Talk:Santi Romano

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

I have some concerns about the extensive quote from Soldini 2024 in the "Legacy" section.

First, the quote is from the book blurb / online presentation (here) and not from the book. I haven't read the book. I'm assuming that the back cover text was written by Soldini himself rather than the publisher, so perhaps this isn't a major issue here, but if it's an issue, then it affects all the numerous references to "Soldini 2024".

Second, and more importantly, David Soldini is maître de conférences (roughly, a lecturer) [4] and the argument he presents is quite radical and, to my knowledge, not widely accepted in Santi Romano's studies. The idea that Romano had a cult of authority, was Obsessed with the state, that he will have [would have] put his life at the service of this cause, and that his work is plethoracic (better "plethoric", I guess) strike me as WP:FRINGE views, or at least as not representative of the academic consensus. We may be giving them undue weight with such a long quote. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Formal re-review

I'll be reviewing everything from a clean slate below. Consulting the above commentary is encouraged but I feel so much has changed that we need to start over. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Images

• The sole image to the article is File:Santi Romano.jpg. This image is public domain and appropriately illustrates the subject, albeit at a very low quality. The only other non-watermarked image of Romano is already on the Commons and is a low-quality scan.
• I would like to see just one or two other images, perhaps illustrating one of his contemporaries or a place he was closely associated with. This is not mandatory for the requirements of GA.

Prose

• EARWIG detected what I would characterize as close paraphrasing from this source. These need to be addressed. Other readings appear to be false positives.
• The claim of his active support for fascism is cited in the lead but conversely, as an attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies is not. They should both be cited.
• His birthdate and birthplace should both be mentioned in the body.
• Do we know anything about him before his legal education at Palermo?
• Say who Orlando is
• Romano also joined the public law journal that Orlando had founded in 1891, the Archivio di diritto pubblico, in which he published his first essay in 1894 This sentence is grammatically confusing regarding who is doing what and when. Did Romano join the journal in 1891 or was it founded that year (if the latter, that's an unnecessary detail). Was Orlando or Romano first published in 1894 (presumably Romano, but grammatically "his" refers to Orlando).
• Clarify that Primo trattato completo di diritto amministrativo italiano was a book series on first mention.
• in 1901, he published Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano ("Principles of Italian Administrative Law") and the essay "The De Facto Establishment of a Constitutional Legal Order and Its Legitimisation" Unless these two titles are of significance, just say that he published another monograph and essay.
• international law and in 1906, Another comma needed between and and in.
• Some commentary on the contents of the January 1909 lecture would be appropriate, assuming it can be sourced.
• If something was most-influential contribution to legal theory, some information on that contribution would be appropriate.
• Link Fascist government to Fascist Italy.

Continuing

• an internationally recognised Not seeing this sourced in the article. Feels like light puffery, too.
  • I agree, removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• maestro In lead with no explanation, not in body.
  •  Done (I replaced maestro with "mentor")
• most influential contribution to legal theory The source uses "most celebrated", which can be repeated or referred to with a more proximate synonym.
  •  Done (renowned)
• "First Marshall of the Empire" I don't believe we need quotation marks here.
  •  Done
• with the casting vote of Benedetto Croce Overly close paraphrasing here, even retaining the poor English of the original. The correct word would be "deciding", "decisive", or something like that.
  •  Done
• During the Fascist dictatorship, Romano maintained a relatively detached and uncommitted public profile I feel like there are some contradiction by the sources cited for this statement. Which source and which passage is supporting this statement.
  • Ridolfi 2017: Dei tre giuspubblicisti presi in esame, Santi Romano è senza dubbio il docente con il profilo politico meno accentuato [Of the three public lawyers examined, Santi Romano is undoubtedly the academic with the least political profile] (p. 5), Certamente, il coinvolgimento di Romano è minore di quello dei giuristi militanti che cercarono di dare un vero e proprio fondamento alle teorie razziste [Admittedly, Romano's involvement is less than that of the militant jurists who tried to give real substance to racist theories] (p. 7). We could add Sandulli 2009, p. 30: Santi Romano asked for and obtained the Fascist Party membership card only in October 1928 (so quite late and, anyhow, in order to be appointed at the Consiglio di Stato). Recent studies by Guido Melis demonstrate that Romano played his role as the President of the Consiglio di Stato with a great dignity, and his appointment did not imply at all a “fascistization” of the Court" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I see where the problem is coming from: having the lowest profile of three high-profile politically involved figures is substantially different than actually being low-profile. Thanks for providing the passages, but I think it fails WP:V. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      Arguably relatively detached and uncommitted implies a comparison with others who were more involved and committed (such as Costamagna and Maraviglia, who are the subject of Ridolfi 2017, along with Romano); Ridolfi says that Romano was less "political" and "militant" than them. However, I removed the sentence, but felt that we should provide more information about Romano's role under Fascism; so with this edit and the following ones, I almost completely rewrote the section "Relationship with Fascism". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

      Note also this edit, streamlining and adjusting the lead following the recent changes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• "became, at the age of 85, president of the first session of the Constituent Assembly in 1946" Why is this presented as a quote?
  • Quotation marks removed. Note, by the way, my concerns about using Soldini as a source: we cite Soldini 2024 as a book, but it is actually a book blurb. Also, Orlando became president of the first session of the Constituent Assembly not because of his authority, but solely because of his age (the interim president of the Assembly had to be its oldest member until Giuseppe Saragat was nominated). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Replies

• Re images, I've added this photo of V.E. Orlando + caption here. I'm also trying to understand if this image can be used. See here my request for assistence on the copyright issue. If anyone could help, that would be great.
• Re Earwig, all the sentences marked in red are false positives - they are titles of published works and generic phrases such as "Romano's relationship with Fascism", "plurality of legal orders", "casting vote of Benedetto Croce", etc. The only two phrases that might be questionable from the WP:COPYVIO point of view are in September 1944, he was remitted to the High Court of Justice for sanctions against fascism, and subjected to a purge trial and There are as many legal orders as there are institutions. I rephrased them slightly here.
  • Still far too close. Consider reordering the sentence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

• Re verifying the attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies, this should do. A quote from Ferrajoli is already provided in the article. This is a quote from Ridolfi 2017, pp. 5-6:

  Proprio in virtù della notorietà precedente, è discusso se la sua adesione al fascismo sia da intendersi come una collaborazione tecnica, che ha avuto, anzi, il merito di isolare le tendenze più estremistiche40 [quotes Ferrajoli], o se, invece, abbia avuto il significato di una vera e propria scelta convinta41. Anticipando quelle che sono le mie conclusioni, dico subito che tendo a propendere per la seconda ipotesi

  [Precisely by virtue of his [Romano's] previous notoriety, it is debated whether his adhesion to Fascism is to be understood as a technical collaboration, which had, indeed, the merit of isolating the most extremist tendencies40 [quotes Ferrajoli], or whether, instead, it had the significance of a real convinced choice41. Anticipating what my conclusions are, I say at once that I tend to lean towards the second hypothesis]
• His birthdate and birthplace should both be mentioned in the body  Done
• Do we know anything about him before his legal education at Palermo? I don't know anything, but will update the article if I find something about this.
• Say who Orlando is  Done
• Romano also joined the public law journal, I have rephrased the sentence here.
• Clarify that Primo trattato completo di diritto amministrativo italiano was a book series on first mention  Done
• Unless these two titles are of significance, just say that he published another monograph and essay They are of significance, but they could be WP:TOOMUCH. Please advise: either we leave the sentence as it is now, or we could drop it entirely, including the reference to two monographs on administrative justice – also as parts of Orlando's series. I'm fine with both options.
• Another comma needed  Done
• Some commentary on the contents of the January 1909 lecture  Done here.
• some information on that contribution would be appropriate  Done here.
• Link Fascist government to Fascist Italy  Done

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Following this exchange at Commons Village Pump, I've uploaded this image and added it to the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't love the prominence of the logos and believe that this makes it a copyright violation. I would encourage removal. There are people (including myself sometime in maybe next month) who have experience removing logos like that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done If you or others could help me improve the quality of the image, I'd be grateful. I've written to the Instituto Luce asking for permission to publish a better quality image, but they haven't yet replied. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I would hope that the image is cleaned up and restored to this article. They say, 'A picture is worth a thousand words." And this picture with Il Duce is EXHIBIT A. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Incidentally, the image is also a minor discovery, as I haven't seen it published before. This image is also quite interesting (Santi Romano and Mussolini walking together in 1931)." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Final opinion

Thank you to Gitz6666 and 7&6=thirteen for your hard work on this article. I first began reviewing this article on October 17 of last year. We are now more than six months on from that date. During that time, substantial improvements were made, including the expansion of coverage, improvement of prose, removal of copyright concerns, and insertion of citations.

However, substantial problems remain: portions of the lead remain unsupported by the body (such as the claim about Romano moderating fascism), close paraphrasing is present in almost every sentence reviewed, and there is instability of the article beyond the alterations suggested in the review. For these reason, I must presently fail this GAN.

I understand how this can be frustrating. However, I have hope here. I experienced something not completely dissimilar in my work on Talk:Colorado Coalfield War/GA2, a review that ran from March 2021 to March 2022. I don't doubt that more time and experience would enable the involved editors to return to this article and bring it up to GA. However, after more than six months, I think we should move on from the reviewing stage and allow for a less regimented scheme of article improvement. I am extremely impressed with the commitment and composure of the editors who collaborated on this article and again thank both of you for your efforts. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GAN review's failures

Pbritti's final opinion displays several mistakes, inaccuracies, and shortcomings:

1. after more than six months, I think we should move on from the reviewing stage. Pbritti's review did not last "more than six months": it lasted eight days, from 11 April to 19 April 2025. Until then, Pbritti's only contributions to the GAN review were three brief comments (18 October 2024, 27 October 2024 , 10 November 2024) which were quickly addressed, except for the last one, which I missed until the review resumed on 11 April 2025. The rest of Pbritti's "six-month review" consisted of delays Pbritti acknowledged themself, repeatedly apologising for the lack of progress: Was busier than anticipated (18 October 2024), can you wait until the end of this upcoming week (19 October 2024), Sorry for being so long out of this game. Will continue more shortly (10 November 2024), I thought I'd have more time for this ... I am unsuitable to continue this review (29 November 2024). Because of their limited availability or unwillingness to complete the review, Pbritti requested a second opinion on 29 November 2024. It is a wonderful world and IntentionallyDense stepped in to provide guidance and check Pbritti's intentions: Are you able to take another look at this article? (25 December 2024), is there anything in particular that you are looking for in a second opinion? (29 January 2025). Pbritti never answered this last question and, as a result, on 1 March 2025 I asked whether I should withdraw the current GAN submission or start a new one. Jonathanischoice kindly offered to finish the review, citing a useful grasp of Italian, but Pbritti did not explicitly accept their offer and stepped away from the process – instead, they justified themselves again (I just don't have the same time I had) and promised to provide help and assistence (7 March 2025). So nothing happened, until 10 April 2025, when 7&6=thirteen edited the article and commented: the article is well sourced and organized, and looks like 1a GA to me. At that point, Pbritti re-emerged and apparently started to take the GAN review mroe seriously. Yet the chronology speaks for itself: this was not a six-month review – it was a process that Pbritti obstructed and delayed, without clearly stepping down from the responsibility they had taken.
2. portions of the lead remain unsupported by the body (such as the claim about Romano moderating fascism) This comment is deeply concerning and suggests either a misunderstanding of the article or a lack of attention to the sources. The sentence in the lead his role within the party and government has been interpreted both as active support for Fascism and, conversely, as an attempt to moderate its more extreme tendencies is directly supported in the article body: Scholars also disagree on whether Romano's adherence to Fascism should be understood as a technical collaboration that helped counter the regime's most radical tendencies. This sentence is backed by a citation (Ferrajoli 1999, p. 46) and a direct quotation. I had already presented these and other sources during the GAN review and even translated the relevant passages into English (here). The notion that Santi Romano attempted to moderate Fascism's most extreme aspects is not my personal interpretation: it is a view expressed by respected scholars such as Luigi Ferrajoli, Guido Melis and Aldo Sandulli. These are mainstream legal scholars and historians, and their perspectives are acknowledged even by those, like Ridolfi 2017, who disagree with them. The article reflects this scholarly debate accurately and with proper sourcing.
3. close paraphrasing is present in almost every sentence reviewed. This is false. Please, @Pbritti, quote even a single sentence where "close paraphrasing" is actually an issue. Your concerns about close paraphrasing were raised here, but they were not substantiated since the Earwig tool mostly returned false positives (titles of Romano's works), and the concerns were addressed immediately and effectively (here and then again here).
4. there is instability of the article beyond the alterations suggested in the review. As I explained here, I rewrote the section Relationship with Fascism in response to Pbritti's suggestion that the sentence Romano maintained a relatively detached and uncommitted public profile failed verification. That sentence was in fact supported by Ridolfi 2017, who writes: Of the three public lawyers examined, Santi Romano is undoubtedly the academic with the least political profile (my translation). Nonetheless, since Pbritti questioned its accuracy, I replaced it with a more detailed and informative account of Romano's relationship with Fascism, based on the reliable sources I cited.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: the multiple plagiarism issues from multiple close-paraphrasings alone are enough to have warranted a quick-fail. If had caught those back in October, you would've seen a quick fail then. Please understand that this article fails to meet the minimum standards for GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please provide an example, as already requested, of the alleged "plagiarism issues". That would allow others to assess whether I'm mistaken or whether there's a compentence issue on the part of the reviewer (possibly due to lack of time and rushed judgment). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just one I could find in about two minutes: He spent the last years of his life in solitude working on his book Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico ("Fragments of a Legal Dictionary"), and died in Rome on the 3 November 1947. The sentence is essentially identical to the footnote spanning pages 6 and 7 of Sandulli. This article was submitted with multiple unsourced statements. I also developed concerns about paraphrasing in October, but my competency with Italian was not such that I felt qualified to comment. I requested quite clearly a second opinion. Seeing none materialize after months, I relaunched this review. The prevalence of the paraphrasing problems in English in indisputable, so my confidence in AGFing on Italian sources is not possible. I'm sorry that your article did not pass. However, an accusation of a competence problem here is so unwarranted as to be an aspersion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti I think your competence is not an issue. I know you have done yeoman service in an arduous review. Understandably, every one gets stressed in the Bataan death march. We all have frayed nerves, and I am certain no insult was intended.

A similar thought was expressed in Sandulli, 2009. For example, after his trial, in which he is both openly defiant and unrepentant he retires and goes into seclusion. Everything in this article can be cited to that.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

To be sure, the sourcing and citations can be improved. I would hope that after that is done, you might reconsider your disposition.

If we work together, we should be able to get this up to your interpretation of the complicated standard, and get it rated as a GA.

Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Sandulli writes In the last few years of his life, he lived a life of sadness and loneliness, he devoted himself to his last and celebrated work: the “Fragments of a legal dictionary”. He died in Rome, on the 3rd of November 1947. The article states He spent the last years of his life in solitude working on his book Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico ("Fragments of a Legal Dictionary"), and died in Rome on the 3 November 1947. This could undoubtedly be improved, but remains a single sentence containing no "creative expression", no creative selection and presententation, which merely presents the raw facts that he was alone, wrote a book and died.

This GA review was not done competently: this is not "aspersion", it's an assessment and a fairly easy one to make. You kept me waiting for six months and then cancelled the review after only eight days, while I was working on the article and modifying it, taking on board your suggestions. May I suggest that if you do not have time to devote to the GAN review, you should not take on the responsibility? It's just a waste of everyone's time and doesn't do the encyclopaedia any good. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Please understand that not only does the above example indeed contain creative expression that was essentially repeated in the article, there were several instances of close paraphrasing for just that source. If there are multiple egregious copyright issues, that's grounds for a quick-fail (see WP:QF). Because there were so many, I could not see a reason to keep the review open. Certainly, you are improving the article. But such substantial alterations should not take place within the GAN process and no reviewer is obligated to assist in a major rewrite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with thirteens statement of the lack of communication here. @Gitz6666 if you feel that the review wasn't done correctly I urge you to voice your concerns at WT:GAN as this is a more appropriate avenue for this type of thing. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 22:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: Thirteen's assessments that this article should have been a GA and that communication failed are incorrect, though I appreciate their efforts on this article. The article was submitted to GAN with a CN tag, several failed Vs, and multiple copyright issues. I stepped away from the review when I realized I had insufficient time. When another editor offered to provide a second opinion, they never followed through despite my offer to assist them. I stepped in to perform a full review as soon as I had some rare free time. The article was and remains insufficient to clear the barriers to a quick fail, even a week after I initiated the re-review.

While Gitz said I wasted their time, it's important to understand that I spent hours assisting in improving an article that was absolutely not in a state where it should have been submitted to GAN. I didn't consider my time wasted, but to continue this as a GAN would be a waste of time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Just noting, I wasn't saying that the article should have been a GA, just that communication here wasn't optimal. This isn't to place blame on anyone here as GAN reviews are a collaborative process. Again, if anyone, including you as the reviewer, feels that something went wrong with the nomination or review process I recommend you reach out to WT:GAN. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

User:IntentionallyDense I agree. My mode here has only been to fix the problem, not fix the blame. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense Thank you, I'll do as you suggest. I've checked the article again, and I'm quite sure that Pbritti is wrong when they say it has several failed Vs, and multiple copyright issue. As for the CN tags they mention, they were added on the 16 April 2024 ([5][6]) and the next day I submitted the article to GAN without noticing them. The citations were at hand and as soon as I was made aware of the problem, I fixed it ([7][8]). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santi Romano/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gitz6666 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 07:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the heart to let this sit on the pile for another 6 months. @Itemirus was kind enough to offer to help spot check the Italian sources and evaluate broadness, and I'm happy to do the rest of the review. IAWW (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gitz6666, I started the prose review below. There were a lot of points about neutrality, clarity and accessibility for less expert readers. If you can, when responding to the points, please fix the issues that repeat themselves later in the article. I suspect this could be done for the neutrality points, and it would save me repeating myself. Note that although there are a lot of points about clarity and accessibility, I think you have generally done a good job. It's just a hard job in a technical article where all the sourcing is from a different time period and language. IAWW (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Final comments are below. After these are addressed, I am happy to pass this for GA. Nice work – you're probably the only active editor who is fluent enough in English and Italian, knowledgeable enough about law and can write to a high enough standard to create articles like this. Finally, over a year after this was first nominated, it can be passed! IAWW (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you! I admire your courage in taking on such a complex GAN review, especially one that began under such grim prospects. I truly appreciated your help and learned a lot from your excellent insights. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

I'll leave the lead until I have a better idea of the content in the article

Early life and education

Suggest linking "upper-middle-class" IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

He enrolled at the Faculty of Law in Palermo: Do we know when? IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. I couldn't find this information in the sources at hand. I have found a new source, however, Olivari, Alessandro (2016). Santi Romano ontologo del diritto (PDF). LED edizioni. ISBN 978-88-7916-779-6., which contains a very helpful Nota bio-bibliografica su Santi Romano (pp. 153 ff.). I will soon review and update the article using it, but I note that it doesn't contain this information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That's alright, thank you for looking. IAWW (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

a highly influential Italian legal scholar: "highly influential" is an opinion. Attribute, replace with a fact, or cut. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree, removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In 1891, Orlando had founded: "had" implies this happened before joining the law firm mentioned in the previous sentence. Is this intended? If so, it would be a lot clearer if the previous sentence had a date. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Not intended - sorry for my poor English. Removed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Your English definitely isn't "poor". IAWW (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

he published his dissertation as a monograph on public rights in the first volume of Orlando's Primo trattato completo di diritto amministrativo italiano (First Complete Treatise of Italian Administrative Law), which was a comprehensive book series on Italian administrative law: This is a fantastic example of how to take an obscure technical concept and make it understandable to your average reader. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, "they were a 'political tool' of reaction and fulfilment of a specific project for the preservation of national unity." On the other hand, Orlando's proclaimed "legal method" contributed to the development of administrative law as a legal discipline, yet inevitably distanced it from the social sciences. As a result, his intellectual approach fell out of fashion during the twentieth century: Make it clear that all of this is still Sandulli's opinion. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

See below Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's weird that we get a paragraph on the reception of Romano's dissertation but no summary of what the dissertation actually included beforehand. It makes the reception paragraph very hard to understand. I don't understand "they were a 'political tool' of reaction and fulfilment of a specific project for the preservation of national unity". I think there needs to be a short summary of Roman's dissertation/views at this point, and then the paragraph on Sandulli's opinion needs to be rephrased to clarify things like:

• What made them a "political tool"?
• "Reaction" to what?
• What is the "specific project"?
• What is Orlando's "legal method"? IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the whole passage and explained the reasons here. I understand perfectly well what Sandully intends to say (the political project was to build an Italian school of public law after the unification of the country in 1861, countering the influence of the ideals of the French Revolution; the "legal method" was intended as an approach to law that rejected any philosophical speculation and political commitment, e.g., the notion of droit de l'homme). I could provide a precise explanatory paraphrase, but it would probably fall under WP:OR. Since the article is about Romano, I think we'd better refrain from any information about Orlando's Scuola italiana di diritto pubblico. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair IAWW (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Career

In 1900, Romano published two monographs on administrative justice – also as parts of Orlando's series – and in 1901, he published Principii di diritto amministrativo italiano (Principles of Italian Administrative Law) and the essay L’instaurazione di fatto di un ordinamento costituzionale e la sua legittimazione (The De Facto Establishment of a Constitutional Legal Order and Its Legitimisation).: Why were these publications notable? Do we have any sources on their reception? IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed as explained here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

he became a full professor: "tenured professor" or "full tenured professor" would contrast more clearly with "non-tenured professor" in the previous sentence. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano celebrated the state as a "wonderful creation by the law", stressed the danger of new social and economic organisations acting autonomously from or in opposition to the state, and invoked the need for the state to evolve into a higher organisation that would reconcile and harmonise the various conflicting interests: The way this is phrased implicitly implies that there existed a danger and a need, which is an opinion. It needs to be clear that even the existence of a danger and a need was Romano's opinion. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

reconcile and harmonise: Cut to one of these words IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

the various conflicting interests [between the organisations]: Add the square bracketed words to show who the conflicting interests were between. It has not yet been established that the autonomous organisations had conflicting interests. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent observations. I have rephrased the whole passage as follows:

In his lecture, Romano celebrated the state as a "wonderful creation by the law", argued that new social and economic organisations posed a danger when they acted autonomously from or in opposition to the state, and asserted that the state should be able to integrate corporate tendencies into a higher unity

I have also added a wikilink from "integrate corporate tendencies" to Corporativism. I hope that the wl to Corporativism doesn't fall under WP:EASTEREGG (in which case, I'd remove it). It clarifies what the "integration of corporativist tendencies" was all about and is supported by Sandulli. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the reworded passage is really good. IAWW (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

his most renowned contribution to legal theory: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty non-controversial that L'ordinamento giuridico is Romano's most renowned contribution to legal theory; WP:VOICE could apply here. However, I've removed the phrase, which is better than attributing this opinion to someone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've found another source (Olivari 2016, p. 156) to support the claim that L'ordinamento giuridico is Romano's "most renowned contribution to legal theory", so I've restored the text and added another source [9]. If you don't agree, I'm happy to self-revert. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Although it's non-controversial, it's still an opinion and not a fact. The first bullet point of WP:VOICE discusses how to treat these non-controversial opinions – they can be attributed to consensus if sourcing can support that, or they can be attributed to an expert or experts. IAWW (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I really think this should be included in some form. It's quite important in my opinion. IAWW (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed "legal theory" to "jurisprudence" (with a wikilink) [10], which perhaps clarifies the issue. "Legal theory" does not mean "legal science" or "legal studies"; rather, it refers to jurisprudence or philosophy of law: a field distinct from constitutional and administrative law. Romano made essentially two contributions to the philosophy of law: L'ordinamento giuridico and Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico. The former is undoubtedly the more renowned (e.g., it has been translated into various languages). Thus, the claim that L'ordinamento giuridico is Romano's most renowned contribution to jurisprudence/philosophy of law is quite obvious and matter-of-fact. Apart from Frammenti, it is also effectively his only contribution to the field. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Could "institutionalism" and "pluralism" be linked appropriately? If not, I think this terminology is overly technical. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Legal pluralism is a suitable wikilink. However, we miss an article on Legal institutionalism. I think we'd better leave it as a red wikilink for now. The concept is central to understanding Romano's theory and is quite common in legal studies (e.g., [11][12][13]). I hope to write an article on the topic in the near future. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Happy to leave this as a red link IAWW (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

their complex interactions: Cut "complex", which is an opinion, and replace with something like "possible" or "theorised" – to reflect the theorised nature of the institutions themselves. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. See the resulting text. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good IAWW (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano was a member of the High Council for Education: Without an explanation of what the "High Council for Education" is, this is quite meaningless. IAWW (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Itemirus (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Do note though that fixing the moderate to big points is normally left to the nominator just in case you weren't aware. IAWW (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The citation in the footnote just needs to be formatted properly. Also I suggest linking some of the terms in the footnote. IAWW (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know... Itemirus (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I love how the second paragraph reads now. I think you have done a fantastic job of explaining his theory here. I feel like I already have a basic understanding of it, from just reading this paragraph. IAWW (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Explain what the "Diplomatic Litigation Council" was IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In 1931, he published the first volume of the Corso di diritto amministrativo ("Administrative Law Course").: Similar to the above points, this needs context:

• Why was this publication specifically notable?
• What did it include?
• What impact did it have? IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I will remove this. Following Sandulli and other sources, I have filled Romano's biography with information about the publication of his works, but the sources don't provide details about their context/content/impact. I could do some research on this, but it would make the biography too long, so I think it's better to remove information that merely replicates what you find in the "Publications (selected)" section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, though if you could find contextual information I would fully support keeping them in. Nonetheless, it's not needed for the "broadness" requirement for GA. IAWW (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you add some context as to why the King was against the law that added the highest military rank? IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This is much better explained now. Just checking, does the source say the king explicitly said he resented it? Otherwise, it is an opinion and should be attributed. IAWW (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the sources eplicitly say that the King resented this - it was actually the first and perhaps the only institutional conflict between the Crown and the Head of Government (Mussolini) during Fascism. The King called Romano a "pusillanimous opportunist" due to Romano's legal opinion on the matter. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for checking. IAWW (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Later career and death

to the Fascist-controlled city of: Every group mentioned so far is Fascist! Which group are you referring to here? IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done here Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good IAWW (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

but when he was asked to move there, Romano decided to retire: Using "but" here implies a connection between him being asked to move and him retiring, which I don't think there is enough evidence of in the source for this to be implied as a fact. See the latter section of WP:EDITORIAL. IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sandulli says when he was asked to move to the city of Cremona, the new seat of the Administrative High Court, he preferred to retire. To me this suggests some kind of causal connection between the decision to retire and the decision not to share the grim fate of the Italian Social Republic. Also Melis says (my translation): Following the events of 25 July 1943, Romano adopted a wait-and-see attitude. After September 8, however, following orders, he issued provisions for the transfer of the State Council personnel to the North (with headquarters in Cremona), although he himself refrained from complying with them by promptly requesting retirement. Therefore, I removed the editorialising "but" and added instead "When he was ordered to relocate there himself, he chose to retire" (here). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Happy to leave as is. IAWW (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

the defeat of Fascism: I think it's a little inaccurate to say Fascism itself was defeated. Fascism is an idea. Can you replace it with the name of the Fascist group which was defeated? IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a little bit tricky. Sandulli says After the liberation of Italy he re-entered the chair, but in September 1944 he was remitted to the High Court of Justice. When did the "liberation of Italy" happened? The official "liberation day" (Festa della Liberazione) is 25 April 1945, but this doesn't make sense. Sandulli is clearly referring to the liberation of Rome by the Allies, which happened on 4-5 July 1944, and this is confirmed by Melis: Rientrò in carica dopo la liberazione di Roma (giugno 1944) [He resumed his position after the liberation of Rome (June 1944)]. Therefore I changed the text to clarify this (here). Well spotted! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice and precise. Looks good IAWW (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

and faced proceedings by the Council of State's purge commission:

• Can you be more specific than "proceedings". I do understand this might not be possible though.
• I can sort of guess what the "Council of State's purge commission" was, but it would be much clearer if it were explained explicitly. IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I hope this is an improvement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is much clearer. IAWW (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"deprived" isn't very neutral. It has a connotation that the position was taken away unjustly. IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to "stripped of"m hoping that it is more neutral. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is neutral IAWW (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

He spent the last years of his life in solitude working on his book Frammenti di un dizionario giuridico ("Fragments of a Legal Dictionary").: Add context, similar to the above points. IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I added "... a work that combines rigorous juridical investigations into legal concepts with more personal reflections, possibly influenced by his circumstances at the time" (here), drawing on Sandulli, which offers a detailed presentation of the book. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Very nice IAWW (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

despite their different political views: "Despite" implies a link between the statements which may not be there (last paragraph of WP:EDITORIAL again). IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

testifies to a lasting friendship: Opinion. They may have written to each other despite not being friends. IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The sentence During this period, he maintained a brief correspondence with Vittorio Emanuele Orlando which, despite their different political views, testifies to a lasting friendship, is supported by Melis, who writes (my translation)

It was also during this period of crisis, including personal crisis, that he briefly corresponded with his old mentor Orlando, with whom, despite their opposing political choices, he had always maintained friendly personal relations

. Since "despite" is in the source, it doesn't fall under WP:EDITORIAL. However, I believe "lasting friendship" is not entirely supported by the source: Melis's "friendly personal relations" suggests a somewhat less strong connection than my "lasting friendship". You are right that they may have written to each other despite not being friends. So I changed it into "a continued personal relationship" (here). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Nice, apologies for incorrect editorial points IAWW (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Among his disciples are Guido Zanobini, Giovanni Miele, Massimo Severo Giannini and Paolo Biscaretti di Ruffia: Unless "disciples" has a specific meaning in a legal context that I am unaware of, this is extremely vague. Something like "Guido Zanobini, Giovanni Miele, Massimo Severo Giannini and Paolo Biscaretti di Ruffia later stated they were influenced by his work" would be better, though obviously it needs to be worded so that it is supported by the sources. It would be even better if you could include how they were influenced. Also, should this be in the "Legacy" section? IAWW (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right - I moved the sentence to the "Legacy" section. However, it is difficult for me to find a suitable alternative to the word "disciples". In the context of Italian academia, "disciples" has a specific meaning, referring to the personal, scientific and professional relationship between a meastro (mentor, often thesis supervisor) and their allievo (pupil or disciple), someone whose academic career is directly shaped and oriented by their maestro. So, for example, Santi Romano is considered Orlando's "disciple" (if that's the right term), just as Biscaretti di Ruffia and others were considered Romano's disciples. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh nice to know. I'm happy to leave it since it has a precise meaning in legal contexts. IAWW (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

After some research, I believe that "academic pupils" is preferable to "disciples", which carries religious connotations and may strike readers as awkward. Apparently "academic pupil" is more common, see e.g. [14][15][16][17]. If you don't agree, please revert this edit or suggest alternatives. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I like this more for exactly the reasoning you describe. IAWW (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Relationship with Fascism

characteristics typical of the agrarian bourgeoisie of southern Italy: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano may have hoped, like other liberal-era jurists, that the Fascist regime could remedy the perceived "crisis of the state" – marked by strikes and widespread political and social conflict – while preserving key liberal principles: This speculation is definitely relevant, but it should be attributed. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggest linking "liberal principles" to "liberalism" IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

He joined the National Fascist Party rather late: Restate as a precise fact, or attribute as opinion IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "restate as a precise fact"? If you think it's an improvement, I'm happy to add "Scholars note that...". 1928 was indeed quite late: by that time, possession of a Fascist Party membership card had already become necessary to hold institutional positions, such as the presidency of the Council of State. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, by "restate as a precise fact" I meant you could write it as something like "He joined the National Fascist Party in 1928, when the Party had...". Then it wouldn't require attribution. Your change is good. IAWW (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Some see it as a means of aligning the Council of State with Fascist doctrine: Is Romano the one wanting alignment here, or the regime? IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It's the regime. I clarified in this way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Great looks good IAWW (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano's later writings increasingly emphasised the theme of state sovereignty, downplaying the pluralist ideas that had previously characterised his legal thought and reflecting a shift towards positions closer to Fascist ideology: While extremely relevant, this is interpretation so should be attributed. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

which suggests that Romano sought: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Notably: WP:WTW IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

by Stefano Maria Cutelli: If notable enough, redlink, otherwise, cut the name. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

not notable, removed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Family life

Looks good :)

Doctrine

Every institution constitutes a legal order, since ubi societas ibi ius ("where there is society, there is law").: Make it clear this is still the opinion of Romano IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Any legal order can be relevant to any other to any degree, as well as completely irrelevant. Certain legal orders may be internal to others: Same here IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation in this first paragraph, I feel like I understand it somewhat already. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano was concerned with the development of organised societal structures such as mass political parties and trade unions, whose normativity depends on their independent capacity to obtain allegiance rather than on state recognition: Interpretation, attribute IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Attributed to "scholars" (several RSs) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Since legal orders can emerge spontaneously to enable the pursuit of certain goals, sanctions are not essential to the existence of a legal order and can be replaced by other effective means of social pressure: Be clear this is still Romano's opinion. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

According to Romano, the plurality of legal orders and their internal, spontaneous normativity are relevant for legal scholars: Interpretation, attribute. Another option to avoid the interpretation is to use direct quotes instead. This removes the interpretive aspect, so then attribution is not needed. You did this above a little bit, so attribution wasn't needed there. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Since these views are correctly attributed to Romano, it is hard to add another attribution to the secondary source without cluttering the text, so I added a direct quote from the source here and simplified the text a bit to make it less "interpretative" and more factual (and parhaps also more readable). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes this is a good way to do it IAWW (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I won't repeat myself too much, but the above point are prolific through the rest of this section. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Right! Is this OK? Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Legacy

Santi Romano is considered one the leading exponents of legal institutionalism and pluralism in the legal culture of his time: By whom? I suspect "by scholars". Also, this is a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, so should be backed up by multiple high quality sources. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I toned it down (here) so as to make the claim less WP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, the question "by whom?" is answered in the text that immediately follows - the whole paragraph, actually, which is supported by many references. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep that's fair, I didn't realise it was a summary of the following paragraph when I first read it. IAWW (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

in his most-famous work The Legal Order (1917–1918),: Opinion, attribute. It's fine to attribute to consensus if you can find the sourcing. Given the below point, I suggest cutting this to prevent repeated information. IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

and has been described as "the most important Italian legal work of the 20th century".: This essentially repeats what was said earlier ("his most-famous work"), but with more precision. But, the quote needs to be attributed, I suspect to "multiple scholars". IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I could add "by multiple scholars", if I want, but I suspect that this may sound a bit emphatic. "Has been described" (plus three references) sounds to me more neutral than "Has been described by multiple scholars". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree IAWW (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

and notably: "Notably" is editorialising IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Romano is also remembered: By whom? IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed it into "Romano has also given significant contributions to the fields of constitutional and administrative law" ("public and administrative law" was a mistake). This is directly supported by the cited sources, e.g., Bartolini says "Santi Romano was one of the leading scholars at the time, mainly in the area of public and administrative law, being also president of the Council of State from 1928". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

for his leading scholarship: Opinion, attribute IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't find it, probably I have already removed it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

he is regarded: By Sandulli IAWW (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

by asserting the state's authority over non-state legal orders, Schmitt implicitly rejected Romano's legal pluralism: Opinion, attribute

I added a "scholars note" in the preceding sentence, which should also cover this one, since I replaced the full stop with a colon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Honours and awards

Looks good :)

Publications (selected)

Looks good :)

Sources clock

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

The citations are beautifully formatted.

Not an issue for GA, but the citations in the footnotes aren't in ref tags. IAWW (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to the explanatory notes? Do you think we should include footnotes within them? I know it's a common practice, and I've used it myself occasionally (e.g., Alfred_Verdross#Notes_and_references), but perhaps in this case, since there are only two notes, each with a single reference, using "See" might be simpler and more readable. Here. But I'm also fine with having footnotes, if you prefer. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Either or, I would be happy with everything. IAWW (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Not an issue for GA, but why did you only include quotes for some of the sources? IAWW (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed them (here), except for the quote from Ferrajoli, which includes references to two Fascist jurists, Costamagna and Panunzio, who provide an interesting point of comparison with Romano. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :) IAWW (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

Very high quality sourcing. I see no issues.

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) clock

@Itemirus, could you check about 5 or so of the Italian sources you can access to make sure they support the content? I'll check all the English ones I can access.

I checked most of the sources in Italian that I could reach online; for those not online, I checked the books and their ISBNs in online stores; in my opinion all the sources are still available, relevant to the subject, and not original research. I have also used a bot to point to the available archives of all online sources to prevent link rot.Itemirus (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Itemirus, could you indicate which citations you checked fully supported what was written in the article? Checking about five or so will be sufficient for the spot check. IAWW (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• I just added another source to reinforce the claim in the first paragraph about his book series on administrative law;
• "in the same year was appointed as President of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), the Italian administrative high court" - the cited source does support this statement, but it is on page 7, not 6 (I fixed it);
• "availed himself of the tools of legal dogmatics." - the cited source "Fioravanti" does indeed talk about Romano's doctrine, but I corrected the citation to include pages from 173 to 175 as the concept is broad and discussed in those pages;

Itemirus (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This is great, thank you. IAWW (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Itemirus! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

[6d]: Y

[6e]: Y

[6f]: Y

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Itemirus when you check the Italian sources, can you also check for any too close paraphrasing?

I could not find evidence for plagiarism; in any case, the few instances of quoting or closely paraphrasing the source are done following Wikipedia's guidelines Itemirus (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Earwig finds nothing, I see no issues with too close paraphrasing of the English sources. IAWW (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) clock

And finally, Itemirus could you have a quick Google for any reliable sources that are missing from the article?

• Cardone, Antonio (2023). "Santi Romano e la crisi dello Stato liberale" (PDF). Archivio di diritto pubblico (in Italian) (1). Editoriale Scientifica: 41–78. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 May 2024.

• Conte, Emanuele (May 2022). "Legal Pluralism from History to Theory and Back: Otto von Gierke, Santi Romano, and Francesco Calasso on Medieval Institutions". Law and History Review. 40 (2). Cambridge University Press: 311–334. doi:10.1017/S073824802200007X. ISSN 0738-2480. Archived from the original on 17 October 2024.

• Kassaian, Ata (2021). "The English Awakening of Santi Romano's Ordinamento Giuridico: a Review of The Legal Order". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 58 (2): 453–465. ISSN 0030-6185. Archived from the original on 1 December 2024.

Hope these are useful :) Itemirus (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure they are useful! I will read them and update the article asap. Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I included Conte (2022) and Kassaian (2021) as sources. However, there's an error regarding Cardone (2023): the correct title is "Pluralità e pluralismo nello scritto romaniano sulla natura dei regolamenti parlamentari" and it was published in Antologia di diritto pubblico, not in Archivio di diritto pubblico. I was unable to find any contribution titled "Santi Romano e la crisi dello Stato liberale". Cardone's article is a high-quality contribution and certainly qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but it is narrowly focused on the legal nature of parliamentary regulations. The points it makes about Romano’s broader theories are already covered in the article, so I did not need to cite it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media clock

Tags (Criterion 6a) clock

File:Santi Romano.jpg needs a tag for why it is public domain in the US.

File:Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.jpeg also needs a US tag, and the date is wrong. IAWW (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I will take care of this asap (likely tomorrow) but I need to understand how to do it because it's something new for me. Note, by the way, this thread (about copyright: there are concerns) and this request (to obtain a better image, still pending). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, I believe this is the only outstanding point. IAWW (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world, I'm so sorry, but I don't quite understand what I'm supposed to do. I'm not very familiar with copyright or how file licensing works on Commons. Should I edit the file on en.wiki or Commons, and how should I proceed? If you could link me to some guidelines or help page, that would be helpful. I'm happy to learn and fix this properly! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've started this thread at Commons Village Pump/Copyright. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gitz6666, apologies for taking some time to get to this. I noticed someone replied at the Commons thread, saying exactly what I would have. Looking forward to passing this! IAWW (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, they replied and users there have already fixed the issues you noted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh great! Passing now. See you round :) IAWW (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.