Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

New High-Resolution Images ???

I have seen a handful of references on the internet along the lines of “in 2008 … a series of high definition pictures were to be taken by the company Hal 9000 of Novara using new advanced technology…”, and “David Rolfe … a series of high definition video footage … broadcast on 22 March by English BBC television.” Apparently this is from the February 2008 edition of Sindone News. I have not seen the actual images taken, which should be highly insightful stuff. Has anybody else perhaps managed to see the high-res images yet? Wdford (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request of Sept 29, 2012

The quote that says the Shroud has been 'one of the most studied' objects in history is not factual. This is taken from ref 9. However in a previous statement it says 'very few scientists have had direct access' to the Shroud. Limited scientic access does not allow for this to be well studied. Thus the first statement is false, and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.187.161 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the statement about "very few scientists" from the lead and the body of the article. The source given, Ruffin's The Shroud of Turin, doesn't make this claim; in fact, the introduction says that the Shroud "has been the subject of dozens of scientific tests". (For future reference, new comments should be added to the bottom of the talk page.) DoctorKubla (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

I request the following changes to the article "Shroud of Turin" second paragraph under the section "Medieval photography" after having watched the television program referenced by the paragraph.

The first change I propose is to specify that the Shroud was treated with photosensitive chemicals. The original wording is ambiguous, leading the reader to wonder whether the Shroud or the body was treated with chemicals.

The second change I propose is to remove the lines describing John Jackson's objections to this theory of the Shroud's origin. These lines are poorly worded and unclear, and as far as I understand them, as an objection to the photographic theory they are a non-starter. Using the photographic technique proposed in the documentary, the image would have formed very slowly under the forger's observation. The forger would have been able to precisely control the length of exposure time and hence the darkness of the image. The forger would also have been able to shield from the light source any sections of the Shroud that required double exposure.

Original Text:

Lynn Picknett has written a book proposing that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud.[143][144] Picknett and Larissa Tracy appeared on a Channel 5 (UK) TV program that claimed the Shroud to be the oldest known surviving photograph.[144] The program claimed that da Vinci used a real corpse, treated it with chemicals and then exposed it in an early form of camera obscura to obtain the image.[144] However John Jackson, director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado dismissed these hypotheses.[144] Jackson et al. have argued that a double photographic exposure, needed in that case, should have considered the distances and in this case there would be areas of photographic superimposition with different lights and shades. The distances on Shroud instead correspond to the body position.[145]

Revised Text:

Lynn Picknett has written a book proposing that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud.[143][144] Picknett and Larissa Tracy appeared on a Channel 5 (UK) TV program that claimed the Shroud to be the oldest known surviving photograph.[144] The program claimed that da Vinci used a real corpse, obtained an old-looking piece of linen, treated it with photo-sensitive chemicals and then exposed it in an early form of camera obscura to obtain the image.[144]

24.79.103.30 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I did make the chemical treatment change you suggested. But please read the WP:V which requires sources for other changes. Please also see WP:RS that specifies how sources are selected. And sourced content can not just be removed based on requests, but additional items may be added if properly sourced. History2007 (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding Pope Benedict XVI

The current article states and sources: "In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Shroud of Turin is 'a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord.'" The article then goes on to state: "Pope Benedict XVI has not publicly commented on the Shroud's authenticity". Considering the Cardinal Ratzinger referred to and Pope Benedict XVI are the same person, the latter statement is incorrect. Glorioski (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A "glass" of water?

I fail to see the relevance of "A thermographic image of a glass of water." [actually a beaker]. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. That image seems pointless. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I added that just because most users have no idea what that type of image looks like. Just informational, but of no impact on the discussion. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'll remove it. Readers can follow the link to infrared thermography if they want to know more about it. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of just zapping, please spend the effort to find another representative image. Articles look better when they are complete in themselves with images and all. History2007 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant image to use would be a thermographic image of the Shroud of Turin. I assumed that if such an image were available, it would already be in the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No a big deal either way. But I would have used some other image to convey the idea. Maybe not a glass but anyway, no big deal. History2007 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ruello

In 2011 the Italian film scientist Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello discovered the second Shroud type photographic image in the St Peters Veronica Veil using AFM, Angular Filming Magnification. His initial experimental wrk was published in the Inner West Courier and Australian newspaper and the New World Encyclopedia has now included his discovery in the article feature Veil Of Veronica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.255.237 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Which is a Unification Church version of Wikipedia using a lot of our material, so not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ruello has been spamming all along, here and elsewhere on the web. At times pretending to be a friend of himself, then apologizing, etc. Also see the request by IP for a page on Ruello. This may be a sock puppet as well. History2007 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys - please see Shroud of Turin Research Project as well re this same issue. Wdford (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. I guess Ruello made a new year resolution to get himself a page after all. That is probably a "good friend" of his. History2007 (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aboveallelse77/Archive anyway, so I will note it here. Until next time... History2007 (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please leave this here as I have a right to defend myself. I will not access or alter any articles from hence on and will leave that to the world. But simply put I am bemused that truth in discovery cannot be documented here rather than editors only documenting media successs, this is wrong provan discoveries must be documented we cannot wait for media mainstream exposure before people write about it. As what I have discovered is truth I leave this to you go to your article Veil of Veronica and enlarge the St Peters Vatican Veronica not too large as too much pixilation will fiffuse too much noise and then in a dimly lit room tilt the screen back of your laptop and you will see the face commence to appear. This image I detected was then placed after 2 more angular filmings in a microsoft inverter programme which converts negative images to positives and thats how the image I am spreading was discovered. If I am to be attacked and accused of fraud and non notability enlarge the Vatican gold framed Veronica and you will understand that there is tyruth to my film system of angular filming from an lcd screen laptop. Thankyou and hope someone at least loks into it. I hope this year to finally find a qualified academic verify my discovery and assist in writing a peer reviewed journal. Bye wikis Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.255.227 (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But you know Vincenzo, you (and your best friend) have said good bye so many times that I hope you do not mind if I smile at that a little... History2007 (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Italian Film Scientist Giulio Fanti is interested in helping me regarding my discovery in the Vatican Veronica Veil. He has requested all my images and filming technique which I have sent him. Thankyou for your future information Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.255.238 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a long absence Vincenzo - all of 6 days. But that announcement has nothing to do with this article, of course. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello History I stated I will not alter or add to articles but am allowed to talk here as a Shroud researcher. The images and filming technique I have supplied to Fanti has EVERYTHING to do with this article as the face I have revealed is identical to the Shroud of Turin face. Cheers Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.255.233 (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You need the future tense. It may have in the future when he looks at it and publishes. Until then per WP:Crystal it has no relevance. History2007 (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

comment from reader

Article presentation appears delicately opinionated towards preserving the holiness of the Shroud. Observation made as wikipedia is not expected to be opinionated, even if, delicately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.45.228 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

The actual length of the image is also relevant . The full length of the shroud is 14 ft approximately and the length of image from head to toe is 11.5 ft approximately. Can that be the high of the Lord ?Its a very relevant fact which is missed out in all the earlier studies and is a point to ponder which leads to some fundamental questions about the Shroud. 39.47.142.91 (talk)

The article says: "various experts have measured him as from 1.70 m, or roughly 5 ft 7 in, to 1.88 m, or 6 ft 2 in". What is your WP:Secondary source for your statement? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The "physiognomy" of Jesus is not addressed directly in the gospels, but some situations imply he was recognisably taller than the average adult jewish man of the era. For example, when disciplines arrive and see him standing in the middle of crowd of ad-hoc assembled believers. The Shroud image is consistent with that notion.

Apparently, people of the antiquity were not as tall on average as the current population, but they were much taller then the medieval average, during which era a white man grown to just 165cm would be considered very tall. The medieval period had the coldest climate and worst food supply of all ages. 91.83.4.187 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OR and WP:Forum. This discussion will not impact the article. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Next seeing.

Hello, is it true that the Shroud will be on public exhibit again in 2017-2018, to concur with the 100th anniversary of the Fatima event? 91.83.4.187 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:Crystal. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

There is a spelling error in the "2010 developments" section of the article that needs to be corrected.

The last sentence should say "In March 2013 it was announced that [...]" instead of "In March 2013 is was announced that [...]".

5.146.44.24 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A little correction needed

There is a short section about Leonardo da Vinci in the article ("The program claimed that da Vinci used a real corpse [--]"): "da Vinci" alone is not a proper form to be used, and should be corrected either to "Leonardo" or "Leonardo da Vinci" (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci#Life). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtuohini (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

the 2010's developments section

The 2010's developments section is getting rather big, and some of the material in there actually belongs in the other sections higher up. It is starting to act as a catch-all section for new additions. I think we need a strategic decision on what (if anything) this section is intended to achieve, and then we need to relocate some of the material elsewhere as appropriate. Wdford (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some it needs to merge in, say 2010 and 2011. History2007 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A demand for the strict application of the Pray-Poker test, just like conservation laws are applied against perpeetum mobile claims.

The current article cites a lot of fakery theories that do not pass the "Pray-Poker test" (that is, the Shroud is at least 800 years old). That makes a mockery of the seriousness of this article. Because of such considerations, post-1195AD theories, including Leonardo, Templars, gothic whatnot, etc. should be erased without mercy, just like patent offices shred "perpetuum mobile" claims. 91.83.36.151 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pragmatically speaking, your demand can not happen, because many people read Joe Nikell's book and if that info is not here will type here that the lack of mention of those theories makes a mockery of the seriousness of this article... So those forgery theories still need to be mentioned if in W:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Material in introduction

The user indicated as edit summary "(wrap in, per WP:LEDE the lede can have at most 4 paragraphs)", but in fact inserted "In 2013, experiments at the University of Padua dated the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD.", referencing non-peer-reviewed research which was already described in the Wiki page's last section (and done so more informatively as "In 2013, Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta, a former Vatican journalist, published a book in which they dated the shroud to between 280 BC and 220 AD. They also claimed that the radio-carbon dating was skewed by laboratory contamination, and that the image was formed by a burst of "exceptional radiation").

Expert users: Please revert the change by History2007, and if possible report the user for violation of any policies which may apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.200.202 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

History2007's edit[1] added nothing to the article except an html note to limit the lead to four paragraphs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, called out wrong user. It was User:Jprw who made the controversial edit.

Someone with privileges to do so, please remove the phrase in question from the introduction - the work of Fanti and Gaeta does absolutely not qualify as "dated the shroud" in a Wiki article until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.200.202 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least you have started paying attention now IP in NY... About the Fanti item, it does not work that way, either it is WP:RS or is not. If not WP:RS, should not go in the article at all. If WP:RS, can go in the body, and then per WP:LEDE can get summarized in the lede if significant. As you eventually figured out, I did not add that item, but looking at it now, Fanti is a well known researcher in the field, and the book is published by Rizzoli - a pretty large and reasonably respectable publisher, hence its inclusion in the body. Once in the body, it can go in the lede, unless it is insignificant. I do not see it as insignificant, given its coverage in the Telegraph, and newspapers. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many comments from various sources mentioned in the body of the article, and they only get included in the lede in a summarized form - i.e. "Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery." This Fanti effort is no more significant than any of the other "diverse arguments", and to include it in the lede as a separate issue is UNDUE and looks very POV. It creates the impression that this effort is equal in significance to the C14 tests, while in fact his "intense radiation" theory is not new and it has previously been debunked by Adler etc as being contrary to the laws of physics. Wdford (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the intense radiation part not being new. But the dating is something else. And I think we all know what is going to happen next, Fanti will submit it somewhere, will get published, and others will argue about it for another 10 years. So in the larger scheme of things, whether it gets added to the lede here or not will be a forgotten footnote in history. History2007 (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

NY Times is reporting it. Not quite the peer reviewed journal we need, but information from Fanti appears to be accurately reported. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/world/europe/shroud-of-turin-going-on-tv-with-a-word-from-the-pope.html?_r=0 Whether his analysis survives peer review or not is another matter, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I bet you three to one that it will survive, because 90% of academic publishing success is about knowing where to submit - not just in this case, but in general. So it will get published, then there will be discussion - as usual. But that is a separate issue, of course. By the way, RE NY Times, in the last section, the last item about the pope's calling it an icon generating debate is not accurate, for what generated the debate was the opposite, not the calling it an icon/painting. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite right; that middle "icon" sentence was added after the fact. I have removed it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2013

I am requesting to add the website "www.testtheshroud" under section 9.1 pro-authenticity websites.Npanton2 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Npanton2 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Are they pro-authenticity or just pro-testing? Looking at http://www.testtheshroud.com/, I see lots of proposed tests...plus requests to petition the Pope for more testing. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 March 30 event.

> The most recent public exhibition of the Shroud was in March 2013 on television.[33][34]

That is not an accurate statement. The 30th March 2013 Shroud exhibition was a direct event for a select invited few hundred (e.g elderly ill people, handicapped people, ill and poor youth and the nuns and charity workers who support them). They did not need TV, as they saw the linen with their own eyes, because it was removed from the armoured vault, but not taken outside the shrine (side chapel). Ordinary people without the entry card were strictly kept out of the Duomo's premises, however.

That event from circa 10:30 to 15:00 CET was not a Mass per se, since there is no holy mass on the Saturday directly before Resurrection. The event, including lots of religious music performances, was recorded and telecast with a time delay, for the greater public audience (on 17:00-18:45 on RAI-1, Eurovision and the world TV stations, who wanted to relay all or parts of it).

Later, the Turin Duomo was opened to the general public at 20:00 CET sharp, at which time about a 75 torinese people and foreigners went to the Shrine and argued to see the Shroud themselves. There were 4-5 older scientist guys working there, who said the process of refilling the Shroud's airtight casing with argon gas has already commenced and the process is not possible to interrupt, thus no chance for a public's display. At that time, the armored vault was still open and a most pious nun from Macedonia managed to beg to have her rosary handed over and pressed against the Shroud's casing (blessing by transfer). 91.83.36.151 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Will just touch that sentence up to say it was on TV that day. The rest is your personal knowledge about the event and does not matter to the article anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems a bit generous IMO. Being "on tv" seems fairly indirect. As there is a time lapse for non-Europeans, for up to twelve hours or so, it's quite likely that the telecast was "delayed" in a number of places. So the "display" turns out to be a recording which can (now) be "displayed" forever. Not quite like an in-person exhibition.

Kind of like "watching" Obama being sworn in as President. I wasn't really there... And I can probably watch it on YouTube right now. Maybe qualifies as a recording/external reference? Student7 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Second face

Message to History and Dr Dan Porter: I have just processed the second face discovered by Fanti and Maggiolo in 2004 after restoration and have revealed the alive resurrected face of Christ with His eyes open, Fanti contacted me this morning wishing me well you can see it here http://gloria.tv/?media=426044 Hope to be working with Fanti in this verification and also my discovery in the Vatican Veronica Veil sincerely Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.255.227 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable secondary source Elizium23 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares anyway? Whatever images are there are of medieval origin, because there is no chance whatsoever that the shroud is of 1st century origin. What is it about carbon dating that people don't understand?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because, as explained in the article, there are those who contend that the sample submitted for radiocarbon dating was not representative of most of the shroud material, and may even have been a piece of the cloth added during repairs after the fire. I don't believe that and neither do you, but our beliefs don't matter here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There are those who contend that. So what? WP:UNDUE. The sample was carefully selected by a large group of experts. It was deliberately chosen because that area was representative of the entire shroud. None of those who object have even the tiniest shred of evidence; they just want the shroud to be real and refuse to accept facts that don't suit them. Patching? Nope; the weave and patterns are uninterrupted. Bioplastic? Not detected, and would have been removed by the cleaning process anyway. Bacteria? Soot? There would need to be more contamination than shroud to skew the results so badly - do the calculations; they're simple - and again the cleaning would have removed them anyway. This particular test series is probably the most rigorous and carefully controlled cardon dating carried out ever. There is nothing even approaching a reasonable doubt. The shroud is medieval.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If what Ruello has done can be verified by a reputable scientist this would have to be the discovery of the century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would be a great new piece of information about the ability of medieval artists. Let's not forget that whatever is discovered about the shroud it's still a medieval artifact.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 10:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hang on -- the original question was, "Who cares?" Followed by the declaration that there is "no chance whatsoever" that the shroud is of first-century origin. Ignoring the fact that "no chance whatsoever" is a phrase that no legitimate scientist ever uses, I happen to agree that it is extremely likely that the shroud is medieval, and that the very religious people who remain steadfast that Jesus was once wrapped in that shroud are grasping at straws when they find fault with the radiocarbon dating. But, once again, your opinion and mine don't matter here; what matters is sourcing. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a dissertation or a historical diatribe. There are those who contend that the testing is wrong; there will probably ALWAYS be such people, because until a time machine is invented, there will never be 100% incontrovertible evidence one way or the other; and as long as any doubt exists, we need to continue noting it in the article -- because WP:NPOV always trumps WP:UNDUE -- and every other rule, for that matter. Sorry for the rant, but I feel fairly strongly about this; to disregard WP:NPOV is to sound a death knell for this whole project. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:UNDUE does not even enter the picture, given that the edit fails WP:V for it refers to a sample. And you are, of course, correct DoctorJoeE that sources matter and opinions of all editor, and deductions therefrom all have the same value: zero. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE, yes, there are people who disagree. There are also people who disagree with the age of the earth, but I don't see WP:NPOV being invoked on that article and the evidence in each case is about the same. The article should (and does) note that there is dissent, but it should also contain the fact that the shroud is medieval, because that is a very significant piece of information about it.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that per WP:RS/AC there are sources that provide the scholarly consensus regarding the age of the earth; with no opposing academic sources to speak of. You need a source that does the same here regarding sampling, and also there are opposing sources so I am sorry, the analogy does not carry. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I would also point out that while the Earth article does not directly address disagreement over Earth's age, there is a prominent link, under "cultural and historic viewpoint", to the creation-evolution controversy, which does. And that is entirely appropriate, considering that almost half of Americans continue to believe that God created humans (and presumably the Earth too) within the last 10,000 years, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. It's not for us, as encyclopedia editors, to judge those beliefs. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm not judging the beliefs of shroudies either, beyond the fact that they're wrong about its age. There is very, very strong evidence that the shroud is medieval and none that it isn't, so what's the problem with saying that it's medieval? There is only one scientific paper discussing an actual dating test on the shroud and it says the linen is medieval. I really don't see a problem here.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I do. Fanti and Gaeta dated the shroud to between 280 BC and 220 AD just this year, using "...a variety of mechanical and chemical tests on fibers from the shroud." For us to decree that they are wrong, and the carbon dating is right, is WP:OR, is it not? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's because carbon dating is actually capable of determining the age of organic material, whereas Fanti's "tests" are not. There is a perfectly reliable way of dating shroud fibres which we know to work with a high degree of accuracy, so why did Fanti not simply use it? He had fibres to test, which presumably he is confident are actual shroud fibres, so why didn't he have them carbon dated? That would actually have been valid and interesting. If his excuse is that carbon dating doesn't work then he goes straight in the crank box, because we know it does.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I saw that coming. Fanti and his Vatican journalist partner invented tests of their own, which have not been validated, exactly as Rogers invented the still-unvalidated vanillin tests. They conducted these made-up tests on material whose provenance is unsupported. They disregarded the impact on the fibres of having been baked in heat sufficient to melt silver, despite other scientists pointing out that heating linen accelerates the aging process. They publish their "results" in a book rather than a scientific journal. Finally, Fanti still clings to the theory that the image was caused by a corona discharge, which Rogers has long ago pointed out would have left clear evidence which we do not see on the shroud. And yet, some editors will continue to pretend that this so-called “test” is equivalent to the C14 tests, and balances it out. Don't get frustrated, Fergus, its a long process. Wdford (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was discounting Fanti for exactly that reason. There are already a variety of tests for the age of organic materials, which is how we know the age of the shroud. The fact that Fanti hd to invent a new test, which mysteriously contradicts the proven ones and gives the result he predicted it would, really says all we need to know. And of course as you pointed out he published a book, not a paper. The scientific evidence for the medieval date is hard, and to be challenged needs equivalent scientific evidence. That does not exist.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! And if you have WP:RS stating that Fanti is using pseudoscience, we can say that. If not, we can't. Remember, I agree with you completely that the shroud is medieval; but on WP, one must play by WP rules. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Has Fanti actually published a paper or just a book? If just a book then it hardly matters anyway. That would only be an RS for what Fanti says about the date, not for the date itself.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013

1. The following statement under the heading "Material Historical Analysis, Historical fabrics" is incorrect: "Avinoam Danin (see below) concurred with this [Guscin's] analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the Sudarium match those of the shroud.[79]" The reference #79 with link is to Guscin's 1997 paper at http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm. Nowhere in this paper does Mark refer to Danin or to Danin's research results. Nor is there any mention of Danin in Mark Guscin's 1998 book, "The Oviedo Cloth" (Lutterworth Press) nor in his 1999 update, "Recent Historical Invistigations of the Sudarium of Oviedo," nor anywhere in his 2009 book, "The Image of Edessa" (Brill). So number one, the reference is spurious. Number two, and most important, Danin is not a palynologist but rather a botanist, and does not express as his own opinion conclusions regarding pollen grains. (See Danin, "Botany of the Shroud," pp. 64-68, re pollen research, and Fulbright, Review - Botany of the Shroud" at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/FulbrightBotanyReview.pdf. This entire sentence with its spurious reference must be deleted. I have an e-mail from Danin stating unequivocally his insistence on not having pollen analysis attributed to him.

2. Under the heading "Flowers and pollen," the following statement requires revision: "In a separate report in 1978 Danin and Uri Baruch reported on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, stating that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel.[93]" The reference with link is to a short paper listing only Danin as sole author in which he attributes all pollen analysis to Baruch. (See http://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm.) The correct reference is "Danin, A. and Baruch, U. 1999. The origin of the Shroud of Turin from the Near East as evidenced by plant images and by pollen grains. Abstracts of the 7th Int. Conf. of the Isr. Soc. for Ecol. And Env. Qual. Sci. p. 61." You may not be able to link to his paper, but that is the correct reference. Otherwise the statement should be revised to read, "In a separate report in 1978 Danin discussed Uri Baruch's report on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, and concluded that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel." Contributed by Diana Fulbright, sindon@globalweb.net.

Othonia (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed from a SPER to a fully protected request Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Stopped firmly short"

This sounds like a funny quotation. Maybe sounds just fine in the original language it was spoken in, which is why languages cannot be translated literally. Like in "The Russians are coming": "Everyone from the street to get." Probably should be deleted since no one agrees on a better sounding translation.Student7 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And it runs against the intent of the people in Rome, who went out of their way to generate attention. Right or wrong, they were not out to deny it, but to use it. So presenting it that way is unusual. Not a big deal in the end, given that they have an app out there to promote it anyway, and this page's significance will take a serious backseat to what else will float on the web regarding their views anyway. Their views are somewhat obvious anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I tried to change it, but got accused of POV-pushing so left it alone -- no big deal, as you said. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I just rm quote which seems to leave intent of Francis intact without odd translation. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

...and it got put right back in. Toldja. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Economist, please take it to RSN. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether The Economist is WP:RS -- no one said it wasn't. The question, as stated above, is whether that sentence belongs in the article at all. The article already mentions, in several places, that the Vatican has never taken an official stand on whether the Shroud is authentic. So it's not exactly earthshaking that Pope Francis didn't do so either, and it's a bit misleading of us to imply, by including this awkward translation (albeit, yes, a "direct quote"), that Francis changed Vatican policy in any way by "stopping firmly short of asserting its authenticity". That said, I agree with History2007 that it's not a big deal either way, and I don't care whether the phrase is in there or not -- although it would be nice to clarify that the statement (or lack of one) is nothing new, as far as official Vatican policy is concerned. When I tried to make that change I was accused of POV-pushing, though nobody bothered to explain what POV I was allegedly attempting to push. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I have fixed the consistency issue. The part that still confuses me is the mention that this statement apparently caused controversy - it doesn't really say that in the sources, and as Francis was indeed being consistent with Benedict and John Paul before him, I suppose the only people who found it controversial were the shroudies. Wdford (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All it says, actually, is that the statement generated "comment" -- and it did, because the Pope, like his predecessors, was signalling his refusal to enter the provenance debate. Many people hoped that he would finally acknowledge the well-documented fact that Jews did not use shrouds in Biblical times -- they wrapped cadavers in small pieces of cloth, not one large one, with a separate cloth for the head. Vatican historians must be well aware of that -- it's in the New Testament, for crying out loud -- and this would have been a good opportunity to recognize the elephant in the room. But he didn't -- hence the comment. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I didn't realize that. All good! :) Wdford (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

3D Image

The photos one normally sees of the VP-8 3D images have been cropped to show only the body-image and not the whole shroud. However on this photo by Schwortz [2] the full surface of the shroud is shown. It is obvious on this photo that the folds, burns and water-stains on the cloth also generate 3D images under VP-8 "adjustment" - more so even than the body-image itself. If the 3D properties of the image are so unique, how come even simple burns, patches etc show up so well in 3D once they have been "adjusted" by the VP-8 operator? Does anybody perhaps know of a reliable source that has discussed this incongruity? Wdford (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Balance in the Lead paragraph

The lead currently includes a mention of “peer-reviewed” articles that question the carbon dating, but excludes mentioning that real experts have confirmed the representativeness of the samples. This creates an unbalanced and very misleading impression. These real experts are all recognized in their fields, including by the pro-authenticity camp, and there is no reason for wiki-editors to assume these experts are not reliable sources. On the other hand the Wikipedia articles at Peer review and at Peer review failure state openly that a peer-review is not a certification of correctness.

People like the Whangers claim that photos “possibly” show the sample fabric was “possibly” a later repair, but Jackson says the photos clearly show the sampled fabric WAS original shroud material. Whanger even mentions the Jackson conclusions in his own paper. Yet only the pro-authenticity side is included in the lead.

