Talk:Vatican City/Archive 2

A question regarding the Vatican Television Centre

Is it connected in any way to RAI, the Italian public broadcaster? On the Italian Wikipedia there is a page for a section of RAI called "Rai Vaticano". Does RAI own the Vatican Television Centre, or do both entities engage in heavy co-operation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.196.223 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither. The two are completely separate. The CTV (Centro Televisivo Vaticano) is the independent television centre of the Vatican City State, and is responsible for the two TV channels controlled directly by the Vatican - the old Telepace (on regular TV) and the newer Sat2000 (on satellite and digital). RAI Vaticano is an office within the Italian broadcaster that deals specifically with news regarding the Vatican and the Pope's travels abroad. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Area?

The article (and most of the internet) says that Vatican City is 0.44 km2. This number seems to come from the CIA World Factbook. However, calculating the area based on OpenStreetMap data, or based on counting pixels on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#/media/File:Vatican_City_map_EN.png says it's between 0.494 km2 and 0.499 km2 (depending on which coordinate system is used to calculate it). The difference could be the size of St. Peter's Square, but all Vatican-related articles (and the text of the Lateran treaty) seem to agree that that's part of Vatican City. In conclusion, as far as I can see the given value is more than 10% off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankGevaerts (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Some relocation of contents to Holy See

Such as the topics on foreign relations inter alia? PPEMES (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How many citizens are there?

It is very confusing that the number of citizens changes so fast, from 220 in March 2011 to 540 in December 2011. Does anyone know why this happens? --Naddruf (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding Skyline Image to Infobox

Hi all, I am thinking about adding a skyline image to the infobox. If anybody has any objections please do let me know. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New creation

The words "new creation" were not used but it repeatedly referred to "creating" Vatican City, and it would seem to me, that creating something normally implies that it is new, don't you think? Elizium23 (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Vatican city economy

In the introductory paragraph it is stated: "The unique economy of Vatican City is supported financially by the sale of postage stamps and souvenirs, fees for admission to museums, and sales of publications" However, the broader section on the economy of the Vatican City includes information about other sources of revenue. Very importantly here is the IOR (the Vatican Bank), and its accusations of money-laundering.

Area

The article (and most of the internet) says that Vatican City is 0.44 km2. This number seems to come from the CIA World Factbook. However, calculating the area based on OpenStreetMap data, or based on counting pixels on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#/media/File:Vatican_City_map_EN.png says it's between 0.494 km2 and 0.499 km2 (depending on which coordinate system is used to calculate it). The difference could be the size of St. Peter's Square, but all Vatican-related articles (and the text of the Lateran treaty) seem to agree that that's part of Vatican City. In conclusion, as far as I can see the given value is more than 10% off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankGevaerts (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, using Google Maps I also found about 0.494km². Removing St. Peter's Square results in about 0.443km², but the Lateran treaty explicitly says that it's part of Vatican City.

The De Agostini Atlas Calendar, a very popular Italian gazetteer, listed the area of Vatican City as 0.44km² in 1930 (the year after Vatican City was established), but its 1945-46 edition listed 0.49km². It seems that the editors eventually recalculated the area more accurately but everyone else kept repeating the original estimate of 0.44km² for decades.

I went ahead and changed the area in the article, added the source and a note. Heitordp (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"The Vatican"

Regarding "The Vatican City State, also known as The Vatican,"

I would argue that "The Vatican" is used metonymically to refer to the papacy far more often than it is used to refer to the local government of Vatican City. – RVJ (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is in a footnote. The metonym is more or less inaccurate, since it is actually the Holy See that is the governing body of the Church. So do you have a proposal for improving the article? Elizium23 (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sovereign or not?

