Talk:Crucifixion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Crucifixion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group.
 
WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Correction and Detention Facilities 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Edit warring compromise[edit]

I've noticed edit warring between two editors regarding the text describing the 19th Century Japanese crucifiction of Sokichi. I believe that a compromise can be reached. The issue is whether describing a single execution in the 1800s is worth describing in the body of the article. I believe that the event is not particularly notable but the photograph is, and a paragraph should be written focusing on the picture. Here is my suggestion:

At some point between 1865 and 1868, Japanese authorities crucified a servant named Sokichi for murdering his master's son in a robbery. The albumen print of Sokichi's lifeless body still tied to the cross is a rare example of a photograph of execution by crucifiction.[1][2]
Andrew327 16:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps my brief edit of the photograph of this crucifixion (this is the correct spelling) is enough. But I don't object to some amplification. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I only made one edit, reverting the removal. The reason I did that was that the edit summary for the first removal was that there should only be an image, with nothing about it in the text, which somewhat contradicts WP:IRELEV. And really, I'm amazed that this is an issue. I don't particularly mind moving the applicable text to the image caption, but I'm a little unenthusiastic about relegating it to a footnote. Those of us who have been around this page for a while will remember that there has been a history of, well, strange views about including coverage of crucifixion in Japan. We need to remember that this page is not simply about crucifixion within Christian history, but it should be covered in a global way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's a somewhat silly argument to have, but I've tried to find compromises in infinitely more pointless arguments. I just moved around a few words to get rid of a passive clause and make the sentence flow better. Andrew327 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "victim" a NPOV term?[edit]

A small edit war is on-going, hinging upon whether Jesus was a "victim of crucifixion", or an individual who suffered crucifixion/was crucified. Is "victim" lacking in neutrality?Arildnordby (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the uncontroversial fact that crucifixion was designed to make people suffer as much as humanly possible, victim is an appropriate word. Andrew327 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree but am willing to go along with the consensus. The last ting I want to do is start an edit war over semantic distinctions.Scout1067 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
What Andrew said. I can understand and sympathize with a religious-based objection to the use of "victim" discussing an individual that certain religions believe to be a deity, but that's not a path we should be going down. We should be religion-neutral. As the attempts to rephrase this have been shown, all the suggested rephrasings are awkwardly lengthy or not really accurate. TJRC (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I respect the objection to the use of "victim" because it almost by necessity have an emotional component in its meaning. I think this constitutes a borderline case, and personally, I think "victim" is an acceptable term to denote the subject of a destructive act in general, despite the element of emotionality contained within the concept.Arildnordby (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
From a religious point of view, there should be no objection to use of the word "victim" with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus, a context in which many Christian groups speak of Jesus as "priest and victim". Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I watched those edits and figured I would stay out of it, but I think it is OK for us to say "victim". I wondered whether the concerns about the word were based on the idea that it would imply sympathy for a particular religious figure, but I do not think that this puts us on the wrong side of NPOV, and I agree with the reasons given in support of its use above. I've tried to think of alternative, less clumsy, wordings, with limited success. Scout1067 had proposed "the most well-known individual that was crucified", which I think is clumsy. I think "the best-known individual to have been crucified" is a little better, but I'm not pushing for it (and "the best-known person to have been crucified" might raise theological objections, perhaps). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Victim is a perfectly acceptable, neutral, word. I can't understand what all the fuss is about.--Dmol (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The word victim implies injustice, therefore it is not NPOV and that is the root of my issue with the use of the word. Religion has nothing to do with it, victim is a subjective word. I would suggest using suffered instead of victim since it is fairly obvious that crucifixion is designed to make people suffer, it is not supposed to be a merciful way of killing someone. From Webster: one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.[3] If the consensus is that victim is a neutral word then that is OK with me.Scout1067 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You can also be a victim of a car accident, according to Webster. That does not imply injustice. In the big 1983 edition of Webster, the first meaning is given as "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency". But, I think it is a very close call, because even in this meaning, there is an element that the fate was "undeserved", if not directly "unjust". Thus, I think Scout1067 deserves credit for his point of viewArildnordby (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
For me, the clinching factor for why I end up with accepting "victim" is that we are talking about a ritual of execution. "Victim" in its original sense meant a sacrifice, and the ritualistic character of execution as offering up the criminal on the altar of justice is by no means a non-standard, but rather, a current, standard perception of executions as such. In addition, widespread modern ideas of the morally problematic foundation of executions as such, and that active production of pain in the criminal's body should be avoided means, in my view, that calling an executed individual a "victim" is fully justified to current usage and perception. Some degree of normativity will seep into most articles trying to be objective, but calling subjects of extremely painful rituals of execution "victims" does not contribute an undue degree of normativity into the article.Arildnordby (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I thank Scout1067 for explaining the specific concern that the word "victim" takes a point of view by implying injustice. I think that's a reasonable point. But I still think that it's acceptable for us to use the word in this context, because I do not think that there really exists an opposing POV in which the crucifixion of Jesus is considered to have been "just" (at least not since the fall of the Roman Empire, anyway). WP:NPOV is about not taking sides, rather than about not making evaluative statements. There are certainly present-day POVs about being pro or con any particular religion, but I think that there is no present-day religion or irreligion that is in favor of the crucifixion itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that Victim is NPOV. I just wanted to bring up the issue I discussed earlier about the implication of the word's use. As to Crucifixion being a present day practice, it still happens in some Muslim countries.[4] I heard some locals talk about it happening in Iraq in 2004 but never witnessed it although one of the Sheikhs told us that it did still happen occasionally when a crime was heinous enough. Back to the original point, victim it is.Scout1067 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

