Talk:Rome

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Source number 108, with a link "the original (PDF)" linking to Gfkamerica.com should no longer be there. Gfkamerica.com has changed hands and is now owned by a spamming group. 83.58.171.78 (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rome became less stable as it grew. the gap between rich and poor widened. the empire was run by a series of warlords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1524:BB8:E93F:88E3:7D95:8A0C (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerCCCPro (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Deleted claim that the papacy existed in 1st Century AD, no reliable source for that

I deleted the historical error claiming that the papacy existed in 1st century AD. Those who believe the Roman Catholic Church and the pope are an infallible source of truth, may claim this error on that basis; but the rest of us will not accept the RCC itself as a reliable source on this. There are no reliable secondary sources for the claim of a papacy in 1st Century AD. To be reliable on such a claim, the secondary source would have to reference at least two near contemporary primary sources, but that is impossible. The New Testament, our most reliable source in this matter, has no reference whatsoever to any pope. Matthew 16 certainly refers to no pope or office of pope, whatever interpretation you make of the petros and petra in the passage, and of Peter's role in the Church. The passage makes good sense as Christ being the petra, not petros Peter. (Moreover, in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, Peter looks like no chief of the Church.) And even if petra did refer to Peter, there is no hint of an office of pope or a papacy or a succession of "peters" there. (PeacePeace (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC))

City divided by two countries (part 2)

This is a link to the previous talk section regarding this topic. I would also like to add that consensus had agreed that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries, especially the fact that throughout the article, the Vatican is mentioned as part of the city and its information included, as mentioning both the Italian and the Vatican aspects of the city. And the Vatican is inside the city of Rome, essentially making it part of the city and not separated.

I could proceed with changing details in this article in which will mention Rome belonging to both Italy and the Vatican, but with such an article with so many details, there is a possibility that I could miss some details that would require change, thus would need help in parts like review and edits I wouldn't know how to edit. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC))

• Having read the previous discussion, I strongly disagree with "...consensus had agreed that this article should mention Rome as a capital city of two countries" - I see no such consensus.

  And I oppose the proposition as it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, unless you can provide reliable sources which describe Rome as the capital of the Vatican (or even part of the Vatican). That the Vatican is physically contained within Rome does not in itself make Rome the capital of the Vatican or "belonging to" the Vatican, nor is it "essentially making it [the Vatican] part of the city and not separated". If you want to make these changes, I say find reliable sources to support them, as your own reasoning is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee The Lateran Treaty of 1929 defined the political sovereignty of a section within Rome that granted the Holy See the territory of the Vatican. And it mentions the link of infrastructure within the two political entities including railway, water supply, telegraph, telephone, wireless, broadcasting, and postal services forming part of the city. It's also worth mentioning that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, all part of the Diocese of Rome. Historically wise, the Vatican was always in Rome, the Lateran treaty divided the political administration but not the physical territory. And a city is defined as a large physical human settlement no matter the political entity, and what is now Holy See territory within Rome forms part of the Vatican. The same case can be made for Jerusalem which is currently under both Israeli and Palestinian administration in parts of the city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

Nothing you say there makes Rome part of the Vatican (the Vatican part of Rome by some standards, maybe, but not vice versa) or the capital of the Vatican. A wheel might be part of a car, but the car is not part of the wheel. You need reliable secondary sources, not your own reasoning from primary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I just brought up the Lateran treaty in the start of my post. Also, I never said that Rome belongs t the Vatican, I'm saying (not me, the Treaty) the Vatican forms part of Rome. Basically the Vatican is part of Rome, and Italy owns much of Rome but not completely. (N0n3up (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC))