Talk:Santi Romano

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santi Romano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Pbritti and I'm glad to be reviewing this article. Looking forward to a bit of a change of pace for this review, as I usually stick to other subject areas. Please expect comments today UTC! ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

thank you, Pbritti. I'll do my best to reply ASAP. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid life has happened. Gitz6666, can you wait until the end of this upcoming week for a continuation on this review? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's absolutely not a problem, I'm also quite busy at the moment! Thanks for letting me know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you so much. Looking forward to giving your work the treatment it deserves. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Early comments

Was busier than anticipated—a charcuterie board was involved—but I've now read the article and some minimal outside searching. A couple initial comments are below.

• Consider elaborating on the ecclesiastical law element. As of right now, it's by inference that we're referring to Catholic canon law.
• This strikes me as a source that ought to get integrated. I would note how it even identifies the dates of translations.

Thank you. Excellent source, worth integrating. I'll do it as soon as possible (I'm also quite busy in RL and on the wiki). The dates of translation of his major works match: Romano, S. [1918] 2017. The Legal Order.

Your first point is tricky. I know from personal knowledge aka WP:OR that "ecclesiastical law" was not synonymous with "canon law" as our redirect might imply. By "ecclesiastical law", legal scholars like Romano did not mean the internal law of the Catholic Church ("canon law"), but the law governing the relationship between the State and the Catholic Church. Most of that law was usually described as domestic (state) public law. So it would be worth creating a separate article "Ecclesiastical law" to clarify the point. Now I have the sources, but not the time. And I don't have a source for Romano stating that he didn't use "ecclesiastical law" as a synonym for canon law, so I'd prefer to leave the matter untouched in this article and create an "Ecclesiastical law" article in the future, or at least a section on "Ecclesiastical law" in our "Canon law" article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done (re new source, De Wilde) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

• There appears to be a citation needed for verifying his death, as well as his final years in solitude.

Further issues (April 2025)

• The publication date of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano given as 1901 and sourced to Sandulli when it is not mentioned under this name (instead, there is a Principii di diritto amministrativo) and the publication date is 1891.
• The (potentially incorrect) Italian name of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is listed, but the Italian name for L’instaurazione di fatto di un ordinamento costituzionale e la sua legittimazione is not. Why?
• Sandulli pg. 6 gives the date of the lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis" (rather than the erroneous "The Modern State and its Crises") as 1908. Page 17 verifies that the essay form (also "The Modern State and its Crisis") was published in 1909. Regardless, the citation and name of the work are both wrong, and the date of the lecture should be 1908.
• ]]ecclesiastical law]] that's a pretty glaring typo.
• More close paraphrasing in the same sentence containing this typo.

If all these issues are found from just the material reference to Sandulli, I really doubt that I should AGF on any Italian sources I can't access. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Pbritti. Your points:

• re The publication date of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano given as 1901... Sandulli at p. 5 ft 9 [1] says "In 1900, his two monographs [...]; the following year, besides his celebrated book on “The Principles of Administrative Law”, his fundamental essay on the “De Facto Institution of a Constitutional Legal Order and its Legitimization” saw the light of day". So, based on Sandulli, 1901 is the correct year and Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is the correct title. This is confirmed by other sources: see Italian National Catalogue. the publication date is 1891 you are wrong: this is the publication date of Orlando's book, Principii di diritto amministrativo, also cited in Sandulli.
• re The (potentially incorrect) Italian name of Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is listed.... As I explained, Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano is the correct title. L'instaurazione di fatto di un ordinamento costituzionale e la sua legittimazione is listed together with Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano in Santi_Romano#In_Italian_(in_chronological_order).
• re Sandulli pg. 6 gives the date... You are right: it should be "Crisis", not "Crises". I have corrected the typo. the citation and name of the work are both wrong, and the date of the lecture should be 1908 No, the lecture was delivered in 1909. Sandulli says "In the same year [1908], he moved to the University of Pisa [...] delivering the famous inaugural speech". Sandulli, however, means "academic year" (1908-1909) because the inaugural speech was delivered in January 1909. See "nota prolusione pisana del 1909 dedicata a Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [well-known 1909 Pisan lecture on The Modern State and its Crisis] (Fioravanti, Treccani [2]), "Chiamato a insegnare diritto amministrativo all’Università di Pisa nel 1908, nel gennaio del 1909 pronunciò l’ormai famosa prolusione Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [Called to teach administrative law at the University of Pisa in 1908, in January 1909 he delivered the now famous lecture Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi] (Melis 2017 [3]), "nel 1909 pronuncio` a Pisa il discorso inaugurale dell’anno accademico su Lo Stato moderno e la sua crisi" [in 1909 he delivered the inaugural address of the academic year in Pisa on The Modern State and its Crisis] (Giustizia Amministrativa). To sum up, the sentence In 1909, Romano moved to the University of Pisa as professor of administrative law, where he delivered his inaugural lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis" was not wrong, but can be improved as follows: In 1908, Romano moved to the University of Pisa as professor of administrative law, where in January 1909 he delivered his inaugural lecture "The Modern State and its Crisis" (adding "Università di Pisa" as a source). I have changed the article accordingly.
• re ]]ecclesiastical law]] that's a pretty glaring typo Sorry, I don't understand this. I can only find "[[ecclesiastical law]]" in the article.

