Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Am I the only one around here who sees something wrong with the picture that we have an active RfC, opened only a few days ago, that invites editors from throughout the community to come to this talk and evaluate a section of the page that no longer exists? Let me please invite interested editors to take a deep breath, and reflect, I mean really reflect, on what has happened at this page over the last few days. I'll comment more on this soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, get over it. Yzak Jule (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one alternative to reflection. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved a very extensive passage of text from here to my talk page. I did not in any way delete or modify anything that other editors said. I only relocated it to my talk, and made some replies, because the material was really no longer about this page, but rather about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All of your endless typing, and not one solid justification to have an "in anime" section at all. None. Anime isn't that culturally important, but that seems to have escaped you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.188 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Typofish, stop complaining. If all we did was talking about if we should delete the section or not, there would be no progress. Someone had to take off that section because everyone opposed but you.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little strange to me that Tryptofish is editing other peoples comments on this page. Is that allowed? IcyCoco (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that the editor was editing other people's user names. It says a lot more about you than it does about me that, of all that is taking place on this talk page, that is what you thought significant enough to comment on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this page because I don't believe it is appropriate for Tryptofish to keep removing other editor's posts from this page and effectively shoving them out of sight on his talk page. While I agree that this discussion page should be kept civil and on-track, as long as the other user's comments are not offensive there is no reason to claim ownership of them. IgorsBrain (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I too think it is significant that other user's posts are being edited, especially when the person editing them argued against the removal of the anime section based on censorship... IgorsBrain (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand what you mean about the appearance of it, but article talk pages should not be used for discussing user conduct unrelated to the content of the article. It is unfair, however, for you to describe it as shoving it out of sight, as I clearly indicated above where I removed the lengthy section. I'm getting tired of other people complaining one minute about my willingness to let attacks against me stay on this page, and the next minute about removing them. And if anyone wonders what this fuss is about, it's this: [1]. How anyone sees that as the issue that requires discussion here is a mystery to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have clarified that it could have been taken that way, not that I actually did take it that way. I meant no offense and given some of the flak you've taken on this subject I can understand why you feel that way. I agree that discussion should be kept on topic in here, it's just that I feel we should probably police ourselves and not each other. I'm sorry if I came across as unnecessarily harsh. IgorsBrain (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I began this section (which I still intend to complete, once I am satisfied that the drama has quieted down and interested editors will feel able to respond calmly), by observing that we all need to take a deep breath, including me. Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"which I still intend to complete, once I am satisfied that the drama has quieted down..." So basically wait until people get on with their lives and come back and revert it to what it was? No wonder nobody takes Wikipedia seriously.70.190.234.95 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is concerned that I would revert the changes to this article, that is definitely not my intention. What "I still intend to complete" is talk on this talk page. Just wanted to make that clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is this "editor" who was editing other people's user names? Is that me?--Ace Oliveira (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have split off the Art and Popular Culture sections to

Anime does not go unmentioned, but the attention paid is a) referenced, and b) not excessive. DS (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we're talking. My only problem with this is that the Crucifixion in Art article is shit and that the section now has no text. I guess I should add something to it.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. I mostly just copy/pasted (shitty) text from this article. There are some new bits, though. But the whole thing still needs work. DS (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a really basic and small text along with a picture to the section. I also added the expansion tag. I just hope people don't think the tag means that the section should be really long. Just a basic summary of crucifixion in art.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten a bit and removed the piccy - it's in the split out article anyway. I also took the expand tag off - I think the section in this article really does need to be three or four sentences only. In fact, I'm minded to remove the section entirely and just add

Crucifixion in art to the see alsos. Anyone got an opinion on that? --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 01:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The split doesn't solve anything. In fact, it simply makes things worse by encouraging more pop culture trivia to be added in without any explanation, backed by reliable sources, as to their significance, symbolism, and etc. —Farix (t | c) 02:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on guidelines. DS (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note that there is also an existing page called Cross in Christian Art, not that it's very good, though. I can see both plusses and minuses to the split, and need more time to think about it. So does everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that "Christian art" != "art". DS (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. And, after having had enough time to reflect on it, I think the new page is a better approach than either the now-deleted one or the section that used to be here. And, similarly, "Wikipedia" != "Christian encyclopedia". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, did you just revert me? Please consider self-reverting. I believe we have established that no-one but you thinks this article should have an "in popular culture" section - everyone else considers it preferable that this article is about the mechanics and history of actually crucifying people, and we have another article that covers the use of the image of crucifixion in art and culture. It is honestly the only way you are going to be able to discuss crucifixion imagery in anime, if there is an entire article on crucifixion imagery in art. It's not coming back into this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NB, for the confused - I made good on my suggestion above, took the entire "in popular culture" section out, and shoved

Crucifixion in art into the See also's. I'd still like to know if anyone except Tryptofish is opposed to this. --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I self-reverted. It was nothing personal. I actually liked the wording you created, and was happy to keep it. I think there is way too much heat around here, and it's getting in the way. Elen, I'm also going to comment at your talk. (I also put this under a separate header, because it's really something separate.) And I do think another editor objected strongly to the move to a separate page, which I did not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting. If others disagree with me, it can be put back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No objection here, that makes perfect sense. 90.196.168.218 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - that last comment was mine! Thought I was still logged in. IgorsBrain (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullies show up from time to time on this website, and most good, thoughtful, editors are not very good at dealing with them, often just giving in. What happened over the last few days has been a massive display of bullying masquerading as a snow closure, and the bullies chose the wrong editor to pick a fight with.

For God's sake Tryptofish, part of civility is being a good sport and knowing when to drop an argument. Quit playing the martyr - it's getting annoying. Gustave Pennington (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the fact that you erased the message you wrote on the talk page and also erased the quotes posted in this talk page is unsat. You removed all context from my objection to how you're handling this. Gustave Pennington (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that one's my fault. I saw the repeated quote and thought it had been planted by the vandal who made the comments surrounding it. --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Golbez. So what we have here is my reading an insulting comment at my talk and then deleting it, which other editors went on to edit war over. That's all. And if anyone has a reason to be annoyed, well, let's just say it might not be Gustave. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish my comment about your hypocrisy over editor 'civility' still stands, regardless of whatever perceived victimization you feel. Gustave Pennington (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It struck me as odd to see a section on crucifixion in the Qur'an without a similar section on crucifixion in the Bible. Was this intentional? Has this been discussed before? Is historical documentation in the Bible other than that of Jesus not considered noteworthy enough for inclusion? I know there is much going on here with other sections, but I can begin pulling together such a section if others agree it is warranted. Cmiych (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This article ought to mention any biblical reference to crucifying anyone other than Christ, so if you have information, I'd say go for it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking into the article further, most references seem to be there. I guess it just strikes me as odd to see the sections laid out by country/time period and then have a section for in the Qur'an. Maybe it could be elaborated and brought in line with the other sections? I wouldn't know where to start... Cmiych (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion: there is a list of famous crucifixions at the end of the page. Style guidelines discourage lists, instead preferring paragraph text. How about getting rid of the list section, and incorporating the material into the main text instead? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to do list (that unfortunately isn't actually written down anywhere). Cmiych (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Flavius Josephus also wrote in his book Antiquities of the jews one of the people in jail with Joseph will be crucified as well.

