Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:09, 26 November 2009

Christianity: Jesus / Saints B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Low-importance).

	Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities

	Crucifixion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 17, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Separate into two pages?

It would seem as though the contention regarding the significance of Christ's death upon a 'cross' or 'pole' has deeper meaning than that of actual historical happenings. Christianity or Christendom views the 'cross' as the means for salvation (how God atones for our sins through Christ's blood). Where faiths such as Jehovah's Witnesses take exception to the 'Roman Catholic Cross' because the cross has become a symbol of the Trinity. No one today was there to witness the way in which Jesus was crucified and although science can provide us clues as to how this remarkable moment in history took place, the debate is futile as it is one of faith and not of fact. The prudent description of crucifixion in the encyclopedia forum should be factual to history and science, but Holy Crucifixion should be described as such separately and include all faith based view points and the basis for each.

A response by an avid fan of the online encyclopedia. MD70.189.148.184 17:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to this in some form if i'm understanding correctly, I think the major problems with this article stem from its mixing of crucifixion in the context of Christianity and crucifixion as an ancient method of punishment. I feel that perhaps separating the two along with a redirect or disambiguation page may be the best way to go about helping this article. I can get to work on some of this if there are others who agree this is a good idea. I will do nothing until then. GTMusashi 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses take exception to the 'Roman Catholic Cross' only in part because the cross has become a symbol of the Trinity. They also reference the pre-Christian use of crosses in many pagan religions also depicting trinities of pagan deities. They point to the fact that the cross as a symbol of worship was inherited from the pagans and was integrated into the church as pagans were converted in large numbers after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as state religion much like other customs such as Christmas and Easter, just to name two. On a historical and etymological basis, they point out that the ancient Greek word used in the Biblical accounts (stauros) has a meaning of "stake" or an upright pole with no crossbeam, which is what they choose to depict Christ's instrument of execution. They at no time, however, use this or any other symbol, icon, or idol as an object of or aid in their worship. BibleTeacher89 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles Passion (Christianity) and Stations of the Cross already exist I really don't think we need a second article entitled Crucifixion. Velps 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems good to have an article on (lower-case) crucifixion, with only passing references to the (upper-case) Crucifixion (of Jesus), which as Velps says, should have Passion as its main article. Lima 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I was not aware of this, those pages look good, I would be fine with Lima's suggestion as the key intent of my split proposal was to have a Crucifixion article that was focused primarily on the concept of Crucifixion in general rather than the specifics of Jesus' Crucifixion, it may be worth comparing the article on the passion and the stations in order to preserve unique information from this page however. I also think that there should definitely be links from this page to both of those articles since they are slightly more esoteric than Crucifixion to the "masses" as it were. If we did not this would probably only happen again. GTMusashi 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, apparently I had not read clearly enough, the latest version is much more in line with what I envisioned when i made the split page so I will remove the tag, mostly disregard the previous post. GTMusashi 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic Evidence (of the method of the crucifixion of Christ)

The word "Stauros" which has become translated as "cross" in the New Testament refers to "an upright stake, esp. a pointed one." This comes from the base word "Histemi," meaning to stand upright. (Both words originating in the word "stao") At no point in the Bible is there any reference to a cross-beam of any kind, nor of any shape other than a stake. I therefore can see no possible way our current conception of a 'cross' (†) could have been the one used.

• All information here provided found in New Testament and Lexicon*

71.33.212.224 13:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your statement makes you sound like a follower of the Watchtower Bible Society. It is plausible that some criminals in antiquity were executed by being nailed to an upright stake or tree; however, from the early days Christian tradition held that the Roman method of crucifixion was in employing two crossed beams forming either a Latin cross or Tau cross. The Latin word for cross "crux" is where the terms cross and crucifixion come from. Let's not forget that the Romans were experts in the art of crucifixion and used it as a means of capital punishment even into the 4th century. The notion that Jesus was crucified "specifically" on an upright stake is currently taught by Jehovah's Wittnesses based on their own interpretations of the Bible. They teach that the Latin cross, Tau cross or any cross used as a symbol of Christianity is of pagan origin and therefore cannot be accepted. Well folks, the English names used for the days of the week are of pagan origin too, so does that mean JW's can't accept their use either? Yes, the cross is of pagan origin since it was employed by pagan Romans to execute criminals. That early Christians adopted the crucifix or cross as a symbol of faith has nothing to do with paganism. Not accepting the cross as a symbol of Christian faith is like saying that you can't wear trousers because they were invented by pagans.....Jay

I completely agree... to add to that, Christmas is the day when Christians traditionally celebrate the birth of Christ, but the date was originally a pagan festival. If there were sheep out in the fields then it would have been winter, so Jesus was probably born somewhere from May-August. December 25th was selected because it was the date of the Midsummer festival, a holiday already in place. They just changed the name and meaning of it. So not accepting the cross is like refusing to celebrate Christmas.YesusHristova 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So if what you are saying is correct, then Jesus was not born December 25th, then my question is what DO you celebrate in Christmas? If it is not Jesus' birthdate then what? Certainly nothing based on the bible, thus pagan. By the way it is believed Jesus' ministry lasted 3 1/2 yrs. Since he died from mid March - mid April he must have been born from mid Sept - mid October. -Morris

Crucifixion in modern Saudi Arabia

Why is there no mention of crucifixion in present day Saudi Arabia?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,1797622,00.html

Details of crucifiction

Can someone provide sources that cliam victims of crucifictions were sourged, or forced to carry their own cross? As far as I know, none of these, beside being attributed to Jesus' execution, were "standard procedures". As for carrying the cross, the victims, in any case, were most likely carrying the main log, and not the "cross" (a misleading term). The cross itself was assembled at the place of execution. Again, I ask for sources on what is the current version. 82.139.47.117 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A problem I have with the details of the remains found in 1968. The article states that fragments of olive wood were found on the nail... The body dates to the roman empire? If that is so they would NOT have used olive wood as a crucifix, as Roman Law states anyone harming an olive tree would be subject to death. (This is due to Roman's heavy reliance on olives and olive oil, as food and renewable energy for oil lamps.) The only way I could see this happening is if the victim was found guilty of cutting down the tree they made the cross from to crucify him... Is there any further documentation of this person's life aside what was written on the ossuary he was found in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.142.89 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Scourging

The article says that it was common practice to scourge the condemned prior to crucifixion. This is the first I've heard of it. Jesus of Nazareth was scourged beforehand but that was Pontious Pilate's attempt to appease the Sanhedrin and their mob. Anyone got any sources to say that scourging or flogging was a common preamble to nailing to the cross? If not, then I think that bit should be removed.

I have a Taschen photography book depicting a crucifixion in Japan in the 1800s. The individual doesn't appear to have been scourged. I think the entire topic is written in way too christian-centric a manner and ought to be rewritten from a neutral POV.

I also heard that the scourging on Jesus is illegal (in the view of Roman's law) at the time Jesus was crufixed. And, how can a scournged person carry a cross which is over 150 lb in weight? This is really impossible! So, I support that scourging before crufix to be removed if there is no evidence to support that.--Jacob grace 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Going on nothing but the Christian Bible one would know that Roman Law forbad both the scourging on Jesus and the crucifixion. Being born in a Roman controlled area to registered parents Roman considered him a citizen. This same law was used by Paul (Saul) to get out of a tight spot with Roman goveners after he outraged the Jews (book of Acts, he was later beheaded in Rome, as befitted his station in life. See article for more on that topic.). There is no evidence that scourging prior to crusifixion was common Roman practice (that I know of). Perhas a "citation needed" tag needs to go arround that bit.

Additionally the later paragraphs appear to do the old trick of almost starting the topic again lower down and they contradict the earlier paragraph with thier NPoV. The only christian that the (potential) error could be centric to would be a very badly educated one (the most vocal I find but that is another story). --Lord Matt 07:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Not every locally-born inhabitant of the Roman Empire was a Roman citizen: "That character ... placed (Paul) amid the aristocracy of any provincial town. In the first century, when the citizenship was still jealously guarded, the civitas may be taken as a proof that his family was one of distinction and at least moderate wealth" (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/paul_roman.v.html Paul's Nationality). (For those who do not know Latin, it may be necessary to explain that the word "civitas" means the quality of being a "civis", a citizen.) Jesus was not thus privileged.

I do not understand Lord Matt's second comment (or indeed the occasion for his first comment). The article is about crucifixion in general, with only passing references to the most famous recounted crucifixion, that of Jesus. Lima 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the article be reworded to say that, while it's not clear that ALL people who were crucified by the Romans were flogged, the following links contain passages by writers from the ancient Roman period indicating that scourging was in at least some cases a prelude to a Roman crucifixion:

http://virtualreligion.net/iho/revolt.html (Josephus: "For Florus dared what none had done before: to scourge before the tribunal and nail to a cross men of equestrian rank, who---even if born as Jews---were Roman (citizens) at least in status.")

http://www.jstor.org/cgi-bin/jstor/printpage/00098353/sp050529/05x2543u/0.pdf?backcontext=page&dowhat=Acrobat&config=jstor&userID=827d3c7b@unine.ch/01c0a80a6700501b92f42&0.pdf ("Acilius Glabro... scourged and crucified the ringleaders..." (on the 5th page of the pdf file))

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/crossfacts.htm (cites a few sources mentioning scourging before crucifixion) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.125.60.123 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nudity and Crucifixion

I don't think being naked was required for men, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't for women. As with other forms of execution, the guest of honor was generally stripped down to undies -- some kind of breechclout and/or tunic for men and the contemporary equivalent of a shift for women. -- isis 30 Aug 2002

Have you seen the page at http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/risen/risen3.htm ? I found it very interesting. -- isis 30 Aug 2002

Nice background info, although I notice at the end they seem to confuse adoration with worship. Me, I'm looking forward to "The Universal Exaltation (Elevation) of the Precious and Life-Giving Cross" on September 14. ;-) Wesley 14:42 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

The Oxford Classical Dictionary (1970), article "Crucifixion", states:

" ... the general practice was to begin with flagellation of the condemned, who was then compelled to carry a cross-beam ... to the place of execution ... He was stripped and fastened to the cross-beam by nails or cords."

Karl Bruno Leder, Todesstrafe , Vienna & Munich 1980, a work with extensive notes and bibliography, stresses that crucifixion, practised by the Romans, was not of Roman origin, and that it may once have had a sacrificial character. On page 98 he says:

"Noch stärker deutet die bei den Römern obligatorische Entkleidung des Verurteilte auf den ursprünglichen Opfercharacter hin."

New Testament scholars admit this, but suggest that in Palestine, in consideration of the Jewish abhorrence of public nudity, the Romans let the crucified keep a garment covering the genitals.

S.

I don't doubt that, but that wasn't the point I was making: Leaving aside the issue that "strip" or "entkleiden" can mean either to remove all clothes or to remove the outer clothes, and leaving aside that the Romans (like the Greeks) didn't have the taboos about public nudity that a lot of other peoples had (and the Jews had those taboos in spades), the fact remains that the article is about "crucifixion," and you're just as crucified if they nail/hang you up in your overcoat. At the same time, the article leaves out the crucial point that they had to have their arms extended for the process to work effectively. It would be better for "naked" in the first sentence to be replaced by "spread-eagle" and to add a sentence saying the Romans generally stripped the person naked, leaving open the question of what other peoples did, which we're not sure about. As it stands, the article is confusing "crucifixion" with "the Crucifixion" and not disclosing that. -- isis 31 Aug 2002

I read something about this long time ago. I remember that crucifixion originally was a not Roman torture meant to expose the victim, deprived of defense, until death by insects and hunger - torture was obtained by blocking his body and injuring him (like for Jesus) in order to have him bleeding, thus attracting insects. In this sense - and with such a degree of cruelty - it is more probable that the victim had to be completely naked: I wouldn't be able to imagine a "delicate" mildening of the torture in a similar mentality.

On the point of garments, as they are commonly depicted or described, we ought to reflect that all what was transmitted to us today by the Roman Church (the major source for crucifixion, as a matter of fact), could have been somehow... "filtered" by obvious respectful little "edits" for minor details (Jewish religion might have had similar interests in an eventually corrected "official version"). See Michelangelo for some notes on the Fig-Leaf Campaign 15 centuries after...

We should also ask ourselves - IMHO - why Rome should have had to adhere to Jewish habits, given that the kind of punishment (and its cruelty) should have needed to show the power of the Roman system in its overwhelming strengh, and not its respectful... diplomacy toward conquered peoples --G

That's right: If you don't extend their arms, they die of exposure (a good old Roman method of execution), not crucifixion. And the article isn't about what we can speculate or deduce about what happened at the Crucifixion but what facts we can assert about crucifixion in general. -- isis 31 Aug 2002

We're imposing our modern sense of nudity as a sexual condition in a time when nakedness could be an economic attribute. The Roman executioners stripped the crucified obviously as booty (corroborated by the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth). However, the cross was a highly effective tool of state sponsored terror which simultaneously maximized not only the shame and suffering of the victim but also the implied message to any witnesses that this could happen to you if you didn't follow the rules. Niceties such as loincloths simply did not occur. tarq 07 Mar 2006

The Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is a too important and difficult matter to treat as just an example of (Roman) crucifixion. It would need an article of its own, and there should then be a distinction between what can be concluded from the historical sources, and what is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. (As for the gospels, their accounts of the Passion are heavily influenced by the Old Testament, believed to foretell in detail the career of Jesus.)

I think that if we want to treat the Crucifixion of Jesus in greater detail, it would probably be sufficient to do it as a subsection of the present article. That would avoid duplication of information between the two articles. Drawing such a sharp contrast between the teaching of the Church, the Gospels and "historical" sources, reflects a tremendous anti-Christian bias. The Gospels and Church traditions are every bit as historical as other sources you'll find. Were they trying to make a theological point? Of course. But any non-Christian source you find from a similar time frame who troubled to write much about the event at all, was probably just as biased in the other direction. Anyone without a vested interest would have found it unworthy of mention at the time, especially since so many Jews were being crucified at the time. Wesley

Amen to that. Or the subsection on the Crucifixion could be in the Jesus Christ article, with links both ways to/from this one. -- isis 1 Sep 2002

I'm not sure on the details of reorganization, but many pages related to Christianity link here. The impression might be that this page is about the Crucifixion, not crucifixtion in general. 59.104.85.200 8 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Would this be the time to say "disambiguation page" (we also have a number of musical items of the same or similar name)? --Lord Matt 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Gianfranco: Is there not, in the church strangely called La Minerva, a naked Christ by Michelangelo?

S.

Yes, it is the "Redentore" that Michelangelo had to paint after a contract that (due to the exclusive he had previously granted to Julius II) he should not have accepted; he however started it, then stopped his work because marble showed to be irregular (a black vein), then he finished it delivering the statue to a noble man of a village around Rome (sorry, I don't remember which one) from whom he had accepted a similar contract. During the years (seven or eight, I think) in which he completed this work, he always officially denied he was working at it. In the end, the statue was brought there, alla Minerva.

The church was a sort of private property of Cardinale Carafa's family, so it was this Christ the first artwork to be covered with a bronze fig-leaf (from which the name of the censorship campaign).

BTW, the "strange" name, "Santa Maria sopra Minerva" (Saint Mary above Minerva) is because on this site there was a temple to the pagan goddess. --G

"Contrary to popular religious depictions of crucifixion, victims were never nailed to the cross through the palms of the hands but rather through the wrists, as the flesh of the hands cannot support the victim's entire body weight; the person would simply fall off." Does anyone actually have a source for this? I once saw some information that stated, if memory serves, that they actually calculated the weight and tension, and tested it using a non-damaging simulated technique, which indicated they very well could have been spiked through the hand. This seems to be a common assumption, though. -- Hroefn

I seem to remember an article by a physician, perhaps in Reader's Digest, decades ago, confirming this. Not just by calculation, but by trial, someone had used a cadaver to research and found nails through what we call hands would not hold. They had to go between the bones of the arm near the wrist. He also postulated that the scourging caused inflamation and swelling by buildup of fluid in the sack (pericardium) around the heart causing pain and eventual death. That the careful cutting of Jesus, by the point of the lance by the roman guard, actually eased the pain. That article or a similar one may have also mentioned that there were several violations in Roman Law in the most famous cruixification. Although some of these may have been mentioned in propagandistic ways to sow hatred for the Romans. WonderWheeler (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the prophet Mani crucified? -- Error

I think beginning the paragraphs on nails as follows is misleading.

Contrary to popular religious depictions of crucifixion, victims were never nailed to the cross...

This reads more like POV claiming that no one (read "Jesus") was ever nailed to the cross.

I see no insinuation whatsoever that Jesus was never nailed to the cross. It is a factual observation that the Romans nailed their victims to a cross through their wrists rather than through their hands.207.157.121.50 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I suggest we reword the paragraph so a casual or peremptory reading doesn't give the reader the impression the The Misplaced Pages is denying anything about Jesus' crucifixion. There's a better way of emphasizing that "only nails through the palms" wouldn't work... --Uncle Ed 13:26, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is there archialogical evidence of "t" shaped crosses?

From reading the greek word rendered "cross" Stauros means stake or fence. I have seen some examples of literary descriptions of odd congamerations of wood poles that more resemble a fence than the "cross" as it is commonly seen depicted. This would be the proper way to inflict death being that the body would hang down eventualy Suffocating the victim. Since Christ died before constantine rule, it should be considered that he died this way, on a stake, not a cross!

On the other hand, go back a hudred or so years and Stauroo and it's many derivations refers to impaling on a pole which was how the Assyrians were described as exicuting people.

The first mention I have heard of a "cross" as a torture/execution device is when Constantine used it. With his{Constantines} "so called" conversion to Christianity, he also brought in many "Pagan Customs" into Christianity to ease the transition for the rest of the Roman community. This would include Idolotry whice is something the bible speaks against. But now that the cross was born it is the #1 idol used around the world.

The question now is if Christ did not die on a Cross , but a Stake, WHO INSPIRED THE CROSS??????

Who inspired the cross? What kind of question is that? While they certainly weren't the first to impale people as a form of punishment, the Romans where the ones who employed crucifixion as a form of punishment during the time of Jesus. Therefore, you could say that the cross was a Roman invention. However, I must disagree with your statements about idolatry and Constantine bringing pagan customs into Christianity. Aside from making Christianity legal and declaring it as the official religion of the Roman Empire, Constantine dedicated huge sums of money for the building of churches and basilicas, but he had no direct influence in the development of Christian doctrine or the growth of the early Christian Church. Now, as to your statement on idolatry. The cross is for Christians a symbol of faith in Christ as the Saviour of mankind, not an idol of worship.....Jay

Jay... As the information above shows , a crucifixtion was done on a torture stake, not a cross. God said dont use any symbols or Idols in use of praise of him. Is obvious that satan had a roll in devevloping the cross as a form of false worship!!!

