Talk:Vatican City/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Duplicate images

The image of St. Peter's Square in the Head of State section appears again under Citizenship. Its the same photo. Can we delete one? I recommend deleting the second one. It appears under the 360 degree image.Racerx11 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sports Section doesn't seem appropriate

I removed the sports section from the article as there doesn't appear to be any reliable secondary sources that support it's inclusion. In fact Google search for the Vatican Football team only reveals Wikipedia or mirror sites.

Here is the section as it was in case someone can find proper sources for it: Vatican City has no sport league or stadium. It has sometimes fielded a national football team drawn from the Swiss Guards (dual Vatican and Swiss citizens), members of the Papal council, and museum guards (Italian citizens). Since the Swiss Guards, who have Vatican City citizenship, are not free in sufficient numbers except for short periods, the national team can play international matches only rarely, on which occasions they may draw an interested press. The Vatican City national football team plays at Stadio Pio XII in Italy. Many of the Pontifical seminaries in Rome compete in the Clericus Cup football tournament each winter and spring. The Cup is organised by the Italian Centro Sportivo Italiano (CSI). Vatican Radio reports on the outcomes of the Cup's matches which are held at the Knights of Columbus football fields at the Oratory of St. Peter on the Gelsomino Hill in Rome. In 2008 the Dutch Fellowship of Fairly Odd Places C.C. challenged the Vatican into raising its own National Team. Subsequently a first cricket match ever between their National side and the Dutch team was played at the Stadio dei Marmi. The Vatican XI won by 9 wickets. All Vatican XI players were of Indian descent.

Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say stop trusting google. The above mentioned is generally true and if you go to the other parts such as Clerical Coup it is then sourced.46.59.36.37 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:1 euro coin Va serie 3.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1 euro coin Va serie 3.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Government Type

In the box the government type is described as "Ecclesiastical sacerdotal monarchical", it's pretty obvious that you can't put three adjectives without a noun there so I'll change it to "Ecclesiastical sacerdotal absolute monarchy" as the website of the Vatican state says it is an absolute monarchy. What I wonder is: shouldn't theocracy be in there too?--Tomvasseur (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The punctuation indicates that the now three descriptions (ecclesiastical, sacerdotal-monarchical, absolute monarchy) are all derived from reliable sources. They should report the sources faithfully. The first two are adjectives qualifying the noun "type". Esoglou (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, but monarchical monarchy is a bit superfluous, "ecclesiastical, sacerdotal, absolute monarchy" should be enough. I don't think the source of sacerdotal-monarchical is misused by leaving out monarchical.--Tomvasseur (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Dependent territory?

Would it be useful to call the Vatican City a dependent territory of the Holy See? Or would that count as original research? Andrewgdotcom (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Vatican the largest spiritual state

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Vatican is by its territory the smallest state in the world, but has the largest spiritual territory.78.2.80.116 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A somewhat striking turn of phrase, but not an objective statement for insertion in the article. "Spiritual territory" can be seen as a contradiction in terms, and the spiritual allegiance referred to is not to the state but to the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the capital city of the Vatican?

If "capital city" means "the city where the seat of government is located", the Vatican's capital would be the city of Rome, isn't it? "Vatican City" is not an actual city, it's just the official name of the state. Yes, I am aware that this would be a unique case of a state being smaller than its capital city, but so what? Please consider changing the relevant information in the article. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't anybody going to comment on my proposal? The Vatican may be considered a "city-state", but there is no such city as "Vatican", there have never been any (separate) cities within Rome, before or after the Lateran Treaty. Doesn't it mean that the Vatican's capital city is Rome? If someone objects that Rome is an Italian (and therefore foreign) city, this is not true -- Rome is not entirely Italian, since a part of it belongs to another state. Please share your thoughts on the subject. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. A lot of it depends on how you define what a city is, which is surprisingly more complicated than it sounds. The administrative definition of Rome no doubt doesn't include the Vatican City, as it would be restricted to Italy. Anyway, if you can find any sources backing you on this, please present them. I think in the end we have to accept that the Vatican is a very sui generis state, and issues like this which would be clear for other countries aren't so in this case. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are talking about the Italian part of Rome, which definitely doesn't include the Vatican. But, in my opinion, Rome is (at least de-facto) a divided city, not unlike pre-1990 Berlin and pre-1967 Jerusalem -- politically it belongs to two different states, but geographically it is still a single city, of which the Vatican is clearly a part. And when explaining what city is the capital of some state, we usually mean the geographical concept, don't we? Of course, when talking about the city itself, we switch to the administrative definition, and in a case of a divided city these are two different things. As a compromise we could say that the Vatican's capital is "Vatican's part of Rome", but isn't it redundant? I'm sorry I don't have any sources backing this idea, but it just seems logical. And let's not forget, the Vatican is the center of the ROMAN Catholicism :) 88.203.176.7 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Vatican City is the seat of government of the Holy See. It should be noted that the Holy See posseses several extra-territorial polities outside of Vatican City and also claims soveriegnty over some minor portions of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Thus i would assume that Vatican City is the capital of the Holy See but that the state of Vatican City itself has no capital.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Vatican and the Holy See are two different things -- the first one is a political entity (a state), and the second one is a religious institution, so the seat of government of the Vatican cannot be the Holy See. But, as a state, the Vatican does have its seat of government, and it is located in a part of the (geographical) city of Rome. So, if we must say in which city the Vatican's government is located (in other words, what city is its capital), the answer should be Rome in my opinion. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The usual assumption is that a country is far more extensive than any of its individual cities, towns, lakes, parks or what have you. That assumption holds true in 99.99% of cases. But not in this case. This country has no cities that are in any sense different things from the country itself. It is its own city, and its own capital city. There are arrangements and agreements about how the relationship between the city of Rome (and the nation of Italy more generally) and the Vatican City is to be conducted. None of which makes the city of Rome a part of the Vatican City or vice-versa. The Vatican City is as separate from Rome as the Sahara Desert is, for the purposes we're talking about. Imo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Does making a part of a city foreign territory remove this part from the city geographically? Of course not -- the city remains a single geographical object (although it's administratively divided). For example, a foreign embassy in London is, technically, a foreign territory -- does this mean the embassy in question is not in London? The same applies to the Vatican -- it is definitely within the (geographical!!!) city of Rome, without being part of Italy. This is possible, because Rome itself is a divided city! I never said Rome (as a whole) is part of the Vatican, but the other way round is actually true -- the Vatican is definitely a part of (not the Italian, but the geographical) Rome. Please, read my previous thoughts on the matter as well. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Embassies aren't foreign territory, they remain under the ultimate sovereignty of the state they're in. What is a geographical city? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A city is a geographical object that will still exist even if the state controlling it disappeared or were replaced by another state. And Rome is a perfect example for this -- it has been a part of many different countries through the centuries. From a purely geographical point of view, Rome is, and has always been, a single city, regardless of the current political/administrative situation. The same was true for other divided cities in the past, like pre-1990 Berlin and pre-1967 Jerusalem -- you don't think West Berlin was a separate city, do you? The correct way of addressing the issue, in my opinion, would be saying that the capital of Italy is the Italian part of Rome, and the capital (seat of government) of the Vatican is the Vatican part of Rome. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a lot of fuss about just nothing. As if the Vatican City State must necessarily have a "capital city"! Esoglou (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article says that the Vatican's capital is "Vatican City", which is definitely not correct -- there is no such city, it's just the official name of the state. And every sovereign state must have a capital city (the seat of its government), otherwise it's not really sovereign. 88.203.176.7 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nauru doesn't have an official capital. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

88.203.176.7, sovereign countries can do whatever they like about their seats of government and all the rest, without it having any implications for their sovereignty. Your "every sovereign state must have a capital city (the seat of its government), otherwise it's not really sovereign" is the wildest OR on your part.

The main question here is really a semantic issue. Is Lesotho "a part of" South Africa, or is it "within" South Africa? Is the Australian Capital Territory "a part of" New South Wales, or is it "within" NSW? I prefer the latter wording in both cases. You could say Vatican City is "a part of" Rome but you'd have to qualify that statement by saying it's true only geographically speaking, not administratively speaking. Because if you don't add that qualification, you're misleading people. Far better not to go there at all; it's within Rome - simple, concise, accurate, not misleading. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@User:Chipmunkdavis Actually you are incorrect, Embassies and to an extent Consulate Generals ARE considered to be sovereign land, for example if you were to enter the American Embassy in Ottawa, Canada under the diplomatic agreement between Canada and the United States, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa is legally considered to be American soil and vice-versa with the Canadian Embassy in Washington D.C. That's why there is such a fuss in the United Kingdom over Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who is hold up inside of the Ecuador Embassy in London, there is a warrant for his arrest regarding the release of classified U.S. Government documents and a charge of rape in Sweden however Scotland Yard and other International law enforcement agencies cannot legally enter the Ecuadorian Embassy because of the sovereignty agreement between the United Kingdom and Ecuador. The U.K.'s Home Secretary and Prime Minister have threatened to revoke Ecuador's diplomatic status and storm the embassy to arrest Assange however UK officials back off after a backlash over the threat occurred. Hope this information help. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

US Embassies are "legally" US soil. They remain fully the territory of the host nation, but with special diplomatic privileges and exemptions. It is a very common myth that "Embassies" are sovereign territory, but it is the diplomatic mission mission that holds these privileges, and these privileges are not tied to anyone site. Embassy buildings are routinely bought and sold to meet the needs of the diplomatic mission. (http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/places/170537.htm) --Zfish118 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Vatican City does not have any cities, incorporated or otherwise, within its borders; it therefore does not have a "capital city" per se. Colloquially, it is certainly part of Rome. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive Request

I think that this talk page needs to start being archived as the length of the page is getting long. So can someone please start archiving this talk page. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Protest!

Think of "Habemus papam"! Latin is spoken in Vatican City. --80.108.185.49 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

So is English, and German, and French, and Spanish, and ... The official documents of the state are all in Italian. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mafia "boss" was buried along with the Popes

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Italian criminal Enrico De Pedis, killed 1990th the calculation of the mafia, was buried along with some of the Popes in St. Apollinare`s Basilic. The body of the "boss", suspected of having links with the masonic lodge P2 and the Vatican Banking was exhumated and he, in consultation with the family, buried in a Roman cemetery. The affair was discovered and resolved at the initiative of the Vatican.78.2.93.78 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Vatican City State, not about the Basilica of Saint Apollinare, wherever it is. Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wine consumption (under Culture)

Previously this article contained a calculation of crime rate in Vatican City in relation to its minute population, which presented a distorted picture of that population. Now someone has added a calculation of wine consumption in Vatican City in relation to its population. I think this also gives a false picture. For one thing, much of the wine is consumed by people having their meals at the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Esoglou (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. 59 liter per year makes less than 0,2 liters per day, that is a glass. Considering that the tiny population is made of adults, this is quite low, at least in Italy, where drinking some wine during meals is part of our culture since thousands of years. Moreover, if I can add something personal, each time that I had meals in a monastery, (red) wine was on the table. Anyway, I doubt that this info can be considered as notable and, if yes, I would rephrase it. The agenda behind it is quite obvious. Alex2006 (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert of my edit

Hi Chipmunkdavis (talk), my edit was sourced, via Wikipedia (only citing area figure). As for being arbitrary, is there some rule against that? Can't an editor use a self-chosen comparison and point out an interesting fact? Disneyland is an internationally known tourist destination, and pointing out that fact that the Vatican is smaller than even an amusement park, isn't that useful and interesting? I will revert your revert for now, until I understand your reasoning, and unless discussion among the community agrees with your POV. Thanks. Mistakefinder (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the comparison between Vatican City and Disneyland, as of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples (Geographical bias). As Italian (and Roman), this comparison is meaningless to me, and to all the people who never visited Disneyland. Anyway, I think that an (unbiased, that is not southern Californian centric :-)) hint about the real size of the state could be useful. N.B. for Mistakefinder: a basic rule of Wikipedia is that one cannot use a Wikipedia article as source/reference for another article. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Never source from wikipedia, it's not at all a reliable source (WP:CIRCULAR). As Alessandro57 says, that comparison will be meaningless to anyone who hasn't gone to disneyland. There's no rule against arbitrary information per se, but there is a sense of when information is Due or Undue. A comparison to an amusement park is undue, as there is no discernable reason why the Vatican should be compared to amusement parks, and no reason at all to pick an individual one. There are tons of things it could be compared to, but individuals can just do that themselves by simply comparing at area figures. CMD (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Although, reading the news coming from oltretevere on these days, such a comparison is not totally out of place :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How about I just point out, instead of specifically Disneyland, that it's smaller than many theme parks? The point is that it's so small that it's smaller than such entities (theme parks, parks, etc) that are smaller than cities? It is smaller than Central Park in New York and Griffith Park in Los Angeles too. I think the the average person does't have a good sense of area size unless we compare it to a place people can relate to, and I know this is true talking to various friends, for example, when I mentioned 20 acres and he had no idea how big that is. Alex2006, what's oltretevere? Is it the Youtube show about "settimanale di informazione"? Mistakefinder (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We should find an entity which is known to all the mankind, then one could use it in the article. Oltretevere ("behind the Tiber") is an Italian synonymous for the Vatican. The reason for it is that most of the center of Rome (with the Italian parliament, the seat of the President, and so on) lies on the left bank of the river, while only the Vatican (and Trastevere, which belongs to Italy and whose name is incidentally a corruption of Transtiberim, which means oltretevere in Latin) lie of the right bank. Alex2006 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to find an entity known to all of "mankind". That requires you to survey everyone on earth whether he/she has knowledge of it. Originally I only used Disneyland since I thought it's a world-renowned amusement park (which I doubt many would disagree). Anyway, is the rule of thumb that basically we shouldn't draw a comparison to something else in an article? I've revised my language to compare with only the city of Rome, and express that it's smaller than many towns, amusement parks, and parks. I'll post that now. Is it then at least appropriate to put the comparison to Disneyland or any specific place in the reference note? Mistakefinder (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As "universally known" I meant an object, as for example a football field (with the appropriate multiplication factor), so that people can have a rough idea of Vatican's area. And please forget this story of Disneyland and amusement parks that, beside being senseless, could also hurt the sensibility of some (over sensible) Catholic. About Disneyland, again, it can be world famous, but here in Europe almost none has an idea about its area. Finally, please read the WP:NOR guideline. Alex2006 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If we can forget about Disneyland comparisons for a minute, I think that Alex2006 observation about Trastevere, right bank, etc. go under "Geography" somewhere with an appropriate reliable citation. But not the other bank! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't think that Trastevere and Vatican have much in common, besides being placed on the same bank of the river... Alex2006 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

One quote was "Oltretevere ('behind the Tiber') is an Italian synonymous for the Vatican." The other was "only the Vatican .... a corruption of Transtiberim, which means oltretevere in Latin) lie [on] the right bank." This seems like geography. Not sure which is which, though. If it is factual it should be under "geography" subsection, with proper citation. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The remarks about "oltretevere" (beyond, rather than behind, the Tiber) and Trastevere are best forgotten. "Oltretevere" is a still recent Italian term, almost slang in character, to mean "the Vatican" in all senses, especially in the sense of "Holy See". Trastevere is an official district ("rione") of Rome situated south and southeast of the Borgo (rione of Rome), of which Vatican City would be part, if it weren't a separate state. Esoglou (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% about the not notability of the two terms. Just a little remark: "Oltretevere" is not that recent, since it was born with the Italian conquest of Rome in 1870, and became since then a common term in the Italian political literature to denote the Holy See. Alex2006 (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. From a certain perspective, 1870 is "still recent", even if not simply "recent". Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Name

The name of The Vatican City State should also be given in Latin. Other language Wikipedia pages do.

Ybgursey (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Italian of "Holy See" should also be given.

Ybgursey (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not one law or regulation of Vatican City State has been issued in Latin, so why give in Latin the name of Vatican City State, any more than the name of the Italian state? Latin can be considered the official language of the Holy See, which publishes official documents in many languages, including Italian, but why choose to give the name in Italian rather than, say, Chinese, or rather than French, which is the official diplomatic language of the Holy See? Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Definite article

If Vatican City doesn't require a definite article, does Vatican City State need one? I wonder if List of Sovereigns of the Vatican City State should be re-named. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that, while "the Vatican City state" requires the definite artice, "Vatican City State" (the combination of all three words forming a proper name and therefore capitalized) should not have the definite article. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion as to whether a definite article is required for (the) Vatican City? I had never come across it without the definite article until now and the first relevant book I have to hand, the Blue Guide to Central Italy, uses it. Is this a difference between British and American usage and if so, should this be noted in the lede? Ham (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that you never before came across "Vatican City" without the definite article. Among the very many sources that use it without the article is the state's own website, which on this page says: "Vatican City lies just beyond the right bank of the Tiber River ..." and "Vatican City mints its own coins and issues its own postage stamps." The same page also repeatedly uses "Vatican City State" without the article. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a body of opinion online in favour of using the definite article but not from any source as authorit"ative as the Vatican's official website, unfortunately, and the Economist style guide and Fowler's Modern English Usage are silent on the matter. I swear it's idiomatic usage in Britain though! If only I had a subscription to the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers & Editors, as they would have examples of sentences using the phrase. (As, I suppose, would the complete Oxford English Dictionary.) You'll have to believe me that there is a native English speaker who finds it jarring to follow the pattern of New York City et al. rather than la città del Vaticano! Still, nothing I can do about it until I find a firm source. Ham (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you think of "London Town" (not "the London Town"), it would be helpful for overcoming your dislike of "Vatican City", "New York City" et al. And there's the song: "As I went out by Dublin City at the hour of 12 at night ..." Indeed, I have difficulty in thinking of any English usage of "the Dublin City" or "the London City/Town" or the like. The Italian usage is "la città di Londra", "la città di Nuova York", "la città dell'Aia" (the Hague), "la città della Pieve", etc. But that's not English. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There should be a definite article before Vatican City. It's unnatural in English to omit this. The comparisons with London Town and Dublin City are misleading as London and Dublin are nouns, Vatican is an adjective. We have the same problem with people recently saying in Czech Republic or in Central African Republic. The definite article is definitely needed here. Even if people are unaware of the correct usage of English, its clumsy sound without the definite article should alert them to the fact it's wrong. Using the example of the country's website is hardly compelling. The Vatican City is hardly an authority on the English language. I'm off to Netherlands now. Do you remember life in Soviet Union? It's very green in Irish Republic. Wikipedia's sometimes odd perversions of the English langauge and disregard for its usage in reality are legendary and, quite frankly, exasperating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomani9 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GDP Per capita

How much money does the Vatican make a year? --108.92.162.111 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Camerlengo and Sede Vacante

Note: In the Holy See, and also in the State of Vatican City, the Camerlengo is the acting of the Pope, role he performs with the support of the College of Cardinals. So I believe is right to keep, in the template of the page, the voice 'Camerlengo of Holy Roman Church'. --Arzino (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In an edit summary, you gave a link to the Italian version of the regulations on the vacancy of the Apostolic See. Here is a link to the English version. That states: "23. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, all the civil power of the Supreme Pontiff concerning the government of Vatican City State belongs to the College of Cardinals, which however will be unable to issue decrees except in cases of urgent necessity and solely for the time in which the Holy See is vacant. Such decrees will be valid for the future only if the new Pope confirms them." It gives the Camerlengo no power of governance over Vatican City State, unless you count the authority that is given to him, along with others, to make ready the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the residence of the conclave cardinals, and the Sistine Chapel, where they vote (13c of the document). Has there been confusion between the Holy See and Vatican City State? Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Am I not right in thinking that the coat of arms on this page is incorrect due to sede vacante? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.196 (talk • contribs)

Again confusion between the Holy See and Vatican City State. See Coats of arms of the Holy See and Vatican City. Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What part do women play in the Vatican government?

And what role has the Vatican played on women's issues - I read somewhere they vetoed UN propositions (March conference of the UN commission?) on various African topics including education for young girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.85.21.66 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Title of this discussion does not agree with text. You might want a different title or another discussion.

Answering the text, the Vatican is an observer to the UN. It can't "veto" anything. However, there is this regarding a declaration of rights. Of course, the Catholic Church does not view the rights of the unborn as unimportant. Didn't look at article closely enough to understand why vote had to be unanimous. This is just a UN declaration. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Theocracy

This form of government may seem apparent to a casual observer. However, a review of the article Theocracy suggests something else entirely. The pope does not claim to receive messages from God on how to punish people who spit on the sidewalk (or whatever). The government is pretty much secular, slightly more religious than Salt Lake City, but way less than Iran. I think elected monarchy more appropriately defines the form of government. Student7 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The description is sourced; but the source admits that its description is not universally accepted. Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions on the banking scandal germane to this article

1. The Institute for the Works of Religion ("Vatican Bank") is not owned by the Vatican. Yet it is in Vatican City. What is it's status there? A paying tenant?  :)
2. The head of the bank was arrested by Italy. Did the Vatican yield up the CEO? What was the judicial process under which Italy (and not the Vatican) tries this man. (A good idea IMO, but that is beside the point here). Student7 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Placing perps in jail?

• 1) I don't think "jail" is the issue here. If you have a perp, you have to do something with him. Is there an Italian vehicle "standing by" for just this purpose. Is the perp brought into a room and "watched" until he can be turned over? What if he is nuts and tries to smash furniture? Or people?
• 2) There is a lot we don't quite understand about the judicial process in Vatican City.
• 3) The Lateran Treaty is a WP:PRIMARY document. We avoid quoting from primary documents.
• 4) The Lateran Treaty I am looking at is in English. This seems suspicious since the two parties spoke Italian normally. I assume it is a translation. Indeed the original may use the word "punito" or somesuch. It will turn out that the word may mean "punish" or "prosecute" and several other meanings, just like in English. It's much clearer in Italian. Not necessarily clear in English . Or correct.
• 5) Suppose two women are "groped" during a mass audience with the pope. One looks for a policeman while the other keeps an eye on the perp. When the first gets back, the guard arrests the perp and takes the witnesses with him. Subsequently, it turns out, that woman B had her eye on the wrong guy and the perp, who is without a record, is released. He is not "punished." The Italian criminal justice system has decided not to prosecute him, the proper term, which is in the WP:SECONDARY citation. Student7 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Vatican City has its own courts. It doesn't have to hand people over to the Italian authorities for crimes committed in Vatican City, but if a perpetrator leaves Vatican territory for that of Italy, Italy has the right to try him for the crime committed in Vatican City (article 22 of the treaty), in which case there is no handing over.
2. That's no reason for making unsourced statements about it.
3. Read this: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
4. To get the original text of the treaty, just go to the Wikipedia article about it. There you will find a link to the text. And you will see that article 22 says: "A richiesta della Santa Sede ... l’Italia provvederà nel suo territorio alla punizione dei delitti che venissero commessi nella Città del Vaticano". "Punizione" does not mean "prosecution".
5. You are supposing that the groper has left Vatican City for Italian territory, since you are picturing the accusation being presented before the Italian authorities. Article 22 of the treaty says that, in that case, it's for them, not for the Vatican City authorities, to try the case. The secondary source to which you refer (the second of two) states, in full agreement with the treaty, that Vatican City law "permits Italian courts to prosecute certain criminal acts committed in the city state". Read the source attentively: it doesn't say: "all criminal acts committed in the city state". If, on the contrary, someone is convicted by a Vatican City court, and if the Holy See requests that he be punished in Italian territory, Italy is obliged by article 22 of the treaty to accept the request. In 1929 the penalty for some crimes could have been, not a jail term, but capital punishment, and the Holy See would have been unlikely to want it inflicted in Vatican City. This may even be the reason for including this provision in article 22 of the treaty. Today there is no such penalty in Vatican City law. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, I inserted the italian original of the treaties. The incriminated :-) word is "punizione", which must be translated as punishment, not prosecution. In fact, "Punire" means "punish", while if we translate it as "prosecute" we introduce an ambiguity. The translation of "prosecute" in Italian is "perseguire". "Perseguire qualcuno" can mean either "agire penalmente contro qualcuno" (penally act against someone => go on trial against someone) or "punire qualcuno" (punish someone => give a punishment at the end of the trial). Alex2006 (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Natural bodies of water? Greatest well?

Are there any natural bodies of water in Vatican City (ponds, creeks)?

And if not, what is the "greatest" well in Vatican City (water surface, not depth)? According to the country's map on this page it could be the Eagle Fountain. I ask this because I want to know what's the greatest water body in Vatican City.--31.17.153.69 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be no well, certainly none in use. The ornamental fountains, such as the one you mention, are doubtless fed by the general water supply coming from outside. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

To complete this info, the water for the Vatican Fountains (included the two in Saint Peter's Square) comes from the Acqua Paola aqueduct, which originates from Lake Bracciano, northwest of Rome. It is also interesting to notice that under one of the "annexes" of Vatican City, the Palazzo della Cancelleria, flows the Euripus channel, a Campus Martius creek which was regimented by the Romans and only recently rediscovered. Alex2006 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Public/visitor access

Hi, I would like to see more information in this article about public/visitor access to Vatican City territory (all aspects generally of this topic). Presently there seems to be almost no information, save a buried note that visitors are not normally permitted to drive. 86.160.222.175 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You can enter St Peter's Square by just walking across the white line of demarcation, and can even have one leg in Vatican City and the other in the Italian Republic. You can enter the extensive Vatican Museums on one day in the month without even paying the entrance fee required on other days. You can go to other parts, if you have business there. But perhaps it is enough to add, as I have now done, an explicit statement that there are no passport controls. Esoglou (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand that some buildings are open to the public, normally with an entrance fee. I understand that other buildings are obviously private, and that the gardens are normally private but with some guided tours available. That leaves the thoroughfares between buildings, to the east (i.e. not the gardens). Can visitors freely walk along those? If so, is that access available 24 hours a day, or are the "gates closed" at night? 81.159.107.100 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can go into the few short narrow streets to the east (inside Saint Anne's Gate) - "thoroughfare" is far too grandiose a term for them - but only if you have business there (for instance, going to the offices of L'Osservatore Romano to purchase photographs or on other business). You cannot go there merely to nosey around. If curious crowds could just walk in, those with business to do might have difficulty in getting through! People going from Saint Peter's Square to the Vatican Museums would also mistakenly take the first entrance they meet on their way, which is Saint Anne's Gate, getting confused themselves and interfering with others as well.

Yes, the gates are closed at night: there would no business for outsiders there at night. Esoglou (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Are there guards at the entrance(s) to the "on business only" streets checking people's credentials then? Also, do people freely go through one (or more) main gates into The Vatican on their way to the public buildings (e.g. museums), but are stopped if they try to veer off the route to the public buildings into the side streets? Or is the entrance to the "on business only" streets actually a "guarded" main gate into The Vatican, with the way into museums etc. via some other special dedicated entrance? 31.53.244.242 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We have drifted away from discussing improvements of the article, which is what this talk page is for, but I will answer just once more. Look at the image "An entrance to Vatican City from Italy". Now, in your imagination, go to the guard in blue standing in the middle of the entrance. Tell him where you need to go. He will direct you. Of course, his direction may be: "There is no such place in the Vatican." Or it may be: "Just continue along this wall on my left until you come to the entrance to the museums" (which are entered only from outside the Vatican, not from within). Or he may direct you to whatever place within that you need to go to. You will then see that in the three dead-end streets, all of them side streets and none of them more than about 200 metres long, there are just a few entrances to workplaces, no display windows, and only rarely some wheeled traffic. Look at the image "Map of the Vatican City State". You will find that the total area of the streets and their buildings is much smaller than that of Saint Peter's Square. It is hard to see why anyone would want to "veer" in so limited and uninteresting an area instead of just doing what you have come to do.

If, as an accredited scholar, you have obtained a permit to do research in the Vatican Library or the Vatican Archives, you will show the guard your permit and be directed onward to the building that also houses the museums. It won't enter the head of a serious scholar like you to walk purposelessly into those side streets, of which you see quite enough as you walk past them. Esoglou (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. My intention is to insert a couple of sentences into the article to explain this aspect. If you could check the following for errors or important omissions I would be most grateful:

Free public access is permitted to St Peter's Square. Certain buildings, such as St. Peter's Basilica, the Vatican Museums and the Sistine Chapel are open to vistors, usually on payment of an entrance fee. There is no general public access to the gardens, though guided tours are available to limited numbers. Access to other parts of Vatican City is restricted to those with legitimate business there.

86.160.209.34 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is free public access to Saint Peter's Square and Basilica and, on the occasion of papal general audiences, to the hall in which they are held. For these audiences and for major ceremonies in Saint Peter's Basilica and Square, tickets free of charge must be obtained beforehand. The Vatican Museums, incorporating the Sistine Chapel, usually charge an entrance fee. Guided tours for small groups can be arranged to the excavations under the basilica and the gardens. Other places are open to individuals who have business to transact there. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 81.159.104.199 (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Demonym is Vaticani

As cited from this Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Vatican_City therewillbehotcake (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As if "Italiani" too were an English demonym. Esoglou (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

/* World War II */ Germany occupied Rome?

A citation is needed for the claim that Germany occupied Rome. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship

Citizenship section needs some serious updating. I checked the source again after editing the detail relating to the population of lay people and according to the Vatican's site the population and demographics have changed since last edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.12.154 (talk • contribs)

Afd

There is an Afd on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution involving Vatican City. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)