Talk:History of the Shroud of Turin

Untitled
The reference to Lillian Schwartz is incorrect. In or about 2009, she was interviewed by a production company primarily about her scientific and historical research into the objective match-up between da Vinci's Self Portrait and the Mona Lisa. Upon the first match-up using the program Pico, she shouted, "It's a match." The company then asked how she applied the same techniques to the face of the Shroud. Using various programs and historical research, she discovered that Leonardo had used the face of his Vitruvian Man to redo the Shroud's face. The company edited the sound bite, "It's a match" from the Mona Lisa discovery to make it appear that she was saying that da Vinci again used his own face for the Shroud. Alas for not having approval rights, this misstatement was incorporated into Britain's Channel 5 documentary on the Shroud. The embarrassment has been unending as the 'claim' has affected her straightforward,, scientific work. LaurensRS (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS


 * I commented it out as in the other case. Please discuss on the Shroud talk page so it is all centralized. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians"
This sentence from the lead does not seem to be what the body of the article says. I could not find any historian mentioned there who says there even is a history of the Shroud before 1390. Maybe it's my fault. If not, the sentence should make the facts clearer and say there is no such history. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole "Prior to the 14th century" section is far too long, given the fact that the thing did not exist prior to the 14th century. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of fringe material from the lede
I reduced the large lede paragraph which was "summarizing" a large section of fringe material. The reason was that the lede is required to summarize the material in the body of the article, and much of the fringe material in question has been cleaned out of the article as per WP:FRINGE. I did not delete the fringe material from the lede entirely, just reduced the large amount of detail in the lede. Wdford (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)