Rogers who examined a few isolated threads that may or may not have come from the shroud, is included in the lead, but some editors want to leave out Jull, who examined an actual piece of the original sampled cloth. Although the Rogers theory is based on an unauthorised sample, and although there is no certified linkage from the shroud to these threads, and although the Vatican, who has the most to gain from an “authentic” finding, has repeatedly refuted all “unauthorised samples”, this paper is “peer-reviewed” and is considered by some to be more “reliable” than the conclusions of experts who worked with actual shroud material.

Flury-Lemberg, an actual textile expert who examined the shroud closely and for an extended period, is adamant that there is no evidence of any repairs, and that all such suggestions are “wishful thinking”. Benford claims to have acquired still more “unauthorised samples”, and claims that CalTech carbon-dated them to different dates (still not 1st century however). CalTech has denied doing these tests, and denies even having the capability to do such tests. However, although Benford has no scientific credentials here and has never touched the shroud, and despite Benford having effectively been called a liar by CalTech, the pro-authenticity Benford papers are “peer-reviewed” and are considered to be more “reliable” than the conclusions of acknowledged experts like Flury-Lemberg.

The lead must accurately and fairly summarize the content of the article, in a neutral and balanced way. Its correct to include the fact that disputes have been raised about the dating, but this must be balanced against the weight of actual experts who examined the actual shroud. In order to de-clutter the lead, I would be happier to replace all this with a single summarizing sentence that says “Suggestions have been made that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole Shroud, but various experts who have actually worked with the shroud and the dating samples have confirmed that the samples were valid”.

Finally, we include in the lead the musings of Phillip Ball - should we not also include the comments of Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit?

Wdford (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the topic is so controversial that, in the lead, all the refs. should be peer-reviewed.

An example, among others, of a neutral, balanced and recent peer-reviewed article :

"The scientic community today is still divided as regards the authenticity of the cloth and related sequence of events, and studies undertaken so far have not enabled the enigma surrounding the identity of the person whose image is imprinted on the cloth to be resolved. Not even the fairly accurate chronological range resulting from the radiocarbon 14C tests, dating it from around the thirteenth to fiteenth century, have been able to settle differences among scholars." Found in Salvatore Lorusso, Chiara Matteucci, Andrea Natali, Tania Chinni, Laura Solla, "The Shroud of Turin between history and Science : an ongoing debate", Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 11, 2011, 113-152. link Thucyd (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good summary. Are you proposing to include the entire thing as a quote? Perhaps in place of the last two sentences of paragraph 3? Wdford (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of just one sentence in place of the last two:

"However these results are still controversial and have not been able to settle differences among scholars."(with the ref. of Lorusso, and maybe others if you want: Rogers 2005, Jull 2010, Riani 2012) Thucyd (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We should avoid any wording that gives undue weight to fringe theories which have been debunked by actual experts who have examined the shroud or actual shroud material and who are supported by actual scientific evidence. How about "The validity of these results is still questioned by a few scientists and some other people." Wdford (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not at all what Lorusso says! I understand your point of view, based on your personal knowledge of the topic, but you cannot write an article on it. Thucyd (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my first point - the lead is not a collection of quotes, it is a summary of all the article content. We are not required to quote Lorusso, we are required to reflect, in a mere four paragraphs, a summary of what the reader will learn in detail if they continue reading the entire article. Lorusso is being quite conciliatory in the full quote you started with, but if we are to summarize this entire theme into a single sentence, we need to be a bit more accurate and a bit more careful of WP:UNDUE. Perhaps we should just leave it as it currently stands then - its a bit longer, but the controversy around the carbon-dating is one of the most notable issues of the article, so best we state it properly. Wdford (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We simply have to say with a couple of sentences what is going on in the peer-reviewed literature.

I think a good start for you would be to give us two or three solid and recent refs. that explicitly support your point of view of a fringe theory/minority view among specialists of the shroud. Thucyd (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to see the words "peer-reviewed" in the article itself. I suppose, given the controversy, there's nothing wrong with putting it there as a comment for other editors. I think the words tend to needlessly clutter the article and maybe confuse the reader. Can s/he believe anything that isn't explicitly stated as "peer-reviewed?" I can appreciate Thucyds high standard of "everything peer-reviewed," but that may not be attainable or practical for every fact. Student7 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the lead is NOT required to summarize "what is going on in the peer-reviewed literature", it is required to summarize what is discussed in the article. The standard of a "reliable source" is not peer-review. Actual experts are reliable sources in their own right - peer-review is only needed to weed out the more obvious nonsense, and as Wikipedia makes clear at Peer review and Peer review failure, the process is not expected to certify the correctness of the material reviewed. This is made clear when a psychic nurse passes a "peer-review", even though the psychic nurse claims the shroud was "invisibly mended" which a textile expert who restored the shroud calls "wishful thinking", and even though the psychic nurse claims CalTech carbon-dated a shroud thread, which CalTech flatly denies. I have cited numerous examples at the top of this discussion, and the summary with all the references is currently in the lead of the article. Wdford (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It 's clear that we have a consensus among experts publishing or not in peer-reviewed journals for saying that the 1988 tests are still controversial.

If you want to say that experts who think that the tests were reliable are just a minority, you make a kind of extraordinary claim. When we look at all the articles and books published since 2000 on the topic, it is quite the contrary. Google scholar is your friend (link)... Thucyd (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing extraordinary about that statement at all. Firstly, define "expert": radiocarbon professors and textile restorers who had contact with the shroud are experts, scientists working from threads of unproven provenance are experts with doubtful material, and psychic nurses, ex-monks and arbitrary blogging evangelists are not experts at all.

When you weed out the bloggers, of the serious scientists, you get Whanger who thinks "possibly" there may have been a repair, because he "knows" the shroud is authentic, vs Flury-Lemberg, a textile expert who examined the shroud closely and is adamant that there is no evidence of any repairs. You get Rogers, who looked at an arbitrary thread of uncertain origin and found dye, vs Jull, who examined an actual piece of the original sampled cloth and found no evidence of any dye or coating or anything. There are scientists who are worried about biological contamination, vs scientists who point out that to sway the date that far the contaminant would have had to outweigh the cloth itself, etc.

If we merely say "the carbon dating is controversial", it gives undue weight to the pro-authenticity camp, whereas the "basis" for such claims has been refuted by experts with actual evidence. The lead currently states that there is no agreement on how the shroud image was actually formed, which is a genuine controversy. The lead also currently states that some people have claimed the dating results are unreliable, but also that actual experts have demonstrated that the dating actually was reliable. Once again, I propose that we leave the lead as is, so that the experts can speak for themselves, and the reader can weigh it up without a wiki-editor trying to "spin" the summary. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)]

I agree completely -- leave it the way it is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely. What Wdford does is (very bad) cherry picking. Flury Lemberg, the leading textil expert, thinks that the Turin Shroud is a first century burial shroud, and John Jackson thinks that the Turin shroud is authentic... Jull? but he writes that his sample was hidden secretely for two decades with no chain of custody, and even according to leading skeptics, his paper is an autogoal with many errors.

So please give us reliable refs. for your pov of a "fringe/minority view". It should be so easy if you are right.Thucyd (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Look who’s cherry-picking! NB: The topic of this paragraph is the reliability of the carbon-dating process, and the fact that a range of people have criticised the credibility of the sample in particular. Please stay on topic.

Fleury-Lemberg did NOT say the “Turin Shroud is a first century burial shroud”, she actually stated: "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century.” That is not at all the same thing, although we can all understand why desperate shroudies would clutch at that straw. She merely said that the manufacturing techniques were compatible, not that it actually dates to that period, or even that it’s a burial shroud at all. Talk about misrepresentation. On the other hand, this topic is about criticisms of the carbon dating, and Fleury-Lemberg was very clear that there was no sign of any “invisible” repair, and that invisible repairs in fine cloth are not even possible to begin with.

John Jackson does indeed think that the Turin shroud is authentic, which is why he should be considered an even more reliable source for rebuttal. Jackson rebuts the theory of a repair, based on actual scientific evidence from STURP photographs. He also rebuts the bio-contamination theory. Jackson has thus rebutted the theory that the sample was not valid. He then ascribes the dating conundrum to some sort of “carbon monoxide enrichment”, which theory has been experimentally disproved by Christopher Ramsey – an actual expert using actual evidence. Jackson has apparently accepted Ramsay's conclusions, and is searching for further options, like a good scientist should.

Re Jull, he used the original sample which was secured at the university all along, it was never “secret” and the chain was never broken. Its fascinating that shroudies question the provenance of a sample which was so clearly managed and documented, yet they accept happily the provenance of the “secret” and “unproven" mystery threads that Rogers, Fanti etc seem to have somehow acquired, despite repudiation by the Vatican. Rinaldi did indeed question the Jull tests, but its only “he said / she said”, and Jull is after all a Professor who published in a peer-reviewed journal – still way more credible than testing a few random threads of unknown provenance.

If you refuse to accept subject-matter experts as reliable sources, then there is little hope for you. Best we leave the comments of the subject-matter experts in the lead, so that readers can decide for themselves, yes?

Wdford (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly vote yes. There is also the historical evidence, which people keep forgetting -- the fact that Jews did not use shrouds at all in those times -- they wrapped cadavers in small pieces of cloth, not one large one. Multiple writings of the period, including the New Testament, document this quite clearly. I've never pushed its inclusion in the article, since it's not relevant in the strictest sense, but someday I hope to get consensus to sneak in a sentence about it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wdford, you are making a mistake. In clear, Flury Lemberg and Jackson think that the C14 tests are probably representative of the whole, but they both think that the shroud goes back to the first century. So, representative: yes, reliable:no and that's the reason why your sentences are misleading for an average reader...

Jull's sample was of course totally secret and ignored by all shroudies. His article is in contradiction with Nature's paper which says that all the samples were used. But I have always considered him as an expert, so you are doing a straw man.

So please give us your reliable refs for a "fringe theory/minority view", once again, it should be so easy if you are rightThucyd (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)...

So you finally concede that experts who have actually studied the shroud itself assert that the C14 samples were representative after all, completely contradicting the psychic nurse etc. Representativeness is the issue of the third paragraph of the lead, so job done. In the first paragraph a consensus was recently established which now reads "according to radiocarbon dating which stands in some dispute". Enough said - the fact that some dispute the dates is mentioned right near the top, and lower down we clarify that the representativeness of the samples were questioned but that they are actually representative. I am happy. BTW - nowhere in the Nature paper by Damon et al do I see any mention that the samples were totally consumed, nor any hint that no remnants were retained by the labs in question. Jull does not claim his remnant was a secret, and nor does the Nature paper. Wdford (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you are playing a little game here. You perfectly know that representativeness is not the real issue of the third pararagh which speaks also of reliability. The most important point is not at all representativity but reliability. If the C14 tests are unreliable who cares for their representativity? That's why your sentences are misleading for the average reader and why you insist so much on a "fringe theory/minority view"...

If we mention John Jackson and Flury Lemberg, we have to mention in the article and (not only in the ref.) Riani's paper, because we have a peer-reviewed paper written in a major expert by world leading statisticians who demonstrate that the samples of the C14 tests are not homogenous...

And again and again and again where are your reliable refs for a fringe/theory minority? I guess you are unable to find just one... Too bad... Thucyd (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the wording of the third paragraph is EXACTLY about the representativeness of the carbon sample - the "other" issues of the "reliability" of the dating are merely the shroudies sobbing "No! Isn't!" That sobbing has already been covered in the 2nd paragraph.

Once again, since you can't seem to hear this properly, I have given multiple reliable sources debunking the fringe claims that the samples are not representative - see top of this thread, and repeated over and over throughout the thread. Maybe we should include in the lead the Flury quote re "wishful thinking", or the Ramsey quote that "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up." ???

Riani's paper is valid and HAS ALREADY been included in the article, but we also need to mention that the recalibration he calculated is only "about two centuries", and not 1400 years as the shroudies would hope. Also, we need to then mention that Damon et al originally declared the minor variation openly, and they attributed it to the fact that linen (flax) has a short growth period and is thus inherently variable compared to wood, as well as to the fact that every sample was cleaned with a different treatment method - thus its the residual contamination that has influenced the dating marginally from one sample to the next, not any wishful variation in the age of the original threads. This is normal in carbon dating, which was never going to be 110% accurate to the day. However, while Riani's paper doesn't open the door for a possible "authentic" date, it DOES open the door to the Da Vinci theory  :) Wdford (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wdford I think you are 110% wrong.

That's not at all what Riani says. You need to read the paper published in Statistics and Computing in 2012 and also the paper in IWSAAI, 2010.

You have never given a reliable source for your "fringe theory/minority view", and you know it.

But maybe you need some recent examples:

"Nowadays many people think [the Turin Shroud] it is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth; for others it is a medieval forgery" (Fazio, Mandaglio, Manganaro, Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 165, 5, 2010, 337-342.

"Nowadays many people venerate this cloth as the burial cloth of the Jesus of the Gospels; others denounce it as a medieval forgery." (Fazio, Mandaglio, Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids, 166, 7, 2011, 476-479.

"The scientic community today is still divided as regards the authenticity of the cloth and related sequence of events, and studies undertaken so far have not enabled the enigma surrounding the identity of the person whose image is imprinted on the cloth to be resolved. Not even the fairly accurate chronological range resulting from the radiocarbon 14C tests, dating it from around the thirteenth to fteenth century, have been able to settle differences among scholars." Lorusso, 2010.

"The 1988 radiocarbon dating which gave a range of 1260–13907 is sometimes thought to have delivered an absolute and irrefutable time-frame for the production of the phenomenon. However, more and more frequently in recent years, peer-reviewed studies have called into question the validity of this procedure, in historical studies as well as in physical and statistical studies, directly and indirectly. Defenders of the validity of the 1988 radiocarbon dating concede that it is scientifically debatable and have brought forward new elements recently to support their position." Casabianca, Heythrop Journal, 2013, 414-423.

"Radiocarbon dating results assign the Shroud a date of approximately 1260-1390, which remains one of the most contentious topics among both skeptics and pro-shroud enthousiasts [...] The shroud of Turin and the lesser known proposed companion cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, remain enigmatic and controversial. It is reasonable to assume that debate about such cloths will not cease anytime in the near future". Kearse, Theology and Science, 11, 1, 52-61, 2013.

In a nutshell: a lot of controversy around the Turin Shroud and the 1988 tests but no "fringe theory" or even a "minority view" among scholars. Sorry for you. Thucyd (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sister, you have a bad case of WP:IDHT. Your references all indicate only that the shroudies refuse to accept the reality, and continue to pretend that the matter is still open. We all accept that there is controversy, that the shroudies continue to keep it alive for their own reasons, and that they will probably continue to hold "conferences" long after the image-creation mechanism has been conclusively established. That is not in dispute, and the lead of the article covers this already.

My references, on the other hand, are scientists who have scientifically proved, with scientific evidence, that the carbon-dated samples were representative. My point all along, which you are now delicately trying to divert, is that the radiocarbon dating has been proven to be correct, even though the shroudies refuse to accept this. There was general agreement that the dating process was correct, and the shroudies argued that the samples were contaminated. When it was scientifically proven that this is impossible, the shroudies claimed based on "mystery threads" that the sampled material wasn't original cloth. When this was scientifically disproved, they now calculate statistics to "prove" that the dating process was wrong all along. Everyone agrees that the samples were not perfectly selected, but the reality had to be managed as well - they couldn't burn a dozen different chunks of the central image. However even the most sympathetic "statistics" don't indicate a 1st Century date. Hence the shroudies have nothing left to counter the radiocarbon date, and the date stands - although with perhaps a slightly wider range of probability than before. The shroudies now sob about uncontrolled pollen samples and images of coins that only they can see, and claim this "evidence" undermines the dating, but the dating stands. To say otherwise would be WP:UNDUE. The current wording of the lead covers all of this quite thoroughly. Wdford (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversial artifact and sample tests

In this edit a source was added to support/cite the statement that the Shroud is a medieval artifact. That edit was challenged on the talk page, and I see several problems with that edit:

• The source (from 1989) refers to the testing of a sample, not the entire item.
• The rest of the article discusses in detail that the representativeness of the sample has been the subject of discussion among scholars with no conclusion.
• The rest of article makes it clear that the entire age determination issue is highly controversial.

Thus the edit fails on a number of policy grounds:

• Per WP:V it fails verification
• Per WP:Synthesis it is going beyond what the source states
• Per WP:LEDE it contradicts the rest of the article, given that the article makes it clear that members of the team involved in the test later disagreed about the representativeness of the sample.
• Per WP:RS/AC it does not present a survey of Academic opinion.

The most that can be said from that source and the tests is: "in 1989 a sample of the linen was carbon-dated to medieval times", as the lede currently states further below. As the article explains given that no access is available to the rest of the linen, the issue of the

• contamination of the sample, and
• its representativeness

have been the subject of wide ranging debates among scholars, and the issue has also been discussed on these talk pages for what seems close to 1,000 years now. There are many sources in the article make it clear that the age of shroud is a highly controversial among scholars. Thus unless a source is found that summarizes the entire academic opinion regarding the definitiveness of the 1989 tests and the representativeness of the sample, that edit is invalid, and the "failed verification" tag needs to be restored, or the edit reverted. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the age issue is not at all controversial. There are a minority who refuse to accept the results because it conflicts with their own beliefs. That's noteworthy and deserves a place in the article. The shroud is medieval, though; nobody has come up with an even slightly plausible objection to the dating. The sample "might" be from a patch, or "could" be contaminated, or was "possibly" chemically altered by heat. All very interesting, but not backed up by any evidence.

The shroud has been rigorously dated by an extremely reliable method. It is medieval. By all means describe those who disagree, but until they go beyond wailing "No! Isn't!" and come up with some actual facts to support their objections I see no reason to take them seriously.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 13:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS sources for the assertions you have made above Fergus, e.g. "the age issue is not at all controversial". What are your sources for that? Note that WP:RS/AC states: "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors". And note that there are WP:RS sources that say otherwise, R. Rogers (a member for the team that performed the test on the sample) stated: "If we knew exactly how old it is, much of the controversy would be eliminated. But nothing is ever simple with the Shroud" So members of the testing team consider the age of the item as less than settled, as the article states. The existence of controversy is clear; and that is perhaps the only certain issue. History2007 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not I have WP:RS sources for that statement because, duh, I haven't put it in the article. As for Rogers he is a member of STURP, which says all we need to know about his objectivity. He is a determined shroudie. The fact, meanwhile, is that the shroud has been tested and found to be made of medieval linen. The test sample was not taken from a patch; it was specifically selected because it was original fabric. Whether or not it was contaminated is irrelevant because the samples used for every test run were subjected to a thorough cleaning regime which stripped away everything but the linen itself. I agree that the existence of dissent is important and should be in the article - but so should the age of the shroud, which according to the only three tests ever conducted on it is about 700 years.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So:

• Question 1: I assume you have no sources that state: "The dating of the Shroud is free of controversy". Is that right? Do you accept that you have no sources for that?

• Question 2: Where in the Nature 1989 source you added does it state that the sample is definitively representative of the shroud? If you can not find that your source "fails verification".

Please answer those. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen up, would you? It doesn't matter if I have an RS for that statement because I didn't put it in the article. As for the representativeness of the sample it has been dealt with exhaustively. The only "controversy" about that comes from people like Rogers, who have concluded that it can't be representative because it doesn't date to the 1st century CE. It is special pleading and they have produced no evidence to support it. The shroudies - many of whom helped select the sample area - all agreed that it was representative right up until it was tested and didn't give the result they expected. Only then did they decide it was cut from a patch. Now, how scientific is that? The dissent should be mentioned - and it is - but it has no bearing on the fact that the shroud has been dated and is 700 years old. If you object to it being referred to as "medieval linen" despite me citing an RS that states that, please produce a scientific paper describing tests that used a recognised dating method and found a different age.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you have no source. And I do not know how to continue this conversation with you, given that you are clearly performing WP:Synthesis, ignoring the Philip Ball statement, discussing "facts", etc. Wikipedia is not about facts, but sources. I will stop and wait for further opinions. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I have no source that says "The dating is uncontroversial." But, for the third and final time, that doesn't f*cking matter because I didn't put that statement in the article.

Now, I have linked to a scientific paper that says the shroud is made of medieval linen. Do you have an RS that shows test results giving a differentdate? No? End of discussion, I believe. The shroud is medieval.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so you have no source that it is non-controversial, and the article has sources that state there is controversy. Sources rule. And the article includes scientific papers that question the sampling process, so there is controversy. Unlike your position that "all is calm and certain". History2007 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And we're right back to WP:UNDUE. Yes, there is a "controversy" insasmuch as there are those who claim the sample was unrepresentative/the tests were rigged/the shroud was affected by magical radiation. Fine. All covered in the article. What there is not is even a tiny scrap of evidence that casts doubt on the carbon dating results. Unless someone can come up with evidence that the shroud is not medieval the article should say that it is, because right now that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually the representativeness of the sample is vouched by the STURP team that took the sample, and who had all kinds of lights and scopes to assist them to choose a valid sample, along with STURP member Jackson, who has demonstrated from photographs that the weave-bands in the sampled area are consistent with the neighboring shroud cloth. There were many people involved in STURP, and only a minority appear to question the C14 dates. Rogers himself is the main flag-bearer here, but - a) Rogers based his conclusions on examinations of a few loose threads, with no scientific-evidence trail to prove that they were actual shroud threads to begin with, b) Rogers saw dyes on the mystery loose threads, and jumped to conclusions about the actual sample, c) Rogers used a home-grown and unsubstantiated vanillin test, which has no support from relevant specialists that I have seen, and which is of dubious validity, and d) its beyond incredible that a patch "invisible to modern scrutiny" was performed on an inconsequential edge, while the serious damage in the center of the shroud was patched so poorly. Its certainly notable that Rogers (and those who followed his lead) are making these controversial claims, but actually the "debate" is not evenly weighted at all. The other "evidence" of authenticity include pollens which only Frei could find (STURP tape samples seemingly didn't find this evidence), and now Fanti's homegrown and unsubstantiated methodologies which were apparently conducted on fluff vacuumed from the back of the shroud. On the other side there is no historical record of this shroud prior to the C14 date, although other shrouds apparently abounded, and the only burial shroud ever found in a 1st century Jerusalem tomb was completely different. I think its very WP:UNDUE to present the unsubstantiated Frei/Fanti/Rogers "tests" as having equal weight with scientific tripled C14 testing of official and attested STURP samples - Rogers et al are making extraordinary claims about a careful scientific process, so surely they need to present actual verifiable PROOF that the sample was invalid before they can be given equal weight? Wdford (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, STURP was dismantled before the 1988 sampling, of course. Please read up on that. And what you have just typed shows the existence of controversy. Again, do you have a source that states: "the sampling issue is free of controversy?" Source? History2007 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As he only mentioned STURP members, who didn't disapparate when the team itself disbanded in 1981, I don't see how that matters. As for the controversy, it is mentioned in the article. However the shroud is medieval and that needs to be mentioned too.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That the 1988 tests on the sample dated it as medieval, should be, and is mentioned. But your edit in the so called "voice of Wikipedia" that telegrams a "fact" not supported by a source upfront fails a number of policies as above given that you have been repeatedly asked to follow WP:RS/AC. Again, I will stop now for further opinions, since we are circling in the absence of WP:RS/AC sources. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, a fact not supported by the sources? A sample of the shroud was tested and is medieval. How much more support do you need? There is no absence of sources. There is only an absence of your willingness to accept them.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. Also do a Google search for "Shroud Turin controversy". Your position that "all is calm and settled" has no sources and there are opposing sources. I will now really stop for further opinions. In the meantime, read WP:RS/AC please. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that isn't my position, is it? I know that all is not calm and settled, because I am well aware of the existence of shroudies. However the age of the shroud is settled. It has been tested and it is medieval. I have asked you several times to show me a paper that reached an alternative date and you have not done so. Nor will you, because no such paper exists. Nor does any evidence of patching, contamination or anything else. The fact is that a piece of the shroud has been tested with a thoroughly reliable method and its date has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The linen is medieval and the article needs to say that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly accepted the existence of controversy. You have no source that states "the age of the shroud is settled". My position, supported by sources is that the age of the shroud is subject to controversy. There is "no source" that scholarly consensus that the age has been settled. But you are claiming it. Fails verification. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article to say that the linen of the shroud is medieval, and linked to a reliable source that says the linen of the shroud is medieval and describes in great detail how that was determined. What exactly is your problem here?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, DoctorJoeE already explained that to you in the above. The real problem is this:

• There is widespread agreement that the authenticity vs forgery of the shroud is highly controversial (as agreed to by all sides here and elsewhere)
• Declaring it in a telegram upfront in the article to be medieval is tantamount to supporting the forgery theory upfront

What you did not do is to move/rename the page to "Forged Shroud of Turin". That you did not do. But were you unaware of the effect of your edit? Be upfront now. Be upfront. Where you unaware of the effect of telegramming it upfront despite the controversies? History2007 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I aware that stating the age of the shroud makes it clear that it is medieval? Yes, of course. Frankly that's a ridiculous question. However the´fact remains that although there is debate - call it controversy if you will - over the shroud's origins, its age is known beyond reasonable doubt. I have linked to evidence of that; a piece of linen was taken from the shroud, which all parties at the time was agreed was representative, and was found to be 700 years old. Yes, various people have since claimed that the sample was taken from a magic invisible patch, but so what? WP:UNDUE. Their views are interesting and deserve inclusion, but have no bearing on the fact that the shroud is 13th century or later.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Declaring it in a telegram upfront in the article to be medieval is tantamount to supporting the forgery theory upfront" Yes. But, uh, the article is medieval. That has been determined by an extremely reliable scientific test. Those challenging the test have provided nothing except speculation about invisible patches. It is not my fault if stating facts makes certain conclusions obvious. However what matters on Wikipedia is verifiability, and I have linked a source which makes quite clear how old the linen is. Come up with an alternative date backed by equivalent evidence if you object. However if you don't have that evidence I don't see why you're objecting.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being upfront. Your clear statement Declaring it in a telegram upfront in the article to be medieval is tantamount to supporting the forgery theory upfront" Yes. means that you know your edit supports the forgery point of view in the first line of an article you know to be on controversial topic. In the rest of your response you elaborated why you believe that POV to be the "correct POV" but your edit fails the WP:NPOV policy, given that you have elsewhere accepted the issue to be controversial. Conclusion, a "WP:POV edit" to a controversial topic. I am sorry, that is clearly against the WP:NPOV policy. History2007 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

if my edit "supports the forgery point of view" then that is because the facts support the forgery point of view. There is hard scientific evidence which has not been credibly challenged that the shroud is about 700 years old. I think you are misunderstanding NPOV here. It does not mean that both sides of a debate have to be presented as equally valid. It means that they have to be given the validity that they actually have. The POV that the shroud is medieval is backed by hard evidence. The POV that it's from classical antiquity isn't. If you don't want the article to say that it's medieval you need to deal with the test results that say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it is. I have referenced the word "medieval." Do you accept the Nature article as an RS? If not you need to explain why not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, per WP:V Wikipedia is "not about facts". I can not discuss "facts" with you per WP:Forum and WP:OR. Policy is clear on that. The WP:NPOV policy must be followed. History2007 (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am following the NPOV policy. I have linked an RS showing clearly that the shroud is about 700 years old. NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to every wingnut claim about invisible patches. The shroud is medieval. I can't help it if that doesn't suit your beliefs, but it is a fact and I have provided the citation to confirm that. To claim OR is simply ridiculous.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a minute here. What's this shit about?

"Your clear statement Declaring it in a telegram upfront in the article to be medieval is tantamount to supporting the forgery theory upfront"

That was your clear statement, not mine. Stop putting words in my mouth, would you? My edit adds the word "medieval" because the linen from which the shroud is made is medieval. I have provided a link to an RS making that very, very clear. I have added nothing to the article which says the shroud is a forgery, so please stop trying to twist things.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You responded "Yes" to that statement; that was why I quoted it altogether. So let me rephrase it: Your "Yes" response to the statement "Declaring it in a telegram upfront in the article to be medieval is tantamount to supporting the forgery theory upfront" means that you know your edit supports the forgery point of view in the first line of an article you know to be on controversial topic. And please follow W:Civil and use polite language. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it supports the forgery argument or not. It is verifiable. The shroud is medieval. It is not POV to say so because it is confirmed by an RS and has not been credibly challenged. By all means say "Some people say it isn't medieval," but it is and the article should say that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an essay on truth which explains the WP:V policy and you should read that regarding your repeated use of the word "is". Please read the section "But I know the truth!" Now:

• You have acknowledged the forgery/authenticity issue to be a controversial subject.
• You have acknowledged your edit to support one point of view upfront
• You have argued for the forgery view to be the "correct point of view"

As you were also told in the section above, you have a "POV edit" based on your determination of "what is correct". That is not how Wikipedia works, per WP:NPOV, given the clear agreement that the subject is mired in controversy. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not a POV edit. Even "medieval forgery" would not be a POV edit, but that isn't what I wrote. I'm typing this very slowly so you'll understand; the shroud is made of medieval linen. I know that some people do not agree with this, which is why it's controversial, but that doesn't actually change anything. We are back, yet again, to WP:UNDUE. "We have exhaustively tested this sample using the highly accurate method we are about to describe in excrutiating detail, and it's about 700 years old" does not become dubious, controversial or possibly untrue because some people start screaming "No! Isn't!" There are people who say the shroud is not medieval, and it is interesting to describe their arguments, but NPOV does not mean that they have to be taken seriously. The shroud has been demonstrated to be medieval with a very high level of confidence, and you have made no attempt to provide an RS that gives an alternative date. Feel free to do so, but until you do I fail to see why you are objecting to my well sourced edit.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"* You have acknowledged the forgery/authenticity issue to be a controversial subject."

No, I have not. A controversy exists, but only because some people refuse to accept the facts. Unless someone produces evidence that the dating was flawed, the age of the shroud is not controversial. It is settled. The shroud is medieval. I will reconsider that when I see any evidence at all from deniers, but not before.

"* You have acknowledged your edit to support one point of view upfront"

So what? The facts support that point of view. I will say this again: The shroud is medieval.

"* You have argued for the forgery view to be the "correct point of view""

