Talk:Jesuits/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Additions and Editions

I added some info in the first paragraph about the Society of Jesus today.

I also clarified the Jesuits relationship to the Counter-Reformation in various places. The Jesuits were founded well before the council of Trent, and countering Protestantism was not a part of their foundational documents. Within the first generation, however, they had taken up reform of the Church and defense of the faith, and it is for this reason that they are associated with the Counter-Reformation. This relationship needs to be clarified.

I added a paragraph about the historical relationship between the Society of Jesus and the pope that helps to contextualize Ignatius statement about "thinking with the Church."

I expanded the section about the Spiritual Exercises, which had clearly been written by someone who did not have even a cursory knowledge of the work.

I also expanded the paragraph on Jesuit schools, adding info on the Jesuit commitment to the humanities and art. In addition, I clarified the Jesuit position on music and ceremony in Catholic ritual, which needed some context.

mikesj

I added a citation and snippet quote for Pope Clement XIV in the section on suppression BobRyan777 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BobRyan777 I saw your edit to Society of Jesus#Suppression and restoration. Then I read your comment, just above, in which you summarize the changes you have made, which include the one to which I provided a link, but I don't see all of those edits. I looked in the Revision History of the article and only see one recent edit by you. Are you still working on these changes, or did you forget to save them, or am I missing them somehow? CorinneSD (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

CorinneSDIf I understand your question I "think" the confusion is that where the text ends as "mikesj" -- it is someone else's edits. I only have the one line edit/change/comment that ends with my signature. I don't know how "mikesj" is a full signature but I guess it does look like it is part of my comment since it does not have the normal format with date. however those changes were not done by me -- I only did that last one. I hope that helps :)BobRyan777 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

wording question

"The Jesuits have frequently been described by Catholic and Protestant enemies as engaged in various conspiracies."

Does "Catholic and Protestant enemies" mean "enemies of Catholics and of Protestants" or "Catholics and Protestants who don't like the Jesuits"?

the latter: "Catholics and Protestants who don't like the Jesuits" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.175.225 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

California

No links to California Missions, should there be one? Telecine Guy 19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The California Missions were founded by the Franciscans, not the Jesuits. Jesuits did not arrive in California until the mid 1800's. Jaret 10:57 16 August 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3A57:E650:216:CBFF:FEA6:80F4 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Baja California, not Alta California. Please read Spanish missions in Baja California. Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

I have undone the interwiki links recently added. Readers should not be surprised by suddenly dropping into a language they cannot read. The proper way to do them is via {{Interlanguage link}}. Elizium23 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

relevant Wikipedia Visiting Scholars opportunity at USF

Of potential interest to editors/watchers of this page, the University of San Francisco is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles about social justice reformers and reform movements in the Jesuit Catholic tradition or about Ignatian/Jesuit educational traditions and spirituality.

This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see USF's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Other North American missions

The article should include material on the missions amont the Iroquois in present-day New York state, especially the "North American Martyrs", but also in Western New York. Peter Flass (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Institutions

I've redone the institutions section, adding development centres to the previous section which contained only schools. Also, in accord with encyclopedia principles, I've removed the list of schools since it is a separate article in the encyclopedia, but retained a drop-down gallery of pictures of universities; more may easily be added. A problem with the previous section was that it left out dozens of tertiary institutions and included some secondary schools. If these changes are not satisfactory please let me know and we can work together on this.Jzsj (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Antisemitism"

This line seems like mind-reading. "This new rule was contrary to the original wishes of Ignatius who "said that he would take it as a special grace from our Lord to come from Jewish lineage.""--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Pope Francis "is initiating discussions on social matters"

"Pope Francis, elected in 2013, has become the first Jesuit Pope and is initiating discussions on social matters." A source for this would be good, especially there are some who think that he is not initiating anything new. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture Fr Mulcahy

Nothing in the linked article says that the character is supposed to be a Jesuit, although he did go to a Jesuit school (by implication).--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

analogy

The Jesuits are to many Protestants what Freemasons are to Catholics.

I don't see the logic of the "analogy". Please explain if you put it back.

---

conspiracies abound about both groups, and in a bizarrely reciprocal relationship, especially in European countries. Maybe it's too light hearted for a main entry, and belongs under 'conspiracy theories' directly. I know that wikipedia isn't supposed to be a joke, but it isn't supposed to be as dry as britannica, either. *sigh*

--MichaelTinkler

The high-level Freemasons are subject, also, to the Jesuit General because the Jesuit General, with Fredrick the Great, wrote the High Degrees, the last 8 Degrees, of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry when Fredrick protected them when they were suppressed by the Pope in 1773.

Freemasons are Templars founded. Templars were founded by the Pope. Freemasons are not catholic by faith, but also not Protestant.72.161.86.94 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Under 'Nazi Persecution'

Near the beginning of this section a reference is made to a quote attributed to John Pollard, but the reference cited is from a book by another author, meaning that this is a "third person" reference (i.e., the cited reference is referencing the quote within its text to John Pollard, and then the Wikipedia article is referencing that work, rather than John Pollard). It is also not clear because of the way this source (sources?) is referenced to which John Pollard it would be referring. I suggest that an ORIGINAL (i.e., "first person") citation be used if possible, and I also recommend a clarification as to which John Pollard is being quoted exactly (is it the statesman or someone else?). Jdevola (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What ethnicity were the original jesuits?

What ethnic group did they actually come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The first companions were:

1. St. Íñigo López de Oñaz y Loyola, aka Ignatius of Loyola (Basque, although Ignatius self identified as Cantabrian in one of his letters)
2. St. Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta, aka St. Francis Xavier (Navarrese)
3. St. Pierre Favre (Savoyard)
4. Claude Le Jay (Savoyard)
5. Alfonso Nicolás Pérez, aka Nicolás de Bobadilla (Spanish)
6. Diego Laínez (Spanish, of Jewish ancestry)
7. Alfonso Salmerón (Spanish)
8. Diego Hoces (Spanish, died just before canonical founding)
9. Simão Rodrigues de Azevedo (Portuguese)
10. Paschase Broët (French)
11. Jean Codure (French)

---Coquidragon (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Wikpedia article on Henry Garnet says that he was convicted of being "guilty of treason". This article says that Henry Garnet was convicted of "misprision of treason". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The article on the Gunpowder Plot says that Henry Garnet was "convicted of treason". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of estimate based on statistics

The America quote (below, removed from article) seems to me to be as relevant as the National Catholic Register quote that preceded it. Sosa is making an informed estimate based on the men presently in the Jesuits and the current departure rate. With his staff he is in as good a position as any to make such an assessment, and America seems as reliable to progressives as the remarks of the National Catholic Register seem to conservatives. If one must be removed, then I suggest that the other must be removed also.
FROM ARTICLE: There seems to be no "Pope Francis effect" in counteracting the fall of vocations among the Jesuits. The general superior of the Jesuits, Arturo Sosa, estimates that by 2034 there will be about 10,000 Jesuits, with a much younger average age than in 2019, and with increasing numbers in Latin America, Africa, and India.

References

Also, compared with other religious congregations that are receiving few or no vocations, we are blessed with vocations in all five of our US provinces, which may be the truest "Pope Francis effect". @Elizium23: Jzsj (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Partial representation

The section on Controversies is incomplete. For example, there is no reference to Jesuits' abominable crimes in various Inquisitions worldwide, as far as I can see. Nor is the Jesuits' role in Reformation or wars like the Thirty Years' War and Hundred Years' War, discussed. Sooku (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There is already a section "Controversies". So if you are able to write well sourced additions, you are free to do that. The Banner talk 09:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with expansion of the "Controversies" section and would instead support merging criticisms and controversies organically into the history of the order. Elizium23 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Other options are indeed possible, as long as it is well sourced. The Banner talk 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The assessment you are proposing, if handled objectively, would likely run the length of a whole additional article. Individual Jesuits have been involved in most aspects of the Church's history for the past 450 years, in complex ways. Ignatius himself was persecuted by the Inquisition. Jesuits have often worked on both sides of the same issue, as that of colonialism. What was true of the "Jesuits" was also true of the papacy and of other religious orders in the periods under discussion. Jesuits have been characterized by recent pontiffs as the church's shock troops, often caught up in the problems which confront the Church, but also pointing paths toward the future. It's difficult to establish that actions of individual Jesuits at any point of time characterize the whole worldwide Society in that time. Jzsj (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reciprocal hatnotes with Jesusism

At this writing, this article has a hatnote pointing to Jesusism, which has a hatnote pointing back here.

I'm not really sure why. I suppose "Jesuit" is a not-completely-implausible typo for "Jesusist", but it doesn't strike me as a very likely one either. I can find no indication that persons subscribing to Jesusism have ever called themselves Jesuits, or vice versa.

I'm tempted to remove both hatnotes. Can anyone find a reason I shouldn't? --Trovatore (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Trovatore: The hatnote is there not because of the similarity of Jesuit and Jesusism or Jesuit and Jesusist but because the term Jesuism has been used to refer to both the Society of Jesus and to Jesusism/Jesuism. I think the hatnotes should be kept. Daask (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. That makes sense for the hatnote at Jesuism but not so much for the one here. I don't see how anyone would arrive at this article when actually looking for the other one. --Trovatore (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Restoration, United States

The article states: "During this time in the United States, 22 of the society's 28 universities were founded or taken over by the Jesuits." -- I'm a little confused by this sentence in its context. Does society refer to Society of Jesus? How were only 22 out of the 28 universities associated with the Jesuits, founded or taken over by Jesuits? Or are we talking about the 28 universities that exist today? Were any abolished after? A few words would probably clarify this, but preferably by someone who actually knows the material :) Thanks! effeietsanders 05:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Effeietsanders, if I had to fathom a guess, I would say that it refers to 28 universities that exist today. Perhaps @Jzsj: would know better. Elizium23 (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Addu-martin-building.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Church of the gesu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Slavery and brutality towards Indians

There is no mention of the body count, the murders and slavery and mistreatment of indians. Refs https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lying-to-children-about-t_b_6924346 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:E098:205D:A279:DF1C (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Seljuk Turks reference

"In 1537 they travelled to Italy to seek papal approval for their order. Pope Paul III gave them a commendation, and permitted them to be ordained priests. They were ordained at Venice by the bishop of Arbe (June 24). They devoted themselves to preaching and charitable work in Italy, as the renewed war between the emperor, Venice, the pope and the Seljuk Turks rendered any journey to Jerusalem inadvisable."

How is this possible if Seljuk Turks ceased to exist in 13th century?

You are right. The text seems to have been improved since then.

It has now become "Ottoman empire".

The Seljuk turks did not cease to exist. What source are you reading? Also, can you sign what you write with 4 tildes? Vmelkon (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

IPA and Latin in the sentence about members in the opening paragraph

Opening paragraph, sentence starting with "Its members".

If the English text uses the singular form "jesuit", the IPA must end with t and the Latin is jesuita. If the English text uses the plural form "jesuits", the IPA must end with s and the Latin is jesuitæ.

If you disagree, please discuss here. Thaumazo (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jesuit orders also are known for alcohol, but so are, strangely, also many secret societies based on whisky at Rotary Clubs (strange find ...)

Strangely, some EDEKA centers sell alcohol with Jesuit orders logos of any kind (even middle age Jesuit orders to be honest), but this does not always fit the EDEKA in question. I have also found masonic orders stuff (Pelikan) and half-way-promasonic stuff such as blue & yellow together video games at the same EDEKA.

Weird.

But even weirder is, that at a minority of Rotary Clubs, secret societies based on Whisky are found. Here is the article about the Whisky in question: [].

Alcohol is NOT KNOWN to be ever fully promasonic as christianity, especially the Jesuit Orders of the recent popes, do drink alcohol, too.

Strange how then they discourage their believers from believing into freemasonry or go frequent a Rotary Club ...

Strange roman catholics with their own Jesuit orders in question ... (as Rotary Clubs are not always opposed to drinking alcohol)

However ...

... is it also Antijudaist to drink alcohol? What is the jewish point of view on alcohol?

Anyways, alcohol is not nice to migrainics as it causes people headaches ...

... and only smoking (promasonic activity) is strictly prohibited at Rotary Clubs, but strangely not because they think it is antirotarian, but due to the kids.

Also, are Rotary Clubs loving or hating the Jews nowadays? Because they frequent Casinos sometimes ...

--94.134.91.214 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Catherina and Frederick

Catherine the Great and Frederick of Prussia refused to suppress the Jesuits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.56.202 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2004 (UTC)

Current Father General's biography

An addition about the current Father General, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, would be helpful. He has a biography in the German Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hans_Kolvenbach, if anyone cares to translate it.

P.J.— Preceding unsigned comment added by P.J. Maloney (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 April 2005 (UTC)

BC founding

Boston College was first opened by Benedict Fenwick, SJ in 1827. 1863 is the year in which it was chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Neither date is particularly relevant here. What is important is that it was among the first Jesuit colleges established in North America after the Restoration. Technically it was second after Saint Louis University (1818). Georgetown University was founded during the Suppression and only later put under the auspices of the Society.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.95.6.12 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality !?

This article seems extremely pro-jesuit to me. I'm frankly surprised it has managed to dodge the "Neutrality questioned" prompt for as long as it has. Barely any criticism is present, even under the title controversy all the stories recounted pose them as the victims. No mention of their brutality and suppression towards native peoples. No mention of the heresy hunts. No mention of institutionalized torture. This reads like a propaganda piece, which is astounding for a wikipedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:902a:8000:4576:411f:cfd:45ec (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agonzalez54.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Current controversies

No mention is made of the current odour in which the order is held by more conservative Catholics. This ranges from simple unease to outright dismissal as virtually a separate denomination. A summation of how they went from the spearhead of the Counter-reformation to the abyss they are perceived to be in today would be interesting. 78.16.190.114 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, interesting, I guess. Everyone has detractors. You haven't offered any sources. We'd need reliable, secondary sources documenting such "odour", rather than cranks on Twitter or the blogosphere.

The heading "Theological debates" documents some of what you allude to, and contains 11 references. Feel free to expand it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reputable source saying these things, it might fit into a Society of Saint Pius X article as positions held by whoever is cited, without meriting full-on coverage here. I'd fold the power and intrigue sections into each other as the article is written. There are a lot of sub-headings relative to the amount of substance. Oltremontano (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The !vote count suggests we have a consensus to move, and more importantly the strength of arguments points in the same direction: the supporters make strong policy-based arguments (particularly under WP:COMMONNAME), while some oppose !votes aren't rooted in policies or guidelines at all. There are reasonable concerns based on WP:PRECISE, but those arguments have been rebutted and, ultimately, haven't convinced most !voters that the current title best satisfies the criteria. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Society of Jesus → Jesuits – "Jesuit" is the common English name used for the order, used in public branding. For example, the website for the order (https://www.jesuits.org/) first mentions "Society of Jesus" only on the "About Page"; the use of "Society of Jesus" has similar limited use on the United Kingdom website (https://www.jesuit.org.uk/). Renaming this page to "Jesuits" would be more familiar to the general public, and be in line with the articles for other major orders such as the "Order of Friars Minor" (Franciscans) or the "Order of Preachers" (Dominican Order) –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC). In the renamed article, "Society of Jesus" would remain a bold faced official title in the first paragraph. –Zfish118^⋉talk 00:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)— Relisting.  –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move. Jesuit is definitely the most common name. Smallchief (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Jesuits is ambigious as to what the topic is. Is it the individuals collectively or is it the order.

The proferred examples are not, in fact analogous. The equivalent of "Dominican Order" would be "Jesuit Order" (a move I could live with) and the article at Franciscans is about Franciscans in general, the Order of Friars Minor has its own separate page. Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I could live with "Jesuit Order" as well, but don't think it's necessary from a disambiguation perspective. The Jesuits and Dominicans are a monolithic order, where as the Franciscans have three equal and independent orders (OFM, OFM Conv, OFM Cap). The Franciscan umbrella article covers all three, as well as affiliated female orders and lay orders. The Jesuits do not have these layers that need an umbrella article for Jesuits collectively, versus the order specifically. Conversely, though similarly monolithic as a religious institute, Dominicans use "Order" in the article title to disambiguate it from residents of the Caribbean nation, an issue that doesn't exist with Jesuits. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• That blows up your own WP:CONSISTENT argument, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree I am making a common name argument, rather than a strict argument for consistency. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Zfish118: The Dominicans are not monolithic; their ranks include priest friars in the OP, nuns and sisters who are also OP but in different branches, and they have a third order laity branch as well. So the Jesuits stand alone among these big families as the singular monolithic order. And this undivided nature is the only viable argument I can envision for retaining the page at its current title, if indeed the preponderance of WP:RS would tip the balance in favor of renaming. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I am making a very narrow claim of "monolithic". There is only one Order of Preachers, of which there are male and female members, as well as lay associates/tertieries. There is no "Order of Preachers Capuchin" or "OP Conv", unlike the parallel Franciscan orders. Women religious are also part of the OP proper, not in a separate order like the various Orders of Saint Clare. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that is a narrow claim. www.opwest.org: In the Dominican family there are several branches. Although independent of one another in terms of governance, they all share in the charism of preaching, and are united under the Master of the Order of Preachers. Certainly there is a matter of degree here; the OP is more monolithic than Carmelites who are slightly more monolithic than Franciscans, but I hope that you could agree that Jesuits are the most monolithic of all: there are no women, there is no laity, there are no independent communities or branches, there are Jesuits united under one governance, one Superior General, one Rule, and only distinguished by territorial jurisdictions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The unity under a single superior general is essentially what I meant, although I could not find the proper term for the office (ie, Master of the Order of Preachers). –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to support, on a WP:COMMONNAME basis. I agree with Jahaza that "the proferred examples are not, in fact[,] analogous", but this also means that the "Is is the individuals collectively or is it the order" question is not being asked; "individual members, collectively, of the Society of Jesus" is not an encyclopedic topic, while the equivalent for Franciscans arguably is due to multiple orders. I'm not inclined to support "Jesuit Order" because that is not a proper name, not "Jesuit order" which is unnecessarily non-WP:CONCISE when Jesuits will suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  "individual members, collectively, of the Society of Jesus" is not an encyclopedic topic"

  I mean, we actually have an article at List of Jesuits. --Jahaza (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I knew about Jesuits, but didn't know they were the "Society of Jesus" until I saw this discussion. Jesuits is more common.PrisonerB (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Since one of the first things you must learn about the Jesuits is that they are members of the Society of Jesus, the current title is fine. Srnec (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• The webpage of the Jesuits is Jesuits.org, not SocietyofJesus.org. If the Jesuits call themselves the Jesuits, as do the vast majority of non-Jesuits, who are we to disagree.Smallchief (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this the same website that starts with "We are the Society of Jesus..."? Walrasiad (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It's the webpage titled "The Jesuits." And the second sentence of the text says "Most people call us "the Jesuits." WP:COMMONNAME says "Use commonly recognizable names."Smallchief (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• I come from one of the more ancient lineages of Jesuit scholars, and Society of Jesus has never been a name by which they went. They have always referred to themselves historically as Jesuits. 2001:8F8:1621:7ADB:49CE:A984:EF3C:7C1B (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose -- "Society of Jesus" is the canonical and official title of the organization, so that should be the title of the main article about the organization. A change to "Society of Jesus (Jesuits)" to incorporate the organization's common English nickname, with the title of "Society of Jesus" becoming a redirect thereto, would be reasonable. The title "Jesuit" should be a redirect to the main article about the Society of Jesus, under either form of the title. Norm1979 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• On the policy page above, Recognizability and Naturalness support Jesuit. Precision and Consistency support Society of Jesus (Franciscans are a special case and "Jesuit Order" isn't really a thing). Concision is the main reason I see. Ironically we have the same split: slightly more people in favor but maybe not overwhelming enough to change. Oltremontano (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - There are strong arguments per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. WP:CONSISTENCY is also observed with many other major religious orders to use the collective noun where it is the common name and unambiguous (see Benedictines, Cistercians, Trappists, Redemptorists, Premonstratensians, Carthusians, Carmelites, Trinitarians, etc etc). 'Jesuits' is sufficiently unambiguous. Arguments about 'Society of Jesus' being the WP:OFFICIALNAME are invalid because that contravenes Wikipedia's article title policy which prefers the common name over the official name. Arguments about needing to maintain separate titles for the members and the order are also invalid as both are extremely closely related even if not synonymous and can be discussed within the same article. They do not currently or are likely to need separate articles to discuss both separately, much like any other article for other religious orders. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hah! The Carmelites were one of the first things I thought of as I was typing that Franciscans are special. A Franciscan would be the first to tell you they're anything but special anyway. I don't pretend to have read every WP:JARGON link in full, but both article titles are fine to me. Oltremontano (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support On the basis that this is clearly the common name. Whether other RC orders are more complex is an issue which should be dealt with appropriately in relation to these orders. PatGallacher (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral Hey folks, unfortunately today I don't have a strongly-held opinion on this one. I would say that either title is valid and recognizable! "Society of Jesus" does indeed contribute to their postnomials. I'm rather curious how they are referred to in non-English sources, although non-English sources would probably not have an impact on our naming an English article. Their monolithic nature sets them apart from Dominicans and Franciscans mentioned above, so it wouldn't be necessary to change the article name to widen its scope. That's really all my thoughts for now. Elizium23 (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Jesuits is the common name and will be more recognisable to most readers. It is also more concise than the alternatives, is precise enough to define the topic (both the order and the people are discussed in the article) and per Epistulae ad Familiares consistent with the titles of other similar articles. Alduin2000 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC) [Edited to correct user referenced, 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)]
• Support: Common name. Enough said. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Also analogous with Quakers as a common name, to my mind. William Avery (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Very clear case of common name. Frankly a bit surprised it hasn’t been moved earlier.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken citations

Anybody have an idea why there are so many broken citation links in this article? It seems like more than just regular over time link rot? Jahaza (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)