Talk:Agusan image

Proposal to rename the page "Golden Image of Agusan" or "Agusan Golden Image"
I have already added information in the "Identity of the Golden Image of Agusan" section regarding the disputes that surround the identification of the goddess behind the statue itself. H. Otley Beyer suggested that it is a female Sivaite goddess while Juan R. Francisco proposed that it is a Buddhist Tara instead, although admitting that his suggestions "are not conclusive". Meanwhile, in the book "Philippine Ancestral Gold" by Capistrano-Baker mentioned that the figurine is correctly identified as the goddess Vajralāsyā and not the Buddhist Tara. In light of the ongoing debates regarding the identity of the gold statue, I suggest renaming it to "Golden Image of Agusan" or "Agusan Gold Image", also because more neutral academic articles tend to name the image as such (like for example in the article of Juan R. Francisco itself, naming the image "Golden Image of Agusan" instead of "Golden Tara") as per the WP:NPOV guidelines. I also removed the nonsensical phrase added by 112.208.164.149 that "when it was purchased by the Field Museum of Chicago, they renamed it as Agusan Gold Image, though this name is rejected by scholars in the Philippines." as this bogus claim remained unsourced since the conception of this Wiki page. I'd like the opinion of other Wiki editors who left their footprint in this Wiki page regarding my proposal: Kguirnela, Continentaleurope, Frobird, Gunkarta, Enola gay0, Alternativity, Darwgon0801, and many others that I may have missed. Stricnina (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it's more well-known in the Philippines as simply "Golden Tara". I think Filipinos searching for this article might be confused. But yeah, as long as it fits the standards of Wikipedia, I'm down for that. And since you also mentioned that it's disputed whether it is a Sivaite goddess or Buddhist Tara, it adds the points that it should be renamed. - Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would not recommend renaming the article just yet; although if further academic inquiry or fora determines a more proper nomenclature for the golden image (ie. WP:RS), my opinion may change. We have to keep in mind the use of commonly recognizable names for article titles. If we take a peek at Google Trends and compare "Golden Tara" against "Agusan golden image", it becomes apparent that the most common recognizable name for this object is "Golden Tara": https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Golden%20Tara,Agusan%20golden%20image. In the interest of not confusing users searching for this article, I guess it is best to keep the present article title. &mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak! 08:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - After catching up on reading the latest material added to the article, I am now in favor of renaming the article to "Agusan gold figure".&mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak! 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, . Before proceeding with the renaming, I'd like to know why you propose "Agusan gold figure" instead of "Agusan golden image". I am more partial to the term "Agusan golden image" only because I have seen the term used by at least three sources in Google Books:


 * "The Golden Image of Agusan. This artifact known as the "Agusan Golden Image" is probably the figure of a female deity"

- Bauddha Dharmankur Sabha


 * "The extent of such influences is revealed by the archeological artifacts found in different islands, far apart from each other. A few significant ones are the Agusan Golden Image found on the left bank of the Wawa River in Agusan province of Mindanao[...]"

- K.S. Sandhu, A. Mani


 * "Agusan Golden Image (Found in Agusan River and now located at the Field Museum in Chicago, Illinois, USA) (Courtesy of Butuan Museum)"

- Ray L. Burdeos


 * Meanwhile Juan R. Francisco calls the image either the "Golden Image of Agusan" (as evident in the title of his paper "A Note on the Golden Image of Agusan (1963)") or "Agusan Gold Image":


 * "PERHAPS one of the most spectacular discoveries in Philippine archeological history is the golden image known as the "Agusan Gold Image""

- Juan R. Francisco


 * Other more recent scholars like Florina Capistrano-Baker, Roderick Orlina and Joefe B. Santarita just calls the image either "Vajralasya", or in the case of the J.B. Santarita, "Agusan Gold Vajralasya":


 * "Figure 15.3: Agusan Gold Vajralasya/Source: Image Courtesy of the Field Museum, Chicago"

- Joefe B. Santarita


 * Stricnina (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support using either of the terms "Agusan gold figure" or "Agusan gold image", the former due to this and this, the latter due to this. Elsewhere in the Field Museum's website, the artifact is referred to as the "Agusan Devi" (which is considered incorrect) and "Agusan Vajralasya" (which is I believe the most recent appellation; but is it universally accepted?). I favor the most generic terms then, "Agusan gold figure" or "Agusan gold image". But I would welcome input from the other editors of this article before renaming occurs.&mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak! 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the person I called at the Field Museum, where it is housed, it is referred to in academic articles as simply The Agusan Image. (I had the privilege of viewing it, as well as the the Manunggul Jar, jade adzes, and other jewelry and textiles of the Philippines in an exhibition The People and Art of the Philippines at UCLA in 1984.) No picture I have seen since This picture does it justice. Pure gold does not look like the cheap gold-plated imitations. (By the way, the image is seated in lotus position and the fingers of the hands on the hips are in mudras; both are postures for meditation (you can use them separately, even, to settle an agitated mind).) --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) 22:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support the "Agusan image" if it comes to that.&mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak! 13:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear , like said, I will also support the renaming to "Agusan image". It is the same terminology used by Florina Capistrano-Baker in her book and I don't have anything to say as objection to this name. Also, if no one objects to this renaming in the next few days, I think it is safe to rename the article by then. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The article has been renamed. &mdash; •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•  Speak! 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Self descriptive heading and TOC fix
Current heading "identity" communicates no meningful message for skip reading. better convention in wikipedia is to have the self descriptive headings. Since the identity is Hindu or Buddhist, it is better to make the heading self descriptive. Since Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, it evolved as one of the reformist movement within Hinduism, both are indic religions. More self-descriptive heading is much better e.g. "Identity: Hindu-Buddhist image". Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Rejected. The heading correctly refers to what is the identity of the Agusan image, not about whether it is "Hindu" or "Buddhist". The heading is fine and short. Instead of "skip reading", you should be properly reading the content. Stricnina (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Rejection not sustainable. Wikipedia as encyclopedia should be easily readable and comprehensible to an average person. Wikipedia is not an academic reading assignment to the readers, we as editors can not expect/force visitors to article to read certain way. TOC should enable glance through immediate comprehension of the "essence of the article", and self-descriptive headings in TOC are key enablers of this. We can not deploy "academic journal" type of conventions here. Wikipedia guidelines and best practices mandate that the headings should be self-descriptive and representative of the text and they should enhance readability index of article. All citations, authors mentioned and existing text in that section identify the image as Hindu/Buddhist image. There is no contention or confusion of it being something else, heading should self-descriptively representative of just that. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * User talk:58.182.176.169, sorry but the heading is easily readable and comprehensible. This is much ado about nothing. Stricnina (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)