Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"Shroudies" and "Doubties"

As it's been pointed out, there's a variety of outlooks on the Shroud.

Some may feel sorry for those whom they think are susceptible to a clever hoax, while others may feel like the Shroud's evidence is being suppressed.

I think we all need to have more understanding with one another in the process of hashing this out, not for starting a chat forum, but simply to help put things in perspective for improving the article.

Those who've had a driver's license know that we have to be careful to watch out for "blind spots", those areas that happen to be outside our scope of vision. We do this intellectually by staying open to possibilities that we hadn't considered.

The Shroud is not essential to genuine faith, and so it can be critically evaluated. Unexplainable phenomenon are not a problem for Agnostics or even Atheism. There could turn out to be an explanation that satisfies everybody.

Personally, I tend to think of Jesus after his Resurrection as an extra-dimensional being. Not as an alien, but as the Eternal Spirit incarnated in human flesh. Not to get too theological here, just that we don't need to feel threatened or spooked by an artefact, if it's real. I know it makes some people uncomfortable. But it's actually pretty cool!

Even if someone pulled this off as a hoax (although, I highly doubt it being a hoax), one has to at least admit it's a stroke of genius, whether created by God, man or by both God and man at the same time by someone who happens to be both!

The uniqueness of this thing is why some have proposed Leonardo da Vinci as its inventor, a man who was ahead of his time (However, the Shroud does have a much older recorded history). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:586D:39F7:F595:1D87 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The science is settled, true believers deny it and tell themselves weird stories. Same as for many WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. Wikipedia sides with reality as sourced in the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird stories?

I started this topic specifically to encourage mutual respect.

What I'm finding is that a lot of Doubties (as I once was) seem willfully ignorant of the actual Shroud data. People are saying that it's a painted image and such. If this was the case, there wouldn't have been so many scientists studying it!

Perhaps this article shows a major failure of Wikipedia. The site is becoming irremediable and completely unreliable for articles on controversial subjects. It's simply impossible to have a balanced approach when people are irrationally or unreasonably antsy with their use of technology.

And I'm not signaling out anyone in particular, it's more like a new status quo or a "cancel culture" mindset.

Please try at least reading this blog that sums up much of the evidence for the Shroud, and see what you think: Click here

Wikipedia's article on the Shroud of Turin had actually been a special-featured article and was less biased. It's now a good example of a hostile take-over.

It's starting to look like an anathema-type situation, in other words (in the original New Testament sense of a changed spiritual reality), of having reached a point where there exists, in general, a definite commitment to a certain level of insensitive and calloused opposition. It's like a socio-spiritual phenomena that's gotten much worse than I remember on Wikipedia many years ago (even with as bad as it was then). I've been evaluating how it got this much worse.

It seems like the result of a combination of newer tech methods, where antagonists are empowered to stalk articles on Wikipedia, as well as other societal factors and changing attitudes and mentalities. It's really sad. :( 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C407:D9DC:26B8:96C1 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

undermining New Testament divine inspiration—that's just your own POV. I did not hear many Christian theologians making such a claim. Yup, there is university-level theology, expressed in what Wikipedia deems to be WP:RS. Your blog isn't one.

Further, since WP:GEVAL was enshrined in our WP:RULES, your POV has lost the game, here at Wikipedia.

Rhetoric and persuasion might have some place, but at the end of the day these cannot supplant mainstream WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also the probable case that the shroud was never intended to be a hoax. It was probably painted as a genuine artwork on a large piece of cloth, for use as decoration in a church or chapel. Over time the paint crumbled away, and then somebody noted that the missing paint had left behind a ghostly image on the cloth. At that point they may have assumed a miracle, or they may have knowingly started up the money-spinning fraud. This particular image-forming process has been tested by scientists, with a high degree of success. Wdford (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

With blood? Master106 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

About "undermining New Testament divine inspiration" from an earlier topic - I think I was referring to a cover-up about the Qumran community existing well into the 2nd Century A.D. as evidenced by a signed letter from Bar Kokhba in one of the caves with scrolls, coin evidence, and contradicting radio-carbon dates for scrolls that pertained especially to the community (rather than biblical scrolls that could have been from earlier libraries), as well as materials scrolls were wrapped in. That was to show that there have been differing results in other cases, when similarly controversial subjects are involved. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The Consensus has spoken.

For one thing, we don't like all the so-called "evidence" in favor of the Shroud recording a "supernatural" event, such as the Resurrection of Christ. This is the 21st Century!

The other thing is this little matter of the carbon dating results - Deal with it!

All the other evidences contradict the carbon dating.

Besides, and I'll be quite frank here, even if the Shroud's image was "exceptionally formed", it wouldn't convince anybody of anything anyway, as we all make up our minds as to our own realities. Wikipedia's an academic encyclopedia, and if it has to lean toward current trends, then it is only validating consensus reality, which is the only stable reality.

