Talk:Shimun VIII Yohannan Sulaqa

Sentence Reconstruction

The words in bold do not make any grammatical sense. Can you clarify it in way the makes the sentence flow better?

• "During April 28, 1553 consistory, the papal bull Divina disponente clementia was issued and Sulaqa received the pallium, i.e. the sign of his patriarchal authority, from the hands of the pope. He took the traditional name of Shimun VIII.Ninevite (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
• Also it's best to translate latin phrases into english so readers understand their meaning. Users with no latin backround will be confused by all the latin rhetoric. Ninevite (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

the Consistory is a meeting of the pope with the cardinals, like to say "In the course of the Consistory (=meeting of the governement) held on April 28, 1553, it happened that: 1) the pope issued the papal bull (=a official letter of the pope), which was entitled Divina disponente clementia, and 2) Sulaqa received the pallium, i.e. the sign of his patriarchal authority, from the hands of the pope.

The Latin title of the "bull" is the identification used for it. In such an old age there were not modern identification as Act number xx, protocol yyy, date zz, but the Latin title was used to identify it. So the translation is not important. Anyway it is: "So predisposed by the divine clemency..." or "The divine clemency that so predisposed ..." (the exact meaning/case depends from what follows, I don't know). A ntv (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that clears up the confusion, as far as the latin terms go we can always add parenthesis to them and possibly have an english translation. Ninevite (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The words in bold do not flow well, this needs to be fixed, I'll leave that up to you. Ninevite (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• ca. 1510 – 1555: the ca. means circa (about). We don't know exactly the year when Sulaqa was born. We suppose a year near 1510, it could be 1508 as well as 1513. A ntv (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I will insert Circa in the lead sentence to clarify that there is no absolute birth year in record for this religious figure then. Ninevite (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far the name goes the purpose of having the slashes in specifically implies that people who are named assyrians, chaldeans, and syriacs are the same people as especially seen with the chaldean name. That was some of the logic pertaining to the name of the article. People who are historically referred to as Assyrian are labeled as such including chaldean and syriac, instead of using the full name. People who have only referred to themselves as chaldeans or syriacs are labeled as such without having the full slashed named all of which head back to the main article. I hope that makes some sense.Ninevite (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've not understood. Anyway be free to label Sulaqa as "Assyrian" only if you prefer. About the texts of the notes, I've reduced them to simply the book infos because all what they said is already in the article. We can reduce also the same notes in Chaldean Christians inserting simply a link to Sulaqa article A ntv (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont really care if we label the guy a martian, it's best to go off of sources in situactions like these. As far as the Chaldean christians goes I think its fine the way it is because it is important for people to read what the books have to say in regards to the subject material. Take a look at Yohannan Hormizd article as I have updated the grammar and spelling on that as well. Ninevite (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I also feared that such long quotations could have issues of copyright (too long for a fair use). anyway here are not necessary. If you have the ISBN of K. B. Matviev (1989) it would be appreciated. About Hormizd I've added some new lines and the 22.05.1776 was the day of Hormizd consecration, not the date of the decision. Probably he was ordained priest some days before. A ntv (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point in regards to copyrights; but as far as we give proper recognition of the sources, I personally do not see any violations. I could be mistaken though, however if there is a problem regarding couprights in the future we can easily fix it, until then if it ever happens let us not worry about it my friend.

• in regards to the Isbn Im am not sure but this is what I do know, Assyrians and the Assyrian Question in the New Era. (In Arabic). Qostantin Matfiev Bar Mattai. Damascus, 1979. It was created in 1979 not 1989. I will see if I can find it later on though. Ninevite (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This sentence does not make any sense "The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac[1][2][3] Yohannan Sulaqa was elected by those." It was fine when it said "was the first assyrian Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, from 1553 to 1555." The three sources used refer explicitly to him as Assyrian and not the other names. As with other articles we must only refer to his ethnicity as to what historical authorities tell us it is. Assyrian/Chakdean/Syriac is an umbrella term for the entire people, chaldeans being a rite and syriac a language.Ninevite (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do as you prefer. Personally, once we say where Sulaqua was born and that he was a monk of a CoE's monastery, I dont see the need to specify its nationalism (that is a 19-20th century concern, not a need of the time of Sulaqa). A ntv (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well, the only thing I am concerned about is that the slashed name is not supported by the sources, that was what I am simply referring to, As I have said before we can label him a martian for all I care, as long there is authoritative sources backing it up. As far as this case I will leave at that. I am going to start some work back on the guidelines article. Just to inform you I wont be as active as I have been in the past because I have recently started school for the spring semeter.Ninevite (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is any kind of concensus on Saluqa and the North Mesopotamians, it is that they are Assyrians. Chaldean is just a religious rite, not an ethnic designation, and it did not exist in the region before Saluqa. Syrian and Syriac dont really apply, they are offshoots of Assyrian anyway and = the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.16.191 (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the relation with Syriac Orthodox Church.

The sources that are linked to the statement: after at first failing in an attempt to join the Syriac Orthodox Church. does not speak of the same. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)