Talk:Manichaean Painting of the Buddha Jesus
Appearance
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bias/specificity
[edit]This article seems largely a summary of one of the sources, namely Zsuzsanna Gulácsi, “A Manichaean Portrait of the Buddha Jesus: Identifying a Twelfth-Thirteenth-century Chinese Painting from the Collection of Seiun-ji Zen Temple.” Artibus Asiae 69/1 (2009): 91-145.
While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does assume Zsuzsanna Gulácsi's assessment is incontroversible. But has the consensus been such that this painting is so certainly Manichaean that it deserves the page title to be thus adjectified? I address real academics.
Could this article be named "Seiunji Temple Painting of Buddha Jesus" or "Painting of crucifer Buddha" to avoid the weight of "Manichaean" before the article argues for it???