Talk:Vatican City/Archive 1

Population by Gender
The article seems to contain neither of the substrings "wom" & "fem", and contains "male" only in connection with the Swiss Guard. I suggest that it should state the approximate numbers of male and female residents and citizens in the [authorised] population, even if the latter be zero. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:RS that reports a census by sex? I don't. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Women Suffrage
I reverted an edit about women suffrage at Vatican City. Vatican is a state ruled by an absolute monarch, and neither men nor women have the right to vote (actually, they have no political right at all). Morevoer, the author of the article makes a mistake when it cites as example the cardinals electing the Pope in the Conclave, since they are not Vatican citizens, unless they live in Rome or in Vatican City. Alex2006 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, You undid my edit on voting in the Vatican City and I don't think your reasoning is correct. Your reasoning: "Vatican is a state ruled by an absolute monarch, and neither men nor women have the right to vote". This is false. See the Wikipedia page for Vatican City, it states "The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy" the key word being elective. The Cardinals do vote and elect the head of state, and Cardinals can only be men under the structure of the Catholic Church. Citizenship here is not the issue, since citizenship in Vatican City is not required for choosing it's head of state. The issue is that only men are allowed to vote in the election, while women are specifically banned. It is important to consider the Vatican City State as an internationally recognized independent state here. I would consider moving my edit to a different place in the page, but I do think it is important information that needs to be in the article and have already considered my placement carefully. I will wait for your response before reverting my edit. I appreciate you leaving your reason on my talk page so we can discuss what is best. Flessner89 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you are mixing several things together. No election has ever taken place in Vatican City. The Pope's election by the Cardinals is the election of the bishop of Rome, who is the chief of the Holy See. It is the Holy See, through the figure of the Pope, which has full sovereignty above Vatican City. It is the Catholic (that is, universal) church which elects his chief, and this explains why the Vatican Citizenship is not an issue in this context. In fact, besides the few Cardinals living in Vatican city or in Rome, no Cardinal is a Vatican Citizen. But Vatican City is a state, altough of a very special type and with a limited sovereignty, and this is the context of this article. In this context, some women do live in the state, and we are interested to know whether they have voting right or no, exctly like italian women in Italy or American women in the U.S.. Well, the answer is no, but this has nothing to do with their Vatican citizenship. They cannot elect the Pope since they are not part of the church organization, which is an ecclesiastic organization made by men who are ordered priest (and then maybe reach the cardinalate). Anyway, exactly the same applies for the men who are Vatican Citizen and are not priests ("laici"). I repeat, here you are mixing contexts: your reasoning is: since the pope is elected by the cardinals and the cardinals are only men, then the women in Vatican City have no voting right. But no catholic woman wherever she lives in the world has voting right concerning any decisions inside the catholic church, not just the women living in Vatican city. And, as I wrote above, in Vatican neither men nor women have whatsoever rights. A second problem of your edit is the source: one sentence in an article on a newspaper about women rights in Saudi Arabia cannot be defined exactly as a RS to support your  assertion, which is quite strong. Alex2006 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I attended the Good Friday Service at a popular and very busy Basilica in our Canadian city. There must have been about 900 people in attendance, many more than usual, as the church was filled and there were about 100 more in the lower chapel, faithful who were watching the Service on a screen.

It seemed to take as much time for veneration of the cross as it took for the rest of the Service. There is likely a very special significance to having just one cross venerated on Good Friday, in each church, but it seems logical and sensible to utilize, perhaps, three crosses, one for each isle and even a fourth in the lower chapel, and when there is such a large crowd in attendance. Also, parking in that particular area is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.136.7 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Link to Vatican telephone service
A link to the Vatican telephone service could be used in the communications section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzmann2002 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 April 2015‎

Latin in infobox
We have a note which explains that the Vatican City State uses Italian and the Holy See uses Latin. Sigehelmus is insisting on inserting Latin into the infobox header, trying to justify this with a note that states, "..this name is used in official documents by not just the Holy See (distinct from the Vatican City State), but in most official Church and Papal documents." As the note (and the editor) acknowledges that Latin is not used by the Vatican City, why is this relevant to the infobox? The Vatican City is distinct from the Holy See and the Roman Curia. Even with the note, this will be confusing for readers.

Can I have some clarification and/or agreement for removing the Latin name? -- HazhkTalk 10:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the discussion. :) I may have worded it wrong. Even though officially Latin is not used in the City-State in the same way as the Holy See, leaving only the Italian translation can also mislead readers to believe Italian, English, etc are only used there even in documents, and the average reader will still tend to confuse the two entities of the Vatican City State and Holy See together even after reading the article (even I do!). I believe the note therefore kills two birds with one stone with the clarification in a concise manner, and instead of removing it any help in clarity would be appreciated and help the article overall.--Sigehelmus (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted your edit is because countless editors have attempted to insert "Latin" as an official language and push for the Latin name to be included in the lead. We already have a note concisely explaining that Latin is used by the Holy See ("the Vatican") but not the Vatican City State.
 * I feel your edits are even more confusing for readers, who may be wondering why we show a Latin name in the lead and then go on to explain that Latin is not an official language in the Vatican City. I understand why you are trying to include the Latin name, and I do not intend to personally criticise you - but this is an issue that has been raised many times and the clear consensus is to display only Italian as the official language (since Latin isn't an official language) and, as per the standard for country articles, only show names in the official language(s).--HazhkTalk 22:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See, for example, some of the discussions in the archives of this talk page: Talk:Vatican_City/Archive_2. -- HazhkTalk 22:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, well in this case I believe that the Latin name does have a novel and notable use and is cited in these three links (two encyclopedia-like, one book, from simple web search):
 * http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/vatican.htm
 * http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/Europeweb/snapshot/Vatican.htm
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=Lzi4N-74QmAC&pg=PA718&lpg=PA718&dq=status+civitatis+vaticanae&source=bl&ots=H-KagM3iNK&sig=flCR4GA3u6y57NKyrYCwFVZYRI0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=POBbVfLXKbDnsATzqYDQCA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=status%20civitatis%20vaticanae&f=false
 * Perhaps COMPROMISE could apply here? :)--Sιgε &#124;д･) 01:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources you provide are obscure and not authoritative. Latin isn't an official language, so the Latin name should not be displayed prominantly in the lead or infobox. I don't see what can be compromised on here. -- HazhkTalk 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, obscure? Well there are political entities that do not have an official language for a particular language that show translations in at least the main body, such as Lombardy. Also there are many that have none at all that rely on de facto languages such as America itself. I would say the Vatican City does have a de facto reliance as Latin, as the nation often works syncretically with the Holy See as one body. What I mean by compromise maybe is that the infobox translation be removed, but kept in the main? After all, Latin is a confusing language and the City State is oft-referred as Status Civitatis Vaticanae in Papal documents.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a compromise could be creating an "etymology" or "name" section (a section commonly found in other country articles) telling the reader why the state is named the 'Vatican City' and explaining that the official name is in Italian yet Catholic Church documents also use Latin. It would be an expansion of the note you added. It's a confusing situation, since the Vatican City State is legally distinct from the Holy See/Catholic Church, yet inseparable linked at the same time. -- HazhkTalk 16:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds good! Try that so I know what you're talking about, seems interesting.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 17:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started the section. You may want to expand the second paragraph. -- HazhkTalk 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, I just did some minor work for now and removed the Latin name from the infobox. Is that OK? I need to look up ome more information to see if I can add anything else to the section.--Sιgε &#124;д･) 21:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I lived at least 30 years in Italy, I have been several times in Vatican in contact with the administrative offices and it is really strange to me that Latin is not considered official language. Any official document is in Latin, also in the administrative offices. Instead there is no one saying that Italian is official too. So I suggest to do what is done in the Italian article where Latin and Italian are considered official languages. In addition I have not understood the difference between Holy See and Vatican City. I understood what you mean but the Vatican merges the religious hierarchy with the administrative one, the main body of the administration is the Roman Curia and the Roman Curia uses Latin. The two are the same, it's really strange to me to know that they have to be split. --Ilario (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Latin Language
Sorry, I add again Latin and Italian as done in every other articles in other languages in Wikipedia.

Vatican City does not have an official language because it has not a constitution but the executive body publishes the law in the Acta Apostolicae sedis and these documents are in Italian and in Latin. It's sufficient to open some of them to find that both languages are used an example except when there is an international agreement. Please don't read a single page but scroll down the documents.

The same Pope uses Latin for official documents (for instance to nominate members of the ecclesiastic hierarchy or members of the administration) and the Pope is the head of state of the Vatican City. Benedict XVI resigned with this official document. Even if we consider them documents of the Holy See, they have a value also in the organization of the Vatican State.

I would add that the document considered as main source for Italian language as single official language has been substituted by December 31, 2008 with this new document, please read the abstract of this document.

Anyway I am an Italian speaker and I have not found any mention to use only Italian in the paragraph 2 of the Legge sulle fonti del diritto of 7 June 1929 neither in the seven paragraphs of the new Legge sulle fonti del diritto [.

It remains clear that at the moment the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" continues to publish official documents in Italian and in Latin. --Ilario (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I came here at Ilario's suggestion. I'd say it is certainly true and not controversial that Latin continues to be an official language of the Catholic church and therefore of the Vatican.
 * Encyclicals and other public documents are in Latin, and are cited by their first Latin words (as they have been for centuries). The latest is Pope Francis's Lumen fidei. The text is available on the Vatican website in several languages -- the others are official languages of various countries, but Latin is in the list because it is an official language of the Vatican. As can be seen here, Lumen fidei is the title because these are the first words of the Latin text -- in ways like this Latin functions as the first official language of the Vatican. Another example: the choice of a new Pope is publicly announced in Latin (and not in Italian or other languages). Andrew Dalby 15:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see the countless past discussions; the Holy See ("the Vatican") is distinct from the Vatican City, which is an independent state. Functions like the announcement of a new pope, or papal documents, or Vatican documents, are not directly related to the Vatican City. The Acta Apostolicae Sedis, like many other "Vatican" documents, is the official gazette of the Holy See/Vatican. Certainly the Catholic Church hierarchy and the Vatican City are inseparably linked, which is why Latin is so prevalent in the Vatican City and institutions based in the state, but this does not make Latin an official language. --Hazhk (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Vatican City map EN.png to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vatican City map EN.png will be appearing as picture of the day on August 7, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-08-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vatican City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120724044228/http://www.bartleby.com:80/65/va/Vatican.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/va/Vatican.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Condoms/birth control
Can you buy condoms and birth control in Vatican City? 24.51.217.118 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2015
the current Official Website link (for Vatican City's English website) is incorrect, and presents the following error: "Not Found The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it." The correct website is: http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html

Wishinoo (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changes have been made.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vatican City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524030947/http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/StateDepartments/index.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/StateDepartments/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reichskonkordat
Um guys.... Anyone heard of a thing called the Reichskonkordat? 86.31.170.104 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course. The holy See, starting with that of Worms, has signed several treaties with European states. Usually they are signed with states having a strong Catholic component. Alex2006 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Walls
Searching "wall" gives 11 results for this article. Could we have a section or article that discusses the walls in more detail? Would this be more appropriate for Geography of Vatican City? I'm not sure if structures count as part of geography or not. It's only mentioned there once so there seems to be less to go on. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 one external links on Vatican City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140523225206/http://www.cathnews.com/news/707/76.php to http://www.cathnews.com/news/707/76.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413183255/http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2007/0723/carbon072307.shtml to http://www.wcr.ab.ca/news/2007/0723/carbon072307.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413171103/http://www.ethicalcorp.com/environment/dangers-lurk-offset-investments: to http://www.ethicalcorp.com/environment/dangers-lurk-offset-investments:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081108134258/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/Monuments/The_Vatican_Gardens/ to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/Monuments/The_Vatican_Gardens/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313165610/http://www.chivalricorders.org:80/vatican/pplcourt.htm to http://www.chivalricorders.org/vatican/pplcourt.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071211020340/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/State_and_Government/History/Vatican_City_today.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/History/Vatican_City_today.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121225094441/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/IT/Servizi/Direzione_SdS_VVFF/corpo_della_gendarmeria.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/IT/Servizi/Direzione_SdS_VVFF/corpo_della_gendarmeria.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071023001945/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Gendarme_Corps.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Gendarme_Corps.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071023001914/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Administrations_and_Central_Offices.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/Structure_Governorate/Administrations_and_Central_Offices.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090521105212/http://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk:80/resources/en/news/2007/4485113/gregorian to http://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/news/2007/4485113/gregorian
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100710054455/http://www.vaticanstate.va:80/EN/State_and_Government/Internationalrelations/Participation_with_international_Organizations.htm to http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/State_and_Government/Internationalrelations/Participation_with_international_Organizations.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110623221238/http://www.zenit.org/article-31900?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-31900?l=english
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120822001817/http://www.vatican.va:80/vatican_city_state/legislation/documents/scv_doc_20001126_legge-fondamentale-scv_it.html to http://www.vatican.va/vatican_city_state/legislation/documents/scv_doc_20001126_legge-fondamentale-scv_it.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081210073743/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-h/holy-see-vatican-city.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-h/holy-see-vatican-city.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

