Talk:Crucifixion

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crucifixion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826030747/http://revcurentjur.ro/arhiva/attachments_201003/recjurid103_13F.pdf to http://revcurentjur.ro/arhiva/attachments_201003/recjurid103_13F.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421224711/http://www.karenwomen.org/Reports/WalkingAmongstSharpKnives.pdf to http://www.karenwomen.org/Reports/WalkingAmongstSharpKnives.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226173652/http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23257 to http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23257
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402184621/http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/Turin2000.htm to http://e-forensicmedicine.net/Turin2000.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was remove TJRC (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The section "famous crucifixions" lists Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, who was not, in fact crucified. This is a thirteenth century kid who was found dead and possibly murdered. A local Jew was accused of his murder and under torture confessed to a lot of stuff, including that he had crucified the boy, but that's well established to be nonsense.

An IP editor removed it with the edit summary "Removal of a mythic example". Mytwocents reinstated it with the summary "removal of wikilink by anon". Because this is not, in fact, a famous crucifixion, I agreed with the IP editor, removing it with the comment "IP was right here; since the crucifixion was fictitious, only claimed under torture, it shouldn't be listed here". Mytwocents again reverted with the comment "Insertion found 11 August 2006 "Little Saint" text has been in page for many years. warrants Talk before deletion IMO".

So, here's the Talk: Do we include as a "famous crucifixion" an event that did not actually happen, just because it's been in the article for a long time? TJRC (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with its deletion. It didn't happen, so doesn't belong here.--Dmol (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree it should be deleted. It would need a reference that it is "famous" for one thing, and also it is an anti-Semitic falsehood.Smeat75 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been more than a week, an no one has spoken up for retention, not even the editor who opposed the deletion, so I'm taking it out. TJRC (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too Christian centric

This article is structured very heavily in favour of Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn’t the only person to be crucified. Can’t we restructure it to explain what crucifixion is and how it works? And then focus on famous individuals or groups? Otherwise we get this Christian prejudice which distorts discussion of the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wierd. Have you actually read it? There is actually very little on Jesus, although his is almost the only specific crucifixion of which we have early accounts. Of course his has its own article. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes - are we reading the same article? I think all of the images (at least until half way through) are Christ on the cross. The early sections are peppered with references to thew New Testament and first century Palestine. Is the crucifixion of the Nazarene Jesus, really the earliest description anywhere of this form of death? Is his death described anywhere other than the religious texts produced by the early christian community? If - as you say - there is a separate article about the death of Jesus of Nazareth, then maybe this article could do with a good prune back.Contaldo80 (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant

The image in "society and law" (or how is it called) is not relevant to the theme, especially when used as a double image. Why do you need a doubled carricature of old timee with some old title there?

By the way, the image is blasphemous, and not in need in this page! 88.155.16.101 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not irrelevant, this is the most ancient depiction of a crucified Jesus. Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dimadick: as the earliest potential depiction of Christian crucifixion, it's certainly relevant to any historical discussion on this subject.

With respect to the claim that the image is "blasphemous", see WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." TJRC (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Response:

• Firstly, the image is not seemingly relevant to the section or part it was placed in.

• Then, why do you quote wp guidelines as the truth or nearest thing to verifiability? Wikipedia has egoistic features (and how does it dare claim it's not a bereaucracy!), it wants us to think thst its rules are a law or the most important thing.

• Thirdly, it says "verifiability, not truth", standing on reliable sources so-called! Then cnn, for you, is verifiably reliable one, msnbc also, the Bible not for them!

• Question: how can i verify that wikipedia guidelines are reliable ones?

Representing 88.155.16.101 08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

What section do you think it belongs in? TJRC (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It may not even belong to the article on crucifixion in general, because there is a special page devoted to the death of Jesus!

Additionally, the image for me, despite the inscriptions, does not appear to be a first depiction of Jesus crucified — but instead that image depicts some donkey... Even not for Christians, how could some donkey be the Lamb of the Lord our God (capitalized)? 88.155.37.194 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Two editors have already responded on the appropriateness of the image to this article. In your prior response, you changed to suggesting it was maybe in the wrong section, which is something I at least am open to considering as a potential improvement; hence my question. TJRC (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The image is more "appropriate" to #Ancient Rome, subsection History 88.155.32.147 (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't have too much of a problem with moving it there; the image's value is historical, and doesn't really serve to elucidate process. @Dimadick:, what do you think?

Also, when I took a look at this I saw that portions of the "History" section really belong in the "Process" section. I'll have a closer look at this and start a more detailed separate discussion later today. TJRC (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Clunky, not encyclopedic, and wrong

"Although not conclusive evidence for female crucifixion by itself, the most ancient image of a Roman crucifixion may depict a crucified woman, whether real or imaginary."

Came to this Article asking the question "Did the Romans crucify women?" and while that question is sort of weakly answered "Yes", this meandering oddball of a point is non-sequitor for many reasons, first and foremost because it doesn't really say anything, i.e. "may depict". And so what? I might have a billion dollars in the bank, too. People come to Wikipedia for information, not meandering maybes. If say for example the Article took the question head-on and said "We think so but there's no hard evidence." and then it gave this weak, spineless and not-informative dab of not-information, they yeah sure maybe it flows, but if the Article is going to hang it's hat on this stupid little sentence, it should be zapped and replaced with something more concrete.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:BC56:A5DE:FF60:645D (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)