Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Shroud of Turin. 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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Terminology

This article is using the concept of "authenticity" inappropriately.

theories	are accurate or inaccurate
claims	are authentic or fraudulent
objects	exist or don't exist

The problem is that this article consistently refers to the object's authenticity.

If I have a watch, it is simply a watch. It cannot be authentic or not.
If I have a watch that bears a specific trademark, it claims to be manufactured by a certain business. This claim can be authentic or fraudulent.
If, in 1000 years time, someone discovers my watch and decides that it is a compass, their theory is incorrect. They don't get to claim that my "compass" is authentic, or my "compass" is a fraud. My watch merely exists without making any claims.

The subject of this article is a shroud which makes no claims. All references in this article to authenticity and fraud need to be reformulated objectively to say that "such and such a feature is convenient for such and such a hypothesis" or "is inconvenient for such and such a hypothesis".110.146.160.225 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The "cloth" simply exists - there is no argument. The image on the cloth simply exists - there is no argument here either. The "claim" that the cloth is the "burial shroud of Jesus" is indeed "authentic or fraudulent", but there is however also a third level - many who support this claim are not frauds, they are merely mistaken. Then we have "theories" about how the image was created, which are accurate or inaccurate - and again we cannot judge because there is insufficient evidence. The use of the word "authentic" does not apply to the existence of the cloth, which is unchallenged, but rather to the "claim" that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. I think we are on the same page here? Wdford (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with what you have written here - very much so. The problem with the tone of this article is that it uses the word "authentic" to refer to the cloth itself, as if the cloth were making a claim. However, the cloth is simply an artefact of history about which theorists are making claims. It's an innocent, passive bystander that hasn't said anything in enduring arguments about what people want it to be.

More specifically, these are the problematic snippets from the article and a first-draft suggestion of a neutral substitute:

To illustrate from my simple watch/compass parallel above:

this device is circular with arms that rotate
sometimes an arm points North
- therefore it must be a compass
sometimes no arms point North
- therefore it must be a deliberate attempt to trick us into thinking it is a compass

Someone who argues along these lines is simply performing blame shifting. Rather than re-evaluating the merits of a theory that doesn't appear to fit all the evidence, they offload that onus by accusing the object of deception. Now it is the alibi or the scapegoat, while smoke and mirrors deflect questioning the theory that stirred up the controversy in the first place. This blame shifting (ie misattribution of fault) is what I hope can be redressed in an appropriately thought out edit.110.146.160.225 (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you are over-baking this cake. No reader is going to assume that we are blaming the cloth for lying about its qualifications, or that we are assuming that the cloth is not a cloth. I think the article is clear as it stands - some genuinely believe that the cloth is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus, but none of the "evidence" stands up. I feel your suggestions will tend to make things more vague, incoherent and unhelpful. I am not at all opposed to improving the grammar etc of the article, but I don't think these proposed changes are really going to help. Wdford (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your usage of "authentic" (primarily in the table) demonstrates I haven't clearly conveyed my point.

people found a real cloth
people speculated it was involved with Jesus
Wikipedia can describe the actual cloth
Wikipedia can describe the speculations about the cloth
Wikipedia can directly quote speculators opining about the cloth
Wikipedia is not the place for making judgement calls on the speculations about the cloth
- "authentic", "fraudulent", "hoax", "innocent", "guilty" and similar terms are all Loaded language
- it is fine for us to quote speculators using loaded language themselves, but it is not within our purview to promote a particular point of view using that same loaded language ourselves - this is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox
Editorial discretion reminds us that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
What Wikipedia is not reminds us that "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy (...) religious(...). An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Additionally, "theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
Loaded language that presupposes the accuracy of a speculation is not "neutral point of view".

I am not at all fussed about the syntax (that is, the grammar) in the article. My entire objection is to the semantics of the emotive language being used to skew the article by one particular speculation.110.146.160.225 (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

AHA! The light dawns! I think I now see the problem, thank you. If I understand the above correctly, you are concerned that Wikipedia is favoring one speculation over the other. However, the fact is that there are NOT two competing speculations here, there is actual proven scientific fact that shows clearly that the shroud is medieval, and there is speculation that the shroud is old enough to have been used for Jesus. Those few scientists who still cling to the hope that the shroud may be the genuine article are a shrinking minority, and all their so-called "evidence" has been variously refuted by actual experts using actual evidence. The article is quite clear about this.

It is obviously correct that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However the carbon dating has been upheld by multiple scientific evidence, while the counter-theory makes the extraordinary claim that some abnormal non-scientific event somehow skewed the dating - and this claim requires the extraordinary evidence (which has thus far not been presented.) Wikipedia rules require that we give due weight to the counter-theory as well, but the solid scientific evidence still stands until somebody disproves it with solid scientific evidence, and so the solid scientific evidence is given greater weight. To do otherwise would be hopelessly non-neutral.

There is of course still speculation on all sides about how exactly the image was created, with several different methodologies already having created reasonable copies of the shroud image. However none of them are thus far exact copies - probably because the EXACT fabric is no longer available, and the EXACT baking-in-a-silver-box time and temperature are unknown, and the EXACT conditions in which the cloth aged for 600 years is unknown, and the article duly records that this is all thus far still unproven speculation.

I hope this has cleared up the confusion? Wdford (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How many (mainstream / competing) conjectures are out there is not a part of this proposal.

We are in agreement that findings of scientific research conflicts with the predominant speculation.

These words...	... are, by definition, composed of:
These words...	prerequisite knowledge	an assessment
authentic genuine accurate	what the original object / behaviour was intended to be what the original object / behaviour turns out to be	the observed outcome is sufficiently close to the intention therefore it is worthy of authenticity, genuineness, etc.
inauthentic fraud forgery inaccurate	what the original object / behaviour was intended to be what the original object / behaviour turns out to be	the observed outcome is not sufficiently close to the intention (whether intentionally in the case of "fraud", "forgery" or unintentionally) therefore it is guilty of being fraudulent, forged, etc.

A recognised authority in the field who is convinced by speculation proceeds this way:

prerequisite knowledge	assessment	terminology
I don't need to know the intention; it is sufficient for me that I believe what speculation says the intention was. I have no doubt in this criterion. I leave others to test things empirically. I have plenty of doubt for their results.	If current research supports my favoured speculation, I honour it with the accolade that the artefact is authentic / genuine / etc. If current research rejects my favoured speculation, I blame the artefact for being inauthentic / fraudulent / etc. I don't consider questioning the validity of the speculation itself. Anyone who casts doubts on the speculation is a sceptic because they don't believe.	authentic fraud forgery sceptic etc.

A wikipedia editor writing in the Voice of Wikipedia proceeds this way:

prerequisite knowledge	assessment	terminology
The original intentions are not yet known (verifiable by a reliable source). Without this knowledge, those who claim Special Access to The Truth deserves doubt. I leave others to test things empirically and acknowledge it here fairly for everyone to see. Doubt is reduced by reliability.	It doesn't matter whether current research supports my favoured speculation (or absence of one). As the original intentions are unknown, I cannot make an assessment. Even if I did know, it is not my place to make an assessment. I report the assessments of recognised reliable sources. I endorse questioning the validity of any speculation. If evidence clashes with speculation, trust evidence and doubt speculation. It is important to be rational, to have a systematic approach to what you choose to believe.	~~loaded language~~ your suggestions go here

When parts of this article directly quote those who believe in the prominent speculation, it is appropriate that we quote their biased terminology verbatim.

When parts of this article describe the subject of the article in the Voice of Wikipedia, it is not appropriate to use the loaded language employed by those who believe in the prominent speculation (or, for that matter, any speculation). Doing so endorses that speculation. We must use neutral terminology.

I hope this has clarified for you the focus of this proposal.110.146.160.225 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that it is not our place to make an assessment - we must merely report the assessments of recognised reliable sources. In that process we must certainly trust the evidence and doubt the speculation. The point you are missing is that the recognised reliable sources agree that the shroud is medieval, and in this they are backed by the scientific evidence. This is not speculation or conjecture, it is hard scientific fact. Efforts have been made by speculators to undermine those conclusions, but these efforts have all been repudiated with scientific evidence. The detail is reported minutely in the daughter article Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. There is in fact ZERO scientific evidence supporting the speculation that the shroud might possibly be old enough to have been used for Jesus. Do you accept this evidence from the reliable sources, or are you perhaps treating the scientific facts as merely a "competing speculation"? If we knew that answer it might help us to understand your proposal.

And please, NOBODY is blaming the shroud itself for being inauthentic or fraudulent. The debate which makes this item notable, is framed as "the authentic shroud of Jesus" vs "not the authentic shroud of Jesus". Those are the words used by the sources. We are not accusing the shroud itself of doing anything, and no reasonable reader could ever assume that we are accusing the shroud itself of committing fraud – so why are you hammering on this point? Wdford (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Because that is the focus. I'm not getting drawn into tangential debates.110.146.160.225 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well then it seems like this whole thing is just about your personal feelings regarding the use of the word "authentic". If you are happy to accept that the recognized reliable sources agree that the shroud is medieval, and if you are happy to accept that the recognized reliable sources use the word "authentic" to mean "the actual genuine shroud of Jesus as opposed to a medieval artifact", and if you are happy to accept that the article is not accusing the shroud itself of any personal wrong-doing, then you merely need to propose an alternative word to use in place of "authentic". It needs to be a good word, because even Fanti - the most dedicated defender of the shroud's authenticity - uses the word "authentic". You definitely cannot convert the word to read "religiously significant", because that doesn't address the actual issue and in fact it actually clouds the issue. What other word would you prefer to use? Wdford (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, now we are on the same page.

I agree that "religiously significant" isn't an adequate substitute. The goal is to convey that certain attributes or findings merely coincide with a religious speculation, and to avoid assigning authority or credence to that speculation the way "authentic" et al do. I haven't got a one-word substitution (yet) which is why I suggested rephrasings but I own that none of them are perfect, hence opening the issue up for community cooperation before updating the article. Many heads are better than one.110.146.160.225 (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

But if "the goal is to convey that certain attributes or findings merely coincide with a religious speculation, and to avoid assigning authority or credence to that speculation", then the article already does that quite adequately. The use of the word "authentic" is used because the sources use that word, but the context and the content make it clear that the "religious speculation" about the shroud has been conclusively disproved. If that is your goal, it has already been done. What then is the remaining problem? Wdford (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that answer was addressed previously in this edit. 110.146.160.225 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your link above goes nowhere. However if it referring to some other concern you already raised higher up in this thread, then your concern has already been adequately addressed by the article, as has been clarified in this thread. The word "authentic" has been used correctly in the article to refer to speculative claims about it being "the authentic shroud of Jesus", the word "authentic" is used in this context by the reliable sources, the article (and the lede) make it clear that this claim of authenticity has been debunked by experts using solid scientific evidence, and nobody could possible infer that we are accusing the cloth of committing fraud in its own right. Hammering on that non-point is approaching tendentious editing. You have declined to suggest a valid improvement to the article, and have merely inserted a template to discredit the article while claiming to wait for other editors to deliver on an unclear and unfounded requirement. Any grounds you may have had for this template have been addressed already. Therefore please either clarify your concern further with fresh information, or lift your objection. Wdford (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry my previous link is not working. I am sure I tested it at the time. Mea culpa. It was intended to highlight the whole of my addendum timestamped "22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)" where I (pre-emptively, it appears) addressed your objections. I didn't want to talkquote the whole blob.

As for your assertion, "You have declined to suggest a valid improvement" may I draw your attention to my second table in this section, timestamped "12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)". I'd like to point out that I did in fact provide suggestions and was open to counter-suggestions and constructive feedback, but none has been forthcoming. It's a busy time of year - I am confident there will be ample, in time.

As I see significant benefit to the article from improving its neutrality, I have been co-operative in helping anyone uncertain catch on or catch up. Once all confusion about the goal is cleared up, we can move forward together. While anyone is lagging though I'd rather prioritise answering their questions and then collaborate once they're satisfied.

I myself am very surprised it has taken so long to convey what is to me quite clear. However, I realise it's often more challenging to apprehend another's idea than your own. Not everyone has English as their mother tongue. If I can assume good faith, I would humbly request the same of you. Our advantage as collaborators is in our very different strengths focussed on the common goal.

As a gesture of my ongoing sincerity, I present the following hypothetical scenario with evident parallels:

A flat in Manly was subject to eviction for unpaid rent. At that point the flat contained two surfboards, one bored cat and a tangled ball of wool. Channel Nine reported on the incident. In their words, "an anonymous String Theory genius surfer left behind an enigma to perplex supporters of String Theory everywhere. The miracle tangle of wool provides all the answers - researchers are now extrapolating what the questions might be." Of course Seven News also covered the story. In their words, "in a cheap stunt, over-numerous and unregistered tennants planted a decoy object on their departure, masquerading as a metaphysical statement. The scam is drawing much attention and business to the suburb due to strong superstition linking surfers with String Theory." As a noteworthy topic, Wikipedia editors start an article on this phenomenon. The article quotes Channel Nine verbatim. The article quotes Seven News verbatim. Speaking in The Voice of Wikipedia, the article takes for granted the conjecture that the ball of wool has something to do with String Theory, referring to some people being tricked by the decoy and others resenting the adjusted dimension count posed by the enigmatic miracle. Furthermore, traces of cat-food and surfboard wax impregnating the wool at key places have cast some doubt on the woollen ball's philosophical predictions. One editor suggests this is too polarised: the article should quote verbatim the opinionated authorities promoting their assessments. But the article should refrain from jumping to any such conclusions itself. Without knowing how the artefact came to its current shape and location, no assumptions about its meaning or the intents of ex-owner(s) can be made. This ball of wool might be completely unrelated to String Theory and all the things people are reading into it. Although established authorities are entitled to use biased language in arguing their own subjective opinions and interpretations, that doesn't sanction that same terminology for expressing an objective neutral description of the basic facts of the phenomenon.

This message is brought to you by a new I.P. address, courtesy of thunderstorms, a power-cut and the Summer solstice. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be much easier if you avoided these long complex allegories, and instead stuck to the matter at hand. The article currently says, in summary, that:

a cloth is housed in the cathedral at Turin (FACT);
it bears an image (FACT);
some people believe that this image is the image of Jesus, and that the cloth was the burial shroud of Jesus (FACT);
a variety of methods have been proposed as to how the image may have been created, but nobody has thus far produced an EXACT copy of the shroud image (FACT);
scientists have however proved beyond doubt that the cloth is medieval, and that it thus cannot have been used by Jesus (FACT);

This statement is unsupportable; never mind the specifics of the 1988 carbon dating, the single sample, statistical errors, etc. This simply isn't how science works. No single test can "prove beyond doubt" any question of fact. It's evidence which supports a particular claim or hypothesis, not some kind of magical truth detector. Monupics (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

a handful of people still cling to the belief that the science is somehow wrong, and that the cloth might still be the authentic shroud of Jesus (FACT).

This is not biased or opinionated, it is clear fact, based on hard evidence, and reported neutrally. Where the non-scientific beliefs of the pro-authenticity camp are reported, it is clearly recorded that these beliefs are at odds with the scientific evidence. If you have a dispute with any of the above points, please say so clearly, and please state your reasons - in simple language. Wdford (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is good to know that neither of my allegories have been effective. I wanted to try all possible avenues. Let's hope this time we nail it :-)

Bullet points 1-5 are fine. Point 6 contains the bone of contention.

If...	and...	then...
the cloth holds text saying "In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year."	it was the burial cloth of Jesus	it is authentic
	it was not the burial cloth of Jesus	it is inauthentic / fraudulent / a forgery
the cloth holds text saying "Here endeth The Life Of Brian. He was a very naughty boy."	it was the burial cloth of Jesus	it is inauthentic / fraudulent / a forgery
	it was the burial cloth of Brian	it is authentic
(innumerable other possibilities)	(each is either true or false)	(each resulting in the claims being authentic or inauthentic in their own right, without having anything to do with Jesus)
the cloth was submitted as arts coursework by a medieval arts student with the declaration, "I promise this was my own construction, signed: Joe Bloggs"	it was crafted and signed by Joe Bloggs	it is authentic
	it was crafted by Fred Smith but signed by Joe Bloggs	it is fraudulent
	it was crafted and signed by Fred Smith	it is a forgery
the cloth makes no claims about its origins or purpose	we don't know its origins or purpose	the concept of authenticity is `not defined` and any descriptions of it being authentic, fraudulent, a forgery, etc. are invalid

You can see there are a multitude of scenarios in which the object is authentic that have nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.

As things stand in actuality, the cloth makes no claims of its origins or purpose, and so it is not valid for it to be "authentic". (Ie, it is not meaningful for it to be described as such.)

Of course, certain biased experts might presume to "know" that the cloth's origins and purpose was precisely the burial wrapping cloth of Jesus in the absence of reliable evidence. From this belief, they can then (invalidly) describe the cloth as "authentic" or a "forgery", etc. And the wikipedia article can quote their (invalid) statements verbatim.

However the fact remains that such assertions are invalid. (In 1000 years they may well turn out to be factual or non-factual when reliable evidence settles the matter, but in the meantime, such assertions are invalid.) As such, the article itself (outside of verbatim quotes) should avoid making such judgement calls. In discussing controversy between parties who believe the object wrapped Jesus and those who believe it never wrapped Jesus, the article should avoid using terminology that is contingent on a claim that has not been made. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased that we agree on most things. However I really struggle to understand why you have a problem with "a handful of people still cling to the belief that the science is somehow wrong, and that the cloth might still be the authentic shroud of Jesus." Some people do in fact still hold this belief, even though science has proved them wrong, so we must give them due weight and report their belief– although the article does also say clearly that the cloth has been scientifically dated to the medieval period.

It’s true that we don’t conclusively know the shroud’s origins or original purpose. The most likely explanation is that it was created as a fraudulent relic for the ulterior purposes of making money out of gullible pilgrims, but the suggestion has also been made that it was created as a teaching aid for non-literate worshippers, to "focus their faith", without claiming to be the real actual shroud of Jesus. Therefore the article does not declare the purpose of its manufacture.

I disagree with your statement that "the concept of authenticity is not defined and any descriptions of it being authentic, fraudulent, a forgery, etc. are invalid." The concept of authenticity HAS IN FACT BEEN DEFINED – the reliable sources use the word to mean "it really is the shroud of Jesus". Because the reliable sources use the word then we do as well. NNNB: Nobody is saying that the shroud itself is making claims on its own behalf. Would you be happier if we define in the article itself, the sense in which the sources use of the word "authentic"?

Certain biased experts do indeed presume to "know" that the cloth is authentic, and they have made that claim clearly and stridently, so the Wikipedia article must and does quote their (invalid) statements - but the article must and does also make it clear that these statements have been disproved by the radiocarbon dating. Reliable evidence has already settled the matter, and those who still cling to the belief do so based on religious faith rather than scientific evidence. Wdford (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using "authentic" to describe an artifact. This argument is a waste of time.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland@ There is when that artefact fails to satisfy the definition of "authentic":

Random House Dictionary
not false or copied; genuine; real: having the origin supported by unquestionable evidence; authenticated; verified: entitled to acceptance or belief because of agreement with known facts or experience; reliable; trustworthy: 1–3. "Authentic, genuine, real, veritable" share the sense of actuality and lack of falsehood or misrepresentation. "Authentic" carries a connotation of authoritative certification that an object is what it is claimed to be
Collins English Dictionary
of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable
Online Etymology Dictionary
Traditionally in modern use, authentic implies that the contents of the thing in question correspond to the facts and are not fictitious

All of these definitions agree that "authentic" is a relative term. Something otherwise uncertain is established as certain, by merit of its trustworthy link to something even more certain. Being "authentic" certifies that claims about something (or its origin) match with a known, trusted, undisputed, reliable, factual standard.

