Lore talk:Tu'whacca

Edit Warring

Please reach a consensus here about the recent edits instead of undoing back and forth. I have locked the page from editing for 1 day. —Dillonn241 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My issue is solely that there is no source. I agree that the image is most likely Tu'whacca, I'm the one who added that picture to this page in the first place. However I listed that it might be Tu'whacca because there was no confirmation. It's fine to be in the gallery, but to be at the top of the page asserting that it definitely is Tu'whacca without a doubt is why the other wikia has such a bad reputation. Things need to be sourced. Storm105 (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is enough evidence in the games and books - and the context in which they appear - for this to absolutely be a depiction of Tu'whacca. While it's not spelled out explicitly, that's not how we have ever treated the lorespace - we make inferences all the time - the lorespace is full of them. The main point is the Ra Gada book which says: "Ra Gada spellcasters often tipped their staves with finials in the shape of Tu'whacca's sacred ibis". This and other sources firmly establish that the ibis is synonymous with Tu'whacca in Yoku culture. We know from the lore that this is nothing new - the animal totems in the ancient Nordic pantheon did the same: Fox = Shor, Kyne = Hawk, etc.

Here is where the context of the bas-relief is important - it is not just found in random Yokudan ruins. The only time we see it is in tombs and burial places (al-Danobia tomb) - and unsurprisingly Tu'whacca is the deity who helps Redguards find their way into the afterlife. This isn't a co-incidence... it can't be any clearer than that. The supporting evidence is strong enough to make a solid inference. Replacing the main image with the lion-ibis is baffling because your grievance should be the same for that image too.--Jimeee (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Same reasons as said above, we don't need it a explictly spelled out as the context is in the placement. You wouldn't question a nordic animal carving represents its respective deity. Same goes for Sakatal, look closely at whats around him, snake imagery. And theres of course the real world egyptian influence, where figures just like this represent the gods.-Tarponpet (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's not spelled out, it shouldn't be on there. The relief is one of the antiquities Tu'whacca isn't even mentioned in the Codex. Even if there is a 99% chance, that 1% chance is enough for it to not be listed like that. If Zenimax ever came out and said that it was another god, we'd all look like idiots. I don't think it should be removed from the page. I think we should point out that it might not be tu'whacca and not have it at the top of the page. And the difference between the Nordic murals and this is that we got confirmation from Bethesda in the design docs. Evidence doesn't matter. Proof is what matters and we have no proof. As for Satakal, the evidence is even weaker. Satakal isn't the only snake. In the same image, the figure is commanding a lion and holding a sword and Satakal is never really addressed anthropomorphically. The argument can easily be made that the figure is Hoonding or Diagna or Onsi. The lion ibis doesn't say it's tu'whacca. It says it's associated with Tu'whacca, which is good enough. I could also point out that the relief is found outside of tombs as well, it's found in No shira citadel for instance and Nicolas's hideout. So yes it is actually just found in random Redguard ruins from the thieves guild dlcStorm105 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really have much of a stake in this, but from what I’m seeing this ibis is definitely meant to be Tu’whacca. I don’t think it makes sense from an evidential standpoint to claim that the ibis shouldn’t be called Tu’whacca in case it’s another god, because that is akin to avoiding calling a draconic statue Akatosh because it could be another god. The ibis is stated to be Tu’whacca’s symbol, so that should be enough to make the claim (given a religious context, of course). I definitely see your point that we should be wary to go off of evidence alone, but I just don’t think that is the standard for this wiki. Inferences based on evidence are made rather often (see the inference of the Prime Archon from the Nine Coruscations as being Ithelia), and if Zenimax comes out and says we are wrong then we can just edit the wiki with that new information. I think it is much better for us to make these inferences based on evidence and adjust if we need to rather than hindering ourselves to just explicit statements with no room for connecting the dots. A dragon statue could be Peryite or Alduin, and a snake image could be Sep or even the Nordic Orkey, but that shouldn’t stop us from identifying Akatosh and Satakal in instances when it is clearly them but we don’t have explicit proof. Likewise, we shouldn’t stop ourselves from identifying Tu’whacca in instances when it is clearly him, regardless of datatag proof. However, I don’t think it is a bad idea to call the statue “possibly Tu’whacca” as it is now, since it still makes the connection.

TL;DR I think we should say this is Tu’whacca because inferences based on evidence seem to be the standard for the wiki. The ibis is identified with Tu’whacca and no one else. But I’m not opposed to labeling it “possibly Tu’whacca” as the page has now since the connection is still made. BananaKing5 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that this is depicting Tu'whacca and should be displayed on the page as such. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)