Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 5

Anatomical forensics
I think the addition of the section on anatomy and proportion by Ospalh today was a very good idea that had been neglected in the article to date. It then prompted me to add other material about anatomy etc. that I had been meaning to add before, but was on the to do list. I gave each view roughly the same length to keep them in proportion - pun intended. Now, I do not have a link to Barbet's original article, so I quoted secondary sources. Does anyone have a link? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you refering to: P. Barbet, A Doctor At Calvary, Doubleday Image Books, 1963. FYI, Barbet was a member of the STURP team. He was Chief Surgeon, Autopsy Surgeon, Professor of Anatomy, St. Joseph's Hospital, Paris.


 * Don't forget Dr. Heller's statement about the measurements, etc: Dr. Heller, Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale (member of STURP team), stated that "It was evident from the physical, mathematical, medical, and chemical eidence that there must have been a crucified man in the Shroud" (ref. Heller, Report, pg. 210).  JimfromGTA (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Three separate points Jim:


 * 1 Within Wikipedia, there is confusion about who Pierre Barbet was. There a writer with the same name, etc. but his page is confused. If you can help clear that issue that would help as a start. I just have not had a chance to do that, but that page is inconsistent.


 * 2 The Heller reference has clearly been ignored, and needs to go in. Was Heller a physician? Who was he?


 * 3 Now the hard part. I think I must point out, given that you have stated these items as supporting evidence, that none of the 5-6 physicians dated the shroud. They just stated that it was a man and not a painting. Among: Delage, Barbet, Bucklin, Zugibe and Baima Bollone, I think Zugibe is the most qualified given that he performed a decade of experiments using a cross in his office. What that does is provide an argument against painting, but:


 * Does not indicate a date for the shroud by itself, just addresses the image.
 * Does not indicate if the body was that of Jesus or that of another person subjected to similar types of trauma. Hence "by itself" it leaves open the possibility that it was a person crucified the same way, leaving open the Jacques de Molay hypothesis.

Now, regarding dates:
 * Even if Carbon dating had come back with a 1st century date (and it did not), it would still not prove that it was Jesus himself. It could have been another person crucified the same way in 27AD or 37AD.

So the only item that relates the shroud to Jesus himself would be the assertion by Barbara Frale in November 2009 that she had managed to read the burial certificate of Jesus the Nazarene on the shroud. So really all arguments before November 2009 are circumstantial and do not constitute scientific proof. In fact, the cards are really stacked against proof of authenticity of this and "all other" artifacts of this nature, since it is very hard to find a falsifiability criterion, but disproving authenticity is an easier task. Sorry, but that is the way it is. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * History2007: Your questions - You really need to read Mark's book. It has the references.
 * (1) Pierre Barbet: Chief Surgeon, Autopsy Surgeon, Professor of Anatomy, St. Joseph's Hospital, Paris. Studies over 1932 to 1961.
 * (2) Dr. Fuller Heller. Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics, Yale.  Biophysicist, New England Institue.  Dates of studies:  1978 to 1995.  STURP member, I believe.
 * (3) Dating of Shroud...see below. Material and chemistry suggests dates outside C14 timeframe.
 * (4) Proof of Jesus: details from documentation provide proof.  Remarkable match to 1st Century document record (Bible).  See below.
 * (5) Molay hypothesis has been rejected by the evidence. Molay was burnt to death, not crucified.  Image on shroud has no evidence of a burning torture. Doesn't account for all the microbiological evidence (Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, France, Italy.)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Molay.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I question the theory that the C14 dating tested a repair section by mistake. As far as I can see here, only one or two people made that claim, and they did so many years later. On the other hand, many others who were involved in the process seem to be standing by their choice of fragment. It also seems bizarre to suppose that a group of skilled scientists, knowing full well the reason for the test, would not have taken extra pains to ensure the sample was valid. The fact that this assertion was "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean its correct, as the statement was "in my opinion", and peer-review will allow a scientist to state a personal opinion provided it is labelled accordingly.
 * One possible reason why the shroud resembles early descriptions, would be that the forger used those descriptions to design his forgery. He clearly intended to present the shroud as an authentic (and thus very valuable) relic, and would certainly have read up every description of lost relics before settling on his final design.
 * Finally, has anybody other than Barbara Frale actually seen this "death certificate"? It seems a bit strange that the STURP guys spent 25 person-years studying the cloth in intimate detail, down to pollen fragments in the weave, without any of them noticing this?
 * Wdford (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Separate points:
 * Repair section: We can all question it all on all sides, but in the end there is no answer, given that no access is provided to the artifact and all our questions are guesswork. But the journals publishing the repair objections are certainly WP:Reliable. Most people agree that the labs did a professional test, but the cutting was done from the corner which is most often used to hold it, according to Wilson, so that loophole remains open.
 * Possible reason for matching documents: No need to attack that point, since it constitutes no proof anyway. Logically, the shroud may not be a forgery, but a real person crucified in April AD30, about 3 years before Jesus, and same pollen will be found on it. So that point needs no attack, it provides no proof. And it maybe Jacques de Molay crucified in the same manner as Jesus. Who knows? The assertion that it is a painting is in itself pretty weak. The situation is just unclear.
 * Barbara Frale's "death certificate" is listed in the new developments section of the article because the archeological community has not had time to react to it in the past 7 months. In 3-5 years, there will be papers both supporting and attacking it. I guess we could sell tickets ringside as people fight on this issue.
 * I think the main problem in all this is the desire by everyone to arrive at a conclusion. The conclusion may be that we just do not know yet. Think of it this way, there are 20 theories as to who was responsible for JFK and that happened recently and still no one agrees, so this is centuries old and a solid conclusion is just hard to come by. But that does not stop people from drinking beer and arguing in bars I guess. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Catholic Church could easily resolve this once and for all, by simply making the shroud available for one last and definitive C14 test. A full gaggle of Shroudies could be involved in ensuring the sample is indisputably representative, and the whole thing would be done and dusted in a few weeks. Why does the Church not do so? If science proved the shroud was a first-century relic, the pilgrims would flock anew and the Church's revenues would swell, while if science proves beyond doubt that the middle ages date was correct all along, the Church stands to lose a revenue-spinning artefact. Since the Church clearly knows more about this item than it reveals publicly, simple common sense tells us that the Church knows its a fake. Wdford (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course we can all speculate about their motives, but it will be our own speculation. But should the debate end, all those authors who continue to publish books on both sides of the debate and received nice sized royalty checks from the publishers every three months will also have to find new topics. Perhaps starting a debate on the Holy Mantle should be suggested to both Joe Nickell and Ian Wilson. I think their bankers will thank them. But in any case, all of that is just talk really, so I will stop. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And don't forget : simple common sense semper vincit. Thucyd (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thucyd: You know so much about this topic, if you somehow relate the Shroud to the Holy Mantle and write the first book about it, you will make a bundle. Please just send me 10% as a suggestion fee. History2007 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dating Evidence: One STURP scientist who did dating references beyond C14 was Rogers. What he did was examine fibers and found that they did not contain Vanilin, a chemical in the fiber that has been found in middle ages textiles. From this he ascertained that the main cloth was likely made outside of the C14 test period. He used this as one of the methods to confirm that the C14 test was indeed middle age repair and NOT representantive of the whole. Secondly, a textile expert has found that the cloth is manufactured similar to the cloth found ONLY at Masada in Israel. No where else is this style of manufacture of flax linen found, except at this location. So the 1st Century dating a reasonable estimate. A good summary of the Massada evidence is found at http://www.historicaljesusquest.com/linen-cloth.htm

Proof of Jesus: Common sense says, after reviewing the 1st Century document and the level of detail matched, the man was most likely Jesus. As a general point that, an image of a crucified man does not make the man Jesus. But you miss the detail of the Biblical references. You must review the 1st Century documentation detail to establish identity of the victim. The man in the shroud matched the 1st Century discription of Jesus at the time of crucifition. No other record, that I am aware does this for any other crucified man. Examples: no broken legs (usually Roman broke the legs to quicken death), crown of thorns, scourging by flaggulation (Roman style flogging instrument), wound in side (from spear), wounds from carrying a heavy object in the back (cross), wounds to knees suggesting a fall while carrying a heavy object (fall recorded in Bible). Limestone from the Jerusalem tombs. This is a remarkable match.

Repair evidence: Roger's findings are well reasoned and backed up with detailed evidence from direct examination. Rogers is the expert. He studied the shroud for 25 years and had direct face time with the cloth and all its evidence. He's a reputable scientist. He did his work in collaberation with another expert. I believe the scientist. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ... Every source I see that is PRO the Turin Shroud being real, seem obsessed about it being real rather than neutral. A quick google search yields us a million results, where the first 10 or so are so incredibly biased that I can't help but feel like there's a freaking conspiracy.

