Talk:Piss Christ

Not vandalism

Attention to those joining the edit war, particularly @Freshacconci: and @Modernist:

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Piss Christ, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems peculiar to me that two editors now have refused to justify their unconstructive edits and furthermore refused to even discuss the content thereof, instead preferring to accuse me of vandalism and abuse WP:ROLLBACK permission against policy. It would behoove you to perform due diligence on the issue at hand, namely, the designation of "Sister Wendy" as a "nun" in conflict with her description in her WP:BLP. It would also behoove you to exercise restraint in your use of vandalism-fighting tools when involved in (1) a content dispute that devolves into (2) an edit war. You would not garner much sympathy among admins for this behavior. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? Try reading - Sister Wendy Beckett British nun and art critic, World-of-Sister-Wendy-Beckett-nun-and-art-historian....Modernist (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do not accuse others of doing something you yourself are doing. You also need to read WP:BRD as you are the one who wanted to make the change, and it's disruptive bordering on vandalism as changing "nun" to consecrated virgin is bizarre and WP:POINTY. Now you've added a cite tag to a name whose article states first and foremost that she is a nun (and that itself has a citation). She may be a consecrated virgin, but that is not her primary descriptor and no one would expect her to be identified as such in an article that is not about her -- we go with what most mainstream sources would use, and our own article on her describes her first as a nun. Your point would only make sense if you insisted that she be described in this article as "a British nun, hermit, consecrated virgin, and art historian," which would be silly. So here we have someone making pointy edits, not assuming good faith and accusing two editors of something you yourself are doing for clearly disruptive reasons. You would need to justify here on this talk page why she should be described that way rather than the common term nun and find consensus for it -- the onus is on you, not the two editors who disagree with you. As for my reverts, I used rollback because it was a nonsensical edit and my second edit had an edit summary. You then proceeded to edit war and for the record, Modernist did not edit war; he reverted once. And do not template my talkpage again or attempt to "educate" other editors in things you clearly don't understand, as this borders on WP:COMPETENCE. As for the cite tag, I'm removing it as it has a citation in the Wendy Beckett article and adding it is disruptive and pointy. freshacconci (✉) 20:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

And one last thing: A consecrated virgin who is also a nun is still referred to as a nun. see Consecrated_virgin#As_a_form_of_Consecrated_Life_in_the_Church_today Mduvekot (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Good to know! I just read through the consecrated virgin article and it states that nuns "who have received this consecration are still referred to as nuns and not as consecrated virgins, and so consecrated virgin almost always describes a consecrated woman living in the world" [emphasis mine]. Beckett is a nun (sourced) and is also a consecrated virgin, so by our standards and apparently the standards of the Catholic Church, she is called a nun. freshacconci (✉) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that any readers will be confused or misled by our use of the word "nun". In the context of the sentence on this page, it would be extremely awkward (and WP:UNDUE) to call her a "consecrated virgin". This page is, after all, about an art work, and she is being quoted at least in part as an art critic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hate crimes against Christian category

The bad faith assumption of "POV editorializing" in the edit summary is not ok. There are enough that sources discuss why this wasn't considered a hate crime for it to be included in the category (multiple book sources). We don't need new categories for everything (ie "Alleged hate crimes against Christians" or "Disputed hate crimes against Christians" or "Events that multiple writers thought should have been hate crimes but weren't officially classified as such"). That would be unreasonable. Otherwise, this was a huge deal and it was obviously a major issue. (We didn't even have the category "hate crimes against Christians" until I created it a few hours ago.)Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith: the POV-pushing is clear by all your edits on the page and I am not required to discuss my edits first as I was clear in the edit summary of my intent. And speaking of bad faith, stating that we "don't need new categories for everything" and then making up absurd hypothetical categories is a straw man argument as I never claimed we needed any such categories or a new category was required to cover what you are attempting to push. To categorize this page and this work as a "hate crime" is offensive, divisive and misleading as this article is about a work of art, not a "crime" and there is no evidence of "hate" in the work or in the artist's intent. You provide circular justification by inserting the category to back up the undue text you added under a new, and inappropriate, subheading of "criticism", which itself is POV-pushing: the "reception" subheading adequately and neutrally covers any and all critiques of the work. A separate criticism section is generally discouraged and can be inflammatory, and given the controversial nature of the work, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to the extreme as it aggressively suggests a false balance. I will not revert for now as I believe in and abide by WP:BRD and will therefore wait for other editors to weigh in. freshacconci (✉) 13:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You also throw the phrases "good faith"/"bad faith" around a great deal for someone who is now edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 13:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no POV-pushing, I added content sourced to full-length books. It's not "false balance" either - these are multiple books from academic publishers. It's not like these are out of the right-wine zine columns. The only POV-pushing here is that you WP:JDLI. Here's an OUP source in addition to the two Greenwood Press books already in the article:

