Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Supernatural Ultraviolet

[1] and [2]. Please nobody start trying to make the article say this proves anything. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any disagreement in the media about this topic? ... Kidding, of course. I think we need to put a banner on the top of this page: "Everyone and his brother has an opinion. They all debate it. That is all that is certain." History2007 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)]

Interesting. The ultraviolet energy theory is consistent with Jackson's Radiation theory.JimfromGTA (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that the Bible is correct. Jesus died on the cross, He was placed in a tomb in the Jerusalem area, and Resurrected. The preponderance of evidence from research has now demonstrated the who, what, where, why and NOW how of Jesus' death and Resurrection. Science is now in step with what Christians have been saying for 2000 years. The ultraviolet "burst of light" is consistent with spiritual illumination events and demonstrated scientific proof of the Jackson (STURP scientist) research theory. It is the ONLY CAUSE that after 30 years of trying, that science has been able to come up with. It is the ONLY method that is consistent with the 100 or so characteristics of the Shroud. It is the ONLY DEMONSTRATED theory about the cause of the image of the crucified man who matches Bible description, in the Jewish burial shroud.

Indeed, in can now be scientifically deduced that that Jesus (Isa) is as He claimed....the Son of God. The only person to transform in a burst of light. Christians rejoice at this news.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop evangelizing on this page. This page is for discussing improvements to the article it is NOT a forum as you have been told beforeTheroadislong (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a statement of scientific fact and deduction. Your article's science DOES NOT reflect now demonstrated science theory. You are speaking about a religious artifact, which has science components. It is logic and proof of a Christian artifact. The science comes from the Catholic Church in its origin, from the Church's possession of the evidence, to the permitting of exploration of the Science (permission to STURP) to the release of December 2011 science data by the Vatican that demonstrates proof of Jackson's research theory that resembles the Resurrection. It is reasonable to now deduce Christianity's claims are scientifically sound. I rejoice at the news that confirms Christian claims.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)JimfromGTA (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are entitled to your beliefs but Wikipedia does not allow original research, you need to provide reliable third party references for your statement which you will find very difficult!Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand Jackson's scholarly research and the implications. The ultraviolet burst of energy confirms Jackson's theory. Why don't you look up Jackson's Radiation theory. He discusses it in a video, I refered to before. Jackson is a 30 year veteran scholar of STURP origin. The Vatican released information that stating that ultraviolet "burst of light" reproduces the images on the Shroud. Jackson's theory requires a burst of energy. Jackson has also presented the theory of the colapsing cloth with evidence demonstrating the cloth colapsed through the body. He also presented evidence that there was a body below. Altogether, the theory of Radiation AND colapsing cloth combined with an intense light source demonstrates the Resurrection. The theory of the Resurrection has also been spoken of by scholars. I provided a published paper by Moran on this subject. Scholarly research has established the who, what, where, why, and how.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, it does not matter what any editor understands, or thinks. Per WP:V all that matters is scholarly opinion in WP:RS sources. The rest is subject to WP:Forum. The latest research as of Dec 2011 is already in the article. Let us wait 6 months to see if anyone publishes anything new. Until then, there is no point in talk among the editors about any evidence, whatever it may be or not be - it will be WP:OR anyway. I suggest we suspend this thread as well. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The science, assuming the ultraviolet light is confirmed, has been set. As long as the Resurrection, Radiation and Collapsing cloth theories are included in the Wikipedia article (all these are scholar published theories) which likely to be more important in the near future, I can understand your position and reluctance to adjust the article before a paper is published. Unfortunately, I do NOT see these, other than the Radiation theory, being discussed as science theory. So your article comes up short from stated objectives, especially when you consider the science is moving in that direction. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so let us stop now, and wait until somebody publishes something new in a WP:RS source. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

History2007: The Resurrection theory and Collapsing Cloth Theory are missing from Wikipedia. "Intense light" evidence is demonstrating the ONLY natural cause of the image on the Shroud. So the Resurrection theory and Collapsing Cloth Theory are highly relevant. I suggest upgrades and you want to ignore Christian science, when the artifact is centred on this. Don't get Wikipedia.JimfromGTA (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, ultraviolet light (from the sun) refracted onto the fabric through a pane of glass, is EXACTLY what is proposed by the "shadow shroud" theory I have been discussing all along. See [www.shadowshroud.com] for details. The Shroudies will now obviously squeal about “FACE TIME” and “100 characteristics”, as they usually do, but still without presenting any scientific evidence to support their own theory of resurrecting corpses generating ultraviolet lazers and fixing flat-projection images with photographic clarity onto a supposedly-curved cloth. An interesting double standard. Wdford (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wdford: I know you are frustrated, as the Shroud is a frustrating artifact. It just won't fit nicely into a theory that non Christians want. The Shroud just won't play "dead". It keeps on getting Resurrected, so to speak (joke). Both you and History2007 are struggling with this. I can see that. Think of how frustrated the 30 year research veterans are. Over 50 reproduction experiments have been done and failed. So everyone has been frustrated. Including, myself, discussing this with two good people who feel very uncomfortable with Christian science and subject matter. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, Collapsing Cloth "requires a rethinking of some concepts of modern science" according to Jackson. So it can not go in the science section. One would need to create a "non-scientific hypotheses" section for that. But that would quickly fall under WP:Fringe and give rise to other problems.

By the way, in that link please read the next paragraph: "after a century of theories and debates among scientists, the origin of the image remains as much a mystery", etc. Pretty much what the Dec 2011 quote states. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

History2007: The whole Shroud IS a conundrum. It is a puzzle. A mystery. In essense, it is a

burial cloth that has a

"baked on" microscopically demonstrated anotomically correct human image

that was formed on the internal surfaces of a shroud,

that appears to have a body in it because

the image and shroud fits around a 3D body

with real blood precisely positioned to human capilaries and wounding.

And this all occurred possibly 2000 years ago before what we call modern science.

Further, after 30 years of trying, the ONLY natural cause of the image that meets all the evidence is "intense ultraviolet" light.

On top of that, it matches descriptions from ancient documents and events and has limestone, pollen, and floral evidence that places it in the vacinity of the events described in the documents.

The REALITY is just wild. By normal experience, the image shouldn't exist. But yet it does. (Moran et al) goes through this. The whole Shroud defies easy classification.

The Collapsing Cloth theory arose from a main stream STURP related scientist (Jackson) with 30 years experience who demonstrated the evidence and formulated a hypothesis base on evidence. Now that IS "basic research" and qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia.

You include in the article the fringe theory: "painting" under science. And this has been long gone. After all, if you don't have brush strokes, and you have roughly 200 anotomically correct scourage wounds that are near impossible to replicate using paints, its kiNda obvious it ain't a painting. And professional researchers confirm this. It is included because people want to believe it. It's not based on fact.

There are 2 Billion Christians in the world. It doesn't come as a surprise to most people that some scientist is researching the Resurrection theory on a cloth that is highly probably the Shroud of Christ. The Collapsing Cloth theory is just another piece of the evidence about the Shroud. So is the Resurrection theory. Stop fussing. Just state the theory, and findings and get on with it. The Shroud is just too complicated to start splitting hairs.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If there are other editors who support the inclusion of collapsing cloth, let us do it. I don't see it as a key theory, but if there is support for its inclusion let us see what happens. By the way, painting does not require the suspension of science. Collapsing cloth does, and painting is included, but stated as being generally rejected. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, you are welcome to put the laser radiation theory into a "religious fringe theory that contradicts the known laws of science" section. However, since there is no verifiable evidence that corpses get resurrected, or that resurrecting corpses generate UV lasers, or that corpse-lasers can etch images onto cloth in negative, this theory cannot go into a "science" section. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Jackson may have been a scientist, but until he can demonstrate that resurrecting corpses generate UV lasers, his theory is not "scientific". Moran proposes that light must have travelled faster than light-speed, though solid fibres. Again, you would have better credibility proposing a UFO was responsible. This is not "splitting hairs" - in order to go into a "science" section, you at least need to obey the laws of science. That is non-negotiable.

Second, the painting theory is still alive provided you assume the paint was deliberately washed off, leaving only the discolouration behind. This is per Garlaschelli etc as well. The pollen etc then comes later, when the pious owner takes it along on an Easter Pilgrimage to the Holy Land etc etc.

Third, there are 5 Billion Non-Christians in the world. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Wdford (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

and carbon dating produced a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence, but hey let's not let a thousand years or so get in the way. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So can we collapse this thread too and move on?

YES!Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

|}

1260–1390 AD = End of discussions

... Why did the radiocarbon 14 dating test indicate the worst possible results for Shroud of Turin believers ? Because the shroud is a fake ! Is it not revealing that the date ( 1260–1390 AD )was exactly in accordance with what shroud sceptics had said and written prior to the testing ? The test result could have indicated any date , but , it indicated the one and only date that proved that sceptics and historians were right. The medieval repair theory is preposterous as the sample was taken after extreme precaution and it is extremely unlikely that the specialist who took the sample would have made such a blatant mistake. The church itself implicitly agrees with the test as it have since not allowed another sample to be dated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeelda (talk • P.s "In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed.". You can be 100% sure that if they had found any patches in the region where the sample was taken, they would have let us known. Case closed.It's a medieval fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The above is a personal commentary which reasons per WP:OR, runs counter to the WP:RS sources already cited about the disagreements among experts and should probably be collapsed to avoid another WP:Forum marathon here. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is not at all WP:OR.

1) Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, former head of the textile department of the Abegg Foundation in Switzerland and THE reliable source on ancient textiles, who has had FACE TIME with the Shroud, has stated that “invisible reweaving” of the level required to evade STURP microscopes and photography did not exist in the Middle Ages. See [3] and [4]. (Benford, by contrast, is a nurse who specialised in energy-based alternative healing effects, and Marino is a former priest who is qualified in theological studies, and who left the priesthood to make a lucrative career as a Shroud-guru. [5])

2) Archaeologist William Meacham has stated that "it is highly questionable that any medieval restorer would have had the skill and/or taken the time to do a re-weaving that would not be immediately obvious to a textile expert.” ^[1]

3) Jackson has stated that (per Schwalbe and Rogers, 1982) “alternating high and low material density bands, that probably correspond to different weft lots, can be seen propagating across the seam that joins the side strip to the main Shroud. This argument can also be applied to test the hypothesis of a reweave. If a reweave has occurred, then surely the continuity of the radiographic bands would be disrupted at the reweave intersection with the Shroud because the reweaved fabric would have different radiographic properties. Such a discontinuity is not observed anywhere in the Figure 7 radiograph, and therefore we must conclude unambiguously that there has been no reweave whatsoever surrounding the radiocarbon sample site.” See [6], [7].

So, it would seem that several leading sources (with FACE TIME) agree that the reweave theory is unsustainable. I propose that these comments by experts be added to the article please? Wdford (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let us wait 2-3 days until the fire downstairs about collapsing cloth ends, then let us discuss this one with calm. Else chaos will set in. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Non Christians are uncomfortable with Shroud Science - Censor Supportive Christian Science

I just experienced the first censorship of science information and discussion that was completely logic flowing from such evidence PLUS reference to scholar debate. Wikipedia has just seen a COMPLETE VIOLATION of encyclopedic principle, wherein a Christian point of view, is suppressed by NON Christian sentiment. There is a general refusal to acknowledge the Christian perspective. The recent revelation of violet burst of light is important, as is the collapsinng theory. These items have been colapse by two individuals who are non Christian editors who DO NOT wish to have "real science" supporting the Christian perspective in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimfromGTA (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit harsh, Jim. The radiation theory has long been included in the article, along with the scathing rebuttal thereof from Ray Rogers. All that has been emphasised here (repeatedly) is that theories which contravene the laws of science are by definition not scientific. The "Christian perspective" has its own (separate) section in the article, where the laws of science are considered to be less important. Take a breath. Wdford (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack copied from my talk page...

Rogers published a paper called “Comments on the Book "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci”. [8] To quote some choice comments:

Page 7: “The Resurrection of the Shroud does not make comprehensive tests of its "theories" as would be done according to Scientific Method. It is not the kind of publication you would see in peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

Page 15: “The author … accepts a "theory" that the image was caused by a burst of radiant energy. He quotes Wesley McDonald, as follows: "Many scientists now describe this burst of energy as a pulsed laser beam caused by dematerialization of the body into energy in a millisecond." Such a statement does not bear any resemblance to "standard physics principles."

Final para: “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.”

This is why the Resurrection theory is not included in the “science” section of the article. Wdford (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are a censorer. You want people to stop talking about Christian Perspective.

I am the ONLY Christian expert who discusses erroneous stuff on Wikipedia Shroud of Turin.

You are trying to shut up the Christian perspective. Rather you support long runs of "pro non Christian perspective, then tell the Christian to "keep quiet". If you look, I always reference my stuff to science and correct others. It is also logical.

My attempt to update for pertainent theory was blocked and called irrelevant by a person who is a proclaimed anti religious. You reflect a person who is trying to impose an anti religious philosophy on others.

Please stop censoring normal discussion that is directly associtated the Christian artifact that is call the Burial Cloth of Christ / Shroud of Turin.

If you are SO uncomfortable with Christianity why do you care about supervising this aspect anyway. Leave Christians and their science alone. Stop censoring. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't rant on my talk page I have not censored anything. You have made no edits whatsoever to the article but have used the talk page as a forum for your own ideas and opinions with NO reliable third party references and if you check the history it was other editors who closed the threads not myself.Theroadislong (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Then stop trying to suppress Christian science perspective. You collapsed the above. If you disagree with something then say so, and state your science together with references, instead of advising me ON MY TALK page not to write about stuff. The items you collapsed were supportive of Christian science. And important contriburions to the Wikipedia article. They have been ignored and collapsed. That is censorship.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My references included references to scholars. So you are incorrect. Jackson is a 30 year veteran of Shroud science.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check the history I did NOT collapse or close any threads. Please assume good faithTheroadislong (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2012(UTC)

Are you not an editor involved in the decision to collapse? Why was the ANNOUNCED violet light references science suppressed. Why was the STURP Scientist Jackson Collapsing Cloth evidence suppressed?JimfromGTA (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion didn't seem to be going anywhere and many other editors agreed. If you have a suggestion for improving the article I suggest you make it so it can be discussed but this page is NOT a forum.Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, please take my word for it that "strong language" in Wikipedia does not go very far. You may feel upset, but getting upset does not buy anything in Wikipedia. There are many rules for dealing with it and in the end your account will get a block. Frustration is a common symptom in Wikipedia and there is in fact a page WP:CALM about how to deal with frustrations. And this si not just a case on this page. There are pages such as this one which are also subject to debate. And they have zero religious context. And of course Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is a prime example. I no longer watch that, and as far as I know no one was murdered there, although it looks like it came close. So discussion is common in Wikipedia, as is frustration, but getting upset does not achieve much. And I think if you ask on various boards, the discussion above was clearly within WP:Forum. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the Collapsing Cloth theory is current science and is done by main stream scholarship. You know that. But it is not being added. Instead, you "collapse" information so that others can not see the connection to Christian science. JimfromGTA (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jackson’s “Collapsing Cloth Theory” is nicely summarised – and totally rebutted – by Ray Rogers (an actual scientist with FACE TIME) in a published paper titled: “TESTING THE JACKSON "THEORY" OF IMAGE FORMATION” [9]

Some choice comments:

Page 5: “If Jackson were correct, and energetic photons caused the image color, the image areas should show significantly different amounts of diffuse radiation damage than the non-image areas. They do not.”

Page 6: “If, as Jackson claims, the body becomes "mechanically transparent and the cloth falls into the body," all of the cloth would be subjected to an environment that can completely decompose the cellulose. If the cloth fell through (was immersed in) an energy field, all of the pores in the cloth should have been filled with and subjected to the energy. There is no image color or erosion inside the pores of the cloth.”

Final para: “Jackson's "theory" cannot be supported by the observations that have been made on the Shroud of Turin or the masses of information available on radiation effects.”

So much for this theory being “current science” and “main stream scholarship”. Wdford (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If Rogers attacks the collapsing cloth theory in public, in an ironic twist that makes collapsing cloth more notable. So maybe it should go in with a summary sentence that Rogers thinks it is impossible. But I guess no more than one sentence each pro and con. History2007 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a famous quote from Bill Clinton regarding you know who which said: "it depends on what is is". In a different sense, it is also the case that in Wikipedia "is" is subject to WP:Consensus and has no meaning in itself. So "X is Y" can not be assumed by any single editor and the entire Wikipedia talk:Verifiability discussion was on that. That is how this website works. History2007 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find only one reference to a "collapsing cloth theory" on Google which is on www.shroudcentersocal.com can you supply any secondary references?Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is also discussed here. The issue is that it can not go in the science section, and I do not know how to put it in the religion section, given that it has no priest endorsing it. But we could put a sentence in the "Miraculous image" section that Jackson thinks it was beyond science. We could say: "Scientist Joe Jackson has proposed that the image was formed by methods beyond the understanding of current science, in particular via collapsing cloth onto the body that was radiating at the moment of resurrection". We may get objections from religious people, but let us see. What do you think? History2007 (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Let’s maybe also add a quote, from the same source but 2 paras down - Alan Adler on John Jackson: “But not all of us buy what he thinks are some of the mechanisms because they seem to violate other physical laws.” Wdford (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but should the criticism come from Adler or Rogers? Maybe Adler since it is the same source. Adding too long a criticism actually adds more focus to the theory. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

True. Perhaps we just say: "Some theories of image formation which claim to be scientifically valid, actually totally violate the accepted laws of science. These include John Jackson's collapsing cloth theory, the Moronic Mumblings of Moran, and anything written on this subject by Antonnacci." We then cite both Rogers and Adler as reliable sources for this. Yes? Wdford (talk)`

I think you should avoid being insulting to authors such as Moran etc. Does not buy anything. But let us wait a day or two and if there are no other objections, then two sentences on Collapsing Cloth etc. and rebuttals will go into the religion section, not the science section. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You allow Wdford to go on adnausium about "non Christian" perspective without any evidence to back his theory. And you "collapse" Chrsitian perspective that makes you uncomfortable. Then you tell me NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT. I don't mind talking about the Collapsing Cloth theory, but as long as you censor my words, why bother. You'll just censor them again. You have a "collapsing Christian science" approach well. So open up the discourse and I'll participate. Otherwise your actionS speak like "non Christians" ganging up on the ONLY Christian expert here.JimfromGTA (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, per the suggestion made by Theroadislong, and supported by DWeller, the bloodstains thread started by Wdford was also collapsed. So in advocating the collapse of the threads neither Theroadislong, nor myself have taken sides in the debate that has been mostly been between you two guys. But again, and again, and again, this type of totally polarized debate is common in Wikipedia, even on core policies such as WP:V and at the end both people on the extremes go away unhappy. Some people's ideal scenario may be to have the page start by saying: The Shroud is real: here is why. Some other people's ideal scenario may be to have the page start by saying: The Shroud is fake: here is why. In the end, both will be unhappy: a requirement for having a middle of the road view. And I should say that both of you have been "discussing evidence", and that runs counter to WP:Forum. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor pedantic note, there is an editor 'Dweller'. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have NOT "uncollapsed" Christian science perspectives, that were included in both sections. You have mislabeled as well. What more can one say about censorship. People are not allowed to discuss article improvements that are consistent with Christian science without them being suppressed? For a Christian artifact? Amazing. Anything but a Christian science perspective for a major Christian artifact.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimfromGTA (talk • contribs) 22:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this. You have ignored my polite warning about civility and good faith. The word 'censorship' is completely inappropriate here, the issue is our policies and guidelines and whether they are being applied appropriately. Stick to that. Stop making accusations that other editors are censoring you. Avoid arguments that are just discussing the Shroud and not the article. And please, there is no such thing as 'Christian science' outside of the religious group by that name. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You have confirmed my suspicions. All three editors are non Christian. Such is the bias in your article. You suppress Christian perspective and when someone talks "like a Christian" one of you bluntly tries to suppress his speach. What can I say. You have a "cognative dissonance" reaction wherein your "shut your eyes" when someone from a different perspective speaks. So you "shut" (collapse) the sections involved.

Jesus Christ by ancient documents was crucified, died, was buried in a tomb, then resurrected. He also, according to witnesses at that time claimed to be the Son of God. Billions of people believe that. Many have had "spiritual experience" confirming this. The Shroud of Turin contains evidence that indicates these statements to be real. I am the ONLY Christian on this site that is stating this and demonstrating this in logic. I bring a multidimensional experience and evidence to this forum. And I do so at an expert discussion level, consistent with scholarly research. Yet you do not want this discussed, and suppress any science in your article that is related to this. Wikipedia is a great encyclopdic concept, except where conflict between athiestic/Muslim and Christian philosophy colide. JimfromGTA (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I find your comments deeply offensive, my edits have always been neutral I'm not censoring you or anyone else. This page is NOT a forum as you suggest, it is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia relies on third party references, it matters not what my beliefs are or yours. This is an encyclopaedia and "spiritual experiences" or logic cannot be used in place of reliable references.Theroadislong (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would support the statement that Theroadislong has been neutral and middle of the road in these discussions. In my view, he has not shown a bias towards either Jim or wdford's views which represent the two ends of the spectrum in this forum, excuse me, talk page. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

I have tried to talk "improvements" to your article. But sir, you have censored me. You have talked down to me when I expressed Christian perspective. Now you complain when I complain about your behavior. I have tried to bring logic and science together. But you have failed to address the Christian perspective. As stated. Where's the Resurrection Theory in your article. When I bring forth the Cloth Collapse theory, your editor doesn't state the evidence and the theory, rather you start with a critic, without even trying to understand why a STURP scientist postulate the theory in the first place. The Eddessa evidence about the Shroud has been excluded, even though the evidence was referenced to ancient documents and physical evidence.

I suspect in both our worlds, we both try to do the "right thing", from each of our perspectives. But somehow its like oil and water here. Stop your censoring behavior and I will be more than happy to discuss a Christian perspective, and stop complaining. Otherwise, take the criticism that is justified from my perspective.JimfromGTA (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am left speechless at your lack of understanding of how this encyclopaedia works. I am taking this article off my watch list.Theroadislong (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim, Wikipedia is a "secular" encyclopedia that does not take the side of Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. There are many Muslims who would swear on the Quran that Jesus survived the crucifixion, because the Quran says so. But Wikipedia must remain neutral. You need to read WP:CALM and WP:Forum again. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have expressed my complaint. It's always hard to see through the "other guy's" eyes. I commend you for hearing me out. Tell Theroadislong. that I understand this is a difficult area to express succintly and I like his article in a lot of areas. Unfortunately it falls short, in some respects as I have discussed. I'll come back at another time.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pollen and dust?

The esteemed website [10] has a “History” page, whereupon it is noted that the Shroud was often displayed outdoors, including (on July 6, 1418) annually “in a meadow on the banks of the river Doubs’. Surely this much outdoor exposure would have drenched the Shroud in French and Italian pollen? How come was all this pollen not adequately represented in Frei’s study? Also on this esteemed website, a courtier writes (14 April, 1503) that “the Shroud's authenticity has been confirmed by its having been tried by fire, boiled in oil, laundered many times 'but it was not possible to efface or remove the imprint and image.'” Even allowing for a ship-load of “pious exaggeration”, I question how the Jerusalem pollens and dust all survived this brutal treatment intact? Any ideas? Wdford (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No. If that will cut back on WP:Forum here. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear editors,please add in the image formation section:Physicist Dr.Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Labs published a letter in the Journal Nature,in 1989, stating that he believed neutron radiation created the image of the Shroud of Turin. Source:Journal Nature Volume 337,February 16,1989 letter:"Shroud Irradiated by Neutrons" Thank you.

208.72.122.4 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You are an editor, too. If you will describe exactly what you want to add and where to add it, someone will do the typing for your unless there is another problem. Please try to phrase it in a way which flows with the rest of the section. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2012

Please add my text(within quotation marks)to the Miraculous Image subsection in the Religious section WITHOUT replacing any text presently in that subsection.Many thanks! "Physicist Dr.Thomas Phillips, ,when he was at the Harvard University High Energy Labs, wrote a letter published in the science journal Nature,in which he argued that the image on the Shroud of Turin was formed by neutron radiation, which emanated from Jesus Christ's body at the moment of his resurrection."

My source is the journal Nature,Volume 337,February 1989,letter : Shroud irradiated by neutrons.Dr. Thomas Phillips;Harvard University 208.72.122.70 (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that just a letter he wrote? If so that has not been "reviewed" by Nature editors. If Phillips publishes a paper in Nature that will then be a different story. Did he ever publish? History2007 (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

Where the article refers to the SUNY that Dr. Andrew Merriwether, it should be changed to SUNY Binghamton, Which is the specific SUNY that he is associated with. There are numerous SUNY's, so using the specific SUNY is useful to the reader.

It is located in: Scientific perspective, sub heading: Biological and medical forensics, sub heading: Blood stains (4.4.1) Thanks and appreciated, Alex

Yes, will do. History2007 (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{Please add the text in quotation marks, at the end of section 3.3 Miraculous Image Formaton ,after ...known laws of physics.}

"It is interesting to note though,in 1989 a Harvard University High Energy Labs Physicist, Dr.Thomas Phillips, theorized that the Shroud of Turin's image was formed by neutron radiation because of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Source: Journal Nature,volume 337,Feb.16 1989;letter "Shroud Irradiated by Neutrons" from Dr.Thomas J. Phillips,Harvard University High Energy Labs.

69.166.30.7 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to look it up to see what he actually said and then add something if it is an article, but if it is just a letter, then will have to see what the responses where etc. History2007 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be even a name for it: "the Phillips hypothesis" and other people discuss it, so I think we can add a sentence. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lillian Schwartz

Submitted by Lillian F. Schwartz through her attorney, Laurens R. Schwartz, 5 E. 22 St. Suite 15D, NY, NY 10010, USA; 212-228-2614; [email protected]. The following statement is completely incorrect: “Artist Lillian Schwartz, who had previously claimed to have matched the face of the Mona Lisa to a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, stated in 2009 that the proportions of the face image on the shroud are correct, and that they match the dimensions of the face of da Vinci.” The correction is as follows: “In 2011, a production company hired by Channel 5 of Britain for its program on the Shroud taped Lillian F. Schwartz in New York City. Schwartz was a pioneer in the use of the computer in art, animation, 2D/3D without pixel shifting, but also analysis. Many of the questions involved her discovery through the use of various objective programs and historical research that Leonardo, who could never do a portrait without a model, used himself as the final model after leaving Milan, where his first model was Isabella. [Fn. See, e.g., “The Mona Lisa: Models, and Date and Place of Inception,” by Lillian F. Schwartz, in Mona Lisa: Leonardo’s hiden face,” a cura di Renzo Manetti (Edizioni Polistampa, Firenzi: 2007.] Other questions involved her analysis of the Shroud of Turin from which she deduced again using irrefutable computer programs and historical research that da Vinci had used the face from his Vitruvian Man as the face of Christ. Channel 5 did not permit Schwartz approval over the final edit. To her shock, the documentary used her sound bite about the Mona Lisa discovery, “It’s a match, it’s a match,” to make it seem that she was saying that Leonardo had used his face on the Shroud.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.68.151 (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am really not sure how to approach this. There are a few issues:

The statement that Schwartz's attorney is handling the matter seems like a legal issue. If there are legal disputes between Channel 5 and Schwartz, they should probably be followed through the appropriate channels, not here. Wikipedia is not the venue for airing those grievances.

The statement in the page is well sourced per WP:V given that Channel 5 aired it that way, and the newspaper reference seems to report it that way. So there is no policy based reason for deleting it.

My personal views matter not, but the tone of the "to her shock" statement makes me believe Schwartz's claim. However, per Wikipedia policy, given that Schwartz has no WP:RS source that states that Channel 5 pulled a fast one there, Wikipedia can not include that statement.

To make a long story short, I will comment out the reference to Schwartz for now and ask for advice elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a possible legal dispute about what was done in the editing room. I think, though, that Lillian Schwartz's contributions to scientific analyses have been overlooked by limiting her to "artist." If you look at the changes I made to her bio., you'll have a better understanding of the breadth of her work. It would be nice to clear up the embarrassment. You are not part of any legal dispute in being told the true story. Her contribution to resolving the issue of the Shroud's face is something that should be in an overview of scientific research. The article referenced in my paragraph explains the techniques used in more detail since the story of her Mona Lisa discovery shows the programs involved in resolving historical questions, such as Leonardo's different uses of perspective in The Last Supper to her discovery of the harbor arrangement in ancient Carthage. I did not mean to 'scare' you by saying that I was a lawyer. I was also her collaborator on many projects. I would prefer that you restore her contribution since it is also a more comprehensive look at how she did analyses. She was more than an artist. So, again, my apologies for mentioning an aspect of my life's careers; if I had not said lawyer, I assume you would have inserted the change. Any problem with the mis-editing does not involve your presentation in a legal way; it merely helps understand the background to entertainment as opposed to real research. LaurensRS (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

I have now commented out the references to Lillian Schwartz in both places you mentioned, so there is currently no statement about her in these two articles that I am familiar with. However, adding what you want to add here needs to follow Wikipedia policy per WP:V and WP:RS and can not just happen based on a person's own statements per WP:COI. I would say, however, that statements such as "irrefutable computer programs" will not pass Wikipedia policy in current form and would need to be toned down. As for "scaring me" with legalities, I do not personally get scared of legal issues at all, but this is a Wikimedia Foundation issue and they need to deal with it, not myself. Personally I would prefer that these two articles say nothing about Lillian Schwartz until the legal issues are settled in whichever venue they are taking place. Then there will be a solid basis for a decision. At the moment, the situation is unclear and may change depending of the motions that may get filed in some courtroom next week. But that is my view, and not that of WMF.

In the meantime I have asked advice from a user who is far more familiar with these issues and it is best to refer you to the volunteer response team. Please email them at: info-en-qwikimedia.org. Please include the URL of this article in your email and realize that the volunteers must work within Wikipedia policies; hence they do not have authority to remove content that is within policy, or add content that runs counter to policy. Hence the discussion should now take place between you and the volunteer response team and I will leave you guys to it. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No legal dispute is taking place in any venue. Lillian did the interview based on trust; I was probably in the hospital, as usual, when the shoot occurred. The cost of suing in England is prohibitive. What is very simple is to follow what is now an accepted standard for Wikipedia -- truth. Truth does not come from a documentary or a newspaper article since those are for entertainment purposes moreso than educational ones. I would suggest instead that you merely speak with Lillian. I again refer you to her article in "'Mona Lisa: Leonardo's hidden face,"' a cura di Renzo Manetti (Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze: 2007) entitled "The Mona Lisa: Models, and Date and Place of Inception," to give you background on the scientific methods along with historical research that was also followed in measuring the Shroud's face and the details of da Vinci's Vitruvian Man's face. Since articles in Wikipedia are quoted as truth, its essence has evolved into one of being truthful. As for legal measures, one cannot sue for almost all events where jurisdiction is distant. If I had set up an account first and not written lawyer, I think matters would have been perceived differently. Mea culpa.LaurensRS (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)LaurensRS

Regarding your statement: "what is now an accepted standard for Wikipedia -- truth", that is actually the reverse of the Wikipedia standard, i.e. the standard is "verifiability, not truh". I would again advise you to read WP:V which clearly states the policy as "verifiability, not truth". That is how Wikipedia works. And a phone call to a person will be subject to WP:OR. But again, you should really contact the email provided above. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a statement posted on the Lillian Schwartz article. Since the articles themselves are not meant for discussion, I moved the post to Talk:Lillian Schwartz. I don't really have a whole lot else to say about this issue, since I don't know very much about this person; I mainly edit music articles, and cleaned up the Lillian Schwartz article a while back because it was requested; it's on my watchlist, however.. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have not yet learned how to knit an edit yet; an earlier one may or may not have appeared today (4/28/12 around noon) that contains errors. A corrected version (hopefully):The following statement is incorrect: “Artist Lillian Schwartz, who had previously claimed to have matched the face of the Mona Lisa to a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, stated in 2009 that the proportions of the face image on the shroud are correct, and that they match the dimensions of the face of da Vinci.” The correction is as follows: “In 2008, a production company hired by Channel 5 of Britain for its program on the Shroud taped Lillian F. Schwartz in New York City. Schwartz was a pioneer in the use of the computer in art, animation, 2D/3D without pixel shifting, but also analysis. Many of the questions involved her discovery through the use of various objective programs and historical research that Leonardo, who could never do a portrait without a model, used himself as the final model after leaving Milan, where his first model was Isabella. [Fn. See, e.g., “The Mona Lisa: Models, and Date and Place of Inception,” by Lillian F. Schwartz, in ‘”Mona Lisa: Leonardo’s hiden face,”’ a cura di Renzo Manetti (Edizioni Polistampa, Firenze: 2007.] Other questions involved her analysis of the Shroud of Turin from which she deduced again using irrefutable computer programs and historical research that da Vinci had used the face from his Vitruvian Man as the face of Christ. Channel 5 did not permit Schwartz approval over the final edit. To her shock, the documentary used her sound bite about the Mona Lisa discovery, “It’s a match, it’s a match,” to make it seem that she was saying that Leonardo had used his face on the Shroud.”LaurensRS (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)(LaurensRS)

Re verify or verification, etymology is to ascertain truth, to present ultimate proof. Problem is that Wikipedia articles have been accepted as truthful in many colleges and universities and articles have been cited to in at least fifty court cases in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurensRS (talk • contribs) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In theory, wikipedia has no information that isn't available elsewhere. If someone's using wikipedia as a source, it means they're too lazy to do the real work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BaseballBugs is correct. The goal of Wikipedia is not to break new ground (per WP:OR) but provide a summary of what already exists in WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold and erroneous claims

The paragraph "Hypotheses on image origin" cites Fanti -whose name appears in the wikipedia ref link and not in the said paragraph- , a vehement defender of the "authenticity" cause and a proponent of exotic theories such as "corona discharge", so it is not reasonable to use his quote as being a valid resume of the whole scientific community. The preposterous sentence "the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science" is ONLY Fanti's opinion and that of his supporters. The whole paragraph should be deleted or rewritten from scratch. At the very least, it should be added in the paragraph that it is FANTI who is speaking, and that he is for the "authenticity" and that he does not represent the scientific community.82.240.163.245 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are multiple sources that say there is no explanation. Fanti is just one source. And he may have somewhat strong views, but is a pretty well published professor and easily meets WP:RS. The scientific community as quoted by Phil Ball also thinks there is no clear answer. And Ball is an independent observer. History2007 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't say that it hasn't been explained by traditional science unless there are no reliable scientific sources explaining it. We can cite with attributions statements that traditional science hasn't explained it, ie "according to X, traditional science hasn't explained it) so long as we make it clear that there is a dispute over that. 06:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I agree with Dougweller: Fanti is a well published professor, but his quotes MUST be attributed to him and not to the general scientific community, because I could write a list of hunderds of renowned and well published professors who would say exactly the opposite of what Fanti said, ie that science can or already has explained the image in the Shroud. Even worse, the paragraph says that "despite media related claims", as if Fanti was the only valid scientist and as if the forgery theory was relayed solely by various media including internet blogs and such, and that is extremely PARTIAL. My point is not about debating over Fanti's quotes meeting wikipedia's standards to be cited or not, but about having some bold assertion about modern science being in the impossiblity to explain the image, which means tongue in mouth that only a semi-supernatural method could be considered: and that precisely does NOT represent the WHOLE of the scientific community which studied the shroud or emitted theories. Fanti , a per what I and Dougweller suggested, MUST be cited in the text of the same paragraph where he is quoted, and an opinion from the FORGERY theory should be quoted AS WELL, because Fanti does NOT share "in the middle" positions, he is a radical proponent of the authenticity, even more, he shares the most extreme views ( his corona discharge or irradiation theory is a portmanteau for disembodiement, ressuscitation, rising of the dead, ascending to heaven or whatever you'll call it). One neat sentence to resume everything in the "Hypotheses on image origin" paragraph would be: Radical proponents of the authenticity theory such as Fanti consider that "the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science", which suggests that supernatural events such as resurrection may have been the cause of unexplained bursts of energy thus forming the image, while forgery theory proponents stand firm saying that science has already explained or will do so , putting things back in a rational and historical context based on trial and error attempts to replicate the image and in depth analysis of the artifact.82.240.163.245 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Really Much ado about nothing. I added the author names, but cannot call him radical unless we label every other author too. And I also think the resurrection theory is way off, but that has not been the subject of that sentence. And in any case, there is no single scientific theory that has been widely accepted. A scientific explanation may appear next month, but we have to wait until next month. That part is clear. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What we can't do, as I've said, is say in Wikipedia's voice that there have been no scientific theories that have been widely accepted, or even that there has been no single..etc. That may or may not be the case but without a reliable source we can't state it as fact. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Two separate issues here.:

First, regarding this article that is no longer an issue given that it now says according to X & Y. So that is not Wikipedia's voice.

Secondly, in a more general context, we can absolutely say (but we do not do so here) that most scholars believe that there are no generally accepted scientific theories that dispute Einstein. That is done all over based on WP:RS/AC. So once there is a "review article" in a WP:RS source that summarizes the general scholarly view, it can be used, per WP:RS/AC. I do not always agree with Fanti, but I think he is "respectable enough" to be such a source, but I will not push the issue here, and will leave it as "according to..." so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"History2007" , you are building straw men . No one ever disputed the fact that Fanti should or shouldn't be present in the wikipedia article. What is disputed is that his opinion was replacing literally that of the many other respectable voices of the scientific community, and that his opinion is marginal and should be classified as such. Marginal scientists such as Fanti, who claim extravagant theories, often like to make comments referring to eternal mysteries that will never be solved and mysitfy the whole world: in that sense he is simply following the same line as pope John Paul II who said that the shroud was according to him "a provocation to man's intelligence", a biased and religious view , which is normal coming from the pope -a religious leader- but not from Fanti,who is supposed to be a professor in physics and should act more as a scientist and less as a mystifying guru who babbles about the so-called failure of traditional science and unsolved "mysteries".This being said, it is a good point to have added the "according to so and so" part, but the introduction is still biased and far from neutral. It should be rewritten and just introduce the different points of view, not start off with marginal comments which orient the reader into believing that nothing really serious has being demonstrated or proven as Fanti would like us all to believe : he is contradicting himself since he emitted a theory which is very dear to him, his radiation theory (tongue in cheek for energy emanating during resurrection). Isn't it funny? 82.240.163.245 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So anyway, the summary of that is that you see no problem with the later Fanti quote, given that it is just attributed to him. But your statements above are mostly abut Fanti, and not about the topic. As for the introduction it is not based on just Fanti, but Currie, Meacham and Ball, three other WP:RS sources. This is a controversial topic, and we have had users such as Jim from GTA who wanted it all rewritten to say that it is all resurrection based to you who may suggest it was painted by someone etc. If Jim was unhappy and you are unhappy then we have a good situation. Welcome to Wikipedia: it tries to keep all sides unhappy by staying in the middle of the road. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If one day people believe Mickey Mouse was a real living being , will there be a wikipedia article referencing -in detail- such extravagant views and giving their authors more credit than they deserve? At best such beliefs should be noted in a small paragraph as a curiosity and nothing else. There's nothing wrong with citing Fanti, but citing him in almost every paragraph as some sort of supreme judge who disproves each and every rational theory is not a very objective tactic. A judge he is not and will never be due to the "alternative" theories he proposes. Extravagant and "alternative science" views should always be put in a specific category in wikipedia articles and not refered to every second. Imagine if every scientific article had to deal with alternative science theories at every paragraph: fortunately it is not the case, there's always a specific -and clearly separate-paragraph for PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC and PSEUDOHISTORIC rabble, often followed by official disproval. To me it seems we're not going anywhere in this shroud of Turin article and this is done on purpose to mystify a naive and gullible public. In one word I'd like to see more neutrality and less space for pseudo this and that on wikipedia 82.240.163.245 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also not believe in many things, but per Wikipedia policy if there are WP:RS sources and the topic meets WP:NOTE it gets an article. If you look through the archives you will see that the issue of radiation has been discussed a number of times and the current version is a toned down version of those. There I expressed the view that personally I think all radiation hypotheses on this subject are cases of Beam me up Scotty arguments, but that we do not have WP:RS sources that say that, and what I think matters not - it is a question of references. The problem here is that you do not like what the WP:RS sources say. Hence you should call William Meacham and ask him to rewrite his review article. Your problem (the mirror image of Jim's problem) is that you do not have a WP:RS source that says "most scholars believe that X", choose your X. Once you have a reference that says that we can talk about it, per policy, of course. So per WP:V it does not matter what any user considers "truth", all that matters is WP:RS sources. So your next task is to stop generating your own hypotheses and go and look for a few WP:RS sources that say: "Most scholars believe X" then come back and discuss. Personal ideas matter not in Wikipedia. WP:RS references do. History2007 (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference Problem

The invisible Fanti comment at the end is what's causing the reference problem - by undoing that last entry the problem vanishes by itself. Let's maybe wait until somebody knows what Fanti actually said, and then we add the comment properly? PS: How recent must a development be to qualify as a recent development? Wdford (talk)

Yes, let us wait for the clarification before we add the comment. I guess recent means a year or two, to give responses a chance to appear in published literature, and given that this is 2012 it is certainly recent. Now is there an invisible reference on the shroud too? I bet someone will write a paper on that soon... Would not surprise me at all any more. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

The "most studied artifact in history" claim in the intro is misleading - it sounds like scientists have been studying the shroud itself, whereas most can only work with photos. I suggest adding a phrase from the article into the lead: "[even though] very few scientists have had direct access to the shroud or very small samples from it" for proper context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.34.108 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please look through the archives. This was discussed there before and the current version arrived at that way. If the sources do not use that qualifier, we can not say that without a source. But I will look for a source that says no one has had access to it (except STURP to some extent), or if you have a source please suggest it here. We know that is likely the case, but per WP:V need a source before we say it. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Many scientists had a direct access to the Shroud or/and to samples of the TS, of course. A recent example: in 2008, a high definition photograph of the Turin Shroud was taken. Moreover, when you study Mars, quantum particles or past events (Big Bang, Julius Caesar, etc.), you don't have a direct access. That's how science works. Thucyd (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but I think the IP is making the point that if a chemist showed up in Turin tomorrow and said I want to cut another sample and test it, he would be shown out of the building pretty quickly. But this may not be a big issue anyway unless the IP has a source. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything new. The addition I requested was from the article itself. If it is unsourced, it needs to be removed from the article. If it is sourced, please add it to the intro because it is an important qualifier for "most studied artefact". Comparisons with Mars are irrelevant; when you read about Mars, you don't need to be explained how hard it is to get there and study it - it's obvious. Here, we don't have a distant planet, but a perfectly accessible material artefact that in principle could be studied closely by anyone with sufficient credentials, but isn't - for reasons well outside science. This is some unobvious information that deserves to be in the intro. 24.138.77.113 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

By and large I agree with you about the sourcing issues. I will look for sources in a day or so. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of balance and neutrality in the lead section

I’m not sure why anyone is objecting to including this sentence in the lead – “At least four articles have since been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud, although a former STURP scientist has since demonstrated that the original STURP photographs prove that this contention is baseless.” The lead is a summary of the material in the body of the article, and this material is all in the article, fully referenced. I would be happy to completely leave out mentioning in the lead the “four peer reviewed articles” so beloved of the believers, but if we are going to include it at all then we must include it in a neutral and balanced fashion.

Jackson, who was himself a STURP scientist, says in his paper (1st paragraph): “One hypothesis is that the linen sample used in the radiocarbon dating actually came from a medieval “re-weave”. While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating".^[2] It seems clear that he is directly addressing the very “repair” hypothesis that is being referred to here, so where is the OR exactly?

Although published in Nature only in 1989, the Damon article was written by the very people who took the samples and did the C14 testing. They say specifically that “The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.”^[3] Again, what actually is your concern? Do you want me to add more detail into the lead to make this point abundantly clear, or to just delete the whole issue from the lead - including the believers’ reference to their precious “four peer-reviewed articles”? Please advise?

Incidentally, the “four peer-reviewed articles” referred to here were produced by a) Rogers, who conducted his tests on some threads that cannot be scientifically proven to have come from the shroud to begin with; b) Benford and Marino, whose objectivity and scholarly credentials are all seriously suspect; and c) Fanti et al, none of which team are historians or textile experts (they only refer to the “repair” very much in passing – their article was about something else - so including this as a reference for the claimed repair is a bit tenuous to begin with). The fourth article is by a person named Poulle, a credible author whose article I cannot find in English. This little collection of "peer-reviewed articles" is worded in the lead in a manner calculated to undermine the conclusions of credible scientists, while the counter-conclusions of the credible scientists are being excluded from the lead. Surely that contravenes WP:Policy Wdford (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty simple: Jackson did not refer to those papers, so he could not have discredited them. Does Jackson refer to them? Not that I can tell. The other 1989 paper predates the 4 studies and was obviously unaware of them. Is this not so?

Regarding the questions about the credentials of those who performed the 4 studies, given that they were published in peer reviewed journals, it is not up to us to decide if a certain professor is suspect, given that the presented statistical analysis that was mathematically sound, as evidenced by its acceptance in a peer reviewed publication. That is the essence of WP:V.

The fact that the sampling technique has been challenged in in the body and per WP:LEDE should be mentioned in the lede. The body does not have a discussion that the papers have been challenged by other scientists in peer reviewed publications, e.g. the statistical analysis, etc. In order to meet WP:V and not perform WP:OR you need to find a peer reviewed paper somewhere that states: "Professor X concluded that 2 of these 4 papers are incorrect, due to the following...". Then those papers can be challenged and it will no longer be WP:OR. But as is, you have not provided such sources. Once you have WP:RS sources that refer to those papers, we can of course discuss that per policy. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh please! Jackson was clearly responding to “One hypothesis is that the linen sample used in the radiocarbon dating actually came from a medieval “re-weave”.” He didn’t mention names or criticise specific papers, but he made it abundantly clear that he was referring to the theory of the sample not being original material. I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic. Nonetheless, I have reworded the lead sentence yet again, to make it clear that Jackson was discounting the theory rather than criticising the papers individually, and was thus affirming that the C14 sample was original material. I trust this will satisfy your concern? Wdford (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the part that is WP:OR is the assertion "was clearly responding to". That is "your interpretation" of what he was referring to - i.e. your reasoning, i.e. original research. In any case, Jackson obviously predates some of those statistical results, so he was unaware of them. Once unaware of them he can not refute them without reading them. That part is simple and clear. History2007 (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read the Jackson paper? I quote: “One hypothesis is that the linen sample used in the radiocarbon dating actually came from a medieval “re-weave”. While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating.^[4] When he says “this hypothesis … can be discounted..”, he is referring to the hypothesis mentioned by himself in his previous sentence, namely that the linen sample in the C14 test was not original material. This is not my OR, its Jackson’s own words. The controversy in this paragraph of the lead is not about statistics, it’s about a contention that the C14 samples were not representative, and Jackson is directly addressing exactly that issue, using STURP evidence as his basis. However the wording of the lead continues to state the case of those who would undermine the C14 data, without stating the counter-case, which is a contravention of WP:Policy.

Second, there is no policy that says a WP:RS author may not be mentioned in the lead unless his statement has been peer-reviewed. Jackson was a STURP scientist, and is totally WP:RS on this topic in his own right. I see however that Ball’s opinion is allowed in the lead, although it was not peer-reviewed either, so there seems to be a clear case of double-standards at work here. Wdford (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am sorry it does not work that way. You are still debating the issue by "interpreting Jackson's paper" and extending the issue to publications that appeared afterwards. The situation is this: paper A appears and states X. Paper B appears two years later and states Y. There is no way that paper A can refute paper B which appeared later than paper A. That is straightforward. The situation is quite simple: Please find a 2011 or 2012 peer reviewed paper that states: "the statistical analyses in A, B and C" were incorrect because of X, Y and Z.... That will resolve the situation. That is the best and only way really. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The situation is even more simple than that. All I'm trying to add here is that Jackson stated that STURP evidence shows the C14 samples were part of the original cloth of the Shroud, and that the medieval repair hypothesis is contradicted by the STURP evidence. That's it. I'm not extending anything to anything, I'm merely saying that there is another side to this controversy, which is being neglected in the lead. This has got nothing to do with statistics - it has to do with the STURP photos of the fabric of the Shroud, as the reference clearly shows. Wdford (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you started by saying that Jackson's paper renders the 4 other papers "baseless". That is when things started to go downhill. Now the point that Jackson thinks there was no reweave can be made in the body, then summarized along with the STURP findings, not with the other papers that it did not refer to. So what we can do is the following"

Modify the body with a sentence about Jackson.

Modify the lede to say: "The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260AD and 1390AD. In 1998 a former STURP member stated that sample was representative of the Shroud. Since the STURP study, at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.

I do not see a problem with that, but let us see what Thucyd says as well, given that he objected to it to. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

By this point, it should be clear that the true believers are not going to let you add to the lead any information critical of their beliefs. To agree with their beliefs is rational, anyone who disagrees with their beliefs is doing "original research", even if they directly quote what the source said word for word. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That is funny since I had just agreed to the addition of the Jackson statement, provided it did not apply to the studies that followed it. And please do cut out this "true believer" stamp that gets placed on the foreheads of whoever says whatever. I was, in fact, arguing against both Wdford and Jim from GA at one point. And I have disagreed with Thucyd on a number of issues, so there are no clear boundaries here. Please focus on content and not label other editors, per policy. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Jackson's hypothesis was never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Tests with Oxford Lab. were a failure. Why do you want to mention it in the lead?

By the way, the last peer-reviewed article questioning the 1988 results was published last month in Statistics and Computing: Marco Riani, et al., "Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin", article Thucyd (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per WP policy Jackson can be included because as a member of STURP he had already been established as an "expert in the field", and hence his further publications may be included, but with somewhat less weight than if he had published it in a peer reviewed source. So including Jackson is not a problem. The problem would be to use his statement to infer items about the future. So the way it is used now has no problem.

Regarding the paper by Riani, Atkinson e al. on regression analysis, it also fits because it refers to the topic. But only the abstract can be seen, and it is not clear what their conclusion was. I left it at the end of the recent development section but commented it out because it is not clear what they concluded. They say they "saw a trend" but what does the trend say? If you have access to the paper, and can clarify that, then you can fix it, but it does not seem clear at first reading what the trend is or what they concluded. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jackson has said many things over the years, from his position as a STURP member and subsequently. The statement that I want included in the lead is the statement where he says he studied the STURP photos of the Shroud and detected that the banding patterns are consistent throughout the area later sampled, thus proving the sampled material is original. The reason I want this in the lead is because the lead included a comment that the C14 samples have been contested, and we need to present both sides of a controversy. The Oxford Lab testing was a completely separate issue, where Jackson suggested the dating could have been affected by carbon monoxide from all the fires the cloth has endured, and the Lab proved that such contamination could not have moved the date as far as Jackson had suggested. The carbon monoxide theory is not what is in the lead, the C14 issue is what is in the lead. PS: In the process of your Riani comment, you appear to have deleted the referencing system. I can't see how to fix it - perhaps you might have a go? Wdford (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not at all a separate issue. Jackson thinks that the Turin Shroud is authentic. Therefore he has to explain the carbon dating. He wrote this paper in reaction to Benford's article published in Chemistry Today the same year.

In my humble opinion, a mention of Jackson's dubious hypothesis in the lead section would be out of place. But I won't go on war for it.

For a better understanting of Riani's article, here is the last para.: "The presence of this trend explains the difference in means that was detected by Damon et al. (1989) and in our Table 1. The effect is that of a decrease in radiocarbon age BP [Before Present] as x1 [longitude] increases. Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics [1988 controls: linen from an Nubian tomb, Egyptian mummy, medieval cope] with which it was compared". Thucyd (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The carbon monoxide hypothesis has been disproved, and all are happy with that. The fact that the STURP photos show that the C14 samples are original material seems relevant to the discussion on C14 samples. Since Jackson is a pro-authenticity former STURP member (with FACE TIME), his observation that the C14 dating is valid carries more weight than the third-hand speculations of paranormal-investigator Benford, so Jackson should at least get a mention on that notable topic.

Smearing Jackson's observations re the C14 dates because of his monoxide hypothesis would mean we should also smear Fanti's statistical analysis because he proposes a corona discharge hypothesis. That would obviously be wrong - Fanti's team clearly know their statistics, although he is clearly a bit wobbly on corona-discharging corpses - so I'm glad we aren't going to fight about it.

