Talk:Concordat

message: Seems rought cut and paste from the 1911. There's a concordat in Italy and maybe other countries.
User:Ericd
Concordat is a term used for an agreement between the pope and a government or sovergein on religious matters. This page should be turned into a general page about the word or a disambiguation page, with links to various concordats. Maximus Rex 05:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: EB

message: What about the Concordat with Poland from 1993?
:I would strongly encourage someone who knows how to do so to create an article on the Conordat of Fontainebleu of 1813, which Napoleon negotiated with the pope to resolve their dispute (Napoleon had earlier annexed the papal states, been excommunicated, and then brought the pope to France!) and after the short-lived Council of 1811 that included French, Italian, and German churchmen.  Moreover, I would strongly encourage the creation of either one article or separate articles on France's revolutionary and Napoleonic church councils that occurred in 1797, 1801, and 1811, respectively.  Because there were three of them and the final one included Italians and at least one German and was (according to Napoleon) intended as a precursor to a General Council a la Constantine, such an artilce would be significant enough to merit inclusion in any reputable encyclopedia.  I'd be happy to contribute and help edit, but I'll leave it to someone with better Wiki knowledge to get something started.  Best, --164.107.92.120 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: The UK use should be split into another article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. jnestorius(talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I think we have enough articles on individual concordats that we should create a :Category:Concordats. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: This seems to be relevant to Foreign relations of the Holy See in general, rather than any specific concordat:
:The Vatican has been particularly vocal on issues of abortion in Ireland and Portugal, and in attempting to ensure references to Christianity in the prospective EU constitution. Less high profile are agreements concerning taxation and partial state funding of Catholic owned institutions such as orphanages, homes for the elderly and hospices for those suffering from AIDS.
jnestorius(talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: There's a whole host of data at Concordat Watch that isn't touched and could be utilized. Working on it.
Surely users do not search for "Concordat of year xxxx", but, "Concordats of country xxxx". A better format might look like:
==== [Country] ==== 
(Signed) [Year][Month][Day], [Document title],  [Link to English translation]
For example,
==== Concordats with Germany ====
(20 July 1933), Reichskonkordat Reichskonkordat English Translation 
...
Would it be OK to rearrange? Help appreciated.
--PeterBrietbart (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordats by country 

message: (20 July 1933), Reichskonkordat Reichskonkordat English Translation 
...
Would it be OK to rearrange? Help appreciated.
--PeterBrietbart (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concordats with Germany 

message: I'm proposing we delete Bavaria as a category:</br>
Bavaria is no longer an independent country (now a German state).</br>
The 1817 Concordat link has no content.</br>
I'm writing up a better article that will come under the "Germany" title. Once that's done (and nothing is lost), I'll go ahead. Thoughts? --PeterBrietbart (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bavaria Deletion 

message: The Criticism of Concordats section was edited on the 23rd of December to read
:is an anti-Catholic website supporting secularism, abortion and feminism which documents from their own point of view historical and contemporary concordats across the world.[ref]For example, Concordat Watch is cited as a source in Plichtová and Petrjánošová (2008, p.46, 50), DiMarco (2009, p.5), Baker (2010, p.38), and Hosack (2010). [/ref]
Previously:
:is a website supporting separation of church and state which documents historical and contemporary concordats across the world.[ref]For example, Concordat Watch is cited as a source in Plichtová and Petrjánošová (2008, p.46, 50), DiMarco (2009, p.5), Baker (2010, p.38), and Hosack (2010). [/ref]
< > to [ ] for clarity.
I have since reverted the changes, since I consider the use of inflammatory language unhelpful, and because the reference did not substantiate anything like those claims. I would appreciate the assistance of neutral Wikipedia editors to referee any potential edit-wars that ensue. 
I understand that these are delicate issues for Catholics, and as such I would appreciate a flourishing discussion here. 
PeterBrietbart (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Neutrality Issues 

message: This section contains only criticism of the concordats without noticing noting the possible positive aspects nor the arguments in their favour, thus compromising the article's neutral point of view of the subject.  Bonifacius 19:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've removed the neutrality flag for now, please see the main article's talk page for detailed discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBrietbart (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Currently, this section does not cite any sources.  Given this, I would like to remove it, leaving only the link to the actual criticism page, unless others can provide some links to credible websites to support some of the assertions made.  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section  

message: I am proposing that Criticism of concordats be merged here as:
#It would seem to be undue WP:WEIGHT to have an article on criticism of a topic that is far, far larger than the discussion of the topic (i.e. excluding the simple listing of the concordats).
#That article appears to be largely based upon WP:Synthesis (mainly of the concordats themselves) and to sources of generally questionable quality.
I am therefore initially proposing that only the 'Financial privileges, tax exemption and secrecy' section (which includes citations to the like of The Guardian, The Telegraph and Time) be merged here. If other material is agreed to be based upon material found to be reliable, it can be included as well (assuming WP:WEIGHT issues do not intrude). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just wrote on the other talk page, I think this is a good idea.  We can merge whatever seems fairly credible now, and then work further on refining the content once it has been merged.  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Saw this on the reliable sources notice board. If there's reliably sourced non-synthesized material it could be merged here; If criticism of condordats isn't an appropriate article title and if the material could be rewritten from sources, it might be better to take criticism of... to AfD. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If somebody's willing to rewrite material from the few reliable sources at CofC, I'd happily support deletion of that article. As long as we preserve what few reliable third party sources we have on the topic of concordats, I'm happy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Given that the Holy See must have entered into hundreds (thousands) of treaties with states over the last millenium or so, this list is at considerable risk of becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of particular concern are:
*Concordats lacking their own article -- likelihood of being non-notable, and therefore unsuitable for inclusion.
*Concordats lacking either their own article or a citation -- not WP:Verifiable, and therefore clearly unsuitable for inclusion.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but having read it, it does seem like it is a valid concern for 'The List'.  I clicked on a fair number of the concordats that have pages, and the majority of those pages are stubs written from one source (usually a bad one).  So what do you propose?  Cut down the list, and/or the pages as well?  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) Cut them down. Then (ii) either rename the article to List of concordats (this is what the article currently is really) or add significant WP:SECONDARY discussion of the history, current usage, etc of concordats. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be amenable to a plan like that.  I don't know how much sense it would make to not have a general page about concordats and yet have a list page with criticism on it, so we'd definitely want to add some discussion of the history, current usage, etc., as you suggested.  For right now, would you agree that we should remove condordatwatch as the source referenced for several concordats?  --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy with the removal of any apparently-WP:SPS that nobody has made a specific defence of (unless claim to reliability is self-evident -- e.g. some published religious historian's blog). But this means that any concordats cited only to such sources will also have to go. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The Holy See concluded only 74 concordats from 1098 (first concordat) to World War I (cf. Metz, pg. 137) and from 1919-1959 concluded only 39 conventions and concordats (cf. Metz, pg. 138). I object to the conjectured and unfounded "given" at the top of this section "that the Holy See must have entered into hundreds (thousands) of treaties with states over the last millenium or so" and I therefore disagree that the list of concordats is in danger of becoming WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 04:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List 

message: GUYS, JUST SHUT UPSO THEY CAN FINISH THIS ARTICLE!
--Jon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.208.49 (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is stupid! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Concordat. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110206213909/http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france to http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/countries/france
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527144906/http://www.tourolaw.edu/ilr/articles/v13/Michael_Baker.pdf to http://www.tourolaw.edu/ilr/articles/v13/Michael_Baker.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720041046/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/A10S-1DiMarco.pdf to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/A10S-1DiMarco.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified