Well, we are often being told that the 13 year olds that write articles cause a massive distortion of content towards popular culture trivialisation of serious accademic subjects. Here is perhaps the worst example I've come across (pardon the pun there - "a cross" - get it?).

An article on crucifixion , which is a serious topic in history, classics, religion, and no doubt medicine.

Into this article goes, naturally, details of ..... "episode 74 of the Sailor Moon R series"

And a full RfC on its appropriateness here

Now, a word about the "Life of Brian" is forgiveable here, but really?

Can anyone find a worse example of such obsessive trivial banality?

Thank for for that one. The section below is on "Famous crucifixions" - "In the best-known case, the Crucifixion of Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth was condemned to crucifixion". Words fail.

From the talk page

good idea.

I feel like there have been enough depictions in media of crucifixion that an article Crucifixion in the arts would be the best place to present all the tagalongs of movies, anime, paintings, etc. Leaving the main article for the physical aspects of crucifixion, history, and the legal status would be the best situation.

Depends on what you believe in, I guess.


One could suggest ghettoizing this to [[Crucifixion in fiction]] (or "crucifiction" if you will, pardon the pun) but that would arguably beg the question. Maybe [[Crucifixion in contemporary fiction]] would be better.

I respect that you might disagree but I think the fact that religious connotations of this plot device are strong enough for American distributors to censor it from a cartoon is certainly worth mentioning somewhere. Similarly the producers of Tupac's posthumous album felt the need to include a lip-service disclaimer denying that they meant to offend evangelicals.

I haven't seen the Life of Brian, but I understand it met a similar self-righteous outcry despite being screwball comedy. I doubt I could find it at the local video shop—I do know they refused to carry Scorsese's take on Jesus. Yet at the same time networks can broadcast the ultra-gory Mel Gibson epic (with limited commercial interruption), as long as they black out a couple lines from the dialogue caption.



Well thank you Google Earth…

Shouldn't a mod move this to "Articles" before Jon Awbrey posts an angry emoticon?

The discussion was about banality and triviality, rather than about a particular article.

Yeah, but it was coherent. I think that disqualifies it from these parts.

Quoted in the anime section: she "looked good crucified, so we crucified her."

Then watch the cycle of AfD, delete pop article, main article gets triva...wash and repeat...

This is real class: