Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Leg breaking and breathing

I wanted to know if it is fine to include info on how the practice of breaking legs would led to breathing difficulties, since it would prevent the victim from pushing himself upward. [1] [2] The articles does not explicitly state that. ComputerJA (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Being bold is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you used the article's talk page because you were unsure, and it has had no response for a few days, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. An edit will either help get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article — either one is good." This is a quotation from WP:BRD. Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the reminder! I tend to be a bit reserved when it comes to editing articles not in my area of expertise. I'll get to it when I have more time. Good day! ComputerJA (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• It would be better to have references that were not primarily about the crucifixion of Jesus, as both of these are, since there is substantial disagreement about reliability of sources that in turn rely primarily upon biblical text. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• If you see the section of the page that is about the cause of death, the issue is already discussed some there. However, it's important to be aware that, according to modern medical source material, the idea that death from crucifixion occurs via suffocation is now regarded as fringe science. There's no anatomical connection between the diaphragm and the other skeletal muscles. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks for your replies, guys. I'm glad I posted it here first. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

When not execution

Some material was removed from the page on the grounds that it did not deal with crucifixion as a method of execution, in some cases because it did not lead to death, and in other cases because it was done after execution. I'm concerned that these deletions may be based on the false assumption that it is not encyclopedic if it does not result in death, and perhaps those edits should be undone. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to treat crucifixion (judicial or extra-judicial) intended to kill as the main topic, and to treat practically as appendices crucifixion (voluntary or involuntary) as non-lethal infliction of pain, and crucifixion as display of a corpse? Esoglou (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of approach seems reasonable to me, but I do think those other kinds deserve coverage. I would distinguish them from modern-day secular anti-religious performance art, which can reasonably be omitted here. But "crucifixions" performed either as religious expression (for example, the exorcism that was deleted), and those done in the course of judicial punishment (displays of corpses already executed), seem to me to be within the legitimate scope of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lutherans

I am removing the reference to Lutherans predominantly using a crucifix instead of an empty cross. ELCA guidance on worship says "the cross or crucifix is the central symbol of the faith." The Lutheran magazine also shows ambivalence on the subject. Andrew³²⁷ 04:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring compromise

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

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

Perhaps my brief edit of the photograph of this crucifixion (this is the correct spelling) is enough. But I don't object to some amplification. Esoglou (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I only made one edit, reverting the removal. The reason I did that was that the edit summary for the first removal was that there should only be an image, with nothing about it in the text, which somewhat contradicts WP:IRELEV. And really, I'm amazed that this is an issue. I don't particularly mind moving the applicable text to the image caption, but I'm a little unenthusiastic about relegating it to a footnote. Those of us who have been around this page for a while will remember that there has been a history of, well, strange views about including coverage of crucifixion in Japan. We need to remember that this page is not simply about crucifixion within Christian history, but it should be covered in a global way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a somewhat silly argument to have, but I've tried to find compromises in infinitely more pointless arguments. I just moved around a few words to get rid of a passive clause and make the sentence flow better. Andrew³²⁷ 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "victim" a NPOV term?

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

Given the uncontroversial fact that crucifixion was designed to make people suffer as much as humanly possible, victim is an appropriate word. Andrew³²⁷ 14:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree but am willing to go along with the consensus. The last ting I want to do is start an edit war over semantic distinctions.Scout1067 (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What Andrew said. I can understand and sympathize with a religious-based objection to the use of "victim" discussing an individual that certain religions believe to be a deity, but that's not a path we should be going down. We should be religion-neutral. As the attempts to rephrase this have been shown, all the suggested rephrasings are awkwardly lengthy or not really accurate. TJRC (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I respect the objection to the use of "victim" because it almost by necessity have an emotional component in its meaning. I think this constitutes a borderline case, and personally, I think "victim" is an acceptable term to denote the subject of a destructive act in general, despite the element of emotionality contained within the concept.Arildnordby (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