• It was fixed by 7&6=thirteen as I was addressing the issues raised in the comments, with their correction published five minutes before my above edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• re More close paraphrasing in the same sentence containing this typo. Ditto.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Source spot check

• 1e. Website is the official biographical website of the Italian senate in Italian, so reliability is safely assumed. All of these positions seem verified, but I think we only need a single citation for all this. I recommend a brief sentence introducing this section and its list.

 Done

• • 1f. Ibid.
  • 1m. Ibid.
  • 1p. Ibid.
  • 1t. Ibid.
• 3b. Confirmed
• 4b.
• 5c.
• 6a.
• 6f.
• 6g.
• 9a.
• 11b.
• 14.
• 17.
• 19.
• 20.
• 22.
• 23. AGF
• 25.

Requesting 2nd opinion

I thought I'd have more time for this and that I could muddle through the Italian. Due to other commitments on and off the project and my uncertainty regarding my ability to actually 1.) verify cited content and 2.) ensure that this is comprehensive makes me believe I am unsuitable to continue this review. Ping me if a 2nd opinion is not forthcoming by next year. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Pbritti, I thought I would drop in just to remind that GAs do not need to be "comprehensive", just "broad in their coverage", which is a significantly lower criterion. I assume you are aware of this, but thought I would clarify to prevent confusion for anyone considering fulfilling the second opinion request. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: You are absolutely right. While I meant to say what you posted above (thanks for assuming the best), I definitely misspoke. The "broad coverage" bar is not something I am comfortable ruling conclusively on in this case, much less the higher standard of "comprehensive". Good catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti Hey we are getting close to the new year and it doesn't look like anyone has providedd a second opinion. Are you able to take another look at this article? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: My Boxing Day is blissfully open. I'll drop by and do what I can! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pbritti regarding the second opinion, is there anything in particular that you are looking for in a second opinion? I may be able to help if you can guide me in the right direction here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Please advise: should I withdraw the current GAN submission, should I start a new one? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I would hold off for a few more days. I'm doing another GA review at the moment, so if we don't hear from Pbritti in the next few days perhaps IntentionallyDense or I could finish it. I have a useful grasp of Italian. — Jon (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's between withdrawal and me putting a pause on other work, I'll try to assist Jon. I just don't have the same time I had a few months ago, so a GAN requiring a bit of bilingualism is challenging. I can not be the primary editor on a second review, but want to help. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti User:IntentionallyDense I've made some minor changes in wording and formatting. I suggest that the list of selected works be reorganized, either alphabetically or by date.  Fixed I also think that mention of his racist journal be shortened up in the lead.  Fixed

I do not speak or read Italian, but WP:AGF on the citations. This is a complicated subject on a complicated, controversial, multi-faceted and flawed personage who had multiple careers. Assuming those changes will be made ... but the article is well sourced and organized, treats the subject comprehensively in an encyclopedic tone, is well written and we-sourced, looks like a GA to me.

I recommend that it pass GA.7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I am having trouble verifying a couple statements. The paragraph on the Marshall position starting from a newly created military rank and the highest in the Italian military (a better link is needed). There remains a citation needed tag. I see some extremely close paraphrasing of Sandulli 2009, such as "purge trial at the Council of State's purge commission". There is a lack of information on his personal life. A good example of the issues at hand can be found in the following sentence: "Beyond the content of the rules, they must analyse and expose what happens as a matter of practice: the 'boundless horizon ... of the entire social life'." There is no attribution of who is speaking in this quote (the citation indicates Romano), the quote itself is not advancing our understanding of the Romano's doctrine, and all of it comes from a primary source that fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of the statement. Barring substantial changes in the next couple days, I'm strongly inclined to fail this due to the failure of addressing tagged problems. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

re The paragraph on the Marshal position is supported by Sandulli and Virga (cited). Sanudlli is easier to verify since is in English:

In 1938 he wrote a famous and controversial opinion on “The Marshall of the Empire”, in which he declared himself in favor of simultaneously conferring this rank both to the King and Mussolini by statute law. He asserted the legitimacy of this act by assuming that such a designation would not have derogated from the current Constitution (the “Statuto Albertino”), by which the King is the Commander-in-chief of the Army.

As for Virga, the relevant excerpt is this one:

Un parere che, secondo quanto riportato dallo stesso Mussolini, indusse il Sovrano ad esprimere un duro giudizio nei confronti dell’Illustre giurista e, in generale, dei costituzionalisti; infatti, secondo quanto scritto da Mussolini e riportato fedelmente da De Felice (op. cit., p. 33), il Re, dopo aver letto il parere, ebbe ad affermare testualmente quanto segue: “I professori di diritto costituzionale, specialmente quando sono dei pusillanimi opportunisti, come il professor Santi Romano, trovano sempre argomenti per giustificare le tesi più assurde: è il loro mestiere; ma io continuo ad essere della mia opinione. Del resto non ho nascosto questo mio stato d’animo ai due presidenti delle Camere, perché lo rendessero noto ai promotori di questo smacco alla Corona, che dovrà essere l’ultimo”.

re There remains a citation needed tag  Fixed here.

re There is a lack of information on his personal life I don't have any further information about his personal life. I translated and summarised the information I found in the cited sources.

re There is no attribution of who is speaking in this quote (the citation indicates Romano) In fact, Santi Romano is speaking.

re all of it comes from a primary source that fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of the statement.This is correct. I will look for secondary sources. I'm pretty sure that quote has already been picked up by many. In case I'm wrong, I'm happy with dropping the paragraph.

re I'm strongly inclined to fail this due to the failure of addressing tagged problems. If I'm not mistaken, the "tagged problems" are only one "citation needed" that I hadn't noticed until today. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have found a good source to support the reference to the "boundless horizon" and the accompanying text:

• Croce, Mariano (2023-01-05). "What Matter(s)? A Processual View of the Material Constitution". The Cambridge Handbook on the Material Constitution. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009023764.018. ISBN 978-1-009-02376-4. Retrieved 2025-04-11. For the jurist is one who 'must have an eye capable of dominating and scrutinising in the smallest detail an almost boundless horizon', one that covers 'the whole of social life, which is so varied and protean'. The jurist should not neglect any 'relation or phenomenon […] since those that are relevant to the law are in reality fused and mixed with others that have no legal relevance'. The 'jurist's preliminary task is to isolate and separate the former from the latter, distinguishing them and dissolving their amalgam'.Footnote 23 Evidently, Romano thought that the law – the inner law of institutions – can be spontaneous and unspoken, and yet a jurisprudential inquiry is needed to make it speakable when it is necessary, and especially when one needs to know what in an institution is legal and what is lawful or illegal.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I've noted and corrected most, if not all, of the objections. See Soldini, David (August 10, 2014). "Santi Romano (1875-1947)" (in French). Sorbonne Legal Research Institute. Retrieved April 12, 2025.. It should be a GA, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I have another GAN that I am reviewing, but I will return and reevaluate the content here this week. I think that it's now in conformity to some criteria but still needs a proper spot-check review of sources (something I failed to do last time). The two editors who have been working on this article have done an admirable job addressing my concerns very quickly and I now optimistic that we'll see a green plus sign on the top of the article sometime next week! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen and Gitz6666, I will have lots of time to complete this review on Tuesday (tomorrow UTC). Please expect some more comments, but things look to have shifted in a very positive direction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

While I am sad that I did not have the bandwidth to contribute myself, I'm glad this is proceeding well! — Jon (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)