Talk:Shroud of Turin

You are a censorer. You want people to stop talking about Christian Perspective.

I am the ONLY Christian expert who discusses erroneous stuff on Wikipedia Shroud of Turin.

You are trying to shut up the Christian perspective. Rather you support long runs of "pro non Christian perspective, then tell the Christian to "keep quiet". If you look, I always reference my stuff to science and correct others. It is also logical.

My attempt to update for pertainent theory was blocked and called irrelevant by a person who is a proclaimed anti religious. You reflect a person who is trying to impose an anti religious philosophy on others.

Please stop censoring normal discussion that is directly associtated the Christian artifact that is call the Burial Cloth of Christ / Shroud of Turin.

If you are SO uncomfortable with Christianity why do you care about supervising this aspect anyway. Leave Christians and their science alone. Stop censoring. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't rant on my talk page I have not censored anything. You have made no edits whatsoever to the article but have used the talk page as a forum for your own ideas and opinions with NO reliable third party references and if you check the history it was other editors who closed the threads not myself.Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to suppress Christian science perspective. You collapsed the above. If you disagree with something then say so, and state your science together with references, instead of advising me ON MY TALK page not to write about stuff. The items you collapsed were supportive of Christian science. And important contriburions to the Wikipedia article. They have been ignored and collapsed. That is censorship.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My references included references to scholars. So you are incorrect. Jackson is a 30 year veteran of Shroud science.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check the history I did NOT collapse or close any threads. Please assume good faithTheroadislong (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2012(UTC)

Are you not an editor involved in the decision to collapse? Why was the ANNOUNCED violet light references science suppressed. Why was the STURP Scientist Jackson Collapsing Cloth evidence suppressed?JimfromGTA (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion didn't seem to be going anywhere and many other editors agreed. If you have a suggestion for improving the article I suggest you make it so it can be discussed but this page is NOT a forum.Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, please take my word for it that "strong language" in Wikipedia does not go very far. You may feel upset, but getting upset does not buy anything in Wikipedia. There are many rules for dealing with it and in the end your account will get a block. Frustration is a common symptom in Wikipedia and there is in fact a page WP:CALM about how to deal with frustrations. And this si not just a case on this page. There are pages such as this one which are also subject to debate. And they have zero religious context. And of course Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is a prime example. I no longer watch that, and as far as I know no one was murdered there, although it looks like it came close. So discussion is common in Wikipedia, as is frustration, but getting upset does not achieve much. And I think if you ask on various boards, the discussion above was clearly within WP:Forum. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Collapsing Cloth theory is current science and is done by main stream scholarship. You know that. But it is not being added. Instead, you "collapse" information so that others can not see the connection to Christian science. JimfromGTA (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jackson’s “Collapsing Cloth Theory” is nicely summarised – and totally rebutted – by Ray Rogers (an actual scientist with FACE TIME) in a published paper titled: “TESTING THE JACKSON "THEORY" OF IMAGE FORMATION” [1]

Some choice comments:

Page 5: “If Jackson were correct, and energetic photons caused the image color, the image areas should show significantly different amounts of diffuse radiation damage than the non-image areas. They do not.”

Page 6: “If, as Jackson claims, the body becomes "mechanically transparent and the cloth falls into the body," all of the cloth would be subjected to an environment that can completely decompose the cellulose. If the cloth fell through (was immersed in) an energy field, all of the pores in the cloth should have been filled with and subjected to the energy. There is no image color or erosion inside the pores of the cloth.”

Final para: “Jackson's "theory" cannot be supported by the observations that have been made on the Shroud of Turin or the masses of information available on radiation effects.”

So much for this theory being “current science” and “main stream scholarship”. Wdford (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If Rogers attacks the collapsing cloth theory in public, in an ironic twist that makes collapsing cloth more notable. So maybe it should go in with a summary sentence that Rogers thinks it is impossible. But I guess no more than one sentence each pro and con. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a famous quote from Bill Clinton regarding you know who which said: "it depends on what is is". In a different sense, it is also the case that in Wikipedia "is" is subject to WP:Consensus and has no meaning in itself. So "X is Y" can not be assumed by any single editor and the entire Wikipedia talk:Verifiability discussion was on that. That is how this website works. History2007 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find only one reference to a "collapsing cloth theory" on Google which is on www.shroudcentersocal.com can you supply any secondary references?Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is also discussed here. The issue is that it can not go in the science section, and I do not know how to put it in the religion section, given that it has no priest endorsing it. But we could put a sentence in the "Miraculous image" section that Jackson thinks it was beyond science. We could say: "Scientist Joe Jackson has proposed that the image was formed by methods beyond the understanding of current science, in particular via collapsing cloth onto the body that was radiating at the moment of resurrection". We may get objections from religious people, but let us see. What do you think? History2007 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let’s maybe also add a quote, from the same source but 2 paras down - Alan Adler on John Jackson: “But not all of us buy what he thinks are some of the mechanisms because they seem to violate other physical laws.” Wdford (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but should the criticism come from Adler or Rogers? Maybe Adler since it is the same source. Adding too long a criticism actually adds more focus to the theory. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

True. Perhaps we just say: "Some theories of image formation which claim to be scientifically valid, actually totally violate the accepted laws of science. These include John Jackson's collapsing cloth theory, the Moronic Mumblings of Moran, and anything written on this subject by Antonnacci." We then cite both Rogers and Adler as reliable sources for this. Yes? Wdford (talk)`

I think you should avoid being insulting to authors such as Moran etc. Does not buy anything. But let us wait a day or two and if there are no other objections, then two sentences on Collapsing Cloth etc. and rebuttals will go into the religion section, not the science section. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You allow Wdford to go on adnausium about "non Christian" perspective without any evidence to back his theory. And you "collapse" Chrsitian perspective that makes you uncomfortable. Then you tell me NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT. I don't mind talking about the Collapsing Cloth theory, but as long as you censor my words, why bother. You'll just censor them again. You have a "collapsing Christian science" approach well. So open up the discourse and I'll participate. Otherwise your actionS speak like "non Christians" ganging up on the ONLY Christian expert here.JimfromGTA (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, per the suggestion made by Theroadislong, and supported by DWeller, the bloodstains thread started by Wdford was also collapsed. So in advocating the collapse of the threads neither Theroadislong, nor myself have taken sides in the debate that has been mostly been between you two guys. But again, and again, and again, this type of totally polarized debate is common in Wikipedia, even on core policies such as WP:V and at the end both people on the extremes go away unhappy. Some people's ideal scenario may be to have the page start by saying: The Shroud is real: here is why. Some other people's ideal scenario may be to have the page start by saying: The Shroud is fake: here is why. In the end, both will be unhappy: a requirement for having a middle of the road view. And I should say that both of you have been "discussing evidence", and that runs counter to WP:Forum. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor pedantic note, there is an editor 'Dweller'. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have NOT "uncollapsed" Christian science perspectives, that were included in both sections. You have mislabeled as well. What more can one say about censorship. People are not allowed to discuss article improvements that are consistent with Christian science without them being suppressed? For a Christian artifact? Amazing. Anything but a Christian science perspective for a major Christian artifact.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimfromGTA (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this. You have ignored my polite warning about civility and good faith. The word 'censorship' is completely inappropriate here, the issue is our policies and guidelines and whether they are being applied appropriately. Stick to that. Stop making accusations that other editors are censoring you. Avoid arguments that are just discussing the Shroud and not the article. And please, there is no such thing as 'Christian science' outside of the religious group by that name. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have confirmed my suspicions. All three editors are non Christian. Such is the bias in your article. You suppress Christian perspective and when someone talks "like a Christian" one of you bluntly tries to suppress his speach. What can I say. You have a "cognative dissonance" reaction wherein your "shut your eyes" when someone from a different perspective speaks. So you "shut" (collapse) the sections involved.

Jesus Christ by ancient documents was crucified, died, was buried in a tomb, then resurrected. He also, according to witnesses at that time claimed to be the Son of God. Billions of people believe that. Many have had "spiritual experience" confirming this. The Shroud of Turin contains evidence that indicates these statements to be real. I am the ONLY Christian on this site that is stating this and demonstrating this in logic. I bring a multidimensional experience and evidence to this forum. And I do so at an expert discussion level, consistent with scholarly research. Yet you do not want this discussed, and suppress any science in your article that is related to this. Wikipedia is a great encyclopdic concept, except where conflict between athiestic/Muslim and Christian philosophy colide. JimfromGTA (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I find your comments deeply offensive, my edits have always been neutral I'm not censoring you or anyone else. This page is NOT a forum as you suggest, it is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia relies on third party references, it matters not what my beliefs are or yours. This is an encyclopaedia and "spiritual experiences" or logic cannot be used in place of reliable references.Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support the statement that Theroadislong has been neutral and middle of the road in these discussions. In my view, he has not shown a bias towards either Jim or wdford's views which represent the two ends of the spectrum in this forum, excuse me, talk page. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

I have tried to talk "improvements" to your article. But sir, you have censored me. You have talked down to me when I expressed Christian perspective. Now you complain when I complain about your behavior. I have tried to bring logic and science together. But you have failed to address the Christian perspective. As stated. Where's the Resurrection Theory in your article. When I bring forth the Cloth Collapse theory, your editor doesn't state the evidence and the theory, rather you start with a critic, without even trying to understand why a STURP scientist postulate the theory in the first place. The Eddessa evidence about the Shroud has been excluded, even though the evidence was referenced to ancient documents and physical evidence.