From a religious point of view, there should be no objection to use of the word "victim" with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus, a context in which many Christian groups speak of Jesus as "priest and victim". Esoglou (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I watched those edits and figured I would stay out of it, but I think it is OK for us to say "victim". I wondered whether the concerns about the word were based on the idea that it would imply sympathy for a particular religious figure, but I do not think that this puts us on the wrong side of NPOV, and I agree with the reasons given in support of its use above. I've tried to think of alternative, less clumsy, wordings, with limited success. Scout1067 had proposed "the most well-known individual that was crucified", which I think is clumsy. I think "the best-known individual to have been crucified" is a little better, but I'm not pushing for it (and "the best-known person to have been crucified" might raise theological objections, perhaps). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Victim is a perfectly acceptable, neutral, word. I can't understand what all the fuss is about.--Dmol (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The word victim implies injustice, therefore it is not NPOV and that is the root of my issue with the use of the word. Religion has nothing to do with it, victim is a subjective word. I would suggest using suffered instead of victim since it is fairly obvious that crucifixion is designed to make people suffer, it is not supposed to be a merciful way of killing someone. From Webster: one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment. If the consensus is that victim is a neutral word then that is OK with me.Scout1067 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You can also be a victim of a car accident, according to Webster. That does not imply injustice. In the big 1983 edition of Webster, the first meaning is given as "a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency". But, I think it is a very close call, because even in this meaning, there is an element that the fate was "undeserved", if not directly "unjust". Thus, I think Scout1067 deserves credit for his point of viewArildnordby (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, the clinching factor for why I end up with accepting "victim" is that we are talking about a ritual of execution. "Victim" in its original sense meant a sacrifice, and the ritualistic character of execution as offering up the criminal on the altar of justice is by no means a non-standard, but rather, a current, standard perception of executions as such. In addition, widespread modern ideas of the morally problematic foundation of executions as such, and that active production of pain in the criminal's body should be avoided means, in my view, that calling an executed individual a "victim" is fully justified to current usage and perception. Some degree of normativity will seep into most articles trying to be objective, but calling subjects of extremely painful rituals of execution "victims" does not contribute an undue degree of normativity into the article.Arildnordby (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank Scout1067 for explaining the specific concern that the word "victim" takes a point of view by implying injustice. I think that's a reasonable point. But I still think that it's acceptable for us to use the word in this context, because I do not think that there really exists an opposing POV in which the crucifixion of Jesus is considered to have been "just" (at least not since the fall of the Roman Empire, anyway). WP:NPOV is about not taking sides, rather than about not making evaluative statements. There are certainly present-day POVs about being pro or con any particular religion, but I think that there is no present-day religion or irreligion that is in favor of the crucifixion itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that Victim is NPOV. I just wanted to bring up the issue I discussed earlier about the implication of the word's use. As to Crucifixion being a present day practice, it still happens in some Muslim countries. I heard some locals talk about it happening in Iraq in 2004 but never witnessed it although one of the Sheikhs told us that it did still happen occasionally when a crime was heinous enough. Back to the original point, victim it is.Scout1067 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cause of death

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

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

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

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

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

Not at all improbable; lots of societies have practiced that particular type of post mortem shaming of the criminal's corpse. But, I do not know if the Romans did it.Arildnordby (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The History Channel once said this was the common practice following crucifiction, and when I get a chance I'll see if I can find a reliable source on Jstor. Andrew³²⁷ 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Most likely, in my view, is that they just left the bodies hanging where they were. Why bother with the expense of taking them down?Arildnordby (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Practice varied according to circumstances: see this study by Raymond E. Brown. Esoglou (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

THat was very useful indeed! THx a lot, I'll probably make a small section based upon it in the article! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

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

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

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

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

Non-lethal use

Introduction currently says "Crucifixion is a form of slow and painful execution". The term is also used to describe intentionally non-lethal punishment, such as at http://syriadirect.org/news/under-islamic-state-rule-deir-e-zor-residents-live-in-‘anxiety’/:

the prohibition of smoking in public, and those who are caught are crucified [non-lethally, i.e. suspended from a cross] and flogged 70 times in front of others.

Posting here because I don't want to worry about someone reverting it without a good reason, and people not noticing this in the change log.

This talk page has references at the bottom, which seems a bit silly. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:D92A:C857:4F4E:88D5 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Archbishop Joachim of Nizhny Novgorod

Restoring content adequately sourced on main article page. The term "reportedly" is used intentionally. Per WP:BRD the Bold removal was Reverted. Now we Discuss. Scr★pIron^IV 15:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't adequately sourced, on the main page for Joachim of Levitsky there are 6 sources (one listed twice). I'll admit I can't access the first one by an Orthodox clergyman which supposedly has this story in it, but none of the other 4 really properly support it at all. The site of the Nizhegorodskaya Metropolitan doesn't mention it at all. It states he was killed by 'unknown bandits' at an unknown date. It also includes an excerpt from a contemporary letter (1921) stating much the same:

 "убит злодеями, напавшими на него с целью грабежа, на даче своего сына Николая Ивановича Левицкаго, близ Севастополя, где жил покойный"

It should be noted furthermore that this account states he was killed at his son's dacha, not even in Sevastopol itself let alone nailed to the doors of the cathedral. This letter is from an Orthodox clergyman imprisoned by the Bolsheviks who would hardly have much interest in absolving them of the crime. I accept it is hardly an eyewitness account but it is better than statements by unknown internet authorities that he was crucified.

One source is an article in Nizhegorodskaya Pravda that merely states he died 'in unknown circumstances'.

Another source is an online biography from 'Kronos' that states he was killed by unknown bandits once again but also relates a "предание". i.e. a tradition, in this case a hagiographic tradition, that he was 'hung upside down', which is not exactly crucifixion although it might be.

The only accessible source to state unequivocally that he was actually crucified in the article is a random Ukrainian Orthodox site which offers no evidence at all and to me doesn't seem like a reliable source.

The Russian language wikipedia does not carry the crucifixion story (although it isn't a great article admittedly) and neither do any of the sources it cites. The site of St Vladimir's Cathedral itself doesn't mention the crucifixion story. Then there is the issue that although the story claims this occurred in April 1920 the Bolsheviks weren't even in control of the city until November of that year.

I am sure others will disagree but I don't think that this is the sort of information Wikipedia ought to carry. If the story has to remain then why not put the allegation, with appropriate caveats, on the page for Archbishop Joachim. Putting 'reportedly' in front of the statement on this page in no way covers the tenuous to the point of unreliable nature of this story. Nothing contemporary supports it, there is no evidence as to when he died, and indeed if he was even killed let alone who might have done it and how. There are not really 'multiple sources' for the story, not in the main article anyway as claimed, and the preponderance of sources refrain from making any definite statement as to the least facts of his death. 'Reportedly' makes this sound like something generally agreed or believed, if not universally accepted, and this simply isn't the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.220.233 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I might add that the Russian Orthodox Church itself seems to favour the idea he was killed at a dacha by thieves:

"Archbishop Joachim Levitsky left to Moscow for the Local Council in summer 1917 and then went to the Crimea, where he had a country house, and was hanged there by bandits."

see https://mospat.ru/archive/en/2005/07/9813/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.220.233 (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Crux simplex

The Crux simplex article--which I just added a blue link to--has had some sub-standard editing. Part of the problem--which I attempted to fix--is ungrammatical English. Another is lack of citations. Anybody willing and able to help there? Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

sleep deprivation

I think the idea behind crucifixion was to make it impossible for the victim to sleep. As long as they were awake they could support their weight on their feet but as soon as they fell asleep all of their weight went on to their arms and caused intense pain.

Just granpa (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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/20110718171841/http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/40813/1/Some%20Notes%20on%20Crucifixion.pdf to http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/40813/1/Some%20Notes%20on%20Crucifixion.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040311065035/http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html to http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623013300/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)