Talk:Crucifixion

Cause of death

I revised the second paragraph of the Cause of death section, in order to make it a little more accurate from a biomedical point of view. I tried to put the theory about asphyxiation into the context of other causes of death, and added a reference from the Journal of the American Medical Association to support it. Think of it this way: asphyxiation is something that would happen without leg support, but with leg support, factors such as blood loss and dehydration (especially in hot, dry climates) would apply instead. I'm just coming at this from a biomedical, not a historical or theological, point of view.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Editor Tgies has been deleting the In popular culture section, initially with the comment "removing indiscriminate mass of trivia. any information of consequence can be reincorporated into other parts of the article where it is relevant". I restored, on the basis of the WP:TRIVIA guidelines, which include:

Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate....

This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

Tgies believes I am taking this out of context ("You are taking that out of context. there is only a need to merge the trivia into the rest of the article where it is actually relevant enough to warrant this."). I'm inferring (and open to correction, Tgies) that his position is now not that the section is trivia, but that the section is largely (but not entirely) not relevant to the article.

I see some contradictions here; the statement that some of the deleted material could be re-added is inconsistent with the mass deletion. If any of the material is appropriate to the article, it should be integrated, not deleted.

The section is pretty well organized, compared to most IPC sections. It is a bit listish, but that's not necessarily fatal.

Until we see consensus, given that this section is the result of many editors work over a long period of time, the section should be retained rather than deleted on the basis of one editor's opinion. If a consensus emerges that it should be deleted, then delete it.

I note that the temporary deletion of the section caused all images used in it to be robot-tagged for removal as orphans. Apart from the impropriety of making a large contested deletion prior to consensus, it may be difficult to restore if the consensus is to retain, if the images are all deleted in the meantime.

What's the consensus on whether this section should be deleted? TJRC (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As an expression of my personal opinion on all such additions to serious articles in Wikipedia, I support Tgies. Think of how much similar utterly trivial trivia could be added to, for instance, an article on the Second World War. Lima (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with tgies (I am also 82.40.132.79) on the deletion of the trivia section and all its contents on the basis of both WP:TRIVIA and WP:ROC. Anyone who comes to this page interested in researching crucifixion would not be interested in hearing about a list of god damn movies and anime that feature it. I know a lot of TV shows that featured water, should I add them to the wikipedia page for H2O? Sabator (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"his position is now not that the section is trivia, but that the section is largely (but not entirely) not relevant to the article."

No, my position is that both of these things are true. They are not mutually exclusive. It does not belong in the form of a trivia section because trivia sections are bad. Any element in the trivia section relevant enough to integrate elsewhere in the article should certainly be integrated, but as it is, the trivia section (and trivia sections in general) act as artificial life support for a lot of cruft too trivial to otherwise fit within the scope of the article. tgies (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Tgies also on this. Guidelines are of course just that, guides to be used sensibly. But maybe this one needs changing. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would come down on the side of not deleting it, but, rather, modifying it to make it less list-like. I agree with TJRC that there is a lot of editor work here, and in my opinion much of it really is of considerable cultural relevance. (The Salvador Dali painting in the image is clearly an example of something both important and relevant here, in ways that much WWII trivia would not be.) Of course, some people of faith may very sincerely find it offensive to include some of this material, but that does not make it trivia (and I'm not saying that that's what the editors above meant). I think the goal should be to change it out of list format. Maybe -- with discussion! -- some of the listed points could be deleted, but then I think it should be possible to work it into paragraph form, with related list points grouped, and contextualized, together (for example: a paragraph on film, another on popular music, another on anime, and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that crucifixion has considerable cultural relevance, however this is precisely why it should not be attempted to catalogue every occurence of it in modern fiction. It occurs so regularly and in so many works that such a task would be nigh-impossible, and even if it were completed it would dominate the entire article. The only choice is to either do that, or have an incomplete list. Or do you think you can pick and choose which crucifixion references in modern culture are relevant, and discard the rest? Even the simple prospect of such an idea should not be entertained. Who gets to decide which crucifixion references are relevant and which aren't? Sure you want to add the Salvador Dali painting but that's simply your opinion. Next some kid adds his stupid anime episodes because he thinks those are relevant, and before you know it we'll return to the same state we're in now. It is simply neither relevant nor important. One thing is definite, the current state of the article is completely unacceptable. Over half of it is listing occurences of crucifixion in modern fiction. Sabator (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that it would be desirable to shorten this section, relative to the length of the article as a whole. I also think you make a good point, that it would be desirable to not attempt to catalog every occurrence. But I'm trying to facilitate a thoughtful discussion of why "that's simply your opinion" is not going to get us to a good result. The entire process of deciding what to include or not in any article is subjective to a considerable extent; I am making a subjective judgment when I say that some of this is relevant, but so are you when you say that all of it should be deleted. In effect, deleting the whole section, and stating that the process of editing it down would be impossible, is just your opinion. Of course it actually is possible to make these kinds of decisions, and editors do it all the time. Not infallibly, but that's not a reason to not attempt it. I think you may very well be correct that much or all of the anime references should go, and this is something that can be discussed. I really feel that removing all of this would be the wrong choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For D. B. Cooper the length issue was addressed by moving the IPC section to its own article. See D. B. Cooper#In popular culture, D. B. Cooper in popular culture. Would that be appropriate here? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First you wave WP:TRIVIA around like an absolute commandment then you reference an example where it was blatantly discarded? Moving it to its own article does not fix the problem, merely applies some kind of incredibly shitty bandaid. Sabator (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My point from the very beginning was that, since crucifixion is referenced so often in popular culture that not all references could possibly be recorded. Thus if you wanted to simply shrink down the trivia section, this would involve picking and choosing which references you feel to be most relevant. This then sets a precedent for anyone to add anything they feel is relevant. That's how the trivia section expanded into its current form. Sabator (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not waving anything. I'm trying for a consensus. And you should calm down. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I want to say a very big Thank You to TJRC for maintaining a very helpful position in the face of some inappropriate comments from others. I'm not sure what I think about creating a separate popular culture article; I can see both plusses and minuses. To compare with the Cooper pages, I tried to think of some other historical figures where this issue might have come up here before. There is no pop culture page on Daniel Webster, but his bio page does include pop references including a Jimmy Stuart movie. Both Einstein and Hitler have bio pages that include a short section on pop culture references, along with links to separate pop culture articles. The Einstein pop culture article looks successful whereas the Hitler one is having problems. Of course, each of these is a biography of one person, whereas we are now discussing a broader topic, where it is harder to draw the line. For example, I have no difficulty seeing depictions of crucifixion in pop music or anime as pop, but what about "serious" artists who have treated it unconventionally? (After all, this page is about "crucifixion" in general, not "the crucifixion.") I suggest that it is very helpful to look at WP:IPC. What I take from it (but see for yourself what you think) is (1) avoid lists and use prose paragraphs instead (as I suggested above), and (2) instead of including everything, include only those for which the importance can be established by citing a secondary source (which strikes me as a useful criterion for shortening the material here). There is also this list of precedents, which I also find useful. What I take from it is that pages that have been deleted as trivial in the past are much more trivial than the material here, and the material here is mostly significant enough to retain. So, my conclusion for now is (1) I'm undecided and persuadable about creating a separate page or not, and (2) I feel more strongly than ever that it would be a mistake to delete it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification - Schol-R-LEA (talk · contribs) has substantively edited this section after the onset of this discussion. I have left a message on his/her talk page notifying him/her of this discussion. That notification, and this one, are in compliance with WP:CANVASS ("Notifications of involved editors"). TJRC (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about two months, and I decided to significantly reorganize this section in the context of the discussion above. I'd like to describe here what I've done, and what I believe still needs to be done by other editors. First, I put a "see also" to Crucifixion of Jesus at the top of the article. I did this even though it's redundant, because I think it will be helpful to readers who, understandably, come here not expecting a page about crucifixion in general. In part, I think that that confusion contributes to the controversies about the pop culture section, and also, I think the existence of the other article decreases the need to consider separating out a separate pop culture article from the one here. In this section itself, I removed the subheadings, in the interest of shortness, although I think that there would be no problem if someone wants to put new subheadings back. Other than that, I have not deleted any material at this time. Instead, I combined the troublesome lists into paragraphs, organized around art, film, entertainment, music, and anime. I added a few "topic sentences" to these paragraphs to start the process of tying them together. (I also put in a non-displaying message to look here before editing the section further.)

What still needs to be done is to shorten and de-trivialize the paragraphs I made. I fully realize that it now reads like long lists in paragraph form. Here is how I would suggest going about it. I suggest that the criteria for deletion should be based on secondary sources as described in WP:IPC. In other words, there is a big need for secondary sources to establish the significance of the material, and material for which this independent validation does not exist may be a good candidate for deletion. In my opinion, a valid reason for deletion is not that a particular editor dislikes the material, or that an editor claims the nonexistence of secondary sources based on a superficial search. In this regard, I have liberally sprinkled the section with reference requests. I suggest that if anyone wants to delete something, it would be very helpful to nominate the deletion here before actually deleting it, thereby allowing other editors to evaluate whether justification from secondary sources does or does not exist.--Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You've done excellent work here. Thanks for that. The unique thing about IPC sections is that many of the instances are self-supporting. To pick a random example, the statement "the movie Spartacus depicts mass crucifixions along the Appian Way" is supported by the film itself. If we really wanted to be nitpicky, we could actually have a ref tag citing to the film (that's how an academic journal would do it), but it wouldn't add anything.

The more I think about this, the more I believe that it should be put into its own article, Crucifixion in Popular Culture. The depiction of crucifixion in media is a topic unto itself. The section now ia about a third of the text of the article. It really doesn't have that much fat; and even if you were to cut it by a third, it would still be a quarter of the article. I have particular interest in the anime section; I'm intrigued by why there is a seemingly disproportionate depiction of crucifixion in anime, and wonder if there have been any journal articles written about it.

Putting this section, as you've currently edited it, into a separate article would enable the topic to be fully explored, without dominating the Crucifixion article itself -- and in the context of an article on crucifixion, it really is a minor facet. I would normally be bold and do this, but this is obviously a sensitive issue, and I'd rather see if we can get some consensus about it TJRC (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I guess I actually am sympathetic to the views of some of the other editors who commented that some of this material seems trivial (and repetitive), and I suppose a case could maybe be made that a separate article would, by itself, be trivial enough to delete. Seems to me it comes down to what is in secondary sources, and I think there must be other people who know more about that than I do. (The Spartacus example is self-supporting in that it is true, but not automatically self-supporting in whether it is significant.) I'd be interested in what you or others find if you look into journal articles like what you refer to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: Regardless of whether one creates a separate article or keeps the section here, what about making it Crucifixion in Art and Popular Culture? The modern art in what is now the first paragraph is not exactly pop culture, and there is more noteworthy material that could be added (Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano come to mind). More importantly, there is, of course, a very rich vein of medieval and renaissance art that rightfully leads up to this (and, indeed, provides context), and currently is overlooked here. Adding some paragraphs on that (with secondary sources, of course) at the start of the section, or of the new article, would add a lot of value, I think. Also, maybe, some links to the art history and visual arts topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That the "very rich vein of medieval and renaissance art ... rightfully leads up to this" (pop culture?) is disputable. Do you know that there already exists a Wikipedia article (in great need of improvement) called Cross in Christian Art? Lima (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You correctly point out that my wording was ambiguous. What I meant to say was that the "rich vein" leads up to Dali, Mapplethorpe and Serrano. Perhaps, secondary sources would justify, in turn, a link between trends in 20th century art and those in 20th century pop culture. Then again, I'm no art historian. I'm more interested in strengthening the article here than in creating more new articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever keeps adding back (and now protecting) the anime section is not doing this article a service. Granted, there would be a stronger case for removing it if the rest of the popular culture section were trimmed down to only the useful items (e.g., we don't need listings of every single rock song to reference crucifixion. As the key event in the largest religion in the world, it's also a cultural touchstone -- there are more references than we could probably imagine. Rather than watch the pop culture/anime sections grow to dwarf the actual substance of the article, we should asking ourselves if cultural examples are instructive of anything. You get a sense of the cultural weight of Jesus' crucifixion through the discussion of it in art and modern context through music's description of use of a crucifix to thwart taboos. These are instructive. An Agnostic Front song about the punk scene that is just called "Crucified," doesn't seem to shed any other light on crucifixion or its place in culture. Does the exhaustive list of crucifixions in anime teach us anything? At the very most, it says something about the secularization of Christian symbology in Japan. There is a Christianity in Japan article where this section would be better placed. Or, if it's more instructive about the title itself, each reference could be moved to the page of its respective anime title.. There's a reason someone was removing the "In anime" section as vandalism: if every article on Wikipedia needs/deserves a section obsessively listing the most insignificant connection to anime, Wikipedia will be, fundamentally, a site ABOUT anime. Again: 1) The anime section is not particularly instructive about crucifixion. 2) If it is instructive of anything at all, there are better places to put its component parts. 3) This needs to be paired with a paring down of the pop culture section to only the material that is instructive of the nature, significance or controversy of crucifixion. --98.245.120.186 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I semi-protectec the article because someone, using various IDs, was removing text with no explanation. Established editors can edit with no problem, but it looked to me as though it was probably the same editor each time. And if you read WP:Vandalism the section is not vandalism. Having said that, I generally dislike 'popular culture' and 'trivia' sections, and I'm sure this article needs culling. But not by an IP editor using different IDs possibly to avoid a block. dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see this fight keep repeating itself (as well as to see the abusive language used at one point by the IP editor). As I've said repeatedly above, there's a difference between complete deletion of a section, and a more thoughtful shortening of it. I'm all in favor of shortening the entire pop culture section of this article, relative to its present form, but it should be done by replacing the overly long lists with secondary source-based exposition that should, indeed, be "instructive of the nature, significance or controversy of crucifixion." There's nothing instructive about wiping out the whole thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the guy who made the edit from IP 97.102.137.17. The other guy was not me, just someone who agreed that the anime sections (and pop culture sections in general) on articles are completely out of hand. It's fucking ludicrous, and is one of a few hundred reasons for professionals to continue to dismiss wikipedia as a whole for being the stomping grounds of a bunch of aspies in their parents' basements and not a legitimate source of reliable information. It makes wikipedia as a project look ridiculous to include a discussion of Sailor Moon in a discussion of, well, anything that isn't completely retarded. Keshik (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean honestly, within the pop culture section are three images. One is a painting by Salvador Dali and two are from anime. It's not as though there's a low supply of paintings and sculptures of crucifixion in this world. Keshik (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying yourself, and for pointing out, correctly in my opinion, the need for a more scholarly selection of images. I look forward to a more thoughtful, constructive, and collegial editing of this section in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to renew my suggestion that the material in the IPC section be used in a new article, Crucifixion in popular culture, and the discussion here be trimmed to one or two sentences. I think the discussion we've had here has established that it's a wikipedia-worthy topic, but it's drowing out the article at present. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As I was earlier, I'm ambivalent, and could go either way on that. Actually, it feels to me more like this talk page is drowning in it, rather than that the article itself is, because we haven't really fixed the "list" problem in the article and instead keep re-discussing the same attacks (mea culpa). I still think that it depends on secondary sources that will either justify noteworthiness or not, regardless of where the material is located, and I'm still interested in figuring out the proper role of material about art, as well as pop culture. My guess is that the consequence of cutting the material out of this article, and pasting it, in something like its present form, into the new article, would be to (1) cut back on edit wars here (good), and (2) result in edit wars over article-for-deletion at the new article (not so good). Would it help to flesh out and discuss here what the proposed article would look like, in more detail, first? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing violates the anti-original research guidelines to begin with; we're just saying "Crucifixion is prominent in anime" and then listing a bunch of random instances where one character is perhaps impaled on something that might be a cross analogue. I'll grant you that perhaps my deletionist tendencies are biasing me here, but I still think that this is frankly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.101.248 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So much for collegial editing. I do fear that moving the material to a separate article will just end with it being removed from WP entirely. It seems to me that WP:IPC is the way to go: get rid of the long lists, which will make it shorter, and base it on secondary sources, exactly so that it will not be original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly fail to see the need for a crucifixion in popular culture section, given it's just a long and worthless list. I've read the talk, and it seems like the only argument being made for keeping it is "it's information and we can't just delete information". It's irrelevant and detracts from the article. If you really want it there, just make a new article "list of crucifixions in popular culture" - which will hopefully also get deleted. Lethoso (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Although not what that editor intended, I think that the comment directly above is a good indicator of what would be elicited if a separate pop culture article were created. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete some, but not all, of the information in the anime section, as it is useless. No one researching crucifixions will go to anime as a source of information, so there is no need to reference so many anime cartoons. Maybe a few examples could be included as illustration of the manner in which crucifixion is used in these shows, but we should avoid an exhaustive list of anime references. Gary (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed some more information from the other parts of the popular culture section. While imperfect, I think this section now better illustrates the role crucifixion has played in popular media. Gary (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary, I've already thanked you at your talk page, but I want to do so here too. Obviously, there can always be further points to consider, but my personal opinion is that you have done exactly what I have been hoping for an editor to do here. Again in my opinion, the RfC I placed has now done most of its job, and I think that it would be alright to let it expire at the end of the month. But, other interested editors, do please say whether you agree (as if I have to tell you!). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. But I still would eventually like to see more references, and better discussion of art, though that's not as pressing a need. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of help. Thank you for fixing the templates and layout.Gary (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixion in Anime should not have its own section. If it needs to be mentioned at all, it should be under the "In movies and television" section. I'm not sure why this is a problem. 24.1.21.173 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could start by noting the discussion in this section, which you really have not rebutted in any way. In your first edit trying to delete the section, you dishonestly referred to it as removing vandalism, which undercuts your credibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

The basic purpose of this section is to show that crucifixion is used in anime to emphasize the suffering of sympathetic characters. However, the section contains a quote indicating that no religious intent backs the use of crucifixion imagery in anime. As there is no religious of historical intent behind the use of crucifixion imagery, the information in this section is more relevant to an article on TVtropes [1] than to an encyclopedia article about real-life aspects of crucifixion. Therefore, I think we should remove it. As this section is frequently deleted by various users, maybe we should vote on deleting it. While I'm aware of the deletion process for entire articles, is there a deletion process for individual sections or parts of articles? Gary (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gary. I don't think there's a formal process for sections, equivalent to AfD. Rather, the process is the usual one of talk page discussion and consensus. As such, there really is no vote as such, but the strength of argument should decide instead. By and large, the deletes (certainly the recent ones) have been IP edits without even an edit summary, or sometimes they come with either angry or misinformed edit summaries. Just as frequently, there are edits adding more material about anime, which then get deleted (usually by me!) to prevent trivia list creep. Even taking all of that together, it is far from being a high-traffic issue. (I edit at a lot of other pages that are far, far more active in terms of content disagreements.) In my opinion, there is no factual basis for saying that consensus has already changed, just on the basis of a few reverted edits. So, that brings us to discussion on the merits. I still feel the way I felt when we had the RfC back when. If the criterion for inclusion is a relationship to religious thinking, then how would you justify the historical section on crucifixion as capital punishment in Japan? I would argue that, if the only material that can be included on this page must be related to Christianity, then the page would suffer from a geo-cultural bias. Since there is a separate page on the crucifixion of Jesus, it is appropriate for this page to cover all cultural aspects of crucifixion. I admit that it can be problematic to assess historical awareness in pop culture references, but when cultural references occur repeatedly and prominently, as here, they are part of culture (and the anime section has been sourced to a secondary source, which satisfies WP:RS). One can, and quite a few editors have, argue that all of the pop culture material, not just anime, should be removed because of its questionable relationship to religious traditions. I think, however, that those arguments end up amounting to "I don't like it!" I'm all in favor of strictly limiting creep towards lists of trivia, but delete the whole thing, no, I disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

category as art

Of course I may be wrong, but I see no reason to classify under "art" or any kind, whether Christian or contemporary, this article which is about crucifixion, not about the crucifix. Lima (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong too, but here is my thinking about it. I figure that this article, as it stands now, contains a pop culture section that, as discussed at length in the talk section just above this one, still needs some serious editing. My opinion is that it should be shortened based on secondary source material that could validate whether material is noteworthy or not. Obviously, I don't want to canvass, but I think it would be good to attract the attention of more editors who would have expertise on how to do this, and I think these categories may be a valid way of doing so. I do think that it is valid on the merits to place these categories here, because, in its present form, this page does devote considerable space to cultural depictions of crucifixion. And, I personally consider it appropriate for this page to address cultural depictions of crucifixion (albeit maybe with more art and less anime etc, but there, other editors would disagree with me). As for the other, more art-oriented page, you commented earlier that it has problems. I strongly agree. Not only is there the obvious problem that it relies almost entirely on quoted text, but also it seems to me that, by focusing on representations of the cross as an icon, it over-narrowly excludes artistic representations of crucifixion more generally, both within and outside Christian traditions. I tend to think that page should be almost entirely scrapped, and replaced by starting over with something more encyclopedic. But what that might consist of still depends on what consensus is reached about addressing not only art but also pop culture, and it would be helpful to get more insight here from editors who know about art and culture. Thus the circular dilemma. But, that said, I'm open to better ideas about how to get there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Have we different concepts of art ("cultural depictions of crucifixion", "a crucified Santa Claus" ...)? Perhaps.

The article specifically on the cross and art certainly needs improvement, but that is by no means a reason for directing attention instead to an article that is not really about art.

I hope others will add their comments. For now I let the matter stand. Lima (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Different concepts are what help make WP work! Anyway, I think that's very reasonable. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty good case in the above discussion for giving Crucifixion in Popular Culture its own article. Doing that would also provide an elegant fix to this problem, I think.--98.245.120.186 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the two sides to the argument, please give reasons why you feel this would be good. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the editor who made that remark is anonymous, he/she may not respond to your request. So perhaps it is good that I should intervene. The article is about crucifixion, defined in the article itself as "an ancient method of execution, whereby the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead". That is not art. So why classify it as art? It was perhaps "very reasonable" to leave undisturbed for some time your categorizing of crucifixion as art. But it is perhaps not at all reasonable to leave it permanently so.

If the editor at 98.245.120.186 reads this, do please intervene again. Lima (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I was never defining the act of crucifixion as art. Rather, I think that it is accurate to define the article, in its present form and subject to change over time, not as anything permanent, as containing material at the present time to which art may be relevant. Please note that WP:There is no deadline. As a way of moving forward, how do the editors here feel about my placing a Request for Comment here? Please understand that I do not intend to canvass, and I will not make an RfC unless there is some agreement to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Lima (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the following material from the RfC section, below, to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion between Tryptofish and me (see above) is much more specific: Is "Christian Art" an appropriate category for classifying this article? Since the article is about "crucifixion", not about the crucifix, and since the article defines "crucifixion" as "an ancient method of execution, whereby the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead", I believe the article should not be classified under "art". The article on the Cross in Christian Art obviously does fit into an art category, but I don't see crucifixion itself as art. Tryptofish disagrees. Lima (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a small clarification: Lima is exactly correct in characterizing the specific question of categories discussed in Category as Art (if not in implying that I think crucifying someone is an act of art creation, which I don't). But let me say that I'm just fine with changing the categories if and when this RfC accomplishes what I see as the broader goal of addressing the issues in both Category as Art and In Popular Culture. It was the more complicated pop culture discussion that led, in turn, to the art category discussion. I apologize if I was unclear about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to enter an edit war with you when you insisted on reinstating your categorization of this article as art. But since now you seem perhaps to agree that, as the article is at present, it does not fit into the art category, why not undo your addition of that category, until such time - if there will be such a time - as the article becomes one on art? Lima (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the above material from the RfC section, below, to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Lima, for not getting us into an edit war. I increasingly realize that we have, with entirely good intentions both, been misunderstanding one another, so please let me try to carefully clarify several things here.

First, I have moved most of this discussion to this section, from the RfC section below, simply because the RfC section should be largely for editors new to this page to come in, and not for us to continue ongoing discussions, but I retained your (Lima's) comments about what you would like the RfC to address down there, as well as here.

Also, right after making these comments, I am going to delete both art categories from this page, and also, from Cross in Christian Art, the contemporary art category, while retaining the appropriate Christian art category there. Please understand that I am doing this in the spirit of collegiality and moving forward, not because I really think that it is logical for me to do so. I still believe that this article, in its present form, contains material about art and contemporary culture, and therefore should, at least for now, continue to retain these categories, but I just think that this issue is becoming a distraction from the more important issue of improving the page (as opposed to arguing about a list of categories at its bottom). Depending on future edits, the categories might come back, or they might not. As I indicated earlier, my primary motivation for the categories was to attract attention from more editors with the expertise to help. I hope the RfC will, instead, prove to be a better way to accomplish that goal. So, please everyone, understand that my removing the categories for now is not a justification for ending the RfC, rather, quite the opposite.

Further, I want to clear up what I meant about starting the RfC. Above, I asked about starting the RfC "as a way of moving forward." At the time, it seemed clear to me that I was referring to moving forward with the entire issue of pop culture, art, and all the rest. But now, with the wonderful benefit of 20-20 hindsight, I see that Lima, entirely understandably, took me to mean just the question of the categories. I meant well, but that was my fault, and I again apologize for my imprecision of wording. Anyway, I believe no harm was done, and I hope the RfC can bring help to everyone's issues of concern. Now, I hope we can move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry that I cannot help with your RfC. I personally dislike Trivia and PopCulture section, but I realize that others like them, and I treat it as just a matter of taste, about which it is useless to argue. Lima (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All good! I agree with your removing the duplicate paragraph from below. I just didn't want to take it upon myself to delete it in case you felt that you wanted editors who visited the RfC to see what you had written there, but this is good the way it is now. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Crucifixion in Art and Popular Culture

Please help improve material about crucifixion in popular culture, and crucifixion in art.

Comments from the editor who placed the RfC, and who has participated in previous discussions: There has already been extensive discussion of these issues, so PLEASE be sure to read the talk sections on In Popular Culture, and Category as Art, both directly above. (Reference has also been made to the page on Cross in Christian Art.)

Speaking personally, I would be very happy if fresh eyes would bring thoughtful, knowledgeable edits based on secondary sources. In contrast, please remember that RfCs are not votes. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved some discussion that followed, from here, to the section just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This matter, or something very like it, has already been discussed above at #In Popular Culture. Defteri (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course; that's why I said to read above. Discussed, not resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding usage of Gaza

 Done I can't currently edit the page, but it would be nice if someone could clarify the claim that the practice is used in Gaza. The only source that Caroline Glick has regarding this (it should also be noted that Glick's article is not subjective and seems to be heavily biased) is a J-Post report that could not be verified. See here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868840606&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull -- "The Jerusalem Post could not verify the veracity of the Al Hayat report." At this point, this is not a fact even though it is being presented as such. It should be removed from this page or qualified. {{editsemiprotected}}—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esocyn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable, and reasoned, request. Any objection to responding positively? Lima (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lima. The claim in the article sounds fishy to me. The Glick article no longer has text that I can see, and a few of the comments are challenging its veracity. The Free Republic (which, based on its article, sounds like an open forum and not a Reliable Source) has a post at [censored, see below], which in turn cites to an article in Arabic at http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/12/24/62699.html ; I don't read Arabic, but even the pidgen translation from Google gives me the impression that the legal status of the alleged law is uncertain. (I gather that the crucifixion reference, if there indeed is one, is what Google's translating as "steel, the death penalty" or "steel and spare hands").

Unless any of the editors here read Arabic and can accurately say what the article is saying (and assuming alarabiya.net is a reliable source), I'd say the best course is to delete this passage unless some better sourcing comes along. (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Wikipedia won't allow me to include a URL for the Free Republic post, but remove the "un" from http://www.unfreerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2154254/posts and you'll find it. TJRC (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at the Glick article when the edit first appeared, and my reading of it was that, allegedly, the Hamas legislature had passed a resolution authorizing crucifixion, not as something that would actually be practiced, and it clearly has not actually been practiced, but as a way of expressing disapproval of westerners (sending a message). If true, that would be more of a statement of protest than an actual practice of the form of execution, so it should probably either be characterized as such, or more simply, deleted for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done per consensus. TJRC (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of crucifixion in Japan

There's a picture of a Meiji-era crucifixion on the Japanese WP. It's fairly gruesome, but it's also a valuable historical photo, and it's PD. Worth adding here as well? Jpatokal (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is gruesome, but I think I agree that it would add something useful here. Let's just keep the pixel size not too big (smile)! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez! thats an intense picture. It certainly is gruesome, but it certainly effectively reminds us that crucifixion is a form of EXECUTION at heart, I'd say add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The text is going to need further edits, too, especially as per the talk section just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's fricking disgusting, but hey the truth is the truth.98.165.6.225 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much emphasis on Christianity

I can see how Crucifixion plays a significant role in Christianity, but really, Crucifixion was a fairly prevalent form of execution in that time period. There seems to be far more information on the history of Jesus' crucifixion then is warranted. Has anyone else noticed that outside of popular culture, ALL of the pictures are religious in nature, specifically Christian? This seems rather innapropriate, why can't we have some picture of Spartacus being crucified? Or some ancient mural that depicts a crucifixion instead of all this christian iconography?

Another issue is that "Location of the Nails" seems to be referring entirely to Jesus' execution specifically. In addition to URLs in-line, the only sources cited are the Bible, and a discovery channel specifically about the Crucifixion of Christ.

Personally I think this article needs more historical information. When the practice arose, numbers of people historically crucified, crimes which warranted crucifixion and all the famous crucifixions relegated to a "famous crucifixions" section in which Spartacus is given equal weight with Jesus. We already have an article specifically for Jesus, Crucifixion of Jesus.

In summation, I think this article is far too focused on religion. Pstanton 04:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Interesting. I agree. The nails bit really looks out of place when you look at it. I think it should be removed. Perhaps, and I'm not sure, with a couple of sentences added to the 'Details' section. dougweller (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Or it should be merged into Crucifixion of Jesus. All the religiously-oriented text needs to be condensed. Pstanton 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

I think these are good points. One of the reasons I like the idea of adding the Japanese photo discussed directly above (although I'm unsure how to do it, how to enter the filename into the image template) is that it brings in a non-western balance; another reason is that it's interesting that the person is attached by tying, rather than by nailing, yet it clearly is within the appropriate subject matter of this page. As for the location-of-nails section, perhaps an alternative to simply moving it to the other article would be to re-write it as something like "Method of attachment." This could be more culturally inclusive, and fits logically with the cross-shape and cause-of-death sections (which could also be made less narrow in perspective). I would also like to point out that this is a good reason for not completely deleting the pop culture section. (I bet you could guess that I was going to say that last point!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Something else just occurred to me. Editors here have disparaged the anime section based on what they say is its lack of relevance to the Christian traditions associated with crucifixion. Perhaps the recurrent appearance of crucifixion in anime has nothing to do with Christianity, and instead grows out of crucifixion practices in Japanese history. Seems plausible to me, but of course needs secondary sources! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is poor article because of the extraneous information about the crucifixion in the Christian tradition. 72.87.59.16 (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about some recent edits

I lack the expertise to know the answers, but I wonder whether there are some inaccuracies introduced by these recent edits. Other editors might want to take a look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Some of the changes were a matter of taste, some were disimprovements, some were quite wrong, like the invention of a supposed Latin verb "crucificare". None of the changes were sourced. The simplest thing was to revert all, at least provisionally. Lima (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

islamic-awareness.org

An EL to islamic-awareness.org ([2]) was removed in this edit, with an edit summary "removing unreliable site, islamic-awareness is known for distorting facts, also should not link to such a partisan site".

