Jump to content

Talk:Synod of Dort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's in a name?

[edit]

Is "Dort" really the english abbreviation used for the city of Dordrecht? In Dutch it is usually abbreviated as "Dordt"

It is found both ways. I believe either is acceptable. Jim Ellis 14:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
The Synod was referred to in the Acts that they published, as NATIONALE SYNODE, IN DEN NAAM ONZES HEEREN JEZUS CHRISTUS, Gehouden door autoriteit der Hoogmogende Heeren Staten-Generaal der Vereenigde Nederlanden TE DORDRECHT, TEN JARE 1618 EN 1619. In Englilsh National synod, in the name of our lord Jesus Christ, held by the authority of Empowered Gentlemen States General of the United Netherlands, at Dordrecht, in the year 1618 and 1619. [1]. The English term used in translations is often National Synod at Dordrecht [2], but following other languages, also Synod of Dordrecht. The Dutch town of Dordrecht is sometimes referred to as Dordt. In the early 17th century spelling was not as fixed as it became a century later, and some people spelled this Dort.
As the "easiest" / "shortest" spelling of the name of the synod is "Synod of Dort", this is often used as an abbreviation in English. However, it is just that, an abbreviation. Therefore I believe the correct name should be "Synod of Dordrecht"; the great thing about Wiki is that other spellings can simply refer to it. Compare it to the US Treasury. They are in Wiki under their full name, United States Department of the Treasury. This does not mean that this is the most commonly used name, it's just the most correct name. - DocendoDiscimus 12:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dort is an alternative (but old-fashioned) name of Dordrecht, not just an abbreviation. In Dutch, the synod is known as "Synode van Dordrecht" or "Dordtse Synode". The name "Synod of Dort" is just as valid as "Synod of Dordrecht", and according to Wikipedia policy, that means it should be at the most commonly used variant. And "Synod of Dort" has 40 times more google hits than "Synod of Dordrecht" (37,000 vs. 850). Eugene van der Pijll 12:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The name Dordt (always with dt) is still used commonly, though it is always used as a colloquialism, and will never be used by (local) government to officially describe the town, or in legal documents. Suggesting that it ever was used on a completely equivalent basis is simply not true. The word Dordtse is simply an official adjective of Dordrecht - which explains the two correct Dutch spellings 'Synode van Dordrecht' and 'Dordtse Synode'. It is however never referred to as Synode van Dordt. I agree with your argument on Google hits 'if' the two were equivalent. They are not. Using my earlier example: US Treasury has 4,700,000 hits, and United States Department of the Treasury 108,000. Still, the correct entry is the latter one. DocendoDiscimus 13:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These two cases are not comparable. "US Treasury" is just an abbreviation of "United States Department of the Treasury". The latter is more correct, because it is the original, official name. The Synod of Dordt has no official name, at least not in English. You claim that "Synod of Dordrecht" is the original English name, and "Synod of Dort" is an abbreviation of that. I very much doubt that, and I think "Synod of Dort" has always been the more usual English name.
About the original Dutch name of the synod: your source ([3]) is converted to the "modern" spelling, so it's not certain that even the original Dutch text refers to "Dordrecht". Eugene van der Pijll 13:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I have now found the original publication, named "Acta ofte Handelinghen des Nationalen Synodi [...] tot Dordrecht", so it is indeed "Dordrecht" in this original publication. But the name of the synod itself is "National Synod" or a variant thereof.)
The original Dutch name was the "Synode Nationael gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619" - which is used on the originial Statenvertaling, see [4], so here the use is clear. I still don't know why you assume Dordt and Dordrecht are equivalent. Dordt is, and has always been, an abbreviation. If not, please show past examples that the city was officially called Dordt. You are right, an official English name for the Synod would be difficult to find. Can you substantiate your claim that Synod of Dort has always been the more usual name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocendoDiscimus (talk • contribs)
Isn't the issue, which is the more common name, presently? "Synod of Dort" and "Synod of Dordt" are by far more common in English, especially when referring to the council. "Dordt College" is not confusingly named, for example - we know what it is named after (the synod, not the city). More people will be looking for Synod of Dort; and calling this "Synod of Dordrecht" (the rarer name) is like calling the "Five point controversy" the "Quinquarticular Controversy". It comes across peculiar, stuffy and pedantic. Even so, it is only less familiar, not less correct, to call it "Synod of Dordrecht". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dordrecht has always been the official name of the city AFAIK. Dordt is an informal name, similar to "Den Bosch" as for 's Hertogenbosch. Even in English, Dordrecht is the usual name, as for example shown by the Encyclopedia Britannica [5]. But it's telling that the same encyclopedia has it's article about the synod at "Synod of Dort" [6]. The usual name just contains a variant name, not the official name. I think this is a sign that the name Dort used to be more common in English in the past, but I cannot substantiate that. But can you prove that "Synod of Dordrecht" has been at all common in English? Eugene van der Pijll 14:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be rather difficult to prove either way - we can't prove what the 'official version' was, 'cos there wasn't one. (or maybe someone can find an English translation of the early 17th cty of the statenvertaling). The name that is currently used most often is the shortest name - using the shortest version for Dordrecht (and one pronouncable in English..). I think it's time for a compromise. We keep it Synod of Dort, and describe that Dort was an old, colloquial form of Dordrecht, currently only used in this context. - DocendoDiscimus 15:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a number of English maps of the Netherlands at http://www.davidrumsey.com/view.html . I've checked which name they use for the city:
  • "Dort": Moll (1736), Bowen (1747), Cary (1799), Finley (1831), Fielding (1833), Martin (1851)
  • "Dort or Dordrecht": Kitchin (1788)
  • "Dordrecht or Dort": Faden (1794), Pinkerton (1811)
Only the two French maps call the city just "Dordrecht"; Cary and Fielding call the city "Dort", but the island "Isle of Dordrecht".
So the original name in English seems to be Dort.
(It is called Dordrecht now, so in all other contexts, it should be called that; not "Dort"). Eugene van der Pijll 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the maps, but I'll trust you on this. There's a clear trend from Dort to Dordrecht. I guess the current entry should satisfy everyone DocendoDiscimus 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think there is any "trend" at all, much less a "clear trend". Besides, you've gone through the encyclopedia linking to a redirect. The redirect should be skipped, by restoring the links to Synod of Dort. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In thie examples by Eugene, the first use of Dordrecht was in 1788, 50 years after Dort was used. And there is no discussion that now all maps have Dordrecht. I guess for a 'trend' we need more examples, but to be honest, I don't want to spend time arguing the number of occurences of certain spellings of a small town in Holland in English throughout the centuries. We have agreed a few things: the name of the town is Dordrecht. At the time of the synod, a common English term for Dordrecht was Dort. This is often used to describe the synod. Both Synod of Dort and Synod of Dordrecht are valid. Please let me know if you disagree with any of these points. DocendoDiscimus 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all these points. Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree - the issue isn't really the trend, or lack of one; and that would be enough, except that you have changed the articles linked to the Synod of Dort so that they point to a redirect, Synod of Dordrecht. While that name is valid, it is not the name of this article. When I was young, I confess that I didn't realize that the Synod of Dort and Dordrecht is one and the same thing. I knew Dordrecht; I knew Dordt and Dort; but I did not know the Synod of Dordrecht. If we keep the name, Synod of Dort for this article (and I see no reason why we shouldn't), then we should link to that name, and not the redirect. Do you oppose this being done? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grotius at the Synod??

[edit]

"the phenomenal jurist Hugo Grotius (Huig De Groot), who argued for the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort." quoted from section entitled Political Impact.

While there is online documentation that Grotius was an ardent supporter of the Remonstrance, and while it is documented that he was arrested (along with many others) as a result of the Synod's judgment, I find no evidence that he was himself present (as one of the 13) at the Synod of Dort -- nor is such mentioned in Wikipedia's entry on Hugo Grotius. Unless a reference source can be provided, I recommend this statement be edited/corrected. Jim Ellis 15:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After further checking, I have gone ahead and made a correction since I cannot find any substantiation to the subject claim. Jim Ellis 14:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Calder

[edit]

Information about Frederick Calder (also Frederic) would be welcome. He was a Wesleyan Methodist minister. His son of the same name was a Cambridge graduate ([7]). In any case his book is surely partisan. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants

[edit]

If no one objects, I'd like to consider a stand-alone list. There being over 100, this seems justified. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a list up at List of participants in the Synod of Dort. Proper referencing for participation seems an altogether harder task than referencing the main article, so that moving these matters off this page appears the tidy way to proceed. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Synod of Dort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synod_of_Dort&oldid=1212738898"