About my lead edit today, being reverted is one thing but I draw a line at being accused of weaselling. So, the lead quotes the Lateran treaty which does not give sovereignty over the VC and then the lead says it is the smallest sovereign state. The point is this contradiction needs to be removed, somehow. How do we do that? And CIA is handy but surely is a source of last resort? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Who regards it thus? You didn't answer my question but you removed the tag without fixing the problem. Furthermore, you introduced factual errors. The Holy See is the entity with observer status at the UN, as the UN article cited clearly says. Your edit summary said "what the source actually says" but you wrote the opposite. Elizium23 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The lede section is meant to summarize the article and it does not. It throws up all these objections and complications which are not even mentioned in the body. If they exist, put them in the body first, and let the lede summarize them. If they do not, then take them out of the lede. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Before this gets confusing for other readers, what is your point? The position of the VC as a sovereign state is at best ambiguous, or as the source says, problematic. The treaty does not use that term (sovereignty) but conscious uses alternative terms to describe the VC. The A1 source I gave does answer your question. The CIA that refers to the VC as sovereign is not an A1 source. Are you sayin we should refer to the VC as a sovereign state? I accept that the UN seat is held by the Holy See, not the VC, an oversight/typo by me. Change it! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, who does refer to Vatican City as a sovereign state? Not the CIA's World Factbook. I have cleaned up the text. Elizium23 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, I see no evidence of peer-review for the European journal. Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I am curious about the terminology "Vatican City State"; while this is an official name, we also refer to "Vatican City" which is one in the same, and the terminology should be consistent throughout the article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted today's addition by BigCheese76. This lead has gone off track and needs simplifying. I began a few edits ago by inserting what I think is a pretty sound RSS to back a reasonably simple comment about the position of the VC and the HS in international law. Although Elizium23's questioned the strengthy of the source and re-arranged things a little I was fairly happy with what was there. Since then the lead has become muddled. The edits I reverted are confusing and too detailed for the lead. The bottom line is that the VC is not a sovereign state in international law. That needs to be mentioned in the lead, with a fairly simple explanation of a sentence or two. More detail can be put in the body of the article. The problem seems to be getting that simple one line explanation as to why the VC is not a sovereign state that the average reader can understand. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a false conclusion. The Pope is Sovereign of Vatican City, and several sources and Irish Times and Lincoln Diocese and the United States government agree that Vatican City itself is a sovereign state, per the Lateran Treaty. If the Vatican City State is not sovereign, then that raises the question, to whom is it subject? Does Italy intervene? Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the Britannica and the US govt sources you claim say the VC is a sovereign state. Britannica - 'Vatican City is the world’s smallest fully independent nation-state.' US Govt - '...from Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory.' All I see is skirting around the issue with carefully chosen words that avoid the touchy issue of saying VC is a sovereign state. The Laternan treaty does exactly the same. Also, I would give more weight to my academic source than to newspapers, if for no other reason than it addresses the problem directly and does not resort to skating around the it. Whatever, I am not so sure that there are many good RSS that unambiguously say the VC is a sovereign state as understood in international law. To answer your question, which I admit is only my speculation, sovereignty of that piece of land in Rome lies with Italy. All the Italian state has done is grant an unusual type of lease over it with the leaseholder being the HS. To end it, all either Italy or the HS has to do is breach the terms of the Laternan treaty: sovereign states break the terms of treaties they've signed all the time. The terms of the LT are unusual, and are probably as close as Italy could get to granting sovereignty over the land as it was possible to get without actually granting it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and one non-peer-reviewed non-notable scholar with an agenda does not suffice to support all these assertions you are making here. Elizium23 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, Elizium23. Regarding Italy, for example, former Italian President Ciampi has defined Rome as "capital of two states". For Italy since 1929 Vatican is a full sovereign state, maybe it is the opposite that it has not always been de facto true, at least until the DC ruled Italy. ;-) Jokes aside, in Italy too there are jurists who contest the Vatican's sovereignty [Ref. 136], but their view is largely a minority, and the widely prevailing view in juridical science is that the Vatican is a sovereign state, even if sui generis. [1]. So I think this information definitely doesn't need to go into the introduction, because it would give it an undue weight. Alex2006 (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ciampi said: "The city of Rome, capital of two states whose coexistence is a model for the whole world". More pussy-footing around. Once again, where is the evidence of a sovereign state? And, if it it is so clear why is the UN seat held by the HS and not the VC? Be careful of words like de facto in contentious matters like this, because what de facto often means is "we can't prove it but we are going to assume it because that's the easy way to deal with it." Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I put two sources in my comment. Both are law journals. Alex2006 (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The UN observer is the Holy See because the Holy See is the governance of the universal Catholic Church. Vatican City State is a small sovereign territory that is of comparative insignificance when weighed against over a billion Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Elizium23 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that Alex was implying it was de jure true even when not de facto true. Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I think that you both missed my joke: de facto does not refer to Vatican sovereignty, but to Italian sovereignty as recognized by the Vatican, during the period of DC dominance in Italy (1948-1992). Italy has recognized Vatican sovereignty through articles 3 and 26 of the Lateran Pacts. Alex2006 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, right, that's what I thought it was, but I guess I over-thunk it. Elizium23 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

