Talk:Foreign relations of the Holy See

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poor article?[edit]

This article appears to be a copy/paste from The Holy See article, with a poorly-worded intro suffering from WP:OR and lack of cites. I don't quite understand the idea behind this article, which seems to only further confuse readers as to the distinctions between The Vatican and The Holy See. --Anietor (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins with several self-contradictions "The Holy See, or Vatican, as the sole purely theocratic state ..." The Holy See, which does have diplomatic relations, is not a state, and the Vatican City state does not have any diplomatic relations. Speedy deletion? Lima (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is completely inappropriate here. We don't delete poorly-written articles, we fix them. Give me a chance to work on it before manning the cannons. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should probably be renamed to Foreign relations of the Holy See for clarity. Any objections? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing concurrence by the original creator on my talk page, I have gone ahead and renamed the article. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of the promise made, the article still has not been "fixed". Its very first words still confuse the Holy See with Vatican City and call the Holy See a state. What worthwhile sourced (not OR/POV) information does it contain that is not already in Holy See? Is "foreign" relations an appropriate term to use of an entity that is not a state? Is this article at all worth fixing and keeping? Lima (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is now fixed, so I´m suggesting a B-class.--BonifaciusVIII (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in international organizations Holy See vs Vatican City[edit]

In some international organizations (e.g. Universal Postal Union, International Telecommunications Satellite Organization) not the Holy See, but the Vatican City is a member of. See [1] (scroll to the end). The article should reflect that fact. Gugganij (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Esoglou (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I additionally corrected the Mulilateral relationship section. Gugganij (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the 16 to 27 claim currently put in the article contradicts the official Holy See source with the list of states and dates of establishment of diplomatic relations [2] (you have to sort these by the date of establishment of relations and also to take account of cases with mark that they re-established relations later - thus they may had relations in this period - if they were independent back then). Alinor (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference linked should be viewed in context, when it says that Vatican City State participates in those organisations, those organizations relate to the physical region of Vatican City itself, it's an administrative practicality to describe it as represented in them because the relevant functions of those organizations relate to the actual physical region, as opposed to the international non-territorial legal personality of the Holy See, the postal and telephone service for instance. The page linked as reference is entitled 'Bilateral and Multilateral Relations of the Holy See', and is explicitly listed as part of the Secretariat of State's office Here, which is the administrative apparatus of the Holy See as described there under the profile of the office linked on the same page. The territory of Vatican City is represented in those organizations, that is, the region itself participates, but it's the Holy See that represents it in the sense relevant to this article.121.72.131.37 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't find where the source says that it is not the Vatican City State but the Holy See that does the actual participating. Am I misinterpreting it? Would you please point me to where it says that? The information is given in an article about the Secretariat of State, but it seems (to me) to be information about a different, though related entity.
What the source says is (I quote): "The Vatican City State participates in various International and Intergovernmental Organizations, including: ..." How can this be taken to mean: "In few instances the Holy See administrates the participation of Vatican City in international organizations ... As such it (the Holy See) participates in the following groups ..."? Esoglou (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, 'it' is Vatican City State, since it's the physical region itself which is participating, but as per the title of the document linked as ref, it's the Secretariat of State, an office of the Holy See, which is actually responsible for conducting foreign relations, Vatican City State has no administrative apparatus with which to conduct foreign relations separate from the Holy See, so there is no other entity that it could be refering to. The link does not say 'Vatican City State and not the Holy See' as this makes no sense, Vatican City State can't do anything without the Holy See. All governmental functions of the Vatican City State are through the authority of the pope via the office of Secretariat of State. See the profile of the office through the link I posted above. I shall clarify that point in the article. I do have to go to work so I'll have to leave it at that.121.72.157.50 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Secretariat of State that is responsible for conducting the Holy See's foreign relations. It is officials of Vatican City State, not of the Secretariat of State, who look after matters of posts and telecommunications, and they are quite capable of representing the state in international organizations dealing with that field. So I fail to see on what grounds you can say that the Vatican City State has no administrative appartus with which, on its own, to conduct foreign relations with international organizations dealing with those technical matters. The link you gave above, which is only a general index, does not appear to say it. Your own personal interpretation (WP:SYNTH) is not a valid source for Wikipedia: you must cite a source that actually says what you want to put in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not synth to read the title of the document used as a reference. I misspoke when I said they didn't have the administrative apparatus, you are quite correct in that regard, I meant to say any administrative apparatus they have is indirectly under the authority of the Holy See, since the sovereign and head of state of Vatican City, the Pope, exercises his authority over the governorate of Vatican City (which is the administration) through the office of the Secretariat, not to mention also being the head of the Holy See himself, so it is difficult to say that Vatican City can act seperately from the Holy See in any regard if you see what I mean. So I agree that it's not incorrect to say Vatican City State participates, indeed as I said it is of course the physical region that participates in those organizations, I just don't see the need to divorce this from the authority of Holy See by qualifying it 'Vatican City State and not the Holy See'. There's some more information here on the relationship of Vatican City and the Secretariet; Fundamental Law of Vatican City State. (It's a PDF). I think I might've also had act 2 in the back of my mind but it doesn't really apply I guess, it had been a while since I read it though.121.72.157.50 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source that was quoted in the article said that Vatican City State is a member of the seven international organizations mentioned. That's what it says, and that's enough for me. But now that a third party has removed the bone of contention, shall we two just drop the matter and agree to disagree? Esoglou (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputed that Vatican City was a member of those organizations, though I might've worded my position poorly. It's the implication that this isn't under the authority of the Holy See I was objecting to. That's why Vatican City's participation in those organizations is listed in the document 'Bilateral and Multilateral Relations of the Holy See', which is the context I was refering to. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree though, even if I don't entirely. I see you've added it to the Vatican City article and I'm happy with the wording used there, it more properly belonged in that article in any case.121.72.157.50 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks - diplomatic cables[edit]

Wikileaks diplomatic cables just release contain some revelations worth incorporating in some Vatican articles, perhaps. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-pope-turkey-eu-muslim http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-vatican-holocaust-pius E.g. "

The decision shows that whatever the pope wants, does in fact happen."

and "The cables reveal the Vatican routinely wielding influence through diplomatic channels while sometimes denying it is doing so."--W☯W t/c 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Embassy of Vatican in Albania 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Embassy of Vatican in Albania 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable list of Holy See missions and their heads[edit]

This is good material but it overburdens the article. I understand that it was included here as a result of a disagrement on the format of List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See. See: Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See#Disambiguation needed. I'm following Esoglou's suggestion and create a new article for this material, adding the necessary links. Bonifacius 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Organization for Migration[edit]

The status of the Holy See in the IOM was upgraded from observer to full member on Dec 5, 2011. I changed the article accordingly and provided a source. Gugganij (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germany?[edit]

In section 2.1, "Europe", why is Germany missing?--Mideal (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Diplomatic relations[edit]

It seems to me that the current number of states, with which the Holy See entered into diplomatic relations is 180 and not 179. [3] Although the Holy See website speaks of 179 (see here), they do not include South Sudan in their list, although diplomatic relations were established in 2013 (see here). Gugganij (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The non-updated second source is no longer valid. The first source is of the Holy See's Press Office and so can also be said to be of the Holy See. As can this. Esoglou (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so. I changed the figure to 180.Gugganij (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Dominican Republic?[edit]

The only place it's mentioned here is "Iran has a large diplomatic corps at the Vatican with only the Dominican Republic having more diplomats accredited to the Holy See." If it's significant for the runner-up, should be significant for the winner, right?

I don't understand this church-state-office deal enough to be much help beyond this basic link. Do with it as you will. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the list is massively incomplete. Rwessel (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, as are many. That's fairly common. But I think this is the first time I've seen one omit something it suggests is more important than something it includes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritânia and Holy See[edit]

In 2016 Mauritania estabished diplomatic relations with Holy See. These maps need to be alterated.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Foreign relations of the Holy See. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritania and the Holy See[edit]

Since December 9, 2016, Holy See and the Government of Mauritânia established diplomatic relations. It's necessary to change the map related to countries whom don't have any relations with Vatican.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Foreign relations of the Holy See. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy See's China relations[edit]

It is clearly false to re-state [4] that the Holy See does not have relations of any kind with China, since it evidently does have, since 2018... [5] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England ≠ The United Kingdom; there was no UK in 1479[edit]

England ≠ The United Kingdom; there was no UK in 1479. A single source from 2012 (which is anyway behind a Paywall) containing very general information about each and every country in the world doesn't prove you are right and I am wrong; or even that particularly reliable. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Holy_See&oldid=1207267663"