Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 1

message: What is 14C?
:Carbon-14: an isotope of carbon with an atomic weight of 14; used in radiocarbon dating. --Brion VIBBER
::Is 14C a valid way of referring to it?  I've heard of Carbon 14, but never of 14C. -- Zoe
:::As a superscript (14C), I believe this is proper scientific jargon. However, I suspect it's a little esoteric for this article; if no one objects, I'm changing it to "carbon-14". -- Brion
Yes, (14C) is the proper form for an isotope in chemistry.  However saying "14 carbon" doesn't make much sense.  Leave it as "carbon-14."  Crucible Guardian 20:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 14C

message: What's the position of the Vatican on the shroud?  The speech I linked to seems to suggest that he believes it's a matter for the science to determine the origin, and if the science concludes it's from the middle ages it's fine by them.  However, confirmation by somebody fluent in Catholicese would be helpful.--Robert Merkel
:The speech itself contains some sentences that might seem a quite enthusiastic approval by the pope. As for vatican habits, they are really very explicit in considering it as Christ's linen, no doubt seems to be left after these words. In this sense, I don't read in it that the Church is really waiting for scientific investigations: whatever might scientists say, the Shroud is a religious symbol, and it will remain a symbol even if it will eventually reveal of different times. 
:Looking into the "icon", as the Shroud is always defined as an "image", "inside it" and not "in it" are the religious meanings of this figure, so the Church sweetly invites scientists "to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers". This latter element is a quite clear invitation to avoid intensively looking for solutions that could break believers' illusions, and please note that the Church itself, as the owner of the reliquia, selects allowed scientists to examine it... ;-) --Gianfranco
::The British Government won't let any scientist touch their mummies, I fear, either. (Even though Egyptians claim the mummies are theirs). So your argument is, you will let me say, quite biased and unjust. Pfortuny 06:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. The same could be said for scientific instruments such as SOHO, supercolliders, etc.; only one that has shown true belief by submission to the baptisms and catechisms prescribed by the priesthood gains entree to the sancta of the new cathedrals. And see the ashes made of the careers of heretics. Contrariwise, should just any jobbo off the street consume HST time, "clean" and "restore" the Sistine, or rip swaths from the shroud? How can this necessary filtering ever be done objectively? Kwantus 19:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
The official possition is that the origin is unknown. However, as with any other relic of dubious origin, personal devotion is not officially prevented or encouraged. The Pope (the present one) is clearly devout to it, but you have to take into account that the present Pope is Eastern, and so he is very devout of Icons, and the shroud can be seen as one (and one especially gifted). Pfortuny 09:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican Position

message: Was this a BBC documentary? When was it broadcast? I can't find any refereence for the BBC broadcasting this programme, but I can references to it being broadcast by the National Geographic channel. Mintguy 10:43, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC Doc

message: Hi. It seems to me that the problem with the "controvery" section isn't necessarily the content but the layout and organization. The non-skeptics deserve to have their opinions stated; but with the present mixed-up arrangement the article does seem rather unscientific. Furthermore, there is a lot of cart-before-the-horsing: rebuttals before the argument they're rebutting; micro-analysis before macro-analysis. So, although I don't know enough about the issue to rewrite it, here's my proposed layout for the section:
*Scientific description of the cloth and weaving-patterns
**Various interpretations of these data
*Scientific description of the markings
**Various interpretations of these
*Attempts to radio-carbon date the shroud or the markings
**Rebuttals to the radio-carbon dating.
*Conclusions:
**Scientific consensus
**"The science is generally accurate but the dating is faulty and it's a natural imprint of Jesus' body"
**"The science has been misled by a miracle"
**Alternative explanations (Michaelangelo photography, etc.)
**etc.
This seems like a far more logical order to put things in. Data should come before possible conclusions; right now the article has the reverse arrangement. Doops 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement of Controversy section 

message: "Despite your gibes and sneers it looks like Shroud of Turin is on its way to FA, as Mpolo's rewrite is meeting with approval from most of those who have objected. A small victory for genuine freethinkers. I wouldn't go quite so far as to suggest you change your username to AllWetMan. Yet, anyway." JDG 00:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you find me so quotable, Wetman. I'm onto you and as long as I'm healthy enough to tap keys Wikipedia will have an antidote to your brand of lockstep, partyline, irrationally reductionist rationalism. "There's more in heaven and earth, etc.". First up, your precious statement about McCrone in shroud/temp. "Sindonophiles", indeed. They mention him all over the place. They are delighted to have a debunker who has been so thoroughly debunked! JDG 00:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from [[User:JDG]] to [[User:Wetman]]'s talk page

message: I'm feeling guilty every time Wikipedia complains about the article being 41 kb long. Any ideas about what could go into a sub-article. I was thinking the History section would be the likeliest candidate, though that would remove the single strongest "skeptical" argument from the main article (it would be mentioned in the summary paragraph, but necessarily in abbreviated form). The "Controversy" has to stay because that's really the main point of the article. Other sections are too short to do much good. Or maybe we defy the 32kb "limit" -- How hard is that limit these days? -- Mpolo 10:55, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Personally I don't agree with the 32kb "limit". I think scrutiny should begin at something like 48kb. But that's just me... An article like this, I believe, is best the way it is. Breaking whole sections into sub-pages would be a net minus. JDG 10:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons for the 32k limit is that some older browsers cannot edit long pages.  A lot of these problems are solved simply by editing sections, which provide less than 32k of text for the user to edit, and the article is quite well sectioned.  I believe this is a good example of an article that should break the 32k limit — the article works very well as a whole, and to split it would likely detract from its quality.  --PJF (talk) 01:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: This is a very nice article, well written, good references, the paradigm of npoviness. So nice that I'm translating it for the wiki.pt. Unfortunately, sorry for being a spoil sport, its a bit messy due to heavy mixing of fact and interpretation. Moreover, the pursue of describing all possible points of view goes to the extreme of dilluting what is actually important. I understand that it needs to be comprehensive but big, gentlemen, its not always the best (mind the joke). To conclude, i would suggest some cutting and organizing under the principles of less is more. Cheers, muriel
*This is a recently promoted article (October 19), which the instructions on the page say not to list here. Mpolo 14:55, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC) -- Object to removal Mpolo 17:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Object to removal. A finely crafted article with a wealth of detail. Encyclopedia articles aren't meant to be "a good read" in the tradition of popular magazine pieces or newspaper stories. The more you can put out there for the student or scholar the better, so long as it stays on point, which Shroud of Turin does. JDG 08:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates]] 

message: I think there should be a copy of the self portrait of Da Vinci on the Da Vinci made the shroud bit.
When compared next to one another, the likeness is remarkable, you think "oh my god. Im looking at a photograph of Leonardo Da Vinci" CheeseDreams 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So add it. Let the reader decide whether the resemblance is "striking", which is definitely a POV term (despite the fact that I agree with you).  I can't think of a good way to NPOV-rewite your recent addition, though. PhilHibbs 12:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion (Leonardo) 

message: Surely this is wrong - you wouldn't be able to see anything in a negative until it had been developed? Pretzelpaws 01:31, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeveloped negative 

message: The piercing of the wrists rather than the palms goes against traditional Christian iconography, especially in the Middle Ages, but many modern scholars suggest that crucifixion victims were generally nailed through the wrists, and a skeleton discovered in the Holy Land shows that at least some were nailed between the radius and ulna; this was not common knowledge in the Middle Ages.
Where in the "Holy Land"? When used alone like this, I don't think Holy Land is clear as Christians' label for the area, and the term should be replaced with an objective label. 119 04:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of crucifixion technique 

message: During the fourteenth century, the shroud was often publicly exposed, though not continuously, since the bishop of Troyes, Henri de Poitiers, had prohibited veneration of the image. Thirty-two years after this pronouncement, the image was displayed again, and King Charles VI of France ordered its removal to Troyes, citing the impropriety of the image. The sheriffs were unable to carry out the order.
um, shouldn't there be a reason as to why the sheriffs where unable to carry out the order?
Project2501a 20:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheriffs 

message: An anonymous user added this comment about :Image:Shroud positive negative compare.jpg:
:(In fact, neither of these images is a negative of the other. Try it with an image-editing program).
Is he right? I don't know much about photography, but i know there's a difference between a photographic negative and the digital negation of an image file. -℘yrop (talk) 23:21, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
:I deleted the anon user's statement before seeing your question here. You're right, a chemical photographic negative will not have the same hue/saturation as a digital negation of the same positive, mostly due to the typical color spaces used by image editing software. The positive/negative shown in the article comes directly from Mr. Barrie Schwortz, who took the photo himself and vouches for accuracy. JDG 21:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative? 

message: About the Leonardo portrait, check this URL
It says that that is not a Leonardo portrait.
:Not only does it seem that the alleged portrait is not Leonardo's, this entire paragraph:
::Skeptics have proposed many means for producing the image in the Middle Ages. Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince (1994) proposed that the shroud is perhaps the first ever example of photography, showing the portrait of its alleged maker, Leonardo da Vinci. According to this theory, the image was made with the aid of a magic lantern, a simple projecting device, or by means of a camera obscura and light-sensitive silver compounds applied to the cloth. However, Leonardo was born a century after the first documented appearance of the cloth. Supporters of this theory thus propose that the original cloth was a poor fake, for which Leonardo's superior hoax was substituted, though no contemporaneous reports indicate a sudden change in the quality of the image. However, the resemblance between the shroud image and Leonardo's famous self-portrait has been described as striking by many. In addition to the similarity between the self-portrait, and the shroud image, the Turin Library, which houses the shroud, also contains the only known self-portrait of Da Vinci in this manner. Da Vinci was widely known as a man with a sense of humor, and could very well have instilled his own image onto the shroud (whether authentic or otherwise). It is also a theory that he was commissioned by the royal family, with whom he was friends, to have done this to bring back to Turin what was lost from them so many years prior to this. Da Vinci, whose belief system was non-Christian, would not have found such an action to be blasphemous. However, there are many things in the shroud that probably couldn't have been faked even by Leonardo.
:is so chock full of unsubstantiated or simply unclear claims about Leonardo that much of it should be edited unless the author comes up with some sources.    In addition, I will check the Leonardo discussion page, but I think that "Leonardo" is the prefered way of refering to him, as "Da Vinci" is simply where he was from. Zerobot 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Zerobot. I think that it would be wise to give a little information about Ms. Picknett and Mr. Prince if you are going to use them as references.  They are two people with absolutely no qualifications to speak on the subject.  One of their latest books is entitled The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth about Extraterrestrial life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt, which supports the theory that the gods of the Egyptians were actually aliens who will be returning any day now.  They are also discredited not by serious historians (particularly art historians) for their attempting to make Leonardo into some type of Rennaisance esoteric guru, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for these claims.  (I imagine that they probably see the hand of Leonardo in cropcircles as well).  In other words, these two are occultists and using them as a reference is not appropriate since these are the crackpot ideas of two New Age "thinkers".  In addition, in the paragraph entitled, "Photographic image production", if you are going to say that Leonardo's, "belief system was non-Christian," could you possibly provide a reference for this since it appears to be based on the Da Vinci Code hype rather that any presentable factual evidence. Massimo377 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Picknett & Prince are not scholarly sources. They are debunked many places, but here is an example . Thus it should be pointed out that their theories, while interesting, are not generally accepted and so are only "possibilities." Also, the name is "Leonardo" or "Leonardo da Vinci" (or his full name), not just "Da Vinci." This is incorrect, unless we're quoting characters from Dan Brown's book. Paraforce 17:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonardo portrait 

message: I've removed the link from "Avigliano", although not the placename itself. All the other places in that list are in Piemonte, but the two towns named Avigliano in Italy, Avigliano (PZ) and Avigliano Umbro, are nowhere near here, there are no other sizable towns by that name (and by sizable, I mean down to the village/hamlet level, I'm looking at a detailed atlas of Italy that frequently indexes places with no more than 100 inhabitants); and I find no record as to which, if either, Avigliano the Shroud might have been in. Frankly, I suspect a typo for Avigliana, which at least has the merit of being in Turin province, and thus in the Piemonte as well. Bill 12:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Avigliano

message: Greetings! 
Fantastic article.  It gives fair and equal time to all positions, neither favouring claims of the Shroud's falsehood or its authenticity.  Nevertheless, and I might add that this is understandable given the past 20 years of Shroud debate, McCrone appears to be exempt from the scrutiny applied to the findings of other scientists.  One final paragraph dismisses a scientist's findings on the basis that some of his samples might have been damaged or spoiled.  Given that no peer-reviewed article has supported McCrone's findings in 18(or so) years, and that several others have rather concluded his research was based upon spoiled specimens and thus clearly invalid, paragraphs discussing McCrone's analysis might have a similar disclaimer.  All the same, this is a fantastic article and one the supporters and readers of Wikipedia should be proud to have.
comment: 
Actually, the work of McCrone is given rather short shrift in the article. I've read his book and another based on it, and both are quite well argued and illustrated with photos of microscopic enlargements of the areas he examined. It should also be noted that it took McCrone's critics a considerable amount of time to come up with the speculation (which they later stated as a fact) that McCrone's samples were spoiled. The initial complaints were that McCrone was "tampering with the faith of simple believers" and so on. Indeed, McCrone himself, as shown in the notes reproduced in his book, assumed that the colored areas were bloodstains, but after examining them microscopically he noted "I have never seen blood behave like this before." They did, however, seem to him to look and behave like paint pigments. It's true that nobody else has reached similar conclusions, but then nobody else has conducted a similar analysis. Based on his conclusions, McCrone predicted a carbon-14 dating consistent with a 14th-century origin, which is what the subsequent carbon-14 test did in fact come up with. I'm trying to see the merit in the idea that the test must have been flawed, or that the results are contaminated with extraneous matter, but I can't see how the latter could be the case unless the contaminations were in excess of the bulk of the shroud itself. Certainly the archbishop of Turin accepted the findings (and was retired before his time by order of the Vatican). Initially, so did most of those who later denied the validity of the test. All this is of importance, and perhaps a refutation of McCrone's findings should have been included in the article.
Tom Amity129.93.17.66 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight bias in favour of McCrone? 

message: I removed the following:
:The Carbon-14 dating, which was intended to settle the issue conclusively, and did so for many scientists, has not quelled speculation about the possible authenticity of the shroud. Some scientists call for more radiocarbon tests of areas of the cloth containing the image, which the Holy See to date has refused. Given their expressed concerns about the destructive nature of current testing methods, it is unlikely that this resistance will change in the near future. Skeptics hold that the Vatican simply wants to avoid definite proof of forgery.
:Devotion to the image of the Man of the Shroud has made argument about this issue particularly heated. Because of the deeply held beliefs touched by this piece of cloth, complete resolution of the issue may never be reached to the satisfaction of all parties. If the hypothesis that the man of the shroud might have been in a state of coma is considered, the only hypothesis which allows a fully natural explanation for the formation of the image, the controversy even increases, because this touches the foundation of traditional Christianity. 
Every bit of this content is mentioned earlier in the article. I think that conclusions are very un-wiki. State the facts. State all the facts. No need to restate them. No need to analyze them. The purpose of this article should not be to draw a conclusion about the Shroud but merely to present all the facts and history allowing the reader to make their own decision. Moreover, concluding with this section has the effect of shifting the tone of the article to an argument between scientific and religious theories about the Shroud, which wikipedia is not the place for. There is no concluding statement for each side. Repetition be destroyed, savidan(talk) (e@) 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion? 

message: It appears that this edit has changed the external link appropriately but has incorrectly quoted what is actually written on the pages of the Codex.  --Rednblu 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin ink on the pages of the Codex unexplainably changes 

message: I removed the sentence that said, to effect, that when the backing of the cloth was removed in 2002 and it was photographed "a posterior image of the figure" was revealed on the underside of the cloth. 
The deleted material was confusing because the "posterior image" ie "the back view" of the figure has always been visible when the cloth was displayed. tThe cloth shows both front and posterior, lengthwise. 
The term "posterior" usually refers to a figure. In this case it was the backside of the cloth that was revealed, not the backside of the figure. One might presume that if there was an image on the reverse of the cloth, it would mirror that on the front of the cloth, perhaps fainter. 
I would like to insert the appropriate sentence to make up for that which I have deleted, but cannot do so as I am unfamiliar with the report and, to my recollection, have not seen a photo of the underside of the cloth. Would it be possible to say that a mirror image was revealed? 
--Amandajm 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posterior image 

message: OK! I'm old and ignorant of 21st century practices.... but please will one of you explain to me why, within this article, a ratio is expressed as 1:1 and then the next ratio/proportion (well is it a ratio or what?) is expressed as 0.75 or 0.90 or some such. 
Are these decimal quantities supposed to mean the same as 1:75 and 1:90? Or do they really mean 0:75 and 0:90? Or do they mean 100:75 and 100:90? Or perhaps 25:75 and 10:90? 
I have no doubt that you know what you mean. But just let's have some consistency and some consideration for the mathematically challenged! 
--Amandajm 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proportions 

message: Another problem with the validity of the shroud according to some is that the image of the supposed Jesus does not match with biblical accounts. They say that the Bible says that Jesus was flogged so severely by the Romans that his face no longer looked recognizable and it was so disfigured that it did not even look human. This would be consistent with the severity of Roman torture as outlined by authors such as Livy, Titus, and Julius Caesar. So if the Biblical account of Jesus' beatings are accurate then the image that we would see on the shroud would be near impossible to identify as a human let alone the face of Jesus. However, this argument is without merit. This text does not occur in the Gospels. The reference is rather to the "Song of the Suffering Servant" in the prophet Isaiah (52:14), written eight centuries before Christ, which is used in the Liturgy (e.g. on Good Friday) as a prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah. It is decidedly not an eyewitness description!
Are there any objections to my deleting this passage, which strikes me as a pretty obvious example of Original Research?--CJGB (Chris) 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - original research? 

message: I should be grateful if editors from here could look at Edward Thomas Hall. Can you source, or disprove, the claim that he helped to date the Shroud, please? BlueValour 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article. The peer-reviewed papers exposing the error are considered conclusive. It's all very simple: somehow the testers were daft enough to take all their samples from one tiny portion of a corner of the shroud which had been patched due to fire damage in 1532. So, they were measuring carbon-14 decay in a medieval patch! Sometimes the blockheadedness of scientists is truly amazing. JDG 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who dated the Shroud? 

message: References in the article are a complete mess: some with , some with inline links, and some with <ref>. Any objections against converting them all to <ref>? --Tgr 12:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References