In the case of the Shroud of Turin, you have the artefact itself, and you have people making claims about it, and the facts revealed by scientific investigation (a) contradict the "pro-authentic" speculation and (b) remain controversial. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wdford@ indeed there are numerous explanations for how and why the cloth came into being - some nefarious and some benign. My focus is on the fact that the origins and purpose are still shrouded in mystery (and quite possibly will remain so) and while they remain so, the dictionary definitions of "authentic" (above) cannot be satisfied.

I believe your explanation is key in our discussion: 'The concept of authenticity HAS IN FACT BEEN DEFINED – the reliable sources use the word to mean "it really is the shroud of Jesus".' Your suggestion of adding a disclaimer to the article would be a constructive addition - especially for anyone reading the page unfamiliar with the topic or less familiar with English.

Imagine coming across an article about a controversial election, which ended with the disclaimer, "Parties with a conflict of interest have redefined the following words to suit their ideology: democratic, freedom, choice, corruption. Certain anthropologists and sociologists have since followed using these custom definitions." I for one would object that even if reliable sources have mimicked the warped definition, the standard definition should be used on Wikipedia to maintain neutrality. It's misleading to use niche definitions (even with a disclaimer) especially considering partial sections of text are copied from wikipedia articles that might not include the disclaimer.

So yes, I think it might help to add a disclaimer: "Parties with a conflict of interest redefined the following words to suit their ideology: authentic, forgery. Certain reliable sources have since followed using these custom definitions. Under these definitions, authenticity is measured against the supposed origin and purpose of the burial cloth of Jesus irrespective of facts; and forgery is redefined as the only other possible alternative to authenticity." I don't think it really addresses the underlying problem though which is that in specifically this context the word "authentic" has deviated far from the dictionary, to only mean "it really is the shroud of Jesus" (even though in discussing that claim, certain reliable sources have entertained this non-standard definition). 121.216.197.53 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish! The article exactly meets the dictionary definition! A handful of people do indeed claim that the shroud is "authentic, genuine, real, veritable", although they have zero actual evidence to support this claim. Actual Science is not yet completely certain who made it or why, but Actual Science is already completely certain that it is not old enough to be of the time of Jesus, so Actual Science is certain that it is Not the Authentic Shroud of Jesus. That's all that is important. We do not need to turn this article into a semantic dissertation on the incorrect use of the word "authentic" by a handful of wishful folk, we merely need to report that they make a claim and that the claim has been proved wrong. Anything more is off-topic. Wdford (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So there's no such thing as genuine leather because leather doesn't have a personality!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland@ To determine if something is "genuine leather" one would compare the object in question to the established reference point. One would compare a scrap of material to "a material consisting of the skin of an animal made smooth and flexible by tanning, removing the hair, etc". If indeed it could be demonstrated that the sample under scrutiny consisted of the skin of an animal made smooth and flexible by tanning, removing the hair, etc. then you would have genuine leather.

To determine if something is authentic "faux pvc leather produced by Joe Bloggs Co." one would compare the object in question to the established reference point. One would compare a scrap of material to "manufactured by Joe Bloggs Co. for the purpose of and according to the specifications of faux pvc leather". If indeed it could be demonstrated that the sample under scrutiny consisted of material manufactured by Joe Bloggs Co. for the purpose of and according to the specifications of faux pvc leather then you would have authentic Joe Bloggs Co faux pvc leather. It wouldn't be "genuine leather" and it wouldn't be an "authentic Rolex" and it wouldn't be a "bona-fide Toyota" but it would be authentic Joe Bloggs Co faux pvc leather.

I have not see "personality" enter into any definition of leather, but if indeed someone did define leather as having a personality, then just as you say, there would be "no such thing as genuine leather".

To determine if something is authentic "Shroud of Turin" one would compare the object in question to the established reference point. One would compare the cloth and its image to... ... well we don't really know where it came from or what the intention of those who produced it was. Without that reference point, it is not possible to demonstrate that the sample under scrutiny is consistent with that reference point. As we have discussed, someone could fabricate a reference point, and impose their own ideology by saying, "a Shroud of Turin is a burial cloth of Jesus". With that fake reference point in mind, they could attempt to demonstrate that the sample under scrutiny was indeed the burial cloth of Jesus, in order to satisfy their own definition of authenticity. But in doing so, they are no longer applying the authentic usage of "authentic". 121.216.197.53 (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wdford@ Perhaps you could please elaborate which dictionary definition it fits and how? I am not seeing it. Maybe it is self-evident to you, and if so, please deign to enlighten me.

I agree that the article shouldn't be a dissertation on semantics. That's what this Talk section is all about, right from the start, explicitly and exclusively - semantics. The point is that the article is using misleading / undue / biased / POV terminology because the semantics of the terminology chosen presuppose a reference point of the Shroud being the burial cloth of Jesus. I am not really fussed about how the article portrays science and findings - I think it's doing a fine job in that department. My only objection is that the article proposes that the cloth can only be "authentic" if it is the actual cloth that wrapped the corpse of Jesus and that under any other condition it is a "forgery" - when really there are countless other conditions and scenarios under which it legitimately qualifies as authentic in its own right. It might not be an "authentic burial shroud of Jesus" but it could certainly be an "authentic medieval artwork" and be no less authentic as a result. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This was all tldr for me, but if the meaning of a term is this much of a problem, it might be best to define the sense in which it is being used (right or wrong) throughout this article near the start. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turin is by definition The Cloth Which Is Believed By Some Christians To Be The Burial Shroud Of Jesus. This is made abundantly clear in the first sentence of the lede. Nobody cares whether or not it is an authentic medieval art work or an authentic medieval tablecloth - that is not at all notable. There is only one Shroud of Turin in existence. Nobody reading this article - except maybe for a senile former Professor of Mindless Semantics - could possibly assume that the Shroud of Turin article refers to anything other than the burial shroud of Jesus. The question under debate - which makes this piece of cloth notable - is whether it could actually be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. The established reference point being used is the age of the cloth. If the cloth is 2000 years old it MIGHT have been used by Jesus, although that still could not be proved. However if it is only medieval then it certainly could not have been touched by Jesus. Science has proved that the cloth is only medieval, and thus it certainly could not have been touched by Jesus. The issue is whether the object could be the "authentic, genuine, real, veritable" burial shroud of Jesus, the claim is that it IS the "authentic, genuine, real, veritable" burial shroud of Jesus, and the science proves that it COULD NOT BE the "authentic, genuine, real, veritable" burial shroud of Jesus. End of story. Some wishful people clutch at a variety of straws to revive their hope that the cloth might yet be the "authentic, genuine, real, veritable" burial shroud of Jesus, but the science is against them, as the article makes clear. How could this possibly be confusing to you? Wdford (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I rearranged the wording of the lede to make it even more abundantly clear what is notable about the shroud, and what the reliable sources mean when they use the word "authentic". Wdford (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The concerned IP editor has now stated that his/her "only objection is that the article proposes that the cloth can only be "authentic" if it is the actual cloth that wrapped the corpse of Jesus and that under any other condition it is a "forgery" - when really there are countless other conditions and scenarios under which it legitimately qualifies as authentic in its own right. It might not be an "authentic burial shroud of Jesus" but it could certainly be an "authentic medieval artwork" and be no less authentic as a result." However, s/he placed a template on the article claiming a concern about neutrality. I think this is an excessively semantic argument to begin with, but I also question how this semantic distinction constitutes a lack of neutrality? Wdford (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The POV banner at the top of the article should be removed. We can say that the sky is blue without lots of qualifications or arguments over terminology . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The terminological dispute is really a smoke screen (with a lot of smoke) to suggest that the shroud is genuine.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland@ It's true that there is a persistent run of I-still-don't-get-it which is still ongoing even now. It is tainted with accusations of "rubbish", irrelevant tangents, forgetfulness. More recently, unrelated reference to leather not having personality. The result of this cross-talk is obstructive, but I can assume good faith with regards to intentions.

Be that as it may, the issue really is as simple as you indicate. The terminology chosen places the religious speculation as the default position, and shifts the onus to science to discredit it. While it's perfectly fine for an article to be about a hoax, the terminology here sails close to the wind when it comes to endorsing a hoax. Here neutrality can be improved. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wdford@ if you missed "how this semantic distinction constitutes a lack of neutrality", I hope this clarifies:

People express their ideas using words. They choose what words to use because of what those words mean. This is semantics.

One way to neutralise POV / subjectivity is to expunge (some) biased content. An alternative way is to choose different words with different meanings that:

do convey what needs to be said
do not convey what needs to not be said.

This is the approach I thought best to take. I am sure semantic solutions to perspective disputes are familiar to all of us in every aspect of life. 121.216.197.53 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wdford@ regarding tablecloths, et al, I just want to check if I have understood you aright:

When the article mentions:	Are you saying:	Because I'm still saying:
a cloth tested as medieval has a design on it we haven't been able to reproduce	nobody cares	this makes the cloth notable in its own right
(enough) people believe a wizard did it	this makes the cloth notable	this is incidental
Consequently, the focus of the article should be on:	the arguments and evidence for and against the cloth satisfying the speculation that a wizard did it	the actual nature of the cloth; its image; and the findings of investigations about it
because:	that's controversial	that's objective. Focussing on "extraordinary claims require[s] extraordinary evidence."