:-) Explanation of my comment, part two: sui generis means that Vatican sovereignty is inextricably linked to the sovereignty of the Holy See, from which it derives (and this explains the status of observer at the UN of the Holy See). The Lateran Treaties were stipulated between Italy and the Holy See, and were made to give a state to an entity already sovereign in itself. According to some jurists, if per absurdum Francis decided to dissolve the Holy See and the Catholic church and resigned, Vatican sovereignty would automatically cease and the territory would revert to Italy. Alex2006 (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Alessandro57, that is extremely absurd, because in fact the Roman Pontiff does not have the authority to do those things, except resign. Elizium23 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact I wrote per absurdum, Elizium23, I wanted only to point out that the Vatican is not a "normal" state, but that its existence depends on that of the Holy See. It could be defined a "purpose state", but that does not make its sovereignty "problematic", at least according to prevailing legal doctrine. Alex2006 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but what to do? Alex2006, you seem to be agreeing with me that VC is not a sovereign state as in generally understood by averagely educated people (the level we should aim for here). That needs to be succinctly explained in the lead. I think your explanation, even if correct, is too detailed and technical. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, it seems to me instead that the thesis you were introducing was the problematic nature of Vatican sovereignty, and here I explained that according to most legal scholars there is no problem (by the way, I forgot to mention that the freedom and sovereignty of the church are also protected by article 7 of the Italian constitution: "Lo Stato e la Chiesa cattolica sono, ciascuno nel proprio ordine, indipendenti e sovrani. I loro rapporti sono regolati dai Patti Lateranensi."). The Vatican State is unique, but for other reasons: it is a so called patrimonial state (within the state there is no private property); it is, as already mentioned, a state of purpose (it was born exclusively to give a territorial base to the Holy See); one becomes a citizen exclusively by a mutual and free agreement between the state itself and the individual (so there is no ius soli nor ius sanguinis); it is absolutely neutral and inviolable (something that was respected even by the Nazis). All these unique features do not invalidate its sovereignty, since for this the Vatican needs only three requirements: a territory, a population and a power that administers them (the absolute power of the pope).Elizium23, do you (and Roger of course) think that the lead should be modified including some of these points (or some other that I missed)? Alex2006 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say there is another requirement needed for VC sovereignty, perhaps the most important. That is recognition as a sovereign state by other sovereign states. That is what is clearly lacking here and that is why I agree with the source I used that the position of the VC is problematic in international law. Perhaps the term 'problematic' should be changed because it can imply more negativity than it intends - problem and problematic are not the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No, international recognition is not lacking at all. The recognition of Vatican sovereignty took place directly on the Italian side through the signing of the Lateran Pacts (art. 3 and art. 26 subparagraph 2) and indirectly and in a binding manner for all the states that had already official relations with the Holy See, which were informed through diplomatic channels of the signing of the pacts with which the new state was created. Alex2006 (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This [2] explanation by the UK FCO opens up another approach. Is the sovereign state the HS, making it not just a soveregn entity. If so, is the term VC the wrong name for the piece of land in Rome? Should it be the sovereign state of Holy See? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, that's nothing! Just wait until you find out about Sovereign Military Order of Malta! Elizium23 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit late to the party on this subject (the last several months turned unexpectedly hectic when those of us who do admissions interviews for my alma mater got inundated with an increase of more than 60% in the number of this year's applicants...), but I would point out that the State of Vatican City has its own penal code and its own courts of law that are not subject to any higher governing authority, which is the hallmark of a sovereign nation. It also has its own postal service and postage stamps, and it ratifies treaties with other sovereign nations. And, technically, it does have its own military force -- the Swiss Guard. It uses "The Holy See" as a diplomatic title primarily for historical reasons.Norm1979 (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Did the "Holy Roman Empire" truly ever end?