GDP?
So, what is the GDP.LeadSongDog come howl!  19:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017
The area says "Total 0.44 km2 (0 sq mi)" but it should be 0.17 sq mi. Schemetrical (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Information.svg - The problem appears to be that Template:Infobox country automatically calculates the sq mi from the km2 and rounds to the nearest whole number, which in this case is 0 - whoever designed that infobox parameter didn't think of the problems with such a small country. I have tried adding the "area_sq_mi" parameter, but although a valid parameter, this doesn't show. I will ask elsewhere - Arjayay (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor has already raised this at Template talk:Infobox country - but I suspect that that talk page may have relatively few regular readers. If there is no response within a day or two I will ask elsewhere - Arjayay (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be with the use of Convinfobox. I'll comment over on Template talk:Infobox country.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Should be good now  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations of the Holy See
The Lead describes the Holy See as being "the only entity of public international law that has diplomatic relations with almost every country in the world." That doesn't seem to be cited anywhere and seems excessively vague (how many countries do you need to have diplomatic relations with to count as "almost every"?). It also seems like if true it would be a piece of random trivia about a related entity rather than about Vatican City itself. 87.254.64.213 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, what qualifies as a country? Lots of room for ambiguity here. The statement should be stricken. --Khajidha (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2017
The third paragraph of contains a quote (from a translated history) that is missing in-text attribution. Please either add attribution or remove the direct quote. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The text is cited directly to Tacitus and the citation is directly following the quotation. This qualifies as an in-text attribution.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no—footnote citations and in-text attribution are two distinct forms (see the opening sentence of WP:INTEXT). In-text attribution means identifying the source in the text of the sentence; you can see examples of this at INTEXT. (If desired, I can also provide external links that discuss different forms of citation/attribution.) There is in fact no mention of Tacitus in the whole of the article's text, let alone near the direct quote. —67.14.236.50 (talk) currently using public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ My read of the guideline comports with the IP's, so I've made an edit. I don't think it's the best edit, as I believe that one or two other things could also be done (those being a) rewriting to paraphrase or b) rejiggering the sentence), but I think it's a sufficient bare minimum. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a rewrite would probably be best (and would be a form of removing the direct quote). Seems unnecessary to use the ancient writer's language there. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vatican City. 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/20080413133503/http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/ctv/gardens.htm to http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/ctv/gardens.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219033109/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20631 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20631
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017130729/https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Vatican1.htm to http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/vatican1.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) 15:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a country, or a city-state?
Would it be more accurate in the lead to say it "... is a country" or "... is a city-state"? Batternut (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It refers to itself as a city-state . Either that or just "state" but country is misleading, since that term doesn't always refer to an independent entity and adding the phrase "independent country" is just unnecessary. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vatican City. 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/20110717160038/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,VAT,3ae6b52f10,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,,LEGISLATION,VAT,3ae6b52f10,0.html

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) 02:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

False information in Infobox / Official language
As has been said previously in this discussion page, the Vatican City State has no official language (like the United States of America and many other countries). All all these other countries, then, the Vatican City article should state, correctly, in the Infobox, "none" as its "official language". As for now, the article has the incorrect information that its official languages were Latin and Italian, which is false. 213.245.146.70 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The demonym for Vatican City
Why don't we have a demonym for Vatican City on this page?All Nite (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019
2402:800:6135:8745:E026:8EF9:34A8:CCF5 (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019
Under History -> WW2

Change: "In connection with the Allied invasion of Sicily, 500 American aircraft bombed Rome on 19 July 1943, aiming particularly at the railway hub. Some 1,500 people were killed; Pius XII himself, who had been described in the previous month as "worried sick" about the possible bombing, went to the scene of the tragedy."

to

"In connection with the Allied invasion of Sicily, 500 American aircraft bombed Rome on 19 July 1943, aiming particularly at the railway hub. Some 1,500 people were killed; Pius XII himself, who had been described in the previous month as "worried sick" about the possible bombing, viewed the aftermath  I would suggest this in order to avoid using subjective language eliciting emotion. Gharmon1 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thanks. NiciVampireHeart 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Official languages
Hello everyone. I've inserted fact tags about two specific statements: 1) "Latin is the official language of the Holy See", and 2) "Italian is the official language of the Vatican City". Can anyone cite a reliable source that specifically states one of the above? In the article, the fact that the official gazette is in Latin has been mentioned as evidence that Latin is the official language of the Holy See, but that is an implicit assumption (and not a valid one in constitutional law) - can anyone cite a statement sourcing any of those two claims? --Nehwyn 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seven minutes before posting this, Nehwyn (re)inserts the statement that Italian is the official language of the Vatican State, and then questions his own statement! He also (re)inserts a statement about an official language of the Holy See, which, being a different entity from Vatican City State, is off-topic in this article, and then he tacks on to that too a citation request!
 * The whole body of legislation and official regulations of the Vatican State, published in supplements to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (an illustration of the cover of the first such supplement can be seen here), has nothing about an official language. Vatican City, like the United States, has no declared official language; but, as the illustration shows, its laws and regulations are in Italian.  That makes Italian its language for official purposes.  Some may therefore call Italian its de-facto, non-declared, official language.  Others may prefer not to call it an official language in any sense whatever.  The reality is the same, whatever you call it.
 * I have now removed this article from my watchlist. I don't want even to be reminded of this.Lima 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem, you got some confusion there. The statement that Italian is the official language of the Vatican City is not mine; it was made by User:Ignis Fatuus (in this diff). The statement about the Holy See, which I agree should not even be there, was also made by the same user. I just inserted the fact tags for both, because I doubt them. Your reply here confirms that neither entity has an official language (the "de facto" language may be called a national language, but no an "official" one). Thanks for clearing that up. I think I'll delete Ignis Fatuus' claim unless a source comes up.  --Nehwyn 06:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA World Factbook give major languages as Latin, French, Italian and various others, perhaps we should mention these three major languages? Therequiembellishere 16:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, our own list of official languages shows the Vatican as having Italian and Latin as its official languages and since it is an observer of the Latin Union, we can say that Italian, Latin or French are considered as official to the Union. I remember seeing that someone put Spanish as a working language once, and this is actually why I came to this page, so if anyone can track down that source, it would be of interest. Finally, on this note, our list of countries where French is an official language has a cite source on a comment on the Vatican letting itself register as a French-speaking country in the international organisations with which it has relationships, so I hope someone can provide a source to that as well. Therequiembellishere 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hope this is my final note, but the Papal Swiss Guard uses German as its own official language. Therequiembellishere 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually List of official languages by state claims Vatican City has no official language. (The concept of "de fact" official language is meaningless - that is a national language.) The CIA factbook makes no distinction between Holy See and Vatican City, and still does not claim any language is official. Unless a source comes up that state any language is official, I'd leave the template box as it is. Unofficial languages can be discussed in a specific section of the article, I'd say.   Nehwyn (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that they were official, just major. So if we do start a languages section, the languages to mention will be Latin (de facto), Italian (national), French (diplomatic) and German (military). Can anyone track down how Spanish was once up there and if English is also used? -- Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We definitely have to start a language section. It's a bit complex, and we have to distinguish between written and spoken use, as well as between the Holy See and Vatican City, so let's have a recap:


 * Written language of the Holy See: The Holy See invariably uses Latin for any official document relating to its religious activity, although often it will also publish translated versions (especially of papal documents). Press releases are never in Latin but invariably in Italian, and again translations are routinely available in other European languages. Documents written for international conferences or to be submitted to international organisations (e.g. the UN or WHO) are usually in French and/or English; again translations are common.


 * Written language of the Vatican City: Official documents of the Vatican City state (including laws and regulations) are in Italian. Period.


 * Spoken language: Here the distinction between the Holy See (an organisation) and the Vatican City (a state) becomes very, very thin. Basically, there are three kind of people in the Vatican: clergy, lay workers, and the Swiss Guard.


 * Clerics (priests, nuns, and the occasional monk) come from all over the world, and virtually always use Italian as a common language, except of course when a conversation is limited to people coming from countries with the same native language, who in that case naturally switch to that one. Since statistically speaking there are a lot of clerics from French- and Spanish-speaking countries (not just France and Spain obviously, consider sub-saharian Africa and Latin America), those two languages are common options. For example, John Paul II and his personal secretary normally spoke Italian in their public daily activities, but switched back to their native Polish when speaking privately between themselves. I suppose the current Pope does the same with the German.


 * Lay workers are for the vast majority Italian, and therefore speak Italian among themselves as well as with clerics and guards. Note that the "policemen" of the Vatican City (the Gendarmes) are also included in this category.


 * Swiss Guards mostly come from German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, and therefore use German both to speak among themselves and for training activities. Still, they all know Italian and use that language when speaking to anyone else.

I hope this clears up the situation. Now we have to choose how to put this in article form, and where. Nehwyn (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Swiss Guards mostly come from German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, and therefore use German both to speak among themselves and for training activities. Still, they all know Italian and use that language when speaking to anyone else. " When I lived in Rome in the 70s and had access to the Vatican (to do business at the 'Bank'), it was well known that not all of the Swiss Guards spoke Italian (well, at least). The custom was to place the Swiss Guards who knew Italian well in the public areas (like at the Porta Sant'Anna where the Italian employees of the Vatican would enter - and me, too), and to place the less linguistically gifted Swiss Guards in the more remote parts of the city. Thus, when we had occasion to speak with various members of the Guard, I and my boss would use German, which always got a much more positive response from some of the guards who had to struggle in Italian. William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags and page history

 * Out of curiosity I have come back after my outburst one evening when I was not feeling well, and for which I apologize. Just a few small points: Nehwyn did more than "just insert the fact tags".  If he looks at his edit of 16:44 on 14 November, he will see that he changed "No legislation has been passed about an official language, but Italian is the language in which legislation and official regulations are in fact issued (in the form of supplements to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis)" to the to me amazing "[Italian language|Italian]] is the official language of Vatican City . Latin is considered the official language of the Holy See,  as witnessed by the title of the official gazette, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, but official documents are sometimes, though much less frequently, issued in other languages, rather than Latin. The language of the Papal Swiss Guard is German."  I suppose Nehwyn imagined he was changing some other text.  The other little point is that the Holy See does not invariably use Latin for "any official document relating to its religious activity": Mit brennender Sorge was by no means the only high-level document issued in a language other than Latin.  And in relation to the language or languages of the state and its inhabitants and the much more numerous people who do not live in it but come there each day for work, I don't see why the Holy See should be mentioned at all.  Most of the offices of the Holy See are situated outside the state: the Secretariat of State is the only one situated in the state, unless you count minor offices such as that for papal audiences (the Prefecture of the Papal Household).  The Pontifical Academy of the Sciences, which now uses English in its conferences and publications, has its seat in the state and nowhere else, but nobody would think of mentioning it in relation to the language, official, usual, or whatever, of the state.  Again, a glance at the list of those working in the Secretariat of State is enough to show that it has more male religious than nuns - and that the signore (Mrs) and signorine (Miss) are not all that much less numerous than the nuns.  Well, I have had my say.  I still have not put this article back on my watchlist.  -- Lima (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ehm, no. The statement you quote above, including the claim of official status, is not mine. Its author is Ignis Fatuus in [this diff], and as you can see he states the same in his edit summary. Also notice that he did not insert fact tags; those were mine. My own views on the subject are instead summarised by [this other diff], which is indeed my text. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

-Claim of Peter being in Rome has no Historial basis!-
No evidence in the bible of Peter being in Rome. There a scriptures mentions Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Some Catholics believe they interpretated as Rome, but is not supported by fact. It been questioned my many Catholics e.g., Peter de Marca & Desiderius (Gerhard) Erasmus. The stories about Peter’s martyrdom in Rome are strictly traditional, with no solid historical support.

Some deleted some longer comments made supporting this information in detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk • contribs) who has not yet learned to sign, as indicated at the top of every editing page, "by typing four tildes ( ~ )". Lima 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that at the top, I'll date them, but not sign them I protect my privacy in this case, please respect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence for the widespread use of "Babylon" for "Rome" in the New Testament, and among Jews of the time generally.

71.56.237.70 (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Capital?
On the Dutch wikipedia we are having a discussion about whether Vatican City is it's own capital or whether it actually doesn't have a capital. I have looked on several pages for this information, but I was only able to find conflicting information. The list of capitals sorted by name says Vatican City is its own capital, but the list of capitals sorten by country doesn't even mention Vatican City! Could someone please help us on this point, please? Erispre 18:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See, I never even thought of this problem. Uhm, I guess the only reliable source to such a specific question would be an official document of the Vatican City state itself, and those are not easy to come across online.  Nehwyn (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vestige of the Papal States
Although several books have been written about it, it can be summarized as follows:
 * 1) The loss of the Papal States in 1870 was never recognized by the Roman pontiffs until the Lateran Treaty.
 * 2) Other sovereign nations still recognized the sovereignty of the pope despite the loss of the Papal States.
 * 3) The Roman pontiffs continued to maintain and exchange embassies with other powers.
 * 4) The Roman Question was not settled until the Lateran Treaty.
 * 5) Pope Pius XI had a specific reason why a treaty(definition: a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations. - treaty. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved September 06, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treaty) was signed first: since a treaty can only be entered between two sovereign powers, the popes commited the Kingdom of Italy into accepting the Roman pontiffs's de facto and de jure sovereignty. It was only after the treaty was signed that the concordat and the financial settlement was signed.
 * 6) If you read the text of the Lateran Treaty, it is clearly stated that it was only at that point that the Supreme Pontiffs accepted the de facto loss of the Papal States. Furthermore, the treaty also states that with the signing of the treaty, the de facto and de jure sovereignty of the Supreme Pontiffs were recognized by the Kingdom of Italy. Moreover, it was only at that point that the Papal States was juridically abolished and the State of the Vatican City created.

FYI

Dr mindbender 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is correct, as far as it goes. It needs to have added to it an explicit distinction between the Holy See ("Roman Pontiff" is the term used above) and the territorial entities of the Papal States and the Vatican City State.  States that recognized the incorporation of the Papal States into the Kingdom of Italy and so no longer recognized the Pope as a territorial sovereign could and did recognize the Roman Pontiff/Holy See as a subject of international law.

Even when the Pope was sovereign of the Papal States in central Italy, he had a recognized spiritual sovereignty as well as a territorial sovereignty. It was not on account of the latter that he held precedence over the Emperor and the other rulers of nations, that his envoys were received with the highest honours, that the papal court was considered one of the most coveted diplomatic posts. And after the complete loss of temporal power in the nineteenth century, the Pope continued to exercise the active and passive right of legation, as well as being called upon as arbiter and mediator by states for the settlement of international conflicts.

The Lateran Treaty of 11 February 1929 was entered into by two subjects of international law, two sovereign powers. While negotiations were going on, and in the very act of making the treaty, one of these powers, Italy, did not recognize any territorial authority on the part of the other, but "Italy recognize(d) the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature, in conformity with its tradition and the requirements of its mission in the world" (article II of the treaty). The Vatican City State was then "created" (article III) or "constituted" (Preamble), not recognized as an existing vestige of the Papal States. By the same treaty the Holy See "recognise(d) the Roman Question, raised in 1870 with the assigning of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy under the dynasty of the House of Savoy, as settled in an irrevocable manner" (Preamble). The last vestige of the Papal States was the Rome of 1870, not the Vatican City State that was created (a word that in theology is used of making something out of nothing) in 1929. Lima 04:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Border checks
In the Italian wiki version of the Vatican State, in the discussion forum there is mentioned that there are border checks done by the "Gendarmeria Vaticana" inside the Vatican buildings, anybody have any further news? - Ale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.206.6 (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Admittance, except to Saint Peter's Square and Basilica and to the Vatican Museums, which take up, I suppose, nearly half the Vatican City area, is only on business. Otherwise, you'd have tens of thousands of curious sightseers tramping around outside and inside the buildings all day.  One or two of those discussing the matter on the Italian Talk page don't seem to understand the distinction between border checks (controlli di frontiera) and checks on people entering a building or reserved area. Lima 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Rome and NEVER saw peoples "tramping around ouside and inside the buildings"! However, there is no check to enter Vatican,which is possible only through a point to St.Peter's Square and Basilica, or buying a ticket to Museums (whose entrance is in Italy, a door in the walls). Val —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly no border checks at the Vatican. When I lived in Rome in the 70s, I did have an "emittente" (so it was called then, meaning a pass "issued" by the so-called 'Vatican Bank' (yes, I know its real name). This pass was a blue piece of laminated paper about the size of a credit card. When I entered the Porta Sant'Anna north of the Piazza San Pietro, I would wave the emittente at the Swiss Guard, and he would allow me in (no passport check or other real ID check at all). From this point on, I was supposed to go to the Bank, but, in fact, had free rein to go nearly any place I wanted to outdoors in Vatican City. I am sure that had I tried to enter certain buildings, I would have been stopped by guards (the Vatican police who are Italian nationals), but otherwise in the 70s, the security was quite laid back... William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship
Could someone aply to live in the vatican,for instance,when one would be born in its teritory while ,for instance,ones mother would go there and give birth there?Cause then,that person would not have any other citizenship that Vatican and thus could aply to live in the vatican.

New Babylon 2 13:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Article 9 of the Lateran Treaty establishes that anyone who has Vatican citizenship and then stops living in Vatican City and therefore looses their Vatican citizenship shall be regarded as an Italian national. So, in my opinion, no, being born there would not qualify one for future residence. However, I am not an international lawyer. Gentgeen 09:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be impossible, because the access to the state is not free: peoples can freely enter only St.Peter's Square, which gives access only to St.Peter's Basilica, but it is sorrounded by walls excepted towards Italy. So nobody can enter the Vatican, but the square and the basilica. More, peoples can enter Vatican Museums, buying a ticket, but there is no way to leave museums for the other parts of the state. Whole Vatican is sorrounded by a wall, excepted the point in which St.Peter's Square can be entered from Italy. Citizenship, however, follows neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis. It is granted to: 1) the pope and his relatives living together; 2) Cardinals living in Rome (also outside the Vatican) and their relatives living together; 3) peoples depending from Vatican state and their families living together (but children loose citizenship at 25); 4) peoples personally obtaining it by the Pope, who is an absolute monarch. Val, from Rome, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that this addresses the issue thoroughly. Someone could certainly give birth there (if the labour came on suddenly and she could not be taken to hospital in time). All the mentions of citizenship being revoked when people leave office/reach a certain age are based on that citizenship having been granted because of that/their parent's office. It is probably the case, but are we quite certain that birth would not confer citizenship? The parents could be from a country which would not award its own citizenship to children born overseas. Even if Italy would offer citizenship (which we should not assume from the current wording, which indicates the basis of another citizenship being *revoked*), why should someone have to have Italian citizenship when they were not born there? At any rate, the article should address this issue explicitly (if very briefly). Salopian (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Papal Army
If someone knows something about the Papal army during the Middle Ages. I'd love to know anything. Exept about the Vatican guard(I already know about them,but if you know something I don't, DO share), Im mean like the Papal navy and Roman militia/army. Thanks.Philippe Auguste 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a brief article on the military of Vatican City. However, basicly, the Pontifical Swiss Guard is the only current military unit in Vatican City. There is also the Corpo della Gendarmeria, whose name suggests it is a military police unit, but in actuality is simply a police force. Pope Paul VI abolished the former units of the Vatican's military force in 1970, the Noble Guard, the Palatine Guard, and the earlier Gendarmeria. The Papal States also had military units, including the Papal Zouaves, the Corsican Guards, etc. Gentgeen 08:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Crime:Capital Punishment
I hate to nit-pick but I noticed that on the article it said that its abolition of cap. punishment was in I think, 1969 (???) and then states the last execution to be in the 1800's (didn't get a good look with the dates but with regards to my to my argument the important part is correct) which is fine and I don't have any complaints. However, the part I am at odds with is "but" which I believe is in this case defined to refute the earlier sentence of the date of its abolition and obviously there is no conflict as to there being no exception to the claim that there it was abolished so therefor I am going to delete and put "with" as I can't seem to find a better more fluid and correct term to put at the moment. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Wiseblood1 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be difficult to find an example of when the last person in the Papal States was executed for a crime. The Vatican has certainly not executed anyone since the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, though you could perhaps look into the war and try to find something from before if you are so inclined. Catholic Canon law from before and after the 1983 revision discourages the use of Capital punnishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Contact
Does anyone know how to contact their government? Therequiembellishere 06:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually contacting the Vatican government is pretty easy. You can send an email or leave a message at their web site. You can send a letter to them, addressed to the pope or any other official for that matter.

Flag
Can anyone see why the flag is not displaying properly in the main infobox? I've tried fiddling with it, but can't make it appear. Timothy Titus 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Icorrect dating in the history artical.
The correct dates of the pope Clement V moving the papacy to avignon was in 1305 -1377. He had been crowned in lyons in front of king phillip and taken residence in avignon in 1305. See [] "At Bordeaux, Bertrand was formally notified of his election and urged to come to Italy; but he selected Lyon for his coronation, November 14, 1305, which was celebrated with magnificence and attended by Philip IV. Among his first acts was the creation of nine French cardinals." And refrenceF.L. Cross and E.A. livingstone (eds), the oxford dictionary of the christian church, oxford university press, 1988, pp.117 and 119. i am new here so i dont really know where this information should go but if anyone can disprove this i would like to know. I hate when you dont know what to trust. \ \ \ RF23 \ \ Email me at keiko.poop@Gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keikopunk (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Population going down?
In an old World Book it stated the population was 1000, is it going down? Now its 783.

O nüfus yuvarlatılmış ve sürekli değiştiği için 1000 olarak yazılmış. Örneğin bazı yerlerde 781, 930, 1200 yazıyor. (Please translate it into English from Turkish.)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:41 (UTC)
 * whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
 * which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Sealand
Please stop noting that the principality os Sealand is smaller, as this is irrelevant. It is not a soverign state or recognised as a nation. While the intent to continue to say this is not tantamount to Vandalism, it runes a close second. Eedo Bee 07:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sealand isn't a country. Because all contries don't want it. It's population is 5, İt's area is 550 m2.

GA
I am failing this due to criteria 2, it is factually accurate and verifiable. Not enough references for an article this size, and there's multiple one sentence paragraphs

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Also these problems M3tal H3ad 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 ft, use 4 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: <tt>4&amp;nbsp;ft</tt>.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 4 ft.
 * When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Independence
The infobox states that VC got its independence from the Kingdom of Gozo. A Google search turns up no mention of a Kingdom of Gozo. Is the Kingdom of Gozo accurate? --Daysleeper47 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you had seen is vandalism. Vatican City gained its independence from the Kingdom of Italy through the Lateran Treaty. It stays unedited for 3 days and I have just removed it. FYI, you can revert or undo the changes yourself (see WP:REVERT). Cheers, Joshua   C  hi  e  w  10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Officially, the Vatican Claims that it was never actually subject to the Kingdom of Itlay and Italy does not dispute this. I suppose in English, Independence, makes sense with the example of Americanism at work but inside the Vatican they see it as the continuation of the Papal States. Italy did in fact recongize this in the Lateran Treaty and paid the Vatican compensation for the siezure of land belonging to the Vatican City. Latin Language history books published by the Vatican just after the VII Council simply state that the Vatican is the Legal continuation of the Papal States, even during the time of the Italian kingdom, but that the Lateran Treaty was the Vatican finally recognizing the independence of the Kingdom of Italy from the Papal State and the Kingdom of Italy reciprocating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Department store?

 * http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/micro/2005/0407vatican.htm
 * ... Cardinal Szoka moved the Vatican's department store out of a glum basement and into the former train station, a spacious, refurbished stone building behind St. Peter's Basilica. New merchandise was added: high-end perfumes, $3,000 Longines watches and flat-screen TVs from Panasonic.

Is there an article for this department store? -- Toytoy 06:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The apparent discovery of St Paul's sarcophagus
This is mentioned variously in the news - a mention here might be appropriate. Jackiespeel 17:53, December 2006 (UTC) blahØ

Catholic apologists?
Someone please take a look at the use of this term "Catholic apologists." It seems absurd in the context and might well be vandalism. I have not changed it, preferring to allow others to judge. MacSigh 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Germanic Navigation-Template
Wouldn't it be a nice idea to add the Template:Germanic Europe? German is the official language of the Swiss Guard, they are permanent residents of the Vatican, 110 men... The Vatican has a total of 932 citizes, therefor (including the pope) at least 12% of the people of vatican speak german, a germanic language... Probably more ;-) ... --PSIplus &Psi; 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Very confusing sentence in opening paragraph
I don't really know about the topic, so I am hoping that someone who does can clarify this sentence:


 * Although governed by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), the Vatican City State is not the Holy See and its government is a monarchy even though it is sometimes described as ecclesiastical and the highest state functionaries are indeed clergymen.

I doubt that the style manual places a limit on the number of clauses in a sentence, but perhaps it ought to. A Pattern O 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallest Country
Isn't Vatican City the second smallest after the smallest, The Sovereign Order of Malta? --24.251.64.217 07:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sovereign Military Order of Malta isn't a country. From our article, the United Nations does not classify the SMOM as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers." Gentgeen 08:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Sealand, which is also not considered a country... 71.103.227.247 03:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)YeoungBraxx

the murder on 1998
it says that the murder in 1998 was committed by a man who killed two people and then himself. This might not be true because i have read somewhere that there could have been someone else who killed the man and the other two victims.

Right. It's widely known nowadays that Cédric Tornay was innocent. He was prosecuting evidences of dirty affairs and was killed by order of power peoples. I read the whole story in the book "Bloody lies in the Vatican" published in Italy by Kaos Edizioni. Read also website Cédric Tornay Memorial, managed by his mother, where the strange behaviour of the Vatican is shown with a lot of evidences. Vatican also created a lot of obstacles to the lawyers and managed through Swiss government to stop the action for discovering truth. Val from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.180.221 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Small Correction
Hallo, I made a small correction in the history section. Vatican City WAS a part of Rome until 1929. The separation with the larger part of the city was only geographical, but this is also valid for Trastevere.

alex2006 10:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No Map!!
There is no map for the location of the Vatican. The map of Italy gives a false impression. We need a little point to make it clear.Trompeta 12:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Vatican City maintains two modern security corps, the famous Swiss Guards, a voluntary military force drawn from male Swiss citizens and the Corpo della Gendarmeria dello Stato della Città del Vaticano. They are not really an army of the Vatican City State so much as a police force and the personal bodyguard of the Pope."

Which one is the police force and which is the body guards? What is "Corpo della Gendarmeria dello Stato della Città del Vaticano" ? I don't speak Italian. --24.94.189.11 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The Swiss Guards are the bodyguards of the Pope. The Corpo della Gendarmeria is the police force. ";Corpo" means Corps, "della" means "of the" and "Gendarmeria" means Gendarmerie. --Silvano 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am seeking a map or list of properties in Rome owned by the Vatican/Holy See. I know there is a list of extraterritorial properties but I want to know about others held by the Vatican like buildings, monasteries, convents, etc... I have read that the Vatican owns 25-30 percent of Rome. Does anyone have a clue about this? Sienna 1:33pm 16 January 2007

Coat of arms
I reverted the coat of arms image to the red shield because it conforms the closest to the blazon given at the Holy See's website here. Pmadrid 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is not Vatican's coat of arms. Vatican's arms should be the same as the one on the national flag, and without red shield. The arms' image should be changed back.
 * As far as I know the depiction including the red shield is correct. I guess that the Vatican flag actually doesn't depict the coat of arms, but just share an important element with it. Gugganij 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the flag's description just mentiones that in the white part there will be the two keys underneath the tiara.  It does not mention the arms at all, which explains why the rendering of the flag does not have a shield.  However, the description of the blazon of the arms is fairly exacting, requiring a red shield and gold cord.  This is why the arms of the Vatican City are different from the logo on the flag.Pmadrid 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the coat of arms should be like the one below? It is the same as the one in the Vatican sebsite. Is it ok if I change the coa picture to this one?
 * If you did, it would not conform to the blazon. Although it is used on the vatican website, my guess is that it was unofficially put together for the website by one of the webmasters, since it neither conforms to the blazon listed in the law and treaties made by the Pope nor does it comply with the general rules of blazonry. Pmadrid 20:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the law (or more like constitution) of Vatican City (in Italian language) from the Vatican City's official website. The link is here: http://www.vaticanstate.va/NR/rdonlyres/FBFEA0E8-B43A-452A-AAA0-1AF49590F658/2615/Supplemento.pdf. Near the end of the pages, there is a picture of the coat of arms which is more like the picture above rather than in the infobox. 17.53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the law (or more like constitution) of Vatican City (in Italian language) from the Vatican City's official website. The link is here: http://www.vaticanstate.va/NR/rdonlyres/FBFEA0E8-B43A-452A-AAA0-1AF49590F658/2615/Supplemento.pdf. Near the end of the pages, there is a picture of the coat of arms which is more like the picture above rather than in the infobox. 17.53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Updates and cleanup + factual accuracy
I have merged most of the diplomatic information into Holy See since the Vatican City is not a member of any of those organizations nor does it enter into diplomatic relations with any state. Additional update and cleanup are necessary, especially considering that the Fundamental Law for Vatican City, enacted in 2001, has altered the form of government, and considering that the tribunals of the Roman Curia (Signatura, Rota, and Penitentiary) are not involved at all in the civil matters of the Vatican state. Pmadrid 02:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy See's Espionage
Heard and read countless times that the Jesuit (?) missions around the world help make the Vatican one of the most intelligence-savvy nations. Anyone knowledgeable want to add smthg to the article? Ksenon 23:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Where have you read these "countless" claims? In my (admittedly limited) experience, the Jesuits are about as clandestine as the Rotary Club. 128.163.235.65 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Official language?
Is there a law or regulation, some primary source of legal standing, that declares that Latin is an official language of the State of the Vatican City? I don't think we can call it an official language unless it says so somewhere in law. Note that Swedish is not the official language of Sweden, nor is English the official language of the United States. These are two of the many countries that lack an official language, that is, whatever the language usage of their governments in practice, there is no law stating that a certain language is the official one.

(I also raised this question in Talk:Latin.) --Cam 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Edited my comment --Cam 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I added "used for official purposes" in the table footnote to "soften" the official language listing, since we don't know for sure that Latin is legally official in Vatican City. I didn't call it "de facto" because that might imply that we know for sure that is not legally official. (I did something similar at Latin with a similar comment in Talk:Latin.) --Cam 12:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Diplomatic Relations
I think it should be noted in the article that the Vatican is the only European state to recognize the Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. In the Foreign Relations section, it states that the Vatican recognizes 174 "sovereign states", however the sovereignty of the ROC is disputed at best, but I am not sure how to note this. 24.14.92.28 05:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Just Wondering
What kind of people live in the Vatican? The Population is around 950, but what are thier jobs? Why do they live there? Are they just monks or normal people? This is driving me insane! The Republican 03:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The clear majority of residents are the swiss guard. I suppose the rest would just hold clerical positions and then there would be cleaners and of course the pope and his staff. 58.178.35.0 10:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Message to The Republican. Please note that monks are 'normal people' too - some of my best friends are monks!

The majority of people who live in the Vatican belong to various religious congregations. Most of the staff that work at the Vatican actually live in Italy. The most common language spoken inside the Vatican is actually Latin when you consider the number of religious who pray the Liturgia Horarum in Latin every day, every three hours, almost non stop. At any moment in time there is at least one person somewhere in the Vatican who is praying in Latin. The Vatican has three functions. One is as a kind of gevernment building, where Bishops along with the Pope govern the Church. Most of these people live outside the Vatican. Then their are the people who take care of the schools and museums. Most of these poeple live outside the Vatican. Then their are the pilgrims who come to the Vatican to pray, or see art work or hear Mass. Most of these people live outside the Vatican. The last functions of the Vatican itself is as a monastary. Priest, religious sisters and brothers and visiting Bishops on their Ad Limina make up the majority of people who actually sleep and spend their whole day in the Vatican. Some of these congregations have a rule that forces their members to give up all contact with the outside world, including family and also to give up their native language and only speak in Latin for the rest of their life. There are also a small number of monks who speak Greek and Syriac if I am not mistaken, or at least there were before Paul VI. I don't really know about now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vatican City not independent?
I reverted changes claiming that the Vatican is not an independant state. According to my information it is recognized as such. Gugganij 20:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, while the changes you zapped way overstate things (and in my opinion you were right to revert them), the relationship between Vatican City and the Holy See is quite complex and I don't fully understand it (and I'm sure I'm not alone in fully understanding it). The bottom line is that the Holy See -- which is, as I understand it, the bishopric of Rome as an institution -- is a sovereign entity, meaning that no sovereign authority (i.e. nation or state) controls it.  The Holy See and Vatican City are not the same entity. Ambassadors are accredited to and by the Holy See, not the Vatican, and it's the Holy See that enters into international treaties, not the Vatican.  I *think* the reasons for the distinction are that (1) the Holy See controls property that is neither within the boundries of Vatican City nor given extraterritorial rights and (2) the Holy See as a sovereign entity predated the Lateran Treaties that brought Vatican City into existence.  One way of looking at it is that the Holy See is sovereign but has no territory itself, and that Vatican City is non-sovereign and controlled by the Holy See, which is quite paradoxical but is I think the perspective that the edits you removed had.  Perhaps a better way to put it is that Vatican City is that territory over which the Holy See is absolutely sovereign, though Vatican City does not constitute the whole of the Holy See.


 * Anyway, this sort of thing comes up often enough on this page that a seciton on the relationship between the two entities should perhaps be added. If no one smarter than me adds it, I will probably try to apply my no doubt flawed understanding in the hopes that someone who knows more can correct me. --Jfruh 21:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, adding a section dedicated to the Vatican-Holy See relationship might be useful. What makes things even more complicated is the fact that the term "Holy See" means different things in different contexts. In some cases the term just encompass the pope alone. In the case of the Vatican City-Holy See relationship I think it is used exactely in that sense. Article 2 of the Vatican constitution might support that view (Vatican constitution - in Italian, I couldn't find an English version):


 * The representation of the state in its relationship with foreign states and other subjects of international law, for diplomatic relations and the conclusion of treaties, is reserved solely to the Supreme Pontiff, who exercise his rights through the secretariate of state.
 * My translation, sorry for any mistakes


 * Gugganij 11:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vatican Hill
Mons Vaticanus, and the adjacent Vatican Fields upon which St. Peter's Basilica and its Sistine Chapel, Apostolic Palace and museums were built, predates Christendom. Of couse it predates Christendom, it's been there as long as the world has! Does anyone mind if I delete that?

Lee S. Svoboda 22:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Head of Government
In the article under the listing of Government it says Pope - Pope Benedict XVI, Actually he is the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Head of State of Vatican City, I've corrected this accordingly. Misterrick 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Holy See
I'm a little puzzled by this statement: "Its borders are coextensive with the Holy See, the ecclesiastical seat of the Roman Catholic Church." Is not the Holy See the see of Rome? Does not the see of Rome cover the whole of Rome, not just the Vatican? Is this statement not then incorrect? Adam 14:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that you are correct. Over at the diocese of Rome page at Catholic-Hierarchy.org, it says that the Roman diocese covers 340 square miles -- obviously much larger than just the Vatican. The Holy See article opens with "The term Holy See ... refers in a geographic sense to the episcopal see of Rome."  I've changed the language to something that is indisputably true.  Hopefully someone who knows more will chime in on this talk page.  --Jfruh 19:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy
Why ist the Vatican described as a monarchy rather than a theocracy or a hierocracy respectively? 62.46.183.40


 * see my point @ Christocracy (on this page). I reckon, like you, that it should be called a Theocracy. Pydos 12:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Vatican City is a papacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I think the Pope's position is an elected one rather than one getting automatically handed over to immediate blood relatives. One may wish to see it as monarchy, but the fact is, it is not a monarchy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.209.250 (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder as well. I mean, yes he is an absolute leader, but he is a pope just as much as the Grand Ayatollah in Iran is whom he is. Should it not be a theocracy then, as it obviously is ruled by the clergy? Gotipe (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican mail
Is the following statement really true?  Vatican and Italian stamps can be used interchangibly. As far as I know Vatican stamps can just be used inside the Vatican city and on extraterritorial property of the Holy See but NOT in Italy. Gugganij 12:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As the person who added that, I have to admit that I'm not certain on it; I'll take it out. I'm reasonably sure that Italian stamps are good in Vatican mailboxes, which is what I was trying to say.


 * It is true that the Vatican mail has a better reputation than the Italian mail, especially for international letters. I stayed for three weeks at the American Academy in Rome; it was considered polite to put up a note in the lobby if you were planning on going to the Vatican the next day so that people could give you their letters to drop in the Vatican mailbox.  --Jfruh 17:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't doubt at all that the reputation of the Vatican postal system is far better, than that of the Italian one. Gugganij 21:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

French an official language?
I have never heard that French is an official language of the Vatican City. Where is it documented? 85.124.40.194 10:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe somebody thought that because the delegates to Pope John Paul II's funeral were seated by the French spelling of their country it was an official language. Which of course it isn't; French is only the traditional language of diplomacy.  (Alphaboi867 18:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * Well, that's what I thought as well. I am going to remove it. 85.124.40.194 21:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican Coat of Arms
On the death of a Pope, the coat of arms changes temporarily until the conclave elects a new Pope, the mitre being replaced with a closed parasol - there is a graphic of this available on Wikipedia, but it's in black and white and rather low quality. So, a couple of thoughts ; do we change the coat of arms on this page for the few days until the conclave finishes its business - and if so, where can we get hold of a good quality colour image of the current coat of arms. The Vatican's website has one, but I dare say it's probably copyrighted. - Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Does the Vatican City State's coat change? I know the Holy See's does.  Can anybody verify this? Pmadrid 23:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It does not change. --Gerald Farinas 03:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad. - Zaphod Beeblebrox 10:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Date of independence
Three dates of independence are given, among which 1990-10-03. I can't find why this date is given as a date of independence. A reference to the Lateran treaties is given, but there I don't see any reference to 1990. Suspiciously, 1990-10-03 is also the date of German reunification... Anyone knows what's going on? - 81.83.81.57 09:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vatican a Christocracy
User:ABCD why are you trying to suppress the view of the vatican and millions of catholics the world over without discussion? Are you perhaps an Anti-Papist? If so I can understand how much this perspective must disgust you, but we must not let our pesonal feelings allow us to override our journalistic reportage. Our job is simply to report. The fact is millions of catholics believe what I had inserted i.e. that Christ is the head of the Vatican State (the homeland of the Catholic Church) and the Pope is simply Christ's Majordomo. At least wait until the 9 days of mourning is over before suppressing it as a sign of respect for those who hold this view. You can at least do that can't you?81.158.104.155 21:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:ABCD. According to the [Fundamental Law of the State of Vatican City] Paragraph 1.1, 'Der Papst besitzt als Oberhaupt des Vatikanstaates die Fülle der gesetzgebenden, ausführenden und richterlichen Gewalt.', in Italian, 'Il Sommo Pontefice, Sovrano dello Stato della Città del Vaticano, ha la pienezza dei poteri legislativo, esecutivo e giudiziario.'. The Pope is Oberhaupt and Sovrano. I would say he's Sovereign in English. Reverting. Tobyox 21:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

One might further add that historically, any country that claimed "divine right of kings" could be claimed to be a "Christocracy" under this ridiculous reading. john k 22:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To John K. I don't see how the divine right of kings can be interpreted as holding the keys given Peter. Anyway, ridiculous as the reading sounds it is still a valid view held by millions. 81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To Toybox. To assume two words in different languages with the same root from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have the same meaning is a mistake, but yes a Majordomo is a kind of sovereign but not a King and the Monarch is really Christ, with the pope as prime minister in the place of Peter. The point is that the Pope is simply Majordomo over the house of the king. There is not a catholic alive who could say otherwise (i.e. The Pope is King). 81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's Tobyox, btw. The OED's first definition of 'sovereign' is 'One who has supremacy or rank above, or authority over, others; a superior; a ruler, governor, lord, or master (of persons, etc.).' It should be clear from the law mentioned above that the Pope exercises all sovereign authorities in the Vatican City State - legislative, judicial, and executive. 'Sovereign' does not equal 'King'. There is no mention of Christ in the law itself, only in the dating of it. 'Majordomo means', again according to the OED, 'The chief official of an Italian or Spanish princely household. Subsequently also (in accordance with later Italian and Spanish use): the head servant of a wealthy household in a foreign country; a house-steward, a butler.' The person closest to this description in the Vatican is the Cardinal Camerlengo. My point is not that 'Oberhaupt' and 'Sovrano' have the same origins (that would be linguistically difficult for 'Oberhaupt', anyway), but that they signify the same authority as 'sovereign' does in English. Your suggestion that User:ABCD is an 'Anti-Papist' is a breach of Assume good faith, btw. Tobyox 13:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

To anyone who cares. It is a pity that yet again wikipaedians choose to censor a legitimate and harmless/peaceful POV rather than report it. Yet I am sure if I were to say some people think Jesus was probably a bastard the same wikipaedians would defend the reportage of such a polemic POV. The bias is disgraceful.81.158.104.155 22:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm Catholic and have never heard the head of Vatican City described as Christ. The head of the Church, yes, but of Vatican City?  Bizarre.  User:81.158.104.155, can you point to any references at all to Christ as sovereign of a city-state? -Ben 03:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you ok? http://www.georgefox.edu/discernment/petrine.pdf
 * Well, at which part of the document are you exactely referring to? I cannot find anything backing the assumption that Christ is regarded by the Catholic church to be the head of the Vatican City state. Gugganij 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And what bearing does a paper about ecumenism by a Quaker professor that never even mentions Vatican City have on this discussion? -Ben 02:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User 81.158.104.155 keeps on claiming that the idea that Christ is the head of state of the Vatican is a "valid view held by millions." He has yet to cite a source for this rather unlikely claim. Until he does so, I see no reason to discuss this further. john k 03:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely Vatican City is a theocracy?  This resolves all the nasty bits aboves, since Christ may or may not be the head of Vatican City, but it is certainly governed on his behalf.   Check the definition of a theocracy and see!  Pydos 12:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The head of Vatican City is the pope, there is no doubt about that. The supreme head of the Catholic church is Jesus Christ (although its visible, temporal head is the pope as well). Gugganij 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's in charge?
Pope John Paul II is dead, therefore the Sovereign is vacant. There is no Secretary of State since Angelo Cardinal Sodano lost his position the moment the Pope died. (Alphaboi867 20:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I believe that the Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church acts as head of state of the Vatican until a successor is elected. But I am not sure of this - the article states that he is not head of the church itself, or in charge of the Holy See. But the Vatican is separate. does anybody know? john k 21:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article now says that the secretary of state and the president of the Commission lost their posts but that they're running things by virtue of their former posts? That makes no sense at all. Please provide concrete evidence that they lost office. NoPuzzleStranger 23:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Subparagraph 13(c) of Universi Dominici Gregis establishes a commission made up of, "the Cardinal Camerlengo and the Cardinals who had formerly held the offices of Secretary of State and President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State". The commission is charged with several things, including setting up the election, carrying out any instructions left by the old pope, paying the Vatican's bills, etc. Gentgeen 23:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see those are new regulations - it hasn't been that way in any previous vacancy. NoPuzzleStranger 00:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Friends,

For the Christians, the head of the Church is Christ and the pope is the Vicar of Christ. So, the eternal head is always living! And for the Vicar, again for the Christians, death is not the end! It is just the end of earthly life and the beginning of the 2nd life.

So, this reduces the question to “who is the head of the earthly Church?”. The answer is that there is nothing called earthly Church. The Church is the assembly of people who begin there life on earth and get into eternal life through the window of earthly death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.209.250 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What a bunch of horsesh...--Gspinoza (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the wiki
The side box lists Vatican City as the 193 in the list of countries by population. However on that page is isn't even mentioned. What to do about this? Jackliddle 17:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Its now mentioned in the list and I have corrected the side box Jackliddle 21:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has a discrepency again. It is now 234th and no 229th, as it is shown on the page.--60.229.139.94 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

featured article nomination
I think that before this article gets this status most of the comments from the talk page should be represented somehow on the main page...

Language
1.Is it sure that all guards speak German? In Switzerland French and Italian are also used... 2.Latin is maybe the offical language, but c'mon - are they REALY using it at a day-to-day basis? This issue should be clarified - maybe something like "Offical language is Latin, but de facto the mostly used is Italian. The Switzerland guards speak also German and French". And also - is Italian offical too, or not?
 * Well, as far as I know the official language of the Swiss guard is just German. But I assume that most guards speak the other languages of Switzerland as well. Gugganij 00:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The official language of the Swiss Guard is German, but they must also speak Italian (and I think English as well). The "official" language of the Vatican is Latin, but Italian has all but replaced it in day-to-day life. (The ATM still has the option of Latin, though. A few years ago, it was only in Latin. Someone reprogrammed it to be four modern languages, and the priest in charge of care for the Latin language insisted that it be made 5-language, with Latin as the default option.) When a bishop chooses to speak in Latin at a Synod (as Cardinal Re and a bishop from Lithuania, I believe, did recently), there is generally a scramble for the earphones for simultaneous translation. Mpolo 10:57, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

3. Although Italian is without doubt used as an every day language of conversation, the Official Language is stated to be Latin, therefore it should not be omitted, they also continue to regulate the Latin Language, Nevertheless, Italian should still be posted as a "De facto" language. 11:55, 15 May 2008 (CDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtSPQR (talk • contribs)
 * I fear you are confusing Vatican City, a state that came into existence only in 1929, with the Holy See. Can you reference even one document of Vatican City State that has been issued in Latin?  Lima (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Santa Sede
On top of the table there was the (italian) name for the Holy See (Santa Sede). This is not correct, the Holy See and Vatican-City are two different entities, therefore I deleted it. --Gugganij 23:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why Vatican City is not a UN member?
Some clarification on this issue? If the Vatican City authorities insist that they are a state, then why do they not become FULL UN members (as ANY OTHER state, including Switzerland) - they stay only as "observer". Similar is the case with other organizations - why they are only observer to the Council of Europe and not a FULL member? WTO is another example of semi-membership.


 * I think it was previously impossible to be a full member without providing military support for U.N. Peace-keeping missions. That rule was bent for Switzerland, IIRC. Mpolo 11:55, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, even if so (I doubt the existence of such rule, but anyway), then when now it is bent, Vatican City has the possiblity to became full member. The question is what are the reasons that don't they use it?

Well, the Vatican City is NOT even an observer to the UN, it is the Holy See, which has to be distinguished. The Vatican City is a internationally recognized state, the Holy See however is a different subject of international law (it is sovereign but NOT a country). The question of statehood is not decided by membership to UN (Switzerland became a full member of the UN just a couple of years ago). Gugganij 17:00, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I found a relatively recent article explaining this.


 * Vatican's Role at UN Expanded
 * 7/17/04


 * In a development that is sure to distress pro-abortion groups such as "Catholics" for a Free Choice (CFFC), the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations last week decided unanimously to confirm and expand the status of the Vatican at the United Nations. CFFC and its allies, including International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International, have been engaged in a multi-year campaign to have the Vatican ousted from the UN, a campaign that now seems dead and buried.


 * The GA document adopted last week was the first major clarification of the prerogatives of the Vatican as "permanent observer state," which has held this status at the UN since 1964. Not only did the General Assembly endorse the long-standing role of the Vatican, it decided to grant it new privileges, "in order to enable the Holy See to participate in a more constructive way in the Assembly's activities," according to a UN press release.


 * Perhaps most importantly, the Holy See will now possess the right to participate in the general debate of the GA, the right to circulate documents and the right to reply in debates. One diplomat told C-FAM that the Holy See's status could now be likened to a "full member state, just without the vote."


 * According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's Permanent Observer to the UN, the Holy See sought this enhanced Observer status so that it could remain neutral, asserting that, "We have no vote because this is our choice." At the same time, Archbishop Migliore emphasized that the decision "is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it."


 * No country dissented to the GA decision. The GA President Julian Robert Hunte, Saint Lucia's Minister for External Affairs, took a personal interest in the Holy See's draft resolution, and introduced the document to the GA as his own text, which represents a highly unusual show of support.


 * After the decision, Archbishop Migliore proclaimed that it "marked an important step forward, and reflects the lofty values and collective interests shared by the Holy See and the United Nations. We are committed to the same objectives that necessitate the protection of fundamental human rights, the preservation of the dignity and worth of the human person and the promotion of the common good." He concluded that he looked forward to "an ordered international community built upon the strong edifice of law — a law not of whim and caprice, but of principles stemming from the very universality of human nature."


 * The GA decision appears to represent a significant fundraising setback for CFFC. CFFC president Frances Kissling, who usually seeks out the media spotlight, has yet to comment publicly on the decision. The "See Change Campaign" for the Vatican's removal, however, remains prominently displayed on the CFFC website.


 * (This article from Catholic Family and Human Institute. )


 * So, the Holy See simply chooses to participate without a vote. Mpolo 17:25, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks like a double bonus for the Vatican - they get exactly what they want, despite the rules ("We don't have voting right, becouse WE choose so"), they get much more priviledges (rights, reserved for states) than other religious entities AND they don't get all obligations that member states have (full membership fees, conditions for participation in other organizations like WTO - trade memorandum, etc.). And about "we don't want to vote, becouse we keep neutrality" - they can preserve neutrality like the other states - vote "abstain".


 * There is a difference between chosing not to have voting power and always voting "abstain". The latter shows neutrality in the past and presence, the former shows neutrality for the future.

I wonder if The Vatican can get more votes if they join the UN by using the Holy See as another entity like The Soviet Union used it's republics.Dudtz 12/9/05 5:07 PM EST
 * The other members would not grant double status. Which Soviet republics do you refer to? I doubt the Soviets ever got more votes the way you imply. Añoranza 03:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the Ukraine was obviously a part of the USSR it was nevertheless a voting member at the UN. However, since the Holy See has just an observer status at the UN it does not have the right to vote. Gugganij 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports in the Vatican
Someone might make use of this article: sports in the vatican Rhymeless 07:31, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * since The Vatican is a State I think it should be very interesting the information Rhymeless is provading. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 12:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is no longer available: "This article was not found or it has expired." Was it just about the Clericus Cup football tournament between seminarians and priests studying in various colleges in Rome?  None of the colleges are situated within Vatican City, and the games were not played in Vatican City.  Lima (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Government
/* Government */ changed it from "sovereigns that wield" [sic] to "sovereigns who exercise." "Wields" sounds as if the Pope is ordering bombs to be dropped on someone. Furthermore, every member of the Church is voluntarily subject to his authority. "Wields" might have been apropos in 1205, but not 2005.


 * Yes, every member of the church is voluntarily subject to his authority, but within the state of the Vatican City (which is what this aritcle is actually about) his rule is absolute. As a religious leader he supervises a voluntary flock; as a political sovereign, he is an absolute ruler over his admitedly tiny country. --Jfruh 02:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Pope is the last word, but he rarely if ever says anything about the daily workings of Vatican City.

Extra-territorial property of the Holy See
The following statement is not correct:  In addition to Vatican City the State includes certain extra-territorial properties in Italy belonging to the Holy See (Major Basilicas, Curial and diocesan offices, Castel Gandolfo). Reason: According to the Lateran Treaties these extra-territorial properties are part of the Italian territory. It "happens" to be that the Holy See has the authority over the State of the Vatican City AND has extra-territorial property. But that does not mean that the State itself includes theses properties. 143.50.212.194 16:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If no one minds I reformulate the statement in the article. Gugganij 19:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That means the extra-territorial properties come under the jurisdiction (though not sovereign) of the Holy See instead of the Vatican City, right? DD Ting 09:20, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * You could (as in fact the Lateran treaties did) compare them with foreign embassies. Gugganij 22:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Number of Popes per square kilometer
There are two popes per square kilometer in Vatican city. Don't put that in the article, I just thought it was funny.

Incorrect Population Rank
The page states the population rank to be 229th, but this page states that it is the 234th. 66.168.235.218 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

AD or BC?
Emperor Constantine gave this site to Pope Miltiades in 313.

Is this AD or BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.137.22 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no BC popes. Esoglou (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

new image
I just uploaded an image of a high res 360 degree view from the dome over the vatican and out into rome. Please include it if it is suitable for the article.

How many churches?
How many churches are there in Vatican City, apart from St Peter's? (Just curious - if there are none, the Vatican may be the country in the world with the smallest number of catholic churches.) David Olivier (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, apart from St Peter's, there's the busy Saint Anne's just inside Saint Anne's Gate. There's Saint Stephen's of the Ethiopians, a building quite separate from the Ethiopian College, perhaps not very regularly officiated - I don't know. There are others that could be called chapels rather than churches, as for the Swiss Guards - as well as the very big Sistine Chapel and perhaps dozens of smaller chapels   Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! David Olivier (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting question...I never thought about it when I lived in Rome...I didn't even realize that there was a St. Anne's church, even though I passed by it every time I entered through the Porta Sant'Anna.
 * However, if you want to count by altars, the Vatican is full of them ;-). In the Basilica alone there are something like 23 altars on the ground floor (see ) because of all the side chapels...I am sure that there are altars every where you go in the Vatican...except in the "Vatican Bank"...I didn't see one in there ;-)
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sporting Representatives
A priest is playing in the European Individual Chess championship under the flag of the "State of Vaticano". See this article (sroll down to grey box) which has links to Italian newspapers. Does this occur in other sports and should their be a mention of this? - SimonLyall (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting story...however, unfortunately, none of the 5 newspaper sources state that the priest is playing under the flag of the Vatican, they say only that he got permission from the Cardinal to enter the tournament, which could easily have nothing to do with officially playing as the Vatican representative. There isn't any mention in the sources of "but he will play with the flag of Vaticano".
 * On the other hand, he didn't include the link for Avvenire...when I looked it up - assuming I found the right one (how many articles on chess can there be in the last few weeks at a paper aligned with the Catholic Church?), there wasn't any reference to this Valerio Prio at all...yes, I searched the Avvenire website and there were no hits for this name. The article can be found at.
 * Adolivio Capece appears to be the editor "Italia scacchistica", (a loose translation is 'Chess playing Italy'), so I don't know what to do with this...
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is definitely playing in the tournament but is listed under Italy See his progess here. However since The Vatican is not a member of FIDE he might still be allowed to use the flag. I'll email the organisers and ask them. If they confirm the story we can worry about some good sources. - SimonLyall (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category
Can someone put the page into this category please? Countries that are enclaves on Italy

All male?
More out of curiosity than anything else, but I was wondering, given that almost all the population of the Vatican are clergy or Swiss guards, is the Vatican the only 100% male country in the world? LukeSurlt c 22:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Vatican City is a 100% male state. First, I've always heard that there were nuns living in the City, taking care of a number of tasks. Second, Stefano Sandano, author of RomeGuide.com, says "Some eight hundred people live permanently in the Vatican city, among them a few families with children." (http://www.romanguide.com/vaticancity/vatican-city-walls.html). I believe these families include the families of the senior officers of the Swiss Guard (see http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/religion/pope/cr_vatican_08.html, but I believe that this stub should refer only to officers' families, as the recruits must be unmarried).
 * Anyway, there aren't a lot of women in Vatican City, but I would always expect that there would be a few...
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Others include the nuns that this news report is about. Esoglou (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is very clear.
It isn't very clear as to how the Holy See and the State of the Vatican City are different. You say they are repeatedly in both articles, but you don't explain how. Could you please clarify this? Thank you for your time and understanding.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Holy See is not a city, Vatican City is. Though headed by the same person, they are in reality as different as the Archdiocese of New York and New York City are.  So too the Church of England and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are different entities, though headed by the same individual.  Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Holy See is a religious entity (Holy See = the See of the Bishop of Rome i.e. the Pope; essentially comparable to the See of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the See of any other bishop), while the State of the Vatican City is an independent country (comparable to the United Kingdom; i.e. an entity of international law). However, apart from its pre-eminent status within the Catholic Church the Holy See has been awarded some privileges in international law not awarded to any other sees (mainly, it is regarded as being sovereign; loosely speaking: it is treated as being a country without territory). Because of that the Church can choose to enter into diplomatic relations with other sovereign entities either via the Holy See (sovereign by international consensus) or the Vatican City (sovereign by definition, as it is an independent country). In most cases the Church chooses the former (since she already did that before the State of the Vatican City was even created in 1929). Gugganij (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

what side of the road
You should add something saying what side of the road they drive on in the Vatican.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They drive on all sides of the road, like most Italians! hahaha!. OK, seriously, I drove on the right hand side when inside the Vatican, just like in Rome/Italy...do you really think that this needs to be mentioned, since most people will never have the chance to drive inside the Vatican?

William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All other countries have it (or most of them) on Wikipedia.--CafeDelKevin (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could believe that what you say is true, but there is a big difference: the average person (like a tourist) can drive in most countries - they can't in Vatican City. The only reason I could enter the Vatican with a car was because I had a pass that got me into the Institute for Religious Works (the real name of the 'Vatican Bank'). Without that pass, I would never have been able to get past the Swiss Guards at the Porta Sant'Anna, which is the entrance for most of the employees who live in Rome but work at the Vatican - you can see my photo of it at . There is one other vehicular entrance on the south side of the Basilica near the Audience Hall, but again, there are two Swiss Guards on duty there, and you can't get in with your car unless you have a pass. In any case, we wouldn't want to imply to people reading this that they could drive inside of the Vatican, because they can't...
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I decided that to be consistent (even though consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, or something like that), that I would add the Drives On tag, with the Note (which I had to learn how to do) that the casual visitor can't drive in the Vatican anyway...after all, Vatican City is listed in the article on left and right side driving as one of the countries that drive on the right...
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

