Talk:Roman question

Do Not Merge

This article should NOT be merged with the Savoyard Era or Vatican Prisoner. Italus (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Care to say why? It seems like we have three overlapping articles, all of them about the same period of Vatican history 1870-1929. Savidan 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Although there is some overlap, the Roman Question was such a unique, nagging dispute that it must be kept separate; The Prisoner of the Vatican status lasted longer than the Savoyard Era, and did not end until Pope John XXIII emerged from the Vatican bunkers and resumed his duties as Bishop of Rome. It is important that these articles be left completely separate. Italus (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting point to suggest that the prisoner in the Vatican thing was ongoing, but that seems a rather subjective interpretation, particularly because even Pius XII left the Vatican as pope. Savidan 00:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pius XII traveled privately to Castel Gandolfo, but he made no public visits outside the Vatican. The only exception occurred during World War II, when he made brief visits to some bombed neighborhoods of Rome. Pope John XXIII ended this charade on 25 December 1958, when he visited children suffering from polio at the Bambin Gesù hospital and then visited Santo Spirito Hospital. The next day he visited Rome's Regina Coeli prison, where he told the prisoners: "You could not come to me, so I came to you." These were the first official acts of a Pope away from Vatican territory since 1870, and they created a sensation. He wrote in his diary: ... great astonishment in the Roman, Italian and international press. I was hemmed in on all sides: authorities, photographers, prisoners, wardens ... [Peter Hebblethwaite, Pope John XXIII: Shepherd of the Modern World, Image Books (1987) p. 303] Italus (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand distinguishing the Roman Question from a period in the history of the Papacy/Papal States, but I can't see that the other two articles are really about separate topics. Especially since the Prisoner article is not about what Italus says it should be, and even if it were, that only means that there is no use in periodising Papal history to have two articles for the period 1870–1929. So we should choose our periodisation. Srnec (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - MERGE. The "Prisoner" article can be folded into this article. It's essentially the same subject. Majoreditor (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Closed as NC after 3 yrs. I incline to no merge myself, fwiw. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion has been closed but I will comment nonetheless. I support merging the Prisoner and Roman Question articles for two reasons. (And maybe all three; I am agnostic on the Savoyed Era article.)

First because these very closely related issues are not identical (arguably), there should be one article so that the article can discuss the differences. Most encyclopedia readers most likely think that they are identical and so by merging there would be a good opportunity to explain how they are not, or at the very least, to explain the debate about whether they are or not. Remember our goal is not to define each notable event in separate articles but to explain issues fully. This to me is one issue with many different notable parts rather than separate issues. By merging we can tease out the interplay between the various parts, actions, positions, and actors that are both related and distinct. One article unifies and allows full explanation.

Second, it makes editing easier. So much of the background and other information of the two articles are identical, or should be. By merging than we ensure that the two do not diverge in quality because some future editor makes valuable edit to only one article.

By the way, why wasn't the Law of Guarantees article also mentioned as a possible merge candidate?

So, here's what I see as a possible order of sections -- background, "The Roman Question", "the Prisoner of the Vatican", Responses from the Kingdom of Italy including the law of Guarantees, the Lateran Treaty, the end of the prisoner which includes discussion about the issues unresolved by the Lateran treaty and the debate about when to date the end of the prisoner, any ongoing issues. This I think would present all the inter-related issues in an understandable manner. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Iloilo Wanderer (and Srnec and Majoreditor). Esoglou (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I only closed it to tidy up after 3 years & have no strong views. I see Italus is still around, but may have changed his mind after so long. Best restarted rather than re-opened imo, though I wouldn't object to that. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that there was a formal merge proposal per Template:Merge. It did stay open for a while didn't it? It was time to clean it up. I think a way forward would be to see if there are any additional comments here and then if restart a new merge request if that is the consensus to open formally the conversation again. Since I support merging, I also support restarting the formal process per Template:Merge. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing text

In the section regarding Napoleon III, there is some text missing, possibly because of cutting and pasting or something of the sort. Will (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonine City

On the article for the Leonine City, it mentions that the Italian government proposed a remnant state for the Holy See in 1870. The Leonine city included the neighborhood of Borgo as well as the Vatican. Is there a reason why this wasn't included? It seems relevant. Flameoguy (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Question which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)