Talk:Black Pope (disambiguation)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2019. The result of the discussion was keep/withdrawn.

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Catholicism

Black Pope (disambiguation) is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles

Catholicism task list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see Draft articles
Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page)
Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates
Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall
Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring
NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment
Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism
Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs
Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire
Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral
Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

Debate: Merge Black Pope into Superior General of the Society of Jesus[edit]

Merge: This debate has apparently gone by the wayside for many months now. I reopen the debate on this topic by casting my official vote in favor of merging the article. This nickname for the Superior General is not only obscure, it is also quite minor. While some may argue that it is somehow clever, it does not deserve its own article. All those opposed or in favor of this proposal should cast an official vote as well. --TheTriumvir 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Past Discussion of Proposed Merger[edit]

It is important for the standard browser of the encyclopedia to know of this relation immediatly. Otherwise crackpots would be concuting conspiracy theories when they come accross the term "Black Pope" because it does seem to have a dark and diabolical connotation.

Since the term is just a nickname for the Superior General, this page is superfluous. A redirect to that page and longer explaination of the term would be useful. --Miked84 02:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because I came across the reference in The Times mentioned above (which was neutral-pointing-out-the-nickname: a quick Google throws up "a number" of references, mostly "weird and wonderful" (being somewhat polite). I have no objection to the article being included in the Jesuit one with a redirect. There could also be a reference to the conspiracy theory article.

Jackiespeel 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A certain number of the websites dealing with the term relate to the more weird and wonderful end of the conspiracy spectrum, and another group - rational in tone - refer to the possibility of a pope from Africa.

Jackiespeel 17:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a long-standing nickname for the Superior General, it seems only logical to merge it into that article, with a redirect and even additional information. akendall _(talk) 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the term is used in a specific sense, I would keep it separate with cross references - and make a mention on this article that some of the websites are "slightly over the top." Would it be a dicdef perhaps? (I am willing to accept suggestions.)

Jackiespeel 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it ought to be merged. It could be its own section of the Superior General article, maybe, but a nickname for the subject of an article should not, itself, be an article.--Coemgenus 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "top two pages of web browser searches" test, and the secondary meaning of the term alluded to in the text, keep this article separate with due cross references.

That said, this is probably as far as this article is likely to develop (without someone writing a somewhat POV rebuttal of the "weird and wonderful" end of the market). There is just enough reason to keep the BP article separate from the Society of Jesuits webpage.

Jackiespeel 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be merged. It's just their nickname. This page will either be a permanent stub or repeticious with the content there. Merge it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "Black Pope" has a specific connotation that is unknown to most people and needs to stay separate from the Society of Jesus, because it will alert people to the real possibility of nongovernmental interference from behind the scenes. Keeping it separate means that people will be able to explore the conspiracy theories and decide for themselves.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serenergy (talk • contribs) 21:58, October 28, 2006

Further Past Debate[edit]

I came across the term in The Times on the near-simutaneous deaths of Benedict XIV and the head of the Jesuits in August 1914.

Jackiespeel 16:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I've hard to belive that "black" in "black pope" refers to the jesuits black cassocks; because black is the colour of the whole roman-catholic priesthood. And further; the reason why the jesuits are black, are therefore they have no "order-dress" themselvs, they are just dressed like an ordinary catholic priest.

It may have other conotations associated with it, but it seems reasonable. The Jesuits were the first order to adopt secular clerical dress. --Miked84 03:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is but natural to join 'Black Pope' to 'Superior General of Society of Jesus'. Even Jesuits accept the fact that their superiors were known as 'Black Popes' once upon a time. It is not an insult, but rather a hint at the extreme influence the superior helt in the matters of Rome. - Tilj

I support a merger as well. —Lowellian (reply) 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tally[edit]

Here is a tally of merger positions, based on comments on this talk page:

In favor of merger

Opposed to merger

User:Jackiespeel
User:Serenergy (Note: only 3 edits as of November 10, 2006, all to this article)
User:Reginald Benbow (Note: Only 8 edits as of November 10, 2006)
User:Tilput (Note: Only 1 edit as of November 10, 2006, that edit being to this talk page)

Not counting statements by user accounts that seem to have been created primarily to oppose the merger, there is a clear consensus (5-1) for merger with Superior General of the Society of Jesus, and I have implemented the merge. —Lowellian (reply) 15:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black[edit]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a picture of him in his black garments, as that is the reason for the title "black pope"? Tim Long 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 May 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. wbm1058 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pope → Black Pope (disambiguation) – Move so that "Black Pope" can redirect to Superior General of the Society of Jesus, who is clearly the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

With so few entries do we need this article at all, or could we deal with it by a hatnote? PatGallacher (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]