Don't think we don't care as much as you do. Logically, based on known science, it simply isn't feasible for the Shroud's image to be miraculous.

You might as well expect us to continue either :

• Ridiculing and belittling you.
• Ignoring all this so-called evidence and labeling it as fringe (We don't care how "scientifically researched and academically published" you may deem it to be).
• Quote anyone who agrees with us (Even if you don't think it proves anything, it still shows we have our ranks across a wide spectrum).
• Persist until you give up and we get our way. Science is a very satisfying religion to defend, because we know we are supporting a tangible, comprehensive reality.

Well, how was that? Am I in the club? :)

No, I didn't convert, I just thought I'd show that I understand where many are coming from.

All I would really suggest is that instead of the fringe label for actual scientific research, it could be better designated as something like "Shroud research" or "Studies of the Shroud."

Heck, even untested theories, if not theoretically unsound, are not fringe, because they've been worked out logically, even without access to the Shroud itself (understanding, of course, the requirement of being published).

And then afterward, perceived fallacies are pointed out in other published material that can likewise be cited to correctly contradict. This is the Wikipedia way. Fear of Shroud research being presented in a neutral light is, by contrast, not. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

We know that you have already looked up what Wikipedia means by the term "Fringe". However, for any new readers who might be seeing this, the details are explained at Fringe theories. Wdford (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the heading of this discussion - the "Shroudies" part is probably accurate, but the other 99.9% are not called "Doubties", we are called "Rational people who rely on science rather than wishful straw-clutching". Wdford (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not meant to be derogatory (in fact, I called myself a former Doubtie). A healthy amount of cynicism plays an important role in critical analysis that requires some speculative doubt while evaluating evidence.

However, there's no way that all Shroudies are "straw-clutchers", when there is a ton of scientific evidence for the Shroud. To throw out all scientific research that doesn't support one's views is absolutely unethical. But I've come to realize that there's people who just don't care and are oppositionally hardened in an unreasonable way. Some further choose to enforce their own perspectives and to silence all other perspectives, even if legit. This is a form of injustice.

By the way, I did show how Shroudies can also be wrongly combative, but someone misunderstood and removed the comment. I guess it was a little too convincing that it was a real comment!

The following explanation was appendaged to it, however:

"I thought it was only fair to expose misguided Shroudie zeal as well.

Earlier, I actually had to correct a fellow-Shroudie, who got my other topic rotten-tomato'd by getting so carried away on it.

Oh well, we live and learn. No hard feelings, everyone." 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:107C:EE43:C520:F672 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Shroud-doubters might be interested in joining up with those who believe in God, yet who consider Shroud veneration as a form of idolatry.

Someone has been misrepresenting both Shroudies and Shroud-Doubters at the same time by edit-warring and being rude, while simultaneously being both pro-miracle and anti-Shroud.

They now have their own topic, under the title of: "Article protected"!

I've there proposed an anti-veneration addition to the article that draws a parallel with Nehushtan, a Mosaic artefact that was being worshipped in King Hezekiah's time. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:107C:EE43:C520:F672 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Or they might not. This is, after all, Wikipedia, not a church forum. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The technical term for "doubties" is the reality-based community. Crucifixion victims were left on the crosses to be eaten by carrion animals, and if they ever were cut down they were buried in unmarked graves. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything in this thread that belongs on this page? Being about improving the article? Or is it pure WP:FORUM? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Make the article about half as long and remove all the special pleading? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"to a 95% confidence level"

"In 1988, radiocarbon dating by three different laboratories established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390 (to a 95% confidence level), which corresponds with its first documented appearance in 1354. "

As a chartered statistician, I don't like the way this has been phrased as "(to a 95% confidence level"). The usual way of describing this would be to say "(95% confidence interval"). The current wording risks confusion with the 5% significance level, which is often erroneously described as the "95% significance level". Significance levels are used in (Fisher-style) significance tests and (Neyman-Pearson style) hypothesis tests. What we are talking about here is a confidence interval, not a test. The link takes you (correctly) a page about confidence intervals.

Many researchers have confused ideas about the related concepts of significance levels and confidence intervals and it would be better to use less confusing language.

Blaise Blaise (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can summarize better with words like "established that the shroud's linen material was produced in the late middle ages, which corresponds with its first documented appearance in 1354" ? The (im)precise dates are not that relevant. Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would also avoid misunderstandings like "it is 5% likely that the Shroud is 2000 years old", which I bet some people will have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the specific date range is helpful. The fact that the C14 dating pegs the shroud's origin to a 130-year range with 95% confidence says something about how precise the dating is. --Srleffler (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

In the body sure, but to the non-mathematical the lede might read like saying there's a 5% chance it's from Jesus' time. In fact, why is Wikipedia being so coy about this? If we look as a relevant high-quality RS like:

• Taylor, RE (2012). "Radiocarbon Dating". The Oxford Companion To Archaeology. Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press.

it simply says

The application of the 14C method using AMS technology also confirmed that the shroud of Turin, an object of veneration associated in the Middle Ages with Jesus of Nazareth, was in fact a medieval artifact and did not date to the first century AD.

