Talk:Crucifixion in the arts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New image

I sincerely hope that the previous conflict has calmed down enough to support calm talk now. After careful research, I have uploaded an alternative image to the previous one of "Sailor Mercury", and will next add it to this page. Unlike the previous image, this one is arguably less cartoonish and less offensive. Although it does not relate to the censorship issue, it is mentioned in a secondary source (Broderick), and reflects the larger themes in the Popular art section of this page (particularly the salience of the atomic bombings in Japanese culture). The work from which it comes, and its authors (both anime and manga), all have their own WP pages. I have uploaded it with an extensive fair use rationale. I hope that it will be accepted by editors here without the rancor that occurred previously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-- But thats just a picture of a crucifix, not a crucifixion which the article is about. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got to allow a little interpretation in an article about art, and 'Crucifix in art' does redirect here. It is a crucifix rather than a plus sign or dagger mark with all the symbolism of a crucifixion. Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This does raise an interesting point. It would obviously be desirable to expand the Christian art section of the page to include crucifixes and crucifix icons. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This anime image adds nothing to the article. It is not an image of a crucifixion. If you must, I suggest you find an actual image of a crucifixion from an anime to use. 82.45.23.182 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the WP:AIV have deemed my edits non-vandalism. Hopefully some other editors will weigh in on the image "controversy." My main problem with the anime image is that unlike every other image depicted in the article it does not feature a crucifixion, merely a stylised cross, making it irrelevant to the article. Perhaps it would be more suited to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross page? (which is distinct from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifix page.)82.45.23.182 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) discussing it here. I think that Dmcq already answered your question just above, no? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Being that there is infact a distinction between the cross/crucifix articles I do not feel it has been adequately addressed. I'd suggest that you find an actual crucifixion image if you want to have one in this article, not just a picture of a glowing cross minus the all important 'nailed dude'. I think there used to be a Sailor Moon one, but it was deleted due to an issue with copywrite? There is a very real difference between a cross in Christian iconography and a crucifix (as backed up by both wikipedia articles I've linked to support my case) then the image should be deleted until you can find a suitable one, featuring an actual crucifixion.82.45.23.182 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

While there's a difference, showing the cross is in the right direction and helps illustrate the article better than no image at all. Perhaps this energy should be spent finding a suitable image, not in removing a somewhat relevant one. See also: Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. tedder (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry we got off on the wrong footing, and thanks for the link I see you made from Crucifix. Since you are aware of the fair use issue with the previous image, I suspect you are aware of the complaints that were made about it. It seems to me that if we go back to a very similar image (candidates: [1], [2]), we will just be back where we were before, and I see little good to come of that. I don't really think that the editors who object care whether the image is a crucifixion or a crucifix; they just want to delete anything that is anime or manga no matter what. And, as Dmcq explained quite clearly, for purposes of this article, there really is no logical reason that a crucifix image is less relevant than a crucifixion one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I think it's also worth pointing out once more that the image now on the page is discussed by a scholarly secondary source (Broderick) as being part of the cultural tradition discussed in the paragraph of text that the figure illustrates, and that secondary source treats images of crucifixions and images of crucifixes as part of the same phenomenon (so it could be argued that editors saying that crucifix images do not fit with this page could be WP:OR). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to you too, we did get off on the wrong foot. It just seems like a shame that the anime image is quite grainy and small, so it looks a bit jarring next to work by Dali and the ancient Roman graffiti. Unfortunately I really don't have much knowledge of anime or where to find a larger/clearer one so I can't help much there. 82.45.23.182 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. Actually, about that grainy issue, there's a catch-22. It has to be "low resolution" in order to satisfy fair use under copyright law, so a non-grainy one would be impermissible (and this one isn't that bad). Where you say it's small, we can easily make it larger, but then it would be larger than most other images on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Crucifix" in the image isn't a crucifix. It's not even a fucking Christian cross. It's a explosion in the form of a cross. You want to put some damn anime screencap in article them put it in the cross article, not here.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarize the arguments: (1) "It's not even a fucking Christian cross." (2) from edit summary: "dicking around with NGE image description, imo it's been unduly emphasized". (3) from edit summary: "Nope, no image.". That, versus sourced content. And, by the way, per WP:MOS, when an image caption is not a sentence, it should not have a period at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the argument that it's not a crucifixion compelling, seeing as how this is the article on crucifixion. It's not even a crucifix. It's a cross-shaped explosion. I was under the impression a crucifix had to have someone nailed to it. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Crucifix in art redirects to this page. The sources cited in the section treat crucifix images and crucifixion images as being the same phenomenon. Can you find a reliable source (as opposed to editor personal opinions) that Japanese popular culture treats crucifixion imagery and crucifix imagery as separate traditions? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

... and it is not a crucifix. It is a cross. A crucifix requires a guy nailed to it, or tied, or something, but a mere cross does not a crucifix make. --Golbez (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That answer is unresponsive. The cited sources say that crucifixes and crucifixions are the same subject. You are substituting your personal opinion (original research) for what the sources say. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

... but it is NOT A CRUCIFIX. I have said that three times, your lack of comprehension is baffling. It is a CROSS. Not a CRUCIFIX. Definition: Crucifix "is a cross with a representation of Jesus' body, or corpus." The image from Evangelion is of an explosion with no person or representation of a person or anything attached to it, therefore it is not a crucifix. It is a cross. A cross. This is not crosses in art. This is crucifixes/crucifixion in art. The image does not contain a crucifix. I don't know how I can explain this better. I say "It's not a crucifix", you say "This article is also about crucifixes!" I repeat, "but it's not a crucifix" and you tell me I'm being unresponsive and injecting my own personal opinions? It's my OPINION that it is a cross and not a crucifix? Really? --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to shout. I'm not the one telling you that, really. It's the sources. You are deleting sourced material, and substituting your opinion for what the sources say, not for my personal opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out above that [3] and [4] are alternative candidates. Am I seriously to believe that either of those would be just fine with those of you who keep deleting? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

At least those are actually crucifixes, unlike the image in which you seem to have somehow imagined a magical Jesus on the explosion cross. As for "sourcing", where is it sourced that the image is of a crucifix and not a cross-shaped explosion? --Golbez (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To answer your second question first, you've deleted the material, but if you look back at it, there was an inline reference in the image caption. As for the first part of what you said, would you like to pick one of those that you will support? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with you moving that into the text, but the image is misplaced as it is it not of ... you know, I've said it a half dozen times already, if you are unable to comprehend the difference between a cross and a crucifix then perhaps this article isn't the one for you. --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the merits, I have to agree with Golbez. It's not a "crucifix" unless it has the body of Jesus. The image in question might belong at Cross or a more specific article about the cross in art, but not here. All the other images in this article have a corpus, and editorially it seems to me that it is best to keep it that way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the source (Broderick) treats both crucifixes and crucifixions as the same thing, and which of those candidate alternatives would you support? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Tryptofish, we're getting nowhere, so let me try this: Is a cross a crucifix? Are all crosses crucifixes? And, finally, does my being a SomethingAwful member render my eyes unable to see the Jesus nailed to that explosion? --Golbez (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In Western traditions, there is a clear distinction between a cross and a crucifix. The source cited says that the repeated cross/crucifix/crucifixion imagery in the work from which it came are all representative of a single phenomenon: perceptions in Japanese popular culture of how their society feels in the wake of the atomic bombings. I never said there was anything wrong with your eyesight, so no need for the sarcasm. But, since you ask, your being a member does make me wonder this: the image has been on the page for several days, so why the sudden outburst of multiple editors wanting to revert it during the past few hours? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the reference I inadvertently deleted; nowhere in it is the explosion described as a crucifix. So you can't even claim the source is blind to that fact as well. --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No the source does not discuss when to draw a line between crosses and crucifixes, but that is because it discusses cross imagery as synonymous with crucifix imagery. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that. The word "crucifix" exists once in that source, according to my word search, and it never says cross = crucifix. Please source your statement instead of supplying your personal opinion. --Golbez (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On page 35, it shows an image (copyrighted) of a cross that does not appear to be a crucifix (but has a figure standing in front of it), and it treats all of that as being one phenomenon. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Evangelion image depicts a cross, not a crucifix. It appears to me that the term crucifix refers to a cross with a representation of Jesus on it. If you look at the Wikipedia article for crucifix all 14 images of crucifixes there depict Jesus being crucified while one image shows a cross, with the caption referring to it as such. A Google image search for "crucifix" brings up nothing on the first page but representations of Jesus on a cross. There are countless such sculptures and paintings seen in many sorts of churches in modern times, and they should probably be mentioned in this article, since they are works of art depicting crucifixion. I think that would be a better expenditure of effort than worrying about how best to illustrate a paragraph that describes how the producers of anime don't care about the religious meaning of Christian imagery and remove it to avoid drama. Gary (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary, Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't make editorial decisions based on avoiding drama. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I would have no objection to changing the wording of the image caption to "an explosion in the shape of a cross" instead of "of a crucifix". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you also be moving it to Crosses in art? Also, the fair use criteria does not allow that image to be posted on a talk page, I suggest you revert yourself. I also suggest you cease accusing editors of bad faith editing; We are, contrary to what you believe, allowed to disagree with you. --Golbez (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the talk page. Disagreeing is one thing, but this pattern of ganging up to edit war to delete sourced material is something else. How come editors did not simply express disagreement in this talk, rather than going straight to deleting the image from the page? And, yes, it does look bad when so many of you keep showing up at the same time. I notice no one has replied to my question about alternative images. Does that mean that, whatever image one puts here, there will be a clamor to delete it? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what's put up to replace it; I was just removing an image (and, apparently, a faulty source) that didn't belong on this article. (Perhaps Lilith; same anime, but she's -gasp- actually crucified!) I admit I lost my cool, but when confronted with the boggling arguments you were making, which seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the text you were responding to ("It's not a crucifix." "Right, this is the article on crucifixes" "But it's not a crucifix" "Why do you want to remove that crucifix?"), I got exasperated. (Yet I never accused YOU of acting in bad faith. Think about that.) --Golbez (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for saying that. But please understand (amid these edit conflicts) that I do not believe that the sourcing was faulty. I made a very strong good-faith effort to research and find this image, as one that I thought would be more acceptable to editors who objected to the previous Sailor Mercury one, yet what I have seen is objection to anything that originates from anime, and I've seen the SA forum threads about Japanese content on WP. And you have shown up here amid a lot of edits by people saying things like this, so I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and I hope you understand that I'm not blind either. I understand that, in Western traditions, crosses are not crucifixes, and you were not hearing me when I said that the sources treat Japanese perceptions differently than Western ones. I still think the deletion of the image was bogus. I'm willing to discuss alternatives, and I've been trying to do so. But I get the feeling that "I really don't care what's put up to replace it" will turn into yet another round of what just happened here. Can we talk calmly about what, if anything, really would be accepted on this page? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say it until after many times after claiming that it was a crucifix. You said, in order: "Crucifix in art redirects to this page." "The cited sources say that crucifixes and crucifixions are the same subject." Now perhaps you meant to say "crosses and crucifixes are the same subject", but given repeated opportunities you did not. The source you supplied does not appear to say that crosses and crucifixes are equal, and I have a good quote (You can see it on the SA thread) that the crosses and crucifixes in Evangelion mean nothing at all - they were put in because they were neat and mysterious imagery, not because they had any significance. So in that respect, I guess they are equal, in not being significant. But the source you fought to retain does not appear (Give me a page number if I'm wrong) to ever say that crosses and crucifixions are equal. In fact, it had nothing to say about the image at all, or Evangelion apart from Lilith, so ... I'm not sure why it was hidden in that caption. Finally, for someone who fought so hard to say that it's sourced that, in Japanese tradition, crosses = crucifixes... it's odd that you don't mention that in the article, ever. Is it surprising people would be confused when you start saying it without any justification? --Golbez (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, thank you for saying what you said. Now please drop the stick. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanking me for my comments is not admitting that you were the primary source of the confusion here. You need to understand this before we move on, because if you don't then the problem will just come up again. --Golbez (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was unclear in explaining myself amid the rapid edit conflicts every time I tried to reply, then I am sorry for not being clearer. If you are asking me to apologize for not agreeing with you about editorial content, that's not going to happen. By the way, I'm not the only editor in this talk thread who made that argument; see near the top. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said you had to apologize for disagreeing, quite the opposite. We disagree; that's awesome. I have no problem with that, and I never demanded an apology for that. The only apology for disagreement that could be warranted is for the unwarranted accusation of those who disagree with you with operating in bad faith... but I didn't ask for that. --Golbez (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: how about this, but crop it to just show the crucifixion and not the figure to the right? The author and the work it comes from both have pages in Wikipedia. Is there a good-faith agreement that editors will not just make new complaints about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't fight to remove that one, as at least it has a crucifix. I can't say others will feel the same way, but I'll be out of it. --Golbez (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what other editors say, then. (Hopefully not this.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was referring to Japanese people removing the crucifixion imagery from anime/manga, not us. It's clear that Wikipedians love drama. Gary (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'm not particularly enjoying it. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

break

So, I'm asking: will editors go along with:

1. The recent image here,
2. The image here, cropped to remove the figure at the right, or,
3. The image here? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

None of them. They all be animes. NuclearLaunchDetected (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you had that third one the whole time? An image that not only 1) has a crucifix, but 2) actually illustrates the article's assertion that imagery is changed for Western audiences? I pick the third one, obviously. It's not just a random "hay guyz heres a crucifix in japanime", it's an actual illustration that contributes to the article. --Golbez (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Golbez.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying: Just noticed that is actually two images; I would say transport the whole imagebox over so the comparison is made. --Golbez (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Golbez and Arxiloxos. About "the whole time", this image has been discussed on this talk page before. My question then becomes: will you back up its non-deletion in the face of what NuclearLaunchDetected said? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not preemptively say I will revert NuclearLaunchDetected, who has so far made two edits, only to this talk page, and has made no indication he would participate in an edit war. I see nothing that indicates I need to back anything up yet. --Golbez (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I need to clarify, myself (and probably get some sleep!). I wasn't asking anyone to revert that editor's comments to this talk, of course. What I meant was that I think this editor speaks for quite a few other editors who, per none of them is acceptable because they all be animes, will just start another round of objections and deletions. The two of you have just said that you feel favorably to this image-pair on the grounds that it illustrates a crucifix and illustrates the change for Western audiences, so I'm trying to get a feel for whether that support will vanish when other editors, not you, start mass-reverting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see the confusion in what I said; I didn't mean I would not revert what he said to this talk page, I said I will not preemptively pledge to revert him should he edit the main article. Should he engage in an edit war, then the proper sanctions will apply, but I can't say beforehand what my actions will be. (Then again, we had an edit war this evening, but short-lived, involved discussion and edit summaries [IPs take note], and we at least know the rules about that) --Golbez (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is further clarification or just beating a dead horse, but no request by me to preemptively pledge to revert anyone in particular, just hoping that you and others will recognize that we discussed at talk before adding back any image, and will then do what I think you are saying in the last, parenthetical, part of your comment. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I also think that perhaps undue weight is being given to anime. The presence of something in anime does not in itself make it notable, though in this case it obviously happens a lot, but because it looks neat. I think perhaps the paragraph could be trimmed, but I also think this could be a good image. The article is "crucifixion in art"; that would, presumably, include controversies surrounding said topic, and while the self-censorship of Japanese media isn't really a major deal, this does illustrate that nicely. I may go through with a scalpel and see what can be trimmed. --Golbez (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it feels like you're trying to shoehorn in as much anime as possible into this article, going into fancruft territory. I don't think that an anime image is particularly necessary on the page at all. Especially with the whole Sailor Mercury and Crucifixion in Anime section ordeals in mind, it seems rather clear that the consensus is with less or the same amount of anime, not more. --Sothicus (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's steer clear of my supposed motives. That consensus to remove the section was at Crucifixion, not this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't change the apparent Japan bias in the crucifixion in graphic novels paragraph. I think we can worry about what picture would work with it after resolving that. I didn't have to google very long to find a number of examples of crucifixion in western comics, including this listing of some Grant Morrison did, Uncanny X-Men 251, and the origin of Archangel of X-men fame.--Sothicus (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. It would be helpful to know if there are secondary sources to go with those. (Given the sources about Japan, we do of course want to be careful not to fall into trivia lists.) --Tryptofish (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking further, it seems to me that the first link you gave looks the most promising for these purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google Scholar search of "Grant Morrison" + crucifix, and the closest thing to something promising was this: [5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the particular image you're gunning for, you may want to change your search. I know that Animal Man #5, "Coyote Gospel" (The first two images in the initial page), was a religious allegory, though google scholar is unfortunately a bit sparse in that respect. --Sothicus (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the thing. I saw those two links in my search, and didn't think they would really help. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally of that notion (see the bit above that got caught in an edit conflict), but in this case I think it's a good image to show the difference in how Japanese media interprets reactions to crucifixion in their work. --Golbez (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does any image from any Japanese cartoon need to be included? This is 'crucifixion in art' not 'crucifixion in crap cartoons for adolescents'. Tryptofish has never really adequately answered the question of why anime so desperately needs inclusion in all of this, aside from the fact that he's apparently some sort of anime super-fan or some nonsense. This is sheer fancruft. Nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.66.235 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Per sources, and so much for people lecturing me about NPA. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

About the point above about undue weight, I'll say what I've said before, that the solution in this case is not to fight for deletion of this material, but to add more material to other parts of the article. So far, Sothicus and I have, but others have not. The Christian art section could really use more material. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that something appears in something printed does not make it germane to the topic at hand. Anime nerds have spilled tons of ink 'analyzing' their chosen love. That does not make it important to the topic of crucifixion in art in any real way. Your persistence is admirable; if only you'd apply it to something remotely worthwhile. Maybe it's you who should learn to drop the stick. As far as adding any material goes, what would the point be? To have it reverted or hacked to crap because it doesn't meet some bizarre WP:POLICYTHATMAKESNOSENSE? If you want contributions, drop the horseshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.66.235 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, if someone makes a useful addition to, for example, the Christian art section of the page, that will be very much welcomed. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the people who are deciding "what's useful" are the same ones fighting to keep shit Japanese cartoons in every article they can. Wikipedia is little more than a terrible nomic, and you've won it ages ago. Enjoy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.66.235 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 January 2010

break 2

OK, refining what I asked in the break just above, it sounds like there is some consensus to using the image-group from Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga. I think it might make sense, for this page, to crop out the close-ups of the guy, and just show side-by-side the before and after of the long-view crucifixion images (maybe put the Japanese original on the left). I'm still asking: does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It works, but I don't see it being necessary - it shows how they managed the changes over two panels, and while this may not be necessary, it isn't particularly problematic, either. - Bilby (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this an image of a character that the reader is supposed to feel sympathy for, or is it just a case of Japanese editors removing crucifixion imagery to avoid controversy? I don't know enough about Full Metal Alchemist to make that judgment. And what happened to the old discussion about these images? Gary (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The character in question Greed, is not one the reader is supposed to feel any particular sympathy for, though he does ally with the protagonist for a short while (if only to fulfill his desires.) --Sothicus (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just asking: for purposes of this page, does it matter whether one feels sympathy for the character or not? The sources talk both about messianic figures (sympathetic) and justice (punishment). I see how that relates to the Drazen quote, but the justice symbol is in terms of manga, which is where the image comes from. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, so long as it meets the criteria of being art, and crucifixion. Looking at some of the pictures and things mentioned on this page, it kind of goes all over. The crucifixion of that particular character being censored isn't out of some Comics Code Authority measure, just self-censorship by the importing company, I believe. --Sothicus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think that matters either. My understanding (which may also be wrong) is also that it was simple self-censorship. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

About your (Gary) first question, I don't know (yet). (Contrary to popular opinion, all I know about anime and manga is what I research for this page.) About the second question, I remember some talk about it, but cannot find it now, so it may have been deleted (and contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't me who deleted it). There was definitely talk at the deletion discussion for the old Sailor Mercury file. As I remember, the gist of it was some editors suggesting it would be an alternative to the Sailor Mercury one, and me asking questions about fair use on multiple pages. As far as I recollect (and I'm saying this from memory), the only negative raised was from me, in that I was concerned that the image would need to be cropped as I describe above. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How about a vastly-scaled-down version of this? It might not be particularly appropriate because of the NGE creators' aforementioned "cos it looks cool" ideology, however it depicts an act of crucifixion unambiguously performed on something that vaguely resembles a deity (symbolically). And it features prominently throughout the movie, thus isn't a visual effect (per facefault) or a one-time thing. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but I just want to propose it as an option. ZS 05:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit to knowing pretty much nothing about fair use rules, except talk pages are a no-no. Is it justified under fair use to have any screenshot here? --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ZS for this other suggestion. To Golbez, I know even less about fair use, but I think the link ZS provided is enough information for us to evaluate in this talk. Now, amid all the complicated talk that's happened, I want to point out that, at least as far as I can recollect, there has never been anything about "it looks cool" being attributed to the creators of the Evangelion series. Rather, that was Sailor Moon, the source of the original image back at the beginning of this fun fest.

As I see it, there are quite a few possibilities, and I'm not particularly invested in any single one of them. The issue is what is acceptable to the most editors here. (And I have to say that, even after sleeping on it, I just don't understand the logic of why a cross was so unacceptable. Yes, I understand the difference between a cross and a crucifix, really. But per what another editor said above [6], the arguments seem contrived to me, as if looking for a reason, any reason, to find fault with the image. That's where I'm coming from, but there's no need for anyone to agree with me. Please note that, once people explained this concern without hurling epithets, I've gone along with it and am trying to work with it, even though I don't personally agree with it.)

So, if I understand correctly, we are comparing the Evangelion image ZS found with the Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga one, each to be modified as described. I could agree with either, and I'd go along with whichever other editors would prefer (so long as other editors won't turn around and start a new edit war once the image goes up). Either would satisfy the requirement that it be a crucifixion rather than a cross. The advantages of the Evangelion image seem to be that it occurs repeatedly through the work, is of a sympathetic character, and is discussed in the Broderick reference. Disadvantages might be that it can be considered to look kind of cartoony, and we don't yet know the fair use details. Advantages of the FMA image is that it illustrates the change in content for Western audiences, it comes from manga instead of from anime and thus may be considered a more "serious" work of art (see [7] above), is in black-and-white which may make it look less objectionable to some editors, and we already know that it is on-Wiki as acceptable for fair use. A disadvantage is that it seems to be a single occurrence in the work from which it comes. Me, I'd toss a coin. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

re the "looks cool" bit, here's the quote straight from our own article on Eva, emphasis mine: "There are a lot of giant robot shows in Japan, and we did want our story to have a religious theme to help distinguish us. Because Christianity is an uncommon religion in Japan we thought it would be mysterious. None of the staff who worked on Eva are Christians. There is no actual Christian meaning to the show, we just thought the visual symbols of Christianity look cool. If we had known the show would get distributed in the US and Europe we might have rethought that choice." --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I think the "coin" is starting to come down on the side of not going with the Eva image, and maybe going with the Fullmetal one. Fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As things are progressing, it seems to me that there is a lot of sentiment to turn down the Eva image that ZS proposed. Based on talk here, I don't hear any objection to the Fullmetal image, although based on edit warring on the page by other editors (not me!), I'm not too confident that there really would be a willingness to engage with it on the merits, were it to be put on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Popular Art

I think the section is in need of some work in more ways than one. While in Popular Music we have the mention of Madonna having a mock crucifixion, we also have, in Popular Art, more mentions of musical artists doing crucifixion or crucifixion related things, this leads me to wonder if we should simply merge that into in Popular Music, or throw the one line from Popular Music into the Popular Art section in that same paragraph.

The second concern is that the paragraph about graphic novels seems to be remarkably heavily about Japan, with literally no mention of any other country. Japan does not have a monopoly on crucifixion. There are several crucifixions in western comics[8] [9], not to mention the fact that Christ figure is a veritable smorgasbord of cinematic ones. If anyone has any suggestions or comments about this, I'm eager to hear them. I'm going to see about changing the graphic novels paragraph to reflect a more even divide between east and west in the coming days, as well as starting on a cinematic one. Of course, if someone starts either before me, well, you have my full support in the endeavor. --Sothicus (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, "popular art" is really a catch-all for anything that doesn't fit under any other category. That is to say, nothing really ought to be there. The music can go under music and the poster can go under regular art, anime can go under TV/movies and manga/graphic novels... well, they're just kinda screwed, maybe they can remain ZS 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the anime and manga together in one section, regardless of its name, because if we split it up, we could have separate paragraphs for crucifixion in anime and crucifixion in manga, and maybe more sections just for Japanese stuff. Gary (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why Japanese media should get special treatment. Why not add a section about crucifixions in Italian songs and soap operas?--141.84.252.63 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find pertinent information about it, I'd more than welcome it. Crucifixion happens in Japanese media, and while I might agree that it doesn't seem the directors/authors are doing it for artistic value, but instead doing it for the same reason people get Chinese characters tattooed on their arms (i.e. because it looks cool.), the section generally has a bit of merit, though a rewrite is definitely in order to reflect a more diverse viewpoint.--Sothicus (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for this. I like the move that Sothicus made. Admittedly, the page suffers from not yet having enough information in a lot of other areas. I also agree very much with what Sothicus has raised about Grant Morrison's comics (the first of the two links). I'm planning to add something about that to the page if no one else does it first. It's completely reasonable to make the paragraph more balanced in that way. At the same time, as discussed somewhere above in this talk, both Sothicus and I have looked for secondary sources establishing notability and context for these Western comics and, unlike the Japanese material, the scholarly literature is thin. This may actually be a truer case of it just looks cool. So, I don't think it's a good idea to go on at length about comics trivia or to use a Western comics image instead of an Eastern one. By the way, there are now 8 images on the page, and all 8 of them come from Western sources. Per WP:UNDUE, I think it not so horrible to have one out of nine images come from Japan, and it is not just an issue of balance in the one section, but balance in the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Also per WP:UNDUE, crucifixion in anime is a minority view. That having been said, I've taken some of what 128.192.236.208 said into account as I started editing the section in question. I took a scalpel to it... a scalpel attached to a sledgehammer. I think we could also make mention of Superman in there (as he is often viewed as a Messiah figure, and there are a few times in which he is crucified, including in the graphic novel Batman: Holy Terror), and possibly the interviews mentioned in Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)#Religion to show the general creator opinion of crucifixion imagery as it relates to Japan. It's very much still a work in progress. --Sothicus (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking your points individually, by "minority view", I assume you mean a minority of editors at this time, not a minority of scholarly writers. Correct? That's not so much a WP:UNDUE issue as a WP:NOTDEM one. We don't decide WP:Notability based upon the personal opinions of a majority of editors. Rather, we do it based on what secondary sources say. UNDUE, on the other hand, does require that we provide cultural/geographical balance. As for secondary sources, there aren't a lot to support too much fan trivia about Batman et al., from what I've seen (but by all means show me I'm wrong if I am), whereas you and 128 together may be using too much of a sledgehammer to remove sources that are in the scholarly literature. As you say, this continues to be a work in progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Per UNDUE, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.". That would mean, to me, especially when we consider the fact that the japanese authors are often following the "Because it's cool." school, that Japan just isn't all that relevant to the subject. Being as crucifixion has far more western than eastern meaning, it only makes sense that while the viewpoint is presented, it's not overbearing. I've revised the paragraph a bit more, and I think it's pretty good where it is, though I may use some more information from the sources we previously discussed to flesh it out more. --Sothicus (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

One needs to be careful about cherry-picking passages from a policy or guideline. UNDUE also requires that minority views not be automatically discounted in favor of the majority. As I've said many times before, the paragraph in question looks long because other sections of the page (like Christian art) are insufficiently developed, so it would be more helpful to lengthen those than to "sledgehammer" this one. I think it's debatable that Japanese views are as tiny a minority as that. Using my point made earlier, about the numbers of images, there are presently 8 Western images on the page and 0 non-Western ones. Thus, I would be advocating that 1/9 of the weight of the page would go to Japanese material, as opposed to close to zero. That's hardly undue! And I continue to be concerned that you are substituting unscholarly sources for scholarly ones. But, again, please note that I'm not edit warring with you about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the edit Sothicus just made to the paragraph in question. My take on it, is that it may go a little too far in removing scholarly material and replacing it with what really is fancrufty material. Not a lot too far, just a little too far, needing a little tweaking. For the moment, I'm just saying that here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the paragraph, or parts of it

I removed the entire section on anime from popular art on the grounds that the symbolism mentioned of a crucifix representing Justice and Death are both self evident and not particularly endemic to Japanese media. The rest of the paragraph goes in to unneeded detail on Japanese cultural history and censorship. This material may be pertinent to other articles but are not germane to the topic at hand. Also Tryptofish should delegate minding this article to someone else since he's obviously become obsessed and seems to have lost objectivity.128.192.236.208 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing it here. The arguments for not simply deleting it are many, including the fact that it is reliably sourced, and there is no reason the page should be a Western-only one. Please do not say those things about me, as having a different opinion than you does not mean I lack objectivity, only that we have differing subjective views. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not familiar with all of Wikipedia's conventions but I don't see why simply being reliably sourced justifies an otherwise unnecessary section. I have no problem with non-western perspectives on crucifixion imagery. My issue was the large chunk devoted to Japan specifically without providing any kind of notability that makes Japan's treatment of Crucifixion different the use of Crucifixion iconography at large in other media. The recent inclusion of a comment that the iconography is used without religious metaphor is notable. The current version of the sections seems fine.128.192.236.210 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's ok about not yet being fully familiar. (I assume you are the same person from UGA, even though there are two slightly different IP numbers here.) Let me please point you, since you seem to ask, to a couple of pages that I hope you will read: WP:Notability, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:Consensus, and WP:NOTDEM. I apologize that this sounds like a lot of alphabet soup, but I didn't create this stuff. Anyway, I think you will see that Wikipedia has very carefully thought-out ways of determining whether something "justifies an unnecessary section" or not. Despite what it may look like to outsiders, it isn't based on whether a lot of editors show up and all say "we don't think it's notable or justified". Where you observe that Japan's treatment isn't different than that in other, Western media, that actually is not what the sources you deleted said. They describe ways it is different. Where you say that the comment about it being used without religious metaphor "is notable", I think we all agree that it's one of the things that belongs in the discussion. But I do not think you have made the case that what you deleted does not belong on the page, the way Wikipedia decides it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so utterly condescending towards people who don't share your obsession with crucifixion in Japanese animation? As far as I can tell, the deleted section is pretty much only in this article because of your repeated insistence. One determined editor does not a consensus make. Snort Barfly (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And WP:NPA. I forgot that one. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, pointing out that you appear obsessed when the majority of this discussion page is everyone else vs. you is a personal attack, not a mere observation. I understand now. --Snort Barfly (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

128 edited out a section (apologies if it was a different 128) immediately before Sothicus's edit. I have replaced it, as it was referenced and I'm not sure Sothicus intended it not to be there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Something seems strange to me. Over the last few days, there has been an outpouring of complaints about the image from NGE, on the grounds that it showed a cross rather than a crucifixion. Not that I really think that ever was a valid issue, but that was clearly the objection. Now, material is being added to the page about Western comics, and replacing the Japanese material, but the new material emphasizes that this Western material only concerns the cruciform, ie a cross, rather than a crucifixion. This does not make sense, and seems only to indicate a desire to delete Japanese material and replace it with Western material. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The cruciform that I'm mentioning is the person putting themself (or ending that way.) in the shape of a cross, in every case I've mentioned, with some suffering (which I've referenced quite a bit.), as opposed to a explosion in the shape of a cross. Please don't confuse the two. --Sothicus (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the argument above was that you need both a cross of some sort and a person on that cross in order for it to be in this article. If someone stands with their arms out to the side, how is that more relevant to crucifixion than a cross is? If it is relevant, how is a cross (not a plus sign, but a crucifix-shaped cross) then not relevant? Also, you are largely sourcing to primary sources, rather than secondary sources. You really need to rely more on secondary sources to avoid WP:SYNTH. In addition, there seems to be a supposition that the use of such imagery has to be motivated by Western perceptions of religious significance in order to be notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no person on the explosion cross, which, I believe, is the most important part. No Jesus, no crucifixion. Further, In all the cases I have mentioned there is a person assuming a cruciform (Or being crucified, as in the Batman: Holy Terror reference) as well recieving a punishment of some sort, in some cases (Animal Man) relatively divine (Though that one is interesting in that the character dies on a crossroad.), in others (Arkham Asylum) more mundane (Though in that case, the character recieved a spear in his side before assuming the pose, further reinforcing the point.). All have obvious connotations toward religion and further, towards Jesus and his crucifixion. While the cross is the symbol of Christianity, just an explosion in the shape of one does not constitute a crucifixion. Lastly, in regards to motivation by western perceptions, the facts speak for themselves. The explosion picture you were trying to use, as well as the Lilith image, were both from Neon Genesis Envangelion, which I mentioned earlier as to pulling quotes from. More specifically the "Because it was cool" quote by Kazuya Tsurumaki. If you'd like to help me research more secondary sources, I'd certainly welcome it, but beyond them, I'm of the opinion that this section is doing well enough for us to move on to the other ones. --Sothicus (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The other point that this brings about is that, barring actual movies about Jesus, a "Has to be on the cross" decision would remarkably limit the films and television section. The ending of 300, for example, or the memorable Spiderman 2 scene where he stops a train. Neither specifically has a character on the cross, but both are cruciform, and both characters obviously suffer for their beliefs. --Sothicus (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But the argument made earlier was that there needed to be a secondary source saying that crosses were the same kind of phenomenon as crucifixions, and there were such secondary sources, so the argument was that it had to be a crucifixion per se to be here. Remember all the questions about why not moving it to Cross in art? Why, here, not Cruciform in art? You are cherry-picking sources when you say that Japanese usage is not particularly religious, which is true, while deleting the sources that said that Japanese usage has other significance besides the Western Christian one to Japanese people. I'm trying to remember when others helped me look for secondary sources for this page. Besides, per WP:BURDEN, if you add material, it's first and foremost your responsibility to source it, not just SYNTH it, or it can be deleted. And what you say about Western perceptions does not speak for itself. It is simply an unexamined cultural bias. And in fact, making a big deal about Batman as Jesus, kind of like Elvis as Jesus, seems like a pretty Wikigroanable thing, especially when you hang it on Fox news. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How am I cherry picking sources when you yourself agree that Japanese usage isn't religious? Why does that even merit a mention? The Japanese usage that does have merit isn't artistic and thusly doesn't warrant mention. If you want to talk about how Japanese people use crucifixes, you should be at Crucifixion#Japan. Further, Per WP:DIG, you seem to spend an awful lot of time and effort in here discussing edits, and very little time in the article actually doing any editing. Lastly, you obviously didn't even read the article in question, as it was about Superman (Which I recently added a secondary reference to, per your suggestion.). Nonetheless, since you seem biased against Fox news, I've changed the reference to one from the BBC. --Sothicus (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the BBC change, which is a definite improvement. I think it's very illuminating, the way you ask why a non-religious usage should "even merit a mention". So this page, about art not religion, should only have religious usages, not secular usages? How about the guy on the Volkswagon? And since when does Wikipedia only adhere to a Christian POV? I don't know what you mean by the Japanese usage not being "artistic". In whose opinion? And Wiley Coyote is artistic in a way that manga is not? What I mean about cherry picking sources is that you and others deleted sources and material that show that what the page says now, in your version, is an oversimplification, because all it does is quote one director, and not scholars who point out things that the Japanese people feel that are different than what that one quoted person says. You still haven't answered my question about Cruciform in art, and your criticisms of my talk page contributions are ill-informed as to policy. DIG is merely an essay; BURDEN is policy. And going to the talk page to discuss disputed content is exactly the right thing to do, in contrast to edit warring on the page itself. I'm sure if I went to the page and reverted you without discussing why, you would, understandably, be dissatisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously those are symbolic, at the minimum. Further, the Coyote character was in an issue of Animal man nominated for an Eisner Award, which, in terms of comics, is a pretty big deal. If you'd like me to quote more people who worked on Evangelion about how the meaning of that show (being the one that people most often hold up as being particularly religiously symbolic) is either up to the reader or nonexistant I certainly can. I took the one on there from the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)#Religion article, there's about 3 others I can use. As to your questions about Cruciform in Art, I feel that when it's obviously represented as a crucifixion scene with an actual person as compared to an explosion, that it's fine. If you don't believe as such, please feel free to RfC. Until then, drop the stick. --Sothicus (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No need for that last sentence. I'm not angry, and I'm not upset. As I said, this is an alternative to reverting you. If you don't want to answer my question about whether secular material is usable, I can't do anything about that, but I'm not telling you to go away from the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to the several other questions I just answered? When you stack them 5 or 6 deep in a longwinded post, it gets annoying to sift through. That having been said, secular material of a notable nature would be and has been fine. --Sothicus (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My lack of God, do you ever give up? Rebalancing this article away from the typical fancruft that it started out with is not a slightly against Glorious Japan. --Snort Barfly (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[10], [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So... no, you won't. Good to know. --Snort Barfly (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version of this section is much better now. Big thanks to everyone working on this revision. --93.133.247.232 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! We're still working on it, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you taking praise for something that you're working against? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.34.181 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Xanthoxyl, that's a great edit to the music section. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But pro wrestling? Please. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is either a completely failed attempt at joking sarcasm, or you're a hypocrite. --Snort Barfly (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not any dumber than Sailor Moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.66.235 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If you are being serious, and not making some lame attempt at sarcasm, then you should probably look over everything you have said in the past about the various pictures. Considering the effort you put into making sure that said pictures stayed on the page, your comment was incredibly hypocritical. Following what you have said, and all of the rules you've quoted, the wrestling line is as valid as the pictures. --CaramelTrout (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether or not we define Pro Wrestling as some form of performance art - I'm inclined to, in which case it isn't unreasonable to raise it. - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to return some of the context about crucifixion that was recently removed. The context is important to understanding it's use in the art: the assumption on seeing crucifixion in Japanese popular art would be to assume it is there for it's religious imagery, yet the earlier version made it clear both that this is not the case and part of why it is used anyway. The new version keeps the fact that it isn't religious, but says nothing about why it is there anyway. The loss seems significant to a reader's understanding of the topic. - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree to an extent, but I think the sources need to be looked at a bit to make sure we're not taking things out of context. As an example I checked the Susan Napier quote, and it wasn't about crucifixion imagery (but rather about apocalyptic imagery.) as was specified there. --Sothicus (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No hassles - I'd like to chase up the sources too. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Would this go in a performance art section or elsewhere? http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-08-Sat-2003/news/20652083.html Fancy steve (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Crucified wrestlers

Thanks for the ref (sorry for doubts, but we've had some issues.....). Very dramatic picture I'm wondering if it's OK just to link to it, or better to see if a credited copy could be uploaded under a fair use rationale. Thoughts anyone? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for extra ref on the Sandman incident. Given the discussion above about what crucifixion might symbolise, have any of the wrestlers made a comment on what either crucifixion was intended to show? Was it that the one crucified was truly beaten (as in "with a 6-0 scoreline Spurs crucified Arsenal") or was the crucified one shown, messiah like, returning from his defeat? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know how to write it out as well on the talk page but Raven has commented on crucifiying the Sandman, http://bleacherreport.com/articles/280766-crucifixion-angle-between-raven-the-sandman. He used it to insult Sandman from an artistic standpoint. It was theorized that Sandman would return later after the crucifiction to get his revenge but the angle was pulled short, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.7.213 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Where we stand with the page now

So, has Wile E. Coyote been beatified yet? OK, never mind. I want to comment on where we stand with the article at this point, after the recent activity. Actually, the fact is that the page has been significantly improved in several ways, has been fleshed out a lot with respect to music and to recent popular culture, and that's a good thing, really. But, like all things Wikipedian, it is still a work in progress. Now let me make something very clear. I understand the background of the concern about the Japanese material. I really do. In its early days, Wikipedia had an awful lot of unnecessary fancruft about anime, much of which was excessive. As time has gone on, quite a few very good editors (I'm talking about those who work regularly on anime-related pages) have been doing good work to reign it in, and also to reign in excess pop culture trivia lists in general. But a meme has settled in that Wikipedia has become some sort of club for anime-obsessives. I know many people think that. Look, it's described here, along with !helpful hints on vandalism and block avoidance. For serious, responsible editors, the question then becomes, should we go through the Wiki and purge every mention, every occurrence of anime and manga, or should we decrease the content to the point where it is present sufficiently to avoid a parochial Western bias in our content, but not to where it is completely absent. Now, here we can see almost all of the same editors who have come to this page in the past few days, discussing this exact page, in a fashion. They share ideas, support one another, and cheer each other up when they are down. And someone explains very clearly (see, I did read it!) the immediate reason why so many of them came to this page again, at the same time. It was to retaliate against me for having done this (oh, the horror!). Of course, the larger reason was still the concern about the meme, but we have a question about whether this page suffers at the moment from a Western slant.

Take a look at this edit, which currently stands as having removed some of the material in question. There is discussion about it just above, and Bilby is being very polite in asking for the passage to be restored. But look at the edit summary. Is it correct? Is this the correct way to make editorial decisions about content?

I'm pleased that Soth said above that "secular material of a notable nature would be and has been fine". Exactly right, and we agree. I'm also pleased (and grinning from ear to ear) that multiple editors have pointed out that the wrestling and comics material is just as relevant as the Japanese material was. Exactly right, and we agree again. But, logically, if the Western material is just as appropriate as the Japanese material, then the Japanese material is just as appropriate as the Western material. Now, I'm not going to object if we add images of a Western comic and/or a pro-wrestling example, but I do think we need to make sure there is some secondary sourcing if we do more than a brief mention, and we should try not to have lists of examples, following WP:TRIVIA for style. So we now have 8 images on the page, which could go up to 9 or 10 if we add comics or wrestling. Then, if we also add the Fullmetal Alchemist#Manga image, it would be just one, out of 9 or 10 or 11. Is that undue weight? Or is it undue weight to exclude it, making a Western-only page, memes notwithstanding? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a blatant hypocrite. --Snort Barfly (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if the only crucifix on this page is the one you insist on nailing yourself to. This is just the most recent of many times you've complained about SA; whatever happened to, attack the edit, not the editor? You seem to eventually admit that, god forbid, maybe the folks from SA (myself included; them posting the cross that you mysteriously argued was a crucifix was what caused me to return to this article) had a valid point, but you can't let it pass without insulting them again for having some form of bad faith groupthink. You said it right to my face: My edit was bad faith because I've participated in the thread. I don't recall ever accusing you of bad faith editing, although your "Pro wrestling? Please" and your taking credit for the current state of the article, a state which you resisted strenuously, are starting to make me wonder just how good faith your discussion on this talk page has been. I mean, really, this entire post could have omitted the entire first paragraph and it would have the exact same content, about preserving an eastern perspective, or increasing western perspectives in line with it, etc. But no, you had to dig out some more nails. Poor you, being attacked (read: assailed with valid edits, minus the occasional IP who doesn't understand reasonless blanking is a bad thing) again and again. And no, they didn't say it was in retaliation; they're saying, you wanted to bring attention back to yourself. There's a difference between "He did something bad! Let's hit him!", and "He did something in front of us! That reminds me, let's examine what started this fight between him and us to begin with... wait, why is there a cross on this article? There's no reason for that to be there!" The edits on this article were not bad faith "retaliation", no matter how many times you attempt to paint it that way. --Golbez (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How is excluding retarded cartoons "western bias" again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.66.235 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can't describe them other than "retarded" then maybe you shouldn't be posting. Looking through your brief history here, you've been incivil, insulting, and can't seem to discuss anime without sharing how shitty you think it is. That doesn't really get us anywhere. (Am I suffering some kind of cognitive dissonance by accusing someone of being incivil after my post above? Possibly.) --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That said, I still think the Fullmetal Alchemist image box should go in, because it illustrates 1) a crucifixion in manga, and 2) illustrates how said subject matter is altered for western audiences. --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, mainly Golbez, for replying. I appreciate what Golbez says in the last comment, directly above. About me supposedly nailing myself to a cross, wow. I don't feel particularly punished or injured. Rather, I care, a lot, about how Wikipedia makes content decisions, and I'm proud to stand my ground. And I don't follow the reasoning behind "he did something in front of us", so he (I) shouldn't have been making an edit on that page.

(After all, the person at SA did say they had already looked at this page and thought the content was OK, so it was not the case that they only looked here after I made an edit to the SA page, at least some of them if not you. Never in that paragraph did I call Golbez out by name; you are seeing yourself in the link I provided. And you and I just disagree, as a garden-variety content disagreement, about whether crosses, as distinguished from plus-signs, are part of the subject matter of this page. Please don't mischaracterize what I said: I never agreed that it was a valid point to purge all mention of anime from the Wiki. You clearly agree with me on that, but it is far from just an "occasional IP" who tries, again and again, to do so. As for my comment supposedly taking credit for the page, why don't you just think of it as me having a few, I think you call it, lulz? Calm down.)

I think objective editors can count up, in this talk, the actual occurrences of "attacking the editor". But, really, we are making good progress here, and I'm quite optimistic about the future of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you shouldn't have made an edit on the page (though you do appear to have a personal problem with the subject of it); I said, that reminded people to check out what you did. It wasn't a direct cause and effect; the criticism of something that didn't belong on this page (a valid criticism) occurred because people were reminded to check the article. They would have been here anyway; it's just that, that was what caused it to happen at this moment. You did call me out personally: In your edit summary, "Please provide a reasonable explanation at talk instead of just deleting this. The Something Awful motivation is painfully obvious." Offering an 'obvious motivation' for my edit apart from my stated motivation of 'this doesn't belong here' (a motivation shared by many others and challenged repeatedly by you) is a blatant accusation of bad faith. --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're actually making good progress here on the substance, so let me try to see it from your perspective. I'm sorry if what I said, to you specifically, made you, specifically, feel attacked. If I made you feel that way, I apologize to you, specifically, for it. I hope you can move past saying that I "have a personal problem with the subject of it", and we can make substantive improvements to the page, and in so doing, get past the reflexive blanking of the content by some editors, and the "you are a blatant hypocrite" by some editors as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Subject Headers

I think the biggest problem with this page now, besides the rather lacking sections, is just the general flow and organization of the article. It literally makes no sense the way it is right now.

Right now, it's organized like this.

1. Early Depictions
2. Christian Art
3. Modern Art
4. Popular Art
5. Film and Television
6. Music
   1. Classical Music
   2. Popular Music

The organization of this article is all over the place. We have two completely different styles of organizing the information, first we have "Early Depictions" which suggests to the reader of the article that it's going to be organized chronologically, but then it switches immediately to "Christian Art", "Modern Art", and "Popular Art", which suggest that it's going to be ordered by genre.

The "Christian Art", "Early Depictions" (which contains one example which seems to be older art), and "Modern Art" I think could probably go under one major subheading of simply "Art" with each of the headings as they exist now possibly being subheadings of this, similar to the way that music is organized now.

The "Popular Art" section is especially terrible right now, I'm not even sure what "Popular Art" is supposed to imply. I would assume that it means popular works of art with crucifixion imagery in them, but right now the section contains... a propaganda poster and anime. This has to change, it is completely awful the way it is now.

I suggest a complete reworking to the flow of the article. I propose it flow like this:

1. Art
   1. "Classical" Art (There's probably a better word for this)
   2. Modern Art
   3. Etc.
2. Film and Television (Anime being pushed to this section)
   1. Television
   2. Film
3. Literature (It's appalling that there isn't a literature section yet, for that matter) (Manga would be pushed to here)
4. Music
   1. Classical Music
   2. Popular Music (This ALSO has to be renamed, something like "popular" music seems incredibly POV to me.)

Obviously I only thought of this just now, but I think you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

--ChewyLSB (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular Music could probably be better named as Modern music. Manga and anime are pretty well intertwined (since one traditionally begats the other, either way.) so I can't see splitting them up. A classical art section would allow for adding this, to showcase a eastern perspective. At present we really don't have a particular spot I would feel comfortable in putting it.--Sothicus (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. Perhaps, then, it would be better to separate the article based on geographic region instead of by genre. I feel like having an "Anime/Manga" section as a "base" section would give it undue weight, as that would suggest that Anime and Manga are their own genre separate from "Television" and "Literature". --ChewyLSB (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could put it under the etc. section, or possibly establish some sort of non-christian nation section (though obviously not quite that wordy.) for mention. All in all I like your rework more than the current layout. I'll take a look at some other articles to get a general vibe , then, unless there's anyone particularly against it, I'm of the opinion we can go ahead and change it up. --Sothicus (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and followed up on it (I didn't find a whole lot directly relating to our particular situation, which is unfortunate.). Graphic novels is the odd man out in art until a literature section is well established, then I think we can go ahead and move it over there. --Sothicus (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think this has been very good, with the caveat that modern art and popular art are not really the same thing (ie, advertisements are not modern art), so I made that correction. I'll also point out that, although the page as a whole is called "Crucifixion in art", we now have only one section of the page about "art". Something that was raised earlier in this talk was to rename the page to "Crucifixion in the arts". Given that the music section does seem to be taking hold here, maybe that rename merits a closer look. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern music

An editor claims that I am wikilawering to say that the section called modern music should be called modern popular music, or just popular music. Not true. The editor cites Modern music as a source. That is a disambiguation page. It says that "modern music" encompasses a list of things, one of which is popular music, and readers looking for modern music pages may want to go to the page on popular music if that is what they are looking for. It is not a source for saying modern music equals popular music. Just follow through to any of the other pages on that dab page, and you will see that they deal with things that are nothing like what is in this section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering all claims in Modern music are from the 21st century, or the 20th (Barring mention in Modernism (music) of early modernism in the 1890's.), and further considering that all mentions in the section in question are also from this century or the last one, I think it's hard to argue against saying that a chronological intention is there, especially factoring in the newer layout of the page. If you'd like to subdivide the section in question into Modern Popular and Modern Classical, I would welcome the expansion. Until such time being, however, I can't see titling the section Modern popular music. Doing as such is just hunting for technicalities. --Sothicus (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be accurate. That's neither wikilawyering not hunting for technicalities. My thinking is that there is an awful lot of music that would, indeed, be part of "Modern Classical" that the section does not by any means include in this form. That's not criticizing anyone else's edits, just trying to make the choice of words better. Would "Contemporary music" be better? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant to have Modern Popular, unless we have Modern Classical to go with it. While I can understand that you want to be accurate, I feel it's excessive detail. Of course, if you can find some other articles with similar specific naming conventions, or a style manual article on the subject, I'd love to see it. In keeping with classical art and modern art, however, (which you didn't raise any objections to), I feel that it's best to stick with Modern music, as there's no POV issues (as ChewyLSB mentioned.) and it's inclusive of all music created in the 20th and 21st century, something that Contemporary Music can't lay claim to. --Sothicus (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, not that big a deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A related point does occur to me, though. Nothing in that section is actually about music. It's all things about album cover art, video images, and visual stage performances. Just a thought: "Modern musical performances"??? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this issue would benefit from a second look. Does it really make sense to call the section "Modern music", as opposed to "Popular music"? Considering the presence of late-twentieth century music in the "Classical music" section, it's hard to argue that "modernity" is the defining feature. It seems to me that the earlier decision was made in an atmosphere of personalizing the issue, and maybe now we can move beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

-- Looks better, in fact the entire article is starting to look decent. Good work everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenelburrito (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 February 2010

Renaming the page

Per previous discussion on the matter, as the article expands, I think it's natural that the name changes slightly to reflect the content we are, or soon will be, presenting. Male prostitution in the arts, Chess in the arts and literature, and The Holocaust in art and literature are three different examples of ways we can change the name. I'd like to hear opinions on what would be the best.

1. Crucifixion in the arts
2. Crucifixion in the arts and literature
3. Crucifixion in art and literature

are three that all strike me as being good. I was considering Crucifixion (Arts), but it seems that articles titled in that way are artistic movements. Of course, if there are any other suggestions, or opposing viewpoints to changing the name, I'm eager to hear them.--Sothicus (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, "in art and literature" sounds like it would be the most pleasing and accurate. But it's more cumbersome than "in art" and would be a bit harder to find. Plus "art and literature" IMO is redundant; also IMO, article titles should be kept as short as practically possible. Not much would be lost by trimming "and literature". As for "in the arts", that just sounds odd and unintuitive; someone would probably search for "crucifixion in art" but I can't see them sitting down and typing "crucifixion in the arts". I could be wrong, of course. And "in the arts and literature" is like both of the things to dislike about the above options rolled into one. ZS 14:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much if it's cumbersome or hard to find, we can just make some redirects. So if someone is looking for "Crucifixion in art", we could redirect that to "Crucifixion in art and literature" or whatever we name the page. Gary (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we are discussing this. As Gary correctly says, it's easy to redirect alternative names to this page. And in fact, when we rename the page, the old name, "Crucifixion in art", automatically becomes a redirect to the new name. I think it would be a good idea (and very easy) to make a redirect from all of the possible names discussed here to the actual name we settle upon. So, for example, if we name the page "Crucifixion in the arts", and someone instead types "Crucifixion in art" or "Crucifixion in art and literature" into the search box, it will bring them seamlessly to the right place.

That said, I do want to make a case for "Crucifixion in the arts". Once we start listing things, like literature and so forth, it becomes a matter of how much to list. Music is becoming a meaningful part of the page, and music is "an art", but it is not what most people think of as "art" (visual art), and is certainly not literature. The way things are developing, I think it is unlikely that we will fork off separate pages on "Crucifixion in art", "Crucifixion in music", "Crucifixion in television", "Crucifixion in literature", and so on, but "in the arts" is fairly simple, and covers it all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So with these opinions in mind, I'm thinking "in the arts" would most succinctly cover us, with redirects set up for Crucifixion in Literature, Music, and any other section that gets large enough to warrant it.--Sothicus (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality

Overall, a scattered, mostly half finished and unfocused article... needs a quality tag. Also many statements are reference free. As is, crucifixion of the arts is a more apt title. History2007 (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you really justified the first of the two tags you put at the top of the page, so I reverted it, but I agree that the page remains unfinished, and that some sections need much more referencing. I think Johnbod did an excellent job of expanding the art section, and I thank him for that. (I also note, parenthetically, that the expansion includes considerable discussion of cross imagery in art, quite appropriately.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You can NOT revert a quality tag, but must address it. This article is junk at best. John did well, but it is still crucifying the subject. Half finished sections, missing key art items, etc. Issued warning to you too my dear. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not your "dear". I'm perfectly willing to accept your restoration of the tag, but that could have been accomplished without the sarcasm from an editor who has done nothing to improve the content of the page, and with a more specific and constructive explanation of what you suggest be done to improve it. And you were mistaken to completely revert all of my edits, as a minor edit, no less. Or are you under the impression that WP:MOS does not call for em-dashes as the preferred style? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the comment on your talk page, the tag is partly there to invite other editors to improve it. So it must remain there. This is a vast art topic and just the surface has been scratched, and somewhat randomly. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting your reversion of the earlier edits. I've already said that I have no objection to retaining the tag you have restored. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. This is a vast topic handled by multiple masters from Raphael to Rembrandt, as well as untold of semi-artists and modern "would be artists". So it will really takes months of research to even begin to address it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

In thread 13 above, Golbez wrote:

That said, I still think the Fullmetal Alchemist image box should go in, because it illustrates 1) a crucifixion in manga, and 2) illustrates how said subject matter is altered for western audiences. --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We are talking here about this image pair, modified by removing the close-ups to just show the crucifixions, and putting the Japanese original on the left, the Western version on the right. If added, it would be one image out of 15 on the page (only 7%). Obviously I agree with this, whereas there have not been any subsequent comments in this talk disagreeing with Golbez.

Question: Do any editors want to make arguments (within policy) disagreeing with what Golbez said? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're going to have some manga image that's by far the least objectionable so far. I do think that saying it's "only 7%" is a bit misleading, though, because even though that seems like a small percentage it is still probably an order of magnitude or two larger than manga's actual importance in art as a whole and certainly when it comes to crucifixion in particular.64.252.124.196 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your point about the percentage is a valid one, but then we run into related issues about all of the popular culture material. If I understand correctly, though, that argument still accepts the two points that Golbez made. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see how anybody could argue that it doesn't show a crucifixion in manga or that it doesn't show how the subject is altered for western audiences, so I'm not really sure what you're asking me to agree with. I am somewhat curious as to why the page needs an "eastern perspective" on what is, on it's face, a western topic. It was a western form of capital punishment and features prominently in western religions. Even the main Crucifixion page claims that it only got to Japan via "the introduction of Christianity to the region." As pointed out several times it generally only works it's way into manga and anime because it 'looks cool' or adds something 'mysterious.' Some actual traditional Japanese art depicting crucifixion seems much, much more appropriate for this type of page. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me just self-correct here and say that what I mean by "why the page needs an "eastern perspective"" is why it needs it so badly that something that is fairly irrelevant needs to be shoehorned in. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for discussing this thoughtfully. First, where you ask what I'm asking, what it comes down to is whether editors are going to object etc. if the image were to be added. It's unclear to me how this would be accurately described as a "shoehorn", any more than Wile E. Coyote, Steve Austin, or Tupac Shakur would be. Didn't such imagery only get to the Americas, and, for that matter, northern Europe, via "the introduction of Christianity to the region"? Are northern European depictions, then, "fairly irrelevant"? And let's correct that inaccuracy about "looking cool." The quotes in question are from anime, not manga, where this proposed image comes from. There was reliably-sourced material from secondary scholarly sources recently on the page that showed that use in manga iconography was not as simple-minded as "looking cool". That material was deleted by someone claiming that it had been added "by accident" and marking it as a minor edit. Another editor, not me, objected to that deletion, but we have been courteous enough not to re-revert it until this talk here progresses further. I would argue that the very fact that the imagery gets altered for Western audiences, and the very fact that it elicits such resistance in discussion here, is actually a very good reason for Wikipedia to include an Eastern perspective, however briefly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do yourself(and me) a favor and stop "thanking" people for discussing things thoughtfully as if you're the only one capable of coherent thought. It's incredibly patronizing. When I said I didn't know what you were asking me to agree to I was quite clearly talking about when you asked me about the two points Golbez made. There is literally nothing to disagree with there as the two points are simple factual observations. Furthermore, when you claim that "the very fact that it elicits such resistance in discussion here, is actually a very good reason for Wikipedia to include an Eastern perspective" you are in effect saying that it needs to be on the page because you think it needs to be on the page. If that were true the only way for it to not be included on the page would be if you stopped arguing for it otherwise either 1) people stop arguing against you and it is added or 2) people continue to argue against you and you have 'proven' it's worthy of inclusion because of the resistance. Two minutes of googling turned up http://www.ssplprints.com/image.php?imgref=10421339 which is a mid 19th century drawing of a crucifixion. Something like that is what belongs on the page, not comic books.

As far as your comment that "Wile E. Coyote, Steve Austin, or Tupac Shakur" are equally shoehorned in, congratulations that's exactly my point. None of that belongs on the page either, but it's certainly not going to disappear if the bar for inclusion is set by anime. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It was never my intention to be patronizing, rather, I was reacting to the simple reality that many commenters in this talk have adopted a tone like yours now (or worse), rather than like yours prior to now, which had been very helpful. The Wile E., etc., material was added by some of the editors who had been arguing that the Japanese material should be deleted, so you and I are agreeing that there should not be a lower bar for one than for the other. As for "you are in effect saying that it needs to be on the page because you think it needs to be on the page", that's utter nonsense. I'm saying that it can be on the page because it is sourced and it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Ironically, your own argument now sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why do you keep calling manga anime? You were a lot more persuasive before you lost your temper. The image you found is an interesting one, though, although on face value, it just looks like a guy tied up against a wall prior to beheading, rather than on something resembling a cross. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I keep calling anime either anime or cartoons and I keep calling manga either manga or comic books because that's what they are. They don't belong here because as I said above, they are on the whole relatively unimportant to art as a whole and certainly to art as it pertains to crucifixion. As for my argument, about your circular logic: it is, in fact, purely based on the logic you presented. If there being a large amount of resistance on a talk page is enough to show it is worth of inclusion, literally anyone can argue anything onto any page by simply relentlessly arguing for it then pointing out what a stir it has created, it must be worth attention.

As far as people arguing against your anime/manga inclusions but including wrestling and Wile E Coyote? If I had to guess I'd say they were trying to prove a point. How you can argue for one and against the other is entirely beyond me. As I said above, none of it belongs here. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm arguing for one and not the other? I'm arguing for both, and drawing attention to the hypocrisy of some who argued for the "other" and not for the "one". (And you make an interesting point about WP:POINT.) I was making a point of my own (but in talk) when I pointed out the stir it created here. On the other hand, there were secondary sources (now temporarily deleted) discussing the alteration of the images for the West, and they do, indeed, seem to me and to other editors to reflect a notable fact, one that is worth including for perspective. You had said that anime was "setting the bar", when the material being discussed is manga. In any case, you seem to be making the somewhat reasonable case that pretty much all of the popular culture material should be removed. So to my original question, if I understand you correctly in that regard, then will you argue that the manga image should be reverted if it is added, while nevertheless retaining the other material, or will you accept the image so long as the other popular culture material also remains? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing it should all be gone because it's insignificant trivia. I'm not "accepting" anything, I'm saying it all needs to go to make any kind of respectable article about crucifixion in the arts. If you agree I'm making a reasonable argument, why would your solution be to increase the amount of insignificant material rather than decrease it or at worst keep it where it is.

Just look at how much effort has been put into both sides of this? Don't you think at least SOME of the actual significant major pieces of art that deal with crucifixion could have been covered if people didn't have to sit around banging their heads against the wall over something like this? Look at the word count on this page vs the actual article. Before this edit the talk page has 26,624 words on it, the vast majority of which pertain to an argument over anime and manga. The actual article is only 3,137 words in total. That's over 8 words here for every word on the main page and most of it is only about a handful of those words. Why not just let it go, actually improve the article instead of crusading to give more attention to what is really a piece of minutia when compared to the other two thousand years of attention the topic has gotten from artists.64.252.124.196 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you might be the person who has counted talk page word counts in the past; it's hard to tell from just an IP number. If so, you also pointed out previously that anime is often just directed at selling stuff to kids, but manga can sometimes be more notable. (If I'm wrong, sorry.) The answer to your question about why I don't let it go is that Wikipedia is not censored (not that I claim that you, personally, are trying to censor it, but others have been). In any case, please drop the nonsense about me not "actually improv[ing] the article". I've added more constructive content than just about anyone else. I agreed that you made a "somewhat reasonable" argument, not that I actually would delete all the pop culture material from the page myself, when there appears not to be consensus to do so. So, again, please correct me if I misunderstand, but I think I understand you to say that, although you disagree with all such content, you are not taking the position that the manga image, if added, should be deleted while retaining everything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you guessed wrong cause I'm not even sure what discussion you are referring to. To call my argument censorship is incredibly offensive. Censorship is excluding something because you don't like what it's saying. Censorship is certainly not excluding something because it has almost no impact on the subject as a whole. Showing the difference in the publications with this particular image would have a lot of merit if it wasn't self-imposed. In this case all it shows is a particular eastern idea of what the western reaction to an image might be, which I think is just too many levels of abstraction to be worthwhile here.

Honestly, though, either way I'm tired of arguing. Put your picture on the page, fill it with whatever trivia you like, but I give up. My will to argue with someone who absolutely insists on including manga before other works of obvious importance is gone. I guess this means you win. Congrats on turning on turning me off to attempting to improve wikipedia. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to carry on a reasoned discussion with someone who frames things in terms of the editor instead of the content, and who mis-states the facts. "Before other works of obvious importance"? Check the edit history to see who added almost all of the images now on the page, and who, before Johnbod (who knows way more about the subject than I do) got here, researched and wrote most of what was then the "Christian art" section. Did I call your argument censorship? What part of "not that I claim that you, personally, are trying to censor it, but others have been" did you not understand? If, at the end of all this, the argument against allowing the image to be on the page is that some editors think I have spent too much space in this talk arguing for it, well, then that is not a content-based argument, and should not determine the decision. Because I don't edit war, I'm going to wait longer for other editors to comment here before I decide whether to add the image to the page, but, at this point, the weight of the argument appears to support adding it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew I shouldn't have checked to see what you'd say. You've spent your time and focus arguing over pictures. Pictures are not what the bulk of the content should be. Pictures do a lot less to improve articles than you think they do. Go research the prior influences and later works that were influenced by Michael Angelo's treatment of the crucifixion of Jesus and you will find things that have actually influenced artists. Paste in a picture of what a comic book writer thought would sell better in America than his original version did in Japan and what have you actually shown? That some guy(or more accurately some corporation) thought he could sell more if he got rid of the direct crucifixion imagery? Keep referencing your vanity press and give all the weight you want to people who once did a guest lecture at some community college but in reality your crusade to shove anime and manga down wikipedia's throat only serves to weaken the site. You are literally allowing some perceived persecution to put you in the role of the fanboy who cannot admit that a work that is even by modern standards pretty much unknown to the average person is not worth including in an encyclopedia article. You are the definition of tunnel vision. Enjoy your "What's important to me is important to the whole world" wikipedia. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to make comments directly addressed to me, you should not be surprised when I reply. And you are, now, saying pretty much verbatim what you previously said from another IP address. No, I've done a lot of research and content addition to this page, as well as to many others. No, that publisher was not a vanity press, as has been clearly explained in this talk before, and just repeating that untruth does not make it true. Actually, the fact that something is "pretty much unknown to the average person" (or at least to the average person in the West), is in no way an argument against inclusion in an encyclopedia. Anyway, amid all of your name-calling, there is nothing in your arguments any more that speaks, substantively, to the merits of the content, so it remains the case that there continues to be no real argument on the editorial merits against what I, Golbez, and others, have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not know what Manga was, ignorant me. I had been looking at Rubens all these years thinking that was art... sigh. History2007 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to be sarcastic, take a look at the Western comic books and pro wrestling while you're at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I really did not know what manga was. But I will skip on pro-wrestling... too far out for me. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, until editors started showing up at Wikipedia appearing hell-bent on purging all mention of it, neither did I! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There you go: Wikipedia, the source of artistic wisdom. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And information! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I and other editors are going out of our way to give any editors who would like to comment the opportunity to do so. Any more comments here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Structure

I added a brief mention of Stabat Mater, and that pointed out that the images are not grouped, e.g. two of them were in that theme. Then I realized that the art/images have not even been separated by category e.g. paintings, sculpture, sacramentals/amulates etc. Apart from crucifixes there are various medals I think. That needs to be done. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we really do need a lot of expansion along those lines. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pietro Lorenzetti, Assisi Basilica, 1310-1329

Examples of items not here are: [12] [13] They are clearly different items.

And I think frecoes need to be separated and dealt with - no mention of them here.

And of course, Stations of the cross are a key element of Crucifixion art.... no discussion yet.

And when does crucifixion end? E.g. is Descent from the cross part of this art? I think it clearly is. How about lamentation? Yes, given that Pieta is mentioned, that is in too, so this exceptional Pietro Lorenzetti must come in.... and the list goes on... Now I guess the reasons for my comments are becoming more concrete... In fact the stages must be clearly broken out and discussed, e.g. descent vs lamentation etc. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very receptive to that. Fyi, when there was discussion here about a previous manga image, there were vociferous complaints that it was only a cross, and not exactly a crucifix or crucifixion, so I don't know how that will play with respect to the various stages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stabat Mater is irrelevant to this page. It's about Crucifixion in general, not the Crucifixion of Jesus. Religious SPAs like History2007 should keep this in mind when contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.16 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IP from Arizona, you should be careful whom you accuse of personal attacks. History2007, welcome to my world. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for crying wolf, Tryptofish, but SPA is not a personal attack, and it's clear to anyone who takes a look at his contributions that he only edits religious articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.16 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As he or she has every right to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no one said otherwise. You need to calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.16 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's news to me that "The Stabat Mater is irrelevant to this page. It's about Crucifixion in general, not the Crucifixion of Jesus." At all stages of its history, the article has been at least 95% about art either directly concerning the Crucifixion of Jesus, or clearly copying/parodying or otherwise related to it. I doubt (without knowing the manga stuff) if "Crucifixion in the arts, excluding Jesus" would be notable at all. I know of no Roman art, other than Christian-related, that shows it at all, & I doubt there is any. Clearly the Stabat Mater is highly relevant. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This Ip needs to be blocked and edits deleted to allow us to focus on the structure discussion. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnbod, of course you are right. History, sorry you've gotten caught in this. Don't worry about deleting the edits; that's been the history of this talk. If you wonder where some of the IPs are coming from, see the top comment by me at #Where we stand with the page now, and follow the links. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is a split from Crucifixion, which once again discusses Crucifixion as a general concept and not the specific Crucifixion of Jesus. As shown by the anime section as well as things like "Piss Christ", there is quite a bit of Crucifixion imagery that does not include Jesus. Since you seem to be a primarily religion focused editor as well from your contribution history, Johnbod, I implore you as well as History2007 to be aware of your own biases when contributing to this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.16 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So Piss Christ is not "either directly concerning the Crucifixion of Jesus, or clearly copying/parodying or otherwise related to it" as I carefully put it above? The name is an odd coincidence then, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's art about crucifixion, which is why it's relevant to this page. The specifics of the Crucifixion of Jesus, which are most of what History2007 intends to add, are not. Additionally, your sarcasm is neither warranted nor constructive.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.16 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least this IP isn't arguing against the manga material (on the grounds that it is UNDUE to include non-Western material). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything much about the manga material, but since the Japanese were, by about 1,000 years, the last actually to use crucifixion (when persecuting Christians) there may well be a case for a certain amount of coverage. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)