semi edit protection req.
This article is the target of vandalism and try-outs for edits (+ saving). Just look at the history of the last two weeks. Since it is an important article about a country and since it is a lot of work to check the watchist and perform rvv, I suggest the semi-edit protection of the page. Grazie e a dopo, --Scriberius (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:RPP to request page protection. Tim1357 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thx. --Scriberius (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the annual GDP of the city...???
I'm curious to know. Are there any governmental reports for it...???--58.38.45.9 (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no official figures. See pages 47–49 of this book for possible estimates. — JAO • T • C 08:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City Relations Map Image
Considering that Russia is the only country that is light green for "Other relations", shouldn't we specify what it is if it's not "diplomatic relations"?--Governor Jerjerrod (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City and Holy City, what is the difference?
Aren't they both the same place?--24.240.186.152 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Holy See? Yes - they are different.   Kransky (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Holy See" comes from "Santa Sede", which is literally "Holy Seat", as in "seat of power". Thus, Vatican City refers to the geographic location on the west side of Rome of the 'Vatican' while the Holy See refers to the government and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. As you see from this article, the headquarters of the Church encompasses an area larger than just Vatican City; for example, St. John Lateran is "extra-territorial" (i.e., not part of Italy, but part of the Holy See), even though it is not contiguous with Vatican City itself.
 * William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all a bit confusing.
 * Under canon law, the Roman Catholic Church, for completeness, and the Holy (or, in canons, Apostolic) See are both juridical persons by divine law, while the second is who governs the first. "See" is literally the Cathedra (roundabout: the throne) of a bishop. You can without problems talk about the (episcopal) see of Westminster, or even officially about the holy see of Mayence. In this case, it's the see of the Bishop of Rome with his very special authority. Under the term "Holy See" is also understood the Roman Curia, wherever its organs act within their papal mandate. The Holy See is recognised as a quasi-state.
 * If there is no sedevacancy, the Holy See is virtually the actual Pope's natural person, though I say virtually because I don't think the words are completely interchangeable.
 * The Vatican, literally, is a hill. However, this name is applied to nearly all the terms I use here, even sometimes to the Roman Catholic Church, even sometimes where the Archbishop of Westminster speaks for it, even when he is not a Cardinal. Language usage is a tyrant. However, it would be deeply inaccurate to use it in any of these senses before 1378; also, to the Papal States until 1870 we may only say Vatican in the same way we call the United States Washington.
 * The ecclesiastical region of Lazio, the ecclesiastical province of Rome and the Archdiocese of Rome itself are headed by the Pope, though they at least are not called Vatican.
 * The Holy See has some possessions. The Vatican City State (theoretically) is one of these, with borders as laid down in the Lateran Treaty, and that's where the Holy See has not only possession but also souvereignty (it is said expressly that the Holy See is the Souvereign of Vatican City in the Lateran Treaties, so they have some subordinative connection), and which is a independant state whose head is the Pope (who however has not only the title of Head of State but also personally of Souvereign of Vatican City State, in his long title).
 * The "Vatican (City) (State)" is practically an unofficial entity that comprises this state, plus in addition some other posessions of the Holy See in Rome and Castelgandolfo where the Holy See has theoretically not souvereignty, but "only" extraterritoriality and which, in some respect, may be called theoretically Italian, such as some places around the proper Vatican City State, or the Lateran Basilica, etc. You will hear "St. John Lateran belongs to the Vatican" when you go to Rome, and you will see cars, even firefighters, in front of these churches with Vatican insignia.
 * St. Peter's Square is within Vatican City both theoretically and practically, but the Italian police may under normal circumstances exercise authority there. --217.189.251.64 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rome is one of many holy cities around the world. Apat from them, the best known use of "Holy City" is the hymn/carol "The Holy City" by Stephen Adams, a pseudonym of Michael Maybrick, whose brother has long been a suspect in the Jack the Ripper case.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Better map/location?
The current map at the top of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_Vatican_City_Europe.png) doesn't show the actual location of Vatican City in Italy, just a vague circle around where it is. There are five maps on the page, three of just the Vatican, but nothing with what I - and presumably others - am interested in.

I don't know how making Wikipedia maps work; is there an easy way to make a second map in the infobox below the above one, this one of Italy in grey, Rome in (for instance) darker grey, and the Vatican itself in green to give a better idea of where it is? - LafinJack (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To scale? Italy is roughly a thousand times as wide as the Vatican City—if you want the VC to be at least a few pixels, that map will span more than the entire display for everyone. Now, a map of only Rome with the VC territory highlighted is feasible (but probably not in the infobox), and indeed it already exists: File:Rome - Vatican.PNG. — JAO • T • C 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about it, I think it would be very good to have something like that in the article. Not only to show the location within Rome (which might not be all that interesting to people unfamiliar with the city), but also to give the reader a more visual impression of how small it really is. Just saying that it's the world's smallest country might lead people to think "yeah, like just a city", but that would be more like Singapore, which is gigantic in comparison. The Vatican's area is not like that of a typical city, but like that of a typical theme park (actually, it's almost exactly halfway between the areas of the Anaheim Disneyland and the Paris one). We might need something similar at its big brother Monaco, which admittedly is much larger, at more than half the size of Manhattan's Central Park. — JAO • T • C 09:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:World Heritage Sites in Europe vs. Category:World Heritage Sites in Vatican City
Category:World Heritage Sites in Vatican City is itself a category within Category:World Heritage Sites in Europe. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

About WikiProject Vatican City
Hi, just to point out the WikiProject for this city-state really needs some help. Much information needs to be place into the project, and we could use all the help we can get. Please do join the project and help out.  Ross Rhodes (  T   C  ) <sup style="color:teal;">Sign!  19:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Make a portal?
Just an idea, could someone not make a portal for subjects relating to the city-state? I mean, all the other countries/terratories have one, no matter what size they are, so why doesn't Vatican City have one? Christianity is really the only portal there that even relates to it, and I don't think that's enough. Some of the subjects that the portal could include are Vatican City (Obviously), Vatican Gardens and The Pope.  Ross Rhodes (  T   C  ) <sup style="color:teal;">Sign!  20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image in the Jewish world and Islamic world
The Vatican is widely regarded as a chief location for Christianity by Jews, Muslims and other religions, something which commonly tends to irritate Protestants and other non-Catholics. There are no available statistics on this, but I think it can be easily demonstrated that non-Christians will recognize the politcial, religious and historical value of the Holy See at a much faster rate than many dissident, non-Conformist Western Christians. ADM (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of cities in Vatican City
Should this new stub, to which a link has been added under "See also", be deleted? The idea of cities within Vatican City sounds ridiculous to me. But it is obvious that someone thinks that (tautologically?) mentioning Vatican City itself as in Vatican City justifies setting up this "list" with a single member. Lima (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It makes no sense to create a "list" with a single member. List of cities in Vatican City belongs in the same category of articles such as Hinduism in Vatican City. I will tag the article for WP:PROD. The link in "See also" should also be removed. -- Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 09:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong population density rank ?
In the infobox, it is written that Vatican City has 1780 inhabitants/km² and is the 6th "most crowded" country in the world. However, this page states that Vatican City is 4th with 1,866 inhabitants per square kilometre. Which page has the correct statistics ?

Thanks, User:Xtboris say something ! 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

IPA
The pronunciation indication at the top of the article is American English only; not sure why American English should be given precedence over British English (or vice versa) in this article... AnonMoos (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it thought that we need help to pronounce "Vatican City"? I don't think any English speaker would have any doubts about how to pronounce it - unlike the titles of some (few) other articles.  Lima (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Proposal to merge holy see and the Vatican City State. The former article was split into a Foreign relations of the Vatican along the lines of other states, this holy see then became a much shorter, and, need I say, almost redundant article. As a sovereign institution is makes sense to merge the two as the content in both overlaps (note: it doesn't talk about the church but the national institution). Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the articles should remain as distinct articles, as they are distinct entities. It is very easy to confuse the two, and having them both in one article would probably just make that more likely to happen.  The new article Foreign relations of the Vatican is probably not necessary.  The intro is particularly confusing, with quite a bit of opinion and WP:OR, and poor citations.  --Anietor (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They are two separate and distinct entities, and it is better to keep the articles separate. As for the Foreign relations of the Vatican article, I think there is certainly enough material out there for it to be a valid article, but it needs work in its current state. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Holy See and the Vatican City State are two different entities. The Vatican City State is the political organization.  The Holy See is the religious organization.  Merging the two confuses the issue. Marauder40 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - and if the article on diplomatic relations is to be kept (i.e. after being rewritten), it should be clearly titled as "Diplomatic Relations of the Holy See": Vatican City does not have diplomatic relations with any entity. Lima (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - they are two different entities. A ntv (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The Holy See is a sovereign entity in international diplomacy distinct from the territory which it governs. It is also the religious centre of the Roman Catholic Church- therefore the Holy See is two things- the Sovereign Entity and the Ecclesiastical Centre of Catholicism. The Vatican City is totally separate. It is the worlds smallest country, it is at present governed by the Holy See but it is not the Holy See and the Holy See is not it. (Theoretically anyone could invade and take over the Vatican and make it their country...the Holy See would still exist as would the vatican under new management.) Gavin (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Oppose they are two different entities according to UN. --<b style="color:darkgreen;">Fixman</b><sup style="color:red;">Praise me 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Abstain - I think the very fact that the Vatican and the Holy See are often conflated by some people is reason enough to keep two separate articles, if only show a clear distinction.--Lairor (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even one person has supported the proposal. I think it is time to close this discussion and remove the tag.  Any objections?  Lima (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Size
It would seem to me that the size of the Vatican needs to be re-examined. It would be benificial to include two sizes, one for just the Vatican itself, and another to include the size of all the land that the Vatican (Holy See) actually controls, such as the Radio towers and the Palace near the lake to the south. I know this seems unimportant but it would help some. Also, we need to find out exaclty how the Carbon Neutral Forest donation is affecting this. Is this Forest in Hungry part of the Vatican, as in now a complete part of the Country, or is it like other parts, enjoying extraterritorial status? If it is part of the Country, that actually may push the Vatican up to not being the Smallest country anymore. But again, I don't know for sure, so please let us get some information and update that article.

The last time I checked the forest in Hungry was set to actually become part of the Vatican, not just administered by the Holy See. They have finished marking the territory and already donated it so we should be able to find a size referrance for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I'd be very suprised if the forest in Hungary will become Vatican territory, I agree with the thrust of this comment. I never know whether territorial figures for the Vatican include other entites like the Lateran Basilica/palace or not. Speaking of carbon neutral state's the Vatican is building a new solar power plant at he the site of Vatican Radio that would fit well with the article's mention of the Vatican's carbon neutral status. Teh are also already an array of photovoltaics on the Papal Audience Hall, not of themselves note worthy but, the combination of environmental moves is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Military"/Defense
According to the CIA World Factbook [] the defense of the Vatican City is a responsability of Italy, yet the article has a subheading on the "Military and police" that does not mention this at all. The Wikipeida article on the Lateran Treaties of 1929 also does not mention any agreement over protection or policing, though it is only logical that the treaties would, or else the Vatican City would be vulnerable to attack. Would someone make any further research into the actual provisions, since the WOrld Factbook does not cite its sources. September 21 2008 17:05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.4.186 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that Italy's responsibility is not by formal agreement, but merely a matter of geography: any attack on the tiny Vatican City would have to come from within Italy's jurisdiction. Lima (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Lateran does it not say that the Italian State will defend the Vatican? Gavin (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in my reading of the treaty and the other documents of the Lateran Pacts. Lima (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Vatican necropolis?
Remains of this ancient necropolis were brought to light sporadically during renovations by various popes throughout the centuries increasing in frequency during the Renaissance until it was systematically excavated by orders of Pope Pius XII from 1939 to 1941. Whats the story on this? It sounds like it deserves its own article. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out Vatican Necropolis.