. I think Wikipedia should follow RS and not be hinting in odd directions. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"faint image of the front and back of a man"

Having seen a lot of back-and-forth editing of the phrase "faint image of the front and back of a man" in the lede, I wonder if we should not be more explicit. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that the image on the Shroud is meant to be an image of Jesus. That is clearly the artist's intent. It's not a miraculous image. It's not an authentic image, but it is indeed an image of Jesus. Can we come up with wording that is clear about who the depicted person is, without implying a supernatural origin?

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to be a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? -- Srleffler (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

How about "...is a length of linen cloth that bears a faint image, which appears to resemble a depiction of Jesus, showing both sides of the body."? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Depiction implies artwork, and there is no evidence that this is an artwork. Nobody can say with that level of certainty what it is, certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We are not saying that it IS a depiction, we are saying that it RESEMBLES a depiction. No cause for concerns here. Wdford (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

What that wording would convey seems already implied in the lead and would just add an extra sentence saying the same thing in a roundabout and semi-confusing way. "Resembles a depiction" is like saying a lion resembles a tiger because they walk on four legs but please disregard the stripes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is much more resemblance between a lion and a tiger than just that they both walk on four legs. They can actually interbreed. However I take your point about leaving the sentence as is. I would actually like to go a bit further, to state that "... is a length of linen cloth dating to the Middle Ages that bears a faint image ... ". The current wording risks creating the false impression that the Shroud really is "the actual burial shroud". Wdford (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging from the disputed research and numerous points brought up on this talk page the wording 'dating to the Middle Ages' seems controversial enough to not be presented as fact without a qualifier. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The dating is not disputed by science, it is disputed only by a dwindling band of fringe supporters. The qualifier is already presented - some fringe supporters continue to clutch at straws, even though their straws have been scientifically refuted using actual science and actual evidence. Wdford (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's better practice to introduce the dating in the context of how it was established. Tying the dating directly to the science that supports it reduces potential for conflict over the wording.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The number of scientists questioning the C-14 dating is not dwindling. It's something like the last six or seven peer-reviewed studies published by highly reputable journals, over the past 15 years or so, question the C-14 results. From what I can tell from this article, the last such paper giving full-throated support to the C-14 results was published over 14 years ago. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists are arguing about a less than 100 years adjustment to the dating interval. It still pertains to the Middle Ages by a large margin. So, yes, it gets criticized, but such criticism does not really affect the main conclusion. AFAIK, no scientist worth his salt argues for dating it to before Islam. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Mainstream science has not needed to respond again, because the C14 dates have not been scientifically challenged. Scholarship is NOT a case of "the last person to squeal petulantly, wins the debate". The so-called "questioning" has not used proper scientific evidence, it is merely straw-clutching - and some of it is out-right embarrassing. BTW: of these half-dozen "new studies" you mention - how many of them merely repeated what had been said before by other shroudies, and how many of them had Fanti on their team? Wdford (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for "appears to resemble". "Appears to be" already contains enough ambiguity. I acknowledge that depiction implies artwork and would be open to a more neutral phrase that doesn't carry that connotation.--Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather leave that sentence as is, but change the next sentence to read "... after his crucifixion, during which time they believe Jesus's bodily image was miraculously imprinted on the cloth."

there is no evidence that this is an artwork Except the statement of the artist, the fact that the proportions of the depicted person are in agreement with the artistic standards of the time, the fact that pigments were found in it that were used back then, and the fact there was no other method in the Middle Ages to put a picture of a person on a 2D surface except art. Please stop pushing fringe views here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 August 2024

The article says, under Bloodstains, that Walter McCrone found the "bloodstains" contained iron oxide, which is true, but more importantly he found that they contained mercuric sulphide or vermilion, a pigment commonly used to depict blood by medieval artists. See p129 of McCrone's 1997 book 'Judgement day for the Turin Shroud'. Krebiozen (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Please state the exact wording of this sentence that you propose — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggested addition on 2024 study

Suggested addition, since a user full-protected the article. Under the current paragraph in the subsection "Material historical analysis: Historical fabrics" I suggest adding the following, cited to the peer-reviewed journal:

In 2024, a team of Italian researchers used wide-angle X-ray scattering (WAXS) to date a linen sample from the Turin Shroud (TS) to approximately 2,000 years ago. The authors of the paper in Heritage wrote: "In particular, the WAXS analysis presented here, for the natural aging of the cellulose in the linen of a TS sample, allows us to conclude that it is very probable that the TS is a relic of about 20 centuries old, even if we only have European historical documentation for the last seven centuries." They did suggest further study, noting that: "Since the 14C dating does not agree with our results, or with the dating obtained by other works... a more accurate and systematic X-ray investigation of more samples taken from the TS fabric would be mandatory to confirm the conclusions of our study."

References

Simple, in the proper spot in the article, one citation, cited to a journal (not a sensationalist news-piece), scientific conclusion and scientific hedging of bets and hope for more research. What do you think? TuckerResearch (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Already discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I did just see: WP:MDPI, but no need to be prickly and throw out a not-showing good-faith and childish "ad nauseam." TuckerResearch (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

And, regardless, in sinceritate, the article should mention this (whether you call it research or "research") somewhere, even if in the "fringe" section, as it has now made the round in news stories around the globe. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sure you appreciate that we should not add every desperate attempt by Fanti as though it is reliable. Please see the actual scientific paper here [1]. Then, please read the summary of the problems with this paper at the end of the "2024 X-ray-scattering research" section above. Then please suggest how we should word this issue accurately, in a manner that ensures that the readers of the article get a proper appreciation of this latest fringe attempt to "prove" that the Shroud is 2000 years old. Wdford (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why this is proposed to be described as 2024 work when it was submitted for publication in 2022. It's just the same thing already discussed. In general, this stuff is dealt with at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, when rational sources deal with it. Has that even happened with this latest effort? Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the study is worth a mention. I believe it should be added so that people who come across the article can form their own conclusions. Allow a more neutral point of view to the study just saying the general claims of the study. As editors we should not allow our pre-conceived biases to overtake us. I am looking at you atheist editors trying to prevent the study from being on the page. Master106 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge, not just put (fringe) stuff on the table and walk away leaving people to decide. This is a weak primary source in a junk journal, and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS is the non-negotiable policy on how this kind of stuff must be dealt with. Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a fringe subject, this was a study. Master106 (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I want to add, Wikipedia is meant for people to form their own conclusions based on information provided in articles, not necessarily accepted knowledge. This is what Jimbo Wales intended when he founded the website and it is still a factor to this day. Master106 (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not deal in mere "information". It is a tertiary source summarizing accepted knowledge on topics (i.e. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC in nature). The idea that the Turin Shroud is anything other than from the Middle Ages is fringe. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between an Encyclopedia vs a Blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Anybody who wants to pile up information of dubious reliability and leave people to form their own conclusions, is free to start up a blog. There are many blogs out there already, but the internet always has room for one more. Wdford (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It is important for Wikipedia to get the facts down. If there is a prominent study, it deserves a mention. I am not suggesting to claim it is real or fake. I am suggesting to mention the study, ignore any pre-conceived biases because I think avoiding the study and not editing it in is not a neutral point of view. Master106 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We do not edit Wikipedia based on bias. To say "The idea that the Turin Shroud is anything other than from the Middle Ages is fringe" is inherently biased. Master106 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We edit Wikipedia based on reliable sources. The C14 dating methodology used on the shroud sample has been scrutinised by a number of C14 experts, and has been verified. The sampling used in the C14 dating has been scrutinised by a range of experts, and has been verified. The arguments against the C14 dating have all been debunked by experts, using actual shroud evidence. On the other hand, yet another team which includes Fanti, has invented yet another dating technology that nobody else has ever tested, and this new and untested dating method has (big surprise) found the shroud to be 2000 years old, provided that you assume a range of conditions which are themselves untested. When a completely untested methodology, examining a sample of unknown provenance, gives a different outcome to a well-tested methodology which examined an actual sample from the shroud under full scientific conditions, then the untested dating method is clearly unreliable, and the outcome thereof is fringe. It ain't rocket science. Wdford (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't you think if the shroud was actually from around 2000 years ago, would not it be found to be from 2000 years ago? Master106 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have another question, if the shroud was carbon dated again in the future and the shroud is found to be from 2000 years ago, would you be willing to put that on the Wikipedia page? Because for some reason, I presume you might call that fringe and be against putting the results on the Wikipedia page. Master106 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. To overturn how scientific understanding is reported, good ones are needed. Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not only carbon-dating. There are multiple lines of evidence showing it wasn't Jesus' burial shroud, or any real person's burial shroud. Some of those lines don't require much scientific learning, just a basic knowledge of geometry. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The C14 dating is the only scientific dating done so far, using a verified scientific process. Some other people have invented new tests, but these have not been verified as valid or accurate, so in a comparison which produces conflicting dates, the verified scientific process wins. If the shroud was carbon-dated again today, in a scientifically valid process using verified shroud samples etc, and it produced dates of 2000 years, then everyone would accept it. However people using unverified dating processes on crumbling fragments which might not even be genuine shroud material, cannot be taken seriously. PS: blood is easy to add afterwards - perhaps even long afterwards. Crusader knights had ready access to human blood. Wdford (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and if you want to get a sense of the geometrical problems, see Category:Map projections. They were projecting a spheroid unto an Euclidean plane. A shroud would to the opposite: project a body image upon a shroud which covers it closely. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would someone paint with blood? Master106 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a rhetorical question. We know that the shroud isn't genuine. The two sides of the dispute aren't equal. The Catholic Church does not declare it to be Jesus's burial shroud because it knows what happened in the Galileo affair. In the end, the evidence against geocentrism was too strong. The evidence against the shroud being genuine is too strong. It is simply considered a relic, not otherwise specified. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Medieval people knew what blood-soaked cloth looked like, and would spot the difference compared to red paint. If somebody wanted a blood-soaked relic, they knew they needed to smear it with actual blood. Of which they had no shortage in those days. Wdford (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

But your theory was that it was painted as an art piece and it was accidentally thought as a genuine relic. Master106 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't "know" the shroud is not genuine. There is evidence that supports it being genuine and then there is the unfounded carbon dating. Master106 (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The main point which should discourage the artwork/painted theory is that the image lays on the very top layer of the fabric, and does not even penetrate further than the uppermost surface of the threads. Paint soaks into fabric, as does blood. Nothing soaked into the shroud, not even a little ways in. It's a surface image in the most literal sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is exactly what happens every time one wraps a dead god in a cloth: it generates a surface image. EVERY TIME!

Can we please stop the WP:OR? We follow reliable sources, end of story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The science shows that the image is caused by uneven dehydration of the linen fibers. That is fact.

One theory is that a cloth was painted as a devotional artwork, using whatever paints were available in the day, and when the paint crumbled off (or was washed off or whatever) then they found the paint had accidentally generated a ghostly image on the cloth. Somebody saw an opportunity to make money, they daubed the shroud in strategic places with blood and got into the relic business.

Another theory is that they painted a glass panel, to be used as a stained-glass window (or similar), and laid it out on a long linen cloth to dry properly. The solar UV penetrated the clear glass and faded the fabric fibers (on the exposed upper surface only) but the UV was restricted by the painted areas of the glass to differing extents, and this resulted in a recognisable image being formed. When they removed the finished glass panel, they found the sun had accidentally generated a ghostly image on the cloth. Somebody saw an opportunity to make money, they daubed the shroud in strategic places with blood and got into the relic business.

Both theories use known scientific principles, both would work with the materials of the medieval period, and both could be done accidentally without need of advanced scientific knowledge at all. Neither of them requires a fluctuation in the laws of physics, and neither of them requires a divine miracle. Take your pick.

PS: There is ZERO scientific evidence that supports the shroud being genuine, and the carbon dating process is solidly founded in hard science using verified shroud samples. Wdford (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Lies. There is more than enough scientific and historical evidence that supports the shroud being genuine. The carbon dating is dubious and highly debated. Master106 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What you have to learn about Wikipedia: one's personal opinion amounts to nothing. The opinions of mainstream WP:RS are all that matter. Get the mainstream WP:RS to endorse your POV, and you will win the debates at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My POV is to be neutral. I think we should add information in a neutral manner. Mainstream WP:RS supports my POV. https://www.foxnews.com/world/researchers-make-new-finding-turin-shroud-many-believe-christs-burial-cloth-mysteries-god

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/jesus-christ-shroud-of-turin-b2601565.html Master106 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Fox is not a reliable source when it comes to science. It is rather the opposite of that. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be "neutral" in the sense of "some say this, some say that". That would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Also, Wikipedia is not a newsticker. See WP:NOT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Read down to the part where it says "There is a catch, however. Scientists say that the shroud can conclusively be said to be 20 centuries old only if there is further evidence showing the relic was kept safely at an average temperature of about 22C and relative humidity of around 55 per cent for 13 centuries before it emerged. A “more systematic” X-ray analysis of “more samples taken from the Turin Shroud fabric” may be required to confirm their conclusions, they caution."

In other words, they have not proved anything, they have merely speculated - and in a biased and unscientific fashion as well. In reality, their speculation needs to overcome the following problems:

1. They tested a "sample" which cannot be verified as being original shroud material. You will note that in their paper, and in all the clickbait articles about their paper, they nowhere mention how they got that sample to test. Actual shroud material is not available to every passing shroudie. Unless the sample is proven to be actual shroud material, they are already debunked.

2. They need to prove that their X-ray methodology is accurate and reliable. This means they need other scientists to double-check everything, and produce supportive conclusions. This is where Rogers failed with his vanillin tests as well.

3. They need to prove that the shroud was stored at an average temperature of about 22C and relative humidity of around 55 per cent for 13 centuries before it emerged. Since they have no idea where it was for these hypothetical extra centuries, this will be a big challenge.

4. They will need to prove how the repeated fires and washings and boilings affected the aging process, using original linen not modern linen. They have not attempted this yet.

5. Assuming they manage all of the above, they will need to prove how the C14 dating is wrong. It has already been proven that the C14 tests were NOT done on a repaired area. It has already been proven that the C14 tests were NOT affected by contamination, because the amount of contamination required to skew the dating would have been immense - greater than the amount of shroud linen, apparently. These samples were carefully cleaned first, by actual scientists. The theory about new carbon being baked in by some sci-fi process has been tested and shown to be impossible. The C14 dates are rock-solid, and only shroudies with a miracle-complex are still pretending otherwise.

When the shroudies have achieved all of the above, then mainstream science might take them seriously. Until then, they are merely fringe. Wdford (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 August 2024

Xray analyst proves that that shroud dates back 2000 years ago 2601:801:203:5DC0:78C4:D3EB:86C:F323 (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. See above. Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 X-ray-scattering research

This article (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1938523/archaeology-breakthrough-jesus-burial-cloth-real) in a British tabloid talks about a recent X-ray-scattering study by Liberato De Caro claiming to substantiate a Jesus-era dating and mentioning that scientist's argument against the accuracy of the radiocarbon date. I couldn't find a link to Liberato De Caro's study in the article. Still, older work by De Caro was problematic (Cf., e.g., https://cosmosmagazine.com/people/ethics/journal-paper-claiming-shroud-of-turin-shows-trauma-is-retracted-after-a-year/, https://www.crosswalk.com/headlines/contributors/milton-quintanilla/scientific-x-ray-technique-dates-shroud-of-turin-to-around-the-time-of-jesus-death-resurrection.html and other articles to be found in Internet searches), and this August 2024 article might be actually referring to the 2022 article. The only recent work I found was Fanti, Giulio. "Analysis of ancient fabrics, example of the Holy Shroud in Turin." WORLD SCIENTIFIC NEWS 189 (2024): 236-257, which references De Caro's 2022 paper. Kdammers (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article about the X-ray-scattering study by Liberato De Caro can be found here [2], and the actual 2022 scientific paper is here . We note that it was co-authored by Giulio Fanti, who has participated in a wide range of scientific papers involving new technologies which all “prove” that the Shroud is 2000 years old.

De Caro claims that his tests were done on a tiny fragment of thread about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. He claims that it was taken “in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample).” He does NOT explain how he got hold of such a sample. The provenance of his fragment is thus totally obscure and unverified – which totally defeats the drawing of scientific conclusions.

De Caro admits that heating the linen would accelerate the apparent aging process, and he admits that the shroud has been present in serious fires. He attempts to overcome this by giving a long rambling justification of how the shroud must surely have been kept in a cool environment in Europe. He also explains that he tested the impact of heat on the aging of linen by putting modern linen in an oven at a temperature of 200 °C for half an hour. It is known that on at least one occasion, the shroud was baked in a heat great enough to melt its silver container. Silver melts at 960 °C, not at 200 °C. It is not known for how long the shroud was baked on each occasion, but we know that this temperature of 200 °C is definitely not scientifically representative. The shroud is also known to have been vigorously washed and even boiled in the past, which might have made some difference, but this is also ignored by De Caro. He also makes no effort to investigate whether modern linen reacts the same to heat as ancient linen or medieval linen.

There are various concerns about using an untested “novel” technique which nobody else has ever used or tested, far less verified. The lack of verified provenance of the sample is a massive problem, which seriously undermines this “test”. The fact that the team never properly tested the impact of heat on the threads, again seriously undermines this “test”. The C14 dating still stands unchallenged.

Wdford (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm seeing coverage in places like Newsweek (link), which focuses on the caveats and still declares "While some studies have come to the conclusion that the artifact might be genuine, the scientific consensus leans toward the Shroud being a medieval artifact and a forgery." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been observed in cotton cellulose that after accelerated aging there was a catastrophic room temperature degradation of the cellulose. Granted this was paper rather than fabric but it shows that cellulose degradation is far from understood.

[3]https://www.academia.edu/106855330/Catastrophic_Room_Temperature_Degradation_of_Cotton_Cellulose

Because cellulose degrades slowly the formulas for calculating natural aging are tested against accelerated aging in ovens. This type of aging also means other types of aging that occur at lower temperatures outside of a lab oven such as UV, microbial/fungal, other contamination, acidity (which is a factor) and temperature and humidity fluctuation that expand and shrink the fibers are excluded entirely. Paull0304 (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

cellulose degradation is far from understood Possibly, but that new dating technique is far from established and probably never will be because in the one case where it has been used yet, it contradicts a well-established dating method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And also because, in the one case where it has been used so far, the so-called calibration was flawed, in that the accelerated aging effects of being baked at high temperatures in huge fires was not established - instead they took modern linen, and baked it at cake-heat in a cake-oven for half an hour. Some people will do whatever it takes to persuade the public that the shroud is a genuine relic. Three cheers for pseudoscience! Wdford (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes cellulose degradation is far from understood was a stretch. We know the mechanisms and some of the interactions.

