Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Conclusion?

OK so after reading this article I'm left confused. Did he die on a cross, a steak, or on a tree? Maybe he died in a car accident for all I know. This article is confusing and should be deleted.--Ironious (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He almost certainly did not die on a steak. Aside from that, as stated in the sections above, this article should indeed be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason for deleting this article, and I am NOT a Jehovah's Witness. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekinikulainen (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Page name

At the AfD, there was some discussion about renaming this article. The way I see it, there are two potential issues with the title.

1) The term "dispute" may imply a greater degree of controversy than exists in reality
2) The phrase "Jesus' execution method" does not accurately reflect the scope of the article (it could reflect a difference of opinion between say crucifixion and stoning, for example).

Any thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion of Method of Jesus' execution seemed popular at the AfD, but I take your second point. How about Nature of Jesus' crucifixion? StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How about "Form of the gibbet of Jesus" or "Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross"? Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think:

  • The term dispute should go. The topic is broader than that.
  • The term Method as suggested by St Anselm originally works, given that Nature makes it sound like a Greenpeace issue.
  • Gibbet is far too narrow, given that there are other issues, e.g. ropes vs nails, standing platform, etc. as briefly discussed on the Crucifixion of Jesus page, but need expansion.

I think something like StAnselm's popular suggestion may work. In any case I will start a Request and that may settle it. By the way Thaddeus, there is a year old Merge request here that should be closed now. I did not want to close it given that I commented there, but could you do that so we can move on? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I closed the discussion, as per your request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New page structure

Regarding the new page structure, I think it should logically separate the components, i.e.:

  • Shape of gibbet: It was either a cross, or a straight pole, etc. That should be just one section.
  • Use of nails and ropes: That is separate from the gibbet, could have used nails and/or ropes in either case. It also brings about the positioning of the nails (if any) in either case, on the hands or the wrists, etc.
  • The standing platform: This is again independent of the shape of the gibbet, or the use of nails vs ropes, or a combination thereof.

These are 3 separate items, of course. Any others? And probably a section on the artistic depictions with nails, ropes, platform and combinations etc. will make it clear to the reader. I added a small section on that, but it can really get expanded, so the scope becomes wider. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there is enough material on points 2 and 3 to make it worthwhile including them. In particular, I believe - without (yet) having checked - that the suppedaneum is a late addition to imagery of the crucifixion of Jesus and that nobody seriously maintains that it must historically have been used for his crucifixion. Nails are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus, and so I don't believe anyone seriously maintains that ropes, not nails, were used for crucifying him. Perhaps the below request for a move is premature.
The old 1845 Kitto book now cited in the article does not even consider the hypothesis of ropes being used for Jesus, while on the number of nails it says: "Much time and trouble has been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord to his cross." Should we waste more time and trouble on that question, which does not seem to be a live one today? Kitto, on page 591, considered quite ridiculous the notion that there were more than four, so does such an idea deserve any mention whatever here? The idea that nails in hands could not support the body has, I think, been used to advance the idea that the nails were driven through the wrists, not the palms of the hands, rather than to advance the idea of a suppedaneum or hypopodium in crucifixion, whether in general or in the particular case of Jesus. Practically the only live issue is that of the form of the gibbet of Jesus, although also, and to a much lesser extent, the palms/wrists question.
A Google Books link, with page number, would, I think, be much more useful to a reader than a bare ISBN that only leads to an indication of certain libraries, with perhaps none within easy reach of the reader, in which a book might be found. Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But the fact that the above had to be typed suggests that the issues are far from clear to a reader at first reading. Hence a section will be needed. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I just can't imagine anybody would envisage 14 nails being used in crucifying Jesus if it hadn't been mentioned, as now, in the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But were there just two nails? Or just one nail in the hands and none elsewhere? Were ropes used at all? History2007 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard

Can all pro-JW anti-JW editors take a back seat for a moment please. I'm not sure what is going on, the level of JW-related article pulling and pushing seems to have gone up at much the same time as West Bank issues are spilling over all over the place. Is it the season? I would think this is a mainstream (note I say mainstream in the generic sense not "mainline") subject and needs a generic mainstream title and approach and sources. The most sensible comments I've seen, as expected, are from those Wikipedia editors who are experienced contributors on a wide range of non-JW related topics, namely St Anselm, History2007, Esoglou etc. in the AfD (which as History2007 correctly noted was a misuse of AfD) discussion:

  • "Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution. This is hardly a fringe theory, but the article should be broader than the pole vs. cross debate - mention should be made of the theory that Jesus died on a T-shaped cross. This is actually mentioned in the article, but lumped in with "crossbeam" theories. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It was not a misuse of AfD. Clear reasons were given for why it was raised. The AfD was not supported, which is an entirely separate matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, to fix what is evidently a notable article:

1. I propose going to RM with StAnselm's suggestion above. Any seconder?
2. I have changed "gibbet" to "stake" in the hatnote since stauros means stake in Alexander the Great era Greek, while "gibbet" sounds like Dick Turpin.
3. I have changed lede sentence to something (a) short, and (b) NPOV. "Some of the details of the method of Jesus' execution in the crucifixion of Jesus are debated both by scholars and some churches."
4. Most importantly, I have moved JW section to last. This is the least important content in the article and chronologically modern churches should go after Irenaeus and so on.
5. I have noted this at WP:Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
These are largely good suggestions. However, the suggested title sounds more like something that would ordinarily redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus. Most people searching for this topic would probably look for "torture stake". In view of all the options that have been presented so far, B Fizz' suggestion of "Torture stake hypothesis" seems to be the best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro. You deleted my Talk reply to this. Your opinion that "Torture stake hypothesis" is the best is a reflection of exactly the problem in my reply which you have deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed ad hominem comments not related to this discussion, but it's not necessary to re-hash that. I said B Fizz' suggestion seemed the best suggestion so far. I didn't mean to imply that it's the best option or that further discussion isn't required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have already commented on this in the second of the two Talk contributions I made which you deleted. If anyone wants to know what I said and why the Talk page history is there. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What was deleted was ad hominem, and not related to this discussion. It is not appropriate to try to direct readers back to your ad hominem. This was explained to you at User Talk (since deleted by you). You really should stop this irrelevant line of attack. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Getting back on track, what are your thoughts on the merits of Torture stake hypothesis (a combination of suggestions offered by AuthorityTam and B Fizz, not me)? What are your thoughts about my concern that Method of Jesus' execution may be too similar in concept to Crucifixion of Jesus to denote a separate topic?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)

Hello Jeffro77. Interesting tag, but you should know that refactoring an article Talk page, twice, and then adding that sort of tag only advertises to all and sundry that something was there; it's equivalent to putting a neon billboard up. But as to you deleting the Talk on your own Talk page, feel free; the reason I moved your comments back to your own Talk page was to give you the freedom to do so. I'll spare other editors repeating the difference between ad hominem and ad argumentum (or in this case ad verbum). But as for "Getting back on track, what are my thoughts?" My thoughts remain as I have said, that some editors would benefit greatly from contributing to Wikipedia outside of a single-topic area of edit history. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing WP:NPA, I noticed that it is the recommended template to use. (And reasonable editors will see that your response was a non sequitur, and hardly an appropriate response to my expression of agreement and statement about suggestions made by other editors.)
And again, instead of actually getting back on track, you try to turn discussion away from the actual topic of this Talk page. WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." So, I will ask again:
What are your thoughts on the merits of Torture stake hypothesis (a combination of suggestions offered by AuthorityTam and B Fizz, not me)? What are your thoughts about my concern that Method of Jesus' execution may be too similar in concept to Crucifixion of Jesus to denote a separate topic?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What is unclear about what I have said above? I believe this page needs a selection of views from editors with a broader view. Your view is noted. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What is unclear? Well, I asked questions that relate to the article's subject, and you keep replying with, essentially, I don't like you, instead of answering the questions relating to article content. I don't care if you like me. It's clear you're not interested in engaging in relevant discussion. My questions are still there, and rational editors can respond to them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kittel

wikt:gibbet :)

I have inserted a box of the actual Kittel entry, partly as it seems to be slightly misrepresented in copy. Also inserted ref from Chapman on Plutarch's distinction between stauros (pole) and skolopos (pointed stick). This really belongs in the generic crucifixion article too. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. There seems to be a lot of discussion and no clear consensus. Given that we have another discussion open, closing this one seems appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Jesus' execution method – The issues were discussed on the recent Afd, and also just above here. The rename is the removal of the two words "dispute about" to give the article a broader context. History2007 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename, but differently. I agree the current title ("Dispute about Jesus' execution method") is unnecessarily long. But both the current and suggested article titles imply that there might have been some "execution method" wholly unrelated to a crux immissa or crux simplex or similiar; to my knowledge there has been no such speculation and it seems best to avoid an implied invitation to include discussion of "the method" at this article. Alternate titles I'll suggest:
* Jesus' execution hypothesis or Jesus' gibbet hypothesis (or hypotheses).
My latter suggestion is more obviously different from the existing article "Stolen body hypothesis".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But gibbet would ignore the ropes, nails, platform issue, etc. So you should probably avoid that to make things simple. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... The term "gibbet" simply means "instrument of public execution"... An article on a guillotine (a particular type of gibbet) might have two paragraphs discussing blades in particular. Similarly, I believe constituent paraphernalia such as nails, ropes, and platforms can easily be understood as discussion points tightly related to "the gibbet".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with AuthorityTam and still think that Form of the gibbet of Jesus would be a better title. It would include questions of the hypothetical suppedaneum and the sedile mentioned by Irenaeus as an actual, not merely hypothetical, part of a crucifixion cross (as its fifth dimension), and by extension even nails and ropes, if this last question were thought worth mentioning. And I do not exclude giving the article specific focus by renaming it Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross, as suggested earlier by Black`Cab. Esoglou (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I would support Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross given that it would end the confusion. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Jesus' execution method sounds a bit too much like they way that he preferred to execute people, much as a gangster's preferred execution method might be by a revolver to the head. So Method of Jesus' execution would be better for that reason. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That was funny. The only bright spot in this sordid debate. Well done. I think your initial suggestion of Method of Jesus' execution is much better. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, does the article wish to invite supposition that the method was something other than being nailed to a crux?
I believe the article title should include the term "gibbet", and the existence of other "Hypothesis" articles on Template:Death of Jesus tends toward something like
Christian gibbet hypothesis or Jesus' gibbet hypothesis.
I sincerely doubt readers will infer that Jesus had a hypothesis about a gibbet.
Alternately, the title Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross seems just barely acceptable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If you accept Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross which is similar to what Esoglou suggested, and everyone else (myself included) accepts that or something similar to that, can we cut to the chase and do a move and be done with this before we are all nailed to the wall out of boredom? History2007 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
If that proposal is accepted, presumably the artice will need rewriting along the line I suggested at Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method#Rewrite, re-angle proposal. Clearly the "dispute" angle will be removed and the article will then focus on what the JW belief is and why they believe it. How is it suggested the contrary views are presented? It appears they could well overwhelm the JW material, thus raising problems of WP:UNDUE. BlackCab (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you and AuthorityTam agree on a 50/50 real estate split. Each part gets the same amount of screen space and has its own section. That way you guys may actually be able to live outside Wikipedia too. All that debate is not good for anyone. If you agree to a 50/50 split, it may just work. History2007 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As a procedural note, a 50/50 split would not comply with either proposed option for the article contest. If it goes the "method of execution" route the mainstream position should get more weight. If it goes the "Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs" route the JW position should be the primary focus with an appropriate amount of text to point out that they are in the minority with their views. Neither would focus on the disagreement itself
The other option would be to keep the current focus (i.e. on the "dispute") but soften the wording, such as "Disagreement about..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, History2007. I'm still not certain I care enough about the article to share real estate with that dude. The problem ThaddeusB poses is, as I recall, pretty much the issue I raised here. (Unfortunately this is the edit where I called a certain editor's comment "mischievous", which is unfortunate. I don't really wish to revisit that dispute and I hope no one does. Please ignore the first three sentences of that edit.) Discussing a new name for the article is putting the cart before the horse. What is the purpose of the article? It can't be ignored that the JW doctrine is very much a minority view, so there are many voices speaking to the contrary. They could be boiled down a sentence or so each, but editors have previously expressed dismay that detailed material on the possible form of the gibbet could be deleted. I have no strong feelings either way: focus on the JWs or mention in them in passing. BlackCab (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hold on please. Is everyone 100% certain that the idea of a "stake," without a crossbar, was never made? The article cites Bullinger and Vine. If Bullinger and Vine did suggest this, then it isn't a JW issue. (This observation has nothing to do with the fact that I am getting a little tired of seeing ex-JWs baiting current JWs on Wikipedia Talk pages and it spilling out all over the place) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what's your question? The article is quite clear that the JWs assert the gibbet was just one timber and cite both Vine and Bullinger who said the same thing. The article could very well leave the JWs out and go straight to the range of views by the original authors. As possibly the ex-JW to whom you refer, I don't see that I have baited anyone here. My discussion has always been about improving an article that is currently a goddamned mess. BlackCab (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
BlackCab - I didn't specifically mean you, I'm not that focussed on who is saying what to whom, but now you mention it, and I can't remember the page, I do recollect what I would consider baiting of your former church only a week ago.
As to my observation. My observation is that Talk here seems to be overweight to considering this as a JW topic. Specifically the suggestion to rename Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross is overweight. Personally I would AfD this article and just improve archeological refs on Crucifixion#Cross_shape. I vaguely remember reading a paper 20 years ago on 1st century crucifixion which would suggest Bullinger and Vine were right, but irrespective, what the Crucifixion#Cross_shape would need are reliable recent archeological sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
You are aware the article just went through AfD discussion? BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Re my supposed "baiting" of my former church. I certainly speak my mind about it on my user page, but I think you're mistaken about me baiting it on any article talk page. Just as newly converted JWs are often zealous about their religion, recent defectors can be equally passionate while the wounds are still raw. I admit that in the past I've probably said more than I should have done, but in the past year or so I have been more restrained, despite attempts by others to fan the flames. But thanks for the reminder. BlackCab (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think I will leave you guys to figure this out and only check back in a few days to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd earlier said that renaming this article with "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the title seems to me "barely acceptable"; I sincerely hope consensus discussion leads away from the idea.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the options given, I prefer Method of Jesus' execution, however it has obvious contextual overlap with Crucifixion of Jesus. I'm not convinced that Jesus' execution method would necessarily be broadly interpreted as Jesus' preferred method of 'whacking' people (unless someone digs up a reference claiming, And the Lord didst bust a cap in thy neighbour's ass). I don't believe there are any valid sources suggesting some method of execution other than by fastening to a stauros. Renaming to a JW-related title would certainly underscore the reason for the recent AfD, and such an article would need to be greatly reduced to properly reference the purported scope with respect to due weight. I'm not sure that gibbet is a particularly common word to necessitate its use in the title, as suggested by the confusion the term elicited at this discussion—if an article needs to explain what a gibbet is, and the term is not an essential part of the title, then a more common term should be used. Jesus' execution hypotheses could imply he wasn't executed at all (which would seem to be out of scope), or could attract fringe views that he was killed some other way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus for a move to any other title. The opening explanation in the present text says: "This article is about the form of the gibbet used in the Crucifixion of Jesus", which strongly suggests a move to "Form of the gibbet used in the crucifixion of Jesus", more or less what I proposed above: "Form of the gibbet of Jesus". This has a clearly defined subject matter, easily distinguished from that of the much broader "Crucifixion of Jesus" article, but it has not won support. Titles that expressly mention Jehovah's Witnesses have also been rejected. The proposal "Jesus' execution hypotheses" is much too wide: it would even encompass theories about the responsibility of the Roman authorities and of the Jewish authorities, even that of deicide by the Jewish people as a whole! It seems we are stuck with what we have. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
FYI, earlier today I invited editors who 'previously but not recently' participated in this article's Talk to renew their participation. I found myself titling those User Talk sections "Gibbet of Jesus"; now I find myself wondering if it could be just that simple...--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at its names over the years, it seems as though editors rarely bothered with consensus before moving to a new article name:
So perhaps we should just revert to the name that had the longest duration so far: 'Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died'.
Per WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Regarding the concerns editors feel for this thread's previous proposals, are the concerns about 'Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died' more or less serious? If the concerns about the former name are not more serious, than I propose reverting to that previous stable name.
While an ESL speaker in Malaysia or somewhere might be unfamiliar with "gibbet", the term seems unlikely to trouble a typical American, Australian, British, or Canadian reader. The term "gibbet" sidesteps terms like "cross" and allows the article to avoid over-focus on Jehovah's Witnesses (who are not alone in their interest of this topic).--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I support AuthorityTam's proposal. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I was not referring to English as a second language in general, or Malaysia in particular. It would seem a fairly simple and informal matter for other editors to indicate their familiarity with the term gibbet prior to discussion of this specific topic at Wikipedia, and whether the term is considered common in their locale. History2007's comment above also suggested that the term may not be broadly understood. The word gibbet is not in common usage in Australia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with AuthorityTam's assessment. The term "gibbet" troubles this American reader. While I am familiar with the term, I have rarely encountered it in anything resembling "regular" conversation. If it were to come up somehow, I would hesitate to use it, and I would think many people unfamiliar with British history would ask me to define the term.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Boneyard90, it is far from a common term. I think its use on any TV show contest would confuse the participants. It would, however, make for a funny segment on a show such as Leno, where contestants would be asked to guess what it is. Someone should email Leno to try that sketch.... History2007 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment:I could support a move to Method of Jesus' execution, which would contain titular leeway for discussion of various possible methods and related controversies, but I think I must strenuously object to any title with "gibbet" in it. I know the article on "gibbet" states that it is any instrument of public execution, but it also relates, or at least, by virtue of content, insinuates that the most common use of the word applies to that one-man cage that was so popular in England once upon a time. The second most common use seems to be the gallows, and last, there's the Halifax gibbet, which took the heads off the condemned... once upon a time (couldn't resist). I think we all agree that Jesus wasn't hanged, or displayed in a cage, or beheaded with an overgrown cigar cutter. If we want the article to be content inclusive, Method of Jesus' execution would seem to be best. I would like to ask, do any sources state that there is a specific term for the controversy, like Good Friday Dispute or anything like that? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a separate debate regarding Good Friday being a Thursday... History2007 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: AuthorityTam's proposal, "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died", effectively excludes interpretations as a cage or a hanging gallows. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not so effectively, I think. How many people will type "Jesus" and "gibbet" into a search field?Boneyard90 (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance. Because of the presence in the phrase of the words "cross" and "stake", anyone reading "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died" will not, I believe, think of a cage or a hanging gallows. Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The relevance is connecting the title to the search. If someone is researching the dispute, or discourse on the method of execution, how many people would think Jesus was hanged or left in a cage (the common associations with "gibbet"), and thus type "Jesus" and "gibbet" in the search field? If I (and possibly others) were to find the article, and read Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, I might think, "How can it be a gibbet if there's no cage or gallows"? The purported inclusiveness of the term "gibbet" is anachronistic or at best dialectically restricted.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
In my personal English, "gibbet" is merely a somewhat archaic non-dialect term by no means restricted to cages or hanging gallows. In fact, I have never associated it with cages and, although gibbets might be built in a variety of shapes, I still don't think the word means a cage, any more than it means the chains or the tar that are likewise associated with gibbeting, an action that, as the article on it says, is distinct from execution. I think "method of Jesus' execution" is too vague a title for an article that is really about the shape of what he was executed on. So we're stuck with what we have? Esoglou (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up, I would say that the only reason the word gibbet remains in the collective American memory is its association with the cages that held executed pirates in the 17th & 18th centuries. I think there is or was a gibbeted pirate in the DisneyWorld attraction Pirates of the Caribbean (not sure, never been there), and may have been briefly portrayed in the movie of the same name. I don't think criminal bodies were put on display much in the US, as I think the practice was going out of style and the Golden Age of Piracy had ended by the time the US was formed as a country. See Captain Kidd, Calico Jack, and William Fly. So, in answer to your last question, I think yes, we may be stuck with what we have.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I think a large percent of the public will have little or no idea what gibbet means. So its use in the title would be confusing to many readers. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Since most Wikipedians do not regularly encounter public executions, it seems unsurprising that most do not use "gibbet" in their daily conversation. When I opined that the term 'gibbet' is 'untroubling', I meant that most readers would either understand the term from context or research its actual definition. I sincerely believe editors are underestimating the typical Wikipedia reader.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that would be true of people, but I think most Wikipedians encounter the public execution of logic on a daily basis. I have myself seen logic executed in a number of ways just this week, and none was pleasant... History2007 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is more likley that anyone searching for this topic would use torture stake as a search term, rather than gibbet. Four editors have suggested that gibbet is archaic or obscure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I would call it archaic and obscure. History2007 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Merge it in to a section on JW beliefs, as there is no "dispute" outside of that religion. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming process

Editors should be reminded that the guideline WP:TITLECHANGES plainly states, "changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." That guideline means that – WITHOUT OTHER CONSENSUS – the title will possibly remain "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" but will likely revert to "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died". That's just the way it is; that's incentive to work toward consensus.
I suggest that we make this a multi-thread discussion, with a separate sub-thread for each term of particular concern, such as #JW in title?, #Dispute/hypothesis/doctrine/etc, #Jesus/Christ/Christian, #Execution/crucifixion/etc, #Method/manner/etc, #Gibbet/cross/stake/instrument. I've been bold and created the sub-threads.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

JW in title?

At one point, there was separate article "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death". Following a brief discussion at that title's Talk, that title was redirected to this article. Editors may be interested in other comments at that now-obsolete title's Talk.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

While I don't believe the Witnesses are the only denomination to hold the torture stake view of Jesus' death, given the content is largely JW-centric, I think it wise to include "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the title. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not necessary to put JW in the title, and it would be undue weight to slant the article as a pro-JW topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute/hypothesis/doctrine/etc

In earlier threads, I've related the merits of the term "hypothesis": it's already used for arguably-related articles such as Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, and Vision hypothesis, and would provide a natural way to include this article in the existing Template:Death_of_Jesus, which already has a subheading "Hypotheses".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the idea, but for the sake of categorization, you do have a good point. Perhaps the title Torture stake hypothesis would be appropriate? Do reliable sources use any phrases similar to this when discussing this topic? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm coming around to the idea of hypothesis. (I do not agree with hypotheses for the reason stated earlier.) Each of the other article titles given as examples presents the non-traditional view as the 'hypothesis'. If being consistent with that method, I would support B Fizz' suggestion, torture stake hypothesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely hate to have to agree with Jeffro, but I also support "torture stake hypothesis", used for similar WP:FRINGE (that is, crux simplex v. anything else, not the specific shape of the cross, of which there is disagreement, but not really debate, because it's not "Two Babylons" significant in Christian theology; or "very small and virtually unsupported outside of POV sources" if FRINGE is too strong of a term) views as enumerated by Tam. It's the only acceptable title I've seen thusfar; "dispute" makes it sound like there actually is one, which is even less extant than "Debate about who died on the cross" (as a billion Muslims believe it wasn't Christ). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus/Christ/Christian

Given that the historical name of the person in question is "Jesus", while "Christ" is a religious name attached to this person, I recommend we stick with the former, although either is probably fine. I also recommend we avoid using the unqualified term "Christian", to avoid the perennial "Jehovah's Witnesses are vs are not Christian" debate. However, the term "mainstream Christian" should be fine, as most can agree that JW views are often in the minority among -- dare I use the term -- Christian denominations. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are people who believe Jesus was executed but was not 'Christ'. It would therefore be more within scope to simply refer to 'Jesus' throughout rather than Christ, including any suggested title. However, I see no problem with using the term Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "Christ" should not be used, as most non-Christians believe he was executed, but don't believe he was the Christ. I do not agree that "Christian" should be used, for neutrality and avoiding that perennial debate - "mainstream Christian" or "Nicene Christian" both seem to work equally well, as every ("mainstream") Christian is Nicene (I don't know of any Church or (mainstream) denomination that doesn't use the creed). That is, Christian sources see them as Arian, JW sources see them as the only true non-Paganized Christians, and most non-religious sources don't care to differentiate between what must seem to an outsider interminable nitpicking or even internecine struggle on minor issues (just as they do not care to differentiate between the branches of most other religions, either, with the possible exception of Sunni and Shi'a Islam). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Execution/crucifixion/etc

The term "crucifixion" is commonly understood as tacitly stipulating a cross. However, the term comes from the Latin "crux" and arguably allows for a crux simplex or other form. Still, the common understanding may provide undue weight...--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The historical event is widely known as the Crucifixion of Jesus (hence the title choice for that article), so I personally see no problem using that term. While we should guide the reader in a neutral manner, I personally find it counterproductive to try to work around "common understanding". Despite this, I don't find it necessary to use "crucifixion"; "death" or "execution" would work just as well...actually we might want to avoid "death" due to mixed beliefs about what exactly happened during the execution. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"The Crucifixion" is undoubtedly and indisputably WP:UCN. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Breakpoint for clarity

In response to In ictu oculi's comment above that:

I propose going to RM with StAnselm's suggestion above. Any seconder?

I would support that. And I agree with his comments that the issue was addressed before JW and think he has made it clear that this is a "topic beyond JW beliefs" and although JW beliefs do need a good section there, there are other issues beyond those. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, this has now spread to my talk page with a message from Jeffro regarding restoration of talk page comments he had deleted. I have had enough of this, given that this page is of 2% interest to me. Time to say good bye. However, I would note here that (as ictu oculi's stated) Jeffro's series of edits, Afd attempts etc. are wasting huge amounts of time as they spill over to other pages and take up time from other editors. Should this continue, I would agree with In ictu oculi that something needs to be done to curb these spill overs (which are now starting to enter WP:POINT territory) to other pages from the pro/against JW issues. And Jeffro, please do try not to communicate with me again if at all possible. I wish I will not come across your edits again for I see nothing productive coming from further interaction. Good bye. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have indicated reasons for improving the article on two separate occasions in the last year, and other editors persist in attacking my motives. I indicated in the AfD that if the article is presented as a JW article, then it should be deleted as a POV fork. However, the result of the AfD discussion was that that need not be the case, and In ictu oculi has since made very good suggestions for improving the article, and has made good edits to that end. After, I acknowledged that in ictu oculi had made good edits, he made a personal attack. I have no interest in editors making or restoring irrelevant ad hominem attacks, or whether other editors 'like' me. So, again, I will remind History2007 and In ictu oculi to stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jeffro, please listen: again, please see wikt:ad hominem. On Wikipedia the edit makes the man. Your editing on this article alone, even without having met the same editing on other articles, is disruptive since the tail (JW views/anti-JW views) is wagging the dog (a mainstream notable topic where archeologists and lexicologists should be cited). As it is you are making clean up on this article difficult. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You seem to imagine that because I edit articles about JWs, that I am unable to edit other articles. I accept the result of the AfD that this article does not need to have a JW focus (in fact, I've stated all along that the problem with the article was its JW focus), and I explicitly stated this in my response immediately above. This does not mean that I am no longer 'allowed' to participate at this article. So please cease your incorrect characterisation that I am trying to maintain any JW focus on this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In the interests of allowing History2007 to continue improving this article without having to "come across [my] edits", I will remove it from my Watch List. This is as a favour to History2007 only, and my stepping away from this article is entirely voluntary. I will be checking this Talk page from time to time to ensure that I am not being further made the subject of discussion. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, discussion deferred to another RM3 below Mike Cline (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Method of Jesus' execution – - as proposed earlier and seconded by two other editors following years of random renaming. Attempt to find a NPOV, calm title that doesn't act as a magnet. (NOTE - all this is is removing "dispute" from the current title) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Google Books - Method of Jesus' execution at least gets 7 GBhits which shows it is possible and NPOV. Can anyone show a single GBhit for "Torture stake hypothesis"? The term "torture stake" itself is language unique to JW usage and not found in WP:RS except duplicating/describing JW sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but none of those are relevant to the JW doctrine of this article (I read two at random - maybe the others are?) St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
John. No, exactly my point, Method of Jesus' execution hits aren't about a JW doctrine, and neither is this article. None of the credible WP:RS in the article advancing a crux simplex is a JW source. So why have the tail wag the dog in the title? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but is the article actually about the execution itself? or is it about the instrument(s) of the execution?
Furthermore, the guideline 'WP:NAMINGCRITERIA' never once mentions hits on GoogleBooks, but rather mentions five criteria:
1) Recognizability ("recognizable to someone familiar with...the topic"); 2) Naturalness ("that editors naturally use to link from...what the subject is actually called in English"); 3) Precision; 4) Conciseness; 5) Consistency. With all due respect, the proposed "Method of Jesus' execution" seems plainly inferior to "Torture stake hypothesis" on every single criterion. Finally, I cannot imagine 'Method of Jesus' execution' not redirecting to 'Crucifixion of Jesus'.
Are editors allowed to ignore 'WP:NAMINGCRITERIA'?--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, AuthorityTam, with respect the point is that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA can only be applied with reference to either Google Books/Scholar or some other objective criteria. We go to GB/GS to escape from our own zones of familiarity and test them.
1) Recognizability - how is a title that doesn't have Jesus in it recognisable? On the other hand "torture stake" is completely unrecognizable. Only a JW or anti-JW would search for this term as it only exists in the NWT.
2) Naturalness - "torture stake" is completely unrecognizable. The subject is not called this in English
3) Precision - what is imprecise about Method of Jesus' execution? How many executions of Jesus are there?
4) Conciseness - all these options are 3-4 words
5) Consistency - with what? There is no torture stake article, swoon hypothesis is a hypothesis that actually exists and is noted in Google books. This subject is whether the cross had a transverse, whether nails ropes were used, etc. that isn't a "hypothesis" per WP:Consistency and there are no writers/academics who advance a "wikt:hypothesis"
Having JW terminology in the WP:Title will fail on 4 of 5 counts. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
No
1). The editor's expression "zones of familiarity" niftily paraphrases the explicit guideline at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (namely, "recognizable to someone familiar with...the topic"). Has anyone seriously studied the subject of this article and been left wondering why the term "torture stake" is suggested?
2). The term "torture stake" is perfectly natural, so also is "Jesus's gibbet hypothesis" or even "Jesus' crucifixion hypothesis".
3. Method of Jesus execution is horribly imprecise in that it suggests that the method may have been something other than crucifixion. This article is not about the execution/crucifixion per se, but about the instruments used or supposed.
4). Conciseness is irrelevant
5. Consistency, yes there are other hypothesis articles related to Jesus' execution with which my suggestion would be consistent.
Listen, the term suggested in this RM is unacceptable. If my and any other suggestion is unacceptable, then the title stays or reverts to the previously stable title "Stake or cross as gibbet...". Not my rules.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have indeed studied the subject, and the first thing I would type is "torture stake", "torture stake theory", "Jesus' torture stake", or "Jehovah's witnesses view of crucifix". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well that's the problem John, to be honest if the first thing you would type is "Jehovah's witnesses view of crucifix" (sic, crux not crucifix) that shows that you're focussed on JWs. This article isn't about JWs. If it is then we have to delete most of the content. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. History2007 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Or to Method of Jesus's execution (spelling) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with some of the above who say "Method of Jesus' execution" (and by consequence the current title) is far too broad and should redirect to crucifixion if it exists. Assuming the focus of this article is going to be the JW view and commentary on their viewpoint, then using their terminology + "hypothesis" is probably the best suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Although a whole range ideal world preferences have been tabled, given the choice between what is now, and the proposal:
A. Dispute about method of Jesus' execution
B. Dispute about method of Jesus' execution
It looks like four of eight above prefer to remove "dispute about" and no one has argued for retention of "dispute about". I may be wrong, I'm tired, if I'm wrong please WP:AGF and correct this comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I explicitly reject a move to Method of Jesus' execution as vague and not an accurate description of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm liking this "Method of Jesus' execution'. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. AuthorityTam has convinced me that "Method of Jesus' execution" is far too vague. Was he executed by hanging? Decapitation? Even electrocution?! I support AuthorityTam's proposal to return to "Stake or cross as ...", which indicates unambiguously what the article is about. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have struck my very weak support and now move to oppose, as in my haste to get WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL to a fringe hypothesis by the fact that the very title claims there is a dispute (which there is not), I supported a move to something so vague and unrelated it's not a fit name for the topic, and has only tangential relation to it. "Method of Jesus' execution" should redirect to the Crucifixion of the Redeemer. This should be "Torture stake hypothesis" or "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Crucifixion", after the only modern proponents of the position. It's better to leave it at such an inherently POV title, so that it will be easier to get it to a correct title after this has run its seven days (it already has: relist it or close it, Admin). I strongly oppose the inclusion of some insinuation of actual "dispute" about this, but have opened an RfM below for "Torture stake", as I don't see this one passing even with my support. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. I am breaking a guideline (not policy) by closing this (as I was involved), but believe that any rational editor could see the result of this discussion was "no consensus", and that keeping it open is not going to help the encyclopedia. Discussion deferred to RM4 below. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Torture stake hypothesis. Please see all above discussion. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC) relisted - UtherSRG (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I have to or should do this, as I've never initiated an RfX before, but, of course, I support my own proposal. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not specific enough to indicate that the hypothesis concerns what is generally called the crucifixion of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as a real objection, as it is a natural term to anyone who has heard of it, but what about something "Jesus' torture stake hypothesis" or "Torture stake [hypothesis] (Execution of Jesus)"? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 07:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is or is not "a natural term" (i.e., one related specifically to Jesus' crucifixion) to anyone who has heard of it in this particular context, it is not such to those who meet it otherwise. And as I also said below, in the case under consideration torture was an accompaniment or aggravation of the main purpose, not the main purpose itself, which was to killEsoglou (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Torture stake hypothesis is acceptable and superior to many or most other suggestions, but I am sympathetic to the concern that "torture stake" may seem ambiguous (or even imply "burning at the stake"!).--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The purpose was to kill in a tortuous manner. What say you to the options I gave above? although it looks to be this is gaining consensus. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 10:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon both give stauros as "stake". Article is not about an active dispute. Jesus' execution method is too ambiguous and should redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (1) the term "torture stake" is unsupported by WP:RS, it is a phrase from a nonstandard translation (the NWT) that would only be recognised by those who are referencing either JW or anti-JW literature, it will only serve to pull this article overweight to the views of one church (or bashing one church) rather than scholars and archeologists. In mainstream Christian sources such as John Kitto and William Barclay this is called a Crux simplex. (2) the term "hypothesis" is usually something that is totally unsupported, but there are archeologists and historians who are not dogmatic that the cross must have had a heavy transverse. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Whilst most Bibles use cross, stake is not exclusive to the JW translation. The Complete Jewish Bible, The Scriptures (TS98/ISR), and Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition (and possibly others) also use stake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Which underlines that the proposed term "torture stake" is WP:POV and unsupported by WP:RS, it is a phrase from the NWT. Stern uses just "stake" the same as Thayer and Bullinger. As far as I know no source uses the proposed "torture stake" except JWs and anti-JWs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Just stake hypothesis is an alternative, but it's not great. The term torture stake is not inherently identifiable with JWs. People already familiar with the JWs' use of the term will already be familiar with the subject of the article anyway, and therefore already aware that stauros as stake pre-dates JWs. There's no reason to conclude that writers of other translations employing stake consider it to be anything other than a device used for torture. Hypothesis correctly offsets the term as a minority view, which is consistent with the use of of hypothesis in other articles related to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The title "stake hypothesis" would be even more ambiguous. Is it the intergenerational stake hypothesis or some other hypothesis? On the other hand, "torture stake hypothesis" runs into another difficulty apart from its lack of specificity: in the case under consideration, torture was an accompaniment or aggravation of the main purpose, not the main purpose itself, which was to kill.
Again, why not return to "Stake or cross as ..." The word "dispute" was not included in that title. Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Esoglou, Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died would be okay, and I'd support it, or something simpler such as Shape of Jesus' cross or stake or something. Anything that removes "dispute" in relation to the work of serious academics like Gunnar Samuelsson is a move in line with WP:NPOV. (The only problem with "gibbet" is that the word "gibbet" suggests a gibbet). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
(Esoglou,) though the intended outcome of crucifixion was execution, the method was also intended as both torture and public display. It's not the case that torture was merely an unintended side effect. And no, I'm not particularly keen on just stake hypothesis either.
Something like (but ideally, better than) Shape of Jesus' execution device would be okay (but shape of cross or stake sounds unnecessarily imprecise). However, including hypothesis in the title is a more consistent presentation (compared to other hypothesis articles about Jesus) for indicating an alternative minority view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Other fringe theories relating to Jesus are called hypothesis on Wikipedia, and it would be perfectly appropriate to use JW terminology in the title since this article is about their theory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, where's the evidence that this is (a) a fringe theory, (b) a JW theory? Maybe we should just delete the JW last paragraph content entirely if people cannot see beyond it?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Removal of the JW content would be unhelpful. As the one religion that aggressively promotes the "torture stake" hypothesis, it is of benefit to know how they present their arguments to adherents. The fact that they misuse two sources is central to any understanding of the merit of their doctrine. Though not central to the subject, the JWs are important. BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
BlackCab - Why are JWs important? Firstly the article lists Anglicans, Plymouth Brethren, academics (who I assume are probably agnostics), so why are are you focussing on JWs? What meaningful academic contribution have JWs made to the academic debate? Do you think Gunnar Samuelsson is a JW? (I assume he's an agnostic or Lutheran like most Swedish academics) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying they are more important. And they have certainly added nothing to the academic debate: they conduct no original research themselves. But with seven million members, all of whom are required to accept the "torture stake" term, avoid reference to the cross in discussing their beliefs, and also proselytize their belief (with magazines that specifically deny that Christ's execution device had a crossbeam), they are obviously a prominent entry point to the debate. Many people would have no knowledge of the single-stake theory if not for the JWs. An absence of JW content would look like an omission. BlackCab (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, this brings me to what was going to my "Secondly." Secondly, is it WP's job to carry "how they present their arguments to adherents" WP isn't a forum for stirring up religious hatred. If you want to demonstrate that "they misuse two sources is central to any understanding of the merit of their doctrine" the place for that is a blog, or an article on JWs. This isn't an article on JWs. In any case I'm not actually proposing to delete it. It just would focus people's minds to remove the JW last paragraph for a month so the title and article can be brought up to WP quality. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no intention of "stirring up religious hatred". I also have no further interest in being baited by you. You asked a question and I gave an answer in good faith. Sort it out yourself. BlackCab (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm calling it as I see it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with your conclusion, BlackCab, the manner in which you present your reasoning is clearly biased against JW belief, which weakens the argument itself. Restating the argument in slightly more boring terms: JWs are notably outspoken about this particular theory, therefore their specific views (and corresponding counter-JW views) deserve particular attention in the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I've said on various occasions in the past year that JWs should not be the focus of this article (for which I've been accused of the exact opposite... go figure). But that does not mean it should simply be implied that JWs don't figure prominently among those endorsing the 'stake' position, and it would certainly be a glaring omission to leave them out altogether. I remain unconvinced that putting torture stake in the title automatically gives the article a JW focus, however I have no objection to replacing the term with some other common (i.e. not "gibbet"), specific (i.e. not "stake or cross") term. I maintain that hypothesis appropriately indicates the subject as a view apart from the mainstream tradition.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am completely fine with any of the "hypothesis" titles (Torture stake hypothesis, Crux simplex hypothesis or Crucifixion stake hypothesis). All are much better that the completely ambiguous "Jesus' execution method" and the somewhat inaccurate current title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said I feel that would be equally NPOV, and in line with academic sources language, and hence WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, for readers unexposed to JW and anti-JW texts. It's worth noting that the JW term "torture stake" never occurs in encylopedias and Britannica uses crux simplex, but "stake" on its own without the NWTism "torture-" occurs in Bullinger, Vine etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are many articles that don't specifically mention Jesus in the title, including the other hypothesis articles as well as a great deal of episodic articles (e.g. Last Supper). The purpose of an article called Torture stake hypothesis is less ambiguous than Method of Jesus' execution, a title which seems indistinct in purpose from Crucifixion of Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - In response to In ictu oculi's concerns: Regarding the "views of one church": that one church happens to be the most notably outspoken on the issue, so I feel that extra weight given to pro- and anti-JW sources is well-deserved. However, I find Crux simplex hypothesis to be equally acceptable to Torture stake hypothesis. Regarding "hypothesis", the situation is similar to Swoon hypothesis, though there is probably stronger academic support for this hypothesis over that one. Looking over the definitions at wiktionary, "theory" might be the more appropriate word for these things. So in the end I support any title of the form: ("Torture stake" OR "Crux simplex") + ("hypothesis" OR "theory"). In response to Esoglou's concern: the same could be said of Swoon hypothesis. Jesus, historically, is quite a Big Deal™ -- it makes sense to give a general name to articles dealing with Jesus, and if there are other articles that could logically have the same name, then we'll worry about disambiguating them. Glancing at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I believe that "torture stake hypothesis" satisfies the conditions of recognizably, naturalness, conciseness, and consistency, while sacrificing only a small amount of precision. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest -- Method of Jesus' execution. I do not like having "dispute" in the title, but think we could find a better NPOV title. This is principally a dispute between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of christianity. Actually the use of the word "torture" is POV, as the Greek word just means stake. My classical Greek dictionary gives the trnaslation, "an upright pale, stake or pole"; and in plural "palisades". The word is derived from histemi - I stand (A lexicon - abridged from Liddell and Scott;s Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford 1924), 648. Stake theory of Jesus' execution might also fit. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you thoughts about the issue that Method of Jesus' execution is too similar in concept to Crucifixion of Jesus to suggest a distinct article? Also, etymology aside, are you suggesting that being fastened to a stauros is not a form of torture?--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There's an RfM for that not eighteen inches of screen space above me - by my count, it was voted down, with Jeffro's objection being the basis of any discussion of it, IMO: "Method of Jesus' crucifixion" is "Crucifixion of Jesus". No one would ever search for "method of Jesus' crucifixion" to find this; it would necessarily lead through a series of redirects from more common or natural terms (such as proposed in this RfM, or, to a lesser degree, "crucifixion stake", although that has the same problem vis-a-vis redirects - no one would type "crucifixion stake" to get to it). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My thought was to answer the question: What kind of "stake hypothesis"? A "crucifixion stake hypothesis". I agree that suggestion seems slightly less natural than alternatives, but affirm it's significantly more disambiguated.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I find this suggestion more acceptable than the formal proposals. Esoglou (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I could live with anything that (a) doesn't have "dispute" (b) doesn't have a NWTism "torture stake" in the title. "crucifixion stake" gets 25 GBhits, many of them WP:RS In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It sounds a little awkward to me, but I would support crucifixion stake hypothesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As Ictu, "Anything without dispute", as Jeffro, "something that shouldn't redirect to Crucifixion", and as me, "Someone typing it in to Wikipedia shouldn't have to go through a redirect to get it", but, disregarding the last, if this proposal faileth, I may be in a position to be thou me who putteth his Signature for "support" on "crucifixion stake hypothesis" proposal. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Method of Jesus' execution" is a neutral title for an article that could be much more than a silly dispute. There are various views on several details: did Jesus carry a complete cross, a crossbeam? How was it put together? Was it a T-shaped cross? Or a crux simplex? Did they use one or two nails through the feet? And through the middle of the hands? This was your chance to expand the article beyond a "dispute" and make it as interesting as the National Geographic video I saw on this topic. —Mendelo (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
That RfC failed above (at least for now). I believe the most important point against it is that none have answered Jeffro's contention that "Method of Jesus' execution" is a natural redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus. We're in agreement on the "dispute" part, at least in part: there is none, and it is an improper title. "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" sounds so much to me as, "Dispute about the age of the Universe" (13.65±0.2Ga or 6,000 years?). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(random sub break for ease of editing)

No one has yet explained why wikt:Method of A = A. The A is a given, the wikt:Method, details of the A is not a given. Of course this is detail breakout article from crucifixion of Jesus, just as the timing and other aspects are given breakouts.
+ And, JohnChrysostom, despite what you've "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" sounds so much to me as, "Dispute about the age of the Universe," may I ask you whether this comment refers only to (i) Jesus carrying a stipes, which then became a crux simplex - which is Bullinger and Vine's view it appears. Are you counting (ii) traditional European depiction of Jesus carrying a full crux immissa to Golgotha as the same as (iii) Jesus carrying a patibulum to a crux commissa (iv) Jesus carrying a patibulum to a crux immissa. If you say (ii)(iii)(iv) are all details, that doesn't prevent that there is discussion in the academic sources (where ii ≠ iii/iv ; iii ≈ iv). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The instrument of Jesus' execution is what he was killed on, not how it got there or he carried it there. As far as I see, there's the "torture stake" one, and the "crossbeam" one, with the "debate" (mild and occasional academic discussion) being 1) whether it was immissa or commissa (small distinction) and 2) whether it had a footrest. I've never seen an argument for decussata/St Andrew's. I would indeed state that II, II, and IV are details; they are the same (upper case T or lower case t) and there is no real "dispute" on it as there is with those who (often vociferously) argue for the simplex. I suppose, refactored down, this could be named "crossbeam on the crux" or something similar. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
JohnChrys, thanks for those comments. Re (1) the carrying patibulum to a stipes already on Golgotha or carrying whole cross to a hole on Golgotha discussion. If it can't be included in an article discussing simplex/immissa/commissa, in which article should it be in your view? (noting that Christ Carrying the Cross seems largely about art history). Likewise re (2) whether the cross had a footrest, in which article should that be in your view? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It should all be in the article on "Christian Cross" (also largely about symbolism, but that's where it belongs - new section at any time!) "Crux" is about the constellation; "Crucifix" about the devotional object; all of these articles seem to be...suboptimal. I don't see what I expect to see, and I see lots of off-topic stuff that I don't expect to see. Little discussion of how the words are normally used (such as the focus on "Crucifix" as solely the devotional object of two pieces of wood and a carved corpus used by my religion, and not an instrument of torture). And with much overlap. General cleanup is needed. Adding some good historical and scholarly sources on the form of the cross (I've never seen it really conducted as a debate, except between simplex adherents, more as speculation, such as, "where were the nails placed? were ropes used?") would go a long way. Also, in my best opinion, I thought this article could be trimmed down and incorporated in there too, which was my first comment in this series of discussions. Or, as a distant second, a new article entirely: "Crux (Capital punishment)" or maybe "Crux (Christianity)", that discusses it all and incorporates much of "Crucifix" and "Christian Cross". (I'm not sure about the lengths, formatting, navigation, etc. and technical issues). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: this article should be solely about the simplex, as, from my reading, it is the only one that has vigorous proponents and detractors, with a modern religion arguing for it as an article of faith, etc. even if it's not taken very seriously. The decussata/immissa/comissa, how it was carried, whether it had ropes or a footrest, etc. are much less controversial - as I said, matters of speculation, not religious dogma, dispute, not debate. I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well: simplex v anything else is a Big Deal and Serious Business; the other more minor distinctions aren't. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 12:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
JohnChrys, re (Q1) it seems that Christian cross is about the cross as a symbol in Christianity, and not an appropriate place for discussion of whether in Anno c.30 Jesus carried a patibulum or a complete cross, so definitely not going to go with that - it would disrupt badly the Christian cross article to have ropes nails and patibulum anything other than wikilinked out. Re (Q2) I didn't understand the above, sorry. The answer was "Crux (Capital punishment)" or maybe "Crux (Christianity)", we already have both those articles. If it's related to the footrest of Jesus, rather than e.g. the footrest in the Code of Hammurabi or footrest of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, then it goes in the latter. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, I think, if Crux (Christianity) or, better, Crux (torture device) or something similar exists as a redirect, it should be un-redirected and made its own article to discuss the Crux itself. "Crux", unlike "Method of Jesus' execution", is not a natural redirect to "Crucifixion", but to the item: "Crux". What was the method of Jesus' execution? Crucifixion. What is a crux? One of several different related torture devices. An article on "Crux" itself, not the constellation but as a neutral term for this torture implement used by the Romans, is needed. That is the most natural place to discuss speculation on the physical crux itself, whether the item or the word or its etymology or definitions and variations. "Torture stake hypothesis" is the most natural place to discuss the variation of belief in which Jesus' execution was carried out by way of crux simplex. "Christian Cross" should actually contain all of that, and the current article should be "Christian cross (symbolism)", or "Cross (Christian symbolism)", or "Cross (symbolism)", etc. Haha, it's been a long time, since I was studying the science of the hadith as a Muslim, that I have heard the name ibn Zubair. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 14:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
...again we cannot have "torture stake" as it is NWTese and not English. We cannot have Crux as it is Latin. We already have generic crucifixion (with a section on cross) and crucifixion of Jesus (also with a brief section on Jesus' cross). What this article is is a WP:SPINOFF from that. No more articles are needed, just concentration by editors on WP:RS and keeping the JW and anti-JW content to a managable brief not-very-notable paragraph to the end. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
We can have "Crux" if we can have "Elohim", "Yahweh", "bi-la kaifa", "Sahaba", and "tafsir". St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that the time for this discussion has expired. I'm loathe to close this, as I don't think you've come to a reasonable consensus. I think you should give yourselves a day's rest on this, and come back with some fresh ideas. Perhaps list several alternative possibilities instead of the current one, run those up the flagpole, and see who salutes. "Hypotheses" and "theories" are acceptable in the title. While "execution" is correct, "crucifixion" is not unreasonable (even if the device wasn't a cross). Keep going... - UtherSRG (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This thread has wandered. As I've implied above, once this is closed, I'd planned to propose Crucifixion stake hypothesis (a suggestion which has already been explicitly tolerated by several editors, and rejected by none that I can recall). The newly-renamed article could have this new first sentence,
"Crucifixion stake hypothesis examines controversial and uncontroversial ideas about the instruments of execution used during the crucifying of Jesus of Nazareth (and his proximate and approximate contemporaries)." We can discuss in #Requested move 4; soon?--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I find the proposed title OK, but not the proposed opening sentence. What is of interest is what Jesus died on, not the varied ways in which his "proximate and approximate" (whatever that means) contemporaries were killed: both Seneca and Josephus say there was great variety in the form of crucifying. Besides, the hypothesis does not examine ideas ("controversial and uncontroversial" surely adds nothing): instead it is an idea that can be examined, not one that does the examining. Esoglou (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As Esoglou says "What is of interest is what Jesus died on" (per crucifixion vs. crucifixion of Jesus, so the WP:title really should include "of Jesus". There's also an issue which occured to me last week - the spear thrust. I think my (minor relative to "dispute") problem with the term "hypothesis" is that unless an idea really is WP:FRINGE and way out there, labelling something "hypothesis" is almost as much a manure-magnet as "dispute." I also don't think it's appropriate when serious non-fruitcake sources like Vine and Bullinger are in the early roots of this. Though I suspect there may have been a bit of 19th Century reaction to the traditional (and equally "hypothesis") picture of Jesus carrying a full crux immissa down the via dolorosa. And ironically Vine and Bullinger and the medieval-to-renaissance iconography of Christ carrying the cross seem to have the same major problem of the lack of evidence for a footing for a stipes. In the Philippines in order to have a stable footing a stipes (or full crux immissa) has to be at least 12' tall, to allow at least 4' to sink into a stone footing and still leave 8' above ground to crucify a 6' man, particularly in mud. That requires some logistics, but there doesn't seem to be any archeological evidence for stone cross footings into which a 12' stipes or crux immissa could be dropped, so based on modern evidence the "carrying a full cross" and "carrying the upright" would seem to both be heading into "hypothesis" territory - and is it likely to attract sensible WP:editing and stabilize the article to have "hypothesis" in the title. Can we not say instrument of Jesus' crucifixion? Has that one been canvassed yet? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would support the suggested Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, which is similar enough to, and improvement of, my 19 March suggestion, Shape of Jesus' execution device.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually wasn't proposing it, I redlinked that almost without thinking, but it might be a possible - it removes the objection to both the current Dispute about Jesus' execution method and seems neutral enough to turn wikt:method into wikt:instrument. The phrase is also possible in English, always makes me feel extremely queasy to see a phrase as a WP:TITLE that can't muster a single hit in Google Books. This only gets 2x (Handbook of the Christian year 1986 "a basilica built in Jerusalem by Constantine at the site where his mother, Helena, presumably discovered the instrument of Jesus' crucifixion." and Neotestamentica: Volume 33 1999 "The authenticity of this tradition is disputed, on the grounds that the reference to the instrument of Jesus' crucifixion is clearly anachronistic, "... better than something that never occurs as a phrase in a real book, I feel at least. I'd prefer method, but there's at least 2 objecting to method. Can I come back on this? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

'... method' options are natural redirects to crucifixion of Jesus. Torture stake hypothesis would probably get more hits and has support from a few editors. However if there are no fundamental objections to Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion, it is possibly (without having given much thought) the best compromise so far. I don't think anyone is keen on the 'dispute' part.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
To me, "Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion" seems excellent. So it has three votes in favour. We await the objections. Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
"Method" has a connotation that implies something purely abstract (such as an idea); "instrument" has a connotation that implies something physical. Since the disagreement (or whatever term one perfers) is about the physical object used not the abstract idea of how Jesus died, the term instrument is preferable to method. If people are fine with the article focusing primarily on the mainstream viewpoint, than Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion is a perfectly reasonable title. If people want the article to focus on the minority viewpoint, than then a "hypothesis" (or related word) title is more appropriate. An article that does not set something off as a viewpoint needs to focus on the mainstream point of view (i.e. giving that view the most weight, not treating all viewpoints as equal). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The only issue I anticipate with the suggested title 'Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion' is the common misconception that the term "crucifixion" presupposes a crux immissa and excludes any possibility of crux simplex or an alternate crux/gibbet shape (consider [2][3][4]); casual readers and casual editors are unlikely to immediately recognize that the Latin term crux was not one specific shape. Do editors anticipate mass confusion if the article title were 'Instrument of Jesus' execution'? Regardless of whether the title includes the word "hypothesis", the article should retain both 1) sources tending to support crux simplex and 2) sources tending to support crux immissa. It seems time to close this #Requested move 3 thread, but per WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest, I personally cannot close it. Anyone who hasn't much-opined here...?--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion/Archive_3&oldid=1073880108"