Jump to content

Talk:Vatican Apostolic Archive

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bjashaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Something that would be nice in this article is where the Archives are located in Vatican City. Does anyone know? I briefly searched on Google but didn't turn up anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aindreas (talk • contribs) 00:54, July 7, 2005

i believe they are located very near the papal apartments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.15.43 (talk) 00:00, October 25, 2005 (UTC)

New See Also section

[edit]

Having read the two articles recenlty added as a see also section, I fail to see the relevance either has on readers of this article. Gentgeen 03:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've deleted the See Also section and instead, I've have incorporated the links to Carlo Ginzburg and the Inquisition into the External links section. This should clarify their relationship to the article. Delta x 04:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First line, third paragraph

[edit]

Behind its entrance through the Porta S. Anna in via di Porta Angelica, this is the nearest thing the real world offers to the library in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.

I just wanted to note that I was using this to research a story, and this line makes no sense to either myself or the friend I ran it by. Could someone clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.26.128 (talk) 20:10, April 24, 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish Conspiracy section is rather hyperbolic. The Vatican can dispel the "conspiracy theory" by granting access to its entire storehouse of artifacts. Some color should be put on why the theory has teeth - part of it is due to the fact that the Menorah and other ritual items were brought to Rome in 70 CE as memorialized by Josephus and the Arch of Titus. Typically, this type of plunder wasn't melted down to make coins, but was kept as evidence of victory. As successor to the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church became the custodian of many pre-Church items. Most likely, the Menorah, et al. were melted down, but this post doesn't explain that the Church archives contain many items plundered from Jews and other civilizations by the Crusaders and the Inquisition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.217.249.42 (talk) 01:54, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

POV

[edit]

Reading the article it bothered me that some passages, particularly in the jewish conspiracy theories section, showed a clear point of view, and at the very least lacked sources. A quick look at the history showed they were recent additions by 192.217.249.42. I don't know particularly much about the subject, but I suggest that an editor involved with the page take a look at this. AoS1014 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Secrecy

[edit]

Should this article really be a part of the Secrecy category? Like, the name of the archives is more properly translated as "Private Archives," not "Secret Archives." Plus, most of the archives are open to anyone who has a pass, which is essentially a library card. There really isn't much that's secret about the archives. True, there are sections from some pontificates which can't be released until enough time has passed, but any institution has these time-release documents, and the Vatican's policy is comparatively pretty lenient. There just doesn't seem to be anything that's really "secret." I propose that it be removed from the Category. Just my two cents. Anyone have thoughts about this? Any opinions are welcome, even if they don't agree with mine. J.J. Bustamante 10:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even their own website is called "Vatican Secret Archives" [1] I reckon that is authority enough.User:carfax6 24 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Bleda

[edit]

In the section "Extent", I found this sentence: "Since that time, the documentation includes items such as Henry VIII of England's request for a marriage annulment, and letters from Michelangelo, or files on Jaime Bleda." Since the last of those redlinks, I wondered who this person was and why they were in that list. A little investigation indicates that Bleda came about a century after the later of the two others (thus not making much of a point about how far back the documents go), is not particularly notable (hence a redlink instead of an article) and was added as the sole edit of anon 4.250.24.67 (talk · contribs) with the highly POV descriptor "Catholic precursor of Adolf Eichmann." Accordingly I'm cutting it. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives Online?

[edit]

Does anyone think it might be of interest to note that the archives have a website? Here is the link: http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's at the top of External links. --Wetman (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myths and conspiracy theories

[edit]

There are many myths and conspiracy theories associated to the Archives, among others that the Vatican is hiding gnostic-like secrets about Christ, that artifacts about the Holocaust or ancient Jerusalem are kept there and that there is a collection of filth tucked in store too. It would not be a bad idea to mention those, along with accurate sources of course. ADM (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one interesting item I have heard, ( I sincerely hope it's a myth ), is that Vatican's entrails contain world's biggest collection of pornography. Please tell me it's a lie.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAPOLEON STEALS ARCHIVE: FACT OR FICTION??

[edit]

A person deleted my "addition of Napoleon Bonaparte stealing the archives." I'd like to know if it's fact or fiction.. did it happen? http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-06-24-vatican24_CV_N.htm

"Founded in the 1600s by Pope Paul V, sacked by Napoleon, returned, moved and open only to scholars since the 1880s, the Vatican Secret Archives, the Archivum Secretum Apostolicum Vaticanum, serve as repository for the diplomatic records of pontiffs. Records stretch back to at least the 800s; the parchment Liber Diurnus, a circa-eighth-century codex containing legal language for consecrating monasteries and addressing dignitaries, is the oldest record in the archive."

Twillisjr (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True about Napoleon and his plan to bring all the archives of his empire together in Paris. See University of Michigan project. Esoglou (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"primal incumbency"

[edit]

I am not a native English speaker. But nonetheless, I would like to point out that I have never heard or read this expression anywhere. Googling "primal encumbency" only yields quotes of this article. I assume the phrase is meant to say that the Pope is incumbent for life? Could someone confirm that this is actually an existing use of "primal"? I cannot find it in any dictionary. If it isn't, it should be rewritten as "lifelong incumbency" or something of the sort.

--84.119.42.103 (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Vatican Secret Archives. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding History section

[edit]

Hey all,

It seems like some of the categories (Opening of the archives, 2012 exhibition, and parts of the introductory paragraph) might serve users better if they were under a History section, as is standard for many articles of this type. I'm compiling some sources to make it a little more extensive currently, but I just wanted to see if there were any objections before forging ahead. Bjashaw (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting section "Cardinal Archivists of the Vatican Secret Archives"

[edit]

It doesn't really seem like this section is all that useful for users of the article. Furthermore, it's a list that's essentially been copied and pasted from the VSA's website. I've deleted the section. Bjashaw (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey all, I've removed most of the irrelevant and non-functional links at the end of the article. Do y'all think that there's enough grounds to remove the flag? Bjashaw (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Vatican Secret Archives → Vatican Apostolic Archive – Name officially changed by a legal document signed by Pope Francis and officially in force as of 28 October 2019: "Requested in recent years by some esteemed prelates, as well as by my closest collaborators, and having also listened to the opinion of the Superiors of the same Vatican Secret Archive, with this my Motu proprio I decide that: From now on the present Vatican Secret Archive, without prejudice to its identity, its structure and its mission, should be called the Vatican Apostolic Archive." Varro (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support This takes immediate effect upon publication in L'Osservatore Romano and the announcement was printed today (28 October) on page 11 HERE. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

In Codice Ratio

[edit]

Just a note that someone has broken out In Codice Ratio in to a separate article, which I came across in the new pages feed. No idea if it's an a appropriate fork.--- Possibly (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vatican_Apostolic_Archive&oldid=1212626306"