Who really cares whether or not Jesus was actually crucified on a stake or not. It is irrelevant. Jesus died and rose again, that's what's important. As to the other point, Exodus 20:4-5 says "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them" Christians do not worship the cross... we use the cross to symbolise the faith that we have in Jesus Christ, the one we do worship. YesusHristova 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yesus, Please! Christains that use any form of the cross are idolizing it. The whole idea behind Exodus is that the Jews in the wilderness and those onward would not use or need any symbol but there faith in God. Therefore any object or symbol (Golden Calf) would be rejected by God.!!!MH

Let me emphasize that Misplaced Pages discussion boards are for the sole purpose of discussing and improving the article. This is not a web forum. There is no small number of places you can take your theological discussion, this page is not it. Trusilver 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Victims taken down alive

I removed this sentence

In ancient Rome, crucified persons known not to be already dead were sometimes taken down from the cross (after having both of their legs broken) and then thrown alive into an open burial pit; in these cases death could have ultimately come from starvation, exposure, or even tetanus from the nail wounds.

because it may be fantasy; a source citation seems required. Besides, death from tetanus seems rather surrealistic...
Jorge Stolfi 09:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Victims of crucifixion under the Roman Empire were never taken down alive. They had their legs broken, causing death within a few minutes; exceptionally, as in the case of Jesus, they would have a spear thrust into their vitals. Usually they would be left on the cross until they rotted. If a Roman Centurion failed to ensure that an execution victim was dead, he himself would be crucified immediately. Unsurprisingly, centurions on execution detail made very sure that their victims were well and truly dead.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources indicating that spear to the side was an alternative form of speeding the death, nor for that mater that breaking the legs was common outside Palistine. The Biblical account of both seems to indicate exceptions to the rule (legs broken because a holy day was coming up to keep the religiouse leaders appeased. Same appeasment that was the cause of the crucufuxian of Jesus in the first place). The spear thing (admitedly I should go dig up a source) would more likely be used as a test of life. As Anthony.bradbury says (and which I have no reason to doubt): "If a Roman Centurion failed to ensure that an execution victim was dead, he himself would be crucified immediately." - the same was also true of a jailer letting the prisionors escape (I understand). So a spear tot he side up and in just to be doubly sure would follow logically. We should however be carefull not to use the death of Jesus as a standard as there were many irregularities (by Roman and Hebrew Law) surrounding the entire event. --Lord Matt 07:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A few points. It is a mistaken belief that crucifixion was always fatal. The Romans also used crucifixion as a criminal punishment not meant to be fatal and would take the victim down after they became unconscious. This fact alone requires the lead to mention that it was not always a fatal punishment. Also in Judea the law required that any people crucified had to taken down by sunset on Friday whether they were dead or alive. That must have resulted in many survivors as, because it took up to four days to die, being crucified on only three days of the week guaranteed death. The spear is not likely to have been an attempt to cause death as bleeding would not have been serious enough and (in the case of Jesus) was not in a part of the body that would normally be fatal. It was used by a soldier (trained to use a spear) so if meant to kill the spear would have entered under the rib cage not through it. The only logical explanation is it was used to determine if the victim was unconscious (if it was used as a common practice). Wayne (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Location of the nails.

Hi. I noticed the statement in this article that nails using in a crucifixion could not have been placed in the hands of the victim because the hands could not support the weight of the body. But I recall seeing a TV documentary some time ago which demonstrated that if the feet were drawn up and fixed to the cross so that the knees were bent, with the feet higher than the knees, bent in front (I think the program may also have given some historical evidence that that was in fact the way that people were crucified) then the hands would not have to take the whole weight of the body, thus making it possible for the nails to go through the palms rather than the wrists. Does anyone have any information about that, and could it be added to the article, if the source can be found?

There has been some controversy about this over the years. Dr. Pierre Barbet (early 20th century) in experiments using cadavers found that nails through the palms could not support the body weight. Bear in mind also, that this is not a static situation where the forces are constant; a struggling victim introduces many unknown factors. Dr. Frederick Zugibe, who has done some research into this in recent years, does not agree with all of Barbet's findings. I'm skeptical of Zugibe's findings because of his reliance on the Shroud of Turin as evidence of a crucifixion. The most likely placement of the nails from the standpoint of load bearing and security would be between the two rows of bones in the wrists (carpals) or between the radius and ulna just above the wrist. Note that the carpals are actually in the base of the palm, so a nail placed there would appear to be in the hand, just not through the center of the palm.

The reference in the article to a nail being driven through the victim's penis should be removed. While I have no doubt that some executioner could have done and did do this and worse among the thousands of crucifixions that took place, there is no reference to it in any of the classical works we have.--Jedakk 14:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a brief contribution: It is a constant source of amusement for me that we are all so influenced by visual taditions. The debate over the location of the nails seems to be "wrist vs. hand," as though there was only one nail used per arm. After decades of experience with this cruel form of execution, the Romans likely learned to use several nails, as required. Wrist and/or hands. If there wasn't enough substance to the arms of the condemned to support the weight, then surely ropes could be used to augment the nails. The answers are not so elusive when other possibilities are allowed. Mbanak 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod

Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod -- can anyone provide a cite for this? -- The Anome 15:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is reasonably well known in Russia that Archbishop Joachim died an unnatural death, but the details are disputed. One version of his death states that he was hung upside down outside of the gates of the Sevastopol cathedral in 1920. The other version, references to which I find to be more credible because they are present in the letters of Joachim's friends from the early 1920's, simply states that he was murdered by unknown bandits during a robbery in 1921. Vseznayka (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Positional asphyxia again

From the article:

However, experiments by Frederick Zugibe indicated that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly increasing discomfort and pain.

Did Zugibe speculate on what the cause for, and endpoint of, this continued "rapidly increasing discomfort and pain" might have been? If this discomfort and pain consisted of the experimental volunteers holding themselves steady in a position where they could comfortably breathe, what would be the result when the muscles used to maintain this posture tired? -- The Anome 13:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My skepticism with Zugibe's research has always been its reliance on the Shroud of Turin as his basis for many of his assumptions. While it is significant as a religious relic and venerated by many, its provenance is uncertain.

Regarding the pain experienced by his test subjects, of that I have no doubt. With the arms spread at 60 degrees to the vertical, the tension on each arm would be equal to the entire weight of his body, whereas each arm would carry one-half of the body weight if they were fastened so that they extended straight overhead. Spreading them further than that rapidly increases this force and puts the person in danger of shoulder damage. There is the additional consideration of whether wrought-iron nails would carry this kind of stress without bending, ripping apart wrist joints, etc.

Regarding the question of difficulty in breathing and asphyxiation as the cause of death in crucifixion, I believe that this effect is due to two separate conditions that combine to ultimately make it impossible for the person to exhale. The first of these is the extension of the arms overhead, an effect that is more pronounced as the arms are extended nearer to the vertical. This produces an extension of the secondary muscles of inspiration, the ones used to supplement the action of the diaphragm when a person breathes more deeply than normal for whatever reason. The best example of this mechanism in action that I have been able to find is the Holger Nielsen method of artificial respiration - the old arm raise/back pressure method. Studies of its efficiency that I've read show that it actually provides very good ventilation. Based on this, one could assume that a person hanging by his arms would always have his lungs partially inflated, with only a portion of their capacity available for actual respiration.

The second factor is the weight of the victim's lower body pulling downward on his diaphragm, so that his diaphragm muscles have to lift this weight with each breath. Since his breathing is shallower and more rapid due to the reduced lung capacity, this would tend to fatigue his diaphragm muscles over time. Simply shifting his weight onto his feet would likely relieve this condition to the extent that he could resume the same rapid, shallow breathing as before. But in order to breathe normally, he would need to raise himself higher and relieve the stress on his shoulders and chest.

This would be a very slow process, which goes along with Seneca's description of crucifixion as "wringing the life from a victim drop by drop". The last drop might not be reached for several days.--Jedakk 00:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

sharia and cruxifixion?

Anon User:129.215.45.150 (]) added a claim that crufixion is part of sharia and added the same claim to Human rights in Saudi Arabia. Any reliable proofs of this? - Skysmith 10:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that Deposition hasn't nothing to do with crucifixion? --Chicco 14:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding crucifixion as part of the Muslim Sharia law, I researched this a few years ago and gathered some information on it. Crucifixion is listed as an optional punishment for certain classes of offenses under the Sharia. There are three classes of crimes, with the "hadd" or "hudud" crimes - crimes for which no specific punishment or payment is defined - being punishable in a number of ways at the discretion of the court. These options include death, exile, humiliation, and crucifixion, although I know of no verified reports of instances of its use in modern times.

There are a number of unverified reports of crucifixions in Sudan in recent years. In addition, Sudan has added crucifixion to its criminal code as a punishment for brigandage. - --Jedakk 23:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

taking off of the cross

what is the term for an artistic depiction of the taking off of Jesus off the cross (parallel to pietà as the term for a depiction of Mary mourning after the taking off)? dab (ᛏ) 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

never mind, it appears it's just called Descent from the Cross . dab (ᛏ) 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's also known as the "Deposition." rubinia

Crucifixion in Egypt

This article mentions Egyptian Crucifixion, but doesn't go into detail. Why?

Tammuz?

The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz, being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name. By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, of had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were recieved into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the "cross" of Christ.(Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament.)

Why would Chaldeans, who had their own writing system, be using the Greek alphabet?

The Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians, who in turn got their alphabet from their Chaldeans.

--Hieronymus 10:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The early jewish wirters talk about "being fastened to the tree" rather then a cross in reference to Jesus death. Admitedly there is reason for bias but it is one detail that in twenty years I have not found a reasonable answer for. There is also a lot of talk here of non use of the cross shape which actually lines up better with the texts in question (for me). Does anyone have access to additional information on this subject? --Lord Matt 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Women and Crucifixion

I had earlier corrected "person" to "man" on the grounds that crucifixion was a method of execution for males only. Was I mistaken? Can anyone cite cases of women being crucified?
S.

It appears that there might be some evidence suggesting females were also crucified, though at the very least this was far less often. Just bad on the article at http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html, which cites a case of 70 or 80 sorceresses crucified in Ashkelon. Wesley

In reference to the discussion at the top of the page, it looks as if women were indeed crucified, but facing the cross http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/Nt/NT21.html Rhesusman 18:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Women were crucified. Consider the tale of Ide, a freed-woman, crucified for her role in the scandal of the Temple of Isis (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 3). The reference to special positions accorded women on the cross for the sake of dignity is unsubstantiated by contemporary sources. tarq 07 Mar 2006

Pedanius Secundus, Rome Prefect in AD 61, kept 400 slaves (Tac. Ann. 14.43.4) and all of them - men and women - were crucified according to an ancient custom, after he had been murdered by a slave man. Viator; 20 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.6.71.91 (talk) 22:10:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and Crusifixion

I'm not sure that Jesus was really crusified, but actually married Marry Magdolin and began children with her and King Arther of Scotland was one of his decendents. It seems to have been someone elses immagination that Jesus was acually crusifieied. 144.139.89.202 13:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, brother! It's the DaVinci Code all over again! The whole notion of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene comes from speculation on obscure Gnostic writings stating that Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene. Most if not all of these ideas are inspired by Gnostic scriptures which were very unreliable sources to begin with. Let's remember that the Gnostics themselves taught that the corporeal body itself (along with the material universe) was corrupt and evil having been created by an imperfect, malicious Demiurge and thus believed that Jesus never had a physical body. That said, if one is to entertain the Gnostic belief on Jesus, then how could he possibly marry and father any children if he never had a physical body? Check your info before you post such nonsense.....Jay

Where did you learn to spell? JackofOz 13:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest English as a second language, but that IP is from Australia. -Etoile 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the spelling is verging on the illiterate, is this really the place for someone to air his atheism?--Anthony.bradbury 22:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate "Crucifixion of Jesus" from "Crucifixion" ?

I think the mingling of the general subject of "Crucifixion" with the specific subject of the "Crucifixion of Jesus" is undesirable. I suggest that this article be rewritten as two with those titles. Being a Misplaced Pages newbie and someone who doesn't know much about crucifixion, I don't think I'm the one to do that.

The "Crucifixion" article would discuss historical and technical aspects of crucifixion. Jesus would only be mentioned as one notable victim and some of the details of his death, e.g. legs broken, might be cited along with other historical references regarding the details of crucifixion.

The "Crucifixion of Jesus" article would compare and contrast his death with other accounts of crucifixion and could discuss the implications of the mode of his death for Christianity and it's representation in Christian symbology and art.

About the time The Passion of the Christ came out, I read online an account (literally an account) of the expenses involved in an ancient crucifixion. If it can be found (sorry, I have no idea where I read it), it would provide an interesting anecdote, if not some insight to the process. The account detalied what was to be paid for various materials to be used.

I would agree that a seperation of "crucifixion" and "The Crucifixion" is warrented.

Something else that this article suffers from is lack of of references. The section on "Modern Crucifixtion" for example, is very interesting, but makes reference to no supporting evidence or references. I think it's time to start footnoting, or removing, points. - Vedexent 14:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with separiting the articles, and the need for references, especially in the "Modern Crucification" section. Paul August ☎ 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree also. Does someone want to do something about it? --87.82.24.140 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. It's important to mention Jesus in passing, as his crucifixion hugely impacted the way it is seen today and the modern connotation of the cross. But someone should remove the section about the portrayal of his crucifixion in film. It might be merged into the article on passion (christianity) or Jesus.

Have to disagree, it's a bit like talking about eggs but NOT chicken eggs: most references and study pertain to Jesus' crucifixion, so you would have to double most general information into the passion parallel. Fastifex 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How often have you seen Main article at...? Have a look at Passion (Christianity) and you'll see all sorts of information about Jesus's crucifixion, not just the nailing on the tree part but the before and after. The problem is that people want to add information about omelettes on the same page that discusses reptile eggs. We don't need thorough treatment of Jesus's death on the same page that describes the historical use of crucifixion. They're (not completely but) highly separable concepts. Davilla 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam and the Crucifixion of Jesus

This page is about the crucufixion as a method of the execution. We need not get into a religious discussion about the fate of Jesus Christ if He was Crucified or not.

For the purpose of this article I need its fair to mention the Cross significance to the Christians. But its not this place to mention other religions point of view regarding the cross. These points of view can be expressed in the Jesus article. --Thameen 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. Nor do they believe that he was crucified. Instead, the Qur'an states that his death and crucifixion was only an illusion (done by God) to deceive his enemies, and that Jesus ascended bodily to heaven.

That they said (in boast) "We killed the Messiah Isa the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for, of a surety they killed him not. (Qur'an 4:157-158)

See the wikipedia article on Jesus for more on the Islamic view of Jesus. --Thameen 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Modern crucifixion section and part of famous crucifixion needs sources.

In particular, the World War I crucifixion story was almost certainly just a propaganda. Taw 13:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Alot of missing Crucifixion data?!

Why not add these unfortunate folks and gods?

Pre-Jesus Crucifixions

• Thulis of Egypt 1700 BC
• Crite of Chaldaea 1200 BC
• Attis of Phrygia 1170 BC
• Tammuz of Mesopotamia 1160 BC
• Bali of Orissa 725 BC
• Indra of Tibet 725 BC
• Iao of Nepal 622 BC
• Alcestos of Euripides 600 BC
• Mithras of Persia 600 BC
• Hesus of the Celtic Druids 834 BC
• Quezalcoatl of Mexico 587 BC
• Prometheus 547 BC.
• Quirinius of Rome 506 BC

Why not add this list? What do you think? Is there any compelling reason why we shouldn't? H0riz0n 17:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why these aren't listed is because most of them never happened. Quezalcoatl? Seriously? I'm not sure where that date of Prometheus came from since he was supposed to be a Titan and should have been around way before that. "Zeus then punished him for his crime by having him bound to a rock while a great eagle ate his liver every day only to have it grow back to be eaten again the next day." For, Hesus "According to the Berne Commentary on Lucan, human victims were sacrificed to Esus (Hesus) by being tied to a tree and flailed." I got those two quotes from their respective pages. Attis's situation is a funny one. One story he died under a tree, the other story he died and turned into a tree, and then other one was about a Satyr who got tied to one and got cut up or flailed. (Flayed or flailed?)There is a celebration in Roman times from the mid fourth century that has Attis tied to a tree and paraded around because... well how else are they going to show Attis and a tree? What this looks like is you got this list from Christ-myther site. I'm not denying that a lot of people in the ancient world were crucified. They certainly were. I've read the article. Anyway, the reason this list was created was not to accurately report what actually happened, but in order to further some certain nonsense (they are, look it up) ideas. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the article is about Crucufixtion as a means of execution, and the cultural significance of the practice to Roman, Christian, and Islamic cultures (add others if the form of execution is culturally significant to them), and not a comprehensive list of everyone who was, might have been, or should have been crucified. Heck - even though christianity is mentioned in the article (and it has been discussed whether it should be - maybe crucifixion and "The Crucifixion" should be seperate articles) not all the prominent christians who were crucified because it was significant to their religion are mentioned. If you want to go off and write List of people who have been crucified, go ahead. - Vedexent 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't some of those in the list pre-date when crucifixion existed an execution method?

Add the survivors of the Third Servile War to the list. Tom129.93.17.213 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nigeria - very misleading

Quote: "Other reports suggest that crucifixion has been making a comeback in such fundamentalist Muslim nations as Nigeria and Yemen."

I must say it is very misleading to label Nigeria as a "fundamentalist Muslim nation." On the contrary, Nigeria is sharply divided between Christian and Muslim. The current president is a Christian. If crucifixions are indeed occurring among any particular ethnic or religious groups in Nigeria, it should be further clarified, rather that mistakenly labeling the whole country as "Muslim fundamentalist." rvinall 22:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Nigeria, because the country at a whole does not fit the label of "fundamentalist Muslim." Again, if there is any evidence of crucifixion occurring among certain groups in Nigeria, please cite the evidence and state it in an appropriate way. rvinall 03:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Islam and crucifixion

One can only conclude that the author of the Qur'an made a grave error when he said this, as crucifixion was still roughly 1400 years away.

The individual who wrote this about the Qu'ran and crucifixion obviously had the intention to degrade Islam! The area of the article that has to do with Islam and crucifixion is not a NPOV and was placed there for the purpose of degrading judging by the way that the editor wrote it.

A link concerning crucifixion in ancient Egypt and in the Qu'ran: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

The problem with the islamic-awareness link, is that it's relying heavily on that impaling is the same as crucifying someone. FYI - Impaling someone on a spike is not the same as crucifying someone, so as far as history is concerned, the ancient Egyptians never crucified anyone, so if the koran or not says that two Pharaoh's are going to crucify someone, before crucifixion was even around (especially the word - perhaps it could mean "impale" rather than crucify?) then in all honesty, it is a mistake.

I don't want to get into a religious argument, but I have an issue with organization. If these verses don't refer to crucifixion, refering actually to impaling or whatever, then this section does not belong in an article about crucifixion. If the verses do, then the section belongs but the Qur'an is incorrect and I can find nothing wrong with making a conclusionary remark. However, the removed remark was indeed slanderous. The appropriate remark should be factual but not insulting. However, since that's sounds just about impossible, I think the section should just be removed/merged elsewhere. --Ephilei 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, almost all the ancient forms of crucifixions involved some kind of impalement on a stake. Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". Martin Hengel in his "The Cross of The Son of God" states that "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. Clearly, this does not exlude the impalement and the Islamic wesbite has clearly shown that crucifixion by impaling people on a stake existed in ancient Egypt. In the literature, crucifixion and impalement are used inter-changeably. --WAP4 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true, then Impalement and Crucifixion ought to be merged. However, as long as we are writing an English encyclopedia, we ought to conform to English definitions, where crucifixion is an upright act causing death by asphyxiation and impalment is simply an object passing through a person's body. Perhaps in ancient lit there are interchangeable, but this not ancient literature. Ultimately, it appears the Islamic section began as a way to discredit Islam which was illigimate to begin with. Just because a holy book uses the word "crucifixion" does not warrant having a whole section devoted to it. Acording to you, the verses have been mistranslated anyway and should read "impalement" which eliminates any reason for their presence here. I think it very appropriate to move teh sectino to Impalment. --Ephilei 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the references on crucifixion and they do not conform to your definition, i.e., "an upright act causing death by asphyxiation". Interestingly, enough Assyrians also practiced crucifixion as cited by encyclopaedias (Encyclopaedia Judaica, for example) and other literature. If you look at their form of crucifixion, it involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest. The latter one has interesting similarities with the hieroglyph mention at the Islamic website. You can see the pictures of this form of Assyrian crucifixion in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament". In any case, the link to the Islamic website on crucifixion in Egypt is quite useful and quite scholarly. They have included a variety of material on crucifixion and have shown that crucifixion and impalement are one and the same. --WAP4 16:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I don't care about the Qur'an accuracy in this matter (at least for now); I care only about the organization of this article. However, if you continue to insist they are historically identical, then let's merge the two articles. I'll make the proposal. --Ephilei 05:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood me too. I am not bothered about the Qur'anic accuracy here either. I am insisting that crucifixion and impalement are identical because of how the scholars have dealt with it in the past; for which I will supplied copious justification. --WAP4 08:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survival

There has recently, especially since the publication of the Fictional story of the da Vinci Code, been raised the possibility that survival of crucifixion was possible. Under Roman law, this is not so. The Military code imposed on crucifixion details stipulated that if a victim of crucifixion was found to be alive, his legs would be broken to ensure his death. If he were taken down from the cross and found to be alive, the Centurion in charge would take his place on the cross. As may well be understood, the Centurions detailed to supervise these executions made very sure that, if their victims were taken down rather than being left to rot, they were definitely dead. Hence the spear through the side of Jesus, even though He was seen to be dead. No-one survived a Roman crucifixion.--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenians

I added the bit about Armenians being crucified by Turks during the Armenian Genocide. I know this is a sensitive issue for Turks and Armenians and is likely to be edited and expanded to POV or taken out if a biased individual sees it. Not being familiar with the policy of uploading pictures myself, I found this picture on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article and was wondering if it can be used at all to show the modern use of crucifixion as a means of execution. Woogums 20:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Impalement

This is a sequel of the above conversation Islam and Crucifixion. The crux of the issue (ha ha) seems to be whether crucifixion and impalement are historically identical. Admittedly, I'm no expert on either; I'm just using what I'm reading. Here are what I observe to be differences that make them different and therefore meriting seperate articles:

• Cause of death Crucifixion causes asphyxiation; impalement causes blood loss and/or rupturing crucial organs
• Means of support In crucifixion, the victum is bound or nailed by the hands and feet. In impalement, the structure itself is lodged within the body
• Shape Crucifixion: a "†", "T" or "X"; impalement: a vertical stake "l"
• Meriam-Webster defines crucifixion as "1 : to put to death by nailing or binding the wrists or hands and feet to a cross" and impalement as: a : to pierce with or as if with something pointed; especially : to torture or kill by fixing on a sharp stake b : to fix in an inescapable or helpless position." They are not listed as synonyms of each other.

What are the opinions of others? --Ephilei 06:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think they should remain separate. The acts are suitably different from each other to warrant separate articles, and enough historic and cultural literature exists to create adequate and unique articles for both. Woogums 06:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Though I feel that crucifixion and impalement served the same purposes (along with drawing and quartering: they were a slow and gruesome form of public torture and execution), they're different enough that I think they deserve separate articles. Kasreyn 08:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Most impalements are on a straight stake, not a cross; most crucifixions lack empalement, so the cause of death is asphixiation rather then wounds Fastifex 10:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have mentioned it before and I will restate the reasons why crucifixion and impalement should be merged. The reasons are historical. Encyclopaedia Brittanica under "Crucifixion" says: "an important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD... In 519 BC Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon." Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". Similarly the Encyclopaedia Judaica says that "there are reports of crucifixions from Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Punic, and Roman sources". If you look at the Assyrian sources in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament" crucifixion involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest. In the Egyptian sources, the crucifixion involved impaling a person through the chest with a stake, as shown by the hieroglyphic determinative (figure 1) at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/crucify.html

As for the actual act of crucifixion, Martin Hengel in his "The Cross of The Son of God" states that "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. He then gives the testimony of Seneca. In summary (I could get more references!), my reasons for including impalement and crucifixion under the same heading are historical. Scholars have treated them this way in the past; and I have already given examples to show that such is the case. WAP4 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think that this information is relevant to the sources on both articles. But you really don't think that the two differing definitions of impalement and crucifixion imply enough differentiation? I think another section in the article, maybe "historical similarities to other execution methods" could put a lot of this information to really good use. But I think that keeping the articles separate would do no harm, and that merging them would simply cause confusion if someone types in impalement and is redirected instead to crucifixion. In the modern senses of each word, they really aren't the same thing. -- Woogums 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the root of the problem is that the Qur'an translation uses the word "crucifixion" incorrectly and should use the word "impalement." Thus WAP4 feels he must defend the Qur'an by showing the two are synonomous. I support defending one's beliefs, but when such defense gets in the way of creating an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages cannot be expected to take a back seat. The discussion is, however, relevant on Criticism of Islam or something related.

The only evidence I see you giving is that Britannica used "crucifixion" for an event that Herodotus called "impalement." However, if you read the entire entry in Brittanica, you'll read that the entire description given totally contradicts the act of impalement; thus, it is the apparent opinion of Brittanica that "crucifixion" does not refer to impalment. The connection with Herodotus' connection is probably a mistake by Britannica or other authorities disagree with Herodotus. What you really need is a dictionary or scholar saying the two are equivalent in English. --Ephilei 03:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus, who says that Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon, is a sort of a standard reference when it comes to the discussion of crucifixion in literature. I am surprised that you simply dismissed it by calling it a "mistake" and that too with no evidence at all. What about the Encyclopaedia Judaica? It mentions Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians involved in crucifixion. These people used impalement as a method of execution. Is this a "mistake" too by the Encyclopaedia Judaica? As far as the Britannica is concerned, it is describing the crucifixion in Roman times; a time when a cross-beam was in use. As for when the cross-beam was introduced, nobody knows for sure. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the scholarly literature on crucifixion before embarking on a project like this.

Lastly, I am not here to defend the Quran or the Islamic website and it is not my concern here; but credit to them is due because of their scholarly approach to the issue of crucifixion. In fact, they give more scholarly information on the issue of crucifixion than what you can find on Misplaced Pages. --WAP4 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's better to have the information given on Darius' "crucifixions" qualified in one or both of the articles by this research rather than merging them entirely. Saying "there is large amounts of archaeological evidence in favor that these people were actually impaled" would serve our purposes better than merging the articles for two acts that differ quite starkly. If they were merged it might even warrant renaming the article to "archaic execution methods" or something. --Woogums 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But the problem does not end with adding qualifications to Darius' "crucifixions". You still have to account for the "crucifixions" of Assyrians and ancient Egyptians which were impalements, just like the one by Darius. What I suggest is to simply say that the earlier forms of crucifixions were simple impalements and in the Roman times they became more elaborate with a cross-beam. Even in this form of crucifixion, some part of the body has to be impaled to support rest of the body mass. --WAP4 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WAP4, you misunderstood me. I meant that you have not produced anyone claiming that crucifixion and impalement refer to the same act except Saifullah. Just because Enc. Jud says crucifixions existed in Egypt and another source says impalements existed in Egypt, does not mean they are equalivent! (BTW, Egypt belonged to the Roman Empire, so of course they had crucifixions.) And just because Enc Brit says Darius performed crucifixion and Herodotus says Darius performed impalements, does not Enc Brit believes they are the same. Simply do this: provide a source that says "impalement is a form of crucifixion" or vice versa. So far there is one source, Saifullah. His article clearly has an agenda to show the Qur'an is historically accurate, so I find it hard to believe him. I only skimmed his article, but I could not find a single source that he quotes that says "impalement is a form of crucifixion." He merely mentions it throughout (without references) as if it did not require proving. I admit I'm not a scholar of crucifixion, but I have a keen sense of logic. Saifullah essentially is playing a simple word game, hidden amongst vast and useless quotes. I hope Muslims take articles like his as scholarship.

One good stradegy in word games is to quote other languages to make yourself look smart. However, that is a gross over-simplification since ἀνασκολοπε is translated "crucify" and "impale depending on (apparently) the translator. In all the examples I have read, I have not come across any descriptions of ἀνασκολοπε, only the word itself. Please let me know if you have read any descriptive contexts. Also, I have looked all over and cannot find the primary source of Herodotus' account of these 3000 deaths or even a translation. Can anyone help?

The issue is simple. What do the words mean? I think we agree that impale means "to pierce with or as if with something pointed" and this something is a stake in the ground. Now what does crucifixion mean? Does it ever refer to a stake entering a person's body?

Brittanica: "usually . . . was bound fast with outstretched arms to the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists."

Academic American Encyclopedia: "hung from a crossbar astride an upright peg . . . no vital organs were damaged."

Wiktionary: execution by being nailed or tied to an upright cross and left to hang there until dead.

Princeton Worldnet: the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross

Oxford Companion to the Bible: "The act of nailing or binding a person to a cross or tree, whether for executing or for exposing the corpse."

Anchor Bible Dictionary: "The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake (stauros or skolops) or a tree (xylon)."

Our job is not to find discover the ancient relation in Classical Greek between impalement and crucifixion. In fact, original research is strictly forbidden. Our job is to read the literature and reproduce it. There is no literature that refers impalement as a form of crucifixion - therefore Misplaced Pages should not present such an idea. As Woogums said, in modern usage they are not the same. --Ephilei 03:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

According to you, I have not shown any evidence which says that impalement and crucifixion are one and the same. This is rather strange. When I showed you the evidence of Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners, involves usage of the word "aneskolopise" which comes from the verb "anaskolopizô" meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale", your first reaction was to dismissed it by calling it a "mistake" in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica states under "Crucifixion": "In 519 BC Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon." It was also pointed out to you that the Encyclopaedia Judaica also mentions Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians involved in crucifixion. A quick check at the primary references reveals that they all impaled people. Obviously you did not like it and you said tried to deflect the issue by saying that it "does not mean they are equalivent", i.e., crucifixion and impalement. The only excuse (sorry for using this word!) was that a "good stradegy in word games is to quote other languages to make yourself look smart". Let us now turn out attention to Herodotus' account of Darius is the original language and to see where exactly your position stands.

