Talk:Institutes (Gaius)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Barthold Georg Niebuhr discovered a palimpsest of the long-lost Institutes of Gaius on his way to negotiate a concordat with the Holy See? Source: https://www.jura.uni-heidelberg.de/md/jura/mat/band_2_der_gluecksstern_niebuhrs_varvaro.pdf [Page 7 [page 29 of the PDF; in German]
  • ALT1 ... that in 1816, a copy of the long-lost Institutes by Roman jurist Gaius was discovered, hidden underneath writings by Saint Jerome ?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries
  • Comment:

Converted from a redirect by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 05:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC).

• 
• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - I wasn't clear whether this article needed to be a five-fold expansion of the section on Gaius' page, to qualify for DYK. If that is the case, it is not long enough. But it doesn't actually include content from that section. It has enough prose for a new article to qualify.

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Not sure if this needs to be a 5x expansion of section on Gaius' page to meet eligibility. Currently it is not. After reading the comments, I have decided to approve, since the editor made good faith effort to add new material to Wikipedia. PMCH2 (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• • @PMCH2: Thanks a lot for your review and the valuable time and effort spent on it. I try to address your points in turn: (a) As I read WP:DYKCRIT it states that "freely reuse public domain text per Wikipedia's usual policy [...] is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". As I did not reuse any content from Gaius (jurist), I think this cuts in favour of my nomination as I did created content from scratch above the 1,500-character mark and did not expanded upon the material from the Gaius (jurist) section. The prose is entirely new. (b) I have amended one citation according to your second point: In the pages now cited, it is (in my opinion) clearly stated that Niebuhr was on his way to Rome on a diplomatic mission. If you remain unconvinced, I could also cite page 7 of the book by Varvaro. (c) Personally, I consider my hook a little bit more interesting due to the curious word palimpsest and the diplomatic implications (being an academic researcher on a diplomatic mission), but if you think ALT1 is better, I happily defer to you. (d) As I read the sources it is not disputed that Niebuhr was dispatched to Rome on a diplomatic mission, but it is disputed whether there was another "clandestine" reason behind the dispatch, i.e., to find and obtain the already discovered manuscript; in my mind this is compatible with the original hook. Thanks again! WatkynBassett (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @WatkynBassett: Thanks for all your work on this article. It is interesting and obviously historically important. Thanks also for the quick edit on footnotes. Regarding the first hook, I don't find it all that "hooky" but maybe others would. It's ok with me to use it. I'll take it on good faith that the academic dispute doesn't negate the facts of the hook. There isn't a specific footnote, so I can't check the source to see what the specific claims are. (My German isn't good enough to make reading the whole article practical.) PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Regarding eligibility: I am still not sure this isn't a case where a five-fold expansion is warranted. This is a new page with new content, yes, but it is replacing a redirect that led to content about the Institutes. If you had copied said text and added it to your new article, the new article would have had to be a 5x expansion to qualify. If the content about the Institutes had originally been a stub, you would have had to expand five-fold. Since it was a sub-section of another page, but you didn't use any of that text, the question is, does that also require 5x expansion? Maybe another reviewer with more experience could weigh in on this issue? If no one else comments, I will assume it is eligible for DYK as is. PMCH2 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
      • @PMCH2: Perfect, thanks! If I understood you correctly, I have addressed most of your concerns, but not the eligibility issue. Having an uninvolved party check if this nomination is indeed eligible seems like the most reasonable way forward. I look forward to it! WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Not on topic, but concerning the understanding of German sources: the free tool DeepL is very strong on translating German into English (if you want to check a German source in the future ;)). WatkynBassett (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Danke! I will check it out.PMCH2 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Is there another reviewer who could weigh in on the eligibility regarding length for this nomination? As I read the rules, an article that includes text spun off of an existing article can't be considered "new" and a former redirect has to be a 5x expansion. This is a great article, with >1500 characters of prose, but has some overlap with the section on Gaius' page concerning the topic. By my reading, it should properly be a 5x expansion for consideration as a DYK nom., but I would welcome a more experienced reviewer's perspective. Thanks! PMCH2 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron: Maybe one of you can? I don't feel I have enough seniority yet to make a call here. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
        • @LordPeterII: I'd discourage you from the thought that you need some kind of tenure to call it the way you see it. Sure, practice and reading helps, but the easiest way to learn is generally to jump in. To quote the host of Dropout's Game Changer: "The only way to learn is by playing; the only way to win is by learning; and the only way to begin is by beginning; so, without further ado, let's begin!"
          Tricky. The rules on text copying were designed to insure that the content featured on DYK is truly new, rather than an effortless split. It could be argued that – despite this new article showing no signs of being copied, or even a close paraphrase or a simple rearrangement – creating a new article that touches on the same basic facts violates the spirit of DYK's definition of new content.
          However, I'd be inclined to reward a production of a good-faith article where the rules don't explicitly forbid it. It would also set a burdensome precedent if DYK reviewers had to check not only that the article's prose was original, but that the very research had yet to be unearthed on the encyclopedia thus far. In the interest of cordiality and simplicity, I'd be inclined to IAR where necessary and pass this nomination, on the assumption that this article was not intended as a split of its previous redirect target. :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• To ensure a lack of ambiguity, I wonder if it's possible if the article be brought to GA status, and if it passes, it be treated as a new GA rather than a new/expanded article. It's probably the safest option at this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with theleekycauldron that the page deserves credit for being genuine new material to Wikipedia. I was just hesitant to approve, without more experience on how redirects are handled. I found the various rules confusing as written. I really have no objection to approving the article for DYK if there isn't an established precedent against it. I just wasn't sure what has been done in these kinds of cases. It sounds like there isn't a rule against it, so I have updated my review.- PMCH2 (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• @PMCH2: Does that mean you have approved the article? In that case, something seems to have gone wrong, as the article still hasn't moved to the approved area. Did you add a new tick? –LordPeterII (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • PMCH2, please note that any tick added to supersede the ? generated by the review needs to be added below all prior icons (and not within the DYK checklist template); the bot will take the last of the icons as the current status, as will promoters. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • yes, I have approved this. Thanks to LordPeterII and BlueMoonset, for the help with the process. I am learning as I go. PMCH2 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Titel of the article

@Ravenpuff Thanks for your work on the article! I have one concern regarding the title change: While I do not object to the new title (I do not care either way), I enjoy consistency and therefore orientated myself on the article Institutes of Justinian. So I think that either the other article should be moved as well or this article should keep its former name. Thanks for considering! WatkynBassett (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: I've moved that article as well, for the same reasons as for this one ("Institutes" being the only official part of the work title). Thanks for letting me know! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Beginner's textbook"

I've linked to Gaius (jurist) or to this article dozens of times, which means that I've worked with a lot of scholarship that references the Institutiones. I have never seen it described as a "beginner's textbook", and it certainly isn't treated as such by scholars of Roman law. To me, a "beginner's textbook" means something that is dumbed down for a general learner – if we described something as a "beginner's textbook" on cell biology, we would doubt whether it was a sound-enough RS. Again, that isn't how I see scholars who specialize in Roman law treat with the Institutiones. It may be a misleading way to begin the article, and if there isn't an English-language source (not a translation) that specifically calls it that, I would suggest looking for another descriptive term. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• • @Cynwolfe: As the creator of the page, I appreciate your careful thoughts on the matter. Lots of German scholarship exist on the Institutes which usually calls it a Anfängerlehrbuch, meaning that it was written for newly minted law students. The following English-language article, for example, explains that the Institutes were written for first year law students: Stagl, 2016. Accordingly, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it as an "introductory textbook": REP. If the wording of "beginners' textbook" sounds wrong to you, I would be happy for your suggestions for a better wording (maybe simply "introductory textbook"?). As I have put the article up for a GA review - I would be honored if you find time and energy to review it (although I must admit that I could not engage with a review in the next two weeks as I am travelling at the moment). Best regards WatkynBassett (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I suspected that some magnificent German word underlay this! Things so often sound dumbed-down in English from German. So it seems more like a reference work rather than a teaching text or schoolbook, which is what "beginner's textbook" sounds like to me. If I see some brilliant phrase, I'll make note of it. I do have some reservations about a GA for English WP that relies so heavily on non-English sources without more English-language sources for verification. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (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:Institutes (Gaius)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WatkynBassett (talk · contribs) 08:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 10:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Institutes are divided into four books. – Probably I misunderstood, but wasn't the almost complete copy in a single palimpsest? In any case, the article does not give me any idea how long this work actually is, in terms of words or sentences.
  • This is a very valid point. I added a sentence regarding the length of the original text together with an English translation to the lead.

• when he was dispatched to negotiate a Concordat – should concordat be in lower case?
  • Yes.

• Zeitschrift für geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft – needs English translation
  • Done

• while many others see a fortunate coincidence ('Glücksstern') – Is the German word here really necessary? It is not attributed to any particular source.
  • On reflection, I concur and deleted the word.

• Later known as components of the Corpus Juris Civilis, the influences of Gaius also found their way into the Digesta and the Institutiones Iustiniani. – I think this nees some background information for context, otherwise it is hard to understand. Same with "true architect of Justinian's collection" later in the article; the significance of Justinian should be briefly explained here, and this collection introduced.
  • This is a good idea. I added a sentence and a source and wlinked Justinian's collection.

• and are considered to be "by far the most influential elementary-systematic presentation of Roman private law in late antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times". – This is the quote of a single author translated from German, right? So we should have the German original here, too (as you already did with another quote in the article). Also, it is the opinion of a single author, so it should have author attribution, e.g. "Scholar xx consideres it to be" or similar.
  • I think this view is very widely shared. The Der Kleine Pauly in which the statement is made is of high authoritativeness. I connected the statement to the source and will provide the German original once access to the Internet Archive is restored.

• because of its apparent comprehensibility or simplicity. – The "or" does not make much sense to me, should it be "and"?
  • Correct.

• In addition, Gaius' legal thinking is said to be – Again, needs author attribution and the German original.
  • I attributed the text and will provide the German original as an efn when the access to the Internet Archive is restored.

• and what part of them, if any, are, e.g. glosses or interpolations, – better formulate as "are taken from other texts, e.g. as glosses or interpulations"?
  • This might be a misunderstanding: It is unclear whether the 6th century manuscript of the Institutes itself is (in part) an interpolation.

• The editio maior – Add translation? What makes this edition "maior"?
  • I added what is meant by this term. What makes an edition "major" is of course a contentious point. I simply stated what the secondary source said about this planned edition.

• The "Further reading" section consists of German sources only, not sure if that makes much sense for the English Wikipedia?
  • Here I disagree: I find English WP very valuable when it provides the best sources available, which are easily accessable - nevermind the language. The current state of machine translation makes it possible to grasp all languages. Roman law scholarship is for historical reasons done in German and in Italian. I am unfortunately not familiar with the current Italian scholarship on the Institutes , but would love it if someone edits it in.

• Parts of the section "Structure of the Institutes" is not supported by inline citations.
  • This was a major oversight. I completly rewrote the section and expanded it.

• The article is mostly based on German sources; is this because most of the research on the topic comes from Germany?
  • Yes! Roman law scholarship is usually done in German or Italian. The common law is not really based on Roman legal thinking, therefore the interest of English-speaking lawyers into Roman law has historically been lower.

• I did some source spot-checking and did not encounter any problems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments and your valuable time. I worked on the first four issues (and prepared a bit for the next) and will continue tomorrow or the day after. WatkynBassett (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I will continue tomorrow with getting to your comments. Thanks for your patience. WatkynBassett (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think, I adressed all issues except the still missing German quotes (which I can only add when the IA is back), but I will come back tomorrow and re-read your comments and give the article another copy edit. WatkynBassett (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your careful edits! This is looking very good already, and since the GA criteria are fully met and all comments are addressed, I will promote this now. Congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2024 (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.