Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

category as art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Comment: Crucifixion in Art and Popular Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding usage of Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture of crucifixion in Japan

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

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

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

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

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

Why is there so much emphasis on Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about some recent edits

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

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

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

islamic-awareness.org

An EL to islamic-awareness.org ([1]) was removed in this edit, with an edit summary "removing unreliable site, islamic-awareness is known for distorting facts, also should not link to such a partisan site".

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

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

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

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

Rewrote first paragraph for legibility

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

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

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

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

Anime image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anime image deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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