Book II Chapter 5 of Antiquities of the Jews
"But Joseph, considering and reasoning about the dream, said to him, that he would willingly be an interpreter of good events to him, and not of such as his dream denounced to him; but he told him that he had only three days in all to live, for that the [three] baskets signify, that on the third day he should be crucified, and devoured by fowls, while he was not able to help himself. Now both these dreams had the same several events that Joseph foretold they should have, and this to both the parties; for on the third day before mentioned, when the king solemnized his birth-day, he crucified the chief baker, but set the butler free from his bonds, and restored him to his former ministration. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.54.14 (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I added some clarity on the last paragraph of "Cross Shape" section. It said that the 'earliest writings spoke of the cross being T-shaped.' This doesn't take into account that the Bible itself doesn't give any indication of the object's shape. I've linked a web copy of a book that states this, specifically in chapter 1. I clarified by stating that the 'early writings' were theological or apocryphal in nature, as the book of Barnabas and other later period works were stated as source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. It doesn't seem to benefit the train of thought in the section. If you feel the need to re-add, can you find some additional sourcing for the claims? Cmiych (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. The Epistle of Barnabas is the earliest reference to a cross shape. I meant to clarify that the earliest writings are ambiguous to shape. Maybe the sentence could be reworded to avoid confusion, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "While New Testament [or some NPOV variant word] writings do not speak specifically of the shape of the Gibblet on which Jesus was killed, the earliest writings that speak of such a shape specifically describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small ledge in the upright."? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, while you were on the talk page, I was attempting to incorporate your request. Revert/tweak if you don't like it and if need be we can work through it here on talk.Cmiych (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the lead image on this article of an electric chair rather than a cross? Cmiych (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the capital punishment template. Comes with an image. Don't ask me why - I don't think it fits in here at all. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had much experience with templates yet; even though crucifixion is capital punishment, the box just seems large and out of place and not appropriate for the lead of this article. Does anyone disagree? How can this be rectified? Cmiych (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And if it is appropriate, then shouldn't the template also be added to the article about being burned at the stake in a large imposing manner? Cmiych (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove it. It is a template for the modern phenomenon of capital punishment. No properly convened government uses crucifixion as a method of execution these days (I hope to God!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The template was only added very recently, during the other contentious issues. (Ah, how pleasant to be discussing this image!) It is reasonable to treat this page, as it is, as part of the capital punishment category, but the template is not terribly needed. Another option, though, is to move the template out of the lead, to the bottom of the page (as is done with templates on many other pages). How about doing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can it be put at the bottom of the page?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I already did! Please see what you think of it. (How many editors does it take to screw in an electric chair? :-D ) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Three apparently. Thanks again Tryptofish for fixing my errors based in inexperience and further guiding me into proper procedure on wikipedia. Cmiych (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Navigational sidebars need to be at the top to be useful, and to ensure sensible page layout. If the image is incongruous in a particular context then it should be changed or removed from the template itself. This template is designed for use along the side of articles and not as a footer; I've restored it below the current lede image; if you want to discuss the image, take it to template talk:capital punishment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with that change, but another option we could consider would be to delete the box entirely. It really focuses on present-day government-sanctioned methods, and is only peripherally related to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If the template uses the same image on all articles, then switching it to fit ours isn't appropriate - and it's possibly an indication of a problem with the template. Recommend we remove it, pending the outcome of any discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has commented at my talk, expressing disagreement about how the "see also" section is arranged. What do other editors think? (See also

I think everything but

Crucifixion in art and Crucifixion of Jesus should go. This article is about Crucifixion as a general concept, so the other religious items in the See Also are more appropriate on the Crucifixion of Jesus page and probably also already covered there. The rest are just a list of other kinds of torture that are irrelevant as See Also links since they don't share anything with Crucifixion besides being other ways to kill people. Having them there is like having Petroleum jelly in the see also of Fruit preserves.Yzak Jule (talk

) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It does seem superfluous to list other kinds of execution (much as it seems strange to keep the navbox discussed in the talk section just above). My take on it would be to delete: atonement, execution by burning, hanging, and impalement (by which point one column would be fine). The cross-or-stake is, indeed, redundant with the Jesus page, but it's also of interest to readers here who look at the cross shape part of the page; the eclipse page seems a bit trivial, but is a related topic not otherwise mentioned; and the list, and torture, are relevant as disambiguations of related broader topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise.Yzak Jule (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

the crufixtion was diffrent everywere and is not used today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.107.0 (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Why make use of gory images in the Japanese section? I know there are no rules about censorship and blah blah, but FFS come on! No one wants to see that, except pimple-infected sub-humans who've mistakenly wondered here from rotten.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.239.250 (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Paintings of crucifixions typically aren't accurate, so a photo of an actual crucifixion has some value. If you'd like to suggest a different photo, go ahead. Gary (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gary (and I suspect neither Gary nor I is sub-human). The fact is, it is an inevitable fact that much of the page's subject matter will be gruesome, whether as photograph, painting, or description in the text. I would add that it is valuable that the page include multicultural information, not limited only to European/Christian traditions, although those, of course, are properly the most prominent portion of the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's far more doubt about the use of a cross shape than this article admits. See here for example. Patibulum isn't always a cross-beam according to it, for instance. Malick78 (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard of several historically attested instances of crucifixion being used in the post-ancient Middle East, particularly in the Middle Ages. It's also mentioned a few times in the

