Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shroud of Turin/archive1

Shroud of Turin
This was the subject of one of the more lively FAC discussions of September. During the last FAC nomination, the article was completely rewritten, largely by me, with lots of NPOV prodding and editing from User:Eloquence. In the past few weeks User:JDG and others have also edited the article, hopefully rounding it out to be informative and NPOV. I think the "dust has settled" now, so that we just need to list the outstanding objections...

Objections from first nomination :


 * An "Oh, what a great mystery this shroud is" POV assertion. But counter-arguments are given for (seemingly) every theory. (It's a unique, strange artifact with no universally agreed-upon explanation, and the article reflects this.)
 * Gone with the rewrite
 * An "ongoing dispute as to which language should be used to describe the nature of the shroud." What does this refers to?
 * The dispute seems to have died down, whatever it was originally.

Objections from second nomination
 * It needs more information about the research and findings of the scientific investigation of the Shroud, by scientists who aren't actively looking for a way to argue that it's authentic.
 * I think this is addressed. McCrone receives more space than before and it is also indicated that dissenting scientists tend not to have samples to work on.
 * Eloquence listed 22 objections. These were all addressed, except for "               The shroud is in the public domain - why do we only have a face portion, and a negative rendering instead of both? Surely one of the shroud enthusiasts can provide a high resolution scan and then we can look at specific portions, like the hands, to highlight things like stains so that the reader can get an impression of the so-called 'wounds'."
 * Unfortunately, the photographers consider their photos to be copyrighted and follow this up with court action. There have only been 6 professional photographers in history permitted to photograph the thing without protective glass, etc. We now have reproductions of the original photos, which are the only ones definitely outside of copyright.
 * I don't think it's particularly well written and the image may be a copyvio.
 * Completely rewritten. The old image dated from 1933, so could be argued as a copyvio. This one dates from 1898.
 * It should be clearly stated that modern methods could date the shroud with fair certainty, but the owners refuse to permit access.
 * This is mentioned.
 * I didn't even get to the end. You know it's POV when a section on scientific analysis gives a brief description of the method (one line) followed by a long refutation (three paragraphs). Especially when the refutation involves resurrection-related neutron bombardments. By all means report on people's beliefs but keep the pseudo-scientific babble for your church picnic.
 * Complete rewrite. I think this is answered.
 * This is clearly too controversial to be promoted now. The rewrite is much better, but I think it should have some time to settle, maybe a spell on Peer review then re-nominate.
 * Agreed (and super work). Wait two weeks, perhaps.
 * It's been three weeks since the failure of the old nomination.

This would be at least a partial self-nomination. Mpolo 13:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. I have one issue though: the history section extensively discussed the Shrout of Edessa, although it is not established that these two are the same. Perhaps this should be mentioned more clearly, notably at the beginning of the history section. Jeronimo 21:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I added such a note. (In addition to the section title "Possible History") Mpolo 08:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

***I'm afraid I can't agree. The first paragraph of the section discussing the Edessa image seems to me to be enough. By extending the discussion of that other image, the article reads like it is slanted in favour of accepting the identity of the two shrouds. Filiocht 11:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) See above. Filiocht 10:21, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, and NPOV. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 11:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Object for now. Far too much space given over to the Image of Edessa, 'which may or may not be related to the cloth now known as the Shroud of Turin', to quote the article, and which already has a reasonable article of its own. Given that there is no certain relationship, I fail to see how more than a passing reference in this article can be justified. Filiocht 12:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) I still think there may be too much material in this section, but now change my vote to neutral in the light of what has been done. Filiocht 07:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I merged most of the history specifically on the Image of Edessa to that article. The portions discussing traditions of a full-length image of Jesus connected with the Image of Edessa are highly germane to the discussion here, however. Is that enough? Mpolo 13:37, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what can be done. The paragraphs beyond the first paragraph about the Edessa Image are specifically there to provide what evidence exists that the two cloths might be the same -- that John Damascene spoke of an oblong cloth, that the sermon at the transfer to Constantinople mentioned the image, the testimony of a Crusader of the burial shroud with image there. They don't really have a place in the article on the Image of Edessa, because that article is not concerned with its relationship to the Shroud of Turin. Mpolo 12:06, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) -- O.K. I've made another attempt. I added a sentence to make it clear that the common view is that the image of Edessa has nothing to do with the Shroud. I then prefaced the following three paragraphs by the statement that this is the evidence presented by shroud supporters for the identification of the cloths. I removed a sentence of history that wasn't particularly germane as well. Mpolo 12:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Much more NPOV than before. The lead section is a bit short for an article this size though. - Taxman 17:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead, but it should be checked over for POV issues.Mpolo 16:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   18:13, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I nominated this article in September, the improvements made are excellent. Zerbey 11:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)