Which led me to investigate some of the neutral researchers. Starting with the people who discredited the C14 tests in this article called Chemistry and Art: "http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford%20CO4-08.pdf" A quick search for M. Sue Benford -- the woman who discredited the C14 tests in together with her husband in the e-magazine Chemistry Today -- found me this book: http://www.gizapyramid.com/BIO-Benford-Marino.htm Years before writing an article about the chemical composition -- M. Sue Benford was a devout believer of the shrouds authenticity. It was in fact her who first saw the "coin" on the character's eyes, which according to her 'magically' "turned into an 8". Her husband? He wrote the following article "THE SHROUD OF TURIN: BRIDGE BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH?", also in 1999. http://www.shroud.com/mrinobnf.pdf ... THEN I discovered what Chemistry-Today is. It is actually this website: http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/index.asp ... I lack the words. That's ONE SINGLE source checked, and that is the result. Time to raise a "this article lacks reliable sources flag"? In any case, a new C14 test is definately needed. And credible sources. [User:85.200.6.168]


 * Yes, a new C14 test on a sample would certainly clarify issues. But it is not the C14 test that will matter, but the selection of the sample. At the moment, the pro-authenticity people and the pro-forgery people have exactly the same amount of evidence about the reliability of the sample taken: zero. Two men made a sampling decision after a heated debate, and Riggi (about whom very little is known) performed the sampling. So the next test will need to focus on sampling, not the C14 test, for the scientists at the 3 labs were careful, but the sampling process was done rapidly and very little is known about the people who did that. For a general discussion of archeological perspective, please see: The Authentication of the Turin Shroud:An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology, Current Anthropology, Volume 24, No 3, June 1983, referenced in the article. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BEFORE the Chemistry Today article was released, the couple released the about same article back, with less pictures, back in 2000:

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf ... which was before Raymond Rogers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers posted his analysis on the subject in 2005, posthumously ... while still alive(?!) -- it was published january the same year he died http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6THV-4DTBVHC-1&_user=946211&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000049007&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=946211&md5=7a372bf81a4b2a56bef468b8deb8b28a, but he died in March. <-- http://www.nmsr.org/rrogers.htm The january volume: >>Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194<< So the original source is actually: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf, and not Chemistry Today. ... shroud.com. The hypothesis is exactly the same, and the numbers are the same. The hypothetical evidence is mainly the same: Parts of the tested shroud was from year 1600 and part from year 75, producing the number ~1200 on radiometric dating because the test averages out... They even have a nice graph that shows how the different patches had different amounts of 75 AD fabric in it, which allegedly caused different readings for different tests. [User:85.200.6.168]

Popular book references
An IP user commented above that Mark Antonacci's book does not seem a reliable source. I think it would be fair to address that issue. I had commented before that Antonacci is/was a lawyer and Joe Nickell an English teacher, and it is not clear what qualifies either of them as reliable sources: one is very pro-authenticity, the other very pro-forgery. I know Jim likes Antonacci's book, and we have included Nickell because he has many readers. But it would be good if we could address the issue of popular books and if/how/which should be included or deleted. The problem is that if all popular books are deleted then there is hardly any reference to the current state of the popular literature. And there should probably be a balance of pro/counter authenticity/forgery books. Suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * History2007: Mark's book has a good presentation of the evidence. What he does lack is scientific rigor in terms of his hypothesis surrounding the image making and C14 criticisms.  With this I agree with Rogers.  Mark's book is well written, for the most part. Just read it and you will see. JimfromGTA (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, I can not be the "book judge" for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not work that way. There are WP:Reliable guidelines that decide these things. The IP said that a STURP member had said: "I can recommend the book for its extremely detailed description of the Shroud's appearance and history and the conflicts it has caused. I find the "science" to be totally goal-oriented, to lack rigorous application of Scientific Method, and to be so improbable as to be nonsense" about the book. Is that true that the description was applied to the book? History2007 (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me see. It's ok if STURP member is criticized.  His work is included.  But if a popular author is criticized for parts of his book, then all of his book is not valid.  If you did this, every author or scientist that ever wrote anything and was criticised by another author or scientist would be thrown out of Wikipedia.  Don't get it.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let us see what everyone else thinks. I think Nickell is as unscientific as well. So the question is what to do and we need opinions. History2007 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry today
Thucyd: I think you added the Chemistry today reference. Could you please comment on its reliability, so we can see if it should remain or go? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Chemistry Today is a printed peer-review journal since 1983 with an impact factor. And clearly the article published in 2008 is not the same (1/3 ref is post 2000 for example...).
 * "Every source I see that is PRO the Turin Shroud being real, seem obsessed about it being real rather than neutral."  :)   The method is well-known : an expert in his field is by definition obsessed about a topic, and because of that, if he has not the same opinion as you, then he is not neutral (because you know the subject, you know how science works and you are fair-minded...). Thucyd (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify that further please. Was the Benford paper peer reviewed? And were the peers chemistry experts? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Benford-Marino paper, like all articles published in Chemistry Today, was peer-reviewed (and carefully it seems, it was even explained in an editorial of the journal). Of course, I don't know who were the peers, but I am sure that they were chosen by the editorial board. Thucyd (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, my feeling is that it is a good reference. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your statement says a lot. Most people who actual get into the detail come away PRO.  Why? Because the bulk of the evidence indicates that the shroud is authentic.  Matches the Biblical description of Jesus crucifiction IN DETAIL.  Matches the events of the storyline.  Pollen matches time and place.  Rare type of limestone matches tomb. Cloth matches Massada (1st Century) manufacture. It's image is 3D from the presence of a body.  It's not a painting.   The only confusion that has ever existed is the C14 testing.  And you know the result of that. No one has proved it is a fake.  Why did STURP spend 25 man years investigating if it didn't look like it was authentic?  Were they stupid? Do you expect them to lie?


 * The people involved in the shroud research were for the most part very logical and factual. After all they are trained that way because of their science background.  What exactly are you looking for?JimfromGTA (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting fibre info: When I reviewed the attachments above, a similar finding was found when compared to Rogers. The fabric in the C14 sample contained cotton. Cotton was NOT included in textiles until the middle ages. When Rogers examined under microscope other areas of the shroud, he did not notice cotton. The fabric in general did not contain cotton. Only the repair area had cotton fibre.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Jim the fact that the Chem Today reference is good, says nothing about the date of the shroud. Even if the samples were not representative, it is still unclear what a new C14 test to be performed in 2037 will show: 13th cetury, 5th century, or 1st century. So the mystery continues on that issue. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Rogers, because of his experience mapped out the cloth.  Certain sections are of the original material and others more handled and subject to repair.  So another test could be done that is more representative of the whole.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no proof that the absence of vanillin is due to age alone. Being baked in a series of fires hot enough to melt a silver box might also have affected the vanillin content, as Rogers himself openly admits. Why does Jim not mention this important admission of Rogers?
 * wasn't aware of it. What would the impact be?  Any direct inspection of clothJimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the source quoted at does not say that this weave was found ONLY AT MASADA, it actually says that it “was manufactured in the Middle East on a Roman-period Egyptian or Syrian loom”, and he merely quotes the Masada samples as examples of the type. The article also quotes another expert saying that this type of weave was “common in the Middle East during the first century”. More selective quoting by Jim, it seems.
 * Actually I read the ONLY somewhere but couldn't find the article, so I attached the one you read. Basic point is that the linen is a 1st century cloth.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the details in the shroud closely match some of the details given in the gospels. However, common sense says that any fraudster wishing to create a pious fraud would naturally do some homework first, and would have constructed his fraud carefully to represent key details of the gospels.
 * complete conjecture.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The pollen and limestone evidence could also be explained if the shroud was taken on an Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem by a well-meaning Christian owner. If they visited what they believed was the tomb of Jesus, and if they did so at Easter, then obviously the evidence would match. There is no record that the shroud was taken along on a pilgrimage, but there is no record that it was not taken on a pilgrimage either.
 * you are rewriting history to suite your hypothesis again. The "fake" owner would have also had to visit all the sites of the shroud (Jerusalem at Easter, then Edessa, Constantinople, France, and Italy). Your genius would have had to have a complete understanding of the Vatican's libraries as well to fake the Edessa and historical documentation / art prior to say 1300's.  And in addition he / she would be a genius in recreating the 1st century linen.  The genius would have had to spend years at faking this.  And you don't have one shred of proof for your hypothesis.  Hmm.   And why go through such elaborate effort and detail.  What's the motive?  A huge stretch, I would say...for a fake. JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still more likely that the people who took the sample knew exactly what they were doing, and that Rogers alone changed his mind late in life. Why did STURP spend 25 man-years investigating up close, and still choose a non-representative sample?
 * that's what happened. Do you wish to rewrite the history?JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Even more serious, though, is why must we wait for 2035 to do another C14 test? Why not tomorrow? Wdford (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just joked about 2035, I do not even know that they will do it in 2099. The only way would be to call Turin. But again, we can only speculate on their motives, and the situation remains unclear. Regarding, "it is still more likely that the people who took the sample knew exactly what they were doing" I think I have seen no evidence that they knew or did not know. It is very unclear what happened that morning, or even who "those people" were. I think if the Holy Mantle angle is followed up on, they may do a joint test maybe. History2007 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But what is the conclusion? Their conclusion in the 2008 paper is:

"It is impossible to quantify the amount of surface carbon, other contaminates, and/or intruded newer material in the radiocarbon sampling area based upon the Quad Mosaic or other data presented in this paper. Similarly, it is impossible to determine if either the surface carbon, or the manipulation it represents, had any impact on the 1988 radiocarbon dating. However, in light of these new data along with a recently-posited theory that does not preclude a 1st century origin for the cloth (32), additional radiocarbon dating incorporating other areas of the cloth is recommended."
 * Which in essence means that the sentence

"The samples tested have since been questioned and two peer-reviewed articles have contended that they were not representative of the whole shroud"
 * should be

"The samples tested have since been questioned, and two peer-reviewed articles have contended that the samples may not be representative of the whole shroud"
 * because their conclusion is exactly that the patches MAY NOT be representative.
 * My point about their 2000 article is that they reached their conclusion already in year 2000, and have spent 8 years collecting supporting evidence to their conclusion, in order to publish it in a miniscule italian chemistry magazine with the conclusion that the C14 tests may or may not have been inaccurate... Looking forward to the next C14 tests, but I'm not looking forward to the next disputance against the results. I came here on a detour looking for the sources for two things: 1: The sources behind the alleged crucifiction and torture of
 * That is Bad Science. Just read my previous links about their beliefs on the shroud, and their 2000 article. Most of their 2008 study is based on looking at pictures, and quoting other people who have written opinions on the matter.

In any case -- this was just ONE SOURCE, randomly selected. Next source: 111: http://www.eretz.com/NEW/ERETZ120.shtml Peer reviwed magazine? Then we have "115 - The Resurrection of the Shroud, by Mark Antonacci" -- of which a member of the STURP have the following to say: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers.pdf "I can recommend the book for its extremely detailed description of the Shroud's appearance and history and the conflicts it has caused. I find the "science" to be totally goal-oriented, to lack rigorous application of Scientific Method, and to be so improbable as to be nonsense. Raymond N. Rogers Los Alamos, NM" ...
 * Marks' collection of evidence is great. I agree with Rogers that Mark's sections on C14 and image making was lacking in scientific rigor.  I RECOMMEND a read because it is referenced to 700 sources and well written, for the most part.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

121 -- http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p05.pdf -- Now download the picture evidence located on it's cited sources for images: http://flora.huji.ac.il/browse.asp?lang=en&action=showfile&fileid=13818 ... it's purely guesswork based on obscure (literally) marks which could be drawn into any flora in the world! I don't care if the turin shroud dates to year 75 or 1200 -- the truth is all that matters. On Jaques de Molay, because the investigation of the claim that he was crucified as a part of his torture is what led me here in the first place: He was tortured. But the wikipedia article doesn't state any sources. Historical facts need their sources readily available at all times, or historical facts become contested and considered myths -- as seen with the Holocaust, which is contested because of the lack of evidence online. What evidence discredits the hypothesis that Jaques de Molay may have been tortured and put in the linen cloth while still alive as a part of his torture, producing the oxidation and dehydration marks seen on the linen cloth?
 * complete conjecture. Where's your evidence?JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean... some sources state that "no scientific method has been able to reproduce the imprints". What was wrong with the imprints generated on linen cloth produced by a living embalmed individual? Jaques de Molay is not mentioned ONCE in the article. He should be mentioned, as the cloth is JUST AS LIKELY to be him as to be Christ untill new C14 evidence clears the matter up.
 * de Molay was burnt to ashes, according to Wikipedia. So I don't think he's a candidate for a burial shroud.  To me, unless Wikipedia is wrong, he's a red herring in this discussion.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't any scientific method of replication explictly mentioned ALONG with disproving evidence, like Luigi Garlaschelli's replication -- which isn't even mentioned on the infamous shroud.com? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/07/italy.turin.shroud/index.html This single page on wikipedia reminds me very much of creationwiki and conservapedia with it's very, very questionable references throughout. I'm sure Kent Hovind managed to get some of his articles published in some peer-reviewed magazines, but that still doesn't mean it's not a bundle of biased assumptions packaged as science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.6.168 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) [User: 85.200.6.168] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.6.168 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually your point about "may not be" in the intro is totally valid and I just changed that. All you needed to do is say that (and perhaps more calmly) and it was a simple factual issue. Your point about Jaques de Molay is also valid, and he is mentioned in the History of the Shroud of Turin article, and on this talk page. It will be easy to add him, and I will do so in a day or so, after I research him more. If you have other points, please do suggest them here, somewhat calmly if possible, and they can be addressed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jacques de Molay ? come on, this is complete nonsense... De Molay died in 1314. Does the man on the shroud look like a 70-year- old man ? According to all forensic pathologists, no (he is thirty to forty years of age). Thucyd (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We could say that Jacques was 70. Since you know more about it, could you provide a reference please? But I think the following scenario needs to be somehow mentioned just because some readers will wonder why it has not even been considered. Another user further above on this talk page also commented that he could just inflict similar wounds on a person, and wrap it etc. So if that scenario is not mentioned, in 3 months it will be questioned by a 3rd IP user and it will need further explanation. So we might as well just deal with it once and let it be done. The scenario is this:


 * April AD41 someone weaves a shroud in Jerusalem. Hence a 1st century weave and suitable pollen.
 * A Crusader buys this shroud in 1301 and takes it back to Europe. He stops in Edessa on his way back, adding more pollen.
 * In 1401 someone is crucified with biblical style wounds and the shroud is wrapped around him.

So far two readers have commented that they think something similar may have happened. So we might as well address that hypothesis, and be done with it. I do not know how to do that yet, but if you do, please suggest or add it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * History2007...How did a burnt body gone to ashes become a crucified body of a 30 to 40 year old? According to Wikipedia: "There de Molay and de Charney were slowly burned to death, refusing all offers of pardon for retraction, and bearing their torment with a composure which won for them the reputation of martyrs among the people, who reverently collected their ashes as relics." Reference: A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages Vol. III by Henry Charles Lea, NY: Hamper & Bros, Franklin Sq. 1888 p.325.JimfromGTA (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Useful reference Jim. I think you shot down the Molay hypothesis and that should also be added to the History of Shroud article. However, in the 3 step hypothesis, there is no name for the person crucified in 1401. So what if it was someone crucified that way sometime in the 15th century, as an IP suggested further above about 2 months ago. If you can find an argument against that then that theory can also be discounted. But I should point out that many readers arrive on this page with this type of questions, and if the page does not include the answers, they will ask them. So the answers need to be pre-packaged. History2007 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your arguement about 1401 is complete conjecture and fantasy. Until evidence is presented that establishes that a person was crucified at that time, it has no merit. deMolay wasn't him. You MUST answer: Who the 1401 person was and what were the particulars? etc.  Don't know, then its complete imagination and conjecture, and doesn't belong as a reasoned debate.  Now here's a new hypothesis:  I think the man in the shroud's an alien.  Green ears and all!!  He died in 2001 and rewrote history and C14 because of his special alien powers. And he did all of this while we were asleep.....(the "unknown 1401 man" is Absolute nonsense!!) JimfromGTA (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you accept 1403? History2007 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bible References Documentation Lacking
The shroud of Turin article completely lacks references to the match of the Biblical description and storyline to the image evidence contained in the shroud of Turin. The shroud matches the Biblical record in many ways, including crownlike headpiece of torns, spear wounding, the wounding from tortures recorded in the Bible, the lack of breaking of the legs, the fact that the man was crucified. There is also evidence that the knees and back are consistent with the carrying of the cross story. The timeline and place as recorded in the Bible is confirmed by pollen and limestone evidence. So the lack of tying the image and microbiological evidence to 1st Century documentation is a major omission in the article.JimfromGTA (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think an interesting approach would be to have a separate page called: Shroud of Turin, for and against arguments that lists these issues, the deMolay items you found and other arguments on both sides and is the place for "prepackaged" arguments. There is a page called Historical Jesus that does that type of thing, instead of having those debates in the New Testament article itself. Those who work on that "both sides of debate" article (which will thankfully exclude me) will need strong nerves and will probably drink 12 bottles of whisky by the time that page gets done. If there is agreement on that, I will start the page and leave it in the hands of you guys. History2007 (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Will there be free whisky?JimfromGTA (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely free e-whisky, as much as you can look at. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given all the evidence, the shroud boils down to: real vs. fake.  So not a bad idea.  I would caution you, however, that there must be a rule that any arguement must have at least "some evidence" to back it up.  Otherwise you will have runaway conjecture on your hands, especially amongst the conspiracy theory crowd. JimfromGTA (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so that means that there are two people who think it is a good idea, the two of us. Let us wait and see if anyone objects. But what I see as a trend is that many readers have many questions about "why not X" and those questions need to be packaged with some answers with references provided in a Shroud of Turin: debate and controversy article. Of course Wikipedia policies will still require that page to have references, so the hypothesis that Paris Hilton] painted it by herself will probably not be included, unless a book with that title gets published. My guess is that it will become even longer than this page and there can just be a "main" for it. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim: Since there were no objections, I started an early version of Talk:Shroud of Turin/debate and controversy as a sub-page of the talk. Since you are much more aware of all the debate issues, it is best that you fill in the first set of issues. Then after a few days we can make a real article out of it. A lot of the text is already on this talk page, and just needs to be copied over. However, could you please also include the pro-forgery items and balance the discussion so it does not read one sided. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IE6 Font Size
The font size changes, becoming larger, for most of the page with IE6. I do not see the issue with Firefox. It starts in the "Religious Perspective" section and continues into the "Reference" section. The size increases between "Matthew" and "Mark" in the line: "he Gospels of Matthew[27:59-60], Mark[15:46] and Luke[23:53]" The font reduces at the start of reference #6. Could someone with edit access fix this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.106.85 (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell still uses IE6? 71.17.39.117 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, I am still using IE5. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For various reasons, one should, at least, be using IE 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.4.83 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.6.224.121, 21 June 2010
Can you add the link to the Gaeilge/Irish language version please- Cumhdach Torino    ? Thank you.