The so-called "Holy Roman Empire" may not have ever dissolved, at least not legally. The "Vatican City", a state in its own right, has retained ownership over all ecclesiastical holdings throughout its reign, which has never truly been interrupted from 781, when Pepin, son of Charlemagne, was named "King of the Lombards": and Pepin, born Carloman, was crowned with the "Iron Crown of Lombardy" by Pope Adrian I in the same year. That the "Holy Roman Empire" was given a "mouth" in 781 following the "abomination of desolation" in 751 (751 and 781 dates are not directly found in the Bible), when the common-law and Ten Commandment-law friendly Merovingians were thrust out of power by the Carolingians, is testament to the fact that an 1806 demise to the "Holy Roman Empire's" term of possessing a "mouth speaking great things and blasphemies" is likely closer to 2023. (This calculation takes into theory that (((360/365.25)(1260))=~1241.889...) roughly equates a translation for 1,260 "days" (years) for conversion of Hebrew calendar to Gregorian calendar. Add ~1,241.889+781, or the equivalent calculation for 1,290 to 751, and one may find a near-answer.) Whether the calculation is correct or not (and I do not claim it to be exactly correct), consider that the Papacy has never renounced its holdings of the Ecclesiastical estates and possessions of the Roman Catholic Church and the "Holy Roman Empire". Thus stating, as this article does, that the "Holy Roman Empire" ended in 1806 seems to be a lie.

Disclaimer: 2023 AD, Gregorian calendar, is not the exact conclusion.

     Mat 24:36
         But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

-Biblical quote from BlueLetterBible.org

2601:5CC:8200:8DB0:68B0:3824:A62C:3A9B (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Venus aka Bryce

(The) Vatican City?

There has been some edit-warring on Microstate over the question of whether this place should be referred to as "Vatican City" or "the Vatican City". I haven't found any MOS guidance on that question, so I think it would be helpful to settle the question, and this seems like the obvious place for that. I don't have a preference... I just want too see a consensus and consistency. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:THE.Moxy- 15:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That is about article titles, not usage in the body of an article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Why use a different name then what is used by the main article and throughout that article as layout by the MOS?.Moxy- 15:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes definite articles are dropped from some titles (e.g., Netherlands, but History of the Netherlands); but are nevertheless retained in almost all cases in article body. 219.76.24.216 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This would be done if it such usage is more common in English. Quickly browsing through search results for "Vatican City" suggests to me that using "The" is a rare formality. For example, Britannica does not use it, and UNESCO uses it on first instance but then drops the usage in the main text. (This is different to "The Vatican", which seems a common alternative.) CMD (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What about, for instance, the BBC? [3][4] Meanwhile would the talk page of a relevant MOS be a more proper venue? 219.76.24.208 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be mixed usage, but that is the sort of source that is helpful. Not sure there is a best venue, do feel free to raise elsewhere and point from here or vice versa. CMD (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple answer is use what a significent majority of RRSs use. Difficult answer is what to do if RSSs are roughly equal is usage of both forms of the name, and what if RSSs differ from what the woman in the street uses. To me "the" is nearly always used in spoken English but less so in written sources. Common usage definition is based on what RSSs use, not spoken usage. Sorry if this isn't much help but I'm still recovering from a draining debate about the Netherlands a while ago. If you want my vote, it is use the article. (But should the article be "The or the"?) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

...but I'm still recovering from a draining debate about the Netherlands a while ago. There was actually a similar dispute regarding (the) Maldives. 219.76.24.208 (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Whereas cases like the Gambia, the Congo, the Czech Republic, the UK, the US and the Bahamas aren't quite disputed, as well as former ones like the Soviet Union, the Irish Free State. But back to the same question, would there be a venue on such a general policy for use in the texts of articles (as opposed to the one mentioned above for titles)? 219.76.24.207 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

And also cases like the Hague, the Bronx. 219.76.24.195 (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading picture

The main picture is a view of Rome FROM the Vatican City, it shows none of the parts of the actual VC. Aquincanus (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Is this image better? Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Demographics

I noticed a few of things about this section.

