Talk:Crucifixion/Archive 4

"United States Penal Code"
I'm deleting the statement "United States's (sic) Penal Code does not allow for crucifixion." First, there is no "United States Penal Code." There is Title 18 of the U.S. Code, entitled "Crimes and Criminal Procedure," but no "Penal Code." Second, Title 18, unsurprisingly, never mentions crucifixion. Of course, the U.S. Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but that's not crucifixion-specific. Terry Carroll 18:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The movie SAW 3
I think in this movie there is a cruciating sceene, too. Maybe it could be added to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.240.251 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

his or her
"If a crossbeam was used, the condemned man or woman was forced to carry it on his or her shoulders, which would have been torn open by flagellation, to the place of execution." Is there in fact any evidence that even one woman was subjected to this Roman-style treatment? I am not referring to any other form of crucifixion. I know that, in an article full of "perhaps"es, this site says: "Perhaps one of the unique aspects of Jewish crucifixion was that when employed on women, according to the Mishna, they faced the cross whereas men were crucified with their back to the cross." Lima (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. A number of points re discussion:
 * The flogging: the person who suggested that Pilate only ordered a flogging to placate the 'Jews' is ignorant of biblical scholarship, especially of John. If you read John's account carefully, you get the impression that Pilate skillfully provoked and goaded the 'Jews', until they agree to what Pilate wants - an acknowledgement that Rome is their supreme ruler (We have o King but Caesar). It is not the 'Jews' twisting Pilate's arm, but vice versa. Pi;ate gives them what they want, but only after extracting an intollerable price from them.
 * Carrying the cross or crossbeam. Look at it from the soldiers' point of view. Why should they do hard labour, when there stands, ready at hand, an able-bodied condemned man?
 * The same for being crucified naked. In those days, you couldn;t go down to KMart or Woolies and get ten pairs of jocks for $20. Clothing was laborious to make, and relatively expensive compared to today. Would you let a good pair of jocks, or loin-cloth go begging?
 * Nevertheless, the undewear was probably in a pretty filthy state. Not only did they not wash very often back then, the victim would have been shitting himself (literally) before the aweful moment arrived.
 * i knew a lady once who's brother-in-law had been crucified by the Japanese furing WWII. Fortunately, after nine hours on the tree, natives (from the local jungle) came and freed him. He survived, dying only a few years ago.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.146.200 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

error quoting Da Vinci Code
"There has recently, especially since the publication of the Fictional story of the da Vinci Code, been raised the possibility that survival of crucifixion was possible"

The Da Vinci Code says nothing about "survival of crucifixion". Its only revisionist assumption is that Jesus was married and that his wife was pregnant when he was executed, so that (according to the Code story) he left descendants behind. Or do you just mean that the Da Vinci Code has inspired other revisionist accounts?

Josephus said he persuaded Titus to pardon several prisoners who had just been crucified and that at least one surivived (Titus was the ranking general and the son of the Emperor, so he could override the Military Code). If we can trust Josephus, this means survival was medically possible, though it was legally a rarity. CharlesTheBold (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Urantia Book
I think three sources about the sedile are quite enough, without adding a reference that is not so much about the sedile as about a book that, if I understand right, claims to be the result of revelation, not of historical research. In the context of this article, therefore, the mention of that book seems to me to be no more than spamming. Please discuss. Lima (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no intention of spamming here and it is certainly not "vandalistic". I can see that you are quite adamant about removing all traces of an additional source so I wonder if you think it would be ok to simply include a reference citation along with the other refs considering the material makes note that only one nail was used and the "sedile" was actually a peg or "post".ref  http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper187.html  Majeston (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that there is no way Urantia Book should be mentioned on this article per WP:UNDUE. Review WP:CONSENSUS: if you want to pursue this, you will need to establish consensus for some compromise solution first. If you just keep revert-warring about it, all you will achieve is getting the article locked down, and possibly be blocked for editing over it. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision of lead
The lead has changed in the last month so that crucifixion, described less than a month ago as being tied or nailed to a cross, now says " a stake, a tree or some other suitable object." That's a pretty drastic change and I think should be discussed here and justified by reference to some reliable sources. No offense to any editors but I'm going to restore the lead from a few weeks ago so that any changes get due discussion. Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start myself with a minor point, I don't think the word 'condemned' was right, it was a method of execution full stop, it was used on people without a trial as well as people who had been condemned. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to either Dougweller's text or the text that he replaced. The longer text was put in (by me) because an editor had written "a cross or a stake", as if these were the only two objects on which someone could be crucified.  In favour of mentioning only a cross is the fact that this is the only object that people usually associate with crucifixion.  In favour of the longer phrase is the fact that someone could also be crucified on, for instance, a wall.  As for "condemned", which until the most recent change before Dougweller's was treated as a noun (without the word "person"), I think some editor (not I) put this in, many months ago, in place of "victim".  Why not change "the condemned person" to "a person"?  Simpler, and raises no questions.  Lima (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death
I revised the second paragraph of the Cause of death section, in order to make it a little more accurate from a biomedical point of view. I tried to put the theory about asphyxiation into the context of other causes of death, and added a reference from the Journal of the American Medical Association to support it. Think of it this way: asphyxiation is something that would happen without leg support, but with leg support, factors such as blood loss and dehydration (especially in hot, dry climates) would apply instead. I'm just coming at this from a biomedical, not a historical or theological, point of view.--Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Editor Tgies has been deleting the In popular culture section, initially with the comment "removing indiscriminate mass of trivia. any information of consequence can be reincorporated into other parts of the article where it is relevant". I restored, on the basis of the WP:TRIVIA guidelines, which include:


 * Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate....


 * This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

Tgies believes I am taking this out of context ("You are taking that out of context. there is only a need to merge the trivia into the rest of the article where it is actually relevant enough to warrant this."). I'm inferring (and open to correction, Tgies) that his position is now not that the section is trivia, but that the section is largely (but not entirely) not relevant to the article.

I see some contradictions here; the statement that some of the deleted material could be re-added is inconsistent with the mass deletion. If any of the material is appropriate to the article, it should be integrated, not deleted.

The section is pretty well organized, compared to most IPC sections. It is a bit listish, but that's not necessarily fatal.

Until we see consensus, given that this section is the result of many editors work over a long period of time, the section should be retained rather than deleted on the basis of one editor's opinion. If a consensus emerges that it should be deleted, then delete it.

I note that the temporary deletion of the section caused all images used in it to be robot-tagged for removal as orphans. Apart from the impropriety of making a large contested deletion prior to consensus, it may be difficult to restore if the consensus is to retain, if the images are all deleted in the meantime.

What's the consensus on whether this section should be deleted? TJRC (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As an expression of my personal opinion on all such additions to serious articles in Wikipedia, I support Tgies. Think of how much similar utterly trivial trivia could be added to, for instance, an article on the Second World War.  Lima (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with tgies (I am also 82.40.132.79) on the deletion of the trivia section and all its contents on the basis of both WP:TRIVIA and WP:ROC. Anyone who comes to this page interested in researching crucifixion would not be interested in hearing about a list of god damn movies and anime that feature it. I know a lot of TV shows that featured water, should I add them to the wikipedia page for H2O? Sabator (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "his position is now not that the section is trivia, but that the section is largely (but not entirely) not relevant to the article."
 * No, my position is that both of these things are true. They are not mutually exclusive. It does not belong in the form of a trivia section because trivia sections are bad. Any element in the trivia section relevant enough to integrate elsewhere in the article should certainly be integrated, but as it is, the trivia section (and trivia sections in general) act as artificial life support for a lot of cruft too trivial to otherwise fit within the scope of the article. tgies (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Tgies also on this. Guidelines are of course just that, guides to be used sensibly. But maybe this one needs changing. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would come down on the side of not deleting it, but, rather, modifying it to make it less list-like. I agree with TJRC that there is a lot of editor work here, and in my opinion much of it really is of considerable cultural relevance. (The Salvador Dali painting in the image is clearly an example of something both important and relevant here, in ways that much WWII trivia would not be.) Of course, some people of faith may very sincerely find it offensive to include some of this material, but that does not make it trivia (and I'm not saying that that's what the editors above meant). I think the goal should be to change it out of list format. Maybe -- with discussion! -- some of the listed points could be deleted, but then I think it should be possible to work it into paragraph form, with related list points grouped, and contextualized, together (for example: a paragraph on film, another on popular music, another on anime, and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that crucifixion has considerable cultural relevance, however this is precisely why it should not be attempted to catalogue every occurence of it in modern fiction. It occurs so regularly and in so many works that such a task would be nigh-impossible, and even if it were completed it would dominate the entire article. The only choice is to either do that, or have an incomplete list. Or do you think you can pick and choose which crucifixion references in modern culture are relevant, and discard the rest? Even the simple prospect of such an idea should not be entertained. Who gets to decide which crucifixion references are relevant and which aren't? Sure you want to add the Salvador Dali painting but that's simply your opinion. Next some kid adds his stupid anime episodes because he thinks those are relevant, and before you know it we'll return to the same state we're in now. It is simply neither relevant nor important. One thing is definite, the current state of the article is completely unacceptable. Over half of it is listing occurences of crucifixion in modern fiction. Sabator (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you that it would be desirable to shorten this section, relative to the length of the article as a whole. I also think you make a good point, that it would be desirable to not attempt to catalog every occurrence. But I'm trying to facilitate a thoughtful discussion of why "that's simply your opinion" is not going to get us to a good result. The entire process of deciding what to include or not in any article is subjective to a considerable extent; I am making a subjective judgment when I say that some of this is relevant, but so are you when you say that all of it should be deleted. In effect, deleting the whole section, and stating that the process of editing it down would be impossible, is just your opinion. Of course it actually is possible to make these kinds of decisions, and editors do it all the time. Not infallibly, but that's not a reason to not attempt it. I think you may very well be correct that much or all of the anime references should go, and this is something that can be discussed. I really feel that removing all of this would be the wrong choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For D. B. Cooper the length issue was addressed by moving the IPC section to its own article. See D. B. Cooper, D. B. Cooper in popular culture.  Would that be appropriate here? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First you wave WP:TRIVIA around like an absolute commandment then you reference an example where it was blatantly discarded? Moving it to its own article does not fix the problem, merely applies some kind of incredibly shitty bandaid. Sabator (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point from the very beginning was that, since crucifixion is referenced so often in popular culture that not all references could possibly be recorded. Thus if you wanted to simply shrink down the trivia section, this would involve picking and choosing which references you feel to be most relevant. This then sets a precedent for anyone to add anything they feel is relevant. That's how the trivia section expanded into its current form. Sabator (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not waving anything. I'm trying for a consensus.  And you should calm down. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I want to say a very big Thank You to TJRC for maintaining a very helpful position in the face of some inappropriate comments from others. I'm not sure what I think about creating a separate popular culture article; I can see both plusses and minuses. To compare with the Cooper pages, I tried to think of some other historical figures where this issue might have come up here before. There is no pop culture page on Daniel Webster, but his bio page does include pop references including a Jimmy Stuart movie. Both Einstein and Hitler have bio pages that include a short section on pop culture references, along with links to separate pop culture articles. The Einstein pop culture article looks successful whereas the Hitler one is having problems. Of course, each of these is a biography of one person, whereas we are now discussing a broader topic, where it is harder to draw the line. For example, I have no difficulty seeing depictions of crucifixion in pop music or anime as pop, but what about "serious" artists who have treated it unconventionally? (After all, this page is about "crucifixion" in general, not "the crucifixion.") I suggest that it is very helpful to look at WP:IPC. What I take from it (but see for yourself what you think) is (1) avoid lists and use prose paragraphs instead (as I suggested above), and (2) instead of including everything, include only those for which the importance can be established by citing a secondary source (which strikes me as a useful criterion for shortening the material here). There is also this list of precedents, which I also find useful. What I take from it is that pages that have been deleted as trivial in the past are much more trivial than the material here, and the material here is mostly significant enough to retain. So, my conclusion for now is (1) I'm undecided and persuadable about creating a separate page or not, and (2) I feel more strongly than ever that it would be a mistake to delete it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification - has substantively edited this section after the onset of this discussion. I have left a message on his/her talk page notifying him/her of this discussion. That notification, and this one, are in compliance with WP:CANVASS ("Notifications of involved editors"). TJRC (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about two months, and I decided to significantly reorganize this section in the context of the discussion above. I'd like to describe here what I've done, and what I believe still needs to be done by other editors. First, I put a "see also" to Crucifixion of Jesus at the top of the article. I did this even though it's redundant, because I think it will be helpful to readers who, understandably, come here not expecting a page about crucifixion in general. In part, I think that that confusion contributes to the controversies about the pop culture section, and also, I think the existence of the other article decreases the need to consider separating out a separate pop culture article from the one here. In this section itself, I removed the subheadings, in the interest of shortness, although I think that there would be no problem if someone wants to put new subheadings back. Other than that, I have not deleted any material at this time. Instead, I combined the troublesome lists into paragraphs, organized around art, film, entertainment, music, and anime. I added a few "topic sentences" to these paragraphs to start the process of tying them together. (I also put in a non-displaying message to look here before editing the section further.)

What still needs to be done is to shorten and de-trivialize the paragraphs I made. I fully realize that it now reads like long lists in paragraph form. Here is how I would suggest going about it. I suggest that the criteria for deletion should be based on secondary sources as described in WP:IPC. In other words, there is a big need for secondary sources to establish the significance of the material, and material for which this independent validation does not exist may be a good candidate for deletion. In my opinion, a valid reason for deletion is not that a particular editor dislikes the material, or that an editor claims the nonexistence of secondary sources based on a superficial search. In this regard, I have liberally sprinkled the section with reference requests. I suggest that if anyone wants to delete something, it would be very helpful to nominate the deletion here before actually deleting it, thereby allowing other editors to evaluate whether justification from secondary sources does or does not exist.--Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've done excellent work here. Thanks for that.  The unique thing about IPC sections is that many of the instances are self-supporting.  To pick a random example, the statement "the movie Spartacus depicts mass crucifixions along the Appian Way" is supported by the film itself.  If we really wanted to be nitpicky, we could actually have a ref tag citing to the film (that's how an academic journal would do it), but it wouldn't add anything.


 * The more I think about this, the more I believe that it should be put into its own article, Crucifixion in Popular Culture. The depiction of crucifixion in media is a topic unto itself.  The section now ia about a third of the text of the article.  It really doesn't have that much fat; and even if you were to cut it by a third, it would still be a quarter of the article.  I have particular interest in the anime section; I'm intrigued by why there is a seemingly disproportionate depiction of crucifixion in anime, and wonder if there have been any journal articles written about it.


 * Putting this section, as you've currently edited it, into a separate article would enable the topic to be fully explored, without dominating the Crucifixion article itself -- and in the context of an article on crucifixion, it really is a minor facet. I would normally be bold and do this, but this is obviously a sensitive issue, and I'd rather see if we can get some consensus about it TJRC (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words! I guess I actually am sympathetic to the views of some of the other editors who commented that some of this material seems trivial (and repetitive), and I suppose a case could maybe be made that a separate article would, by itself, be trivial enough to delete. Seems to me it comes down to what is in secondary sources, and I think there must be other people who know more about that than I do. (The Spartacus example is self-supporting in that it is true, but not automatically self-supporting in whether it is significant.) I'd be interested in what you or others find if you look into journal articles like what you refer to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Another thought: Regardless of whether one creates a separate article or keeps the section here, what about making it Crucifixion in Art and Popular Culture? The modern art in what is now the first paragraph is not exactly pop culture, and there is more noteworthy material that could be added (Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano come to mind). More importantly, there is, of course, a very rich vein of medieval and renaissance art that rightfully leads up to this (and, indeed, provides context), and currently is overlooked here. Adding some paragraphs on that (with secondary sources, of course) at the start of the section, or of the new article, would add a lot of value, I think. Also, maybe, some links to the art history and visual arts topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That the "very rich vein of medieval and renaissance art ... rightfully leads up to this" (pop culture?) is disputable. Do you know that there already exists a Wikipedia article (in great need of improvement) called Cross in Christian Art?  Lima (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You correctly point out that my wording was ambiguous. What I meant to say was that the "rich vein" leads up to Dali, Mapplethorpe and Serrano. Perhaps, secondary sources would justify, in turn, a link between trends in 20th century art and those in 20th century pop culture. Then again, I'm no art historian. I'm more interested in strengthening the article here than in creating more new articles. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoever keeps adding back (and now protecting) the anime section is not doing this article a service. Granted, there would be a stronger case for removing it if the rest of the popular culture section were trimmed down to only the useful items (e.g., we don't need listings of every single rock song to reference crucifixion. As the key event in the largest religion in the world, it's also a cultural touchstone -- there are more references than we could probably imagine. Rather than watch the pop culture/anime sections grow to dwarf the actual substance of the article, we should asking ourselves if cultural examples are instructive of anything. You get a sense of the cultural weight of Jesus' crucifixion through the discussion of it in art and modern context through music's description of use of a crucifix to thwart taboos. These are instructive. An Agnostic Front song about the punk scene that is just called "Crucified," doesn't seem to shed any other light on crucifixion or its place in culture. Does the exhaustive list of crucifixions in anime teach us anything? At the very most, it says something about the secularization of Christian symbology in Japan. There is a Christianity in Japan article where this section would be better placed. Or, if it's more instructive about the title itself, each reference could be moved to the page of its respective anime title.. There's a reason someone was removing the "In anime" section as vandalism: if every article on Wikipedia needs/deserves a section obsessively listing the most insignificant connection to anime, Wikipedia will be, fundamentally, a site ABOUT anime. Again: 1) The anime section is not particularly instructive about crucifixion. 2) If it is instructive of anything at all, there are better places to put its component parts. 3) This needs to be paired with a paring down of the pop culture section to only the material that is instructive of the nature, significance or controversy of crucifixion. --98.245.120.186 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I semi-protectec the article because someone, using various IDs, was removing text with no explanation. Established editors can edit with no problem, but it looked to me as though it was probably the same editor each time. And if you read WP:Vandalism the section is not vandalism. Having said that, I generally dislike 'popular culture' and 'trivia' sections, and I'm sure this article needs culling. But not by an IP editor using different IDs possibly to avoid a block. dougweller (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see this fight keep repeating itself (as well as to see the abusive language used at one point by the IP editor). As I've said repeatedly above, there's a difference between complete deletion of a section, and a more thoughtful shortening of it. I'm all in favor of shortening the entire pop culture section of this article, relative to its present form, but it should be done by replacing the overly long lists with secondary source-based exposition that should, indeed, be "instructive of the nature, significance or controversy of crucifixion." There's nothing instructive about wiping out the whole thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy who made the edit from IP 97.102.137.17. The other guy was not me, just someone who agreed that the anime sections (and pop culture sections in general) on articles are completely out of hand.  It's fucking ludicrous, and is one of a few hundred reasons for professionals to continue to dismiss wikipedia as a whole for being the stomping grounds of a bunch of aspies in their parents' basements and not a legitimate source of reliable information.  It makes wikipedia as a project look ridiculous to include a discussion of Sailor Moon in a discussion of, well, anything that isn't completely retarded. Keshik (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean honestly, within the pop culture section are three images. One is a painting by Salvador Dali and two are from anime.  It's not as though there's a low supply of paintings and sculptures of crucifixion in this world. Keshik (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for identifying yourself, and for pointing out, correctly in my opinion, the need for a more scholarly selection of images. I look forward to a more thoughtful, constructive, and collegial editing of this section in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to renew my suggestion that the material in the IPC section be used in a new article, Crucifixion in popular culture, and the discussion here be trimmed to one or two sentences. I think the discussion we've had here has established that it's a wikipedia-worthy topic, but it's drowing out the article at present. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I was earlier, I'm ambivalent, and could go either way on that. Actually, it feels to me more like this talk page is drowning in it, rather than that the article itself is, because we haven't really fixed the "list" problem in the article and instead keep re-discussing the same attacks (mea culpa). I still think that it depends on secondary sources that will either justify noteworthiness or not, regardless of where the material is located, and I'm still interested in figuring out the proper role of material about art, as well as pop culture. My guess is that the consequence of cutting the material out of this article, and pasting it, in something like its present form, into the new article, would be to (1) cut back on edit wars here (good), and (2) result in edit wars over article-for-deletion at the new article (not so good). Would it help to flesh out and discuss here what the proposed article would look like, in more detail, first? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole thing violates the anti-original research guidelines to begin with; we're just saying "Crucifixion is prominent in anime" and then listing a bunch of random instances where one character is perhaps impaled on something that might be a cross analogue. I'll grant you that perhaps my deletionist tendencies are biasing me here, but I still think that this is frankly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.101.248 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So much for collegial editing. I do fear that moving the material to a separate article will just end with it being removed from WP entirely. It seems to me that WP:IPC is the way to go: get rid of the long lists, which will make it shorter, and base it on secondary sources, exactly so that it will not be original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly fail to see the need for a crucifixion in popular culture section, given it's just a long and worthless list. I've read the talk, and it seems like the only argument being made for keeping it is "it's information and we can't just delete information". It's irrelevant and detracts from the article. If you really want it there, just make a new article "list of crucifixions in popular culture" - which will hopefully also get deleted. Lethoso (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not what that editor intended, I think that the comment directly above is a good indicator of what would be elicited if a separate pop culture article were created. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete some, but not all, of the information in the anime section, as it is useless. No one researching crucifixions will go to anime as a source of information, so there is no need to reference so many anime cartoons. Maybe a few examples could be included as illustration of the manner in which crucifixion is used in these shows, but we should avoid an exhaustive list of anime references. Gary (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I trimmed some more information from the other parts of the popular culture section. While imperfect, I think this section now better illustrates the role crucifixion has played in popular media. Gary (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary, I've already thanked you at your talk page, but I want to do so here too. Obviously, there can always be further points to consider, but my personal opinion is that you have done exactly what I have been hoping for an editor to do here. Again in my opinion, the RfC I placed has now done most of its job, and I think that it would be alright to let it expire at the end of the month. But, other interested editors, do please say whether you agree (as if I have to tell you!). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. But I still would eventually like to see more references, and better discussion of art, though that's not as pressing a need. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have been of help. Thank you for fixing the templates and layout.Gary (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Crucifixion in Anime should not have its own section. If it needs to be mentioned at all, it should be under the "In movies and television" section. I'm not sure why this is a problem. 24.1.21.173 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could start by noting the discussion in this section, which you really have not rebutted in any way. In your first edit trying to delete the section, you dishonestly referred to it as removing vandalism, which undercuts your credibility. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
The basic purpose of this section is to show that crucifixion is used in anime to emphasize the suffering of sympathetic characters. However, the section contains a quote indicating that no religious intent backs the use of crucifixion imagery in anime. As there is no religious of historical intent behind the use of crucifixion imagery, the information in this section is more relevant to an article on TVtropes than to an encyclopedia article about real-life aspects of crucifixion. Therefore, I think we should remove it. As this section is frequently deleted by various users, maybe we should vote on deleting it. While I'm aware of the deletion process for entire articles, is there a deletion process for individual sections or parts of articles? Gary (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Gary. I don't think there's a formal process for sections, equivalent to AfD. Rather, the process is the usual one of talk page discussion and consensus. As such, there really is no vote as such, but the strength of argument should decide instead. By and large, the deletes (certainly the recent ones) have been IP edits without even an edit summary, or sometimes they come with either angry or misinformed edit summaries. Just as frequently, there are edits adding more material about anime, which then get deleted (usually by me!) to prevent trivia list creep. Even taking all of that together, it is far from being a high-traffic issue. (I edit at a lot of other pages that are far, far more active in terms of content disagreements.) In my opinion, there is no factual basis for saying that consensus has already changed, just on the basis of a few reverted edits. So, that brings us to discussion on the merits. I still feel the way I felt when we had the RfC back when. If the criterion for inclusion is a relationship to religious thinking, then how would you justify the historical section on crucifixion as capital punishment in Japan? I would argue that, if the only material that can be included on this page must be related to Christianity, then the page would suffer from a geo-cultural bias. Since there is a separate page on the crucifixion of Jesus, it is appropriate for this page to cover all cultural aspects of crucifixion. I admit that it can be problematic to assess historical awareness in pop culture references, but when cultural references occur repeatedly and prominently, as here, they are part of culture (and the anime section has been sourced to a secondary source, which satisfies WP:RS). One can, and quite a few editors have, argue that all of the pop culture material, not just anime, should be removed because of its questionable relationship to religious traditions. I think, however, that those arguments end up amounting to "I don't like it!" I'm all in favor of strictly limiting creep towards lists of trivia, but delete the whole thing, no, I disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)