121.216.197.53 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK fine, this is easily resolved. Please note that the terminology in the article DOES NOT place the religious speculation as the default position, and it IN NO WAY endorses the authenticity claim. This is perfectly obvious from the article. The lede makes it clear that the shroud “is believed by some Christians to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Radiocarbon dating has dated it to the Medieval period.” Perfectly clear and unambiguous.

The notability of the shroud is purely a religious issue – if it were not claimed by some to be a miraculous object then it would be readily accepted that the image is just a scorch or a bleach or a washed-out remnant of a painting or something. It has been closely replicated already by various methods, and this is seemingly easily done – the fuss that it has not been replicated EXACTLY is a red herring by the religious camp. If anybody had the time and the money I’m sure they could produce an EXACT replica, but who would bother, as the shroud has been proved to be medieval already? Only the religious camp still cares, and their vested interest is in the opposite direction. Wdford (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Break

I was invited to comment on the article. It looks "okay" to me. Dislaimer: I didn't read it all; I didn't read (and absorb) all your remarks.

There is room (and should be!) for both prevailing opinions.

The church does not "validate" Relic#Counterfeits per se. The church tendency is to disdain them officially, but to follow local custom in practice. So Pope John Paul II prays at House of the Virgin Mary though the church doesn't condone people "dreaming up" locations, or finding images in fried eggs, etc. It doesn't claim to have any more power to discern true relics than science does.

A problem here is that carbon dating clearly failed. On the other hand, an old fire might have tainted the cloth, rendering the results inaccurately.

The antique Way of the Cross in Jerusalem is followed despite the fact that everyone knows the actual one crosses current traffic at awkward places. The wrong one has been in use for 1600 years and is venerable (however wrong) in its own right! So it is faith/inspiration that is being courted here, not necessarily reality.

No one can prove the shroud to be "true." Ever, more than likely. Nor can it's authenticity be (ever) conclusively ruled out. There is (and should be) room for both opinions and set of facts. The current lede reads well stating that the shroud appears to be that of a man, believed by some to be JC, but not authenticated. That all seems true and encyclopedic to me. People who want to prove it genuine or counterfeit conclusively should back off and maybe move on to some other article. Student7 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Science and history never "prove" anything. They simply build a collection of evidence that makes certain hypotheses more likely than others, in some cases up to the point of virtual certitude. This article (and any other for that matter) should reflect the weight of the evidence. Sizeofint (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Solidity?

Since when is 'solidity' a standard for scientific evidence? This statement: "these various challenges have all been refuted by experts based on solid scientific evidence." pretty clearly fails NPOV and reads like a middle school essay.

Monupics (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Biscuittin (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Solid evidence" as contrasted with "hypothetical speculative wishful clutching at straws which are not backed by scientific evidence and are sometimes not even consistent with the laws of physics". If you have a better term than "solid evidence", please suggest it. PS: new sections should be at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. Wdford (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have changed "refuted" to "rejected" because refuted implies certainty. I think it is very unlikely that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, but it is not impossible. Biscuittin (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think you are conflating two separate issues. The sentence in question does not refer to the dating itself, but rather to the challenges against the dating. These various challenges have all been completely refuted (see above) - there was no repair, any residual contamination that may have evaded the cleaning would have been nowhere near enough to swing the dating, and more recent fires cannot change the carbon dating result of cloth. The claims that a radiation incident may have altered the dating is currently contrary to the laws of physics. The challenges are thus completely refuted. It is obviously true that future research might one day identify a presently-unknown process of quantum physics or cosmic radiation or alien intervention that might yet explain a deviation in the dating, but based on current scientific knowledge, the carbon dating is correct. If we are going to be swayed by speculations of possible future scientific discoveries, then we will need to change all articles to say that "the speed of light probably cannot be exceeded" or that "the universe is probably older than the Bible says" or that "Marilyn Monroe was probably female" or that "the earth is probably spherical" - but I personally don't think that is the appropriate approach. "Refuted" is the correct word in this context, and we also state that the pro-authenticity camp hasn't yet given up searching. Wdford (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think that "rejected" is more appropriate but it's not something that I want to be dogmatic about. Biscuittin (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I think there is some consensus, here, about sentiment. Some disagreement on vocabulary. I also support "rejected" in some sort of sentence, perhaps referring to rejection that the hypothesis that the shroud is from about year 33 can be rejected on multiple evidence grounds. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Opponents to the shroud forget that A forgery requires at least one forger to produce a "fake shroud" back in 1300

Talk pages are for discussion about improving the article, not for discussing the topic in general. Additionally, this discussion is pure original research, which is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, which should be based on reliable sources. clpo13_(talk) 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a basic point missed by all opponents to the shroud. Considering the number of"signs"or "analysed items" identified on the piece of linen it is obvious that such elements(subjects of numerous investigations & discussions) did not come by chance out of the blue on the clothing.

