Jump to content

Talk:Crucifixion in the arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Crucifixion in art)

Prediction

[edit]

I predict the following: In the next few weeks/months the material on traditional art will grow to the extent that it will be too long as a section. In a few months it will split into an article perhaps called Crucifixion in Christian art with several large sections and various structured galleries. There will be a summary here with a main. That will also cut back on all the debates about "Manga vs Michelangelo" and "Rap vs Raphael". I will start sketching some ideas here: Talk:Crucifixion_in_the_arts/Crucifixion in Christian art and we can take summaries therefrom to add to this article, as appropriate. Then when all is ready, that can become an article. That approach was called the Blackboard system years ago, and we can just try it anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you are doing it Blackboard style is a very good idea. As things go along, we should attend to not making a content fork. Consequently, a summary style coverage of Christian art will need to stay on this page, and we should understand that "versus" analyses of different aspects of the subject are ultimately counterproductive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a summary with a main must stay. As for Manga and Michelangelo I was playing with words again. BUT a key issue that needs to be decided on is the backbone. Many art articles have a temporal backbone that runs through timespans, otherwise there can be a thematic backbone. I am not sure which is best. Let us see what John suggests. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, understood. Looking again at the page, I also think it would be good as we go along to get more of the images out of horizontal groups and into the main paragraphs, and I think it will become clearer how to do that as the text develops. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I was referring to the new blackboad page, not the current one. The current one seems destined to be theme based with sections devoted to music, etc. That can not run in a temporal form really. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, too. I simply meant the part of this page dealing with Christian art, where the images are currently rather segregated at the end of the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure actually. There are links required to other articles, but I'm not sure a really long article is needed here. So long as the mainstream Christian visual arts section is first, I'm not too concerned if the other stuff follows, unless it does get too long, which will probably take a while. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: "Should the mainstream Christian visual arts section be temporal or thematic?" Or a combination thereof? Or maybe delay the decision? History2007 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer chronological myself. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also think Johnbod's points about the possible need (or not) for another page are well-taken. Another thought: there was discussion above about art concerning other stages/stations of the crucifixion of Jesus, besides images of the actual crucifixion itself. Perhaps that could eventually be the basis of another page? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will just start typing some semi-random thoughts every few days into the experimental page, then see what happens. The stages need to be there, but if you look at Madonna (art) it has Modes of representation as well as a temporal discussion. Same can be done here, with modes, stages etc. separate from date of painting. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The different types develop at different periods, so can be worked into a time-based description very easily - there is a fair bit of that already. That doesn't work so well if they all get a lot said about them, but I'd prefer a summary style approach myself. But there can be a round-up section by type after a chronological account too. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish already mentioned this above, and I'm not trying to be rude, but given the argument directly above, isn't this a POV fork? The only reason the Traditional art section(which to be honest seems like a little too contentious of a name, maybe change it to Classic art so you don't flare up people who want to add wrestling) threatens to get so long is because the two of you are focused on adding content only to it. Why not expand out of the Christian content bubble and let all of the Jesus art that's already described on its own pages (like stations of the cross) stay there, with just a brief mention and link here?Zengar Zombolt (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue of a fork, because many articles have a main. And there is no POV because different time periods are involved, e.g. Manga was a few years after Michaelangelo anyway. And having many separate "islands of info" does not provide an overview of the field. In fact this is an interesting Christian art topic and needs a comprehensive analysis in its own right. Anyway, since that article has not even started, no point in putting the horse before Descartes. History2007 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga in graphics novels deletion

[edit]

The manga part of the Graphics novels section was twice deleted by a new editor without any explanation. This is here so they know where to write something as I haven't the foggiest why they did it but I left them a note about WP:BRD. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Я был вынужден занять определенную позицию в отношении агрессивного воздействия тех, которые потеряли свою собственную психических неопределенность, сохранение их гротескные статуями электронный экскрементами.Roscrad (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Dmcq has now thrice asked Roscrad to come to talk, only now saying that further unexplained deletions will be considered vandalism. Since I do not read Russian, I do not know what that comment would translate as. But, since Roscrad appears to understand sufficient English to delete the particular material from the page, I rather suspect that Roscrad could have attempted to reply in English here. I draw my own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy of Yahoo BabelFish, the translation into English is: "I was forced to engage the specific position with respect to the aggressive action of those, which lost its own mental uncertainty, their retention grotesque by statues electronic by the excrements." So much for it not being vandalism yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the english wikipedia. It is not up to us to try and figure out foreign languages. This does not count as discussion. If that really is 'excrements' I guess their answer does not conform to normal civil discourse. I will be asking for them to be banned if they continue the unexplained deletions. It sounds like they are a single purpose account deleting something without even knowing what it means. Dmcq (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I can't translate it myself, and I relied on a web translator. But this particular Russian appears to be part of the off-site meme menagerie: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Остерегайтесь молодой человек, как вы ходите на данный момент, как вы когда-то я и сейчас, как я вам тоже должно быть так что будьте готовы следовать за мной. Roscrad (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That latest russian fortune cookie translated by google translate says 'Beware of the young man as you go at the moment, as you once and I now, as I told you, too, should be so be prepared to follow me'. My wife knows Russian but I really can't be bothered to ask her to decrypt it. Dmcq (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, these exchanges, as well as those on the user's talk page, are not worth the editor time they are being given. And I'm afraid those editors who actually have serious, thoughtful reasons for disagreeing about content need to do a better job of differentiating themselves from those who are simply being irresponsible. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article reminds me of a line from a Clint Eastwood movie which says: "Ah that's one thing about our Harry, he doesn't play any favorites! Harry hates everybody."[2] I think this topic all wrappaed up as one article does not play favorites either, it offends everybody: artists, religious people and non-religious alike. This article will be a battlefield of deletions for long, unless peace is negotiated through separation. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History, you may still not fully understand what you have walked into. The motivations of the people who have recently been incivil to you are, at the base, the same as those of the ones who are deleting this material. And POV forks are never a good solution: they just move the battlefields from one page to another (which, arguably, is how this page came into existence). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the truth could be, er, nailed down of the urban legend that a Japanese department store (or something) once did a display of a crucified Santa Claus, that should go in. [3] Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it used to be in, but it was deleted (rightfully, in my opinion) because it appears to be hearsay and unverifiable. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the topic of what Dmcq originally asked (and thank you for doing so), it's really the same thing that I am trying to ask under #Question, above. And, as Dmcq so very correctly said, the wrong way of answering the question is to keep deleting from the page, whereas the right way is to engage in civil and content-based discussion here in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Harry ever engage in civil discussion?... I wonder... History2007 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or, did Harry ever get blocked? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harry got suspended many times..... But these IPs will come out of nowhere... you will see... History2007 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "will" see? I think I already have! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harry's revolver is obviously the admin tools, so I think he was the one doing the blocking.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question is now indefinitely blocked. Let's move on. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Moving on, I have now added the FMA image that has been discussed extensively in this talk, and restored and revised some, but not all, of the text that was improperly deleted. I think that I and other editors have been extraordinarily generous in allowing time for editors who object to this material to have their say, in this talk thread, and in #Question above. I'm now going to make a "prediction" of my own. People who could not care less about this talk will soon notice the image on the page, and will show up to follow in the footsteps of the editor whose block is noted just above. As long as there are wikigroaners and proxy servers, they will keep popping up. I hope that editors who take the editing process seriously will join me in reverting unexplained deletions and showing the deleters this talk page, and, if they do not behave constructively, show them the door. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me that no amount of explanation will be good enough for you. A quick mention is all that is required for people to ascertain that crucifixion plays only a minor role in manga and western graphic novels and that when utilized in manga the interpretation has little to do with Western views of crucifixions. You insist upon creating a subsection much more detailed than the one that is required for a genre that makes such little use of crucifixion. Spending sleepless nights on Google searching for articles that discuss this does not change that fact. --Judakel (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how consensus works. See: [4], they just noticed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly interested in what they think, I am merely interested in streamlining the article and making it easier to read. The section should be left in, but with no picture and only a few sentences describing its minor presence in anime, manga, and western comics.--Judakel (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right, and you just got interested at this moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should be less paranoid and more concerned with keeping an article you seem to care so much about on track. I am not editing with a personal vendetta because there is absolutely no reason to hold a personal vendetta against someone I've never met. Stop making this about your ego and simply acknowledge that the article should contain a small reference to manga, anime, and western comic books. Take the exploration of its presence in these mediums to the pages dedicated to these mediums and link to that more in-depth exploration in this article. I think the last change I made was just the right amount of information without derailing the entire article with information that was not relevant enough to warrant inclusion. Why must this be such a difficult shift?--Judakel (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paranoid and I'm not the one who is personalizing this. You appear not to have read the talk just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find that the image adds a great deal - the image being changed for different areas because of different perceptions of crucification is curious and interesting. Using an example seems to be the best way of depicting it. - Bilby (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, please explain why graphic novels and anime need to have sections distinct from popular art and film and television, respectively. Until you do so I think the onus of proof is on you rather than the people you disagree with.61.95.19.250 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that graphic novels are a subset of popular art, but so to are a number of other mediums, including television. Breaking them into subsections makes it easier to cover the different areas. - Bilby (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... But it is not necessary for it to be as extensive as it currently is... --Judakel (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it feels like it isn't extensive at all, and that much more should be written. It's two paragraphs and one picture covering the whole of graphic novels, comics and manga, which seems awfully brief. It probably shouldn't be expanded here, though. The real problem is that the sections that should be expanded - for example, Modern Art, where crucifixion imagery features promontory - haven't been. I can imagine writing a whole thesis just on crucifixion in modern art, and still not covering it all. :) This is certainly a problem, but addressing it is always difficult. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the deleters will not return to this talk unless the page is returned to where it was before. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I'm going to do. New editors might want to discover something useful: this talk page, as an alternative to edit warring. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmetal Alchemist example

[edit]

I would remove the offending and irrelevant FMA picture as per the standards clearly defined in undue, but the page has been locked, can a friendly editor help me out? As for further justification, I suggest referring to the many comments made above by a wide variety of mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.44.230 (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offending? Why are you offended? The standards are clearly defined in WP:UNDUE, but there is nothing clear about why you are arguing that it applies here. Indeed, if the issue is that there must only be Western popular culture on the page, and no Eastern, then that would clearly violate UNDUE. It sounds like you are really arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, there has been discussion above, but the consensus above has been that this particular image is appropriate. Do you have a new and valid argument to raise, that is specific to this image? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It represents the interests of a minority of the userbase, albeit a very vocal and determined one that typically overlaps with many admins and editors tastes. I think the burden to prove its relevancy and inclusion should fall on your shoulders, there's been plenty of arguments against its due to its absolute irrelevancy and unimportance compared to other sections. You're adopting the opposite stance from WP:IDONTLIKEIT in which you seem to believe any argument against is a matter of personal taste. I posit that your own bias is clouding your judgment on this one, you've made your position clear and I suggest you drop the stick and let some more neutral participants reach an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.44.230 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay. It illustrates Crucifixion in the arts, the topic of the article; and provides a documented example of how the art is altered based on different societies' perception of the subject. TJRC (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TJRC is right. Let's examine 207's points very carefully and specifically. (1) 207 argues that the material should be deleted because it supposedly represents the "interests", whatever that is, of a "vocal" minority. That is not true on the facts, and not how Wikipedia decides things. See WP:VOTE and WP:CENSOR. (2) 207 argues that the burden of proof is on me. That burden has been amply met. The "proof" does not reside in satisfying persons who say they dislike the material. It resides, instead, in sourcing, per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. The material in question has considerably more inline citations to secondary sources than most of the rest that is on the page at this time. Those sources trump the personal opinions of editors who simply do not like the subject matter. The burden of proof is actually on you to provide sourcing for your argument. (3) 207 argues that the WP:Consensus has been against including the FMA image, and that I am acting improperly to defend it. Nonsense. It is wrong to comment on me as opposed to commenting on the material (and it could be argued that it is 207 who is carrying a "stick"). Keeping in mind that we are now specifically discussing the FMA image, not only I, but Golbez, Bilby, Dmcq, and TJRC have specifically endorsed its inclusion, and there is further discussion just below of actually expanding the material slightly. One IP editor commented earlier at length about not adding it, but ended up conceding that I had refuted those arguments. It is 207 who is arguing without meeting the burden of proof. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the image should stay. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that I don't always agree with your methods Tryptofish, I think this article now offers an appropriate weight to Anime. The other sections regarding modern art still need expanding but sadly I don't have a great deal to offer in terms of knowledge. 78.105.161.115 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my deletion

[edit]

i deleted that section so that the article could look more simple. why was it throw out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.223.127.68 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read, for a start, the talk section directly above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto: This is one interesting page from the edits and comments I see... Amazing nightmares you have to deal with my friend... Maybe you should post the Dante saying: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here at the top to warn the newcomers to this page [5].... just kidding... History2007 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As in May you live in interesting times I guess :) Dmcq (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I got a chuckle out of that! It started around November, when I was minding my own business at Crucifixion, and, all of a sudden, a large number of griefers showed up for the exclusive purpose of purging the Wiki of all mention of anime and manga. They deleted an image that was then on the page, I reverted them, and with that, I apparently became an internet meme. At the top of my user-talk, I have a personal essay on what I think about it. Anyway, welcome to my (under)world! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what meme means.DaiZengarSmite evil 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the people who need to hear what I'm about to say won't be bothering to read this, but... Please do not delete material from this article just because you, personally, do not like it. Please understand that the material in the graphic novels section was discussed at length on this talk page before it was added. Also, the organization of the sections of the article has been discussed carefully. If you would like to change the article, please discuss your proposed changes here, on this talk page, before you go ahead and make them. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholars trace this symbolism to Japanese views of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rather than to religious faith." If this line is important enough to be included, it must have some elaboration. As it stands, it's baffling. What does crucifixion have to do with those bombings? Furthermore, WP:AWWAlpha9beta7 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I think that came about from me trying to accommodate the requests that the section be shortened, and not go on at length about scholarly discussion of pop culture; as a result, I probably shortened it to the point of it being cryptic. The concept, as I understand it, is that crucifixion is seen as being part of a broader theme of things having to do with life and death, catastrophe, cataclysm, stuff like that. (Thus for example, the most recently deleted image of a giant cross as foreshadowing of bad things to come.) So Broderick argues that cultural awareness of the bombings (cataclysm) is reflected in various Christian images that are appropriated for secular uses. (He argues a lot of other things too, and it's difficult to boil it down to the short version that is, I think, needed here.) My sense before was that other editors would prefer keeping this language very brief, but if I understand correctly that a little bit of elaboration, not a lot, just a little, would be an improvement, I'd be happy to take a stab at it. Do we agree that that's worth doing? Also, about weasel words, I would be fine with changing "Scholars trace..." to "Broderick traces...". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you can elaborate with a sentence or two, it would be fine. Alpha9beta7 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I will, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt at that. Is it clearer? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective

[edit]
The Crucifixion, seen from the Cross, by James Tissot.

This is a view from the Cross. Please fit it somewhere there. Are there more like this? History2007 (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Are there any sources about these kinds of images? If so, that would make it easier to add, without just sticking it in somewhere arbitrarily. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that NY Times commented on it, and there are other refs too. And it has a Wikipage Crucifixion, seen from the Cross (James Tissot). History2007 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen any like this. Interesting, & worth adding I think. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to Sayings of Jesus on the cross which was fitting I thought, given that the sayings would have been spoken from that perspective. I also added it to the crucifixion page. This is an example of how art can change a perspective, and mode of thought I think. In general I think the impact of a single piece of art is underestimated - it makes one think from a different angle. But that is another story. I think Tissot did really well. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmm may be some films that used this trick to avoid depicting Jesus.©Geni 02:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crucifixion in the arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crucifixion in the arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth

[edit]

@HandsomeMrToad: Is there sourcing to indicate that the passage from Macbeth is specifically about crucifixion, as opposed to the various other ways someone could be "hanged" from a tree? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there are other ways to be hanged from a tree, but do any of them involve "hang[ing] alive till famine cling thee" (ie until you die of hunger or thirst)? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the ankles? In a cage? DS (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DS, and I have reverted it. (Could also mean just being tied to a tree.) Unless we have a source that actually says that this was a reference to crucifixion, I think that it is WP:OR to infer that it could only have meant crucifixion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crucifixion_in_the_arts&oldid=1201254038"