Since the various codes places so much emphasis on the likelihood of causing offense...might well have criminalized artworks such as Serrano's Piss Christ ... Although these speech codes are probably unenforceable, some sweeping "hate" statutes have been sustained...There is abundant evidence that these were precisely the reactions of many Catholic believers who saw or read about Piss Christ... In the area of hate crime as much as hate speech, Catholics receive fewer protections than other groups

In populating the new category I've been careful to only add incidents that have been discussed in the context of hate crimes by multiple reliable sources (even if I don't agree with the viewpoint of the commentators.) and I strongly object to removal of a category with encyclopedic significance and value.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Looking at your contributions, you are aggressively adding this category to a number of inappropriate articles solely based on your POV, such as this where no mention of "Christians" appears in the article, and the Columbine High School massacre, which again is ridiculous. I won't dignify your comments about my edits being merely "I don't like it" as that is also bad faith in the extreme. You now have three editors who have objected to your edits at this article, and you have proceeded to edit war, so I suggest you drop the stick unless you have something more compelling than your circular reasoning. freshacconci (✉) 13:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The paragraphs that purportedly support the subject being a hate crime ought to be removed as undue. It is undoubtedly true that the work has offended a large number of people, but we don't consider an event a "criminal act" unless a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority, per WP:N/CA. Vexations (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I added the other articles based on sources that are available, I thought they were in the article but they are not. I am not adding any "solely based on your POV" but based on what reliable sources say about hate crimes against Christians. We have plenty of such articles - hundreds about hate crimes against Christians overseas. What is so offensive about reliably sourced content about hate crimes against Christians in the US? The fact that you think its ridiculous suggests a troubling unfamiliarly with the subject for someone with such strong opinions about it. However, upon consideration of the more reasonable comments in this discussion and additional sources I have found during this discussion, I think perhaps hate speech would be a better category for this article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You would then have to establish that the subject meets some definition of hate speech that has consensus, like, for example "incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence". I don't see how you'd be able to do that. Vexations (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. We go by what reliable sources say, not SYNTH and editorial straw polls. That's enough.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It's offensive because those are not hate crimes against Christians. The Umpqua Community College article mentions nothing about Christians and are you really asserting that all the victims at Columbine were Christians and that the shooters were specifically targeting Christians? As for "hate speech" and this article: was the artist charged with hate speech? He offended people, yes, and the article deals with that. Labeling it hate speech is your opinion and adding sources to supposedly back it up is POV-pushing. There would have to be multiple solid and reliable sources claiming it was "hate speech" to even begin to consider adding such a category. We are required to be neutral. Labeling a work of art "hate speech" falls far short of neutrality by any metric, short of some damn good sourcing (and minority opinions don't count for much). freshacconci (✉) 14:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

And there you go again with the straw man arguments. No one said anything about "editorial straw polls". Vexations was clearly talking about academic consensus. freshacconci (✉) 14:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand your positions. I don't think it needs "academic consensus" to be included as a significant minority view. This is also required by the NPOV policy. Labelling Discussing what reliable sources have said about whether this is hate speech and why that is important is not my opinion, what have I said that makes you think it's my opinion? - I also haven't labelled anything. I didn't change the article text to say "Piss Christ was hate speech". This is sourced content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Freshacconci for the clarification. Yes, I meant something like academic consensus. It is not sufficient for an editor to perceive something as offensive to classify it as hate speech unless it meets some widely accepted definition of hat speech. One such definition, from our article on hate speech, is the example I provided. I'm open to another, but I fail to see how the subject of this article could possibly meet any of them. Vexations (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyway , a category is not a "label", it's a tool for navigation. Was the controversy surrounding this photograph a "defining characteristic" - yeah. It's been fraught with controversy for decades for this reason, so I would say yes, it might be relevant for readers interesting in this subject. "Anti-Christian art" might be a label, we don't think the artists intent was anti-Christian, but we have a secondary source from OUP supporting inclusion on the basis of how it was experienced by Catholics there is abundant evidence that these were precisely the reactions of many Catholic believers who saw or read about Piss Christ — disputing this seems an unlikely proposition, but I'm sure more sources can be found.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That is the best point yet: a Category is not a label, it's a tool for navigation. It isn't titled "Early Morning Meditation". It is titled "Piss Christ". Is there any way of interpreting that title except unflatteringly? Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: You should strike the comment "it is not sufficient for an editor to perceive something as offensive" - adding a category is not the same as "to classify as hate speech".Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Not unless you can convince me that adding to a category is not arranging into classes according to shared characteristics. Vexations (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively language could be added to Category:Hate crimes against Christians alerting the reader that inclusion in the Category is not an endorsement of the universally accepted appropriateness of the Categorization and that in fact the Categorization is hotly disputed in some instances. Or some such language. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Anyone would even consider categorizing this page subject as a hate crime? Even when the artist asserts that it was intended to be respectful of religion? Some editors need to understand what a hate crime really is, because this frankly disruptive categorization trivializes a very bad kind of crime. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Can you please tell us, coherently, what you think a hate crime is instead of lecturing other editors about what you think they don't understand? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I was unaware that I am not coherent. Hate crimes happen when people get killed for who they are, and that's a truly awful thing. Historically, there have been shootings, bombings, and lynchings. To describe a small artwork as a hate crime is ridiculous. Is the Sistine Chapel a hate crime against atheists? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

And another characteristic of hate crimes is that they are motivated by... hate. If one reads what Serrano says in quotes from this page, it's a pretty big leap to call that hate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I draw editors' attention to Wikipedia:Defining. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking of 18 U.S. Code § 249, but there is also 18 U.S. Code § 247. I'm familiar with some of the nitty gritty details of these laws, but the fact remains that it's a bit off-topic because I didn't add it to the category to represent it as a hate crime—I'm not sure if this is very difficult to believe, but I added it because there are multiple expert sources that have discussed this as a comparison to receiving public funds. Most likely the use of "hate crime" here was rhetorical hyperbole by the authors, but the OUP source is secondary and has a more detailed discussion of hate speech—it was a huge controversy that a photograph many people felt was hate speech was publicly funded with tax dollars. It feels a bit like this is an obvious point, but I don't really mind checking for additional sources. It should be included somewhere relevant.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the artwork be in a Category that acknowledges its title for its apparent attack on a religion? Would Category:Hate speech be appropriate? I am not swayed that "the artist asserts that it was intended to be respectful of religion" because the title has a plain meaning that would seem to be contrary to that. Maybe the artist merely wanted to garner attention for himself but the choice of words has obvious negative connotations. He was raised in a Christian background so any negative tone can be dismissed as affectionate, just as members of any group may use apparently negative terminology that has an in-group meaning that is not negative and is in fact affirmative. But the audience is much wider than that small group and the negative connotation can come to the forefront as sources support that on occasion it has. And of course even some within an in-group can regard the negative at face value—that is—as offensive. The suggested Categories would seem to acknowledge that. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Anything along those lines would not only be contrary to WP:Defining, but would also violate WP:NPOV and particularly, WP:BLP, because it would be characterizing Serrano's intention as hate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

So, then what is the way around this problem? We cannot in any way Categorize this artwork, in particular its title, in a way that recognizes inflammatory language? Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that concern is already covered by some of the categories that are already on the page: Category:Christianity in popular culture controversies and Category:Obscenity controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hate speech has more to do with public display of the work and it's effect on violence towards a vulnerable group than Serrano's intentions. BLP is really reaching here. The reliable sources are not even about Serrano, they are about the cultural tolerance and admiration for the work because it about Christianity and the inherent hypocrisy, which is pretty obvious from the title of the OUP-book The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice - even if the category is removed by consensus for BLP reasons there's no excuse for stripping the sourced content from the article also. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hate speech and offensive speech are two different things. Hate speech is a specific type of offensive speech, but there are lots of kinds of offensive speech that are not motivated by hate. And hate speech is defined to a significant extent by its intentions. So if you are going to say that a WP:Defining characteristic of Piss Christ is Serrano's expression of hatred of Christianity, that is most definitely a BLP problem, not reaching at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think Category:hate speech is more appropriate than Category:Hate crimes against Christians. As has been pointed out, a crime has not been committed. But a deliberate choice of words (in the title) is suggestive of hate. We find Polish joke within Category:hate speech. I think the degree of severity of hatred is about the same between the title of this artwork and the general nature of a "Polish joke". As I see it some sort of Categorization corresponding to the nature of the title of this artwork is a defensible thing to endeavor to accomplish. Though the title specifically targets Christianity it is not hard to extrapolate such sentiments to at least the other Abrahamic religions. Category:hate speech allows for this generalizing. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not hate speech. I've just added these two sources that demonstrate amply that it is not: [1], [2] (diff, diff). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the relevant quote from The New Anti-Catholicism is: "If an object so offends members of a religious group that they are provoked to criminal violence, is the making or display of that object not an example of hate crime?"

References

Vexations (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I just spent some time examining that source, and it's really quite interesting to the discussion here. Back on pages 16–17, Jenkins writes: "Since the various codes placed so much emphasis on the likelihood of causing offense, rather than the intent of the act or speech involved, the codes might well have criminalized artworks such as Serrano's Piss Christ." But is he arguing that it should have been criminalized in this way? No, he actually means the opposite. Although his central thesis is that he believes that society improperly tolerates offensive expression about Catholicism that would not be tolerated for anything else, he also expresses support for free speech. He goes on to say of those "various codes" that: "I am not arguing for the extension of hate speech codes or hate crime laws, which, in my view, are already far too wide-ranging and ill-defined. But the highly selective nature of such regulations amply illustrates the common failure to treat the large and pervasive phenomenon of anti-Catholicism as an authentic social phenomenon." So he means that Piss Christ should not be regarded as hate speech, and he bases that on that there was not an intent for it to be hateful, and that basing it instead on "the likelihood of causing offense" would lead to the wrong conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That is what I've been trying to say, no one is arguing the speech should have been criminalized. He and the other two sources are all talking about how hypocritical the codes were. But if editors are this confused, I'm sure readers will be more confused. How will it look if people think that we at Wikipedia think this is hate speech or blashphemy? We have to be careful with the categorization, in case it comes across as labelling or stating something in Wikivoice, even though I didn't intend it that way. What Schmidt and Monaco meant was that when the photograph was first published certain types of speech were criminalized, mostly with strong support from the political left. After the NEA chose to fund this they were gutted. This was all prior to 1991 when the Supreme Court struck down local hate speech ordinances to avoid licensing "one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules" - but I think that's too nuanced for categorization. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not a hate crime, and "There are enough that sources discuss [sic] why this wasn't considered a hate crime for it to be included in the category" is mindboggling. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: What I am trying to say it that it was when the photograph was released in the 1980s - that's what the sources are talking about. There were local ordinances against hate speech in multiple jurisdictions that were selectively enforced at the time. This photograph was publicly funded where similar speech was prosecutable based on its content. That was part of the Supreme Court's reasoning when they struck down the ordinances as unconstitutional. It is a big mind boggling but I already decided against inclusion because the reasons and background are not going to be obvious for most people. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I still want to know if anyone thinks the Sistine Chapel is a hate crime against atheists. However, I do note with appreciation that the new hate crime category has been speedy deleted at the category creator's request. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be an example of a Straw man argument? Has anyone argued that "the Sistine Chapel is a hate crime against atheists"? Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I sure hope that no one has argued that! What I'm saying is that it is obvious that it isn't a hate crime against atheists, even though it presents a point of view that is contrary to atheism, but rather, it is a work of art. And Piss Christ is likewise nothing like a hate crime, even though it presents a point of view that some reasonable people find contrary to their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't see a distinction between the Sistine Chapel and Piss Christ? How does the Sistine Chapel target atheists? Piss Christ targets those who believe in Christ. It does not do so in the visual component of the artwork. It is only when taking the title into consideration that we see a derogatory comment about Christ. I think you or others have argued that further commentary by the artist shows that there was no ill intent. But is such commentary to be regarded as part of the artwork? I don't feel there is a "hate crime". I don't see that there is any crime at all. And apparently the term "hate speech" has a specific definition. So that probably excludes this from a Category concerning "hate speech". But the impetus to Categorize the artwork according to its title is a legitimate concern. I am not aware that there is any existing Category which collects articles on works of art in which the title takes a potshot at a primary symbol of a religion but this is the sort of Category that might hold this article. Could a Category be created on this or another topic, and are there other articles that could be put in it? Bus stop (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Piss Christ targets those who believe in Christ" is only true for those who think that maybe everything in this world is either an attack or an endorsement; must be hard to do art if that is how you feel--what do you think Pindakaasvloer is targeting? It doesn't target me. I don't feel targeted. I am pretty sure the author isn't targeting me or the people I know. Seraphim System, I heard what you said, but I don't see where sources called it a hate crime at the time--I see you cite something that says that if certain laws etc. then it might have been etc., which means something different. Anyway, what Tryptofish said--I was looking for the category because this concerns me greatly. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an art critic, and I'm not a reliable source, but I see the distinction between the Sistine Chapel and Piss Christ as being that the former is (in my opinion) superior and more sophisticated as an artwork. But the view of the universe expressed in the Sistine Chapel and much Christian art is that of Christianity, which generally regards atheism as a bad thing, and if I were to substitute Jews for atheists in the example, has historically been used (rightly or wrongly) as a justification for burning at the stake. Anyway, speaking as an editor, I do indeed argue that the commentary by Serrano establishes that he did not intend Piss Christ to express hatred for Christianity – and in fact, quite the opposite. I can certainly see how reasonable persons could conclude that it was a potshot, but Serrano's statements indicate that he did not intend it as a potshot. His comments don't have to be a "part" of the artwork, but it's a part of what the artist intended, and we do not get to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that he was wrong, or naive, or dishonest in what he said. I suppose there could be a Category:Controversial artworks, but I would have a hard time defining criteria for inclusion in or exclusion from that category (a lot of art from earlier time periods is regarded as fine art of high importance today, but created controversy in its own time). As I noted earlier, the page already has Category:Christianity in popular culture controversies and Category:Obscenity controversies. I would have no objection to creating a subcategory of the latter as Category:Obscenity controversies in the arts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't pretend that it is what it is not. Reliable sources tell us that some people find it offensive. "Some Christians find the work deeply offensive. Anger towards the photograph hit a pinnacle on Palm Sunday 2011 when French Catholic fundamentalists attacked and destroyed the photograph with hammers."[3] I just call it like I see it. I'm not an art critic either. The Sistine Chapel has a title that is unremarkable. Piss is generally considered offensive. Link that with a symbol of a religion and you've created religious offense. No one is interested in your opinion that the Sistine Chapel is a "superior and more sophisticated ... artwork." We are not discussing the value of the respective artworks. You've been harping away in comment after comment about the Sistine Chapel but it is largely irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not even asserting categorically that the chosen title constitutes a "potshot" against people of any identity. I am simply looking at the title and seeing what countless others see: an offensive title for an artwork. Of course, many are not offended. And they are not offended for more than one reason. But you can't deny that some people are offended and that there are grounds for such offense. It is the combination of the two terms that constitute the title that give some people offense. No Categorization seems possible for this so this discussion can be ended. This discussion has veered into WP:FORUM. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with wrapping this discussion up. But I need to say that I am not pretending anything. I'm saying that we need to treat this according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And I appreciate fully how reasonable people can be offended, but WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the category wasn't a great idea and I appreciate the input here—I created the category thinking there were more articles to add to it, but it turns out some crimes aren't prosecuted as hate crimes because there is no need to prosecute as a "hate crime" in capital cases if conviction is likely in the state courts—for example, an expert in psychology commenting on the Lillelid murders said the killers "probably perceived them at a group level" because they were Jehovah's Witnesses—I didn't know that this wasn't a "hate crime" until I went back to the case law. This kind of thing happens sometimes in academic literature and especially in law, so I opted for deletion of the category. The addition of this article was just based on sources I came across when trying to populate the category. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding about the deleted category. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mistaken for another "blasphemous" picture

Does anybody remember a similarly offensive photograph of some naked guy actually urinating in a bottle with a wooden cross next to his penis? For some reason, I've often thought the name applied to that one. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

large wooden cross not a small plastic one

In an interview here https://magazin.aktualne.cz/rozhovor-s-fotografem-andresem-serranem-ktery-ponoril-jezise/r~ad643fe009c011eea873ac1f6b220ee8/ the author says:

There are many myths surrounding the photo of Piss Christ. Firstly, it is often mistakenly described as a tiny statue of Christ on a cross in a jar of urine. In reality, it was a large crucifix made of wood and metal, so I had to use a rather bulky tank to immerse it in urine. Secondly, some of the public misinterpreted my intention. It was not meant to be sacrilegious, and I chose the title Piss Christ as a literal description of what the image depicts, not because I wanted to disparage Jesus.

There should be probably also English versions of debunking this myth about "small plastic cross"?

Czech Original of what author says: Kolem fotky Piss Christ koluje řada mýtů. Zaprvé bývá mylně popisována jako drobná soška Krista na kříži ve skleničce s močí. Ve skutečnosti šlo o velký krucifix vyrobený ze dřeva a kovu, takže jsem k jeho ponoření do moči musel použít poměrně objemnou nádrž. Zadruhé si část veřejnosti špatně vykládala můj záměr. Nemělo jít o žádnou svatokrádež, i samotný název Piss Christ jsem zvolil jako doslovný popis toho, co snímek zachycuje, ne proto, že bych chtěl Ježíše znevažovat. 212.27.198.54 (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)