1. Support is spart. I haven't checked thoroughly, and cannot read the cited sources not in English, but I don't see support for many of the figures in the table in this section.
2. The text says that there are 427 residents (regardless of citizenship), but the figures in the table seem to total 327. That's probably a typo.
3. I'm wondering about dual citizenship of the pope. This article appears to assert that the current pope holds only Vatican City citizenship. My understanding is that the current pope was an Argentine citizen, and I see in that Argentine nationality law § Deprivation of nationality asserts without support that Argentine nationality cannot be renounced and can only be revoked if it was obtained through criminal means, such as fraudulent documentation.

I haven't checked any of this thoroughly, but I'm wondering about it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Head of state starting date

• The Pope is ex officio head of state[68] of Vatican City since the 1860s, functions dependent on his primordial function as bishop of the diocese of Rome.

How could he have been head of state in the 1860s of a state which did not come into existence until 1929? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that this is a late date; according to Politics of Vatican City#Executive, this office dates to the eighth century. I would say that it has to do with the Pope's rule over the Papal States. It was recognized in the 1860s by the newly-united Kingdom of Italy in the Law of Guarantees, which although rejected by the Catholic Church, reflected a view from outside. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ervin111899 recently modified the date from "1929" to "the eighth century" in the aforementioned article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ervin118, a sockpuppet of the aforementioned editor, also added the "1860s" date to this article. I propose that we erase the specific dates, since there are WP:NPOV issues. Elizium23 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I already changed the 1860s to eighth century, and added citation evidencing when does the pope (head of the Catholic Church) also became the head of state of the Vatican City (https://theconversation.com/in-bidens-visit-with-the-pope-a-page-from-reagans-playbook-170077). Ervin111899 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which dialect of English is this written in?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was wondering which dialect of English this article is written in. Can somebody give me an answer? That would be helpful Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is tagged with {{Use Oxford spelling}}. Elizium23 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me! Quinnerwinner12 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong archive order

Currently ​ClueBot III is archiving sections of this page to /Archive 2. But there's an /Archive 3 which is actually older than /Archive 1. Is there something wrong with the numbering or perhaps the bot settings? 219.76.24.208 (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Graham11: as Archive 3 creator in case any insight is remembered, although it was many years ago. CMD (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 219.76.24.208 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Capital

How come Vatican City doesn’t have a capital, but Monaco and Singapore as city-states do? Vatican City is the capital of the country of Vatican City, as with Monaco, Singapore etc. It should have a capital in the info box as with every other city-state and country. Gatorbearratica (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it does not have anything that could meaningfully be called a capital. It's one tiny section of Rome, and the power is wherever the Pope, and perhaps a few key officials, sit. Singapore is much bigger and has distinct sections, and even Monaco is 4 times bigger (though I'd argue that Monaco should not display a capital either). SeoR (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Monaco is very small as well. Gatorbearratica (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware of Singapore's unique city-state status, but there you have it. Singapore and Monaco are both categorized here as "Capitals" and Monaco's infobox indicates itself as the capital. I don't believe these are useful. If Monaco or Singapore is a capital it is only coterminous with the city-state itself, so what's the point of calling it a capital? The "capital" terminology is not used in the article and so the categorization itself lacks proper sourcing for WP:CATV.