I don't see anything in Wikipedia that designates it as an unreliable source, per se. However, WP:WikiProject Islam says:

Articles at islamic-awareness.org are usually signed by the authors. For those articles, if one can establish that the authors hold an official academic degree (Western or Islamic) and are notable, they could be used when properly attributed to the authors. Articles at islamic-awareness.org are more likely to have references. So, if you found something there, try to look up for its source and then look up the original source. If you are lucky, you'll get a good sourced piece of information.

Looking at the particular article cited, it's highly opinionated, but it's replete with sources. I have no way of checking on the veracity of the article's authors, but it's not being cited as a reference to support a particular fact in the body of the article. It's an external link for additional reading. Assuming the worst, it seems to fall into WP:ELMAYBE territory, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

My inclination would be to keep it. It's interesting on-topic reading, with sources so that a skeptical reader could investigate on his or her own. What's the consensus on this? TJRC (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote first paragraph for legibility

Specifically, I moved the long parenthetical comment about the etymology of the word from the middle of the first sentence to the end of the paragraph. It's much easier to read that way. As it origially read:

Crucifixion (from Latin crucifixio, noun of process from perfect passive participle crucifixus, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do, variant form of facere, do or make)[1] is an ancient method of execution, whereby the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead.

the user is virtually drowned with information, to such a degree that the passage is unintelligible. Skald the Rhymer (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that reads much better. But I restored the mention of variable cross shapes, because that does reflect the content of the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Anime image

May I suggest that the sailor moon picture used is rather low quality. I think personally that there are other series' with more significant crucifixion-based imagery that can be used. Can I suggest this picture of Lilith from Neon Genesis Evangelion? Lilith was notoriously kept crucified to a cross at the bottom of a military complex and pierced with the "Lance of Longinius". And the picture is higher quality. I think it has more of an impact then the Sailor moon picture currently used.

I personally think that a picture from the Neon Genesis Evangelion series would be more useful then one from Sailor Moon, as only a single example of crucifixion is cited in Sailor Moon, and that was cut for Western audiences, whereas in Neon Genesis Evangelion, crucifixion happens at least twice in major points of the plot.

http://www.kuliniewicz.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/lilith-scaled.jpg

There's the link to the picture. --Pstanton (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have no objection to that (so long as it's a replacement as you propose, rather than an increase in the number of images). Perhaps you could bring that image (if GFDL) to Commons? More broadly, I think editors here have had the disadvantage of not knowing much about this particular facet. If you or any other editors could help provide context of why crucifixion appears in anime, that would be very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the usage in Sailor Moon is one that's been discussed in third-party sources, and as such is probably a better example. I'd thought that the passage and reference I knew about was already in the article, but I see that it wasn't, so I've added it. There's also more in the cited reference at the indicated page. I didn't want to overuse a single source or grow this section out of proportion, so I limited it to the direct quote from the director on his view of the usage. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good. I made a few tweaks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the image IS a copyrighted image, it's taken from a television show without permission, so I'm pretty sure it violates Wiki policy.

Second, The First Paragraph of the anime section is redundant: sympathetic characters rarely deserve torture and/or punishment(More Words != Better Than). Then half of the second paragraph talks about how there is no religious significance in anime, while the very next paragraph makes religious comparison. Make up your mind.

Third, the third paragraph is completely irrelevant as anything other than trivia, what do the details of two characters escaping crucifixion have to do with crucifixion? I escaped Crucifixion by being born in Western Civilization in the latter half of the 20th century, can I get a paragraph to talk about myself in this article? Everything else in the Third paragraph is nothing but a listing of anime and video games that some japan-o-phile likes that happen to have somebody staked to something at some point in them.

The whole section is trivial and irrelevant and consequently trivializes the rest of the article. For crying out loud, the list of movies that actually depict crucifixion is endless. The HBO Series Rome had Roman forms of Corporal and Capital Punishment as one of its central motifs, to include very graphic depictions of crucifixion that had absolutely no religious significance, but the series gets barely a sentence. The whole movies section gets less space than the anime section, AND has a 'citation needed' when the sentences immediately following that tag list films that directly support that statement, but the anime section gets a pass because a (poorly researched and non-scholarly, I might add) book about anime has one poorly supported section referencing crucifixion that has less to do with crucifixion itself than the fact of cultural and religious attitudes regarding it in Japan vs the US in it and a listing of instances in anime, and then contradicts itself? Seriously, your source for this is a book that says "Crucifixion seems to Date from..."? (Search inside works wonders)

The anime section could easily be condensed to a sentence or two in the crucifixion in the Movies/TV paragraph, or in the other cultures/Japan paragraph. Here's a thought for you:

Although it has no actual religious significance to the country as a whole, it is seen as cruel and barbaric, and thus is reflected in modern Japanese popular culture (particularly anime) as a recurrent and prominent motif, where it often serves to emphasize the suffering of sympathetic characters.[59]

There, got the whole meaning of the overly verbose and unnecessary section of the article condensed to a more relevant sentence that doesn't detract from the rest of the article, but does give anybody interested in that subject a place to go look for it. If you really really want to describe instances of crucifixion in anime, I'd recommend starting your own article. Maybe "Listing of Depictions of Crucifixion in Popular Culture" with a Subsection on anime. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge the anime section with the cartoon section

There really isn't any coherent reason why anime should have its own category. It's a cartoon, why not merge it with the cartoon section? I don't really see a need for an anime section. Should we insert a section about an article's relevance to anime in every article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What "cartoon section"? TJRC (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TJRC. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean the movies and television section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) June 24, 2009

I'd keep them separate. The anime subsection deals with a particular type of medium with a cultural context related to it. None of that is applicable to the general movie/TV discussion. TJRC (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no discussion of cultural context. at best, just one blurb of an opinion. It's not even sourced. 74.249.37.84 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The introductory sentence of the section states that the context is no different than the usual, Christian-based idea of crucifixion. What exactly is not applicable to the movie/TV discussion? Nobi (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobi, thank you for asking a reasonable question; my comments below are not directed at you. Actually, it seems to me that the opening sentence of the anime section, which is sourced, describes the context in a way that is based in Japanese (popular) culture, and has nothing to do with Christianity, much as the use of crucifixion in the Meiji era described earlier on the page was unrelated to Christianity. I would argue that this is an aspect of world culture that is quite reasonably encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hey, no one looks up "crucifixion" to find out what animes it's been in <ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.214.213 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

basically this anime thing is what makes normal people laugh at wikipedia editors and not particpate here <ad hominem removed>

but wait! what about my animes!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.160.110 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

jesus christ anime on this page <ad hominem removed>? You really think that anime is notable at all to anyone <ad hominem removed>? NOBODY WILL EVER COME TO THIS PAGE WANTING INFORMATION ABOUT CRUCIFIXION IN ANIME. <ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.209 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The anime section has no place in this article and needs to be deleted. <ad hominem removed> Tarfa (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To the editors who have made these comments: I'm sorry, but it is very difficult to take you seriously. After, first, a barrage of edit warring, these comments are a combination of personal attacks coupled with arguments that are, essentially, "I don't like it". For those who may, perhaps, be influenced by religious considerations, please note that there is a separate article on the Crucifixion of Jesus. This article, in contrast, is about all aspects of crucifixion in general, including its role in popular culture. In fact, some of us who have argued for keeping the section have also worked to make it much shorter than it used to be, and I, for one, regularly revert edits that try to add more anime examples. I wonder, however, whether part of the problem is a recent edit that made the images larger. Perhaps they should be made smaller again? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If that garbage belongs anywhere, it should be integrated with movies and television. Because that's what it is. 74.249.37.84 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is its occurrences in anime is not an important subject AT ALL, and a brief mention in movies/television is all the subject matter needs. Not an entire sub-section and picture. Japan isn't special, and if we're going to have a sub-section on a specific type of popular culture, it should probably be a western one, as the impact of crucifixion on western pop culture is much more profound and notable than three whole paragraphs that gush about Sailor Moon, and for God's sake, Naruto. This whole thing is pretty indefensible, and to keep such a ridiculous, irrelevant section is stubborn at best, creepy at worst. 96.226.235.89 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanese culture is no less special than Christian culture. I wonder: why all these edits showing up in a 24-hour period? Has this editing been organized? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the crucifixion of a fictional ninja is certainly no less special then the murder of Christ.

Crucifixion has more than Christian significance in the west, and your allusions to conspiracy and selective choice of words do little to defend the anime sub-section. Justify this garbage's importance. If we're going to discuss specific cultural depictions of this particular type of execution, preference should be given to media with more significance in pop-culture, if any specifics need be discussed at all. (They don't, anime categorically falls under the movies and television section, and is by no virtue of it's own more important than other visual media)96.226.235.89 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the rack for of course anime references and imagine my surprise when I saw none. <ad hominem removed> I better edit that page immediately and add this earth shattering knowledge. 24.68.150.48 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I really have to agree that an anime section does not belong in this article. It could easily be construed as making light of the subject matter. Worse than that, though - the information just plain isn't useful. Anime is a specialist interest at best and this information just isn't notable enough to the majority of people who would use wikipedia as a reference work. If it were then every page would have a section on its relevance to anime, but I don't see "Spiders in anime" for example, or "Monorails in anime". At best this section should be merged with the movies and television section as suggested above, at worst it should be deleted altogether for its sheer irrelevance. It seriously undermines Wikipedia's credibility. I vote to Merge/Delete, for what that's worth. IgorsBrain (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the previous few posts pressing for the deletion of the anime section. There's simply no need for an entire section to be devoted to crucifixion in the anime context. The argument that Tryptofish makes about it bringing a valuable non-Western perspective would make more sense IF the section was something more than a list of anime scenes where a crucifixion takes place. And the opening line of the sentence is a travesty. I vote to delete.207.38.255.123 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think the making light issue could apply to any of the popular culture material, such as Piss Christ. The fact that it offends some people is not a valid reason to, in effect, censor it. I'm no fan of anime myself, but it is enough of a non-specialist interest that there is a great deal of coverage of it in Wikipedia. If you feel there should be less Wikipedia material about anime, this is hardly the page to start. The reason the section is here is that it represents a recurring theme in anime, in a way that I assume monorails do not. And we have a responsibility not to have a Western bias in our coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the potential offensiveness of a subject is no reason to censor it on an encyclopedia, but I would appreciate it if you would consider my other point, namely the relevance of the section altogether. If it is here because it represents a recurring theme in anime, then it should probably be moved to the article on anime because it doesn't work the other way around; anime is not relevant to - and has had no impact on - crucifixion. A brief sentence or two in the television and movies section linking to an appropriate section on the anime article page would be more than sufficient. As for the accusations of meatpuppetry below, I would appreciate it if you didn't call my motives into question when I am simply trying to raise what I feel is a perfectly valid point. I only discovered that this article had such a section today and that is why I didn't post about it a year ago! To imply that I cannot have any input on a discussion unless I have first vetted every single article that might include an anime reference for its relevance is pointless and, frankly, counter-productive. If I encounter an article that contains a section I feel is irrelevant I will point that out on the discussion page for that article. This is not a vendetta. IgorsBrain (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with the meatpuppetry issue, please read again what I wrote. I did not accuse you. If you are not part of any canvassing, then no problem—for you. There is a sudden avalanche of personal attacks on this talk; I was not addressing your motives in particular. Now, about the issue of relevance to this page, as opposed to the page on anime, that's another matter. I fear we could go around in circles about which page it belongs on; Meiji crucifixion is also not relevant to and has had no impact on crucifixion in Western traditions, but, since this page is not Crucifixion of Jesus, we cover it here. Popular culture sections have apparently always been controversial at WP, but it seems reasonable to me to treat societal views, including secular views, in this page, not as a central theme, but as a section at the end. (And if you go back in page history, you will find that I worked at making this section much shorter today than it used to be.) I don't suppose the appearance of crucifixion imagery on music album covers is any more "relevant" according to your discussion, than the anime is. We can talk about specific edits shortening the material, but what I've been hearing so far from this recent talk (not limited to you) has been the equivalent of "Wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing". No thoughtful editor would take that seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see a couple of personal attacks, but mostly I just see other users discussing a point of view you disagree with. I can't see anyone at all saying "wikipedia stinks and delete the whole thing" and you are not helping your case by finding such an interpretation where it doesn't exist. I also note the barbed "not limited to you" comment you made. Perhaps it would be an idea to assume good faith, rather than make blanket statements like that and try to browbeat other editors into following your point of view by suggesting they'd be thoughtless to do otherwise? Going back to the subject at hand, I simply don't see how the anime section can be considered a good example of Japanese societal views as a whole. Actually, it could be construed as rather insulting to Eastern cultures to be lumped together under an 'anime' heading! As others have pointed out the section as is basically just lists examples of anime episodes that have included crucifixion beneath a rather vague explanation that this is done to portray the suffering of sympathetic characters. That is by no means unique to anime alone and certainly no argument against merging it with the television and movies section. Regarding your comment on album covers - if there was a section on depictions of crucifixion in music AND a seperate, distinct section for, say, "depictions of crucifixion in German techno" then I would indeed consider that pointless and unnecessary. But we're not discussing the album covers, we're discussing the relevance of a seperate, distinct section on anime as opposed to a line or two in the far more appropriate television heading. I think a more than suitable compromise was suggested by 68.114.130.234 in the above section, and rather than continue to reiterate my point which I believe I have stated perfectly clearly by now I'm just going to throw my vote behind that suggestion and call it a day. IgorsBrain (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

About "not limited to you": I can't find where I said that. Did I? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I have to ask again: this section has been in its present form for about a year, without any commotion for at least several months. Why the sudden outpouring of complaints in the last 24 hours? It sure has the appearance of out-of-policy meat puppetry. I'm not saying that every editor above is doing that, but if any are, please be aware that I am considering reporting it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You actually think anime deserves as much space as movies+television (when it's the same thing)? Crucifixion has had a much bigger impact in the West than in one country in the East for obvious reasons. Merge it or delete it. Anime is less important and not as big a subject as movies+television. It is a specialist interest. Impact of crucifixion on anime is considerably less than in the whole of movies+television. How is anime different than movies+television anyway? It isn't a different medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.253.60 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

oh yeah by the way implying I have religious bias? What the hell? That the only reason someone would be doubting the earth shattering relevance of anime to all things ever in your world? edit: just looked and you are a japanophile it seems...what was that about bias again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.253.60 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think the anime section is superfluous. The second paragraph about sailor moon doesn't even have to do with the cultural usage of crucifixion in anime, the director is quoted as saying there's no symbolism in it, that it was done cause it looked good. The third paragraph has information about two characters who escape crucifixion and that its imagery appeared in some videogames.

I'm for keeping the first paragraph and merging it with movies and television. Lucidphoole (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

<ad hominem removed> --Unsigned

I don't think anime is anywhere near important enough to get its own section in this article, especially the whole paragraph about Sailor Moon. Condense the important points into a sentence or two and add it to the TV and Movies section. People don't visit an article about crucifixon to find out in what episode of an old Japanese cartoon it appears. 24.175.95.211 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the "crucifixion in anime" page was used on a forum as an example of something that had no place on Wikipedia. Once it was coupled with a thread on said forum about a study of Wikipedia losing editors at a faster-than-normal rate, people rushed to attempt to take away this section.

That said, I completely agree. Seeing a section like this on a page like "crucifixion" makes no sense in my mind. Why someone would think it would be a helpful addition for any other reason than showing how much anime they watch is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.37.71 (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To those who are wondering why the sudden onset of discussion about the "Crucifixion in Anime", know that a screenshot was recently posted on a popular forum. It is absolutely ridiculous to have a section on anime, when it could be merged in a single sentence or paragraph with the "movie/television" section. TrashLock (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

I think heavy metal should get it's own section too. They LOVE crucifixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.183.199 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur. The crucifixion motif is popular in many genres of music. I encourage an editor to include a Crucifixion in Scandinavian Death Metal section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.7.252 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for this situation

My thanks to TrashLock for explaining what drew this sudden attention. It appears to me that the website is here, at something called "somethingawful", filed under "General Bullshit/Wikipedias insular culture imploding in on itself". Clearly, a high-quality scholarly site (sarcasm intentional). What happens elsewhere on the web is not and should not be something Wikipedia would try to interfere with, and external criticism of Wikipedia can be constructive and helpful. But it is disingenuous of those editors who found this page because of that posting to fail to acknowledge what brought them here, as if to create the patently incredible appearance that everyone just happened to arrive here independently all at once. What has happened may be a violation of Wikipedia's editing policy against canvassing and meatpuppetry, and I am now going to put a link to here at WP:ANI, to allow administrators to keep an eye on the page and perhaps take action against individual editors if it becomes appropriate to do so. On the other hand, it is possible to have a reasoned discussion of whether the page should be edited to de-emphasize anime, and that is entirely reasonable and appropriate. I, for one, would be happy to participate in that discussion. However, the wrong way to go about it is to stack the deck, when there are mechanisms such as WP:RfC that can be used to attract attention. Feel free to start an RfC if you want. And I shouldn't have to point out that the wrong way is to repeatedly section-blank the article (for which the page has been semi-protected), to vandalize one editor's user-page, or to splatter this talk page with comments about editors being "asspies" and such. I invite new editors to read WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no one from a different website could possibly have anything relevant to say (sarcasm intentional). <ad hominem removed> No one cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

way to ignore the discussion and my points <ad hominem removed>. Coming here from a link to the page isn't against any rules. <ad hominem removed> You arent participating in the discussion at all. <ad hominem removed>.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.136 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I rushed to the scene to revert the page after someone took something asinine out, how dare they edit my baby. In my defense I'll threaten with rules and criticize the source instead of just letting someone remove the damn thing on this COMMUNITY EDITED encyclopedia. Yep, no problems at all with Wikipedia, just keep on going. Maybe it would be appropriate to change "almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site" on the Wikipedia page and add "provided you are willing to argue <ad hominem removed>." 24.68.150.48 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

<ad hominem removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus christ, nobody gives a shit about crucifixion in sailor moon. Nobody cares about crucifixion in children's cartoons. Anybody who is actually <ad hominem removed> to want a list of animes dealing with crucifixion can go to 4chan (no wait, not even they would want you there either). Nobody can take Wikipedia seriously when absolutely awful sections like "In anime" exist. --74.103.48.134 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did the anime section get taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthShallStand (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs more not less (but not more anime)

It needs an entire section on the depiction of crucifixion in fine art which seems to be entirely missing. You could actually then subsume the manga/anime section into that if desired. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been thinking about the need for fine art for some time, and it's very helpful to remind me. However, one point: I think it would be problematic to characterize anime, or any other pop culture, as fine art, so it would probably still have to be separated at least as a subsection. (And just wait to see the discussion of whether Piss Christ is fine art or not!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

how hard do you think it is to characterize anime as television or movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.136 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a potentially finer line than you might think. What we get on mainstream western tv is perfectly well classified in the cartoons section along with all the other kids tv, but manga and anime in Japan, as with some aspects of the graphic arts in the West, definitely cross over into fine art. I think the problem is that the 'culture' section is too limited, which makes the anime part stick out like a sore thumb. The "Always look on the Bright Side of Life" sequence from Life of Brian would warrant far more words by itself than the anime section, as that had a huge impact on popular culture and the 'de-holyizing' (gah! what's the real word) of the crucifixion image. Of course, by this point you might be talking about splitting the article anyway, but.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the word you are looking for is desacralize or desanctify. Not truly important to the discussion but I know it drives me crazy when I cannot think of the correct word.DSRH |talk 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember the Life of Brian used to be on the page, and it was one of the items deleted when we last tried to shorten the pop culture section. Go figure! (By the way, there's another long-time editor of this page who is a defender of the anime section. I don't want to name him, as his page has already been vandalized once during the past day, but I'd definitely want to give him a chance to come back before making any decisions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of anime that could be considered fine art would take up less space than this Crucifixion in Anime section. 99.9% of it exists to sell toys to kids. Including the examples listed in this article. 68.114.130.234 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should crucifixion in anime have its own section in the article on crucifixion?

The article on crucifixion has, among other sections, a section on the use of crucifixion as a motif in anime. Is this cultural information about crucifixion that is relevant to the article? Should the whole section be deleted? Should some of the information be removed, while other information be retained and merged with the TV and movies section, or with other material that could potentially be added? Gary (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. This RfC has been cross-listed at WT:WikiProject Japan and WT:WikiProject Anime and manga. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from an involved editor. Completely removing the anime material would be, in effect, censorship, but shortening it would be a good idea. Merging it into other subsections gets to be problematic, in that it is not regarded in Japan as really in the same category as TV and movies (per Elen, above—I'm no expert on Japanese culture). I enthusiastically agree with a suggestion that the page needs more coverage of fine arts. I have low enthusiasm for forking off a separate pop culture page, as this has historically been an excuse to bring the resulting page to AfD. (Please note that this page is about crucifixion in general, and there is a separate page on the Crucifixion of Jesus. Also, re: notability, please note that the section is sourced to a reference, which, if you follow the link, is written by "Drazen, a pop culture academician who has lectured at the University of Chicago".) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have googled and googled and I can't find any of Patrick Drazen's Academic qualifications. He's written one book and spoken at off-hours non-academic lectures sponsored by University Anime clubs, on panels at Anime conventions and animation-related film festivals. This is not to denigrate his work in his field, but he's hardly an Academician. I've been at University sponsored lectures given by James Earl Jones and Charlton Heston, but I don't hold them to the same authority that I hold actual academic lecturers. The one section of his book that is referenced here is little more than a listing of Anime scenes that would be controversial in the U.S., not much different than what's here in this article. There's no in depth written analysis in the book that goes beyond the first sentence of this section. - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter what it is regarded as in Japan (you have no proof this isnt how they regard it anyway, oh sensei of the Japanese culture)? Anime appears on tv doesnt it? Also, how is it censorship? Nobody is complaining that it insults the Christian faith or anything to that effect - just that it isn't notable to warrant a whole section > tv+movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.104.12 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the section as it stands is that it's not there to primarily address how crucifixion is viewed in Japan. Indeed, the bulk of the section seems to bring nothing new to the article at all. WP:IPC sets out that something should only really be added to a "popular culture" section when "a person who is familiar with the topic only through the reference in question has the potential to learn something meaningful about the topic from that work alone" and that doesn't seem to be the case with any of the presented examples. The only cultural benefit to the section is the first sentence, and in fact a large portion of the rest of the section is about a Sailor Moon scene where it's made clear that the example has no cultural significance and was merely chosen for aesthetic reasons. (The image, as well, besides being of questionable fair use, adds nothing to the article as previous images already show how crucifixion works.) Take the first sentence and integrate it into the opening paragraph of the Popular Culture section, and dump the irrelevant exposition on specific examples, or move it to References. --75.7.194.95 (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's you. You're the problem with wikipedia. There's no good reason for including anything on crucifixion in anime whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that people like you are the problem with wikipedia and what is bringing it down. Any rational person can see there is no need for a separate anime section on crucifixion. If this discussion didn't come up as it did and someone tried to change it on their own people like you would go back and change it back to it's original(and worse) state within 10 minutes. This is why so many people of value are leaving wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.146.175 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Frankly, only the first sentence of the section is useful, cited as it is and stating that it is a relevant motif in anime. The rest merely consists of specific examples, which are far too much detail; if an article on Crufixion in Anime were ever to appear (highly unlikely) then examples would be a good idea, but otherwise it's too much detail for this article. Therefore, as there's only one sentence left, merge it into the Television and Media section. Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Skinny87. Tryptofish I don't see why you think merging it with TV would be problematic. It may not be regarded as the same in Japan, and we only have your word on that, but most users of the site wouldn't make a distinction. Lucidphoole (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with all these guys. It's way too specific, and should be merged with the TV and Movies section. Anime having it's own section is just redundant. 70.118.245.110 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - While anime/manga is very important in Japan, it is less important outside of there, and the content probably has WP:UNDUE problems as is. I do think that there is more than sufficient material for a Crucifixion in popular culture article, incorporating other items, and a separate section there might be reasonable. I think the concept is used enough that there wouldn't be much question regarding it meriting its own article. I'd also like to see Neal Adams' image from Green Lantern/Green Arrow of an environmentalist (I think) being crucified from an airplane added, in addition to the various other visual arts and other references which exist in abundance. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John carter.There really is no need to mention crucifixion in anime in this article. A crucifixion in pop culture article would be the perfect home for it, but since that article doesn't exist yet, the section should be taken out or reduced down to a sentence and added to the TV and movies section. Shutdown56 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that crucifixion in Japan seems to have, according to the article, begun after the idea came to the country from people preaching the story of Jesus. On that basis, I have to think that saying crucifixion in Japan does not, ultimately, relate directly to Jesus is a bit of a misstatement, considering the story of Jesus seems to be the impetus for the beginning of crucifixion in Japan. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So has this discussion ended? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

no one gives a shit about what girls do and do not fit on crosses in children's shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.138.23 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this discussion hasn't ended. RfC's usually run for up to 30 days. I haven't said anything yet, for one thing. And the first thing I will say to those who are new to Wikipedia is - anyone who descend to insults and trolling is likely to find themselves in trouble with the admins. By all means express your opinions, even rude ones, but avoid attacking other . The "no one gives a shit...." comment is fine as an expression of your opinion but "It's you. You're the problem with wikipedia." is not acceptable, as it is a dig at another editor. You see the difference. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because no one should point out that the defense of something that's effectively defenseless is stupid, and the protection of it is equally stupid. Wikipedia looks bad because of this sort of thing, and this type of 'editorship' is exactly why. It's crap, and the very fact that someone's able to stand there and whine about their precious animu section is why it's crap. There is absolutely no reason for the section to be in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShuttheHeckUp (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article is to have an "in popular culture" section, it must include the portrayal of crucifixion in the fine arts (I'm thinking it's use by modern artists, not deconstructing the difference between Canaletto and Botticelli). And the anime section should be reduced, it's out of proportion with the tv/movie section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Including a section in this article about anime is kind of demeaning to something a serious as crucifixion. Additionally, if you want to include a section on anime there must be a section about crucifixion on Bollywood. Bollywood is just as or even more important than anime for a majority of the people in the world, and ignoring its artistic uses of crucifixion's symbolism is nothing short or ignorance and intolerance of Indian pop culure. Shutdown56 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Count me ignorant - even though I live in a city with several cinemas that show Bollywood films, I must confess to not watching them. Is it a regular feature? It would definitely be significant if it were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know. I was just trying to make a point that there are plenty cultures more valuable and important than anime, and not mentioning any of them while devoting as much space as is given to anime is a little japan-centric and intolerant. I personally have never seen a bollywood film. Does anyone have one they can recommend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shutdown56 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the whole anime section. The article on sandwiches doesn't have "sandwiches in anime". The article on judo doesn't have "judo in anime". I can carry on, but the point is clear. ManicParroT (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I just checked every single page in the Japanese martial arts list. I have trouble believing how anyone could say crucifixion plays a more notable role in anime than Japanese martial arts, but out of the 63 existing pages, ONE SINGLE PAGE mentioned anime at any point. Anime does not deserve a special section in an article about crucifixion Cyrai (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the whole anime section. Japan and Anime aren't special despite what spergelords and neckbeards seem to think. No one, anywere, would look up at an enciclopedia so they can see how crucifixion is portrayed in Anime except for neckbeards so they can see where they can find more material for their Animu-Crucifix hentai fetish collection. That section has no enciclopedic value. Not only that, but shit like Wikipedian's anime obession makes Wikipedia look bad. I may not sound serious but all this anime stuff makes the site look really bad. The section is useless. Only a small part of it is good, and that is the first sentence. Delete the section. With extreme prejudice.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Further comment. After another day and reading the comments that have come in, I have a further comment. First, I realize that some editors have come to this RfC in good faith. And I want to repeat what I said before, that shortening the section is fine with me, and probably a good idea. However, seeing the large number of comments that, in effect, argue that there are WP:UNDUE issues with the section (as well as noting that there are some comments that have obviously been canvassed), I want to point something out very emphatically. Anyone who has only looked at the pop culture part of the page, please look here. It is true that the material says that the idea of crucifixion came to Japan via Christian missionaries, which makes a good case that crucifixion in Japan is part of the subject of crucifixion in general. However, look at that section. And look at the photograph in that section. Does anyone seriously think that the actual use of crucifixion was in any way religiously motivated in nature? Clearly not. It is a separate strain in the cultural significance of this form of capital punishment. An awful lot of the arguments that the pop culture material is just not relevant strike me as Western cultural insensitivity. It is just plain arrogant to claim that Western perceptions of crucifixion are relevant in this encyclopedia in a way that Japanese (or any other Eastern) perceptions are not. Opinions of meatpuppets (which I do not expect to change) notwithstanding, I hope that the serious editors who will be coming to this RfC will appreciate the need for Wikipedia to refrain from cultural biases. (And parenthetically, I find it bizarre to suggest that it would be encyclopedic not to provide any examples.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's hard not to see the above comment as attempting to put words in the mouths of others. No one has said that I know of that crucifixion in Japan was "religious in nature", as is said above, except Tryptofish himself. "Inspired by the story of Jesus" and "religious in nature" are entirely separate concepts. And I also have to question the ending of the above commentary as well. Although Tryptofish seems by his comments not to be aware of this, WikiProject Popular Culture was specificallhy created to keep "in popular culture" from being deleted and in accord with policy and guidelines. If he were to contact that project and ask for assistance, and probably also ask some specific individuals, like maybe User:Johnbod, our resident expert on Christian art, I have no doubt that an article on crucifixion in popular culture would be fairly good, and very unlikely to be deleted. And to call opposing pop culture material in general "cultural insensitivity" when the article as it stands has, at least in my eyes, a clear lack of material in western art relative to the comparatively recent development that is anime, including sculpture and graphic arts, stikes me as being at least misleading and disproportionate as well. So far as I can tell, there is no reference whatsoever to crucifixion in art prior to the 20th century in the extant article. To say that a comparatively modern art form, however important it may be to a specific cultural group, needs to be covered more extensively than 1900 years of western art dealing with the subject, displays in the eyes of some a rather pronounced lack of proportion. And, of course, if it were spun out as a separate popular culture article, then all facets of crucifixion in art, both historically and currently, could get much more extensive and serious coverage than they will in one section of a larger article. This page gives a description of crucifixion/crosses in the icongraphy of at least two apostles. Tomorrow, when the local theology library opens again, I'm going to check on the symbolic meaning (if any) of curcifixion in the iconography of saints, which I think most people will probably acknowledge has a greater social and cultural impact than anime does. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I should clarify. I realize of course that emotions are running high here. I'm sorry if you (John) felt that was directed specifically at you; it wasn't. There are editors who are arguing here that this material should be deleted because it isn't important enough, and that it isn't important enough because it is not really part of the Western traditions. I have been saying from the start that adding more material on fine arts is something I have favored all along. No where have I said that anime should be covered more extensively than 1900 years of Western culture. But the solution is not simply to delete anime, as many other editors are arguing, but to add fine arts material, which I, again, support. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, nobody is arguing that it should be deleted because it's not part of western traditions. It should be deleted because it's insignificant. Even in JAPAN, Anime is insignificant. The section in the article is nothing but a weak opening sentence and six examples of where crucifixion was -or in the case of one of them, was not- used in certain Anime (although not why or how it's significant, because it's not even significant in the shows that it's listed in, it's just an aesthetic choice). I find it hilarious that Crucifixion in Anime has stirred up such a debate, but there's no trace of the word Smurf on either the Socialism or Communism pages, and Smurfs are arguably far more relevant to those two topics than Anime is to crucifixion. Nobody is talking about whether it's religious or not religious, nobody is talking about whether it's more or less relevant. Nobody's bashing it for being Non-Western. Several people, myself included, have stated that it is categorically insignificant and that the section as it is, is nothing more than a trivial listing of insignificant and irrelevant appearances (and one absurd non-appearance) in Anime. Why can't you get over your imagined insults and injuries that you claim are caused by 'meatpuppets'. 'sockpuppets' and 'canvasing'? All you're doing is trying to trivialize our objections by claiming that we can't think for ourselves, thus validating every criticism of Wikipedia that made us aware of this article in the first place. Other than the fact that a lot of us found this through one message board (a board that has more than 100,000 members, by the way) and all feel strongly about the same subject, there is no coordination going on here at all. This is not a systematic personal attack on you, you're only making it out to be by claiming it is, reverting every attempt to edit or fix the page on a PUBLICLY EDITABLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, despite comprehensive talk about why it was or should be deleted. Unfortunately, based on your behavior, I can see this turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About my "behavior": "reverting every edit or fix"? Really? I've been commenting here, and not reverting. Thank you for finally admitting that you all came here from that external site. I'm sure other editors will, in time, understand what that means. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What it means is that we have a more objective view about how non-editors view Wikipedia Cyrai (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is worth noting that WP:UNDUE is generally taken as being applied to content as it exists, not in reference to some theoretical perfect case where the entire subject is covered extensively. What we have here is a comparatively long section about a subject which is one of the modern popular media in a comparatively small part of the world. We also lack completely any serious reference to the subject as it pertains to a much broader part of the world over a much longer period of time. Saying "the rest should be expanded" does not address the real problem as it exists, which is that the section is clearly disproportionately long. On that basis, I have to say that policy is probably fairly clear here, and that the section should be reduced to a length comparable to its significance relative to the other popular culture sections, until and unless those other sections are developed further. But I cannot see how it does not fairly clearly violate WP:UNDUE as it is, and the policy does apply to the existing form of an article. I personally do not see any good reason not to ensure this article abides by that policy. Having said that, if we were to create a separate article on crucifixion in art/popular culture, or maybe crucifixion in the Orient/Japan, those problems might not exist. But the policy seems to be to be clearly violated by the content in its existing form. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

