Talk:Synod

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging

message: There are no references or citations in this quite detailed article which makes me wonder about original research or copyright issues...Abtract 12:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: "Reformed Usage"

message: 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)
thread_title: "Jewish Synods"

message: This article is full of original research. Since my removing of the original research was contested, I have now placed  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. Warrior4321 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: All of the text that had a  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 warrior4321 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What specifically was disputed? Gimmetrow 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are asking what was contested, it was this. warrior4321 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  If there was text which had citations, please feel free to re-add the information. warrior4321 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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  tag for over 20 days! warrior4321 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I only left the lead as a starting point in the article. warrior4321 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I told you several times why the information was removed. The information was tagged with , 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. warrior4321 19:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  OR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonreligious uses? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming, merging, and disambiguating this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Why are the early ecumenical councils largely excluded?