Therefore, we have only 2 options: Option 1: The shroud is authentic and the related visible marks are related to the resurection cycle (although beyond our own understanding) Option 2: The shroud is a fake produced by a FORGER with the intention to make money out of it. We know for certain that the shroud was a subject of continuing public devotion since the years 1300 approx. Hence, the logical motivation for a forger to work hard on it and produce such a piece of linen full of markings proving it is authentic.

At this point,opponents refuse to admit that all existing marks (visible or not from 1300 to 1898) must come from such forger. This point is in conflict with the large number of new leads & markings which have been identified over the last 20 years ,

thanks to new technologies, obviously unknown to the "FORGER" back in 1300.

Unless such FORGER would have been an unknown genius coming from Mars on earth in the year 1300 with the objective to make money on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.101.173 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What "new leads and markings" are you referring to please? Wdford (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Answer to Wdford: I am refering to all new items or traces (stains, blood) spotted on the shroud which have been identified by scientists & others since 1980. The shroud has been the subject of intensive scrutiny since Pope John Paul I (Pope for 33 days in 1978) ordered to start scientific research on it. Thanks to carefull examinations combined with new technologies (scanners, UV violet,3D Softwares, spectograms, Chemical analysis etc) new connections have been made with the possibility that a corpse had been covered by this piece of cloth 2000 years ago. Example 1: 3D software analysis on the distribution of different shades of color (burned linen fibers) gave the proof that such distribution was showing us a 3 D picture of the corpse (never seen before). This type of computer analysis was unavailable in 1978 or in 1898, or in 1300. Accordingly, the FORGER in 1300 would have been 700 years ahead of his time in 1300 to take the pain to "paint" the shroud according to a 3 D Formula. Example 2: New chemical analysis of a blood stain has shown that it held a chemical component recently identified as related to extreme pain. Accordingly,the FORGER of 1300 also took the pain of planting blood stains from a man who had gone through intensive pain with the related consequences on his blood chemical formula... The FORGER of year 1300 was a very cautious fellow...taking no chance that someone may spot his forgery,somewhere in 2015.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.101.173 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Challenge Removed from Description

I removed a "by whom?" challenge based on the citation provided. I also edited the paragraph to eliminate the weasel words "have been interpreted," because it's a passive sentence and leaves room for others not examining the citation to reinstate the WW challenge. The citation says, "Forensic Doctors have intensely examined the Shroud of Turin for conclusions that can be drawn for the type of wounds and cause of death of the victim that is seen on the image of the shroud."^[1] Borrowing the same term, Forensic doctors, I changed the text to an active voice instead of passive. Srwalden (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Robinson, Robert Clifton. "Empirical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ". Robert Clifton Robinson. Empirical evidence from Archeology. Archived from the original on 23 Feb 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2016.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110224180653/http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Travertine.htm to http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/Shroud-Turin-Travertine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

New "source"

[1] A religious book written by someone who has no background in science has no place disputing radiocarbon dating. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, the same questionable source VirVirtutas uses to continue their POV pushing [2] has the text they deleted for "improper citation". [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: You reverted to the IP's version which is VirVirtutas logged out. Just FYI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. Sizeofint (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: Regarding this, please see WP:NEWSBLOG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. It could potentially be WP:RS. Shouldn't scientific statements about the shroud follow WP:SCIRS though? Sizeofint (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint: The newsblog is being used as source for a quote from Christopher Bronk Ramsey who I believe is a reliable source. It's like the NY Times quoting Stephen Hawking about the Big Bang. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but - to make a similar point to your Hawking example - I've experienced global warming deniers also quoting legitimate climate scientists in news articles making embarrassing statements that don't reflect the scientific literature. I would think our Big Bang article would cite journal articles rather than the NYT. I think in this case the statement does reflect the scientific literature but if we allow sources like these in the article we may be opening the door to a host of low quality sources. Is this the *best* source for the statement we're trying to make? Sizeofint (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You have a point, but climate change has thousands of scientific papers. The Shroud is more of a scientific curiosity rather than anything else. WP:PARITY comes into play. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add it back for now since there isn't consensus for removal. If anyone else weighs in we can re-evaluate. Sizeofint (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Either way, it's nice to actually talk these things through :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

More junk sources from VirVirtutas. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Respected?

First of all, its a piece of cloth; if you want to be religious about it, God Himself said to worship no graven images. The shroud of Turin qualifies, and most religious scholars know this, and would never say this. This is why the source doesn't say "respected". Secondly, this source is enormously biased, which is why it is a paper on the web, an opinion by someone who just so happens to be a man of the cloth, and not a book. I doubt this rises to the level of a reliable source; maybe that begs the question as to whether it deserves to be in the article or if it is merely fancruft. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

What is your proposed edit? Ashmoo (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This was in response to a prior edit. Sizeofint (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

[1] Robinson, Robert Clifton. "Empirical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ". Robert Clifton Robinson. Empirical evidence from Archeology. Archived from the original on 23 Feb 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2016.

[1]