User talk:UBX/Pilgrim

Discussion[edit]

Dear Silence

I left a note on your discussion board going to great lengths in explainig why I wouldn't want there to be an explicit verbal reference to christianity in the userbox (there still is the icon as a reference); I managed to explain my reasons reeeealy convincing, insightfull and it took me about an hour to write the piece, but then I obviously forgot to save it, so it never realy made it on to your 'discussion'. I can't reproduce my arguments, i'm lost for words and grammar. Now, I've reverted your changes but alterd my initial version as well. It says 'this user is a pilgrim' with 'pilgrim' linked to the Wiki-entry on 'pilgrims'; the only Christian reference now is the Icon of St. James which I'd like to keep as I really like it aestheticaly. Is this offensive ? (i.e. by occupying the Term 'pilgrim' through a userbox which may be usable only for CHRISTIAN Pilgrims as it sports an Icon with a christian Background ?) I for one am not a Christian in the sense of practicing the faith. The changes you made were shifting the stress strongly to Christianism in an 'I-belief'- rather than a 'this-is-my-cultural-background'-fashion. I'd rather have it back on "Pilgrim". Nouly 13:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find absolutely nothing about the current template offensive, and am indeed extremely happy with it; it is aesthetically very high-quality, relatively non-denominational, and concise. The only reason I made the Christian aspects of the original template more explicit in my previous edits was because the template was already Christian, just subtly so: the link to the Way of St. James (instead of an actual link to pilgrim) seemed rather misleading to me, and, troublingly enough, seemed based on the assumption that there are no non-Christian pilgrims, so I decided to simply make obvious what was already there. I like the current version of it a lot, though, and I'm pleasantly surprised that you were able to render it neutral without any help from others.

I also have no problem with the image, but if anyone else objects, we can easily make a "User pilgrim2" with a different image on it. The other option is to have this be the general-usage template for all types of pilgrims, and then to have a "user pilgrim-c" for Christian Pilgrims, a "user pilgrim-m" for Muslim Pilgrims, etc. Even if we do that, though, unless we find a better image, I think this image can probably stay here. A similar image is used on {{user religion interest}} and no one has yet objected to it (not on the grounds of its subject matter, anyway); beauty should not be sacrificed for Political Correctness. -Silence 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it too, it's much simpler now than the initial one, and linking it to pilgrim rather than the Way of St. James makes a lot more sense. Yes and I'm going to cut out this last sentence from your post and stick it to our refrigerater. Nouly 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why I reversed Irishpunktoms new icon to the former one: the original icon is not defunct - as irishpunktom claims. Aesthetically and visually (no, that's not the same) the new icon doesn't work, in no way does it improve overall appearance of the userbox, nor does it solve the problem of finding an icon that represents pilgrims of all religions - if that's what Irishpunktom takes issue with. I am not going to start an edit war over this. But if the original icon is not liked due to aesthetical or religious reasons, then it should only be replaced by an icon that is aesthetically superior and/or religiously more universal. Neither is the case with Irishpunktoms version. And there's allways the possibility of creating a second Pilgrim-Userbox for people who think the current icon - as it is part of the christian tradition of iconography - can't represent their concept of pilgrimage. Nouly 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom thanks for your response. I moved it here from my userpage in order to keep the discussion together. So here's what irishpunktom had to say: (Nouly 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

==Pilgrim==

Basicly, there was an image of a Christian saint. I am not a Christian, and his image means nothing to me, nor does it mean a thing to most pilgrims - who are predominantly non-Christian, so i replaced it with an image of an actual midern day Pilgrim. Makes sense.--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here's my comment on Irishpunktoms rationale: Yes, it's a christian saint; if that's a problem, how about creating a second userbox to cater to the needs of people who don't want to put up with the picture of a christian saint on their userpage? Not feasable? (And it's not even a christian but a catholic saint, and I for one am not even catholic, nor do I consider myself a practicing christian - but am still a pilgrim). Hijacking a userbox is bad style - have you cared to find out who put the userbox on their userpage? Maybe doing so would have been a sensible way to find out if the icon is appropriate. Your actions only "make sense" if your objectiv is to make a religiously motivated point, such as: Pilgrims are predominantly muslims (which I doubt) - it therefore is the right of muslims to define whatever is connotated with the term pilgrim (which again I doubt, and strongly) - and this holds true even in a community with predominantly non-muslim users (=en:Wiki) for which community the userbox was created in the first place. Pushing Irishpunktoms rationale to the extreme: If someone could prove that pilgrims are predominantly of christian beliefe or background, then every community in the world (like Wikipedia in Arabic) would have to use christian iconography if they wanted to create said userbox. Makes sense indeed. Nouly 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh, just make Christian, and Islamic pilgrim (and whatever other faiths need one) userboxes and everyone can be happy. Netscott 17:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a Hajji.

^ ^ ^ Like this for example. I'm going to make one now (if there isn't one already) Netscott 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a Hajji.

<-- Made. Netscott 18:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Particular religion's Iconography wrong[edit]

Since there are pilgrimages of many faiths (and therefore many varieties of pilgrim) it is wrong that any one particular faith's iconography should figure into this template. My recommendation would be to include the image of a group of people walking. Netscott 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I made one too, it looks like this

This user is a pilgrim.

and you can find it here. Nouly 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your same logic Nouly, I've made you a Chrisitan userbox found here:

{{User pilgrim christian}}

Again, because there are pilgrims of many faiths, now it's time to replace the image in this talk page's template with an image of people walking. Netscott 18:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, ...and make sure that nothing on the picture of said walking people gives away the religion they belong to, the country they walk in or the aim they walk towards. Sorry, Netscott, I couldn't help making that remark. And I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. This wasn't my intention. As stated above about three months ago, I was trying to maintain a subtle difference in this userbox. It wasn't subtle enough, or it is too culturally biased. Maybe there's realy only two possibilities: either religiously neutralize a userbox to the point where no single religious affiliation is recognizeable or verbaly and explicitly state the sort of religion - or faith - the userbox refers to. No way of having four or five identical pilgrim userboxes with the same text, the same link (as there are pilgrims in many religions) and different icons, is it. This would be uniting religions on something they have in common while giving a visually singular representation for each faith. I just like that idea.

I don't see your christian Pilgrim Userbox by any means as an application or illustration of my logic. I can't quite follow you there. Go ahead, find a picture, an icon, anything. I'll agree. Nouly 21:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of people walking, I wouldn't even mind one of those famous images from the Canterbury tales. But, a Christian saint? - No! Also, Netscott, I did Umrah, not Hajj.. I intend on doing Hajj, but, I am still a Pilgrim! --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, convincing solution, finally usable for any pilgrim, almost shockingly neutral and most of all a marvellous, compelling iconography. Well done, Irishpunktom & Netscot. (And right here I'd place one of those sarcasm tags they use over at du whenever there is any danger of ambiguity). Seriously, Guys. Nouly 16:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you <sarcasm>bringing to the table</sarcasm> Nouly? Netscott 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea, concept & design of the original userbox. What did you bring to the table, Netscot? Nouly 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim/Pilgrimage[edit]

There appears to be a bit of a disagreement on which article the actual word pilgrim should point to from this userbox. Does it not make sense that the actual word be linked to? Additionally the Pilgrimage artcile with it massive image showing a muslim pilgrim supplicating does not strike me as an article that is evenly balanced for all religions while the pilgrim article is a bit more neurtal on such matters. Netscott 11:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pilgramage article contains significantly more information on Christian pilgrimages than text relating to the Hajj, or Islamic ones. It also deals with many other religions, but you would know that if you actually read it.--Irishpunktom\^talk 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine now. Netscott 11:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]