Re the latest Fanti/Riani paper, it seems to add nothing more than their previous paper, namely that the dating is less precise than we would all like due to poor sampling design. However they still don't suggest that the C14 dates were massively wrong, and certainly do not propose the Shroud could actually date back to 30AD after all. As I recall from their previous paper, only one of the three labs showed the variance that got Fanti started on this - Fanti suggested no reason to disbelieve the other two results?? Wdford (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but the two of you are "debating the basics" which can not have an impact on the article. The article can only be driven by "sources", and regardless of if one of you likes or does not like Jackson, that makes no difference in Wikipedia. Jackson is an expert in the field by virtue of being a STURP member, and by policy he can not be just condemned. I always say that Milton Friedman could write something about economics on a paper napkin over lunch and if the napkin can be produced it will be WP:RS. Jackson is not Friedman but still was a STURP member, so he can not be excluded. But what Jackson says must apply to time frame in which he said it, not the future. And regarding the last 2012 paper, I do not know why it is called a Fanti paper given that the lead author was Riani. But in any case, in reading that paper it is not clear what the conclusion is, so it does need clarification, obviously. History2007 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If the structure of the TS samples is not the same than the structure of the controls, it means that we have a statistical evidence for a contamination of the TS samples. And if the TS samples are contaminated, one of the most important conditions required for a radiocarbon dating is not met. Thucyd (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From a general inferential statistical perspective, that type of reasoning is quite common. But we still do not know:

What were the controls? One or two sentences should clarify that.
How was structure established? What type of techniques?

And in the abstract the issue of the 12 subsamples. The abstract says: "the locations of the 12 subsamples within these samples are no known". Is 12 the results of 3 * 4? Did each lab take 4 more samples? Could you clarify that please? And where does the number 387,072 possibilities come from? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We have 12 samples : Arizona 4, Oxford 3, Zurich 5. The number 387,072 comes from the possible spatial allocations : 168 for Arizona, 96 for Zurich, 24 for Oxford. 168 x 96 x 24 = 387,072.

A good summary of Riani's research here. Thucyd (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just understood what he is doing. Damon and company used chi-squared to look at the heterogeneity, instead Riani uses other measures and gets more pronounced results. It is clear what is happening now. I wonder what Damon and company will say to that, but there is no mathematical basis for not using other techniques beyond Damon's. I wonder why Damon just used that in fact. But any way, now that I have understood the idea, give me a day to see if I can explain it in Wikiterms. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, now that this one is clear how about the bass relief question below? History2007 (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

References

^ Thoughts on the Shroud 14C Debate. In The Turin Shroud: past, present and future. Proceedings of International Scientific Symposium 2-5 March 2000 held in Turin, Italy. Turin: Effata Editrice, 2000, 441-454; 450.
^ http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf - first para
^ http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm - para 7
^ http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf - first para

Unclear ending in the section "bas-relief"

The text mentioning how Costanzo performed his experiment and then Nickell his own is very clear, but the part where Fanti and Moroni give their opinion is obscure: there isn't even an "opinion" as such. When it is written that Fanti and Moroni compared the histograms of the shroud's image with those of "the image obtained with a bas-relief" experiment,to cite them, which bas-relief experiment are they speaking of? Another bas-relief made by themselves, the one by Costanzo, the one by Nickell? there is no "standard" bas-relief of a bearded man who could have lived circa the first century, and "a" base relief can greatly vary in artistic style , not to mention that bas-relief in this case can describe any relief carving ranging from low-relief to high-relief , which makes the resume of this comparison even more obscure. The person who wrote that part of the wikipedia article simply put down an incomprehensible description of how the grey and white tones were distributed on both images, but NOT what that could imply, according to the authors Fanti and Moroni. This unclear section at the end of "bas-relief" paragraph should be removed , because it doesn't corroborate nor disprove the bas-relief theory elaborated by Costanzo and Nickell independently, and even worse adds unnecessary data that has not been qualitatively interpreted . Either someone checks the source and tries to find the elements that do bring important info , or this ending mentioning Fanti and his pal goes down the sink, or else I'll go and find (for example) the finest results obtained during radio-carbon analysis (pages and pages of data) and fill uselessly the article with scientific data that has no use for the present article, just for the sake of loading it with data . 82.240.163.245 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point. This is the source you are referring to I think. The abstract mentions the "experiments of V. Pesce Delfino and J. Nickell" but it certainly does not state if they had access to photographs of those - so one can not guess on that. It does not mention Costanzo at all. That paper seems to attempt to say something about "bass relief" but the abstract does not make it clear which bass relief they used in the experiment, their own, or photographs of those by other people. We have to look into this. The paper is WP:RS and relates to bass relief, so its placement in that section seems appropriate, but what it says certainly needs clarification.

Regarding your statement that "I'll go and find .... fill uselessly the article" I think you should be advised of WP:Disruptive editing and that threats of disruptive editing may result in your access to Wikipedia being blocked. You made a logical statement about a source used in the article, and asked for clarification. Now let us see how we can resolve the question related to that issue cooperatively. There is no need for going down the disruptive threat route. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you believed my joke about the overabundant additions. I admire also how well you selectively quoted what I said, carefully choosing the part with "uselessly" and deleted the part with "details" (details coming from reliable sources posted actually in the present form of the article). I was merely giving an example of what would happen if we all added unnecessary details , and that even if they're taken verbatim from WP:RE refs. Things must be clear and overabundant obscure details on one subject may call for overabundant additions in other paragraphs by contributors who may feel all sections should be filled equally . Of course I will never do this, it was a joke, but some people may feel the urge to make the article a chore to read and make it even less clear than what it is, especially when the unnecessary details fill the parts giving voice to the most marginal theories . You knew well enough I never disrupted the article so no need to threaten to block me, even politely, and as you said, this bas-relief business must be clarified (check the French documentary on the shroud "Ils ont voulu clôner le Christ" by Y.Boisset, probably available these present days on dailymotion or youtube, you'll see two bas-relief techniques compared to putting a cloth directly on a human body's bloodied face, with short practical demonstrations in the video by the proponents of the theory themselves)82.240.163.245 (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually your point about the lack of clarity of the bass relief paper is valid. So let us deal with that. I have not had a chance to search it. Someone has to pay the $35 to get the original paper, or we have to qualify what it says based on the abstract. But given that it is about the topic and in a refereed journal it can not just be deleted. What I mean is that Joe Nickell is quoted with no peer review, and so this peer reviewed item can not be deleted if Nickell stays. But the statement needs to be clarified, for sure given that we do not know if it had access to any of the other bass relief items. About youtube, those are not WP:RS sources, as discussed at length on WP:V. History2007 (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

About youtube you are mistaken. The fact that youtube is or isn't WP:RS has nothing to do with the movie I spoke of. The movie was not made for a podcast or youtube or any intenet media, it's a TV documentary which was uploaded after on various streaming sites by fans. This movie could be cited as a reference, it can be sourced, dated , etc. As for the verification you mentioned, I hope it's on it's way very soon. 82.240.163.245 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is policy - not my invention. The movie can not be cited as WP:RS. There are a few movies uploaded "by fans" of a different type that claim Elvis is alive... Maybe he is, but they are not WP:RS per policy. You really need to learn more about Wikipolicies. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of product specifications as references

Wdford: In this edit you again added "product specifications" as references. As I stated on your talk page, product specifications can not be used as references in Wikipedia.

You really need to read WP:V as stated many times before on this talk page. You can not use "product specifications" as references in Wikipedia and argue based on those. As WP:V states: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the perception of truth by different editors. You need to self-revert those improper sources for they do not refer to the topic. You can not use product spec-sheets as sources in articles, unless it is about that product. This page is not about those products. That is 100% clear. You need to self-revert on those sources.

If the topic of a section is to be discussed it can be discussed, but the use of "product specifications" to form your own theories to support the discussion is just way out of the way of Wikipedia policies. You need to delete those product specifications yourself. History2007 (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that in this edit you again kept the product specifications, despite having been notified about them on your talk page and referred to "outright falsehoods" in the existing references in the article. Let me put it this way: Have you tried reading WP:V by any chance? Let me say it again: you can not use product specifications as references in Wikipedia. You must discuss any issues you have with existing sources, or provide other WP:RS sources. Not add "product specifications" and construct your own argument around them. You must self-revert now. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did the right thing to delete those product specs in this edit. But you also deleted sourced content and added an unsourced statement! I am sorry, but have I mentioned WP:V here before? You should not delete sourced items and add unsourced statements of your own. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:V does not prohibit using technical sites to suppport technical claims. You do not need a peer-reviewed paper by a historian to support a technical fact, and you cannot include incorrect technical information that is so obviously technically incorrect that no historian has bothered to write a paper to contradict the first incorrect belief. That is a direct contravention of WP:RIDICULOUSLY-PEDANTIC. Technology has moved on since 1976, any modern teenager with a simple laptop can convert 2D photos into 3D images, and we don't need to quote a historian on the subject, we need only refer to modern technical sources. My statement was thoroughly sourced to begin with. Wdford (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You are making a technical "claim of your own" regarding "modern software" that was not available in 1976, really! And WP:V does prohibit the use of unrelated items to weave a own theory if the sources used do no refer to the topic. Do we need to bring out a calendar here? You are using a "Back to the Future" argument again here as you did 2 days ago in another case. And again, you have added an unsourced statement and deleted sourced content.... History2007 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And your link to "This is a property of photographs" that you just added is the use of improper sources for it is not what the source says, hence your edit distorts what the source states. You must stop this use of improper sources as I noted on your talk page about edit war avoidance. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wdford's source deletion and use of sources that do not support statements

Wdford, I must say that in my view this edit has really stretched the bounds of logic here. Indeed I see it as far outside the realm of the logic of how sources should be properly used in Wikipedia. Do we need to produce a calander here? The situation is as follows:

You are making a statement about a photograph taken "early in the 20th century" that was then analyzed in 1976.

You deleted a well sourced and reference statement because you think it is a "lie" that should not be in an encyclopedia - even after you were told to read WP:V - a few times in fact about truth vs verifiability. That statement was well sourced and you deleted it because you think it is a "lie". That is against WP:V.

You imply that 3D elements are a "characteristic found in photographs"

You support your statement with this IEEE reference published in 2010 titled "3D Modeling From 2D Images"! That paper states that it is about a "method of creating 3D model using 3D software" It is a paper about 3D modeling and has absolutely (and I mean absolutely) no relevance to an old photograph.

You added this university of Utah reference that describes how a 3D face may be reconstructed from "a set of" 2D images using "modern computer science techniques"! Exactly what is the relevance of that to a "single old photograph" given that the paper describes a modern algorithm applied to multiple images? There is no relevance whatsoever. And I mean whatsoever.

I am really sorry, but the references you are adding totally fail to support the assertion you are making. In my view, that edit is so illogical (yes, really illogical) that I do not even know what to say about it. What is clear is that you are making a statement about an old photograph and adding sources that discuss modern techniques of image manipulation. This is another "Back to the Future" situation in your edits. I see no logic in how those references can support the statement being made. And as far as I can see your references do not mention the topic of this article and are general photography references. Really! History2007 (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wdford, I am not getting a response from you. Therefore:

I will restore the WP:RS sourced statement that you deleted "at will" by calling it a lie, contrary to the WP:V guidelines you had been advised about.

I will tag the sources that fail to refer to the topic with "failed verification tags", but will not delete them yet.

You are advised:

Not to delete the WP:RS source that I will put back without discussion, given that you have already been notified about the issues.

Not to remove the failed verification tags.

I have provided an opportunity for discussion here, and received no response. You should not start a revert cycle here. You should realize that you can not call WP:RS sourced statements "lies" and repeatedly add sources that fail to verify the statements you make and continue to edit Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, get over yourself! The point of all of this was to remove the FALSE statement that 3D "is not a property that occurs in photography." People probably believed that in 1976, but it turns out to be untrue - all photographs encode 3D info if you have the software to extract it. In 1976 seemingly only the VP8 could perform this type of image manipulation, but today anybody with Photoshop can do the same, and it’s no longer considered to be miraculous. If you don’t know what Photoshop is, that’s your problem. Removing the factually inaccurate statement without a reference of my own would be contentious in such a sensitive article, so I gave lots of references to show how inaccurate that statement was. You weren't happy with any of them, so I collected a few more, which are clearly third-party references and which clearly demonstrate that making a 3D image from a photograph is possible after all.

This is a technical point with technical references, to clearly demonstrate that the technical comment of the original version is technically incorrect. I’m not making a statement about an “old photograph”, I’m correcting a blatant technical inaccuracy. It’s all perfectly logical, and I don’t understand why you feel the need to make a scene about it. There is no “Back to the Future”, whatever you are trying to mean by that, it’s very simply a case of technology advancing, and better knowledge overturning older knowledge.

WP:V says all points must be verifiable, which my point most certainly is, and WP:V certainly does NOT say that you should continue to include an out-of-date source when more modern sources clearly show the old source to have been in error. That old statement was NOT “well sourced”, it was out-dated and factually inaccurate, as my many references prove. A 35 year old source on a technical issue cannot be considered WP:RS if a multitude of more modern sources contradict it. This point has been thoroughly verified, and it could happily end there, if you would please stop trying to reinsert a patently false statement.

If you want to include the statement that 3D "is not a property that occurs in photography," despite the multitude of modern evidence to the contrary, then you need to find a MODERN source that makes this outrageous claim. Good luck with that. As it stands, reverting my correction is a breach of WP:V, and in the face of all the evidence I have supplied today, I am struggling to assume good faith on your part. Wdford (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V does not work that way. You can not "correct a source" based on your own knowledge and references which do not refer to the topic of this article. What you need is to have sources that refer to the shroud topic. What I will not do is to debate the technical issues with you. Our agreement about what may or may not be "correct" or "incorrect" will be meaningless in the context of WP:V. Per WP:Burden you need to find a source that says: "The analysis performed by the VP8 is outdated and is no longer valid". The burden in on you. But with all these papers about the shroud, you should have no problem finding one. That is how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:V again, carefully. If your statement is to be verifiable, it needs to refer to the shroud photograph, not based on new algorithmic issues. That is how Wikipedia works. History2007 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not contesting the validity of the VP8 analysis - it is what it is, with all its flaws. As I have made ABUNDANTLY clear, I am contesting the assertion that 3D "is not a property that occurs in photography." My many WP:RS references have made this point. If you want for some reason to persist with this incredibly pedantic approach, then the statement that 3D "is not a property that occurs in photography" must simply be removed from the article, as it is not specific to the shroud, but is instead a generic (and factually inaccurate) statement about photography in general. Do you want to include in the article a statement that 3D IS a characteristic of photography in general, or do you want to just delete this non-specific statement entirely? Wdford (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that you are not "contesting the validity of the VP8 analysis" the situation has changed. In fact the article never said "3D is not a property that occurs in photography", but again I will not debate the technicality and will not take sides on that not to confuse the issue. The article said "this" i.e. the characteristics observed by the VP8 are not a property of photography. To end this saga we can clarify it further and say: "the three dimensional properties observed by the VP analysis of the shroud image were not known to be a property of photography". That is exactly what the VP8 people concluded. Then there will be no need for further discussion of references. If you agree to that then I will insert that instead, and remove the other refs that do not refer o the shroud. But please do not make a half-way change without discussion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article currently says: “Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man …. This is not a property that occurs in photography …”

To fix it properly, we should change it to read: “In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer, which was developed for NASA to create 3D images of the moon.^[1] They found that the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. These three dimensional properties were not known at the time to be a property of photography. The 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.^[2]”

Do you agree? Wdford (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No, because that is slipping in the implication that they may now be known to be properties of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief. But there is no reference that states that. So there is still an implication built in there that VP8 is outdated, with no reference to support that. So it needs to be left flat. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I hereby formally accuse you of breach of WP:AGF. You have repeatedly accused me dishonestly, including by blatantly distorting the facts, and you have attempted to smear me on the article talk page. After patiently putting up with your insinuations for days, as required by WP:Policy, I proposed to insert the words "at the time" to clarify a vague sentence, and you now pretend that this is an attempt by me to "slip in" an utterly ridiculous "implication" about something completely different. This is the behaviour of a troll.

If you want it flat, then it needs to leave out all factually incorrect statements about general photography, and stick to the pertinent facts only: “In 1976 Pete Schumacher, John Jackson and Eric Jumper analysed the shroud image using a VP8 Image Analyzer, which was developed for NASA to create 3D images of the moon.^[3] They found that the shroud image has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image, when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. The 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.^[4]” That way there is nothing left that is factually incorrect and misleading. Now go and study WP:AGF carefully, along with WP:OWN. Wdford (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And I hereby accuse you of laughable accusations.... That was funny. "I formally accuse you..." I got a chuckle out of that one. I have not accused anyone of dishonesty, but I have directly called your edits illogical and I sill do. Let me say it again: your edits were and still are illogical, given that you started by adding "product specifications", then references that apply to "multiple photographs", etc. That is illogical. And your statement about "factually incorrect statements" ignores WP:V and argues based on "truth", given that you have failed to produce a reference. And while we are still discussing this, you should not go and revert things at will.

Think of it this way: To say that the VP8 analysis is outdated, you need to find a reference that says that. Wikipedia cannot be the lone source that implies that. Just find a reference that says: "VP8 analysis is outdated", then you will not have to do original research yourself by attaching product specs and references about 3D modeling. Is that clear? Go find a reference, not argue from first principles.

But on the good news front I saw that you again deleted your own second set of references that fail verification... Now, that is one step closer to logic... Now that those failed reference were deleted, I made a small change, removed the duplicates and we should probably just move on. History2007 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)