Talk:Shroud of Turin

Digitally altered image

The "Digitally processed" image is nice, but it appears to be original research and the image comes with some wildly inaccurate statements like "Digital filters are mathematical functions that do not add any information to the image". Of course digital filters add lots of information, particularly they add all the information the user provides through various parameters. 83.248.135.244 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

This article is using the concept of "authenticity" inappropriately.

theories	are accurate or inaccurate
claims	are authentic or fraudulent
objects	exist or don't exist

The problem is that this article consistently refers to the object's authenticity.

• If I have a watch, it is simply a watch. It cannot be authentic or not.
• If I have a watch that bears a specific trademark, it claims to be manufactured by a certain business. This claim can be authentic or fraudulent.
• If, in 1000 years time, someone discovers my watch and decides that it is a compass, their theory is incorrect. They don't get to claim that my "compass" is authentic, or my "compass" is a fraud. My watch merely exists without making any claims.

The subject of this article is a shroud which makes no claims. All references in this article to authenticity and fraud need to be reformulated objectively to say that "such and such a feature is convenient for such and such a hypothesis" or "is inconvenient for such and such a hypothesis".110.146.160.225 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The "cloth" simply exists - there is no argument. The image on the cloth simply exists - there is no argument here either. The "claim" that the cloth is the "burial shroud of Jesus" is indeed "authentic or fraudulent", but there is however also a third level - many who support this claim are not frauds, they are merely mistaken. Then we have "theories" about how the image was created, which are accurate or inaccurate - and again we cannot judge because there is insufficient evidence. The use of the word "authentic" does not apply to the existence of the cloth, which is unchallenged, but rather to the "claim" that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. I think we are on the same page here? Wdford (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you have written here - very much so. The problem with the tone of this article is that it uses the word "authentic" to refer to the cloth itself, as if the cloth were making a claim. However, the cloth is simply an artefact of history about which theorists are making claims. It's an innocent, passive bystander that hasn't said anything in enduring arguments about what people want it to be.

More specifically, these are the problematic snippets from the article and a first-draft suggestion of a neutral substitute:

Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery.	Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse evidence both aligned and contrasting with theoretical religious association.	This is meaningless, and doesn't actually describe the issue at all Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The religious beliefs and practices associated with the shroud predate historical and scientific discussions and have continued in the 21st century, although the Catholic Church has never passed judgment on its authenticity.	The religious beliefs and practices associated with the shroud predate historical and scientific discussions and have continued in the 21st century, although the Catholic Church has never passed judgment on its position regarding the shroud.	This is also meaningless - the church has a clear position, but it's position does not address the authenticity of the claims about Jesus Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Antipope Clement VII refrained from expressing his opinion on the shroud; however, subsequent popes from Julius II on took its authenticity for granted.	Antipope Clement VII refrained from expressing his opinion on the shroud; however, subsequent popes from Julius II on took for granted its possible relgious significance.	Nonsense - the shroud has great religious significance whether or not it's authentic Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In 1983 the Shroud was given to the Holy See by the House of Savoy. However, as with all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church made no pronouncements on its authenticity.	In 1983 the shroud was given to the Holy See by the House of Savoy. However, as with all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church made no pronouncements on its position regarding the shroud.	Nonsense again - the church made several pronouncements about it's position - it just avoided discussing the authenticity of the shroud Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing	In the Church's view, whether the cloth turns out to have any religious significance or not has no bearing	Nonsense - the shroud has religious significance either way, even though it's not the actual authentic burial shroud of Jesus Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In his carefully worded statement Pope Francis urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe, but "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity."	In his carefully worded statement Pope Francis urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe, but "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity."	unchanged, as it is a direct quote
Some believers in the authenticity of the shroud	Some who regard the shroud as religiously significant	Nonsense - see above Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Skeptics also cite other forensic blood tests whose results dispute the authenticity of the Shroud	Skeptics also cite other forensic blood tests whose results contrast with religious theories surrounding the shroud	True, but unclear Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support both authenticity and forgery.	While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support and oppose religious theories regarding the shroud's origin and purpose.	True, but could be clearer about which religious theories are in question here Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
the image on the shroud was authentic, anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion.	the image on the shroud was anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion.	Factual, if incomplete Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Zugibe considered the shroud image and its proportions as authentic,	Zugibe considered the shroud image and its proportions as religiously significant,	Nonsense - see above Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
to explain the image on the Shroud. According to pro-authenticity authors Baldacchini and Fanti,	to explain the image on the shroud. According to authors Baldacchini and Fanti who attach religious meaning to the shroud,	Nonsense - see above Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Pope Francis issued a carefully worded statement which urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe but, like his predecessors, he "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity".	Pope Francis issued a carefully worded statement which urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe but, like his predecessors, he "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity".	unchanged, as it is a direct quote
Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.	Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.	unchanged, as it is an indirect quote
However the correspondence of this shroud in Lirey with the shroud in Turin, and its very origin has been debated by scholars and lay authors, with statements of forgery attributed to artists born a century apart. Some contend that the Lirey shroud was the work of a confessed forger and murderer.	However the correspondence of this shroud in Lirey with the shroud in Turin, and its very origin has been debated by scholars and lay authors, with statements of intentional misrepresentation attributed to artists born a century apart. Some contend that the Lirey shroud was the work of a confessed forger and murderer.	mmmmmm
Bishop D'Arcis's letter to Pope Clement VII, the earliest unambiguous reference to the shroud, states that the forger who confessed to making it had done so by painting.	Bishop D'Arcis's letter to Pope Clement VII, the earliest unambiguous reference to the shroud, states that the artist who confessed to making it had done so by painting.	not part of the indirect quote
'….it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier'	'….it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier'	unchanged, as it is a direct quote

To illustrate from my simple watch/compass parallel above:

• this device is circular with arms that rotate
• sometimes an arm points North
  • therefore it must be a compass
• sometimes no arms point North
  • therefore it must be a deliberate attempt to trick us into thinking it is a compass

Someone who argues along these lines is simply performing blame shifting. Rather than re-evaluating the merits of a theory that doesn't appear to fit all the evidence, they offload that onus by accusing the object of deception. Now it is the alibi or the scapegoat, while smoke and mirrors deflect questioning the theory that stirred up the controversy in the first place. This blame shifting (ie misattribution of fault) is what I hope can be redressed in an appropriately thought out edit.110.146.160.225 (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are over-baking this cake. No reader is going to assume that we are blaming the cloth for lying about its qualifications, or that we are assuming that the cloth is not a cloth. I think the article is clear as it stands - some genuinely believe that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, but none of the "evidence" stands up. I feel your suggestions will tend to make things more vague, incoherent and unhelpful. I am not at all opposed to improving the grammar etc of the article, but I don't think these proposed changes are really going to help. Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your usage of "authentic" (primarily in the table) demonstrates I haven't clearly conveyed my point.

• people found a real cloth
• people speculated it was involved with Jesus
• Wikipedia can describe the actual cloth
• Wikipedia can describe the speculations about the cloth
• Wikipedia can directly quote speculators opining about the cloth
• Wikipedia is not the place for making judgement calls on the speculations about the cloth
  • "authentic", "fraudulent", "hoax", "innocent", "guilty" and similar terms are all Loaded language
  • it is fine for us to quote speculators using loaded language themselves, but it is not within our purview to promote a particular point of view using that same loaded language ourselves - this is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox
• Editorial discretion reminds us that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
• What Wikipedia is not reminds us that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy (...) religious(...). An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Additionally, "theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
• Loaded language that presupposes the accuracy of a speculation is not "neutral point of view".

I am not at all fussed about the syntax (that is, the grammar) in the article. My entire objection is to the semantics of the emotive language being used to skew the article by one particular speculation.110.146.160.225 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

AHA! The light dawns! I think I now see the problem, thank you. If I understand the above correctly, you are concerned that Wikipedia is favoring one speculation over the other. However, the fact is that there are NOT two competing speculations here, there is actual proven scientific fact that shows clearly that the shroud is medieval, and there is speculation that the shroud is old enough to have been used for Jesus. Those few scientists who still cling to the hope that the shroud may be the genuine article are a shrinking minority, and all their so-called "evidence" has been variously refuted by actual experts using actual evidence. The article is quite clear about this.

It is obviously correct that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However the carbon dating has been upheld by multiple scientific evidence, while the counter-theory makes the extraordinary claim that some abnormal non-scientific event somehow skewed the dating - and this claim requires the extraordinary evidence (which has thus far not been presented.) Wikipedia rules require that we give due weight to the counter-theory as well, but the solid scientific evidence still stands until somebody disproves it with solid scientific evidence, and so the solid scientific evidence is given greater weight. To do otherwise would be hopelessly non-neutral.

There is of course still speculation on all sides about how exactly the image was created, with several different methodologies already having created reasonable copies of the shroud image. However none of them are thus far exact copies - probably because the EXACT fabric is no longer available, and the EXACT baking-in-a-silver-box time and temperature are unknown, and the EXACT conditions in which the cloth aged for 600 years is unknown, and the article duly records that this is all thus far still unproven speculation.

I hope this has cleared up the confusion? Wdford (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How many (mainstream / competing) conjectures are out there is not a part of this proposal.

We are in agreement that findings of scientific research conflicts with the predominant speculation.

These words...	... are, by definition, composed of:
	prerequisite knowledge	an assessment
authentic genuine accurate	what the original object / behaviour was intended to be what the original object / behaviour turns out to be	the observed outcome is sufficiently close to the intention therefore it is worthy of authenticity, genuineness, etc.
inauthentic fraud forgery inaccurate	what the original object / behaviour was intended to be what the original object / behaviour turns out to be	the observed outcome is not sufficiently close to the intention (whether intentionally in the case of "fraud", "forgery" or unintentionally) therefore it is guilty of being fraudulent, forged, etc.

A recognised authority in the field who is convinced by speculation proceeds this way:

prerequisite knowledge	assessment	terminology
I don't need to know the intention; it is sufficient for me that I believe what speculation says the intention was. I have no doubt in this criterion. I leave others to test things empirically. I have plenty of doubt for their results.	If current research supports my favoured speculation, I honour it with the accolade that the artefact is authentic / genuine / etc. If current research rejects my favoured speculation, I blame the artefact for being inauthentic / fraudulent / etc. I don't consider questioning the validity of the speculation itself. Anyone who casts doubts on the speculation is a sceptic because they don't believe.	authentic fraud forgery sceptic etc.

A wikipedia editor writing in the Voice of Wikipedia proceeds this way:

prerequisite knowledge	assessment	terminology
The original intentions are not yet known (verifiable by a reliable source). Without this knowledge, those who claim Special Access to The Truth deserves doubt. I leave others to test things empirically and acknowledge it here fairly for everyone to see. Doubt is reduced by reliability.	It doesn't matter whether current research supports my favoured speculation (or absence of one). As the original intentions are unknown, I cannot make an assessment. Even if I did know, it is not my place to make an assessment. I report the assessments of recognised reliable sources. I endorse questioning the validity of any speculation. If evidence clashes with speculation, trust evidence and doubt speculation. It is important to be rational, to have a systematic approach to what you choose to believe.	loaded language your suggestions go here

When parts of this article directly quote those who believe in the prominent speculation, it is appropriate that we quote their biased terminology verbatim.

When parts of this article describe the subject of the article in the Voice of Wikipedia, it is not appropriate to use the loaded language employed by those who believe in the prominent speculation (or, for that matter, any speculation). Doing so endorses that speculation. We must use neutral terminology.

I hope this has clarified for you the focus of this proposal.110.146.160.225 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that it is not our place to make an assessment - we must merely report the assessments of recognised reliable sources. In that process we must certainly trust the evidence and doubt the speculation. The point you are missing is that the recognised reliable sources agree that the shroud is medieval, and in this they are backed by the scientific evidence. This is not speculation or conjecture, it is hard scientific fact. Efforts have been made by speculators to undermine those conclusions, but these efforts have all been repudiated with scientific evidence. The detail is reported minutely in the daughter article Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. There is in fact ZERO scientific evidence supporting the speculation that the shroud might possibly be old enough to have been used for Jesus. Do you accept this evidence from the reliable sources, or are you perhaps treating the scientific facts as merely a "competing speculation"? If we knew that answer it might help us to understand your proposal.

And please, NOBODY is blaming the shroud itself for being inauthentic or fraudulent. The debate which makes this item notable, is framed as "the authentic shroud of Jesus" vs "not the authentic shroud of Jesus". Those are the words used by the sources. We are not accusing the shroud itself of doing anything, and no reasonable reader could ever assume that we are accusing the shroud itself of committing fraud – so why are you hammering on this point? Wdford (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Because that is the focus. I'm not getting drawn into tangential debates.110.146.160.225 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then it seems like this whole thing is just about your personal feelings regarding the use of the word "authentic". If you are happy to accept that the recognized reliable sources agree that the shroud is medieval, and if you are happy to accept that the recognized reliable sources use the word "authentic" to mean "the actual genuine shroud of Jesus as opposed to a medieval artifact", and if you are happy to accept that the article is not accusing the shroud itself of any personal wrong-doing, then you merely need to propose an alternative word to use in place of "authentic". It needs to be a good word, because even Fanti - the most dedicated defender of the shroud's authenticity - uses the word "authentic". You definitely cannot convert the word to read "religiously significant", because that doesn't address the actual issue and in fact it actually clouds the issue. What other word would you prefer to use? Wdford (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, now we are on the same page.

I agree that "religiously significant" isn't an adequate substitute. The goal is to convey that certain attributes or findings merely coincide with a religious speculation, and to avoid assigning authority or credence to that speculation the way "authentic" et al do. I haven't got a one-word substitution (yet) which is why I suggested rephrasings but I own that none of them are perfect, hence opening the issue up for community cooperation before updating the article. Many heads are better than one.110.146.160.225 (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But if "the goal is to convey that certain attributes or findings merely coincide with a religious speculation, and to avoid assigning authority or credence to that speculation", then the article already does that quite adequately. The use of the word "authentic" is used because the sources use that word, but the context and the content make it clear that the "religious speculation" about the shroud has been conclusively disproved. If that is your goal, it has already been done. What then is the remaining problem? Wdford (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that answer was addressed previously in this edit. 110.146.160.225 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your link above goes nowhere. However if it referring to some other concern you already raised higher up in this thread, then your concern has already been adequately addressed by the article, as has been clarified in this thread. The word "authentic" has been used correctly in the article to refer to speculative claims about it being "the authentic shroud of Jesus", the word "authentic" is used in this context by the reliable sources, the article (and the lede) make it clear that this claim of authenticity has been debunked by experts using solid scientific evidence, and nobody could possible infer that we are accusing the cloth of committing fraud in its own right. Hammering on that non-point is approaching tendentious editing. You have declined to suggest a valid improvement to the article, and have merely inserted a template to discredit the article while claiming to wait for other editors to deliver on an unclear and unfounded requirement. Any grounds you may have had for this template have been addressed already. Therefore please either clarify your concern further with fresh information, or lift your objection. Wdford (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry my previous link is not working. I am sure I tested it at the time. Mea culpa. It was intended to highlight the whole of my addendum timestamped "22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)" where I (pre-emptively, it appears) addressed your objections. I didn't want to talkquote the whole blob.

As for your assertion, "You have declined to suggest a valid improvement" may I draw your attention to my second table in this section, timestamped "12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)". I'd like to point out that I did in fact provide suggestions and was open to counter-suggestions and constructive feedback, but none has been forthcoming. It's a busy time of year - I am confident there will be ample, in time.

As I see significant benefit to the article from improving its neutrality, I have been co-operative in helping anyone uncertain catch on or catch up. Once all confusion about the goal is cleared up, we can move forward together. While anyone is lagging though I'd rather prioritise answering their questions and then collaborate once they're satisfied.

I myself am very surprised it has taken so long to convey what is to me quite clear. However, I realise it's often more challenging to apprehend another's idea than your own. Not everyone has English as their mother tongue. If I can assume good faith, I would humbly request the same of you. Our advantage as collaborators is in our very different strengths focussed on the common goal.

As a gesture of my ongoing sincerity, I present the following hypothetical scenario with evident parallels:

A flat in Manly was subject to eviction for unpaid rent. At that point the flat contained two surfboards, one bored cat and a tangled ball of wool. Channel Nine reported on the incident. In their words, "an anonymous String Theory genius surfer left behind an enigma to perplex supporters of String Theory everywhere. The miracle tangle of wool provides all the answers - researchers are now extrapolating what the questions might be." Of course Seven News also covered the story. In their words, "in a cheap stunt, over-numerous and unregistered tennants planted a decoy object on their departure, masquerading as a metaphysical statement. The scam is drawing much attention and business to the suburb due to strong superstition linking surfers with String Theory." As a noteworthy topic, Wikipedia editors start an article on this phenomenon. The article quotes Channel Nine verbatim. The article quotes Seven News verbatim. Speaking in The Voice of Wikipedia, the article takes for granted the conjecture that the ball of wool has something to do with String Theory, referring to some people being tricked by the decoy and others resenting the adjusted dimension count posed by the enigmatic miracle. Furthermore, traces of cat-food and surfboard wax impregnating the wool at key places have cast some doubt on the woollen ball's philosophical predictions. One editor suggests this is too polarised: the article should quote verbatim the opinionated authorities promoting their assessments. But the article should refrain from jumping to any such conclusions itself. Without knowing how the artefact came to its current shape and location, no assumptions about its meaning or the intents of ex-owner(s) can be made. This ball of wool might be completely unrelated to String Theory and all the things people are reading into it. Although established authorities are entitled to use biased language in arguing their own subjective opinions and interpretations, that doesn't sanction that same terminology for expressing an objective neutral description of the basic facts of the phenomenon.

This message is brought to you by a new I.P. address, courtesy of thunderstorms, a power-cut and the Summer solstice. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be much easier if you avoided these long complex allegories, and instead stuck to the matter at hand. The article currently says, in summary, that:

• a cloth is housed in the cathedral at Turin (FACT);
• it bears an image (FACT);
• some people believe that this image is the image of Jesus, and that the cloth was the burial shroud of Jesus (FACT);
• a variety of methods have been proposed as to how the image may have been created, but nobody has thus far produced an EXACT copy of the shroud image (FACT);
• scientists have however proved beyond doubt that the cloth is medieval, and that it thus cannot have been used by Jesus (FACT);
• a handful of people still cling to the belief that the science is somehow wrong, and that the cloth might still be the authentic shroud of Jesus (FACT).

This is not biased or opinionated, it is clear fact, based on hard evidence, and reported neutrally. Where the non-scientific beliefs of the pro-authenticity camp are reported, it is clearly recorded that these beliefs are at odds with the scientific evidence. If you have a dispute with any of the above points, please say so clearly, and please state your reasons - in simple language. Wdford (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is good to know that neither of my allegories have been effective. I wanted to try all possible avenues. Let's hope this time we nail it :-)

Bullet points 1-5 are fine. Point 6 contains the bone of contention.

If...	and...	then...
the cloth holds text saying "In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year."	it was the burial cloth of Jesus	it is authentic
	it was not the burial cloth of Jesus	it is inauthentic / fraudulent / a forgery
the cloth holds text saying "Here endeth The Life Of Brian. He was a very naughty boy."	it was the burial cloth of Jesus	it is inauthentic / fraudulent / a forgery
	it was the burial cloth of Brian	it is authentic
(innumerable other possibilities)	(each is either true or false)	(each resulting in the claims being authentic or inauthentic in their own right, without having anything to do with Jesus)
the cloth was submitted as arts coursework by a medieval arts student with the declaration, "I promise this was my own construction, signed: Joe Bloggs"	it was crafted and signed by Joe Bloggs	it is authentic
	it was crafted by Fred Smith but signed by Joe Bloggs	it is fraudulent
	it was crafted and signed by Fred Smith	it is a forgery
the cloth makes no claims about its origins or purpose	we don't know its origins or purpose	the concept of authenticity is not defined and any descriptions of it being authentic, fraudulent, a forgery, etc. are invalid

You can see there are a multitude of scenarios in which the object is authentic that have nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.

As things stand in actuality, the cloth makes no claims of its origins or purpose, and so it is not valid for it to be "authentic". (Ie, it is not meaningful for it to be described as such.)

Of course, certain biased experts might presume to "know" that the cloth's origins and purpose was precisely the burial wrapping cloth of Jesus in the absence of reliable evidence. From this belief, they can then (invalidly) describe the cloth as "authentic" or a "forgery", etc. And the wikipedia article can quote their (invalid) statements verbatim.

However the fact remains that such assertions are invalid. (In 1000 years they may well turn out to be factual or non-factual when reliable evidence settles the matter, but in the meantime, such assertions are invalid.) As such, the article itself (outside of verbatim quotes) should avoid making such judgement calls. In discussing controversy between parties who believe the object wrapped Jesus and those who believe it never wrapped Jesus, the article should avoid using terminology that is contingent on a claim that has not been made. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Riani statistics

This 2013 paper is not a "more recent analysis", it is the same analysis that was presented at the 2010 workshop, just polished up for formal publication. They have however toned down their conclusion - they now conclude merely that "Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared." They do not use words like "questionable", and they do not presume to dispute the carbon dating results. In the paper presented to the workshop in 2010 they were more confrontational and stated that the Damon result "needs to be reconsidered". See the 2010 paper here [1] and the 2013 paper here [2]. Compare the detail, and notice that they both report the same study. Wdford (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)