I removed the photo that claims to be the crucifixion of Dionysus or Orpheus for 2 reasons: - in neither articles of Dionysus and Orpheus contain anything about crucifixion. - there are no reputable source for the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmleb (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a Wikipedia article does not discuss it, that does not mean that there are no reputable sources. In fact, there is very good scholarly sourcing: please see Crucifixion in the arts, reference number 1. I'm going to restore the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I too, question the accuracy of the image, Orphues was beheaded not cruicified. -
  Angel David (talk
  ) 05:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back and looked at it more carefully. Strictly speaking, of course, Orpheus was a mythological figure, so it isn't like there is an historical record of the circumstances of death, just stories about it, and there could have been more than one story. However, there seems to have been some

reliable source, and makes it clear that such images are authentic. However, it only refers to ancient Greek depictions of crucifixions by Dionysus, not of Dionysus. It doesn't seem to mention Orpheus at all. The file page for the image says that it is the crucifixion of Dionysus, but does not source that statement, and also does not mention Orpheus. The text written within the image says "Orpheos Bacchikou", and it isn't clear to me what that means. I could speculate that it refers, instead, to the Maenads. The editor who first put the image on the page [2] apparently interpreted the inscription to mean Dionysus or Orpheus, but that may have been SYNTH. I think the image caption needs to be corrected to simply indicate that it is an early Greek portrayal, without speculating on the identity of the condemned. --Tryptofish (talk

) 18:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The inscription seems to end not as transcribed, in an ypsilon (Υ), but in a sigma (round form as in the last letter of the first word). The second word is therefore in the nominative case. The first word is transcribed as in the genitive case, but at the cost of turning what looks like an omicron (second-last letter) into an omega. Is the first word really ΟΡΦΕΟΣ, perhaps bad Greek for ΟΡΦΕΥΣ? The chi (if it is a chi) of ΒΑΚΧΙΚΟΣ is scarcely distinguishable from a kappa. Is that another instance of bad Greek for "Bacchic Orpheus"? Or am I just misreading? Esoglou (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, as I don't read Greek. The transcription also comes from the edit first adding the image to this page. Perhaps we should also delete the transcription from the caption? It doesn't add much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, it occurs to me that we have no way of knowing whether the inscription might have been added later than the original crucifixion image. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a better source [3], which discusses the specific image, including the spelling of the inscription, and I changed the image caption accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further edits

Orpheos Bakkikos definitely is not antique greek. Pls ref to both [4] and [5] which are two reliable sources on the subject. I am sorry to say that the first of these two refs was removed for no reason and, contrary to wikipedia rules, the editor who put them in the first place (which happens to be me) was accused for bad faith pov pushing in the edit summary.--Vanakaris (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at both of those links. The first one must have been removed by someone other than me. However, it says absolutely nothing about the Orpheos Bakkikos artifact. It does argue that the Greeks did not perform crucifixions. Perhaps that could be a reason to argue (albeit against

WP:COPYVIO

.

The second source does, indeed, argue that the object might have been a forgery. However, please note this other source: [6]. This is a clearly scholarly source, more recent than the "Bede's Library" one, and it specifically cites, discusses, and refutes, the Bede's source. The weight of sourced evidence does not support text saying that the object is a forgery. To do so is a misreading of the source material. In fact, that source speculates that the artist was a Roman, not a Greek, thus the incorrect Greek spelling. It's one thing to argue that the Greeks did not practice crucifixion very much (although there is that example of the Persian general), but it does not follow from that, that only through a forgery could a pre-Christian art object illustrate a crucifixion. It did so in a fanciful way, and did so without in any way pretending to represent an historical crucifixion carried out by the Greeks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If Vanakaris is referring to my edit here [7], that should not be taken as an accusation of a bad faith edit. My edit summary was "rm POV digression", and the text removed was "The Greeks were honourably distinguished in the ancient world for their aversion to torture and mutilation of any shape." and the reference to support that statement. I take no position on whether the Greeks had an aversion to torture, but whether they did is a digression from the topic of crucifixion, and the "honourably" descriptor is POV. I retained the on-topic additions made in Vanakaris's edits, as they appeared to be material to the subject matter of the article. To be absolutely clear about this: Vanakaris, I do not believe you were acting in bad faith; just that that portion of the material you added was off-topic for the article, as well as expressive of opinion, and should not remain as part of it. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that text from this site Hellenica encyclopaedia is GNU.--Vanakaris (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but even if it isn't strictly (legally) a copyvio, it would still be what any academic would consider to be plagiarism, and just plain bad writing. In hindsight, though, I realize that you were using that source's words, and those words made the rest of us think that you were writing something that had a POV, when it was actually the source's POV rather than your own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is when u don't ref to the source.--Vanakaris (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you were a student in one of my college classes, you would be out of that class about now. It's a moot point because I've fixed the sentence, and I'm really not here to be your teacher, but you are wrong: you didn't identify it as a quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)