How did Romans treat the remains of those who were crucified?[edit]

What did the Romans generally do with the bodies of crucifixion victims, after they died? In other words, how did they dispose of the bodies? Did they have a special way of disposing of the bodies of crucifixion victims in particular, or did they just dispose of them in the same way as ALL dead bodies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question to which I do not know the answer. Public cremation was popular among the elite in Republican times, but I strongly suspect that impoverished Romans did not have the financial means to cremate their dead (It is cheaper to dig a hole in the ground than gather in the necessary amount of wood to burn the body). Thus, it most likely existed a distribution of funeral methods currents in the Empire, of which I would think that convicted and executed criminals were excluded from the most honourable forms of funerary practice.Arildnordby (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find the source of this claim, but I remember that they were excluded from funeral practices and instead their bodies were left for wild animals and forces of nature to decay. This is understandable since the victims of crucifixion were to be publicly shamed. Fungamespl (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all improbable; lots of societies have practiced that particular type of post mortem shaming of the criminal's corpse. But, I do not know if the Romans did it.Arildnordby (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The History Channel once said this was the common practice following crucifiction, and when I get a chance I'll see if I can find a reliable source on Jstor. Andrew327 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Most likely, in my view, is that they just left the bodies hanging where they were. Why bother with the expense of taking them down?Arildnordby (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Practice varied according to circumstances: see this study by Raymond E. Brown. Esoglou (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
THat was very useful indeed! THx a lot, I'll probably make a small section based upon it in the article! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Cause of death[edit]

How strange that after a couple of millennia of discussion this matter has still not been resolved, although the answer is fairly obvious. As torturers throughout the ages have discovered, torturing someone to death is hard work. The trick is to make the victim do the effort. The SS developed some remarkable techniques in this respect. In the case of crucifixion, the trick is to exploit the breathing reflex. This is the most deep-seated reflex there is, impossible to suppress. Just try to commit suicide by holding your breath. The victim, forced to breathe, repeatedly pushes down on the feet and pulls down on the arms. Ouch. Eventually, exhaustion (not to mention dehydration etc.) sets in and a minimal (nearly dead) balance of breathing/effort prevails. By which time (12 hours or more) the guard is impatient to be stood down. But, legally, the victim has to be certified dead before that can happen. Therefore, break legs. Victim can no longer push down/pull up. Death does not occur immediately at that point, but after half an hour of not breathing the victim can be presumed dead. Stag off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.170.238 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We believe whatever is in the Quran to be true and from Allah. Isa (Peace be upon him) was born due a miraculous birth to his mother who was a virgin. Allah wanted us to understand how he can bring something out of nothing without the need of his creation. Prophet Isa (Peace be upon him) lived a life full of miracles which are described to us in the Quran such as curing Leprosy and blindness by the order of Allah.

However, Allah says in Surah Nisa ayah 157-158 that Prophet Isa (Peace be upon him) was not crucified as Christians claim. They celebrate Easter to remember the crucifixions and then the awakening of Isa(Peace be upon him). However, the Quran says he was not crucified and rather Allah lifted him to the heavens and so we believe he is still alive. Allah says that the Jews plotted against Isa (Peace be upon him) and tried to kill him and called him a magician.

According to our tafseers, an opinion of the scholars is that when it can to Isa(Peace be upon him) being killed, Allah swapped the image of a man who betrayed Isa(Peace be upon him) to look like the prophet and so the Jews actually killed the betrayer instead believing him to be the prophet. Another opinion is that one of the disciples of Isa(Peace be upon him) volunteered to look like Isa(Peace be upon him) in order to be killed instead and he became a shahid. However the Quran does not go into details only denying the Isa (Peace be upon him) was killed and in fact was saved by Allah and risen to the heavens. We believe that he is still alive and will return to the earth close to the day of Judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.22.15 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Clark Worswick (1979). Japan, photographs, 1854-1905. Knopf : distributed by Random House. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-394-50836-8. Retrieved 12 March 2013. 
  2. ^ William A. Ewing (1994). The body: photographs of the human form. Chronicle Books. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-8118-0762-3. Retrieved 12 March 2013. 
  3. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/victim
  4. ^ http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Crucifixion