Talk:Concordat of 1925

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


Untitled[edit]

congratulations, this is very good article, which could be model for future articles on concordats. It might benefit from some clarifications:

  1. The title concordat of 1925 does not indicate the country Poland
  2. The references to Lithuania are not necessarily related and misleading
  3. They did not improve when in April 1926 Pope Pius XII unilaterally …Pope Pius XII was not in office until 1939.
  4. The concordat caused a severe conflict between Vatican and Lithuania. To be fair, they existed before. Unlike Poland, which the Vatican recognized at once, Lithuania was not recognized until November 1922. The recognition included a stipulation by Pietro Gasparri to Lithuania, “to have friendly relations with Poland”.
  5. Popular outrage in response to the concordat Hm! …or, was it an organized anti-clerical campaign by the socialist party and the left-wing government ?? which existed since 1918, a Lithuanian government, which refused to accept virtually all episcopal appointments by the Vatican??
  6. They did not improve when in April 1926 Pope Pius XII unilaterally established and reorganized Lithuanian ecclesiastical province without regard to Lithuanian demands and proposals: It was more complicated: Fall 1925, the Catholic professor of Theology Reinys became Lithuanian Foreign Minister, and asked for an agreement. The Lithuanian military took over a year later, and a proposal of a concordat, drafted by the papal visitator Matulewicz, was agreed upon by the end of 1926. The concordat was signed a year later. Its content follows largely the Polish concordat of 1925. (Schmidlin, Papal History, IV, 138) But does all this belong to the Polish concordat of 1925?
  7. The concordat has ended on 12 September 1945, when the Soviet-controlled communist government of Poland stated the fact during the war Vatican has appointed German priests to Polish parishes, violating the concordat The actual Polish accusation was quite different and more serious. I changed the text therefore to “claimed”. Fact is that the specific Polish pretext is very relative, because all countries behind the “iron curtain” cancelled their concordats with the Vatican, Poland, Czecheslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and, I think Yugoslavia. It was to be a part of the persecution policies against the Catholic Churchin all these countries.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know much more about Vatican and its politics, but here's Lithuanian POV:
3 - sorry, stupid error.
4 - Lithuania was in general not recognized until 1922. And even if the relations were less than perfect, this crisis (including termination of diplomatic relations) was severe.
5 - true, there was a campaign against Christian Democrats by the socialists. But Lithuanian public was unhappy - anything that had to do with Vilnius and was not in favor for Lithuania was met with popular outrages. The issue was hugely emotional. Christian Democrats was a leading party before 1925 - they had majorities in pretty much every parliament. The Third Seimas was the first were they clearly fell in opposition. And history books credit three major reasons for that: the concordat, corruption scandals, and general fatigue of a party which dominated the scene for more than six years.
6 - I don't have the details with me right now & don't know on top of my head.
Feel free to improve on any of these points. Renata (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In related news, I recall at least one of the Polish sources stating that the Lithuanian concordat (which surely deserves an artcicle) was very similar to the Polish one, or based on it as it became a model one for many others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Renata3, I basically agree with you. The Vatican was often caught between Polish and Lithuanian sensitivities during these years, admonishing both sides repeatedly to calm down.(Pietro Gasparri, nuncio Achille Rattiordered to leave Poland, nuncio Bartlonini, wordered to leave Lithuania, and the outspoken Papal delegate Zecchini, who was bombarded with rotten eggs, while walking on the street of the capital. :-))

Therefore the concordat was not the only issue and maybe this discussion belongs in a larger framwork. But this is up to you folks! Kinldy take a look at my latest article which affects occupied Lithiania very much because of the Russian connection: Vatican and Poland (Pius IX - Pius XII). Thank's

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proconsul, you are right, but someone else has to write it, I did the one on Poland for you! No more concordats. The historical arcticles on Poland and the persecutions were difficult, because of non-stop incredible crimes and unspeakable human sufferings since 1860. Both articles can be enlarged, if you are interested, I participate gladly. I continue with my other work. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name, I based it on the list and naming used at Concordat. It may not be the best, we could also use Category:Concordats.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See is NOT Vatican[edit]

Vatican and in earlier times Papal States were NEVER party of any concordats. It's always Holy See.

This is the same kind of ridiculous confusion as calling Barack Obama "President of Washington, D.C." and I see it all over Wikipedia!!! Is anybody checking anything here? (Polish version seems to get this right) 80.195.232.31 (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review[edit]

Passed for WPPOLAND. Good job, I'd consider this for WP:GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Concordat of 1925/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion[edit]

Has no images. Would it be feasible to add an image or 2? If not that is fine, because the criteria says "if possible" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image of one of the main Polish negotiators. Would be nice to get an image of the document, but it's not that easy... I am not even sure if the physical copies still exit, and if so, where. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! North8000 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it's linked, but IMHO there should be at least a few word description of what a Concordat is. Without that, unless they went to the other article, an average person could read this article and not know what it is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put a one-word ("agreement") description in. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what "who consider concordat to have only been ended by the Polish side by this declaration" means. Is it discussing who ended it? Or t that it is still in force or in force in one direction? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "negotiations", it is not clear which year it was ratified. Could you add the year to one or two of those dates? North8000 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a discussion regarding sources/sourcing. Nearly all of them are off-line and or in non-english languages....this is NOT per se a problem, but in combination with it appearing that the Concordat itself (a primary source and a very bare reference...is that what that means? ) being the most heavily used source, I would like to discuss the sources to put any questions in this areas to rest. I have other questions / things i'd like to discuss, but since there have been no responses to my 11 and 15 day old questions, I wanted to start by seeing that three is an editor actively involved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:North8000 I am really sorry to say that you should probably fail it. I don't have access to the sources, nor am I the primary author of this, who became inactive. I was hoping he would be available to help with those issues; I can help with my general knowledge of Polish history and wiki skills, but I am unable to help out with the issues you have raised. Thanks for the review; hopefully it will be a helpful "to do" list when another editor interested in this topic will arrive here. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that and your efforts. User:Piotrus. I think that what you suggested is the correct thing to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist[edit]

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

Non-pass, as suggested by the nominator. This needs some work by and dialog with a main editor, and none is present/available. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Concordat of 1925. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordat_of_1925&oldid=1206768840"