Talk:Law school of Berytus

Thanks
I'm very happy to see this article, and did a little copyediting (all I have time for at present). Quick question: in the first paragraph, what does 'utmost' mean? I'm not sure, and the usage seems slightly non-idiomatic, but I'm going to try replacing it with 'preeminent': please change if that isn't what's meant. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank YOU for your interest and much needed help. I used the term utmost because the sources i found refer to Beirut's school as "Most famous", "Distinguished", "Beacon", "Most celebrated school" etc. all of connote puffery and are inadmissible here, please feel free to substitute it with any other word that you find fitting and that accurately convey the prominence and importance of the law school. - Eli +  20:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we please reinsert the deleted bit about students from noble background traveling to Beirut to study, this factoid really underlines the schools importance. Eli  +  21:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern was that it linked to nobiles, which doesn't describe social class in the Empire during this period. I'm not aware of any good place to link (social class in ancient Rome is currently both unreliable and uninformative about this period of Roman history). Presumably the source means young men of the senatorial and equestrian ordines? I'll try to check on that, unless you can provide a more specific phrase from the source. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notes on edits to Background section
Just explaining some edicts that I hope don't seem heavy handed. I changed "right" to "prerogative" because in Roman law it often means a special privilege to a select group, not an inherent right in the modern sense (for example, the ius trium liberorum is a privilege of distinction and an exemption from some restrictions against women, not "the right of [having] three children"). I may be wrong; "privilege" may be the better word, if anyone wants to check. I'm no law scholar, so my edits may need further tweaking.

"Imperial constitutions" is probably better as "imperial edicts" (for an example, see Constitutio Antoniniana), since it doesn't mean constitution in the modern sense, or the sense in which WP uses it as Constitution of the Roman Empire. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, the terms I used may be misleading, I'm very pleased with your clarifications and insight. On a second note, in the history section, what Bremmer said and I failed to rephrase is that the school was already open and operational around 200 CE. Thanks for taking the time to review this and if you feel there are some key points I missed please let me know, i will consult my sources to see if they can add to the article.   Eli  +  21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So did Bremer then just say noncommitally that it must've been open by 200? He didn't give bracket dates "no earlier than/ no later than"?Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bremer used Gregory's 239 AD text to conjecture that the law school was operating shortly after 200 AD. In another passage Bremer suggests that the school may be older because he believed that Gaius _the second century jurist_ taught in Beirut.  The latter claim is not supported by any ancient source.  Sorry for the late reply, hectic day - Eli  +  09:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So we could say that Bremer thought it opened around 200 or earlier? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, please don't think I'm nitpicking this! I'm just interested in it. I mentioned the school in the main Roman Empire article, because I thought it was mind-expanding in regard to cultural exchange, and hoped I might have time someday to learn more about it. So I'm thrilled to have the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NOT AT ALL! Your feedback is more than welcome and please, do not hesitate to change whatever you see fit and refer to me in case you have any doubts about the intent of the passages. Concerning our friend Bremer, he didn't use the term "opened" so let's omit this altogether. He concluded that since Gregory was writing about the school in his adult age then it must've been operational at least after 200AD. There's no way to pinpoint the exact date of establishment with the current ancient sources. And BTW I have a feeling that you will be really interested in next article on my "to be created list".. the Baalbek temple complex (not sure about the name but it deserves a separate article of its own), that is if  i manage to find reliable sources to support the creation of the new article. - Eli  +  10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review bot !!!
Why on earth is peer review bot archiving new and empty peer review requests? - Eli +  10:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Law School of Beirut - a proper name?
As I understand it, one of the proper names of the subject of this article is "Law School of Beirut". If that is so, then "school" should be capitalized as it is in the article title. This was recommended as a change in the GA review but appeared not to have been implemented. My recent attempt to correct that was reverted with the comment that it is not a proper name. Is it the proper name of the school or not? If it's not a proper name why is the"school" capitalized in the title? (Also, if someone would explain what "FAC1" is, I'd appreciate it.) Joja  lozzo  02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for your time in reviewing this. During the GA review, the reviewer asked to change the caps for the sake of uniformity so i went with the capitalized form but a later review of the sources instigated by a note from user:Cynwolfe brought to my attention that most scholars do not treat the appelation as a proper name. I agree with Cynwolfe's remark and it would be better to move the page altogether to "Law school of Beirut" for the sake of accuracy and uniformity. Let me know if you think I should proceed with the move.
 * As for the comments I referred to earlier they can be found here, in the archived FAC review. - Eli +  04:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll move the page. Please take care regarding ownership issues. Cheers. Joja  lozzo  02:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the ownership warning. Elie has shown a great deal of commitment to this article, and a lot of that has been sheer stamina in responding to suggestions and criticisms over the course of months now. "Ownership" implies defensiveness or unwillingness to make changes. I don't think that's a fair characterization. As for the move, I might've preferred a formal move proposal, as I wonder whether "Roman" should be included in the title. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for a formal move proposal for basic MOS compliance. Adding Roman might be considered more than that, though it would be fine with me. Joja  lozzo  01:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Jojalozzo I'm disregarding your accusation of ownership and I don't feel the need to justify myself anyway but just because I happen to be almost the sole editor of the article doesn't mean I calim ownership over it. On the other hand I hold every right to revert unhelpful edits such as yours when these compromise the article's quality especially that you have chosen to omit reading the constructive notes left on the article's FA nomination. Cynwolfe, if adding "Roman" to the title makes things clearer then I support you. - Eli +  04:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I only read through the GA review notes that are in plain sight here and missed the FA notes hidden in the talk page header. I stand by my suggestion to watch for ownership issues since you are the main editor here, are clearly invested in the article (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and pushing for its recognition (also ok but another possible sign of ego involvement). I had meant it as a friendly suggestion but clearly have hit a nerve. My apologies for that. I came here because I received a request on my talk page to help out. I am definitely not invested in this page and will stop bothering you. Cheers. Joja  lozzo  01:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

latest peer review
The link to the latest peer review was broken due to page move. Here's the link - Elias   Z   16:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Date style
was changed by the article creator, shortly after the creation, thus WP:RETAIN does not apply. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Precedent
The hyperlink to precedent under the Background section appears (as far as I can tell) to be incorrect. It points to common law legal precedent. My understanding of Roman law is limited, but I am under the impression that it was much closer to civil law than common law. If there was some form of legal precedent (or judge made law), perhaps the link can be removed while (a softer form of the word) "precedent" can be retained? Gulbenk (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, i have removed the wikilink since no other alternatives exist so far. - Elias   Z   06:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this? precendent Not a perfect fit. It is a more modern concept. It comes closest to the type of principle discussed in this article. Gulbenk (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Law school of Beirut. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106095259/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/volterra/julianintro.htm to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/history2/volterra/julianintro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817010101/https://archive.org/details/digestofjustinia01monruoft to http://ia700408.us.archive.org/15/items/digestofjustinia01monruoft/digestofjustinia01monruoft.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut → Law school of Berytus – Much better attested overall as the "Law school of Berytus" in English-language historical sources, as can be seen by using the Google Ngram Viewer (raw diagram, diagram with smoothing), as well as by comparing on JSTOR ("law school of Berytus" vs. "law school of Beirut"). Also "law school of Berytus" would be less ambiguous as there are nowadays several law faculties in Beirut (at Saint Joseph University, La Sagesse University, the Beirut Arab University...), that are sometimes considered "law schools" (see for example this website or this question with answers on Quora). Gibranist (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No objection, it was a slight from my side. makes a good point. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 05:52, 11 August 2020 (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.

Attached images
It seems that there are some shown images not corresponding to the issue. Siculena (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)