User talk:BonifaciusVIII

Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system
I renamed the article from Roman Catholic Church and the United Nations to activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system in order to make the article's title reflect what the real subject matter is about. ADM (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of the Holy See
I created the entry legal status of the Holy See, because the information citing modern legal scholars is maybe a bit too precise for a general entry about the Holy See. I think there is a case to be made that the Holy See is indeed a State because it has all the required international relations. For instance, Taiwan does have a territory and does have a permanent population, but it has a comparatively poor diplomacy, which inhibits its capacities to properly function as a State and participate at the UN. Many of the more recent legal scholars, who tend to postmodernists instead of realists, have argued that the State is both a legal person and a social construct, and that as such it requires to be recognized by other legal persons in order to function properly. ADM (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Holy See: multilateral issues
This page is a split from Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system. It is still a work in progress. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The title needs to be changed because adding a colon in the title is very rare in Wikipedia entries and appears to go against existing conventions. I would recommend foreign policy of the Holy See instead. Or maybe multilateral policy of the Holy See would be better. This would leave the possibility of creating bilateral policy of the Holy See. ADM (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Undefined UN membership from 1944 to 1964
I find this title rather confusing, If anything, the Holy See was a Non-member, Non-observer during that period. I suggest either going back to the previous title or going for "Non participation between 1944 to 1964" eventhough it is not fully accurate. BonifaciusVIII (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to include the League of Nations part of history, where there was also no participation, which is why the correct title is somewhat difficult ot ascertain. I do agree with your suggestion though and will abide by it. ADM (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism
I think you need to read the talk page of WP:WTA (Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid to understand that removing the academic definitions would raise the hackles of may dedicated editors. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

yer! But have a look at Genocide and the article Genocide under municipal laws. Most states like the UK simply incorporate the treaty into domestic law. If ever the UN gets its act together over terrorism then something similar would probably happen.

So showing different municipal laws shows how the community of nations is split. -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the breakdown into Genocide, Genocide under municipal laws, Genocide definitions and genocides in history (for the POV stuff) works well (but as the author of much of it, and a firm hand on the "genocides in history" is is appropriate to say "Well he would say that wouldn't he". In the longer term may be the way to go with "Terrorism" and subsidiary articles, but for many Wikiepdia editors it is a more emotive subject than genocide probably because it is closer to home for many monoglot English speakers. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just read your last comment. The think is that editors like Igor clearly think that academic definitions are important, and I don't disagree, see the comment in Genocide: "Writing in 1998 Kurt Jonassohn and Karin Björnson stated that the CPPCG was a legal instrument resulting from a diplomatic compromise. As such the wording of the treaty is not intended to be a definition suitable as a research tool, ...". What we need is to look for sources like I found for genocide to base the list of academic definitions of terrorism and municipal definitions and create articles based on those. Until those are found incrementally expanding the Definition of terrorism article is probably the way to go. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/9d9db21c-a349-11dc-bf1b-335d0754ba85.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks, -- Bonifacius 09:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and laws of war
Given this request, I have speedily deleted it under CSD "Author requests deletion".

Until you mentioned it I had never heard of the article International conventions on terrorism let n alone edited it!

"I would also delete the couple of paragraph from this text that seem to have contaminated the definition of terrorism one." Which ones are those? Please quote the first couple of words of each paragraph (so I can identity them), but please do it on the talk page of the article, as these things are best discussed on the talk page of articles so other interested editors can give their opions. -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very happy to discuss this issue with someone else that is not Philip. Unfortunately I completely disagree of your concept. Legal-diplomatic definitions are done with an eye on the groups supported or attacked by each country and by a careful negotiation that has nothing to do with a serious search for a scientific definition.


 * Rather than undergraduates, I was thinking in using serious sources such as Hoffman and Schmidt, who share with most of the terrorism academic experts a clear definition.


 * I have had not the pleasure of having read your new addings to the article. Traditionally this article has been a bastion of the people who says that "terrorism is everything and nothing". To backup their absurd claimings thety use minor nuances in academic definitions and enormous lists of definitions took from everywhere. This was the purpose of this article. To convert it in a repository of legal definitions is not optimum but will certainly improve situation.


