Talk:Sixtine Vulgate

quam emendatissime
How emendatissime comes to be translated "faults" is worth a footnote!--Wetman (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * I did not find any source containing those information. Veverve (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

your changes have been restored. Veverve (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 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
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)