Nobody ever says that Vatican City is the capital of something or that Vatican City has a capital. It is simply a city-state. A city-state does not need a capital because of its administrative simplicity. I object to cluttering the infobox with something so unnecessary as well as unsourced, because @Gatorbearratica has not cited any sources for this at all. Elizium23 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Singapore is not tiny so it should not be a comparison. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think size matters so much as status: Singapore is a city-state with no capital and no... cities. It is a useful comparison for microstates in that Singapore still matches the profile of a non-capital city state even as a much larger area/population. Elizium23 (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Clothing

Western clothing is followed 120.57.43.63 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Demonym

I know this might be controversial, but I checked on wiktionary.org, and it said an uncommon demonym for someone who lives in the Vatican City is “Vaticanian”. I don’t know if anyone would like to update this, but considering Wiktionary is apart of Wikipedia it would be a good change. Link: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Vaticanian Gatorbearratica (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a WP:RS Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no official demonym for Vatican City. Some say Vaticans, Vaticaners, Citizens of the Holy See, Vaticanos, Vaticani, Vaticinians, etc. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Official languages

In the article in a lot of other languages Latin and Italian are stated as official languages.

Here it is stated that the Vatican has none and Italian only as a de facto language. 91.248.237.86 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where any official language is stated. That would be an error. Could you point to the location? More information in Languages of Vatican City. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

sorry if off topic but what is the difference between an offical and national language please ? I see France has the two listed but its French in both cases and other countries eg Germany only mention an offical language. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(I'm the user that started this discussion. I created myself an account now)

Did I misuse the word stated? I was referring to the table of this article in various languages.

Examples: English: official: none, Italian (de facto) Spanish: official: none spoken: Italian and Latin German: official: Italian, Latin French: official: Italian, Latin, French , German (as official language of the swiss guard) Russian: official: Italian, Latin

I read myself a bit into it and as far as I understand it, the country doesn't have any official languages, however Italian is mainly used (=de facto language) and Latin is the official language of the institution that the country is reignd by. PerryErd (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean, "table of this article"? I see nothing mentioned anywhere in this article about the Russian language. Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It might be a bit messy, but how did you not understand that I am talking about the versions of this article in other languages?

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_del_Vaticano

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican

etc. PerryErd (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Those are articles on separate encyclopedias with their own editorial processes. This talk page is only for discussion of the English language article. Each of those other articles has their own talk page. You can't expect them to be consistent with one another. 25stargeneral (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vatican City.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Came out the jiin. Very simple left. Thanks. I'm silvana Omar ışıkıer (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

French is Official Language of Vatican

Hello . I'm going to explain my modification so that my changes are justified and I'm not accused of editorial warfare. The Papal State (the Vatican 🇻🇦) has several official languages, including Italian and Latin, of course, but also French, as shown by these various sources ( [5]https://www.vaticannews.va/fr/vatican/news/2019-03/vatican-saint-siege-francophonie-langue-francais.html  ; https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langues_au_Vatican  ; https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/vatican-saint-siege/presentation-du-vatican/article/presentation-du-vatican) . In addition, international institutions recognize the Vatican as a French-speaking state, and the Vatican State is even a member of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie. France-Pt9301 (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the place to lists unofficial languages used. Best read over"What language is spoken at the Vatican?". Visiting The Vatican. 2023-04-13. Retrieved 2023-11-05.. Moxy- 02:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy

::Except that in the case of the Vatican, French is the official language, even though it's not the most widely spoken. International institutions recognize the Vatican as a French-speaking country, and the Papal State is even a member of the international organization of the Francophonie. So it's worth mentioning. France-Pt9301 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is one of many diplomatic languages of the Vatican. Not sure we should list them all especially just one. Moxy- 16:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

::::@Moxy It is an official language which is used for diplomacy but which remains an official language so yes it is relevant to include it. France-Pt9301 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point you will need to Wikipedia:Consensus for the change pls see WP:SEEKHELP. Moxy- 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't understand ... France-Pt9301 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeppiz The cancellation of my modification and this editing war are unjustified and irrelevant, due to the fact that my modification is sourced through an official channel of the Vatican Papacy 🇻🇦. I also invite you to reread my arguments quoted above. France-Pt9301 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I will be blunt. You believing that you're right still gives you no reason to behave like you do. Edit-warring is not allowed, period. Multiple users disagree with your edit, and no user supports it. Your behavior is entirely disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Struck through edits by sockpuppet Doug Weller talk 08:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)