Talk:Synod

Merging
I don't think the two articles should be merged - if the Synods of the CofE are given the large section that they need, then other denominations would also need in-depth sections. Also, Synods are a big thing in the CofE, and I feel that would be reason enough for it to have seperate articles. Anthropax 18:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the word origin reference for the word "synod." The ELCA has a page that says "Our English word synod comes from two Greek words syn + hodos that literally means 'a way together.'" I'm no expert on this topic, but if anyone knows there's some merit in this definition, it should be presented in this article. ~Kruck 01:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reformed Usage"
The paragraph states that "in Reformed churches the "synod" can denote a regional meeting of representatives of various classes (regional synod), or the national denominational meeting of representatives from the regional synods", referring particularly to Southern German or Swiss churches. If this is meant to describe the church "parliament", then it is not only true for the Reformed churches but also for many German-speaking Lutheran or United churches. I would consider this to be merely a question of different usage of a term in different languages, not of different usage in different denominations. The German term "Synode" simply has a different meaning: legislative church assembly of elected lay people and clergy representatives. The English term "synod" would correspond more closely to what is called "Landeskirche" (regional church body, Protestant usage).

If this is only a question of translation, as I would understand it, this paragraph might need to be rewritten considering how the term "synod" is used in English-speaking Reformed churches. Anna (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Jewish Synods"
During the 1800s, Jewish Rabbis also had Synods. Try the Jewish Encyclopedia for a source... Just noting that this is missing in this article.

An even more refined link...

--Pokoleo (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OR
This article is full of original research. Since my removing of the original research was contested, I have now placed citation needed tags, at the end of every paragraph. If in one week, no efforts to place any references, where they were asked, the information will be removed. Warrior 4321  12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what, specifically, you were disputing in this content? Given the amount of text removed, I would think at least some of it was routine info and not actually disputed. Gimmetrow 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the text that had a citation needed tag. It was all OR, and if it wasn't there was a 20 day period in which this could have been done. If you want to retype the information back into the article, please provide references with them warrior  4321  21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What specifically was disputed? Gimmetrow 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are asking what was contested, it was this. warrior  4321  01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking what specifically was the dispute. Furthermore, why did you remove text that had citations? Gimmetrow 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was text which had citations, please feel free to re-add the information. warrior  4321  20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't have to sort though your removals. Please explain specifically and in detail exactly what you were disputing in the text you removed. Gimmetrow 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to sort though anything. However, if I have missed some citations and a sentences with a citation was deleted, you could re-add it back. As for the dispute thing, I was removing the OR and unreferenced phrases with had a citation needed tag for over 20 days! warrior  4321  23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So far, you have not given any actual reason for disputing any of the content. If your entire argument is that some phrases didn't have a citation, then why did you leave anything in the article, since there are no citations left? Gimmetrow 05:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I only left the lead as a starting point in the article. warrior  4321  23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been asked for over a week to provide an actual reason for disputing any of the content you removed. You did not. You also removed sourced content. I have undone your removals. You don't get to blank an article that has sources and provide no reason. Gimmetrow 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I told you several times why the information was removed. The information was tagged with citation needed, and no references were provided and thus the information was removed. I have re-removed the information, this time leaving the paragraph with the citation I saw. warrior  4321  19:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And you again removed text that included sources, while failing to provide any reason for disputing any other text. Gimmetrow 12:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonreligious uses?
This term is also applied to the peer review process. It is sometimes used in a perjurative sense when talking about the politics of science. The reason has to do with a certain astromer. ;) JWhiteheadcc (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Sobor be merged into Synod. I think that the content in the Sobor article can easily be explained in the context of Synod, and the Synod article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Sobor will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Another is that the Sobor article incorrectly attempts say it is different than the Synod but it is not different as a Synod doesn't have to be only composed of bishops per the Synod article. Spshu (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * Furthermore, on my to do list, is to propose merger of the "Church building" section with Katholikon
 * In both cases, there are simply separate, redundant articles for the same things but using the Slavonic words.
 * Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Questions. 1)Synods seem to include multiple sees (provinces, perhaps, or larger). It appears that sobors can be confined to a single diocese. Can synods?
 * 2) The article on sobor seems to confine decisions to administrative matters. Synods can go further (as constrained by church doctrine). Are sobors so confined? Student7 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "“Ecumenical Council” is “ВселенскиЙ соборъ” (“Vsyelyenskiy Sobor”) in Slavonic.  “Sobor” translates the Greek word “Σύνοδος” (“Synodos) according to the Russian language Wikipedia article on “Ecumenical Councils” – http:// http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B . Therefore, methinks, they are identical except one word is in Slavonic and the other is in English (borrowed from Greek, of course, but an English word nonetheless).
 * Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that the translation is identical or nearly the same.
 * But there has been a division between the two churches. It seems possible that practices are no longer the same. Just like discovering that some word in India means "bishop" in English. But the powers/authority of the two might be different. These are two (slightly) different churches - Orthodox/Latin. Student7 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand your point. The comparison is not between Orthodox/Latin, it is between Orthodox/Orthodox and is simply a matter of translation.
 * Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Synods can be quite important in the Roman Catholic Church and can involve more than administrative. See Synod of Elvira. Since some were held prior to the East-West Schism, trail may be hard to follow. e.g. Synod of Hippo.
 * To review, you are saying that synods and sobors are identical for the Orthodox church? That may be true. I am saying that the term "synod" is also used as an important meeting in the RC church and should be considered when merging the two because the use of the group may be somewhat different. Student7 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement is accurate, IMHO, but what I was *really* trying to communicate is that synods in the Greek Orthodox Church are the same a Sobory in The Slavic OCs, the latter being but a translation of the former.
 * But, yes, they seem equivalent to synods in the RC church also.
 * The Council of Nicea, for example, is a “Sobor” -- see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80 – the title of which is “P’ervyy Nikeychiy Sobor”, “Первый Никейский собор.
 * However, my initial contribution to this edit page concerned the second section of the "Sobor" article, use of “Sobor” as a church building, to be merged with “Katholicon” (in RC terms, a “Conventual Church”, but in more modern Orthodox usage, expended to non-monastic churches that are not cathedrals but have some non-official significance) and I’ll try to get more feedback on that and, if nothing is posted within a month, I’ll proceed with the merger of that section at my subsequent convenience.
 * In general, methinks that using Slavonic words to describe something already covered by a Greek or Latin word is, at best, inappropriately ethno-centric and a superfluous redundancy.
 * Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, the fact that synods are different in these different traditions does not mean they shouldn't share an article on the broad topic. --JFHutson (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll merge them in the next few days. Today I'm traveling and don't expect to have time to do anything. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On 22 January 2013 I merged Sobor#Christian_temple into Katholikon. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming, merging, and disambiguating this article
This article is currently about several types of things which share a common name, which is clear from the first sentence. I propose, first, that the article be moved to Church council, which currently redirects here, and make this article about that usage of synod. Synod should be either a disambiguation page or we should set one up with this as the primary topic, since there are obviously several usages. We can then merge those sections which are about other usages for "synod" to more appropriate articles. --JFH (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've redirected Church council to Ecumenical council because of the similarity of names. Synods are limited in scope to local diocese, metropolis or patriarchy. That limitation is important since synods have differed in over time with ecumenical councils. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible split
This article appears to be conflating at least two concepts with the same name.

