazarin and Jules Mazarin.

Mazzarino or Mazzarini, Mazarini?
Until now I was convinced that the Cardinal's Italian name was "Mazarini". It stands e.g. in French Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.58.218 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If relisting on WP:RM, please:


 * Use the correct templates and procedure. Reversing a previous move should always be seen as potentially controversial. Note that there are three steps.


 * Provide some reason for the move in terms of either:
 * Existing policy, see Naming conventions.
 * Proposed policy change(s).

Any questions on this, feel free to comment on my talk page. Andrewa (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people get to move articles to new locations without any discussion, and then to move it back we have to follow incredibly annoying bureaucratic procedures. Sigh. "Cardinal Mazarin" is no better an article title than President Obama. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What kind of cardinal?
What kind of cardinal was Mazarin? Cardinal-bishop? Cardinal-priest? Cardinal-deacon? Which diocese / church / diaconate was he assigned in Italy?

Top.Squark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC).
 * I've tried to put this into the infobox, but haven't been able. Perhaps someone could oblige... Titular See=None (never received a deaconry; not ordained a cleric) Safebreaker (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationality nonsense
How could one renounce the nationality of a nation that will not exist for a couple centuries? Mazarin was born in geographical Italy, and his native language would have been the dialect of where he was born. This is all.CyrilleDunant (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian?
Yeah, there seems to have been a slow edit-war about whether or not he should be described as "Italian". I really couldn't care less either way but the generally accepted approach has been to describe cardinals born in what is now Italy as an Italian Catholic Cardinal. The article Italian people has all of the proper acknowledgements about the history of "Italians" in general which is where I always link Italian to. My only concern would be that having created about 50 articles (possibly more) for cardinals of the 17th century, I've used the above description for most of them (as most were born in cities and regions now considered part of modern-day Italy). I don't mind if we need to go and change them all, really, (though I don't see the point) but Mazarin's article is now really the only odd one out because of this ongoing Italian/not-Italian business. Would appreciate thoughts from others. Stalwart 111  07:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Love letters...The Cypher Letters
Their love affair, confirmed by their correspondence, is not mentioned. Here's one source:

Cypher Letters to the Queen — Expressions of Lore and Unfailing Devotion — Letter No. 3 — Letter No. 31 — Letter No. 34 — Letter No. 43 — Letter No. 53 — Letter No. 63 — Letter No. 74 — Letter No. 96 — Cardinal about to return — Unbroken Union 193
 * CHAPTER XXIII, THE CARDINAL'S CYPHER LETTERS

BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cardinal Mazarin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506083640/http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-12.htm to http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Galleries
WP:GALLERY makes it clear that placing images adjacent to the text is preferred to placing them in galleries. It further says that a gallery "may be appropriate if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." This means that the onus is on those who wish to retain the galleries to explain why they should be exceptions to WP:GALLERY. We absolutely do not need a portrait of each of Mazarin's nieces. We never provide individual portraits for each of the children, siblings, or other relatives of the subject. One image that illustrates Mazarin's nieces does the job. We also do not need to show trivial stuff such as a painting that Mazarin purchased; the man purchased nearly a thousand paintings. And if you are going to go around reverting my edits in articles (and indeed topics) you had never edited before, I would appreciate if you least gave a proper reason. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with the galleries here. The pictures are relevant and in context, and in fact I think they are an enhancement. The Wikipedia could use more pictures and illustrations, especially now that internet speeds have gotten so fast, and, unlike print encyclopedias, weight and shelf space are not issues for an online encyclopedia. Tiny pictures relegated to the sides of the text is a layout practice that to me seems a bit out-of-date and a holdover from the earlier days of the Wikipedia. The creation of gallery packed mode was a big improvement and allows one to add more illustrations without cramming the text between the pictures. IMO, the more articles that take advantage of it, the better. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, these images enhance the article. What's more, there is no obvious conflict with WP:GALLERY in using galleries in the sections on the Mazarinettes and Mazarin's patronage. There isn't sufficient space in the "Patronage of the arts" section "for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text", which is presumably why you removed all but one of them.
 * I have made extensive edits to related pages. I also have a master's degree in Early Modern intellectual history, which is why the page for Cardinal Mazarin is on my watchlist. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an image repository. It does not need any more images than necessary to illustrate the point. Five images illustrating each niece individually instead of one image illustrating three of them as a group is a gross overkill and clear violation of WP:GALLERY. I see that the very point made by WP:GALLERY is disputed here, that images should be placed to the sides of the text, but policy discussions should take place at policy talk pages, not article talk pages. The images I removed from Cardinal Mazarin are hardly relevant. For example, no biographer of Mazarin has discussed Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione to such a length that would warrant the inclusion of the portrait into a biography of Mazarin; see WP:PROPORTION. The fact is that regardless of your personal preferences for galleries, a biographical article that contains two galleries of marginally relevant images is not going to get far in terms of article quality assessment. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that galleries have to be deleted. And the idea that our articles must be as restricted as individual printed and/or secondary sources is in fact opposed to our oldest and deepest project aims. Nutshell: I can't see any merit to this argument that a deletion is demanded by policy. That is a clear misreading of the spirit and letter of the cited policy pages. I think it comes does to whether something looks nice and is informative which is clearly the case here. Editors should be congratulated for that!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "I see that the very point made by WP:GALLERY is disputed here": Nothing that has been said so far should give you any reason to think that. In my reply to your initial comment, I explained that there is no conflict with the WP:GALLERY policy since there is not in fact sufficient space "for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text". This would suggest that you are either not reading my replies, or are willfully misrepresenting them. Either way, this gives me little incentive to engage with you here.
 * I see with your reference to WP:PROPORTION, which forms part of the WP:NPOV policy, that you are following your usual pattern of splicing together unrelated policies to manufacture a new meaning not implied by the original text. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I don't believe there is any conflict with any other part of WP:GALLERY. The galleries are not an "indiscriminate collection of images", and clearly illustrate, for example, Mazarin's patronage of the arts. In other words, we simply disagree as to whether these images are necessary, so please stop citing policies to endorse your preferences where these policies clearly do not apply. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Poncet (1959)
@SiefkinDR, in this edit I partially revert this edit by you, since it broke the short footnote (there is no Poncet (1959) source in the bibliography) – I thought it unlikely that that was what you wanted to do. In the optimistic scenario that you can reconstruct your work from nearly four years ago, could you check what the reference ought to be? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote is from Dethan 1959, p. 24. The date for his return to Avignon is given by Poncet 2018, p. 118. I've revised the citations and text to indicate this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent – thank-you very much! Wham2001 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)