Talk:Cruciform

message: I removed the section about Washington DC for the following reasons:
# Dubious factuality.
## No evidence is submitted to suggest that the city plan was meant to resemble a crucifix.
## Given the cardinal direction layout of Washington, this is very possibly a coincidence.
## it's not even perfectly symetrical.
## Two parts of the alleged crucifix were constructed almost 100 years after other parts.
## The roman didn't even pierce Jesus in the heart!
# The supposed crucifix of Washington DC isn't even "non-religious."
# It was a poor way to demonstrate an architectural concept that has non-arbitrary meaning.
:::Cool Hand Luke 08:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington D.C. city layout

message: It is mentioned that Bach often used cruciform melodies. It would be worth mentioning that he also used it in large music forms, most noteworthy in the Credo section of his B minor mass, where even the "crucifixus" movement is in the center. It is also used in his motet Jesu meine Freunde. (Aria against aria, chorus against chorus etc.)
Apus 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruciform music 

message: Dan Simmons' Hyperion series has parasitic cruciforms. Should this be included in the article? --Khokkanen 03:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruciforms in Hyperion 

message: This article lacks any citations. It seems inadvisable to cite "Doctor Who" trivia in this article, for reasons of relevancy and general utility. 76.23.157.102 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics 

message: I think this page should have an image. Atheuz (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: Should cruciform passage graves be mentioned in this article? 185.99.139.46 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruciform tombs 

message: I came here to note that this page could use a clarification that the term generally refers to a cross in the generic sense of a right-angled intersection of two lines, not the Christian crucifix, but after reviewing some sources I think I might have come to the opposite conclusion! At very least, it is a bit muddled.
Cruciform is uniformly defined as referring to the shape of a cross. But what cross?
Wiktionary lists the "geometrical figure" sense as the first definition of cross, then its use in Heraldry (implicitly Christian), then the Roman execution device and finally in 4th the particular crucifix on which Jesus was hung. But it also says: 
    "The sense of "two intersecting lines drawn or cut on a surface; two lines intersecting at right angles" without regard to religious signification develops from the late 14th century."
ie., this generic sense is a relatively modern development; I'm not sure what criteria Wiktionary uses to decide this should be listed first.
The OED agrees on the history of cross, and in fact cites the sense of the specific Crucifix on which Jesus was nailed as the oldest meaning, cited to the 1200s. For definitions they list the general execution device first, then the Christian connotation, and indeed a wealth of other Christian meanings (including the symbol when used as a sign of Christianity) before the geometric sense (II.11.a.), which has its earliest citation to 1400.
Webster's also lists the execution device first, then various Christian meanings, with the geometrical sense coming in 6th.
While I'm inclined to quibble that the Latin root of both words, cruciformis/crux, did refer to the crucifix device but also had the general meaning, it seems clear that it was originally imported to English foremost for its application in the Christian faith. OED traces cruciform back only to 1600, and while the oldest citation is an anatomical description, I would conclude from cultural context and the term being long-established then that the Christian cross was likely the referent.
Further, as OED and Webster both define cruciform something like "Of the form of a cross," without specifying any other sense, I have to conclude they are referring to the primary definition, ie. the execution device.
Yet there is one more interesting wrinkle: in the architectural sense, OED provides another definition:
    "of a church built in the form of a cross"
So I have to conclude: aside from Wiktionary, it seems consensus that the Roman/Christian wooden construction is the primary referent; and furthermore in architecture describing anything other  than a Christian church as cruciform is simply erroneous. While I have a hunch that modern usage generally bends towards the geometric definition, I don't know how you would demonstrate that aside from asking what was in a writer's head when they used it (I don't think I've yet encountered anything like "the water pipes meet in a cross, with the cold line on the arm board."). I do wonder if the term meets less favor in non-Christian communities? Walkersam (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Non?-)Christian Etymology