350 words about the argument on the relevance of the article and that's what you got out of it? You are being obtuse. I just told you, nobody asked us to stir anything up, nobody recruited us to come here, there was no coordination. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's own definition of Sock puppetry or Meat Puppetry, unless you mean this particular line: Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member. If that's the case, then go hog wild. And go ahead and keep reverting, I've watched this single page change back and forth ten times in the last few days. You're the only long-time contributor to this page who is arguing for it to be kept as is, and you're going to great lengths to martyr yourself. I've made absolutely no changes to the topic itself, I've only contributed to the talk section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.130.234 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

HEAR HEAR! to the preceding comment. Removing the anime section has NOTHING to do WHATSOEVER with diminishing the dignity or importance of Japan or Japanese culture, it has to do with removing something totally worthless (anime) from a serious, solemn topic. Its worthlessness has nothing to do with the fact it is Japanese. If someone was fouling a serious article about something from Japanese history was something equally worthless from Western culture, say, including a reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate about how Bruce Wayne references the habits of Tokugawa shoguns in Batman #839, I would expect it to be removed with all due haste. It is only because of the obsessive sperglording and total inability to contextualize of users like Tryptofish that the subject is even being taken as a dismissal/disrespect of Japan to begin with.Jadams2484 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't have a problem with the mention in the article if commentary on its usage referenced well. I think the larger question is judging the level of significance of these appearances. I presume depictions that are currently given as examples are a bit too specific as the crucifixion itself is not a major component of the story. (Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga also has a one-panel example of crucifixion.) It might be more constructive to discuss anime and manga that actively depict Christianity and its themes such as Chrono Crusade. Arsonal (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the section. If nothing else, it invites fancruft and trivia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

About that point, it may be worth noting that this is what the page looked like in September 2008. Pretty awful from a fancruft/trivia viewpoint, isn't it? Starting here in this talk, we started making it more encyclopedic. I and other editors have been very strict since then in not allowing more material a la "trivia list" to be added back. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone is 150 pounds overweight and goes on to lose 50 pounds, does that mean they should stop right there saying "Oh man it sure is great what I've done to trim the fat" or should they go on to finish losing the rest of the weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.1.109 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it then that it still looks like a trivia list? - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I was alerted to this discussion by a notice placed on WT:ANIME. On read through, the whole "in popular culture" is more or less filled with trivial depictions. All of the depictions mentioned, not just those in the anime section, are unsourced to their relevance to the overall topic. The section does not explain why the depictions of crucifixion in Ben-Hur, The Passion of the Christ, Spartacus, Monty Python's Life of Brian, or Sailor Moon are significant or relevant. In my opinion, the section needs to be completely rewrite based on media critiques of the symbolism of crucifixion and how certain depictions affected the view of crucifixion in popular culture. —Farix (t | c) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All that will do is get the anime fans out of the woodwork to defend the section.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. Most anime fans problem aren't even aware of the section. And the WikiProject Anime and manga has had several battles with the more rabbit elements of anime fandom, particularly in the area of character articles, and usually wins. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What we're asking for is relevance. Simply put, I don't think the crucifixion of animes is relevant enough to garner a subsection. A bullet point, maybe. 66.30.100.140 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this section. It completely fails on notability. --Woland (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people would need to prove that anime doesn't deserve a complete section. Why would anime, out of all other forms of media, when books and get nothing? Cyrai (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Glorious Nippon is special you stupid Gaijin. Joking aside, It seems everybody opposes the anime subsection.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to "Television and movies", retain footnoted anthropological material (if any) and delete any breathless "this one time in this one anime Gigantor was cruficied and then this other time in this one anime..." content. I can vaguely see a few footnoted sentences on this topic being useful in the "TV and movies" section, but to give it its own section is some bizarre sort of Anime Exceptionalism. Good grief, exactly how is it some rarefied artform that defies definition as either TV or movie? I would also oppose creation of Crucifixion in anime, but could see it being a subsection of Religious themes in anime or whatever. Sure WP's "not a democracy", but I think we have a pretty much 90% consensus against the current version.MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'd also be inclined to merge it with "In movies and television", or, alternatively, with the Japanese section in the article (given that I'm not wedded to "In popular culture" sections). As with others, I'd be inclined only to merge the first line and to leave out the specific examples. However, as I agree that the Sailor Moon context is interesting, I'd also like to see a "Religious themes/symbolism in anime" or some such, if it can be done without OR: there's a lot of symbolism which seems to be picked up (such as crucification or, as in the case of Haibene Renmei, angels) without the associated religious meaning, and presuming that there are sufficient RS on the topic I can see a potentially good article on this - although by no means an easy one to pull together. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with the comments of John Carter above. I'd like to point out that the article on crucifixion at ja.wiki has no mention of crucifixion in anime. They certainly have a section devoted to crucifixion in Japan, as does the English article and which is not disputed in this current discussion. Moreover, the ja.wiki article on the crucifixion of Christ mentions films such as Ben Hur, but again, no mention of anime. It seems to me, then, that Tryptofish's claim that deleting the section shows Western insensitivity and arrogance is merely an appeal to political correctness, rather than a valid reason for including this particular subtopic into the encyclopedia. Further, Tryptofish's argument in "Further comments" above conflates the earlier Japanese practice of crucifixion with the Western tradition. From the section itself: "Christ is an object of religious fantasy in Japan." If the (modern) anime examples are based largely on Japanese perceptions of Western crucifixion rather than the adapted practice, then a blurb mentioning that is sufficient. If one wants to include Japanese anime as an example of how the Christian view of crucifixion is adapted in non-Christian cultures, then it faces issues with WP:UNDUE, given that there are no mentions of other cultures. Nobi (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobi, Johnny Carter, you all bring up good points. Hell, we all bring up good points. It seems to me, everybody says that the section should be deleted. The only guy who opposes it is Fish, who thinks deleting it would be "censorship" and a example of Western Nationalism against Japan. It's all paranoiac bullshit. What people are saying is that a bunch of shit cartoons with college girls with G cup breasts, spotlights for eyes, floating eyebrows and men that look like women ain't relevant to crucifixion. You're the only one that opposes it.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's unanimous consent save one, does the discussion still last a month? Who makes the final decision if there's not unanimous consent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrai (talk • contribs) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please good sir, sign your comments by pressing the sign button on the editing box and put a period at the end of every sentece. I'm not sure who makes the final decesion but we'll see.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace Oliveira, please refrain from making any more disparaging remarks about other editors, as you did above towards Tryptofish. Editors you cannot behave in a civil manner or continually engages in ad hominem attacks will find that their editing privileges will be limited. —Farix (t | c) 23:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This whole page demonstrates one of the current major flaws of wikipedia. It took the combined CORRECT efforts of a hundred people to defeat one single objectively wrong editor with a personal stake in the article. Lessons should be learned from and acted upon here. The current publicity surrounding the driving away of competent editors to be replaced with stakeholder editors has been well demonstrated, as has the incredible amount of effort required to counteract them. What happened here was more than the correction of a stupid section. Let's make sure it continues to be such. 71.77.41.139 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope that any of the new editors who took part in the debate, stick around to make more contributions and improve other parts of the encyclopaedia. Just click here to find a new article to look at.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It could have been done with far less drama and insults coming from the Something Awful group. Most of those editors didn't provide any useful arguments to begin with. What really turned the tide was when regular editors entered the discussion with more reasonable arguments and far more civility. However, there are no WP:DEADLINEs to settling a particular issue so lone as the the issue is eventually settled through consensus. As for the "driving away of competent editors", I think most of the hubbub over that is related to fictional topics no longer have the free reign they use to have and are now. This has infuriated a lots of fan-editors in the process that they can no longer have their three page article on Obscure Character X who only appears for 10 minutes and will have to settle for a short paragraph, or even a single sentence, on a character list. That is if the character is even listed at all. —Farix (t | c) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that is the case. Without the efforts of "new editors", this would have been left alone. Wikipedia has, in general become so insular and flat out weird that no 'casual' editor stands a chance to revert things which are flat out wrong. If you collectively don't stop speaking in code and actually listen to people's concerns, you'll collapse under your own weight.

As a 'regular editor' who found out about this through the SA forums, I'm on the side of the people who claim that it was ridiculous that it took this long to get this removed. It's taken hours of argument and dozens of people weighing in to get past one or two stubborn long term Wikipedia editors who absolutely refused to back down. It's ridiculous that it should take so long to make one change that was absolutely, 100% correct. The SA chaps might have been less civil than Wikipedia 'demands', but they were *right*, and Trypto was *wrong*.

ManicParroT (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, someone deleted the bit about the Sailor Senshi being crucified in two episodes. As a fan of Sailor Moon and a member of WP:SM, I approve of this. Their crucifixion isn't that important to the series that it should get mentioned here. Just saying that crucifixion happens in anime sometimes is quite enough. --Malkinann (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I saw this RfC mentioned on the page WT:WikiProject Anime and manga. I want to reply using Wikipedia jargon (I've been a casual editor in the past so my rules knowledge is lacking), and was going to research the 'correct' process, but come on. If it is possible to sit there, honestly, and argue that anime references fit within the context of crucifixion in an encyclopedia then I think there is no point discussing this with you. However, for the sake of the greater Wikipedia, if there are rules that support this kind of ridiculous trivia being added to every serious article, then these rules *have* to be changed. Pick any popular culture movie, tv show, comic strip or piece of referenceable mass media, methodically walk through the content and add any reference to anything at all add it to an 'In popular culture' section in the appropriate Wikipedia article. Magnetic fields in Lost. Samurais in Heroes. Nazism in Seinfeld. Space Travel in Final Fantasy. I think you get the idea. Fancy steve (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Absolutely delete. In an article about A, the criteria on mentioning B is B's importance to A, and not the other way around. Dinosaurs are of utmost relevance to the Flintstones, and you see dinosaurs mentioned in the Flintstones article. But you (rightfully) don't see the Flintstones mentioned in the Dinosaur article, much less references to specific characters or episodes. Vessbot (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• No - Anime is not a integral part of the subject crucifixion, nor is crucifixion it commonly associated with anime. Delete and start over with good sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, certainly not, as per all above, there seems to be a strong consensus not to have the section included here. Crucifixion is not a prevalent theme in anime, and anime is not a prevalent theme in crucifixion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Anime image deletion

Amid the other goings-on at this page over the last day or so, an editor who (based on a message at my talk) was unaware of the talk above has been deleting the Sailor Moon image that has been in the much-discussed anime section. At this point, the image is deleted (technically a 3RR, but I realize that it was done in good faith per WP:NFCC#8), so we ought to discuss the matter in this talk rather than continuing to revert one another. If I understand correctly, the issue about the image is WP:NFCC#8. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The criterion says the image needs to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". The topic of the section, in its present form, is the use of crucifixion imagery in anime. The image illustrates just that, very clearly, and follows the corresponding use of such images in various sections throughout the page. At this point, the editor who has repeatedly deleted it feels that it does not illustrate that point, whereas I and another editor have both tried to restore it. It would appear that there is not a clear consensus that it fails to illustrate the section, and, arguably, only one editor disputing it. As such I think that further explanation is needed why the image would fail #8. There is discussion at this time of perhaps deleting the anime section, in case #8 would indeed apply, but this is a discussion in progress, and it would be improper to assume that the outcome of this discussion is preordained. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not an editor because I don't have an account? I disputed it in the first section about it. Japanese Copyright law is different than American Copyright law and American Fair Use doesn't cover the use of foreign properties. - 68.114.130.234 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say you are not an editor? I asked for discussion. You are raising the issue of international law; the other person raised the issue of relevancy to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually WP:3RR was not violated (more than 3 reverts is required), but removing non-free image abuses is exempt from this anyway, per WP:3RR#Exceptions_to_3RR. Black Kite 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course I brought the discussion here instead of to 3RR. But for the main point, do you disagree with what I said about WP:NFCC#8? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly. We don't need an image of an anime character on a cross to support the claim that crucifixion is used in anime ... it's obvious. Non-free images should only be used where completely necessary to illustrate something that can't be described in text (that's WP:NFCC#1 - replaceability) as well as #8. Black Kite 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, so I just now saw your answer here. I don't think that's clear. The image shows, beyond what the text describes, what the depiction looks like. There are lots of images throughout the page that show things that could be described in the text, and this does not stand out for that. The earlier photo of the Meiji crucifixion makes distinctions about the specifics of the crucifixion relative to in the West: the number of cross-pieces, the tying instead of nailing. It's just as relevant to show how this imagining of the scene looks, as it is to show how Salvador Dali's image differs from those higher on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All the other images are free images, so they're not relevant, apart from the Dali one. That one I'm not convinced about either, but at least it's (a) actually about crucifixion, and (b) a notable image (it even has its own article). I wouldn't be bothered if that one was removed either, to be honest. Black Kite 22:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from "I don't like it", you really haven't addressed the way it does illustrate the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've quite relevantly addressed why it doesn't pass WP:NFCC#8. However, the onus is on those who wish to insert non-free material, so if you can address the reason why the image is necessary to illustrate the section, and how the section would be significantly less understandable to an average reader without it, then you would have a basis for retaining it. Black Kite 23:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Briefly (because I think it best to allow a little time for cool heads to prevail), I realize that we disagree, but I believe that I have already explained points that have not really been replied to. More to follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant here, but I've always understood that the spirit of 3RR could be violated, even if its letter was not - e.g. if an editor clearly has no intention of discussing a revert, and makes blatantly obvious that they will continue reverting to their preferred version, it would be a 3RR violation even if only 2 reverts had been made. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.86.54 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right in certain circumstances, but it's not relevant where a revert is subject to the exceptions to 3RR anyway. Black Kite 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm getting to be sorry I brought it up. Yes, that's also my understanding of 3RR, but the bottom line is that I mentioned it by way of requesting that, instead, we take this issue to talk, before 3RR really becomes an issue. I'm letting the page stay with a version I dislike (popular opinion notwithstanding!). So, back to the main point. Am I (and others) not correct that WP:NFCC#8 is no problem here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, NFCC#8 is exactly the problem with the image here, as I've explained a number of times (not to mention NFCC#1 as mentioned above). Black Kite 22:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given what I've already said about the entire "In popular culture" sections above, I really don't think the image is needed as an illustration as it doesn't contribute significantly to the article. The point the image is suppose to illustrate doesn't need an illustration, and probably doesn't need to be in the article as its depiction of a crucifixion is neither significant nor important. The only reason the image is there is mostly for decorative purposes. Even the NFU rational on the image's page, "document portrayal of crucifixion in popular culture," isn't up to snuff. —Farix (t | c) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted>Black Kite 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ease, man! You went way overboard in there. Of course anime shit ain't relevant to crucifixion but you can't just act like that! Calm down, man.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI Ace Olivera, reported on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Tryptofish on Talk:Crucifixion. Mononomic (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Nevermind. Elen and I have it under control ;) Mononomic (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

about 20v1 and after a few days of debate the 20 win. Success!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.10.97 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The image in question is now up for deletion. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_2#File:Sailor_Mercury.jpg.Yzak Jule (talk)

Significance of pop culture examples

• Ben-Hur: What significance did the crucifixion play in the culture at large or in film history? This is entirely missing

• The Passion of the Christ: This one is probably more justified then the other do to its shear brutality in its depictions. However, finding film critics about the crucifixion and cometary from historians and theologists about the accuracy of the depiction is much needed.

• Spartacus: The crucifixions at the end of the film simply depicts a historical event. However, there is noting explaining the cultural significances this depiction.

• Madonna's mock crucifixion: Why should we care and why is it worth mentioning? This particular incident is actually more forgettable than her other religious provocations.

• Sebastian Horsley: First of all, I wouldn't know this guy from a hole in the ground. And frankly, I don't see him being crucified for inspiration has any significant at all. So it has been removed.

• Crucified Santa Claus: Sourced to Snopes, but it should be backed up by a more reliable source. But this is the type of information that should be sought after. We have an explanation behind the depiction and we have a subsequent cultural affect. If only it had better sourcing.

—Farix (t | c) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the POV-section tag, I will explain what specifically concerns me in the near future. I'm concerned that, if I go into detail now, it will be counter-productive, but it seems to me that some recent edits have been too much, with too little consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the only ones that are significant enough are Ben-hur and The Passion of the Christ. I say delete the Madonna and Sebastian Horsley ones. We could get better sources for our friend Santa.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

And is there any significance to the Ben-Hur depiction in popular culture? —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben-Hur is a incredibly famous and notable film. It won eleven Oscars. I think it's notable enough.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But does it make the depiction of a crucifixion significant? After all, the crucifixion isn't what made the film famous or why it won those Oscars. —Farix (t | c) 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. However, it can be taken as a specific instance of the appearance of the scene/event in "original" film not explicitly based on the life of Jesus itself. Granted, so could the scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian". I could see mentioning one, possibly both, in the context of the crucifixion as portrayed in what might be called "intentional fiction" (don't want to offend non-believers here) regarding the crucifixion in film. I would also add that some appearances might deserve mention not necessarily because of their relevance to this topic but perhaps to their medium. So, perhaps a sculpture of the crucifixion of extreme importanct to the field of sculpture, if such exists, could probably reasonably be included as well. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Crucified Santa references

• http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071223/santa_crucified_071223/20071223?hub=TopStories
• http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/28554-crucified-santa-makes-some-cross
• Moore, Edwin (June 25, 2007). Lemmings Don't Leap: 180 Myths, Misconceptions, and Urban Legends Exploded. Chambers. p. 185. ISBN 978-0550102935. (covers the Japanese department store rumor)
• Other Google book hits.[3]

Split

I have split off the Art and Popular Culture sections to Crucifixion in art; this article is about actual crucifixion.

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)

WP:There is no deadline

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: [4]. 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)

About keeping or deleting the shortened section

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)

Qur'an

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)

Edit to 'Cross Shape'

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)

Lead Image

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)