Talk:Shroud of Turin

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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