 * Done. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.6.224.121, 21 June 2010
Th first sentence is biased, it should have the word "appears" to have an image of a man that "appears" to have marks consistent with... 209.6.224.121 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Appears twice in the same sentence? I think it is an overkill, but let us wait to see what others say. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with History. C T J F 8 3  pride 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the "tl" edit advice. These are burried somewhere in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arab and Muslim source
In the Ibn al-Jawzi (ابن الجوزي) history book 'Al-Muntazam fi Tarikh al-Muluk wal-Umam' (المنتظم في تاريخ الامم والملوك) when he speek about the events of the year 331 AH (942 AD) he mention that the Byzantine emperor (ملك الروم) sent a messenger to Abbasid caliph Al-Muttaqi (المتقي بالله) in Baghdad. The emperor offer to exchange muslims prisoner of war with a scarf that had Jesus image on it.

Ibn al-Jawzi said that this scarf was kept for a long time in the Edessa (بيعة الرها) and the Jesus face image on it formed when he dry his face by this scarf. I think this is the oldest history record about the Shroud but I am sorry because my English are not good to translate it from Arabic.

ثم دخلت سنة إحدى وثلاثين وثلثمائة

وفيها: ورد كتاب من ملك الروم يلتمس منديلاً كان لعيسى عليه السلام مسح به وجهه فصارت صورة وجهه فيه، وذلك المنديل في بيعة الرها وأنه إن أنفذ إليه أطلق من أسارى المسلمين عدداً كثيراً فاستؤمر المتقي بالله فأمر بإحضار الفقهاء والقضاة، فقال بعض من حضر: هذا المنديل منذ زمان طويل في هذه البيعة لم يلتمسه ملك من ملوك الروم، وفي دفعه إلى هذا غضاضة على الإسلام، والمسلمون أحق بمنديل عيسى عليه السلام. فقال علي بن عيسى: خلاص المسلمين من الأسر أحق بمنديل عيسى عليه السلام فأمر المتقي بتسليم المنديل وتخليص الأسارى.

I wish someone can translate this passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.200.166 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case that would refer to the Image of Edessa more than the Shroud of Turin, since the equality of the two is not certain. You should post on Image of Edessa rather than here. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the first time that I hear about Image of Edessa. Thank you and sorry for my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.200.166 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Studiomacbeth, 29 July 2010
editsemiprotected

Please update Link#160. Reason: website www.raydowning.com has been updated. Link is now http://www.raydowning.com/press_release.html It should be updated to Thank you. Maria Downing

Studiomacbeth (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Img analysis
Thucyd, you added text about front and back image. Interesting, but I can not figure out what it means even from the abstract of the paper. People will wonder: Is this pro or against authenticity. Could you please clarify, if possible? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just facts. The front image of the body is not "directly compatible" with the back image of the body because the two lengths are different (7 cm). This is not "image analysis", you need only a tape measure. Thucyd (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But I am not sure what that fact means. And I am sure most users can not figure it out either. And adding it in description, will be an invitation for a discussion there. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Similiarity with another article
http://www.bishopbarry.net/theshroudofturin.htm The article presented here seems almost identical to the one in Wikipedia without any quotation. Unwilling to accuse anybody of plagiarism, I advise all of us to check this. What do you think? two first paragraphs quoted from the site:
 * The Shroud of Turin (or Turin Shroud) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy.


 * The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers. Some contend that the shroud is the actual cloth placed on the body of Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, and that the face image is the Holy Face of Jesus. Others contend that the artifact was created in the Middle Ages. The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus.

Critto (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Australian amateur film scientist has provan that what was previously thought to be coins on the eyes are actually round stones with 4 quadrants and a central point. Vincent Ruello developed a technique of light filtration magnification the new images of the eyes of the Shroud of Turin with round stones can be seen at youtube channel Vinny Pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.145.245 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of criticism
The biggest problem I see here is the lack of criticism towards the supernatural/Energy source hypothesis. All other hypotheses are criticised, which is good and natural for any scientific hypothesis, thesis or theory. While I am no longer prejudiced against the supernatural, I know it must contain criticism. Today, the article looks like all rationalist attempts to solve the mystery were less reliable than a supernatural one. This is like making an article about Werewolves or Vampires with the assumption they exist and without criticism to this thesis, while criticising any rational theories (eg. cases of rabies, mental illnesses, porphyria, rye fungi, etc).

Also, the important fact is, that the theory by Thaddeus J. Trenn comes at least from 1977, so it's 33-years old (as me myself:)). During this time, a lot was said and found about The Shroud, so the criticism towards the hypothesis must have appeared in the papers. If it didn't, it seems it were never treated seriously and reviewed by more scientists, and the article in he current version gives it undue weight. Also, even Trenn himself reportedly didn't consider his hyptothesis seriously based: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Weak_dematerialization_%28Shroud_of_Turin%29 Also, Thaddeus J. Trenn, with all respect due to him, is a Ph. D. in History of Science, not in Physics. Next thing, I have googled for "weak dematerialization" with and without the quotation marks. Quotation marked, it gave about 340 results, and a huge part of them related to the term used in Economy. A portion of them were the bookstores with items about The Shroud or "catch-them-all" spam sites. Without quotation marks, it rendered about Also, the energy source hypothesis was criticised before; I don't remember where it took place, but I'm almost sure it was in one work about the Maillard reaction theory. It was stated, that in the case of energy burst of any kind (eg. neutron, proton, etc), the whole fabric of The Shroud would be "burnt out", ie. the deep layers would be affected by the radiation. However, in the case of The Shroud, it's plain that the image exists only on the external, extreme side of the fabric. It's a pity this criticism is not included here.

Good discussion on miracles in The Shroud is here: http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-miracle.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critto (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, criticism of the work by Max Frei has disappeared from the article, in order to make the authenticity/supernatural hypothesis look mroe credible. The work by this criminologist is at best dubious and controversial. All of this, even giving a credit to the supernatural phenomena, should be included in the article, and as it was once include, this should not be removed.

Also, while googling for "weak dematerialization" in the quotation marks, I've found slightly more than 330 results. A large number of them related to a phenomena in Economy, some of them related to The Shroud, ie. links on Wikipedia, Fullwiki and some links to shroud.com site as well. While googling for the term without quotes, it returned about 24,000 of results, however these include various combinations of "weak" and "dematerialization". While this doesn't prove the theory is false, it doesn't show it is very popular. Similiarly with Thaddeus J. Trenn, who - with all due respect to him - is a historian of Science (he has Ph. D. in that), not a physicist. There's even no Wikipedia page about him, why? Also, he himself did not assert that his theory is serious.

Besides, one of the methods used by at least one of scholars working on The Shroud included Radionics -- the pseudoscientific "healing" method. See here, the paper by Norma C. Weller: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n53part3.pdf This proves us we must be extremely careful when talking about ANY theories about The Shroud, in whatever source it may appear, scientific or not.

For now, I find this article non-encyclopedic and in any voting, I will vote against its reliability. Cheers, Critto (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests from 24.180.173.157, 18 September 2010
I have two edits requests:

1. In the "Image analysis", it talks about the inscriptions found by Marion and Courage and cites an article by Mark Guscin. Yet it doesn't mention that Guscin's article disputes Marion and Courage's findings. Could someone please add this important fact?

2. Barrie Schwortz disputes Barbara Frale's findings. He claims that they were based on the work of Marion and Courage's apparently flawed work. This should be added too.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi 24.180.173.157, Please provide the new text as you would like it to be below here, so I can see what I can do. And given that Thucyd knows more about this than myself, he should probably do it anyway, if he wants. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hoping one of you would do it but I would suggest:


 * Linguist and Shroud scholar Mark Guscin examined the findings and found that none of the inscriptions which Marion and Courage claim to be able to see make much grammatical or historical sense. He also found that the inscriptions did not appear on the slides that Marion and Courage used to show the areas of the cloth where they could see the inscriptions and then the various optical treatments they had subjected it to.(cite Guscin article) In addition Barrie Schwortz notes that Marion and Courage’s findings were based on the 1931 Giuseppe Enrie photographs which was orthochromatic film that “basically only records black or white, any mid-tone grays of the Shroud image were inherently altered or changed to only black or only white, in essence discarding much data and CHANGING the rest.”(cite Schwortz artice)


 * and for the "Recent developments" section


 * Shroud examiner Barrie Schwortz notes that Frale’s findings were based on the work of André Marion and Anne Laure Courage and points to the study done by Mark Guscin which disputes the findings.(cite Schwortz artice)

24.180.173.157 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, please wait a day or two to see what Thucyd says, for he knows the topic better, than one of us will merge it it in. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi 24.180.173.157. You wrote : "Linguist and Shroud scholar Mark Guscin examined the findings and found that none of the inscriptions which Marion and Courage claim to be able to see make much grammatical or historical sense." B. Frale agrees in substance with Guscin and suggests a new interpretation (see her last book La sindone di Gesù Nazareno)
 * "In addition Barrie Schwortz notes that Marion and Courage’s findings were based on the 1931 Giuseppe Enrie photographs" I am not sure that Marion's findings were only based on Enrie's photographs.
 * "Shroud examiner Barrie Schwortz notes that Frale’s findings were based on the work of André Marion and Anne Laure Courage and points to the study done by Mark Guscin which disputes the findings.(cite Schwortz artice)". I think that when he wrote this sentence B. Schwortz had not read the book yet... In my opinion it is irrelevant. Thucyd (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that I have not researched this, I can not comment on it. But I do think it needs further discussion. History2007 (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But it is ludacris to cite Guscin's article in discribing Marion and Courage's findings and not mention his dispute of it. Plus just because your not sure about Giuseppe Enrie photographs it doesn't dispute Barrie's claims. I least put that he "claims" that Marion's findings were based on Enrie's photographs. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks History2007 but I meant for Guscin's dispution to be in the article. Especially since he's being cited. Please put this in:


 * The authenticity of the inspriptions have been disputed. Linguist and Shroud scholar Mark Guscin examined the findings and found that none of the inscriptions which Marion and Courage claim to be able to see make much grammatical or historical sense. He also found that the inscriptions did not appear on the slides that Marion and Courage used to show the areas of the cloth where they could see the inscriptions and then the various optical treatments they had subjected it to.


 * Thank you 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I added that ref. History2007 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think that it should state that Marion "claimed" to have found inscriptions instead of have it stated as fact. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you were right, it was too favorable to Marion, so I said "report" to sound flat instead of claim because that would make it tilt the other way. And of course it mentioned the École supérieure d'optique only 12 times, so I trimmed that too. Sounded like an advert for the École as well. But it reads flat to me now. As for "stated as fact", there are very few facts here my friend, except the "fact" that everyone has a different opinion about the Shroud. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this lists what claims about the shroud are well supported and what aren't. So when this article (wiki) mentions "C facts" it should be noted that they are controversial and not universally supported. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, some people agree with shroud.com, some do not. I have seen very few "facts" anywhere in the literature that have not been disputed by "counter facts", except for the fact about the controversy itself. No one claims that this subject is free from controversy. In terms of user views here, if you read above, users have expressed views on all fronts as to what facts may be. And in terms of overall, WP:Reliable publications, the article says at the top that this remains the "most controversial artifact in history" from overview studies done in academic publications. History2007 (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have a query on section discussing the first appearance of the shroud. The text states:-

"Historical records seem to indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the possession of a French Knight who died at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 and participated in the First Crusade"

Anyone who died at the Battle of Poitiers (1356) could not also have been present at the first Crusade (1096-1099), or indeed any of the Crusades, which petered out in the last quarter of the end of the 13th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.11.106 (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. Thucyd (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Time for a Spin-off ??
This article is now over 90kb long. We already have a daughter article on the History of the Shroud of Turin. Is it time yet to create a daughter article for the Scientific perspectives on the Shroud of Turin? Wdford (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there an "official limit" on article sizes? I do not see an inherent problem in the split you suggest, but unless there is mention of every scientific aspect in the summary that remains here, someone will ask about it. As is, the article has been surprisingly calm in the past few months with very few debates and edits. That is unlike a year ago when random items kept getting added right and left. Part of the reason that stopped I think is that almost all aspects have been addressed both as pro/con. So I wonder if we are going to rock the boat just for the sake of it and not much may be gained. History2007 (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While it is 91k total, the 90 kb limit is suggested for actual text, which excludes images, links, references and so forth. So, for now, there is no need. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are really much more articles that are over this Special:LongPages. So the answer is no. --Perhelion (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 6 November 2010

 * Serious neutrality issues and tone of the article, clearly pro-christian biased.

Several references are too old to be generalized. Scientific arguments are strangely absent and quotes are vague (exmple only Author's name and date, which is clearly insufficient: what book? what page? etc ) editsemiprotected


 * Pollens: skeptical views from the reference are explained too briefly concerning this aspect. In the wiki article there oddly isn't any mention of the fact that pollens of a given plant can be found far away from the place where it grew (by means of trade, wind, etc) and the fact that pollens being present do not prove scientifically the origin place of an artifact.


 * See below. I think the Max Frei fake evidence item should be added back, with references for it is a better argument against pollen than general statements. I agree on that point. Frei should go back in. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Among forensic pathologists, it seems that there is a clear consensus to say that the man of the shroud is a real man and in state of rigor mortis." References are insufficient (only two and the 2008 one states only "Faccini" ), one is too old (Meacham 1983)
 * Serious issue of wrong generalizations such as lines:
 * I can add a new one just for you : Vilallain J.D., "Estudio de la rigidez cadavérica que presenta la Síndone de Turín", Cuadernos de Medicina Forense, v.16 n.1-2 Sevilla ene.-jun. 2010, Article. Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the titles and info of the papers, journals, books of these refs?
 * See references.Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Stating "Joe blow" and a date is insufficient for a wikipedia article, I thought this site needed precise refs.
 * Actually Meacham is still a very comprehensive reference, and the fact that no one else has written at that level of detail since then doe snot mean that Meacham should be deleted. We can not go and compel people to publish, but if you have newer references, please provide them. Also see the issue of the "confusing reference style" below. That reference style is causing some of these confusions. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See references.Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief." With only a ref from 1983 (another short & imprecise ref). We are actually in november 2010 !! There are no arguments after that quote to explain why the so called 'failed' attempts were failures. Please indicate them or delete the sentence!!
 * Another wrong generalization:
 * Really ? See section : Hypotheses on image origin.Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have references, please provide them. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of new references in Hypotheses on image origin...Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Thucyd, I'm sorry but your link is all in spanish except the intro, not a problem, I can read spanish, the article is a summary comparing various --very old-- sources, the dates can be checked in the bibliography. Plus, the article bases itself on the accounts of the bible. It also omits completely the fact that the images are not realistic in proportions nor the fact that recto and verso are dissimilar.

The spanish link you provided is nothing else than a comparative study in ICONOGRAPHY involving basic forensic notions, for example: the image seems to indicate a cut on the flank as said in the bible, it is seen on the shroud. Is lymph and blood exsudate analyzed from this part of the shroud? NO, so this "study" isn't worth even mentioning, it's mere speculation. The most recent link in your link is from 2006, and is from a CATHOLIC university paper. This proves once again the wikipedia article is being closely watched by pro-catholics who purposely omit any criticism towards supranatural explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Moreover, there is a faint second face on the backside of the cloth and the front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long." Why isn't there a whole section dedicated to this second image and the fact that it doesn't correspond to the face image? Apparently skeptical arguments are minimized and quickly summarized on this article to leave room for developping pro-authenticity arguments. This is NOT what I call neutrality.
 * Insufficient development of a crucial aspect:
 * We could have a whole section dedicated to this second image, but the reviewer wrote that the "scientific perspective" section was already too long and that we have too many sub-sections.
 * I do not know that topic well enough, but how does a 2nd face affect things for or against? Please explain that in a separate paragraph below. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @History2007,you say "how does a 2nd face affect things for or against?" Well this is extremely important. double images, especially if they do not correspond one to another, could eventually indicate traces of falsification, first attempts, repositioning of the shroud over the subject in question (whether it's a body, a bas-relief etc) etc. The fact that the double impressions are dissimilar is VERY important and MUST be discussed, with all the theories concerning it.
 * I do not know the 2nd image topic well enough, that was why I asked. But what you typed is "your analysis". That can not be used unless you have good references that discuss it. If you do have references, please start a new section below and provide them. Else we can not just add text based on our own intuition. History2007 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"To date, despite numerous and often media-related claims, it can be said that "the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science" This is not proper to the wikipedia's encyclopedic vocation, it's only a biased pro-surnatural bold statement. Instead, we should delete "not yet explained by traditional science" and replace by "a consensus has still not been reached as of how the image was formed and it's possible source" . Not some funny classical religious nonsense stating that modern science is incapable. This needs immediate cleanup.
 * Again,a most serious neutrality issue:


 * I think that was a referenced item added by Thucyd, so I will wait for him to respond. But that tone should probably be changed, and I agree with you on the tone issue there. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) this quotation comes from an article published in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in optics : Applied Optics (Baldacchini 2008). Unfortunately for you, "no funny classical religious nonsense" in this article, just hard science that probably you are not able to understand.
 * 2) I think that your sentence is better !!! Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, Thucyd, this "hard science" you claim I am incapable of understanding is not a scientific argument at all: NO scientific can assess that he represents all by himself "modern science" or "traditional science", thus he makes his own personal beliefs take over his rationalism.   Baldacchini is NOT the ultimate representant of optics, physics or any branch of science.   Thucyd, you state my sentence is better, thank you, but if you really think so, you'd understand the meaning of "consensus between scientists" , which is how science has progressed up to now, not with assertions such as "modern science cannot explain this", a comment that stems from religious beliefs.

