Talk:Nexum

Previous (prior to May 2022) unsectioned discussion

Your article is really easy to read and makes finding information easy. The facts are stated very clearly and succinctly. You might want to consider adding a few more details to the first section about the nexum itself (if you have any more..); the division into sections is good, but it also shows that there is a lot more info on the abolishment of the nexum than on the nexum itself. Maybe some general times, like an author noting that they were around as early as .. or as late as ...? Overall, a well written article! Good job! - Leslie Halpern

The article seems very through and complete. I like how Livy's account of the abolishment of nexum was included in the article. The article is also very easy to follow in the way it is formatted in sections and with internal links. The article states that it seems more likely that the lender and debtor entered into a contract before the borrowing occurred rather than after the borrower failed to repay. What evidence hints that this was more likely? Also, the article states that the man became a bonded slave until he could repay his debt. However, it is unclear as to how he would repay his debt while in bondage. Did he just repay through his services or did he still have to repay the physical goods he owed? Finally, the article is great at explaining the abolishment of the contract. This area is very clear. But looking at the reverse side, how did nexum first come about? Was there a particular person in power that started this trend? Overall, very clear and well-rounded article. -Ryan Nelson

I found the article interesting and informative. The background story of what happened with the boy that was sold in to debt slavery caused it to be abolished was very imformative. The articles' specific dates were also really good, it adds more credibility to the article and shows the research you did. But one of the things that caught my interest was the mention of the nexum process invovling "scales, copper weights, and a formulaic oath." Is there information on how the symbolic process of turning a free person into a slave happen? What exactly did the Romans do with the scales, copper weights etc? How formal was nexum? Since it's symbolic, couldn't a freeman turned slave just run away and be the free man he used to be? A couple of the internal links don't work, and it would be helpful to have some of them.. like Lex Poetelia Papiria. Also, like the above comment by Ryan, I wondered how a bonded slave could regain his freedom. Is there a formal document that's signed saying that his term as a bonded slave ended? But anyway, I think your article is brief but indepth enough like an encyclopedia should be. The who, what, when, why, and how is all in there. Jessica Cheng Ч

from VfD:

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as the tag was added November 8, but it doesn't seem to have ever been placed on the main VfD page, and doesn't appear on "old". Procedural/abstain--currently dic def. Can it become encyclopedic? Niteowlneils 18:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicadef.CB Droege 20:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Is the term still used in the legal or banking professions today? If so, it's a dictdef and should be treated so, or perhaps listed on the pages of similar terms we already have. The only way I could see it being encyclopedic enough for its own article is if the concept is still influential on today's systems, or triggered a major change back when it was an issue. Inky 19:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ancient dictdef. I'm not sure the point of noting something that was abolished in 300 BC (when the Romans weren't really the Romans). Geogre 19:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. --fvw* 11:45, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
• Ah, look at that. I ran my mouth off and didn't even realize I hadn't cast a vote. Delete. Inky 22:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep stub. Arguably, this was a predecessor concept to "collateral", a vital and current concept. Content is verifiable and relevant to an understanding of Roman culture and law. See here for a more detailed explanation. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand a bit, if possible. Verifiable term from Roman legal history. Since when do verifiable historical concepts have to still be used today to be encyclopedic? -- Ferkelparade π 00:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - vey much of western law originates from Roman law (although in heavily modified form). However, this definitely needs expansion. At the very least, it should be included into the history of a relevant modern-day equivalent - Skysmith 08:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Obaeratus

The word "obaeratus" means "debtor," not "creditor" as the article was using it. I corrected the article accordingly. Pablo Lejarraga, 2/8/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.18.1.132 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Confusion of topic

The expansion of the article seems to have muddled the narrow topic of nexum as a specific legal term within the history of the Roman law of persons, and how the Romans themselves understood this legal evolution, with a broader discussion of debt bondage or contractual slavery (self-sale) in general, and of tenant farming and the abuse by the governing class of "public" land rights to the disadvantage of small farmers. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)