I would consider the base formula used to be controlled aging rather than natural aging, so what we know being applied going forward in controlled conditions should be relatively accurate. I'm not convinced that you can apply it retroactively to an uncontrolled environment by assuming conditions to determine an age. Paull0304 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

An ANI post may not have been needed. Last month, Dr De Caro's study blew up all over social & mainstream media. There's ~ 2.4 billion Christian's out there. So unclear why the handful of IP's who recently arrived point to a WP:Meat issue?

Granted, among elite Christian's there's long been mainstream tendencies to downplay the possibility HS is a genuine relic. Back in May, with tech and science increasingly leading to a "spiritual supernova" of possibly harmful supernatural beliefs, even His Holy Father the Pope felt forced to take countervailing measures ( See Pope Francis cracks down on the supernatural or Vatican tightens rules on supernatural phenomena in crackdown on hoaxes ) As per the Holy Bible, "the righteous shall live by faith." But it's only a fraction of the 2.4 billion who see things that way. Many might find it non neutral to omit mention of De Caro.

Still, as the IP attention seem to be causing such concern that you ask for help from ANI, I'll try to suggest a compromise way to mention the De Caro study that may also satisfy skeptic concerns. It took some doing, but out of the thousands of WP:RS reporting on De Caro, I managed to find one that takes a fairly pro skeptic line. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

As you see from the video cited above, Gary Habermas does not believe that the image was produced by contact of the body with the shroud, but posits instead the implausible claim that it was produced by some kind of radiation. That would work if the shroud were a metallic plate which stood more or less in an Euclidean plane, but not with a shroud covering a corpse. So, he noticed that the explanation that it was a contact image is completely implausible, and posits another fanciful mechanism for producing it. So, belief in the genuineness of the shroud cornered him into another implausible explanation. Which would work if there was a miracle, but bodies covered by shrouds do not behave this way. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not possible to "downplay" that possibility because it is already all the way down. BTW, it is "Catholics", not "Christians". Only the silliest Catholics want to believe everything is a relic, starting from the two skulls John the Baptist supposedly left behind. It is pointless to discuss with such people; just delete their pious statements, they are useless for encyclopedic work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The Shroud of Christ: A pictorial look at its forensics and history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This got booted almost faster than a blink: click here

I find it interesting how much Wikipedia has changed in 10 years, when an almost identical version of this page was in the external links, and stayed there (in different forms) for over half a year, until the link became defunct.

From what I understand, exceptions for blog pages are possible, and I thought that this one would be appreciated, as it not only offers a concise but thorough look at the subject, but does so pictorially, as well.

I'm wondering if Wikipedia is using newer technology, allowing editors to stalk certain articles. Obviously, these changes, if they occur in less than one minute, are being made without giving the contribution any fair consideration. Quite a difference from 10 years ago! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:D40E:7267:23D0:E01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a WP:PROFRINGE page, and it does not belong here. If it was tolerated ten years ago, that was a mistake, and it is a good thing if Wikipedia has changed since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But these sentences, which cite to sources that DO NOT SUPPORT the text of the sentences, remain untouchable:

"Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself. Refuted theories include the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories and the carbon monoxide theory." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "DO NOT SUPPORT"? Did you read those sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Along those lines, there are MANY forensic experts and pathologists who have concluded that there was no way known to man that the image on the cloth, documented to be in three-dimensions, could have been created by any way known at the time to which the C14 testing dates the cloth.

A forensic expert would note that there was no way known to mankind at that time on how to create a 3-diminensional image of cloth.

Pathologists say that the accurate biology of the cloth [blood tested reflects that it came from one who was dying by asphyxiation] is astounding, because no one from that time was familiar with details of pathology.

In a room full of forensic experts and/or pathologists, you [as a devotee of the C14 testing] would be called a "fringe" theorist -- according to the [argumentative] way that term is being used within this article.

Genuine scientists don't dismiss the conclusion of another field of science as "fringe" simply because their own area of expertise indicates something different that other field of science. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. There are many crank shroudies publishing fringe nonsense about it. If you have a concrete proposal based on a reliable source, please make it. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnote 8 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish "scientific consensus" but contributing to the consensus that additional testing is needed (over which there is, in fact, incredible scientific consensus that SHOULD be mentioned in this article).

Footnote 9 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. He is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.

Footnote 10 is a citation to an out-of-date Random House encyclopedia. That's just incredibly poor scholarship. And how does this refute scholarly papers that came later.

Footnote 11 is a citation to an article published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later (Rogers paper) is intolerable.

Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. In that paper, Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

Footnote 13 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source to establish the claimed "scientific consensus."