Many important scientific theories are applied nowadays but are incompletely proven, but NEVER do we read such simplistic comments such as "traditional science failed to prove etc etc" .Why? Because it's not about -religion- !

"However, there is no image formed under the blood stains.[95] After comparing the histograms of 256 different grey levels, it was found that the image obtained with a bas-relief has grey values included between 60 and 256 levels, but it is much contrasted with wide areas of white saturation (levels included between 245 and 256) and lacks of intermediate grey levels (levels included between 160 and 200). The face image on the Shroud instead has grey tonalities that vary in the same values field (between 60 and 256), but the white saturation is much less marked and the histogram is practically flat in correspondence of the intermediate grey levels (levels included between 160 and 200)."
 * Another biased and faulty paragraph:

-Unclear, overly repetitive and the argument's conclusions are totally absent!! What does the fact that no image is found under the (supposed) blood stains implicate? the histograms present certain differences, says this paragraph, so what does it implicate concerning the validity of the bas-relief technique reproduction? Please ceanup or simply delete the paragraph. Putting just "Fanti 2002" as a ref is insufficient.
 * Again "Fanti 2002" is a confusing reference method. I think all of those references should go back to the way they were 3 weeks ago. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine a medieval forger making a bas-relief of an entire human body (back and front) with holes for blood stains ?
 * It implicates that the bas-relief technique reproduction is invalid.Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NO it doens't implicate what your beliefs make you think, Thucyd, and "Can you imagine a medieval forger making a bas-relief of an entire human body (back and front) with holes for blood stains ?" is a childish UNPROVEN assertion.

Bas-reliefs with unrealistic proportions, an abnormally narrow face and various wounds are very easy to make on a base relief, look at the statue of the Dying Gaul, it'a PERFECTLY REALISTIC STATUE of a gaul with a stunning wound on his side, and it was MADE JUST BEFORE 200 BC. So making an unrealistic iron cast bas relief (or a base relief in any other material but covered in iron oxide for impression afterwards) would be impossible in the middle-ages? Are you SERIOUS?? There are myriads of other statues made in ancient times that are very realistic, and the addition of real-life looking wounds to some mythological heroes or historical characters was very common. The fact that you yourself "cannot imagine " that an artist could make a bas-relief or repoussé plate isn't a valid proposition for wikipedia's standards, I'm sorry.

Partiality issue: The so called modern "results" are in fact from the same ref source and not by an independant one : it's always "Giulio Fanti" and a date. Strangely no details, it's always vague and imprecise.
 * Please include "Giulio Fanti claims that some new experiments he directed tend to confirm according to his theory that a corona discharge could be involved " and not state boldly that "Results of some new experiments confirm that a Corona discharge mechanism could have been involved in the Turin Shroud body image formation.[9] However it is impossible to reproduce all the characteristics of the image in a laboratory because the energy source required is too high."
 * I also agree with another point implicit in your complaint: There is just too much Giulio Fanti here. Somone must really like Giulio Fanti, so I think we should reduce dependence on him. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not Fanti's claims, we have results of experiments published in peer-reviewed journal. See references. For Giulio Fanti see below.

Article biased once again, arguments are developed only for Frale's opinion, and only ONE phrase is left for the critics: "Other scholars have argued that the writing originates from a reliquary in which the cloth was housed during medieval times." That's all, one sentence?? No refs for these other scholars?? Why aren't their arguments exposed in detail as Frale's arguments are? The whole paragraph is a mere carbon copy of the Times' original newspaper article.
 * Cleanup needed for the section "Recent developments" : where is the complete original text "imprinted in fragments of Greek, Hebrew and Latin writing" ? We are only given Dr. Frale's translation in the wiki article!
 * "Recent developments" is too long and needs a clean-up. For Frale : I templari e la sindone di Gesu Nazareno, Il Mulino, 2009. Book stongly criticized, for example see Poulle 2009, p. 774. There is also Frale, "La sindone di Gesu Nazareno", Il Mulino, 2009 (inscriptions on the shroud).
 * "Other scholars have argued that the writing originates from a reliquary in which the cloth was housed during medieval times." I do not know who has ever written this ! Another "ongoing mystery" here... Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole article on the shroud must be reworked.
 * @Thucyd, you say do not know who wrote "Other scholars have argued that the writing originates from a reliquary in which the cloth was housed during medieval times." ?? It's Richard Owen in the link provided on the wikipedia article!! Times of London, Richard Owen, 21 November 2009

General comment to IP 82.240.163.245: I think the text above has become too long to be managed. And the discussion you are having with Thucyd is at times too hard to follow and relies on personal logic on both sides. I think what has happened is teh following:


 * You had a "concrete points" regarding the Max Frei pollen item and the highly hypothetical nature of the energy source. Those have been fixed now, in that the Max Frei item went back in and the energy source was criticized pretty strongly within that section.


 * The rest of it requires new research, e.g. the development of arguments regarding the 2nd image, or arguments against Frale. You provided no sources that I can see.

And I am sorry but I do not like the tone of your commands to go off and do the research for you. Please either do the research yourself and provide text that can be included in a clean paragraph below, or send a large wire transfer for someone else to do it. You can not just order other Wikipedians to go and do work - you should do the work yourself, and provide it as text below so it can be included with minimal effort. As is, I do not have references regarding the 2nd image, and I really do not know its implications, and I do not know if there are references that discuss it. And the tone of your commands are somewhat like someone issues orders for other people to do work. Wikipedia does not work that way. So doing research on the 2nd image would be a good place to start for you. That way you can "contribute" instead of giving orders. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment
I will try to make specific comments regarding each point, but I think although some of your points are valid, you are getting overworked about it, accusing the baby along with the bathwater, if you read the discussion above. Your starting comment about the pollen is a good example here. You argue that pollen can be found far away from the location of a flower. That is an obvious and trivial fact not worth mentioning, but the real situation is far worse. We had a discussion with JimfromGTA above about the fact that Max Frei one of the people in charge of pollen analysis had previously been accused of faking evidence in a separate case. I actually put that in the article at one point, but Jim argued at length that if Fry had faked evidence in a separate case, it did not mean that he had faked it in this case. Some time later, I think a 3rd editor eventually deleted that fact and the mention of Fry, and only a brief mention of it remains now. So the way Wikipedia works, at different times different editors make separate decisions. I would actually prefer to have the Max Frei item in there again, but one would have to go and find the previous references again. If you have those references, please suggest them below and we can add them if everyone else agrees. So although you may feel the pollen issue is one sided, if you read above, you will see that Jim had very different arguments, and the way Wikipedia works things often end up in the half way point between the extremes. Many of your other comments are in similar situations, but they need to be addressed one at a time, not with a blanket statement. In the past 2 weeks or so Thucyd has been reworking the article to get it a good article flag, so some of it is in progress, but we should wait for him to respond, given that he knows the topic pretty well. But I think each of your points needs to be addressed specifically and you should provide references, rather than just blanket statements, and the pollen will be a good place to start if you find the Frei references in the edit histories, or anew. One point you did not mention, but was implicit in your complaint is the repeated references to Giulio Fanti. I think there are too many of these, and reliance on him as a source must be reduced. Over the past 3-4 months the article has started to look more about Giulio Fanti than the about the man in the Shroud. All we need now is a new theory that the man in the Shroud is Giulio Fanti... History2007 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Max Frei and Hitler Diaries, "it is believed that Frei-Sulzer's incorrect analysis resulted from him performing a comparison analysis with other forgeries, instead of actual Hitler writing samples" (external link). If you want new references, you can read Danin's last book ("Botany of the Shroud: The Story of Floral Images on the Shroud of Turin", 2010). See also the abstract of his paper in the "International Conference on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wild Plant Diversity (CSUWPD) 4-8 May 2010, Chania Greece", where he was Keynote speaker ("Plants of the Bible and Botanical Findings on the Shroud of Turin") : "Gundelia tournefortii, hundreds of year later, might have been involved with the "Crown of Thorns". Its image is clearly seen on the right shoulder of the body of the Man of the Shroud of Turin. Together with two leaves of Zygophyllum dumosum and several flowers of Cistus creticus we have geographical indicators for the area where the Shroud arrived from. Observing the distribution maps of the three species, one may see that Jerusalem-Hebron area is the only place on Earth where people could put not-wilting plants of the species mentioned above on- or near a dead-man's body. Nine of the species identified by their images on the Shroud share their blooming time in March-April. There are images of hard ferocious thorns of Rhamnus lycioides and of Ziziphus spina-christi and of a reed, possibly Arundo donax, mentioned in the New Testament in relation to the Crucifiction" ([abstract).
 * Regarding Giulio Fanti, unfortunately I disagree with you. This is not how it works. If you publish in peer-reviewed journals, you are the most reliable source. By the way, he will be guest editor of a new peer-reviewed journal (Current Physical Chemistry) for a special issue on "The Physical Chemistry of the Turin Shroud" in 2011 (Aims and scope).


 * Look, it is not useful to argue it here. It should be fixed within the page, so readers like that IP do not feel it is so one sided. Personally I think the article was somewhat balanced about 3 months ago, and now it has been on a sliding slope downwards towards pro-authenticity and specially beginning to look like from lecture notes from a class taught by Giulio Fanti. It is not as far off as the IP says, but there has been a gradual removal of anti-authenticity arguments. That is my opinion, now that I have looked at it based on the IP comments. If this continues, the article will get a few bright NPOV type flags at the top, and will take 3 times as much work to fix it. It is best to handle these issues before they get too far off the middle line. History2007 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this article is balanced. Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. I do not want to give undue weight to theories never published in peer-reviewed journals (bas-relief for example). If you can find relevant peer-reviewed articles that are not mentioned, feel free to add them.
 * It is not my fault if Giulio Fanti publishes in peer-reviewed journals and skeptics such as Joe Nickell and Gregory S. Paul do not. When Garlaschelli published his article in JIST, I added it. Currently it appears that Fanti is the most prominent living sindonologist, the most published and quoted.
 * Give me an example of an "anti-authenticity argument" that you want to see in the article. Thucyd (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not work that way my friend. If the readers at large feel the article is too pro-authenticity, it does not matter what the academics think. At the moment there is just one IP complaining, the key is not to get to the point where 20 IPs complain. Then we will need a rewrite. And I must say the complaints of this IP are not all empty. He has some valid points. I do not see Joe Nickle as respectable, but he has 1,000 times more readers than all the other academics combined, so he can not be ignored and must be mentioned. Wikipedia is a "public" item, not an academic item. To that end the pollen issue does need to be addressed. If you have the new Danin material, why not add them. But the Frei issue is well beyond the Hitler diaries (where Frie was fooled) and there have been claims that he forged things in separate cases. In any case, the pollen matter will not just go away, other people will complain later, unless it is addressed. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are clearly wrong. When you write an article, you do not write it in order to give the reader what he wants to read ! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia : it means that an article has to reflect the state of the art and absolutely not the prejudices and opinions of an average reader. Thucyd (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, in Wikipedia a group of 15 teenagers can decide that an article on Quantum physics is wrong, vote on it, achieve consensus and change it. Those are the rules of consensus. Welcome to Wikipedia. That does not happen all the time, but is possible, according to the rules. There really are several computer related articles that suffer from that problem, and some experts have quit Wikipedia just because the undergraduates keep changing things. In the meantime, it is best to address what popular writers such as Joe Nickles say, so the above scenario does not happen. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read me well please: Wikipedia has to reflect the state of the art, it does not mean that wikipedia reflects it all the time or often. Thucyd (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I am trying to break the news to you gently, to avoid the eventual disappointment that may cause you to quit Wikipedia. I have seen that happen too often to too many good editors. You are a very knowledgeable person on this topic, and a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia on this topic, but despite your years of research on this topic, your vote counts the same as the vote of a 12 year old with a keyboard and a modem. And if it is any consolation, the same is true of Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. Do Stiglitz and Krugman stand any chance of contributing to Wikipedia, as is? I do not think so. If they disagree, the final consensus decision will be made by some unknown person at random, regardless of how much that person had to drink that night. On a topic such as advanced physics, when the audience at large can not argue about the difference between a tensor and a sensor, the situation is different, but on this page, as well as topics on economics, this is the wild west my friend. You should accept it and deal with it. You may be used to a structured academic environment, but this is far from it. Yet, it is refreshingly amazing that this unruly, chaotic system provides so much useful information. Pretty much how the wild west worked actually. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK :) You know, I appreciate your time and effort. I really do not think this article is biased. For the moment we only have a weak criticism of an IP. If you want add something for Frei, why not... For the internal links between refs. and notes I will do it next week. Thucyd (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you still working on that? History2007 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Thucyd
I think the way you have recently reworked the references is causing some of the confusion above, and unfortunately those edits mayhave to be redone to look more like the rest of Wikipedia. The way you have reworked it reads like the way academic journals do things, but seems unusual in Wikipedia. For instance, now the article says "Rogers 2005" and then there is a specific mention of Rogers 2005 below, so if the reader spends effort they can find that, but obviously our friend above found that hard to read, and assumed that some references were incomplete. It seems to me that this new referencing style you have introduced is just not going to work in Wikipedia, and in any case, WP:MOS must be followed. Or do you have WP:MOS guidelines that say this is the way to do it for GA status? I also asked user:Nikkimaria, who reviewed the article a short time ago to comment on the WP:MOS issue: User_talk:Nikkimaria. But please do address this issue yourself, for I think it may become an ongoing complaint for ever. It seems strange to me as a referencing style within Wikipedia, but I think WP:MOS should decide how it is done. History2007 (talk) 07:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think the way I have reworked it is unusual in Wikipedia, at least for featured articles. See for example British Empire or Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) or Magnetosphere of Jupiter. In my opinion, the next thing to do is to add (cite journal) or something like that and then we will have internal links between notes and references. Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Rogers 2005" and similar references are acceptable so long as you include a page number for book sources; some editors argue that you should also include page numbers for articles, but that's neither here nor there. MoS mandates a consistent style, but not which consistent style. Many FA-level articles use this style of referencing, although of course any consistent style is generally acceptable. If you want to make it more accessible, you can add the internal links between the notes and references. However, you should only do this if you have consensus on this page to do so, as required by WP:CITE. If you would prefer not to convert all of your existing references to citation templates, you might consider using. Further information on methods of linking notes can be found here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not start this debate on my own initiative, but because the IP above seemed really confused by it. If he is confused, others will be too, and it does not help to confuse readers. I think it would be best to use "named references" e.f. ref name= Rogers2005 and that way they will all be clickable and will not require readers to search through the reference list. As for consensus for the changes Thucyd made to the references, I see no consensus, and I am hereby not agreeing to them, because they confused that IP and they seem confusing to me too. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in a previous edit summary, it is a work in progress. I do not see where we disagree. If "many FA-Level articles use this style of referencing" (Nikkimaria), we just have to make the all thing more accessible by adding internal links between notes and referencs (use of suggested by Nikkimaria). This is what I want and this is what you want. So, where is the problem ?Thucyd (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you fix them with cite or named references so they will be less confusing we have no problem. History2007 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, November 11
I think claims of "dematerialization" and "the Resurrection effect" should be removed from the energy section since they are not scientific claims. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support that removal. In fact the reference for it Tren seems less than WP:RS to me. But let us wait a day, and if no objection, we will remove it. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, perfectly reliable. See Jackson, John P., “Is the Image on the Shroud Due to a Process Heretofore Unknown to Modern Science?”, Shroud Spectrum International, No. 34 March, 1990, pgs 3-29 ; Trenn, "The Shroud of Turin:A Parable for Modern Times?", Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies,Vol. IX - No. 1/2 1997, article ; Phillip H. Wiebe, "Design in the Shroud of Turin, 2000, article ; "Evidence for a Resurrection," Journal for Christian Theological Research, article, or his book God and other spirits: intimations of transcendence in Christian experience, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Mentioned and discussed in many articles (even peer-reviewed (Baldacchini 2008 I think for example)), books, TV shows... Thucyd (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, that shows that the new reference modes are inadequate. The article at the moment just says Trenn and one needs to find it. If these are supporting references, why not add them to that point in the article instead of the talk page? Are you still going to fix the references in general, as is they are a source of continuous confusion fo rme anyway, and probably for other people too. History2007 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) First that shows that "weak dematerialization" is not "less than reliable" (History2007) but perfectly reliable.
 * 2) you too can add these new references : Be Bold !
 * 3) References in general : yes, this weekend. I have to find time for it. If you want to do it, do not hesitate ! :) Thucyd (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to revert to the previous reference format in 3-4 mouse clicks. I do not enjoy cleaning up half-finished items. History2007 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The fringes of WP:Fringe
I think the comments from the last 2 IPs resonate with my own view that some sections of this article are now either on the fringes of WP:Fringe or well within it, specially the bizzare hypotheses like the energy source and resurrection events. While a paper or two on these hypotheses may have appeared in some academic journal, I think most mainstream physicists and biologists will laugh for 3 days if you try to convince them of this. And I have not see Physical Review or Nature (journal) publish these things. Personally, I chuckle when I read these theories. And that is VERY different from the painting theories which could be right or wrong, but are not using esoteric scientific explanations. I think Bass relief is clearly inconsistent, but is so far out that it will not get confused with the Beam me up Scotty theories. And Miraculous image formation does not pretend to be science, it just says it happened despite science, so it is not a scientific fringe issue.

There is a brief statement at the top that says:


 * To date, a consensus has still not been reached on the image formation and its possible source.

but that is too brief and hardly gets noticed. I think we need to separate these "far out" Beam me up Scotty theories in a separate section, although not called Fringe, but "Miscellaneous theories" perhaps, so it does not look like they are getting presented as mainstream science. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You wrote : "I read these theories. And that is VERY different from the painting theories which could be right or wrong, but are not using esoteric scientific explanations." What you call "esoteric scientific explanations" is maybe just a scientific hypothesis that you can not understand. For me, quantum physics is really esoteric...
 * 2) "And Miraculous image formation does not pretend to be science, it just says it happened despite science, so it is not a scientific fringe issue." Clearly, in order to demonstrate that a "miraculous image" is "miraculous", you need science. See here for example.
 * 3) "There is a brief statement at the top that says: 'To date, a consensus has still not been reached on the image formation and its possible source.' but that is too brief and hardly gets noticed." I don't think so. You forget the sentence in the lead( "To date, the creation of the body image visible on the Turin Shroud has not been conclusively explained by science"), and the intro of "Scientific perspective" ("A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling") So it is not too brief and it gets easily noticed for the "average reader".
 * 4) "I think we need to separate these "far out" Beam me up Scotty theories in a separate section, although not called Fringe, but "Miscellaneous theories" perhaps, so it does not look like they are getting presented as mainstream science." If the shroud is "authentic", this hypothesis (dematerialization) is at the core of the debate (it is hard to find a book on the shroud of Turin that does not discuss it). You seem also to forget that Corona Discharge theory does not imply necessarily a miracle. It is really difficult to define what is "mainstream science", especially when we have in front of us the Turin Shroud, with no consensus at all on the image formation. Do not forget that for hundreds of "mainstream scientists", the Shroud is a challenge to science.
 * 5) In WP:Fringe theory, it is written that "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted."
 * 6) New reference to a "mainstream scientist" (?) :) Trenn, Thaddeus, "The Shroud of Turin: Resetting the Carbon-14 Clock," in Facets of Faith and Science. Volume 3: The Role of Beliefs in the Natural Sciences, pp. 119-33. Edited by Jitse M. van der Meer. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996. Thucyd (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I can not agree at all. None of the "bombardment of pions and muons" hypotheses can be tested, as in all of the other Beam me up Scotty cases. There is NO way to test and verify them because: "They do not have access to the Shroud". It is hard to do science on an item that is locked in cabinet, and you cannot get to it. All that happens is that the field is getting bombarded with new papers every 6 months - and few last over 18. That is not science. These people just write papers, go to conferences, have lunch between the presentations, then go back and write more papers. And each paper is more exaggerated than the next. The hypotheses come and go and what I agree with is the "murkier than ever" statement of Ball, that should be made even more prominent. The bottom line is that they want a scientific theory for the Resurrection of Jesus and that science is fringe of fringe at the moment as theories go. And that is clearly confusing to me, as well as the two IPs that complained above.


 * And I do not agree at all that those who believe in miracles need science. Go to any monastery, ask the monks what science they have about the Resurrection of Lazarus and what will happen is that they will give you a blank stare, then go away and pray for you. They just believe that Lazurus was resurrected regardless of pions, muons or jitterons.


 * But the other problem I have is that you half-formatted the article references and I can not edit it without reverting your half edits. So please either finish the references in a form that is clear and usable, or I will just have to revert them next week, so I can modify things. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. We agree to disagree. Good start.
 * First a mainstream reference : Phillips,T.J.,“Shroud Irradiated with Neutrons?,” Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, p. 594
 * According to Karl Popper, a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. Weak dematerialization is falsifiable.
 * You wrote "These people just write papers, go to conferences, have lunch between the presentations, then go back and write more papers. And each paper is more exaggerated than the next." Prejudices and accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
 * Regarding the monks, I think that you should ask Father Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo, professor of nuclear medicine in France (his last book)... If you read Wiebe, you will see that empirical evidences are maybe not irrelevant to talk about God! Thucyd (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I do not agree. You are cherry picking a priest here, a book there etc. The Nature article already has a question mark in the title - great. We can discuss that for ever. But I do not want to let this degenerate into a discussion about the scientific basis of religion. Next step: Please either fix the half-finished refs or let us revert them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Right History2007, this is totally unacceptable, that all hypotheses are criticised, while the one involving the supernatural is not. Even if one considers Mr. Treen's hyptothesis a scientific one (I have serious doubts about this), it should be critised a others are. Removal of the skeptical viewpoint eg. criticism of work by Max Frei is also unacceptable. For now, this article looks like an apologetic one, and thus unencyclopedic. This should be changed or ahe article should be deleted and rewritten from scratch as a stub. Otherwise, nobody will find Wikipedia a serious work. Also, if one assumes supernatural event, why not include another explanation eg. that Jesus was a victim of some Aliens' experiment with life and resurrection? This would, for example,  explain a radiation used by some Alien scientist; why in the world would God make use of some energy source in miracles? This is more probable that a scientist of some Alien civilization would. If one considers existence of a Deity as scientific, why not find an existence of an Alien, being a biological form, unprobable? Critto (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, If you look at the talk page history and the edit history, you will see that I did rewrite 80% of the article from scratch a year ago - and it took much work. It was a real mess before. But I think the current situation is not that bad, and a rewrite again will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What has happened is that over time it has swayed towards pro-authenticity, just because that type of editors happened to be present. It can happen the other way too. But the MAIN problem I see now is that these "half finished edits" are in the way. I think to be fair, we can give Thucyd until next weekend, i.e. Nov 21, 2010 to fix "all the references" he has modified, else we will sadly have to revert all his work. But I see no other way really. Then I will just add back the Max Frei items, etc. that were deleted and tone down the Beam me up Scotty parts. That will fix it. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we have a consistent reference format and internal links between notes and references, used in many featured articles, as asked by reviewer. It was not the case before. I have just added two new reliable sources : for pollens (Carroll, 2003, skeptic) and for radiation (Fazio 2010, physicist). Thucyd (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. And here is the source criticising the radiation/irradiation hypothesis, by Raymond N. Rogers: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf, pp. 2-4, starting with:
 * 3) How do you know that the image was not produced by radiation?
 * The primary effect of all kinds of radiation is to heat the material it hits. This statement includes electromagnetic radiation (visible, ultraviolet, and infrared radiation); ionizing particles such as protons, electrons, and alpha particles; and non-ionizing particles such as neutrons. You can feel the heat when you hold a lump of plutonium, a flask of tritium, or a recently irradiated accelerator target. Intense irradiation can cause enough heat to explode explosives and burn metals (think of laser effects).


 * The Maillard reaction-related hypothesis by Raymond N. Rogers has been elaborated here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers7.pdf, while other works of his authorship are available here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/, titled rogersNN.pdf, where NN is a number.
 * Besides, Mr. Rogers also disagreed with the Medieval/painting/bas relief heating origins theory. He was a renowned chemist one of the most important persons involved in the Shroud investigation project called STURP, since 1978 till his death in 2005.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_N._Rogers
 * Therefore he and his theory deserves more elaboration and attention. Greetings, Critto (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Rogers well, often quoted in the article and in the "further reading", and why he criticized the radiation hypothesis. However I have chosen a new peer-reviewed article, which has a true academic content.
 * His hypothesis deserves maybe more attention. But do not forget that according to Rogers himself, it was not able to explain the whole process.Thucyd (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know he didn't claim to explain everything. And that's a true scientific attitude: forwarding one's own views based on critical thinking and experimentation, without claiming to be all-knowing. The fact we don't know something doesn't justify the fringe claims. For example, I don't know exactly what Caesar did in Galia that he won, however I would not claim his victories was based on the use of flying carpet that allowed him to oversee the battles or using tanks and guns brought from the future. Anyway, I don't oppose the irradiation hypothesis being included here; it clearly has its place in the debate on The Shroud, as it has been forwarded for decades by some people, some of whom attempted to test it scientifically. Only it has to be criticised properly. Critto (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thucyd, I still have 3 separate problems:


 * I can not agree with your general statements, in general. E.g. the reviewer did NOT request the new format style. The format is consistent, but could only be done with consensus. As is this format requires two mouse clicks to get to a reference, instead of one click. So what does that buy? Nothing. It just makes references harder to find. But that type of statement by you just creates "an uneasy feeling" here. And the same applies to your statement that "this article is balanced". I do not think so.
 * You said me "if you fix them with cite or named references so they will be less confusing we have no problem". You were OK and now you have changed your mind, again. Difficult to follow... Thucyd (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The references you have gradually added have been mostly pro-authenticity - the end result is that you are finding yourself in "defensive mode" with two IPs, Critto and myself on the opposite side. That is not the way to go
 * My main concern is reliable and up-to-date sources, as aked by the reviewer. According to Wikipedia : "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria." If you have new reliable sources, feel free to add them. Be bold !


 * No, I meant the format, and I thought you were going to add single click, named references. This is terrible. Be bold is one thing, be terrible is another.


 * I think Critto's comment is right, and is just the tip of the iceberg. The article is "inconsistent" by saying that "there is no scientific explanation" (I agree with that) and then gradually suggesting all these Beam me up Scotty type scenarios, and avoiding any criticism of them.
 * The article is not inconsistent at all. These scenarios are criticized with a peer-reviewed ref (2010), the most reliable source on wikipedia, again. If you want more criticisms, feel free to add a reliable source. Be bold !--Thucyd (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree at all.


 * I think it would be reasonable to suggest a rename of the article to: "Shroud of Turin according to a pro-authenticity student of Giulio Fanti who does not like criticism". Would you support a move to that title? History2007 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No comment. Thucyd (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)