Talk:Jesuits

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

• Move. Jesuit is definitely the most common name. Smallchief (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• @
  WP:RS would tip the balance in favor of renaming. Elizium23 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I'm inclined to support, on a
  WP:CONCISE when Jesuits will suffice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Support - There are strong arguments per
  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)[reply
  ]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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
  talk) 01:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC) [Edited to correct user referenced, 01:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)][reply
  ]
• Support: Common name. Enough said. ― TaltosKieronTalk 15:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Also analogous with Quakers as a common name, to my mind. William Avery (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]