3.159. Βαβυλὼν μέν νυν οὕτω τὸ δεύτερον αἱρέθη. Δαρει̂ος δὲ ἐπείτε ἐκράτησε τω̂ν Βαβυλωνίων, του̂το μὲν σφέων τὸ τει̂χος περιει̂λε καὶ τὰς πύλας πάσας ἀπέσπασε: τὸ γὰρ πρότερον ἑλὼν Κυ̂ρος τὴν Βαβυλω̂να ἐποίησε τούτων οὐδέτερον: του̂το δὲ ὁ Δαρει̂ος τω̂ν ἀνδρω̂ν τοὺς κορυφαίους μάλιστα ἐς τρισχιλίους ἀνεσκολόπισε, τοι̂σι δὲ λοιποι̂σι Βαβυλωνίοισι ἀπέδωκε τὴν πόλιν οἰκέειν.

The transliteration of which is:

Babulôn men nun houtô to deuteron hairethê. Dareios de epeite ekratêse tôn Babulôniôn, touto men spheôn to teichos perieile kai tas pulas pasas apespase: to gar proteron helôn Kuros tên Babulôna epoiêse toutôn oudeteron: touto de ho Dareios tôn andrôn tous koruphaious malista es trischilious aneskolopise, toisi de loipoisi Babulônioisi apedôke tên polin oikeein.

The translation reads:

Thus was Babylon the second time taken. Having mastered the Babylonians, Darius destroyed their walls and reft away all their gates, neither of which things Cyrus had done at the first taking of Babylon; moreover he impaled about three thousand men that were prominent among them; as for the rest, he gave them back their city to dwell in.

This is Herodotus' famous account of how Darius I, king of Persia, crucified 3,000 political prisoners. Note that the English translation uses the word "impaled" which is the translation of the Greek word anaskolopise from the verb anaskolopizô meaning "to fix on a pole or stake, to impale". http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lookup=a)neskolo/pise&author=hdt.&embed=2

Perhaps this does not need any further explanation from me. Now let us turn to another of your arguments which says "Egypt belonged to the Roman Empire, so of course they had crucifixions". Of course, you do not have evidence to support your views. The Islamic website mentions the evidence of crucifixion some 1000 years before the advent of Roman Empire in Egypt using primary sources! Interestingly, if we look at the hebrew word "talah" in the "Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture", it says "to hang any one on a stake, to crucify" and gives the evidence of Egyptians in Genesis 40:19 . Genesis 40:19 deals with the story of Joseph in ancient Egypt. Similarly, Smith's Bible Dictionary under "Crucifixion" says http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&q=crucifixion:

Crucifixion was in use among the Egyptians, (Genesis 40:19); the Carthaginians, the Persians, (Esther 7:10); the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death.

In any case, your Egyptian argument does not appear to favor you either.

What about Assyrians who are also cited frequently in the literature to crucify their enemies? If one looks at the Assyrian sources in Pritchard's "The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament" crucifixion involved putting a stake through a private parts or their chest.

In all the three cases what the scholars have considered as crucifixions are in fact impalements of some sort, either on a stake or with a stake. It certainly shows that you have not studied the primary sources well enough to grasp the issue. You are trying to compensate your illiteracy in the aspects of crucifixion in ancient world with your apparently "keen" sense of logic.

Another issue that you frequently bring is this guy Saifullah as my only source of evidence. Well, you can compare my references with the references which Saifullah has cited and see how closely they are related. You will certainly have a good chance to show your "keen" sense of logic here.

According to Martin Hengel (Emeritus Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at the University of Tübingen) in his "The Cross of The Son of God" "All attempts to give a perfect description of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain" as there exists numerous possibilities depending upon the whims of the executioner. He then gives the testimony of Seneca. So, there exists no perfect definition of crucifixion. In fact, Saifullah and others charge you with hiding "amongst vast and useless quotes" which do not even dwell into the primary sources. At least Saifullah has shown from the primary sources from ancient Egypt of what he is supporting. As for you, you are only left with your "keen" sense of logic. Sorry, but this does not help!

Now we have to make decisions here based on scholarly works and not on ones own whims and fancies. So, let us come to an agreeable conclusion and start the modification. I will make suggestions after others have done so. --WAP4 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this is all very fascinating, but what does it have to do with the widely understood modern definitions of these terms? Of what notability is this dispute over what Darius did? Put it down as a passing reference in one or the other of the articles. It's not even remotely convincing enough for something so drastic as a merge. Kasreyn 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WAP4, please read or reread WP:CIVIL and stop insulting me; it's not helping anything. As Kasreyn pointed out, all these historical insights are irrelevant concerning the title of the page. Accord to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, Article naming should give priority to what the majority of English and speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. and Names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Hendel and Herodotus don't represent the general audience or majority of English speakers. This is shown by dictionaries and encyclopedias, which I've been quoting since the beginning, and by English speakers, all of whom have identified crucifixion and impalement as different.

Also, since you have so much knowledge on the subject, why don't you edit the article itself, thus doing something constructive? There's certainly enough to warrant an entire section on the relation between crucifixion and impalement! And thanks for the Herodotus reference just because I was looking for it forever. --Ephilei 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose WAP4, first of all, though Persians, Assyrians and Egyptians are all involved in crucifixion, and are all involved in impalement, it does not mean they are the same, just like they all use iron and bronze, but iron and bronze are different. Concluding so is a violation of Wikipedian policy, so you will simply have to find a source that says they are in fact the same. Second, please do not make any personal attacks. Personal attacks will not help improve the article. Third, impalement and crucifixion are clearly different things, at least in modern times. If you crucify someone you also impale him, which explains the sources, but if you impale someone it does not mean you crucified him. Aranherunar 08:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The straw vote has been 5 to 1 opposing the merge. I think we can call that consensus. Also, information should be added noting the historic similarity between crucifixion and impalement etymology. --Ephilei 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

images => Jesus_Jesus-2006-08-22T22:29:00.000Z">

The images in this article imply that it is about Jesus, which of course it is not directly. If this is not changed then contributors will continue to add information here about Jesus, in bits and pieces, including for instance the whole section , which would be more relevant in an article about the crucifixion of Jesus rather than crucifixion in general. Davilla 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)_Jesus"> _Jesus">

kkk crucifiction

I remember seeing in a new york photo gallery an old picture of a black guy crucified on a tree somewhere in the south of the US. Does that ring a bell for someone ? I am totally unable to find the references.

Jesus's genitals

Alvin easter contributed the following (boldfacing added): (Since the Romans designed crucifixion to be an especially humiliating and agonizing form of death, it is logical to assume that nudity was a standard part of the procedure, especially considering that nudity would also expose the victim's genitals to all manner of flying and crawling insects.

Alvin easter, it is never "logical to assume" anything when you're contributing to an encyclopedia. Your speculations about "flying and crawling insects" reveal more about you than they do about the practice of crucifixion. --ForDorothy 19:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Some passing criticisms

An interesting article, though very poorly footnoted. If I may offer the following criticisms: • I do not see the reason for treating Roman crucifixion twice, in two separate sections: Details of Crucifixion, and History of crucifixion/ Roman Empire. I should think these two ought to be merged somehow. • In Details of crucifixion, paragraphs 1 & 2, it is not at all clear what exactly is the difference, if any, between method 1 and method 2. Also, paragraph 2 states that Jesus was crucified by "the other method", and then in paragraph 3, that it is not known how Jesus was crucified. Paragraph 3 then goes on to give the "more prevalent opinion" about the matter, but it should be pointed out that the gospels all say merely that, "..they crucified Him." They give no details of the crucifixion itself, and while it may be appropriate to discuss prevailing representations of Jesus' crucifixion, there really isn't enough evidence to state any opinion. Darentig 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling

Given all the historical and mythical crucifixions not mentioned in this article, are three paragraphs on mock crucifixions in professional wrestling really necessary? There are lots of other allusions to crucifixion in popular culture--Nas' "Hate Me Now" video, Tupac's Don Killuminati album cover, Stephen King's The Stand--but I'm not sure that listing them all, let alone discussing them at length, adds much to the article.

At the very least I think the "Parody" subheading should be moved out from under the "Modern crucifixions without death" heading, and possibly renamed to something like "Crucifixion in popular culture"; but I also wonder if the discussion of wrestling should be shortened substantially. Seventhsaint 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Seventhsaint

No, the wrestling bit is totally out of place and drags the whole article down. I say it should be removed entirely. Objections? Darentig 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Actually, I mean, the whole "Parody" section should be removed altogether. Pointless and very tasteless.) Darentig 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite the inappropriate method that several public accounts took to edit it, how is it that the In Anime section escaped removal as well? At the very least, this merits a mention earlier in the pop culture section, and at the very most it should be moved to its own page, relating more to anime, or completely removed. Good on however it is that knows that much about crucifixion in anime, but it's all completely irrelevant and, like the pro wrestling section, ends the article with a groan. Hellointernets (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

More recently than in this section, there has been an active and ongoing discussion of that question at Talk:Crucifixion#In Popular Culture, which you can see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish "crucifixion"

This subject should have been taken to the talk page some time ago.

Honestly, no version of this segment has any business in the article simply because it is not cited at all. Both versions are quite speculative. No one has established any reason even to begin speculating on jewish use of crucifixion. Darentig 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. the quote from St. Paul is in itself a cited reason, the quote is obviously significant to the subject of this article, and should not be suppressed. Also, please don't blank stuff out from the talk page unless you are going to paste it here for discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that by "blank stuff out from the talk page" you mean removing material from the article? If so, I can agree with putting it on the talk page to be clearly seen. Here it is then in it's current form:

Some Christian theologians, beginning with St. Paul, have intepreted an allusion to crucifixion in Deuteronomy 21:22-23. This reference is to being hanged from a tree, and may be associated with lynching or traditional hanging. The connection with this Deuteronomy verse is alluded to as early as St. Paul, who quotes it in , writing "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." However, ancient Jewish law allowed only 4 methods of execution: stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation. Crucifixion was thus implicitly forbidden by ancient Jewish law.

Now, that having been established; even if we assume that Paul is saying that the passage in Deutoronomy refers to literal crucifixion, which I would not, since he himself does not say so, that still does not answer the question of who are these "christian theologians" (plural) that have made this "interpretation of an allusion", and why should an "interpretation of an allusion" be considered in an article about the known facts of crucifixion? Material in Misplaced Pages is supposed to be encyclopedic, not speculative. Darentig 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite obviously Paul is clearly referring to the manner that Christ died, i.e. crucifixion, in this verse; I don't understand why you are picking it to pieces just to try to keep it out of the article, when it is 100% on topic. As I have amended it to read, Paul is only the first of the Christian theologians to quote the verse in Deuteronomy in this regard, is it really necessary to list all of them? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, first of all let me state that I am a committed Christian and name the name of Christ above all names, and hold the Bible in highest regard, including the writings of Paul. So I have no sinister anti-Bible plan of opposition to this section, if that's what you are thinking.

I am not "picking it to pieces just to try to keep it out of the article", I am trying to point out that it is not up to snuff. It might possibly be brought "up to snuff," but to do so requires a few things. 1. What is the relevance to the article as a whole? Or, more specifically, to this section? I agree that Jesus was crucified, but this article is not about Jesus. I agree that Paul referenced the Law here to emphasize that Christ became a curse for us. I do not at all see that Paul then asserts that the pre-Roman jews practiced crucifixion, and that is the point of this section, "Pre-Roman practice of crucifixion." Unless you can clearly demonstrate that this is the case, it has no relevance to the larger article. 2. If you are going to assert that "christian theologians" have made this "interpretation of an allusion", then yes, you do need to be able to cite them. At least enough to qualify as plural. Otherwise it looks like Codex Sinaiticus has made an interpretation of an allusion, and original findings are not to be published in Misplaced Pages. (But even if you can do that, an "interpretation of an allusion" would seem to me to be of very questionable encyclopedic value.) Darentig 19:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you profess your own beliefs to be is not relevant here. What is relevant is that there is a group of editors that cruises wikipedia groundlessly blanking out any reference to the New Testament wherever possible, and you appear to be one of them regardless of how high regard you say you hold for it. There is no reason not to mention Galatians in this article somewhere, if not this section then move it to another section, but censoring it when it is a direct reference to crucifixion / Jesus' death is pure censorship, closely akin to vandalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Codex, the relevance of my stated beliefs is to assure you that I have no "anti-New Testament" motive. If you ignore my statement about my motive, and then ascribe that very motive to me, you are not assuming good faith, which is Misplaced Pages policy.

The only reason not to mention Galatians somewhere in the article is that the article is not about Paul's letter to the Galatians. If you take a look at the article as a whole you should notice two things: 1, That it suffers from an abysmal want of proper references for all the assertions contained in it, and 2, that the New Testament is certainly given it's fair share of time. If you can demonstrate the clear relevance of the quote from Paul to this segment, i.e., "Pre-Roman Crucifixion", then it obviously does belong. However, to do this, you are going to have to demonstrate that Paul clearly states here that the ancient Hebrews did practice crucifixion. So far you have made little effort to demonstrate that, mostly engaging in ad hominem arguments instead. Not only so, but the end of this text in question then turns around to argue that the ancient Hebrews certainly did not practice crucifixion, thus leaving the point of the entire thing very unclear. To put it another way, what exactly is the value to the article of including a very questionable assertion that the ancient Hebrews practiced crucifixion only to then point out that the ancient Hebrews obviously did not actually practice crucifixion after all? Darentig 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is a pretty poor pretext for not allowing the Galatians quote. The article is about crucifixion, and the Galatians quote gives Paul's view on the subject, which was demonstrably formative in Christian thought. I concede it may well belong in another section, since it is indeed doubtful that Jews practiced crucifixion or that Paul believed this. But it is still on topic, a cited quotation about crucifixion. I think the cited statement proving that Jews did not practice crucifixion is also relevant and important. Obviously if Deuteronomy says this is a curse, that alone is proof that it was not to be done by Jews. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims removed

I have removed the following claims of use of crucifixion in modern times, as they were completely without any reference. Please do not reinsert them without citing a Misplaced Pages:Reliable source in support. Palmiro | Talk 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Execution by crucifixion, while rare in recent times, was used at the Dachau concentration camp during the Holocaust and in a number of wars, such as in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and during the Sino-Japanese war, where it was among the many methods of torture and execution used by Japanese soldiers against Asian civilians - largely in emulation of medieval Japanese military practices.

• Photographic evidence exists positing that some victims of the Armenian Genocide were crucified by Ottoman soldiers.

• There are persistent stories that crucifixions continue to occur in certain parts of Africa, particularly in Sudan. According to reports, many Sudanese -like animists, Christians are 'naturally' suspect of separatism against the predominantly Islamic republic- have been nailed to crude crosses in remote areas on the plains, where access by reporters and Western witnesses is limited. Al Jazeera reported in 2002 the crucifixion of 32 Christian priests and other males, some still in their early teens. They were allegedly whipped severely and affixed to crosses with six-inch nails through their hands, ankles and genitals.

Contradiction

At present this article definitely asserts that Christ was crucified on a cross of the type traditionally identified with his crucifixion, while immediately underneath casting doubt on this. mgekelly 05:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems in the introduction

this entire section:

Since Jesus Christ was the most notable figure to be crucified, a crucifix, often bearing an icon of Christ, became the main symbol of most Catholics. Some denominations or individual churches prefer to use only a cross without crucified body, or corpus.

despite the fact that i tried to fix some of the more outrageous NPOV problems seems horribly vague and its tone does not convey that this is an encyclopedia, for instance "most catholics" is it relevant to call them catholics? is it correct? i just don't like this whole bit but i don't want to take it out because the main points in that paragraph are important, just very poorly worded, i would fix it myself but i don't have the information necessary to do so. GTMusashi 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm deleting this part about the Ichthys because it has absolutely nothing to with the act of crucifixion. It was obviously written by a Christian. ForestAngel 23:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, although incomplete, to note that Roman Catholics use the crucifix as a symbol more than other Christians, but only insomuch as this paragraph is properly part of a discussion of crucifixion instead of crucifix. (For the argument that the description is incomplete, see Usage under crucifix. The fact that the word "catholic" is not capitalized is, I suspect, a typo. But if not, the author's argument about usage is actually more accurate.) The word "crucifix" is commonly misunderstood to mean any large cross on display, but the presence of Jesus' body on the cross, either dying or triumphant, is making a specific theological statement that can, in fact, be associated with some branches of Christianity more than others. Lhensley 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

North Korea section is dubious at best

In the North Korea section of the article, all the 'proof' for the existence of crucifixion-style torture and execution comes from a single movie. Other sources are mentioned as the sources used by that movie, but apparently no effort has been made to verify this. While I'm perfectly willing to believe that this method was used, Misplaced Pages needs a bit more than a Hollywood movie as source. Unless of course we want to add "and the old lady threw the necklace into the sea" as a permanent part of the RMS_Titanic article. Robrecht 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

the victim/the condemned

I cannot make up my mind whether to object to the change from "the victim" to "the condemned" or to accept it. For me, "victim" does not necessarily have a religious meaning: newspapers repeatedly speak of the number of "victims" of an explosion or an earthquake. So I do not understand why Shadowlink1014 thought the word in some way POV. Be that as it may, my only difficulty really with Shadowlink1014's change is the use of "the condemned" as a singular verb. To my mind, "the condemned" refers to several condemned people; the singular should be "the condemned person" or the like. But perhaps I am mistaken. Lima 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the standard practice across capital punishment articles. For an example, see Electric chair. There is also some discussion of "victim"/"the condemned" on that article's talk page. I was not involved in it, but the consensus across all the capital punishment pages has been to use "the condemned". The issue is not related to religion as much as it is related to pro- or anti- death penalty. --Shadowlink1014 06:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment with its reference to the Electric chair article. I take it as an answer, which I appreciate, to my request for assurance that there is really nothing jarring, from the point of view of English usage, in the repeated combination here of "the condemned" with a singular verb. I find the same combination in the other article. Thanks. Lima 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Condemned is not really appropriate as crucifixion was not always fatal nor always intended to be even in ancient times. Today we have people who are crucified as part of their religious devotions and we dont call them "condemned". Wayne (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction 2

The section on pre-Roman states says the first known crucifixions were in Persia, from the time of Darius I, but it also says that the Assyrians practiced crucifixion. But the Neo-Assyrian Empire had been destroyed by Darius' time. So - ? --91.148.159.4 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the section about Ancient Egypt below, I suppose this may be due to the terminological mess, as the article doesn't distinguish between crucifixion in the sense of impalement (which was, of course, VERY common in Assyria), and "crucifixion proper" (whatever that would be).--91.148.159.4 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In view of the original text by Herodotus, available in Perseus Digitable Library, and copied above on this talk page, it's clear that Darius I practiced impalement in that case. But even if we regard this as synonymous with crucifixion, it is certainly not the earliest case - e.g. the Assyrians also used impalement. No reason to single out that particular case. So I removed the sentence altogether.--91.148.159.4 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion in Ancient Egypt

Crucifixion was a common method of punishment in Egypt; however, unlike in other areas, it was done by cutting the opposite limbs of a person and using the palm tree as a stake according to "Die Sprache Der Pharaonen Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch", a concise Egyptian-German dictionary"

The article cites an entry from the dictionary, but that contains no info concerning a palm tree or "the opposite limbs of a person". Rather, it speaks of impalement, and the Muslim authors of the article argue that since the word "crucifixion" could also refer to impalement, it is accurate to speak of crucifixion in Ancient Egypt, as the Qur'an does.--91.148.159.4 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sharia law and crucifixion.