Here, yes. Not in the article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your statement "I'm typing this very slowly so you'll understand", you must stop that approach now, per WP:NPA policy. Please do not ever, ever question my intelligence again, for you do not know my academic qualifications. Is that clear? And I think this discussion is cyclic now. So I will stop. Once someone resorts to personal attacks, that signals that there are no further statements of substance to be made. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want me to question your intelligence please stop being so obtuse. I have provided an RS for "medieval." You have failed to provide an RS for any alternative date. However you keep arguing, apparently through a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, that "medieval" shouldn't be used. What conclusion am I supposed to draw? The shroud has been carefully tested and is about 700 years old. Yes, this is disputed; so are the age of the earth and the theory of evolution. Who cares? The fact that people dispute a fact doesn't stop it being a fact.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The controversy is between those who think it is a medieval forgery, those who think the "date is yet unknown" and more recently those who think the date is ancient. And again regarding your use of the word "fact", please do read WP:V. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But the date is known. The "controversy" is between those who accept it and those who don't. We are not talking about an issue where either side might be correct. The shroud has been dated by a reliable method and we know how old it is. It is just like the age of the earth. People also deny that, but it has been proven in just the same way as the age of the shroud. I am not doing OR. I am not pushing a POV. I am stating a fact supported by an RS, and yes, Wikipedia does allow facts. They just have to be verifiable, and the age of the shroud is.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you can have a WP:RS state "X" and another WP:RS dispute that. That is when controversy comes in, as in this case. But we have said that a few times now. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Find an RS that says it isn't medieval and can back that up with test results. If there's a real controversy you'll be able to do that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the other side in the controversy is that "date in yet unknown"; so your requirement is inapplicable. And there are multiple sources that state that the subject is controversial, as you well know. So there is a real controversy, as you well know. And please do recall that in the above you stated: No. I have no source that says "The dating is uncontroversial." So there is no source that claims a lack of controversy, and multiple sources that state there is controversy. I am sorry, you are on the wrong side of WP:NPOV here. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there are multiple RS that say it is controversial. However that has nothing to do with the age of the shroud, which is known beyond any reasonable doubt! The article says that there is a controversy (but note that a controversy does not necessarily mean real uncertainty) and it says that the shroud is medieval. What is the problem? Leaving out verifiable facts to give the false impression of balance is not what NPOV is about. The idea that carbon dating doesn't work - which is essentially what the shroudies are saying - is WP:FRINGE. Saying that the sample was taken from an "invisible patch" which even STURP members have confirmed doesn't exist is WP:FRINGE. Claiming that a coronal discharge altered the molecular structure of the linen is WP:FRINGE. Every argument against the medieval dating is WP:FRINGE. So yes, by all means say that there are people who don't believe it's medieval. However it's medieval and the article needs to say that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am almost speechless now. After all of the above, you are reiterating the same. First you say: No. I have no source that says "The dating is uncontroversial." Then you say known beyond any reasonable doubt!. What can I tell you? History2007 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. WHO CARES if I don't have a source that says the dating is uncontroversial? I DIDN'T PUT THAT IN THE ARTICLE! OK? Got that? I do not need to provide an RS for talk page comments. What I did put in the article is that the shroud is medieval, and guess what? I do have a source for that. Let me break this down. Carbon dating is extremely reliable and extremely accurate. Carbon dating was run on a sample of the shroud. The test says that the shroud is medieval. Therefore the shroud is medieval. There is no reasonable doubt about this. Unless the laws of physics have changed it cannot be anything other than medieval. The sample isn't taken from an unrepresentative patch; two dozen experts, including several STURP members, spent four years choosing the most representative area possible. The sample was not contaminated; it was thoroughly cleaned using approved and reliable methods. None of the objections to the dating are based on any evidence at all. That the shroud is medieval is as certain as that the sky looks blue. It is not first century. It is not 19th century. It is medieval. I have added this information to the article complete with an RS and I don't see why it should be removed, because it is a solid and well referenced fact. The RS says the linen was made between 1260 and 1390. That period is in the Middle Ages. Things from the Middle Ages are called medieval. Honestly, I'm struggling to think of new ways of explaining this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps if you use bold letters, I may begin to understand. Even better, you could provide sources. And again, please read WP:Civil and be civil. I think I have explained the issues regarding your lack of sources, but do consider reading WP:RS/AC and WP:NPOV in any case. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm positive that I have explained before. I don't have a lack of sources. I have provided a source which says, quite clearly and with all the supporting evidence attached, that the linen is medieval. I haven't edited the article to say there isn't a controversy. I haven't edited the article to say everyone accepts the facts. I have simply stated how old the shroud is and given a link to the evidence, which is the results of the only three scientific dating tests ever carried out on it. Seriously, objecting to the shroud being called medieval is exactly like objecting to the earth being called 4.56 billion years old. It is WP:FRINGE. The shroud is not 1st century and it is not of unknown age. It's about 700 years old and I don't see the problem with saying that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No. That is not how Wikipedia works. WP:RS source A may state X and WP:RS sources B, C etc. may say not so. You can not say that "source A" expresses "the fact" in the so called "voice of Wikipedia". When a subject is controversial, and this is controversial, WP:NPOV requires you not to telegram one POV upfront. And you have already admitted to telegramming one point of view upfront because you consider it to be a "fact". That is clear. And it is a breach of NPOV. Now it is a question of remedying that breach. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying anything controversial. I am saying that the shroud is medieval and backing that up by solid evidence that, yes, the shroud is medieval. There is no real controversy, just a faction who don't want to accept the facts because they have a preconceived belief that it's first century. The fact that people disagree with the evidence is already covered in the article, as it should be, but to suggest that their disagreements have any validity is WP:FRINGE.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's recap: Our problem (or at least mine) is not with the assertion that the shroud is Medieval; I'm convinced, you're convinced, most reasonable observers are convinced. Our problem (or at least mine) is with stating, unequivocally, in the first line of the article, that it IS Medieval -- as if the question is settled and there is no dispute about it. There is dispute, e.g. Fanti's book, which constitutes WP:RS as far as I can tell. You say Fanti is a crackpot, and perhaps he is -- but that is not a call that you get to make! WP:NPOV and WP:OR don't allow it. We need to resolve this, so how about stating that the shroud is probably Medieval? That would satisfy WP rules, and the sentence will be less likely to be reverted every few days by some religious zealot. Would that be a suitable compromise? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Or that all tests have shown it to be medieval?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody will object to "all tests" -- how about "all tests based on proven scientific principles"? Maybe a bit ponderous, but something like that? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The "all tests" suggestion has no source, so can not be stated that way and again will clearly circumvent the controversial nature of the artifact. There was really one Carbon dating test in 1988, so "all scientific tests" is like listing all the capital cities of England. Again the issue is that of not telegramming things upfront to circumvent the controversy which is what the edit does. It is not a question of sourcing but jumping the gun. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to read up on it again. There were three carbon dating tests, performed by three independent labs, that all gave the same results. There have been no tests that gave a pre-13th century date.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I totally agree with DoctorJoeE's statement that "stating, unequivocally, in the first line of the article, that it IS Medieval -- as if the question is settled and there is no dispute about it" breaches NPOV, given the controversies. That has been the issue in the brief discussion above. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay -- how about "...a linen cloth of Medieval origin according to radiocarbon dating"? Any chance of consensus on that? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would then insist on saying "a controversial linen cloth" in any case, given that there is a source for its being controversial. And you have no source saying it is free of controversy. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But it would need to say "according to a controversial radiocarbon dating". And again, the rest of the lede explains all the issues in the next 3 paragraphs. But really, really, let me confess to my own utter idiocy in taking part in this discussion. These ledes change like the latest fashions from Dolce & Gabbana. We once took part in a long discussion on the Gospel of Thomas and agreed on something that was changed 2 months later by another user and all the previous participants had been worn out or perhaps died of fatigue. So in the end, this is a pointless discussion really, given that we can not cast this into stone. The article, as it was last week, was viewed a million times the year before without fanfare. That means it was NPOV. So I think this brouhaha should be forgotten and go back to that. History2007 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there is nothing controversial about the carbon dating. There are just people who don't want to accept it. The tests were valid and their results are accurate. The linen that went into those machines was 700 years old. No controversy there. You could always argue that it wasn't part of the shroud, but good luck with that.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for " there is nothing controversial about the carbon dating"? History2007 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Yes, I have a source for "there is nothing controversial about the carbon dating." It's called the standard model. The linen that went into those machines was 700 years old and anyone who says otherwise is a crackpot.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on WP is cast in stone, of course. The dating isn't controversial, only the result -- and "controversial" isn't really the appropriate word -- how about "disputed"? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are refreshingly sensible here DoctorJoeE. So "disputed" is a done deal. History2007 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere! So the proposal is that the first sentence read as follows: "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a length of linen cloth, of Medieval origin according to disputed radiocarbon dating, bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion." Is that acceptable to everyone? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok with me, just needs an indef article after "according to" probably. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it gives too much weight to the "disputes," but I'm not sure how to improve it without it getting cumbersome. Perhaps "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a length of linen cloth which has been radiocarbon dated to between 1260 and 1390CE, although this dating has been disputed by some." The fact is the "dispute" is not backed by anything, and I'm concerned that so much emphasis is being put on it. It would be different if there was some evidence that the patch wasn't representative, but there simply isn't. NPOV doesn't mean taking crackpots seriously.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an old joke that every possible program can be one line of APL. So that last line is like that. And you are again arguing from first principles. Time to agree with the one DrJ proposed and move on. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. Arguing that the shroud isn't medieval is like arguing that the Earth isn't 4.56 billion years old; people do it, and they can cite books to back up their positions, but they're crackpots and they have no evidence. A piece of cloth was cut from the shroud and fed into three separate machines in three separate labs. Every one of those machines says it's medieval. Now, unless the sample was switched - and the only person who had a chance to do that was a Roman Catholic bishop - the shroud is 700 years old. There is an RS - the Nature paper - that says that. Books by shroudies are an RS for how old shroudies say it is, but a peer-reviewed paper published in the world's leading scientific journal and describing the results of three independent C14 tests is an RS for how old it actually is. There is a dispute, yes, but some idiots dispute that Earth is a spheroid. As has already been pointed out, the fact that a dispute exists does not mean that both sides of it merit equal weight under WP:NPOV. The shroud has been dated by three independent labs, and the results agree; it's 700 years old. Some people argue with this date but they can't say why the tests were wrong. Their sole basis for disputing the tests is that the results weren't what they wanted. Now, why should they be taken seriously?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 00:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So have you bought the new app yet? But seriously, I think you need to stop arguing from first principles. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what compromise is all about, dude -- more than you had, less than you want: "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a length of linen cloth, of Medieval origin (between 1260 and 1390CE) according to radiocarbon dating which is disputed by some, bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion." How's that? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is terrible and an Edsel-like design, but use it after you drop the (between 1260 and 1390CE) which makes it even harder to read. Just medieval is enough really. The "by some" will soon get a procedural tag of course, and it will go downhill from there. But seriously, I can not but laugh about how Wiki-content gets decided on now - and that sentence typifies that. Three people debate things for a few hours and the most controversial artifact in history gets classified... I know you are doing your best to make the best of a bad situation, but that is a reflection of the inherent problems with crowd sourced development of controversial content. And perhaps this makes no difference anyway, given that the app is out there and has better images, etc. I do not think this page will be taken seriously within the next 6 months, given the unfolding developments. So the huffing and puffing here will probably be for naught after all, in the larger scheme of things. When the page gets unprotected, just modify it as such and we will see what happens in the next few month. Then when Fanti publishes, the whole game changes anyway. So I should not waste any more time on this. History2007 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As I recall Henry Clay's definition of a good compromise was one that nobody particularly liked. I don't care for "by some" either, although the article defines "some" later on. Let's try again: "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a length of linen cloth, of Medieval origin (between 1260 and 1390CE) according to radiocarbon dating which stands in some dispute, bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion." Better? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to leave out the numbers. Take three: "The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a length of linen cloth, of Medieval origin according to radiocarbon dating which stands in some dispute, bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion." What say ye? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I say go with it. I think you made the best of the current situation. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bless you! :-) Unless anyone objects strenuously in the next few hours, I will make the change. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 11:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it and see what happens. Applause to everyone for willingness to find common ground. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was reading the article and noticed this text and I must say it stands out like a sore thumb as an obvious compromise to resolve a deadlocked argument. I really think it needs to be changed to something better. I think a better solution is to have the first sentence just describe the physical appearance of the shroud. The 2nd sentence describe its place in Church history and the 3rd sentence say how all modern reliable dating places it as a medieval creation, although some Christians dispute this finding. Ashmoo (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)