Crucifixion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is structured very heavily in favour of Jesus of Nazareth. He wasn’t the only person to be crucified. Can’t we restructure it to explain what crucifixion is and how it works? And then focus on famous individuals or groups? Otherwise we get this Christian prejudice which distorts discussion of the issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wierd. Have you actually read it? There is actually very little on Jesus, although his is almost the only specific crucifixion of which we have early accounts. Of course his has its own article. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - are we reading the same article? I think all of the images (at least until half way through) are Christ on the cross. The early sections are peppered with references to thew New Testament and first century Palestine. Is the crucifixion of the Nazarene Jesus, really the earliest description anywhere of this form of death? Is his death described anywhere other than the religious texts produced by the early christian community? If - as you say - there is a separate article about the death of Jesus of Nazareth, then maybe this article could do with a good prune back.Contaldo80 (talk) 05:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image in "society and law" (or how is it called) is not relevant to the theme, especially when used as a double image. Why do you need a doubled carricature of old timee with some old title there?
I agree with Dimadick: as the earliest potential depiction of Christian crucifixion, it's certainly relevant to any historical discussion on this subject.
With respect to the claim that the image is "blasphemous", see WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." TJRC (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response:
Firstly, the image is not seemingly relevant to the section or part it was placed in.
Then, why do you quote wp guidelines as the truth or nearest thing to verifiability? Wikipedia has egoistic features (and how does it dare claim it's not a bereaucracy!), it wants us to think thst its rules are a law or the most important thing.
Thirdly, it says "verifiability, not truth", standing on reliable sources so-called! Then cnn, for you, is verifiably reliable one, msnbc also, the Bible not for them!
Question: how can i verify that wikipedia guidelines are reliable ones?
It may not even belong to the article on crucifixion in general, because there is a special page devoted to the death of Jesus!
Additionally, the image for me, despite the inscriptions, does not appear to be a first depiction of Jesus crucified — but instead that image depicts some donkey... Even not for Christians, how could some donkey be the Lamb of the Lord our God (capitalized)? 88.155.37.194 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have already responded on the appropriateness of the image to this article. In your prior response, you changed to suggesting it was maybe in the wrong section, which is something I at least am open to considering as a potential improvement; hence my question. TJRC (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't have too much of a problem with moving it there; the image's value is historical, and doesn't really serve to elucidate process. @Dimadick:, what do you think?
Also, when I took a look at this I saw that portions of the "History" section really belong in the "Process" section. I'll have a closer look at this and start a more detailed separate discussion later today. TJRC (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Although not conclusive evidence for female crucifixion by itself, the most ancient image of a Roman crucifixion may depict a crucified woman, whether real or imaginary."
Came to this Article asking the question "Did the Romans crucify women?" and while that question is sort of weakly answered "Yes", this meandering oddball of a point is non-sequitor for many reasons, first and foremost because it doesn't really say anything, i.e. "may depict". And so what? I might have a billion dollars in the bank, too. People come to Wikipedia for information, not meandering maybes. If say for example the Article took the question head-on and said "We think so but there's no hard evidence." and then it gave this weak, spineless and not-informative dab of not-information, they yeah sure maybe it flows, but if the Article is going to hang it's hat on this stupid little sentence, it should be zapped and replaced with something more concrete.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:BC56:A5DE:FF60:645D (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand in a way, yet I don't, that the (Crucifixion Hoax) propaganda campaign against Ze Germans is featured in this article, with even a poster. This sort of dehumanizing misinformation sadly persists in one form or another to this day. But the fact-checked conclusion is that Ze Germans did not in fact do this. I suppose it is noteworthy more in what it says about the spreaders of this false information and deserves a Wikipedia write-up but it struck me as odd that it was in this article. I wonder if the propaganda image ought not to carry a stronger caption denouncing the perpetrators of that hoax? But I'm not sure. I will leave it to better minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.51.67.232 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