I suspect in both our worlds, we both try to do the "right thing", from each of our perspectives. But somehow its like oil and water here. Stop your censoring behavior and I will be more than happy to discuss a Christian perspective, and stop complaining. Otherwise, take the criticism that is justified from my perspective.JimfromGTA (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am left speechless at your lack of understanding of how this encyclopaedia works. I am taking this article off my watch list.Theroadislong (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, Wikipedia is a "secular" encyclopedia that does not take the side of Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. There are many Muslims who would swear on the Quran that Jesus survived the crucifixion, because the Quran says so. But Wikipedia must remain neutral. You need to read WP:CALM and WP:Forum again. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have expressed my complaint. It's always hard to see through the "other guy's" eyes. I commend you for hearing me out. Tell Theroadislong. that I understand this is a difficult area to express succintly and I like his article in a lot of areas. Unfortunately it falls short, in some respects as I have discussed. I'll come back at another time.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pollen and dust?

The esteemed website [2] has a “History” page, whereupon it is noted that the Shroud was often displayed outdoors, including (on July 6, 1418) annually “in a meadow on the banks of the river Doubs’. Surely this much outdoor exposure would have drenched the Shroud in French and Italian pollen? How come was all this pollen not adequately represented in Frei’s study? Also on this esteemed website, a courtier writes (14 April, 1503) that “the Shroud's authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.'” Even allowing for a ship-load of “pious exaggeration”, I question how the Jerusalem pollens and dust all survived this brutal treatment intact? Any ideas? Wdford (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No. If that will cut back on WP:Forum here. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See also, and other connected relics

I wish somebody would add this to article (i can't because article is protected):

See also

• Acheiropoieta: images 'Not made by Hands'
• Depiction of Jesus
• Relics associated with Jesus
• Sudarium of Oviedo
• Veil of Veronica, the other "true image" (vera icon)

I studied some books, movies and articles about the Shroud, and I think the article needs some information about other relics that probably have some connection to the Shroud, like Sudarium of Oviedo, Veil of Manoppello, Cloth of Argenteuil, and so on. 83.27.252.14 (talk)

Most of those other relics have some type of "imagined connection", but unless you have WP:RS scholarly sources they are not really well established links in scholarly publications as far as I know. I do not see how those see also items apply here. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some serious publications on that matter, however I don't have time, experience, and patience (due to the Wikipedia policies sometimes going into absurd) to add them.

I can give a link to interesting page about Manoppello Veil: http://www.sudariumchristi.com/uk/cloth/index.htm I don't know whether it is WP:RS, but I give it just for information.

Besides, please add See also section - I think it is needed in the article 83.5.149.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

Some links about Sudarium of Oviedo: http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf 83.5.149.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

"Wikipedia policies sometimes going into absurd?" No, that has never happened. That would have been against United Nations regulations. But seriously, unless you have WP:RS sources, no go. History2007 (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So which of the links I provided are WP:RS, and which are not? Besides, I only want to add a See Also section (at least for now). In the articles about those relics their connection with the Shroud of Turin is already discussed. I don't think it is a matter of WP:RS, it is rather a matter of Wikipedia self-consistency. This is one of the example of what I described as "Wikipedia policies sometimes going into absurd?". Does mentioning that 2+2=4 need WP:RS?

That's why I don't like editing Wikipedia. I want just to add some source on talk pages, about some problems, I think need to mentioned in article, and let the others search for WP:RS.

83.5.149.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. Let me explain what I want:

Currently the Contents of page look like this:

1 Decription

2 History

3 Religious perspective

4 Scientific perspective

5 Recent developments

6 References

7 Further reading

8 External links

Please modify it to something like this:

5 Recent developments

6 See also

7 References

And in the future I wish a new section to be added:

4 Scientific perspective

5 Related relics -the relation between Shroud and Sudarium of Oviedo,Veil of Veronica and other relics shall be described there

6 Recent developments

Thanks 83.5.149.13 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you say "let the others search for WP:RS".. No Thank you. End of discussion. History2007 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

Dear editors,please add in the image formation section:Physicist Dr.Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Labs published a letter in the Journal Nature,in 1989, stating that he believed neutron radiation created the image of the Shroud of Turin. Source:Journal Nature Volume 337,February 16,1989 letter:"Shroud Irradiated by Neutrons" Thank you.

208.72.122.4 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You are an editor, too. If you will describe exactly what you want to add and where to add it, someone will do the typing for your unless there is another problem. Please try to phrase it in a way which flows with the rest of the section. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)