It is interesting to note that whilst it has been addressed and expounded verbosely in the discussion page yet however has not been properly addressed in the article. Whilst it is a common form of punishment under Sharia law, and there is much credible first hand and primary source evidence that it is carried out very frequently as a punishment (most typically using a straight beam gibbet rather than a cross), I believe that we are robbing this article of it's academic merit by not including both in the header that 'this practise is still carried out in', as well as having in the 'modern usage' section a large portion on explaining the frequency of it and the usage of it in modern middle eastern countries.

Thus I wish to re-address this issue, and re-raise the points addressed above that were not acted on. It appears previous attempts to add this were removed and censored by pro-islamic editors who believe that somehow addressing the form of punishment used is 'anti-islamic' or taking a shot at them, which is quite unfortunate. We really need to address this issue as it's a common practise and isn't going to go away anytime soon.

As an aside, I do not endorse nor recommend anyone utilise the image above for a front-article post as it has it's source URL on it which would amount to advertising of a website and thus equate to removal. Jachin 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether it ought to be defined as crucifixion. The ancient meaning was apparently as broad as to include even impalement, yet we wouldn't classify impalements as crucifixions today, and we wouldn't do it in this article. --91.148.159.4 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Jesus „cured“ by the soldier’s spear when he was crucified?

It was repeatedly speculated that Jesus of Nazareth did not really die when he was crucified (1) or the he might have been successfully resuscitated (2). Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross (3).However the resurrection of Jesus is still a matter of debate. From the citation in the bible “... 34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe (John 19:34-35)” it is evident that Jesus must have had any sort of hydrothorax and/or hemothorax at the time he was crucified. In the new testament of the bible the tortures and crucifixion of Jesus is well described. According to this Jesus was struck and flogged “... 26Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. 27Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. 28 They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said.30 They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. 31After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him (Matthew 27:27-31)” . According to the current opinion it is believed that the torture produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha and that Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side (3). This interpretation however seems speculative whereas there is evidence that Jesus suffered from some kind of pleural effusion evidence (John 19:34) probably resulting from being flogged. It is well known that refractory hypoxaemia is frequently present in the chest injured patient (4) (5) and the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the crossbar to Golgotha is suggestive for some kind of hypoxemia. At the site of crucifixion, his wrists were nailed to the patibulum and, after the patibulum was lifted onto the upright post (stipes), his feet were nailed to the stipes. The major pathophysiologic effect of crucifixion was an interference with normal respirations and it was suggested that death resulted primarily from exhaustion asphyxia (3). The fact that Jesus had not his legs broken “ ... 33But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:33)” gave him the advantage that asphyxia could be delayed. Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus' death was ensured by the thrust of a soldier's spear into his side (3). However considering that mangement of hydrothorax and/or haemothorax in modern medicine is the establishment of chest drains (4) one can speculate that the “thrust of the soldiers spear into his side” did not ensure Jesus’ death but was a sort of therapeutic intervention resulting in the relief of hypoxemia which eventually lead to the recovering of consciousness after some time.

Reference List

Ytrehus K. . Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2002; 122(8):833. Lloyd DM, Lloyd Davies TA. Resurrection or resuscitation? J R Coll Physicians Lond 1991; 25(2):167-170. Edwards WD, Gabel WJ, Hosmer FE. On the physical death of Jesus Christ. JAMA 1986; 255(11):1455-1463. Hardman JG, Mahajan RP. Anaesthetic management of the severely injured patient: chest injury. Br J Hosp Med 1997; 58(4):157-161. Mizushima Y, Hiraide A, Shimazu T, Yoshioka T, Sugimoto H. Changes in contused lung volume and oxygenation in patients with pulmonary parenchymal injury after blunt chest trauma. Am J Emerg Med 2000; 18(4):385-389.

...So you're suggesting that after torture, whippings, thorns through the head, nails through the wrists, being hung on a cross, having a spear pierced in his side, and being locked in a air-tight cave for three days/nights, that Jesus was strong enough to roll away a bolder from the inside of the tomb and beat up however many soldiers were guarding him? And all without medical care?

He would still have to been God-on-earth to perform such a feet. --96.247.80.232 (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"United States Penal Code"

I'm deleting the statement "United States's (sic) Penal Code does not allow for crucifixion." First, there is no "United States Penal Code." There is Title 18 of the U.S. Code, entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," but no "Penal Code." Second, Title 18, unsurprisingly, never mentions crucifixion. Of course, the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but that's not crucifixion-specific. Terry Carroll 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The movie SAW 3

I think in this movie there is a cruciating sceene, too. Maybe it could be added to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.240.251 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

his or her

"If a crossbeam was used, the condemned man or woman was forced to carry it on his or her shoulders, which would have been torn open by flagellation, to the place of execution." Is there in fact any evidence that even one woman was subjected to this Roman-style treatment? I am not referring to any other form of crucifixion. I know that, in an article full of "perhaps"es, this site says: "Perhaps one of the unique aspects of Jewish crucifixion was that when employed on women, according to the Mishna, they faced the cross whereas men were crucified with their back to the cross." Lima (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article. A number of points re discussion: 1. The flogging: the person who suggested that Pilate only ordered a flogging to placate the 'Jews' is ignorant of biblical scholarship, especially of John. If you read John's account carefully, you get the impression that Pilate skillfully provoked and goaded the 'Jews', until they agree to what Pilate wants - an acknowledgement that Rome is their supreme ruler (We have o King but Caesar). It is not the 'Jews' twisting Pilate's arm, but vice versa. Pi;ate gives them what they want, but only after extracting an intollerable price from them. 2. Carrying the cross or crossbeam. Look at it from the soldiers' point of view. Why should they do hard labour, when there stands, ready at hand, an able-bodied condemned man? 3. The same for being crucified naked. In those days, you couldn;t go down to KMart or Woolies and get ten pairs of jocks for $20. Clothing was laborious to make, and relatively expensive compared to today. Would you let a good pair of jocks, or loin-cloth go begging? 4. Nevertheless, the undewear was probably in a pretty filthy state. Not only did they not wash very often back then, the victim would have been shitting himself (literally) before the aweful moment arrived. 5. i knew a lady once who's brother-in-law had been crucified by the Japanese furing WWII. Fortunately, after nine hours on the tree, natives (from the local jungle) came and freed him. He survived, dying only a few years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.146.200 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

error quoting Da Vinci Code

"There has recently, especially since the publication of the Fictional story of the da Vinci Code, been raised the possibility that survival of crucifixion was possible"

The Da Vinci Code says nothing about "survival of crucifixion". Its only revisionist assumption is that Jesus was married and that his wife was pregnant when he was executed, so that (according to the Code story) he left descendants behind. Or do you just mean that the Da Vinci Code has inspired other revisionist accounts?

Josephus said he persuaded Titus to pardon several prisoners who had just been crucified and that at least one surivived (Titus was the ranking general and the son of the Emperor, so he could override the Military Code). If we can trust Josephus, this means survival was medically possible, though it was legally a rarity. CharlesTheBold (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Urantia Book

I think three sources about the sedile are quite enough, without adding a reference that is not so much about the sedile as about a book that, if I understand right, claims to be the result of revelation, not of historical research. In the context of this article, therefore, the mention of that book seems to me to be no more than spamming. Please discuss. Lima (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no intention of spamming here and it is certainly not "vandalistic". I can see that you are quite adamant about removing all traces of an additional source so I wonder if you think it would be ok to simply include a reference citation along with the other refs considering the material makes note that only one nail was used and the "sedile" was actually a peg or "post".ref http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper187.html Majeston (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that there is no way Urantia Book should be mentioned on this article per WP:UNDUE. Review WP:CONSENSUS: if you want to pursue this, you will need to establish consensus for some compromise solution first. If you just keep revert-warring about it, all you will achieve is getting the article locked down, and possibly be blocked for editing over it. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision of lead

The lead has changed in the last month so that crucifixion, described less than a month ago as being tied or nailed to a cross, now says " a stake, a tree or some other suitable object." That's a pretty drastic change and I think should be discussed here and justified by reference to some reliable sources. No offense to any editors but I'm going to restore the lead from a few weeks ago so that any changes get due discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll start myself with a minor point, I don't think the word 'condemned' was right, it was a method of execution full stop, it was used on people without a trial as well as people who had been condemned. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to either Dougweller's text or the text that he replaced. The longer text was put in (by me) because an editor had written "a cross or a stake", as if these were the only two objects on which someone could be crucified. In favour of mentioning only a cross is the fact that this is the only object that people usually associate with crucifixion. In favour of the longer phrase is the fact that someone could also be crucified on, for instance, a wall. As for "condemned", which until the most recent change before Dougweller's was treated as a noun (without the word "person"), I think some editor (not I) put this in, many months ago, in place of "victim". Why not change "the condemned person" to "a person"? Simpler, and raises no questions. Lima (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages needs/deserves a section obsessively listing the most insignificant connection to anime, Misplaced Pages 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 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 , 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. Misplaced Pages 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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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.

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)

hey, no one looks up "crucifixion" to find out what animes it's been in you dumb sperg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.214.213 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009

basically this anime thing is what makes normal people laugh at wikipedia editors and not particpate here because youre a bunch of socially maladjusted autism cases who are impossible to deal with in any way that resembles normal interaction

but wait! what about my animes!!!

(UTC)

• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Saints articles
• Low-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles