Talk:Black Pope

The logical reason for there being more Popes than heads of the Jesuits would involve the average age at election to office.

Some of the Black Pope websites are 'slightly over the top.' Jackiespeel (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jackiespeel and welcome to RW. It's good to see new blood creating new articles. Unfortunately, I've got a bit of a problem understanding why this one has been created. (See the mainpage for our mission statements) But you say that there are some "over the top" Black pope webistes? If there are cranks involved then you should add that to the article with links. :-) Cheers.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with it being on mission, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the term so have no idea how to expand it beyond a dictionary entry. ^narchist 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As examples - try [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]: more can be readily found. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't encountered this term before, but there've been conspiracy theories about the Jesuits ever since the order was founded. I reckon we should have an article on the Jesuit Order (Society of Jesus) & include this in it. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate (and include the two definitions provided - I think the first definition is self explanatory enough). The Voynich Manuscript, btw, was retrieved from a Jesuit property. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New short article on Jesuits here. Probably this can be merged into it, unless you think there's enough material on the BP specifically to merit a separate article. Personally, I don't much like the "Pope of African origins" joke (is it a joke?) - it seems unfunny & unnecessary. But let other minds decide. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Add the references above 'or others to taste' under the BP section and 'For other uses of the term Black Pope see (Wikipedia disambiguation page - link).' A matter of coming to the topic from a particular angle/finding a term while looking up something else. 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting a bunch of ELs on the talk page and telling people to do the work isn't exactly a "nice" way to get an article going. As it is right now, I see no reason for this article's existence. ħuman 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There was no page on the Jesuits when I started the BP piece - and sometimes there is an obvious example among the various EL possibilities. I had come across sufficient 'creative-to-weird non-logical discussion' on the Black Pope per se to justify a mention on Rational Wiki. Now that the 'more general' article has been created, I have 'no particular preference' whether the BP entry is a standalone article or a subsection/paragraph on the Jesuit page (possibly expanding upon what is already there): and I was indicating agreement with whatever the concensus was. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And I'm still not sure why this exists. If there is a lot of weirdness associated with the idea could we have it in the article please?--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put a mission template on it.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The simplest solution is as I have suggested above - transfer the first couple of 'weird anti-BP weblinks' to the Jesuits page and expand the text if required and the matter resolves itself 'given the amount of irrationality written on the Jesuits.' As with other topics easier to decide whether standalone or a subsection once the page has been started. (g). Jackiespeel (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

JackieS, I know you mean well, but if you "come across sufficient 'creative-to-weird non-logical discussion' on the Black Pope per se" that's the time to actually add the text describing it. Then we'd all know what the point was. As it is, no one else seems to want to use your ELs to research and write the article. Since you already did that work, why can't you write it up? It's very easy for people to improve your prose (if it needs it) or clean up formatting (if needed), but very hard for them to do the actual work on a topic they don't really care about (yet). ħuman 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added references to the article page: I have no particular preference as to whether this page remains 'as is' or as a subsection of the Jesuits page. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, nice clusterfuck you made, indeed. This thing is probably more likely headed towards deletion. ħuman 04:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested that there be some ELs on the article - so I did so. Given the dubious claims on the BP a passing mention is required on RW - and see my comments above. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are a complete mess. Is there any way to showhorn this into Priory of Sion (is it the same topic?) and make a redirect here? ħuman 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More Society of Jesus/Jesuits than BP. Came across a reference to the BP (one of whom died on the same night as Pius X), and then 'found' the peculiar pages as mentioned. Something to the effect 'The head of the SJ is known as the Black Pope, and, as such is accused of various nefarious pursuits (including causing destruction, killing off unwanted Roman Popes, and initiating the New World Order (for other meanings of the term see Wikipedia)' on the SJ page (which could be extended somewhat), and a redirect from this heading would probably resolve the matter. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I copied the content from here to there. ħuman 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)