Talk:Antipope Alexander V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(Originally added to article page by at 20:09, Apr 2, 2005.)

Moving the article[edit]

  • Support. He is not currently considered to be a pope by the Catholic church. --BaronLarf 22:34, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's technically not an "antipope" just an accidental rival in a day where there wasn't instant dissemination of news. —ExplorerCDT 22:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is at least arguable that he was actually pope. Certainly Cardinal Borgia thought so. And unlike Antipope John XXIII, whose position is similar, there is no risk of confusion with a pope of the same name. john k 02:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 12:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the fuck? Why has this page been moved to Pietro di Candia? It should be at either Pope Alexander V or Antipope Alexander V. john k 03:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I supported the move to Pietro di Candia, since it's connected with redirects. Above all, I support any move that's not to "Pope Alexander V," since he is not considered a pope. --BaronLarf 05:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

No antipope or pope is at an article at their pre-papal (or pre-antipapal) name, except the one who was Duke of Savoy before he became anti-pope. There are only two options for this page - Pope Alexander V or Antipope Alexander V. In contrast to my previous position, I'd be willing to accept moving him to Antipope Alexander V. But Pietro di Candia is absurd (especially since he's better known as Philarges). john k 05:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would add that my personal preference would be for anti-popes who do not share their name with actual popes to be at "Pope Soandso" rather than "Antipope Soandso," which is POV - no antipope referred to themself as an antipope, and we should only use that title when it's unavoidable. Current naming policy, though, suggests that all antipopes should be at "Antipope" rather than pope, so I'm willing to abide by that. What I am not willing to abide by is moving them to their preregnal names with no discussion, which has absolutely no justification at all. john k 05:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You call people what they called themselves, or what the documentation calls them. In this case, he called himself Pope Alexander V, and I'll point out so did the vast majority of Catholics at the time. The label antipope comes from well after he's dead, and reflects the perspective of the modern Catholic Church, or rather a certain part of it. If you visit the basilica in Assisi, you'll find Alexander V in the Choir Stalls and on tapestries, and these were made well after the Council of Constance deposed his successor John XXIII. As for Pietro di Candia, this is pretty absurd. The Italians called him that; or that called him Pietro Philarghi. Some call him Philaretus. In scholastic circles, he's usually known as Petrus de Candia -- that is, Peter of Crete.

Move the entry back to Pope Alexander V. I do run a website for "Peter of Candia", and that is because we're largely interested in distributing his (pre-papal) philosophical and theological work. A dictionary entry can be on Peter of Candia or Pope Alexander V, but if it's primarily about his status as Pope (or antipope, if you wish), it should fall under "Pope Alexander V". Those are basic historical conventions, and the heavens will not split in two if we follow them. --DingerX 08:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that, in addition to the ones DingerX mentions above, the most important consideration is what contemporary people would call someone, checked by NPOV concerns. As a general principle, if a religious title is disputed for some reason, it seems reasonable to fall back on a person's individual name, allowing some exceptions. It would certainly seem POV to claim that someone was Pope when he has been disavowed by the modern Vatican, and has been for hundreds of years. However, what I didn't realize when moved the page yesterday was that the modern Church takes such a favorable attitude toward him: This from the old Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned."
It would obviously be POV to describe Alexander V as an antipope, which is tantamount to attaching a note saying "(this man's religious claims were false)". I'm not really sure that any articles should ever be titled "Antipope Soandso" (although, let me reassure other editors, I certainly have no intention of going through and changing them wholesale!) I chose Pietro di Candia as a new title for this page because I had the -- apparently mistaken -- impression that this was the title Britannica gave to their article about him. Actually, Britannica -- the current edition online, anyway --- has the article at simply Alexander V, sans Pope or Antipope. This seems a little irregular from a naming conventions standpoint, as to say that he is the Vth of what exactly, but seems like a reasonable compromise, especially considering that he was once much more widely accepted than most other so-called antipopes. Peter of Candia or Peter Philarges would also seem reasonable. - Nat Krause 14:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, my preference would be to use antipope only when necessary to disambiguate from a "real" pope of the same name. Where also can you put Antipope Clement VII or Antipope John XXIII? In cases where there is no "real" pope of that name, I think we should just use "Pope Name". We should never use the original name for any antipope (except the single case of the former Duke of Savoy who became antipope) - that is more denying of their claims than calling them an "antipope" which is really just a term that means "pope not now recognized as legitimate in the eyes of the Catholic Church." Our list of popes, you may note, makes no effort to be fair - unlike most lists, which include antipopes (suitably marked out) alongside popes, our list includes only "real" popes. I think that, rather than moving this article, would be the place to start trying to NPOV things. At any rate, my basic stance is that I'm opposed to calling somebody an "antipope" in their article title if it is unnecessary to do so. But in certain circumstances we can't shy away from it. (The very worst place for an article on Antipope Clement VII would be Robert of Geneva.) john k 14:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond to John's comments in a little while, but, for the meantime, I think Schizmatic Pope, with Schizmatic misspelled, is not a good place for this article. I'm going to move it to Alexander V for the moment -- please don't take this as aggressive, I'm just trying to find something that will stable in the short term. - Nat Krause 05:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) -- Well, it would have required an admin to move it to Alexander V, so I just moved it back to Pope Alexander V, the most recent correctly-spelled title. - Nat Krause 05:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Schismatic Pope" is awful. The current convention is to use "Antipope" for antipopes, so he should probably be at Antipope Alexander V. I would support a change in the conventions that would allow antipopes to be at Pope Name if it doesn't conflict, but perhaps it's not wise to do that without some naming convention discussion. BTW Nat, I'm sorry for my belligerence earlier - you were completely right to call me on that. john k 06:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Alexander V" seems the easiest solution. -- User:Docu

I'm not sure I understand why John thinks that the personal name is the worst option, or why it is more of a denial than calling them Antipope. A papal claimant's personal name was undisputably his name for most of his life, and only changes when his religious status becomes heavily disputed. To me, that seems like a reasonable thing to fall back on, although we should use more commonly-known names if they are free of NPOV issues. However, if other people feel strongly that we should not do this, I'll go along with that consensus. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to make an exception of some sort for Alexander V, because there seem to be some modern Catholics who believe he really was a pope (Alexander V would indeed be the easiest option, possibly the best as well). It occurred to me that an alternative way to disambiguate other Antipopes would be something like John XXIII (15th century papal claimant), or, for that matter, John XXIII (1370-1419) -- along the lines of how you disambiguate other cases of people with the same name. "Schismatic Pope" is certainly not a good idea. - Nat Krause 13:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nat, most antipopes are not best known by their personal name, but by their papal name. And it seems wise to maintain continuity here. Pope Benedict XVI, after all, was Joseph Ratzinger for what will undoubtedly be the vast majority of his life, and he was quite well known as Ratzinger (to an extent that I have trouble mentally calling him "Benedict XVI," but that may change as his elevation becomes less recent). That doesn't mean we should put his article at Joseph Ratzinger. And the same is true for antipopes. As to just using Alexander V, this seems problematic to me. Among other things, although we do not yet have an article about him, there was an Alexander V of Macedon. There may be other Alexanders V. Here's a possibility - Whig has moved the Avignon antipopes to Avignon Pope Clement VII, and so forth. We could have Pisan Pope Alexander V and Pisan Pope John XXIII. That's better than schismatic, but still seems relatively bad. I do wonder to what extent the term "antipope" is POV. Although Alexander V seems a particularly problematic case, in other cases I don't think there is anyone any longer who disputes the characterization of these popes as antipopes. Catholics accept the decree of the Church itself as to who is an antipope, and non-Catholics, for the most part, accept that an "antipope" means simply a pope who is not recognized as a real pope by the Catholic Church. This makes it a relatively neutral term, I think. In this individual case, I don't see why Pope Alexander V is problematic - there is no confusion with any other Pope Alexander V, and if there's any doubt we shouldn't put him at Antipope Alexander V. Anyway, perhaps we should discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). john k 14:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to clarify that I wrote above: "To me, that [using the personal name] seems like a reasonable thing to fall back on, although we should use more commonly-known names if they are free of NPOV issues." I agree that the Antipopes are generally better known by their papal names, although, in this case, Alexander V seems to also have been fairly notable under his birth name. I don't really think of uniformity and continuity as very important compared with other concerns – I don't care if some article are at personal name and others are at (anti)pope doe – but I accept that other people care more about that stuff and I don't wish to step on toes further. I'll address some comments as well on Naming conventions. - Nat Krause 09:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion there, for anyone interested. john k 14:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One further note in favor of "Pope Alexander V". Unlike the other "Antipopes" of the Great Western Schism, Alexander's "number" was respected. In other words, there are Popes Clement VII, Benedict XIII and John XXIII who are officially (and without dispute) recognized as popes of the Catholic Church, and who not the same persons as Robert of Geneva, Pedro de Luna and Baldassare Cossa. But the next pope to take the name Alexander -- also an undisputed pope -- took the name Alexander VI. So there's not now, nor will the ever be any danger of confusion between Peter of Candia's Pope Alexander V and some other Pope Alexander V. --DingerX 10:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The discussion about moving the article took place a long time ago, but, for what it's worth, I favor moving to Antipope Alexander V. Despite the confusion of the schism and the fact that his ordinal was not used by subsequent Alexanders, he is ultimately considered an antipope. Please note as well that of the six links to WP articles in other languages, five have "antipope" as part of the title. Appleseed 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We should Keep It Simple Stupid, all articles on antipopes should be named "Antipope Joe X". All other approaches are introducing unnecessary complications. The title "antipope" isn't pov, it's simply an indication that this person is not now recognised by the Vatican.

Is the hatnote OK, or should we create an Alexander V (disambiguation) page? Can we be sure this person is the primary meaning of Alexander V? PatGallacher (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Imereti is pretty obscure, but the ancient kingdom of Macedon is not a lot less obscure than the antipopes. I suggest turning "Alexander V" from a redirect to a disambiguation page, which is consistent with the treatment of Alexander IV. PatGallacher (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


The article right now is title "Antiope...". There is a 'p' missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Philarges or Philargos?[edit]

Is it Philarges or Philargos? Both are in the article. (the latter in the info box) Jogar2 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)