Talk:Sudarium of Oviedo

Whoever wrote this article on the Sudarium of Oviedo, specifically the first sentence: "is a bloodstained piece of cloth manufactured in around 700CE" needs to read much more carefully the reference he/she used. The Sudarium may very well be a fake, but one cannot conclude this from this particular reference which mentions the claim by one laboratory which conducted one kind of test that it is a fake. In the very same paragraph there is a discussion of the reliability of carbon dating. Furthermore that paragraph ends with this quote: "Finally, the history of the Sudarium is very well established and there are definite references to its presence in Jerusalem in AD 570 and at the beginning of the fifth century". Indeed, there is much evidence to the contrary. Did you not read the whole article?

Why does this page attempt to assert that all blood types become AB after time? This simply isn't true, and is even clarified in the comments section of the blog that supposedly provides reference to this. I'm sorry I'm unsure as to how to sign this, but hope someone clears this up. 92.23.188.90 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Shaun

Not any more... And I removed Lulu, a self publisher. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There were a couple of comments now that rightly point out that the Sudarium and the Shroud have very little connection and that there is no solid proof of authenticity for the Sudarium. The conclusions do represent modern scholarly views, but the arguments presented here are seriously lacking, e.g. McCrone is just one ref, even if there is blood it is not clear if it was placed there later, so makes no difference, etc. That needs to be cleaned up "at some point". But given that the conclusion is correct, probably no rush. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

McCrone's article claims that he didn't find blood, his opinion has always been that what he found were pigments consistent with a painting, but it is true that even if blood was found, this would be irrelevant as it could come from anyone who handled the Shroud. Anduin13 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to the Shroud for almost every opinion there is an opposite opinion, Newton's 4th law I guess. There are people who disagree with McCrone and say there is blood but it is too old and decomposed to tell anything. Even McCrone's own research assistant later turned against him. Anyway, all that is beside the point, given that the blood could have come from the hand of the person repairing it and they cut their hand with the scissors, etc... who knows. I was not there. As usual, no conclusion on any of these issues. History2007 (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

McCrone's work is 23 years out of date, and Baden's is 32 years out of date. In this field of science that is seriously antiquated as so many hundreds of tests have been done since that completely contradict both author's conclusions. This is similar to quoting Newton in refutation of Einsteins theory on the behavior of gravity. So why arent more recent studies used in refutation? Because they dont exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Dallas Tanner's book "The Shroud," which was used to support the blood type assertion, because it is a work of fiction. RugTimXII (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious phrasing

The claim the sample came from the Middle Ages is disputed by in a book by Joe Nickel, an author who holds degrees in the Humanities but not in Science.

Is this wording trying to suggest that the author has no idea what he's talking about and his opinion should be discarded? What's the point in mentioning his degrees? I'm tempted to remove this phrase altogether, since it doesn't add much relevant information to the article, or at least remove the degrees part.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like it's been removed.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)