Talk:Manichaean Painting of the Buddha Jesus

Bias/specificity
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???

Alphonsoore (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)