William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Definite article
Is it "Vatican City" or "the Vatican City"? Confusion reigns throughout this article and even in the naming of related articles: Politics of Vatican City, Geography of Vatican City etc. but Flag of the Vatican City, Military of the Vatican City and Music of the Vatican City. -- Jao (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, as a native English speaker and former resident in Rome (and frequent visitor to the Vatican to go to the 'Bank'), it is "Vatican City", not "the Vatican City". I don't recall ever hearing "the Vatican City" - I guess I need to go read the article more closely. Note that we do say "the Vatican", when we are making a short cut reference to the administrative headquarters of the church. William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this reply, and for bringing my attention back to this issue. It turns out that the Flag, Military and Music articles were stripped of their definite articles less than two months after my query. Hence now—all good and well! — JAO • T • C 04:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are using "Vatican City", are you maybe suggesting "Vatican" being the adjective and be added to "the city"? In English grammar, if there is a city called "Vatican" and we wish to clarify that it is a city, we may say "Vatican the city", or "the city of Vatican" (that may also give confusion about there is a city inside the area of Vatican). Putting it as "the Vatican City" will change the grammatical structure into the + Vatican (adj) + city. The other thing is, we usually hear Italian refer to the city as "Il Vaticano", literally "the Vatican". The Italian page's name used "Città del Vaticano", literally (the) city of Vatican. The title in English is unneccesarily controversal. Simply "Vatican" or "the Vatican" will have no other meaning than the city itself. And Wikipedia usually prefers titles without the definite article. Maybe simply "Vatican" may cease the confusion. --223.18.170.144 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, the two words in "Vatican City" are nouns in apposition. They are like "New York City". "The Vatican" is often used to mean the Holy See, not Vatican City.  Esoglou (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gramatically New York City isn't very gramatical, not until some modern changes of the use of nouns somewhere in the history. I would believe New York City is a simplified version of "New York the City". But the confusing thing about New York is that the state and the city are using the same name while referring to two distinct areas. So they called them the city of New York and the state of New York, gramatically. Now that when people want to make those names shorter, making it New York State and New York City, just to avoid using apostrophe s, or it'd become New York's State and New York's City. Gramatically, this later method is more correct than the conventional method. And I have all confidence to believe The Vatican and New York are of completely different situation. --223.18.170.207 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I went down to Dublin city,
 * At the hour of twelve at night,
 * Who should I see but the Spanish Lady,
 * Washing her feet by candle-light ...
 * Singing this ballad is more enjoyable than discussing ideas about what is or is not grammatical. Esoglou (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When we're discussing grammatical points, and someone comes up with "Gramatically New York City isn't very gramatical", I stop reading at that point. No offence, 223.18, but clearly your native language is not English, yet you still seem to feel qualified to expostulate on the finer points of English grammar (which has two m's, btw).  I don't get it.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's Square, disputed territory?
Hardly the most reliable source of information, but is it true that as claimed in Angels and Demons, that the square has been a bone of contention between the Vatican and Rome, and that Rome has periodically laid claim to it? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to be utter nonsense. The Lateran Treaty is quite clear that the square is part of the new state: see the plan at the end of this site, which gives a reproduction of the actual signed text of the treaty, and the plan on the Vatican City Website, and indeed dozens of other Websites and travel books.  By common agreement, the policing of the square is usually entrusted to the Italian police (cf. this Vatican Radio report), but on certain solemn occasions the responsibility is assumed exclusively by the Vatican officers.  Of course, the Vatican assumed complete responsibility day after day at a certain stage of the Second World War and, according to what I once read, posted the Swiss Guard at the border armed with weapons more modern than their ceremonial halberds.  Lima (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This sounds more likely. Dan Brown's confusion probably resulted from the fact that Roman police are probably let in there to deal with crime problems etc, otherwise any crook could run in there and evade responsibility.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No Dan Brown's confusion is due to the fact he doesn't give a rat's backside about historical accuracy. His books are fiction every last word of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * heh heh...My belief in Dan Brown's accuracy went to zero when he wrote something about a character in his book watching the afternoon sun fall on the face of St. Peter's Basilica. Since the Basilica faces due east, this is quite impossible...as millions of people around the world (including me) can personally attest to. As for the border, across the opening of the colonnades around St. Peter's Square, is a line of white stone set into the ground (the other stones/cobblestones are dark grey from what I recall). This line is slightly arc'd to complete the ellipse that is the 'square' (isn't English wonderful? ;-) ). William J. &#39;Bill&#39; McCalpin (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Photo
For comparing the situation in 1900 with that of the 1984 Photo I added the picture. A lot has changed, fun to see. That picture is the result of adding 2 pictures together, because my scanner was not big enough. If you don't like it, remove it, if you like it: make it please a bit better in lay-out. I made it a bit messy. Bornestera (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My poor opinion is that, while the 1900 photograph shows changes in Rome, in particular in what has become Via della Conciliazione, it adds no information about Vatican City. Lima (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin is the official language
So I do not find myself in an edit war, I decided to open this chat. I saw an arguement that Latin is the official language of the holy See, not the Vatican City country itself. I disagree strongly. Vatican City has Latin and Italian as both official languages. I have references on books to prove, most recently 2007. If you have an updated source, book preferbly of 2008, please release that source. Otherwise, my Atlas of the World, published in 2007 (In Icelandic, but translated from English) says on the country information "Vatican City: Official language: Latin, Italian". Also other encyclopedias, and I even checked at the library. No where does it state a distinguishment between Vatican City and Holy See for the official language. Some just have as the country name "Vatican City (Holy See)" as the official country name, if I might add.

Besides this point, please view EVERY SINGLE WIKIPEDIA in the other languages, including the major ones like Spanish, French, Italian, Latin, and German. They all have "Latin" as the official language, even some don't even include Italian. I welcome people to agree with me or challenge me if I am wrong and there is an updated reference for 2008 stating that Latin is no longer an official language of Vatican City. --Girdi (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again we are up against the Wikipedia problem of sources, and in particular the absolute precedence that many editors grant to anything whatever found in a secondary source, even if it disagrees with what a plain non-expert look at the primary source shows to be a fact. In this case, not a single official document of the Vatican State has ever been issued in Latin.  All of them, including the foundation treaty and the basic laws, as well as day-to-day regulations authorizing issues of new stamps or laying down traffic regulations and fines, are issued in Italian.  The documents can be consulted in the appendix (entirely in Italian) of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official gazette of the Holy See.  (The Holy See's official documents are issued in many languages, but its laws and regulations are in Latin.)  Many editors will say that the text of the official documents of the Vatican City State, published in this appendix (and elsewhere) is "only" a primary source and that Wikipedia must only give what secondary sources say.  For my part, I think we should use common sense.  Lima (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand that Vatican City uses Italian day to day, and the Holy See issues documents in Latin. We both agree on that. Now the argument is Holy See versus Vatican City. In all the countries I have been to which have a Vatican representation/embassy, it says "Vatican City - Holy See Embassy". Is the Holy See a part of Vatican City, or runs Vatican City, or IS Vatican City? Can we seperate Holy See from Vatican City as a country? For a compromise, why not include Latin with a footnote stating "Latin is used in the Holy See as an official language", as a majority of Wikipedias include.


 * Sources is another argument. I understand and respect your argument regarding secondary and primary sources, but what about checking the sources of the seconday sources? Also, if a majority, or all of the seconday sources I found have Latin listed as an official language of Vatican City, then why can't Wikipedia as a secondary source have it too? This might really confuse people, Wikipedia being the only seconday source without Latin as an official language, at least that I have seen. --Girdi (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps telephone directories and the like may say the "embassy" is of Vatican City. The Diplomatic List of the country's Foreign Ministry will know better and will say that the Apostolic Nunciature is the embassy of the Holy See, not of the Vatican City State. The Holy See existed before 1929, when the state came into existence for the first time.  Ambassadors were accredited to the Holy See long before the Vatican City State came to be, and they are still accredited to the Holy See, not to the state.  The countries that send the ambassadors are not interested in having relations with a 44-hectare statelet.  They are highly interested in having relations with the Holy See.  Lima (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, this I didn't understand at first. So I offer again a suggestion, since there are still ties between Holy See and Vatican city, can we have both languages there but a footnate stating "Latin is used as official only in the Holy See" so we stop confusing amongst other wikipedias and secondary sources? I am talking about this from a learner's point of view, not a Wiki-editor that wants his edit in. Try to understand, when I looked at the Vatican City article I was really confused, until I looked at the Edit istory and saw you wrote "not to be confused with Holy See". This information is not easily accessible on this article and might confuse people doing research on VC. So if we include Latin with a footnate or parantheses stating "Used only in Holy See" I think that will be great. --Girdi (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Holy See is not the only entity with a base in Vatican City. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences publishes in English and French.  Should we add a note about these two languages?  The United Nations Organization, based in New York, has a number of official languages: should we add a note about that to the New York article, which at present says the city has no official language?  Lima (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but still, this is a more of a confusion basis as opposed to a digging into extreme detail facts. Official language: Latin (not Vatican City, used in Holy See), how can that hurt anyone, or lie, or state facts wrongly? I was extremely confused not to see Latin there but on other wikis until we had this discussion, but not every single person who doesn't even know what "Discussion" tab does will know to check it to get an explanation, nor have time to read in depth the article to find out why Latin isn't there. With all do respect, I'd like to see other people chip in on this discussion too so it isn't just 1 on 1. Again, with all due respect Lima. --Girdi (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think you were confused by the article. You didn't understand the facts, and when you saw the facts correctly reported, you thought the report was wrong. But the confusion here is caused by the fact that the situation itself is complex.  As for the Holy See, it's not clear that it has any "official language" either: official documents there are issued in various languages, sometimes Latin, sometimes Italian, sometimes another language.  We don't normally talk about "official languages" of ecclesiastical entities like that anyhow, the way we do of states. The article did not contribute to your confusion; your confusion existed before the article ever got involved, and the consequence of seeing the article was that you could (1) notice your confusion, and (2) clear it up.  Tb (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I was confused by this article, don't tell me about that, you don't know! And I would love to show you this source CIA World Factbook Holy See (Vatican City), I just love seeing Vatican City in parentheses around Holy See, and Latin listed under languages. Please, be my guest. :) --Girdi (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The source quoted confuses the Holy See with the 1929-founded Vatican City State. Do you really think the Holy See did not exist until 1929, when the Vatican City State came into existence?  Lima (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Utilites
No where in the document is mentioned where the Vatican gets its utilites from and how they are paid and such. I suspect these to be explained under the Latern Treart section but they arent. This should be revided when possible.

Griping about palaces in intro
The last paragraph of the intro section seems out of place. Do we need to dedicate so much space at the top of the article on where the Pope's official residence is now and has been throughout history and which palace has hosted more ecumenical councils? Gentgeen (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Official language
The official language, according to the Constitution of the Vatican State, is italian:

http://www.filodiritto.com/diritto/pubblico/internazionale/cittadelvaticano.htm

"The official language in Vatican City State is italian, but official acts are edited in latin"

Therefore I will put both italian and latin as official languages in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcer80 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is incorrect. The official language is Italian, not Italian and Latin. There are countries with more than one official language, and that's not the same thing. Tb (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should say though that I'm happy with the infobox text, which lists both and explains it in a note. Tb (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the footnote because the former version was incorrect. Feel free to modify it --Jcer80 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need; I think it's excellent as you have fixed it. Tb (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I must disagree. The source quoted contradicts itself.  While it says the official language is Italian - which is correct, though only in the same sense as one can say that English is (in practice though not by law) the official language of the United States - it then says that "official acts are edited in Latin" - which is false.  The official acts of the Vatican City State are published in the form of a supplement to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the Latin name of the official gazette of the Holy See).  However, the official acts of the Vatican City State published in that supplement are entirely in Italian, as anyone who looks at it can see.  And even the writer himself gives in the very next paragraph examples of official acts of the Vatican City State that are, of course, in Italian, not Latin.
 * Since some think I treat anything in a secondary source as fair game, I leave it to others to undo the changes introduced on the basis of this particular source. Lima (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't want to undo them: that would switch it back to Latin! I've fixed it. Tb (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Back to how it was on 14 November Lima (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field but the site Wikitravel says that Latin and Italian are both the official language. List of official languages by state says that there is no official language, hover Latin is the de facto official language and Italian spoken also. The CIA website says that Italian, Latin, French, and various other languages is spoken but does not state about an official language. This is quite confusing... Demophon (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Latin bit is working by "it must be so" rather than any actual evidence to support it. Latin is the official language of the church, but that's not the same thing at all.  Tb (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also wouldn't consider Wikitravel and Wikipedia to be reliable sources. Gentgeen (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe
Hello ! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Constantine Donation
Should the article on Vatican City not include the Constantine Donation or Donatio Constantini? There is a good article bout it in this same Wikipedia.

Poldebol (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would check snopes.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.158.207 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban Legends
I've been considering adding some information about the persistant urban legends that surround the Vatican (namely, that it supposely has the 'largest collection of pornographic material in the world', and the 'silver hammer' legend), but I'm not sure if it should be added, and/or where.

Any opinions? 64.180.205.246 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We'll just assume that you're joking about that. Just in case you're not joking... that wouldn't be a welcomed addition to the article.--Anietor (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Population
The article stated, with references, that the Vatican City has a population of 800 people and therefore has the lowest population of any country in the world. The Pitcairn Islands in the Southern Pacific Ocean has a population of 50 and therefore i edited the article to state that the Vatican city has the second lowest population of any country in the world after the Pitcairn Islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.41.250 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

/* 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

History section partial move/merge to Holy See
Some parts of the pre-Lateran Treaty history section could and probably should be moved/merged with the history section of the Holy See? PPEMES (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong picture
Sorry to write this here and not just solve the problem, but I am very new to editing. The picture of the Baroque illustration used in the section "early history" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#/media/File:Lieven_Cruyl_-_Veduti_-_Erfgoedfonds_Koning_Boudewijnstichting_-_Fonds_du_Patrimoine_Fondation_Roi_Baudouin_-_4.jpg), does not portray the Vatican. The text below the picture says "Prospectus Basilicę Vaticanę D. Petri.", but the is clearly Sant'Agnese in Agone, as also printed on the actual image: "Prospectus Fori Agnonalis" Smn.plsn (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)