This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crucifixion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Crucifixion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crucifixion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Crucifixion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)