Talk:Sixtine Vulgate

quam emendatissime

How emendatissime comes to be translated "faults" is worth a footnote!--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@Wetman:9 years later, I have put a footnote with a literal translation. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the Three committees section: "The Pope Sixtus V had appointed the 3rd committee of scholars to continue cease work." William Leadford (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sixtine Vulgate?

I appreciate that you give the option Sistine or Sixtine, but is Sixtine actually an English word? Does it occur in English instead of Sistine?--2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:B88E:B5C9:F5A:71D0 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, here are the instances I could find off the top of my head:

There are other instances, but I believe it is enough to convince you that, yes, the word "Sixtine" is used in English to qualify this edition of the Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

See also on Merriam-Webster. Veverve (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Surviving copies?

Obviously, from the link to a low-quality scan, copies of this text have survived into modern times. The Bodleian link lists three locations in England alone. How many copies survive, and how widely distributed are they? How did the destruction and recall of this edition fail to eliminate all copies? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:"How many copies survive, and how widely distributed are they?" I have no number, but since those bibles have been only sold for three months, and since the cardinals and the pope attempted to recall them, my blind guess is 'very few.'

"How did the destruction and recall of this edition fail to eliminate all copies?" Well I am guessing again: people kept them, and at least one ended up in England at the time as can be attested by Thomas James's critique. I guess that in countries far from Italy copies have had a better chance of surviving. Veverve (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

My point is that this sort of information should be added to the article, to the extent it can be sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I did not find any source containing those information. Veverve (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: here is all I could find. To give the full quote: "Only few copies were saved from destruction and one of them is still preserved in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies in Leuven (Maurits Sabbe Library: P22.053.2/F°)." Veverve (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing by Jmar67

• @Veverve: Direct quotes and reversion of edits: there are way too many quotes in these articles. Most should be paraphrased, if only to avoid English errors and unclear passages. Some of the existing translations (from the French?) are problematical in some respect, usually due to being unnecessarily literal. Jmar67 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67:Thanks for the copy editing! The translations from French are translations of passages of Quentin's book. I tried to translate as faithfully as possible. Could you tell me what the problems are so that I can revise my translation? For the rest, I agree some quotes should be changed into paraphrases, and I welcome any change helping this process. Veverve (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The passages you reverted are examples of how I would rephrase them. The problem was not as great with the first article. If you will agree to restoring my changes, we can go from there. I will check them against the French (if possible) and ask you to do the same. I will also give thought to paraphrasing, although I think we can generally use our own direct translations but not quote them (I will verify that). Is your native language French? I noted some places where I suspected a German influence. I enjoy working with both, but my French is only level 1. Another problem is that you should not start a section with a quote but rather introduce it briefly. I almost did that at one point. Interesting subject although I am not Catholic. Jmar67 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67:1) I agree to restore your changes, unfortunately I cannot undo my undoing due to edit conflicts. I will restore them manually later; however, feel free to work on paraphrasing whenever you want. I undid your edit because you left the quotation marks, hence why I thought you had done it by mistake.

2) French is indeed my native language, and I agree to help you with quotes translated from French.

3) The subject is indeed very interesting!

Veverve (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• We are using "committee" in lowercase and should not capitalize it when a source does. Jmar67 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but it is a direct quote. Veverve (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67:your changes have been restored. Veverve (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jmar67: when you change a the passage of a direct quote so that it is no more a quote, please remove the quotation marks. Veverve (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was aware of that but not certain what I would suggest. Jmar67 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that the "edition" parameter of "cite book" takes an ordinal number, e.g., 2nd, 3rd, etc. Jmar67 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Stephanus

Paragraph repetitive. I favored the Latin name per article, which does not give "Rob[er]t Stephen" as a variant. Jmar67 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Only (a) few copies

Article is needed in this case due to "only", at least in AE. I will check your dictionary and revisit this later. Jmar67 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

From the info I could gather online, you are right. However, since the expression might confuse some, I changed it to simply "few". Veverve (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Committee vs. commission

@Veverve: Quentin and others have used "commission", which in the case of Quentin you, I assume, translated as "committee". "Commission" seems more appropriate if it/they included members outside the College of Cardinals. Jmar67 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there really a difference? Veverve (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Most readers will expect a committee to be a subset of a larger group, e.g. a Congressional committee. But a commission is normally a body whose members do not all identify with a specific group and that is often formed for an ad hoc purpose, as in this case. Jmar67 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree for "commisssion" in both articles then. Veverve (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Now I have another question concerning which word to use: "advisor" or "consultor"? Veverve (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Advisor. Could also be consultant, but not consultor. Jmar67 (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Steinmeuller uses "consultor". Veverve (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

MW gives "consulter", which I have never seen, and BrE likely prefers "consultor". If S. is using it in the sense of "advisor", I would use the latter for clarity. A UK editor might think differently. Jmar67 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A 'consultor' or 'consulter' would surely be one who seeks consultation from another; not an outsider who is consulted? The consultee should be a 'consultant'. TomHennell (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that Merriam-Webster in a separate entry gives "consultor" as "one who consults or advises", especially in a Roman Catholic context. So it would seem appropriate and I would revert if I changed that to advisor. It is potentially confusing, however, if it can mean both "consult" (seek advice from someone else?) and "advise". I suspect that S. uses it simply to mean "advisor". Jmar67 (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a satisfactory formulation from Merriam-Webster in my view. I consult a dictionary; the dictionary advises me, it does not consult me. It rather sounds as though the usage is a term-of-art specific to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and carried over from Latin. In which case the Wikipedia form should be consultor. But as a general rule, I would consider it preferable to avoid terms-of-art and jargon, when a more precise general descriptor ('advisor' or 'consultant') is available. TomHennell (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sixtine Vulgate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Veverve: I will take a look at this article over the next few days. epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• Nothing that stands out as egregiously bad.
• Images are good.
• Article is relatively stable - recent edits have been minor changes. epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Writing and coverage

Lead:

• This could do with a little more explanation on what the Vulgate is.

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think the number of lead paragraphs can be reduced, preferably to four paragraphs. However, the fourth paragraph is a single sentence. I strongly recommend combining that paragraph with another.

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Its official recognition was short-lived; the edition was replaced in 1592 by the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. - is it possible to reword this? We already are told that this was published in 1590 and the first part may not be completely necessary.

I do not believe it is necessary to reword. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant "Its official recognition was short-lived" may be redundant and can be condensed. Not an issue I'll hold up this nomination upon, though. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I recommend linking Sixtus V.

Fixed Veverve (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Twenty years later, work to produce an official edition of the Vulgate begun - Isn't it "began" or "had begun"?

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Considering himself a great editor, he edited himself - I recommend changing one of the two instances of "edit" since it's a bit repetitive.

I believe rewording it could make the sentence less precise. Veverve (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, are there any synonyms for "edited" or "editor" that you can use? I tend to give high flexibility to most GA issues, so if this is absolutely necessary, then you can keep it. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Other sections:

• Still the lead: Three months later, Sixtus V died in August of the same year. - I feel like this is now redundant. "Sixtus died in August, three months later" or "Sixtus died in August of the same year" - unless the year was suddenly shortened, I don't think "three months later" and "the same year" need to be in the same sentence.

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• that would come in May (or April[4]) 1590 - Is the May date more authoritative than the April date? If not, can this be ordered chronologically?

There is disrepancies in the sources, so I put the most authoritative version as the main one. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• See also: Sixto-Clementine Vulgate § Gregory XIV's two pontifical commissions - weird placement of a "see also". Can this be integrated into the prose? This paragraph is only one sentence, and maybe can be condensed.

What do you suggest? Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Probably linking "two other commissions" in the prose to Sixto-Clementine Vulgate#Gregory XIV's two pontifical commissions. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• See also: Roman Septuagint same, but I don't see this as much of a problem.
• The work on this edition - this links to "Roman Septuagint". Should this be mentioned directly in this article?

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• At one point, Sixtus began to lose patience due to the slow progress of the commission - when? What happened? This particular sentence is pretty short on details.

There is no more details in the passage in the refefence used, so I cannot be more precise. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• "not presented in a convincing way. It is merely a list of readings without anything to indicate their value ... - who said this?

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• three volumes[1] in a folio edition;[31] however, it is actually one volume, with the page numbering continuous throughout.[17][31] - so it's three volumes but it's one volume? Can you rephrase this? I think I get what you're saying, but this wording sounds contradictory.

This is the way the ref given explain it. It is materially only one single book, with three parts within said book (hence the subtitle tribus tomis here).

• The Sixtine Vulgate was mostly free of typographical errors - what is the relation to the previous sentences? I see this is mentioned further on in the article, to contradict the claim that the Sixtine Vulgate was recalled due to typographical errors.

It simply is an information concerning concerning one of the characteristics of the Sixtine Vulgate. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Two whole verses and the end of one were dropped from the Book of Numbers: - "the end of a third"?

a) I wrote in invisible comment: "The source only says "The omission of Numbers 30:11-13", but after checking the scan I added some nuance; I admit it is almost WP:OR" - is it ok?

b) as I wrote here: "The end of verse 11 ("cum se voto constrinxerit et juramento") is omitted. Verses 12 and 13 ("12 si audierit vir, et tacuerit, nec contradixerit sponsioni, reddet quodcumque promiserat. 13 Sin autem extemplo contradixerit, non tenebitur promissionis rea : quia maritus contradixit, et Dominus ei propitius erit.") are omitted." Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, this works. epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• ; with Hastings claiming that the text of the Sixtine Vulgate resembled the 1540 edition of Stephanus - this would not be a complete sentence by itself, so the semicolon would not be appropriate unless this is reworded, e.g. "Hastings claimed..."

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• However, a difference compared to the Stephanus edition was that - this is an awkward wording. How come you didn't go with something like "Unlike the Stephanus edition..."?

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• 40,8 – nunquam ] numquam ... - Notation is a bit confusing. What does the bracket mean? Which version is which? Does "40,8" mean chapter 40, line 8 or chapter 40, paragraph 8?

I removed the table because it was useless. It mean chpter 40, verse 8. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• 6 of these 31 - usually, numbers below 10 in prose form are spelled out, e.g. "six of these 31"

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• In the first 30 chapters of the Book of Genesis, the following changes were made - Is it necessary to number these changes? I feel like this might be a bit confusing.

No, they are no necessary. I removed it since it was useless. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• "However, a slight possibility remains that Sixtus V, ... - says who?

Fixed. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that's it for prose. epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources/notes

Notes & reference numbers as of This version

• Note b (Fourth session - Decree concerning the editing and use of the sacred books) - is this supposed to be a full citation? If so, this can be enclosed in regular ref tags. If not, can you give context to why this is linked?
• Note g (See also Bellarmine's testimony in his autobiography) - if you are using {{efn}}, that last portion of the footnote can be enclosed in reference tags.
• Ref 16 (Swete, H. B. (1914). "Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. CHAPTER VI. PRINTED TEXTS OF THE SEPTUAGINT".) - needs title case.
• In general - translations of these quotes would be great, but not necessary.

That's it for notes. epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

POV

No significant POV detected. The coverage appears to be OK - I had no major questions regarding coverage gaps. 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Overall

 On hold epicgenius (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Pass epicgenius (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)