Talk:Pilgrim's staff

Pilgrim's staff is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Catholicism Low‑importance

Pilgrim's staff 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Sources

This article lacks sources, and is plainly not true. My edit calling for sources was reverted with an automated revert tool. That is not acceptable, hence I re-reverted. Arnoutf 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree with the article, tag it as being unsourced. Otherwise this is just another part of your edit war. --evrik ^(talk) 17:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did so now. By the way the offical pass shows a pilgrims staff [1] that does not look in any way as the description here. Very good sourcs are needed. Arnoutf 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this collection of images. There are many versions of the staff, but they all have thre cross piece. --evrik ^(talk) 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they all have some kind of hook (e.g. [2]) none of them have a cross that resembles the cross of St James. And more, these are not sources but WP:OR at best. Arnoutf 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't all have the hook [3][4], though the hook is a type of pilgrim's staff. This website shows both together [5] [6] --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current line is The walking stick has a cross piece on it so it resembles the Cross of St James. However as you seem to agree that not even all sticks have a cross, this line has to be rewritten to The walking stick sometimes has a cross piece on it so it resembles the Cross of St James; however even this claim cannot be made, as from the pictures we only know it sometimes has a cross, but not why. So an additional source is needed to make the claim that the actual reason for the cross is the resemblence and not some other reason. Arnoutf 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that as well. However, I left the fact tag on there. I'm running out of time today and will have to get back to this later. --evrik ^(talk) 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the source soon, otherwise I will delete the line, which is the only line linking it to the cross, so I will also remove the cross; if you do not provide the reference. Arnoutf 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten. --evrik ^(talk) 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is convincing about the heraldic stuff, but it only mention that the T-shape (or cross) is added to distinguish from pastoral staff, not that this was modelled on StJames cross. Arnoutf 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the picture you'll see they look the same. --evrik ^(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* You mean [7]. That is actually just a pointed walking stick with a cross. It does not specifically resemble Cross St James over any other cross. Furthermore, the cross maybe there for a practical reason (e.g. to strap a watercarrier on) and need not be a religious symbol. Interpretation of an image like you do is original research, which is not allowed on wiki. Hence you still need a written source for this statement. Arnoutf 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh pulleze, original research - that's a laugh. There is a clear relationship between St James and the pilgrim's staff. Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty finding the source that spoke of the St James Cross - Pilgrim's staff relationship. It is clear though if you look at the referenced image that there is a fitched end and the flory on the top. I'll keep looking next week. --evrik ^(talk) 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but laughing about someone exposing the weakness of your sources is plainly sad. With the same argument I could put a line in the article that the pilgrims staff is modelled after a combination of the Cross of Jesus where the head and point represent the spikes used to nail Christ to the cross. The image shows it all, clearly . No St James involved whatso-ever. Even so, you provide a single image with the tapered head and no source that this is standard; nowadays many pilgrims use telescopic alumnium poles because that refers to the sailing gear used to ship StJames from Palestine to Spain after his beheading..... These are just as foolish arguments as the one you are providing.

As soon as you find an acceptable source you can put the image of StJames cross back up, untill then I take it off. Arnoutf 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted your edit. This whole thing started because you wanted your image used - and violated WP:Point in the way you escaletd the discussion. You didn't even know that similar images already existed. Would you like to take this to mediation? --evrik ^(talk) 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion; that someone disagrees with your idea of StJames cross is not making an edit to prove a point per se, I am just trying to improve wiki by critically reviewing every use of the so-called Image:Stjamescross.png. If improving Wiki is against WP:Point, then I am guilty as charged; if it is not, it seems you are to blame for WP:ABF, WP:NPOV and indeed WP:Point. Note that you immediately starting accusing me of all kinds of WP policy violations, and with that you started with violating the key policies. So please take it to mediation as you seem not to listen to either arguments or wiki policies.

With regard to your revert. The edit summary and your comment above just don't do. No consensus is needed to remove unreferenced or original research edits; otherwise anyone could put up any wild claim (e.g. Blue=Red) and then by arguing in favour of this prevent consensus from arising, thus keeping this claim up forever. I asked for a source a week ago, and it has not been provided (the given source is not relevant for the point under debate) hence I now removed the statement. I remain waiting for a relevant source before I will allow it back in Arnoutf 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll allow it? When did you become owner of this article? You were seriously hurt that I didn't think that Image:StJamesCross.gif wasn't a good image. You then started attacking everywhere where Image:Stjamescross.png was placed. You then went and created Image:StJames Cross.png. Let's see you've been edit warring, working against consensus and even after articles were sourced you were violating WP:Dick. This is a waste of time ... when i find the source i'll just add it back in ... "so it resembles the Cross of St James."--evrik ^(talk) 00:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you were the first starting to throw around all kinds of accusations; wihout even trying to aks me why I removed all four installments of your cross.

By the way, thanks for taking the anon's user reinsertion out. The text that is up now is well sourced and believable. I never doubted that there was an association between StJames and the pilgrims staff. I am only not convinced that there is a causal relation between the staff in its sometimes form as a cross, and the actual (heraldic) cross of StJames. Arnoutf 07:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS As I have been accused of being a dick I decided to read the article. Well perhaps, my bold change of the crosses where needed was indeed a bit blunt. Perhaps I should have discussed first. An interesting other line I picked up in that same essay was (I quote) Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself; interpret as you like. Arnoutf 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]