 * I have devoted myself many hours to the study of political violence and I know that there is a corpus of knowledge about terrorism that should not be blocked by PBS et al. to be offered to readers. One posible solution is that PBS states clearly his ideas "terrorism is an empty word that means everything and nothing" and the do a "alternative theories" where the academic knowledge can be be shown without interference.--Igor21 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Bonifacius VIII : You have certainly improved the article but you have also experienced how strong is the presure to let as it is : a hopeless colection of definitions to ilustrate PBS et al. ideas. The first paragraphs are a manipulation of truth since misquote some people to emphasize the point that to define terrorism is imposible. The quotes are taken out of context to make them say what the people that put there wanted them so say : that there is no definition of terrorism because such thing is imposible,


 * IMO an encyclopedia must be based on academic research and there is plenty of literature about terrorism written by respected scholars that should be the core of the article instead of purposely contradictory quotes out of context.


 * Regarding academic experts, it is clear that this Gordon anderson and the arab gentleman are nobody and their opinions must be removed. The people over the ideas of whom the article should be based are Hoffman and Schmidt (who are not undergraduates).


 * For any concept of social science there are some definitions that are sinthetized to be included as first paragraph. It is done with nation, religion, country, etc... All have definitions agreed as sinthesis of academic sources. But all of them could have been written in the "terrorism" article way -i.e. start with some quotes saying that the definition is disputed, then put some definitions from diferent authors with diferent degrees of merit and finally fill the discusion pages with comments about "editorializing" when someone tries to improve the article.


 * What is to editorialize is to invent that there is no definition by not distinguishing the 3 levels of language.--Igor21 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have come to think that a good article about the legal aspects of terrorism in different countries and in multilateral conventions can help to brake the dedlock since as you say will make arise the question, how can be that something that has no definition and that nobody can know what it is have so much legal texts devoted to its prosecution? Then it will be posible to add the academic studies about psicology, estructure of organizations, history, etc... because my fight for definition is a fight not for the definition itself but for the acceptance of the existence of the concept so the article about it can be written properly.--Igor21 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Military occupation
Given your interest in international law please have a look at Military occupation. There is a dispute on the talk page, and I think it is a silly one as I don't really think that the current wording that is in dispute is the best it is just that the replacement is in my opinion worse. There is an additional question if Military occupation and occupied territory should be merged which you might like to look at as it revolves around opinions on what is occupied territory. -- PBS (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism
Although I have been critical of Vallis et all on the talk page of terrorism, I do think that the approach has merits, and it is far better than the currant dogs dinner of an article on Terrorism we have at the moment. The structure of the article (its headings etc) and the one by Max Abrahms,  Lumpers versus Splitters: A Pivotal Battle in the Field of Terrorism Studies. that someone else bought to the table, could be used to create a much more informative article, along the lines of Insurgency where different scholarly models are presented rather than the synthesis we currently have. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism
Please see Talk:History of terrorism. -- PBS (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PIL
Hello, good work so far on the international legal theory page. It's nice to see such a good start! I haven't read through, but it looks good. Do you want to do something similar for the public international law page itself? Surely an easy start would just be creating a bunch of headings, for things to be written in later, like would appear in a textbook (here's what I usually do, eg UK insolvency law).  Wik idea  15:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1963 Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed On Board Aircraft
It looks like you were the first person who started the task list in the WP:International law page, which included the above in the list of article requests. The article exists, I'm adding the IR/Law banner. Is there any reason not to remove it from the article request list? IMHO (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether Outline of Catholic canon law requires sources
There is a discussion of whether Outline of Catholic canon law requires sources to exist in articlespace here: User_talk:CASSIOPEIA.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Report_on_the_Holy_See%E2%80%99s_institutional_knowledge_and_decision-making_process_related_to_former_Cardinal_Theodore_Edgar_McCarrick_(from_1930_to_2017) http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017), in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017). See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!  // Timothy ::  talk  08:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
==Speedy deletion nomination of Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017)==

A tag has been placed on Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"G12; the article has no prose; it is only a copyvio template"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) ==Speedy deletion nomination of Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017)==

A tag has been placed on Report on the Holy See’s institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)