Talk:National University of San Marcos

Base version

It will be best to converge first towards a readable, correct, well-organized and relatively brief version. Then, taking that version as our basis, we can add information we agree is relevant, and make edits - discussing controversial edits in the talk page, of course. I do not think a detailed discussion of every edit is in order when the thing being edited is essentially a poor translation of admissions documents done by one person, as opposed to the result of community consensus. PS - thanks to HappyApple for starting the page. Hasdrubal 19:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we will start all over again.

• Once again, I believe that the motto is important, even if not all Universities on the country have one (as an Example, not all countries in the world have one, but that doesn't mean that the ones that have should not be stated).

• About the people that have graduated from the UNMSM, Most of them are from Peruvian-related topics, and the fact that most of them do not have an article doesn't mean that they should be excluded. they should also be stated there, but in normal letters rather than links.

• Also, the faculties are important. It gives an accurate information of what the University have.

• I wouldn't said Strongest, but one of the finest Universities on Peru.

Glad to help, and I would make some changes on the page soon. Messhermit 21:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article protection

Folks, I've unblocked HappyApple and protected this page so you can discuss and iron it out here. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 01:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We should start by looking to some problematic users on the article.

• It is true that a vote has been giving in the Village Pump, no question about it. But there are also mechanism that allow this vote to be repeal. So lets being reasonable and avoid stating that "Its vote, Its decided".
• Also, it worries me that some narrow-minded people once again believe that are owners of some of the articles. Wiki is a free encyclopedia, and it should be open to any recomendation.
• Personaly, I find "Saint Mark" not offensive at all, but that doesn't mean that another user should be blocked by his insistence in used. Why a compromise can be reach? Maybe becouse some of the parties involved doesn't like the user's opinions?

Lets work for San Marcos, please? the oldest University of South America doesn't deserve this stub. Messhermit 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive F#Voting:

Decision: After 3 days of voting, the majority has voted in favor of the university's original name and against the anglicized version. Thus, this is the only way the university should be called on wikipedia. --Tuomas hello 00:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on an elaborate structure of agreed-upon conventions for the sake of unity and consistency. Inevitably some people disagree with them, even I oppose a few, but we have to respect the communal decision-making process, as imperfect as it may be. We can't have editors unilaterally insisting on their own way of doing things. Wikipedia may be a "free" encyclopedia, but with that freedom comes a certain responsibility, and that is to respect its fundamental collaborative spirit of the project. In other words, Wikipedia is "free" in the sense that anyone may contribute, but it is not free in the sense that a user is at libety to contribute anything; contributions, no matter how insignificant, must adhere to our editorial standards. The sooner HappyApple learns to appreciate this, the better. -- Viajero 10:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well, HappyApple is not the ONLY one who should learn some lessons. As I stated before, the vote is only one of the many ways to resolve disputes, it is not a mandatory option. And it can be repeal.

• An agreement can be reach, IF SOME of the parties involved can disscuss them. So, I sugest that before someone make a comment about someone else mistakes, that look at his own actions before speak. Other way, it is once again narrow-minded and disrespectfull to the other Wikipedist.

Details are important for this page. UNMSM deserves it. Messhermit 19:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A clean and brief page is better than a long and confusing one, full of irrelevant details written in poor English. I don't have anything against the disposition of the bushes in the Parque Universitario, myself; still, most readers wouldn't think it very relevant. If this page ever becomes much richer than it is now, some details that are now irrelevant will become somewhat less irrelevant, relatively speaking. As it is - we should start by adding material that matters (if we add anything at all).

There have been many POV claims coming from HappyApple in the last few days regarding this page. I find them absurd; what POV, exactly, are all the others supposed to be imposing? I think HappyApple is simply upset at seeing his prose messed with; a natural reaction, but an inappropriate one in Wikipedia. Hasdrubal 19:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clean, yes; brief, no. It is perfectly normal for an article to start with some short, highly readable sections, then go into whatever level of detail further down the page. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

My main point is that the process of going from a first draft to an agreed-upon first stable version may involve deletions. Hasdrubal 22:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For later...

Once the page gets unprotected, the following two changes will have to be made:

"Parque Universitario" does not refer, strictly speaking, to La Casona, but to the park it faces (and partially surrounds). It is strongly associated in the collective mind with La Casona, but I haven't heard it being used as a metonym in quite the same way that, say, "Harvard Yard" is used to refer to part of Harvard's campus (mutatis mutandi).

The last sentence in the same section does not make that much sense as its stands. The meaning should be: when UNMSM was in La Casona, San Fernando was also downtown, but elsewhere; when the rest of UNMSM moved to the Ciudad Universitaria, San Fernando stayed put where it was (if I am not very mistaken).

Please, somebody, take care of editing the above as soon as it becomes actually possible - I'll have to focus completely on work this week. Hasdrubal 17:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, people of good heart - please take care of the following two edits. I would do them myself, but the page is protected right now.

- The Ciudad Universitaria is not in the outskirts (notice the sp. mistake in the page!) of metropolitan Lima, but, rather, in the outskirts of "Lima proper" (district of Lima). It is still near the geographical centre of Lima - the district of Lima is a small subset of metropolitan Lima. The wording should be changed to avoid giving a false impression. (La Agraria, for example, is in what most people would call the outskirts of Lima - namely, La Molina.)

- The University was not founded in response to a decree from above; rather (if I am not mistaken), the local clergy sent a petition to the king for official status (and funding, presumably). Here, again, we might give a little less detail in order to avoid being mistaken. Hasdrubal 18:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph of the "History" section is written in poor English. That should be fixed. Also - the "Convent of Del Rosario" should be "Convento del Rosario"; it is redundant and ugly to have "of" and "Del" following each other ("Convent of of the Rosary"). Hasdrubal 18:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

I've unprotected the article. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 00:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Law/Jurisprudence

Do I understand from a recent edit that "Law" and "Jurisprudence" are two different departments? Really? What are these respectively called in Spanish as departments at this university? I would expect a "facultad de Jurisprudencia" to be precisely a faculty of law. -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Laws and Jurisprudence are not the same, hence there were two different faculties on San Marcos.

The Faculty of Law and Jurisprudence were merged later in the mid 20th century, nowadays there is not a "Faculty of Jurisprudence", and the official name for that department is Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Politicas".HappyApple 4 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Clearly the words "laws" and "jurisprudence" are not identical words but normally they do refere to the identical academic curriculum. (1) You still haven't answered my question as to what the two faculties were called, respectively, in Spanish. (2) You haven't given any clue what the difference was between the curricula of the two faculties. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 17:13 (UTC)

The spanish name for each one were Facultad de Derecho, Facultad de Jurisprudencia. The difference between the curricula were study of Philosophy, legal history, hermeneutics and historiography for the Faculty of Jurisprudence.HappyApple 5 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)

Comment

I would like to add one more comment to user:Graña 'n' Montero's; this article has a lot of details that should be deleted (not even the Harvard article has so many intricate details). 2001:1388:1640:2D5:189C:FAB9:9685:628D (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)