I got here from Wikidata which has
 * Q111161 - council of a church - many language translations - over 200 instances, 5 subclasses in Wikidata, currently the wikidata item for this article
 * Q52572620 - church body, similar to diocese - no wikipedia links - over 50 instances in Wikidata
 * Q10376466 - Sinodo in Portuguese, no English translation, but noted as distinguished
 * Q16024055 - Church council - over 20 language articles, but not English - over 100 instances, 2 subclasses in wikidata

The first wikidata item appears to be used for the significant historic doctrinal councils of the church, consistent with the start of the lead paragraph of this article. the second appears to be used for modern geographic administrative councils in several denominations, consistent with the second part of the first paragraph and the protestant parts of the "Usages in different Communions" section. I haven't worked out the distinctions for the other two. --Scott Davis Talk 01:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose.
 * Q16024055: completely redundant with synods, as it is used to designate the exact same subject as Synod but with the name which derived from Latin instead of from Greek. The same way, Sobor - which also has its own Wikidata item - also designates the exact same subject in an ecclesiastical context, but with a name derived from Slavic languages, which is why it was merged here after a merge proposal.
 * Q52572620: I have proposed to merge this item with another.
 * Q10376466: it has been merged with "synod"
 * Veverve (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the process is for proposing merges of classes in Wikidata. The instances of are singular s which in turn is an . The instances of  are enduring  with responsibility for an area. The instance lists clearly show they are seen as distinct concepts. The subclass lists are a little more confused, but at least one claimed to be both a subclass and an instance so they possibly need cleaning up anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 11:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are the early ecumenical councils largely excluded?
The First seven ecumenical councils are left out of the list (not at Historical synods, only mentioned as an afterthought at "See also"). Why? If it has been decided to redirect Church councils to this article, fine, but then cover the entire topic! Arminden (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it is because the ecumenical councils are almost never referred to as "synods" in order to emphasise the ecumenical councils' authority as above that of other councils. For now, this is all I can think of. Veverve (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Then a decision has to be made: either to remove the redirect (and create smth. else for that topic, at least a DAB), or to include them here. You can't have both, keeping a redirect to an article which largely ignores the topic. And what a topic! Arminden (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)