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))

Yes you did, you said you "will mention Rome belonging to both Italy and the Vatican". And if you want to claim that Rome is the capital of the Vatican (which you also did say), then find some reliable secondary sources saying that. Until you respond to the need for such sources and while you continue with your own synthesis, I see no need to respond to you further. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: There is no need to ping me here, I have this page on my watchlist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That was my mistake. And I did bring up the Lateran Treaty, that's basically an original source. (N0n3up (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

Yes, the Lateran Treaty is an original (ie primary) source. You need secondary sources. And does the Lateran Treaty define Rome as the capital of the Vatican anyway? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it defines it as part of the city of Rome. The main point here is that Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city. (N0n3up (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

So you don't want to add that Rome is the capital of the Vatican as you originally suggested then? What do you actually want to do? Also, your claim that "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city" is still your own personal reasoning, and you still have not provided a secondary source to support it - you need something that actually says, for example, "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city". Please identify a specific change you wish to make to the article, and provide the secondary source you will use to support it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That last sentence you mentioned works wonderful. (N0n3up (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

Here them secondary sources, this from CIA which reiterates what I just mentioned and this one from the Vatican going more into the geographic part of it. (N0n3up (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

All those two sources essentially do is define where the Vatican is (ie physically within Rome) and that it is a sovereign state. Those facts are already well covered in the article, and I see nothing added by and no need for "Rome encompasses both Italy and the Vatican "Holy See" owned part of the city" - it's already there using different words. Anyway, I have to go and do a day's work now, so maybe it's best to leave it and see what others say, because I now haven't the faintest idea of what your proposal actually is since you have backed down from your original claims that Rome partially belongs to and is the capital of the Vatican. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm usually better at explaining with my own words rather than typing them in, which is why I made myself misunderstood. And my proposal is along the lines of what you see in my sandbox. (N0n3up (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

So under "Country" in the infobox, you want to add a second entry saying "Vatican City"? Is that the full extent of your proposed change? If that's it, then no. That entry states the country that the settlement (in this case the city of Rome) is within. Rome is neither within nor part of Vatican City, neither physically nor politically (cf. the car and the wheel). Anyway, that's my take, and I suggest we leave it and see what others say. Off to work, bye. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have added the Vatican web site too. I'm undecided on that right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and "Location within Italy and Vatican City". No, Rome is not within Vatican City. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Not within, just politically divided between two sovereign nations. (N0n3up (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

The caption says "Location within Italy and Vatican City" (my emphasis) and you already admit it is not located within Vatican City. And the map most certainly does not show Rome within Vatican City, it shows where it is within Italy. Also, Rome and Vatican City are two separate political entities. And the Vatican City part is not within Vatican City, it is Vatican City. Anyway, we'll see if there's a consensus for your proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Rome is not within Vatican City, that's not the point I'm trying to make, I'm stating that two sovereign nations are present within the physical city of Rome regardless of political division (Jerusalem: Israel and Paelstine) thus need to be put forward into the infobox as shown. (N0n3up (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

I think that this could be a good starting point: a citation of a speech of Carlo Azeglio Ciampi (2nd paragraph) for the election of Pope Benedict, stating that Rome is "capital of two states". One can find the speech on the Quirinal web site. Alex2006 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, N0n3up, but what I'm saying is that including "Location within Italy and Vatican City" would be simply wrong - you can't use a caption that indicates that Rome is within Vatican City to mean Vatican City is within Rome. Anyway, let's see what others say. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Alex just hit the right nail in the head, precisely emphasizing the point. And no, the infobox doesn't state in which country the city "is in", it states which country its located, meaning it can encompass more than one, its just that most cities are located in one country. (N0n3up (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

No, it is not a matter of containing or being contained: since 1929 the city is divided in two parts: Rome (Italy) and Rome (Vatican city): it is the same as for Nicosia/Lefkosa. The difference is that the Vatican geographically speaking is only a part of a rione, and so it is negligible in comparison with the Italian part (although it should be mentioned that during the talks to establish the Vatican the pope initially asked much more than the Vatican city itself, and that in 1929 the Vatican bordered the countryside on its west side, so geographically speaking it was not yet set in the city as it is now). I have been trying to introduce this concept in the lead, but I have been always reverted, so I gave up. now, the real question is: is this article about Rome (city) or about Rome (Italy)? The most important Italian guide about the city, the red guide of TCI, describes the whole city, not just the "Italian" part. Personally I think that we should follow the same philosophy. Alex2006 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Alex2006 100% agreed. I think Rome is more than just a city within a political boundary. In that case, it's about Rome as a city itself. (N0n3up (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC))

So I'm thinking of a version along the lines of this edit with this version. What y'all think. (N0n3up (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

• N0n3up, your point of view and your new changes is absurd. There were no problems for many years and now you come and make problems. Rome is not Vatican, Vatican is not Rome. Vatican has a relationship with Rome, so - there are mention about Vatican in the article about Rome. Simple. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what the Lateran treaty states. (N0n3up (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC))