Talk:Sapienza University of Rome

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Saint Ivo

Dear sirs,

The church of "Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza", shown in the photograph, nothing to do with the modern University of Rome La Sapienza. Actually, the church built in the 1642-1660 is located in the ancient site of the University of Rome, in Corso Rinascimento 40, close to Piazza Navona, whereas the present Sapienza complex since 1935, built by the great architect Marcello Piacentini during the fascist regime, is located near Castro Pretorio and the Policlinico Hospital.

For further information see (in italian):

[1]

[2]

Good work!

F.S. --Matita 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Controversy

History repeats herself: Pope Benedict XVI just cancelled his inaugural speech due to students' protests.[3] Is it worth including here? --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is already mentioned.89.236.214.174 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

  • Mr Razinger quoted an Austrian philosopher without taking the position. This is for me, after reading it totally clear. So I think the students and professors defended their stupidness... or are there unable of understanding the meaning of quotations?
  • 67 out of 4500 professors protested (1,5 %) and a lot of extreme fundamentalist lefty students... maybe 10 to 15 % and some people from outside the university...
  • religious obscurantism is everything but neutral
  • What does the press in Italy say about this? Many saw that as an direct attack on free speech (atheist and theists alike) and were shocked about that. regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • It isn't mentioned in the article.
  • So add the numbers with relative source.
  • You can reword it.
  • OT.
--M4gnum0n (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded it. It still probably needs to go as I think its WP:Recentism and not really worthy of metion.

Opinions???

CaptinJohn (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article 10 years later, the Recentism assessment looks correct. This was newsworthy in the context of 2007-08, but not at all in the context of the 700-year history of the university, nor in a description of the current university. Phytism (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Pope Bendeict did not at all justifying the arrest of Galileo! Here is the text in German: Was Joseph Ratzinger in Parma über Galilei sagte. Radio Vatican might have the text . regards Cyrus Grisham (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the reference to Galileo more neutral, and added a reference to the letter the scientists sent to the rector. Goochelaar (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorancew, but what does extraneousness mean?
Thanks CaptinJohn (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevantness, would be my guess. Abdullais4u (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source (3) and its sources I dont think that they were protesting him not being a relevent speaker. It seems like they were more protesting against the church disagreeing with science (faith vs reason). Also it seems to be a small minority of students and lecturers and they are organising "Anti Cleric" week. Should we include this as it shows motivation or just cut the lot as mostly irrelevent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptinJohn (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Extraneousness" is the noun related to the adjective "extraneous", i.e. "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with". I put it in, but English is not my first language. I meant that those that signed the letter to the rector that provoked the subsequent reactions saw the pope as alien/foreign to the secular tradition of the university. In the letter they talk, for instance, about the "incredibile violazione della tradizionale autonomia delle università", i.e., "the unbelievable violation of the traditional autonomy of the universities" and say that "I temi che sono stati oggetto degli studi del professor Ratzinger non dovrebbero comunque rientrare nell'ambito degli argomenti di una lezione, e tanto meno di una lectio magistralis tenuta in una università della Repubblica italiana", i.e., "The themes that were the object of the studies of prof. Ratzinger should not be within the scope of the subject of a lesson, and even more so of a 'lectio magistralis', given in an university of the Italian Republic".
Feel free to use this or rephrase that sentence (not that anybody needs my permission!). On the other hand, this being an article about a 700 year old university, which has seen far more harsh and important "controversies", I do not feel more that a couple of sentences are needed. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pointing out the extraneousness" is endorsing the protesters' claims as you can only point out something that is there.
  • The Galileo issue was only later added to the controversy. Including it is also a case of recentism.
Str1977 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could substitute some other verb for "pointing out", say "claiming" or "arguing". But I am perfectly fine with the current version. Goochelaar (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Sapienza 2006 - 3D.jpg

Image:Logo Sapienza 2006 - 3D.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official name

I have reverted a correction of the Italian name of the University. While in mane places it is given as 'Sapienza Università di Roma', it is still officially 'Università di Roma "La Sapienza"'. See for instance the copyright notice at the bottom of this page. See here for more details. Goochelaar (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goochelaar. I am a student at Sapienza and, while I think that the old name La Sapienza sounds nicer in everyday Italian speech, I also acknowledge that it is the old name. In fact, I am writing my Master's thesis these days (Computer Engineering), and I have been told by my department to use the new name, "Sapienza Università di Roma" (with or without a "–" after "Sapienza").
Anyway, here is my point. The second link you posted reads: La nuova denominazione “Sapienza Università di Roma” è valida per tutti gli usi di carattere comunicativo, scientifico e didattico. Limitatamente agli atti di carattere amministrativo o legale è prevista la sopravvivenza della vecchia denominazione giuridica (Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”) eventualmente in abbinamento alla nuova dicitura.
My English translation (feel free to point out if it is wrong): The new name "Sapienza Università di Roma" is valid for all communication, scientific and educational purposes. However, within administrative or regulatory matters, the old legal designation is valid (Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”), possibly alongside with the new name.
Now, (1) you did not add the new name alongside the old one, as the document linked by you suggests; (2) I believe it is unfair for you to state that "[the name] is still officially 'Università di Roma "La Sapienza"'. Sure, if by the word "officially" we mean "within administrative or regulatory matters [and not communication, scientific or educational ones]" then you would be right. But this is not the case. Wikipedia is very much about communication, scientific and educational content, not about regulatory issues (or old names kept for copyright/legal reasons). Do you agree?
I will not change the name of our university to Sapienza Università di Roma in this article... yet. I would like to hear somebody else's opinion (including, of course, yours).
To Goochelaar and any other fellow Sapienza colleague: please give honest answers and provide logic reasoning, leaving away any nostalgia. --GiovanniS (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks. You are right on more than one account (including the nostalgia one, possibly!). My personal interpretation of the web page we are talking about, in its entirety, is that "Sapienza Università di Roma" is somehow akin to a logo, to be used whenever possible for reasons of "identità visiva" (how would you translate it? "visual identity"? "look"? "brand"?), but in some sense is not the university's "true name", and this never changed. In fact, they say Il sistema di identità è basato su alcuni elementi, quali l’icona storica del cherubino, il nome semplificato nella formula “Sapienza Università di Roma” i colori istituzionali oro e rosso, declinati in formati standard per le diverse applicazioni (which I would translate along the lines of "The identity system relies on some elements, as the historical cherub icon, the name as simplified in the phrase “Sapienza Università di Roma”, the official gold and red colours [and so on]"), all items being listed as parts of the new look.
I see it like this: suppose the new "identity" included, rather than the phrase "Sapienza Università di Roma" some abbreviation like, say, "UniSap" (perhaps in fancy fonts) and they insisted on it being used in title pages, posters and the like. Would we say that "UniSap" is the present name of the university?
Once more, this is of course only my interpretation of the present situation. Probably we could include both denominations, with a footnote explaining the state of things. I hope more people give their opinions! Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the page, please have a look. --GiovanniS (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools

I don't think the list of schools meets any criteria in WP:NOTDIR. Any university article has such list and it is relevant to the subject. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe calling WP:NOTDIR was inappropriate, but an embedded list like that adds very little to the article. I would favour a listing in prose style and with referenced facts about some of the individual schools.--M4gnum0n (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sapienza University of Rome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Online education and Tor Vergata

I deleted a couple of extraneous parenthetic remarks from the opening paragraph (that is not where incidental material belongs). The subject of these paranthetics didn't even occur in the main body. They seem worthy topics for inclusion there, should any Wikipedian have the relevant information.

These are

What is the role and scope of online education at Sapienza?

What is the impact of Tor Vergata opening in 1982 on educational opportunities in Rome, on enrollment at Sapienza, and how do the offerings of the two Universities differ?

Again, this information belongs in sections of the main body, not in the lead paragraph.

Thanks, Phytism (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Problem

Currently, the table of "Some of the notable alumni and professors" contains the remainder of the article in its bottom-right box. This needs to be fixed, but I don't know how to do it.

NathanReading (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collegiate university?

The introductory paragraph states that Sapienza is a collegiate university (a term I would, above all, associate with Oxford and Cambridge), but that collegiate character remains unclear in the rest of the article. I would suggest to either explain what is so collegiate about Sapienza, or remove the word, as it causes confusion if not elaborated upon. SchnitteUK (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Sapienza_University_of_Rome"