I don't see how these two sentences can stand. They are not supported by legitimately cited sources. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Settled science is not "out of date". The book on this was closed long ago. All this stuff (including Ramsey) is covered in detail at Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

With these two sentences, this Wikipedia page is doing an excellent job executing its goal of not trying to be right. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Science separates empirical fact from ideological Truth. Prior to the scientific revolution it was held that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, because Aristotle's rhetoric was more powerful than those who advocated the opposite. Aristotelian Truth was replaced by scientific fact - and the scientific revolution was the replacement of rhetoric (Truth) with empirically testable evidence (fact, a term borrowed from law). The same happened with the evolution of life on earth. It had been thought for over a century that life evolved, but Darwin described a mechanism and also showed examples of how this could be seen in real time through selective breeding. Darwin's work was not new or monolithic, it was incremental. Like Einstein, he took concepts that a lot of people had suspected and were testing, and stated them in a clear and unforgettable way: random mutation fixed by non-random selection over extremely long periods of time. The first two were well known to exist and were used daily by farmers and breeders, accepting the last only required ignoring man-made religious doctrine on the age of the earth.

Nothing in biology makes the slightest sense unless viewed with an understanding of evolution. Nothing in cosmology, geology or physics makes the slightest sense if you're determined to believe the universe is thousands, rather than billions, of years old.

That's science for you. Your Truth is not in line with empirical fact. Wikipedia is a fact-based project.
— User:JzG

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you ever have a legitimate response to what I wrote, I'll reply. Thanks for the cut and paste. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion would be delete the two sentences, since the footnoted sources don't support the claims made in the sentences. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. The problem should be obvious: the article is claiming that the footnoted sources "refute" what are called "fringe" theories. First, the so-called "fringe theories" discussed are raised in many studies and papers that post-date the sources cited. It should be clear (for example) that a 2005 paper cannot "refute" a 2020 paper. Second, the labeling as "fringe" certain theories advanced by studies and articles published in highly respected academic and scientific journals, is argumentative. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Is it honestly your position that a general, prosaic consensus is always, by definition, the mainstream position, and that research whose claims will be found favorable by those who believe in the supernatural published by a minority of equally qualified researchers, in quality publications reviewed by a community of their peers - even a minority large enough to constitute a plurality - is permanently and by definition fringe?

That seems contrary to how the scientific community actually goes about eliminating those descriptions of reality that are false. I don't know how you can actually get to the reality of anything with that approach. 67.168.191.4 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You might find the work of Thomas Kuhn interesting, particularly The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Science does not work by treating every idea as worthy of investigation. We would never get anything done that way; there are too many bad ideas. Science progresses by establishing a paradigm, which determines which ideas should be explored and which should not. The paradigm is very much a matter of consensus among scientists.--Srleffler (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I saw concerning the book you recommend from a brief search on Google, I am not sure how this advances your position.

From what I can see, Kuhn's thesis is largely descriptive: Science progresses largely through the development, ossification, and eventual disruption of paradigms in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. And I am already aware that the pace of acceptance of the new paradigm in some measure set by the rate at which the major proponents of the older view exit the stage. Taken together, this is a description of the history of science as one largely full of wrong turns( a natural and inevitable part of it's development) held by their most ardent proponents long past their due date.

How does this show that a general consensus should be the end of the conversation for those outside the field? If anything, this should encourage us to examine the arguments for ourself, and form an independent view of who has the right and wrong of it. Consensus contrary to the available evidence have been held in the past, and can just as easily be held today. 2601:603:5380:5FE0:91D:B4A1:E84B:E59E (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

If the scientific consensus is wrong, then so is Wikipedia. It is a risk we have to take when building a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.

According to WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW is not our task to correct the scientific consensus. We cannot tell our readers the scientific consensus from 2124 because we don't know what that will be.

WP:OR is banned, so all we do here is WP:CITE WP:RS according to WP:VERECUNDIAM.

As hinted by multiple editors, there are multiple lines of evidence, which all tell it wasn't Jesus's shroud. Some of those lines are even accessible to an intelligent schoolchild. So, yes, if a 12 years old child can tell you why the shroud is bunk, then it is bunk. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes - purported issues with the shroud are easy enough to find, some even on sites apologetical in nature. The problem here is what we mean by 'bunk'.

To agree with your argument, I would have to hold that a) the positive claims concerning the shroud's age have each been conclusively rebutted; b) the claimed unique and compelling features of the image have each been sufficiently explained, to a degree that any remaining questions can be safely filed as mysteries with a smaller case 'w', rather than anything truly bizarre; c) that the arguments advanced by critics of the prosaic explanations offered for the shroud amount to no more than 'special pleading' to avoid a straightforward conclusion that 'falls out' of the data, and any further new developments claimed by advocates of the shroud's extraordinary nature can be safely filed as 'awaiting debunking', and that c) the above are the general consensus of experts in the relevant fields of research. Absent 'original research' comparing the one set of arguments against the other, what justification would I have for putting down the published research arguing against the authenticity and age of various features of the shroud in as 'valid, and strongly affirmed by expert consensus', and arguments rebutting that research in the catagory of 'fringe, highly speculative, and generally rejected by researchers'? After all, there is a plethora of research published by both sides of the argument, in journals of equal credibility, and both positions are likewise presented in secondary sources and publications. Absent original research comparing the two, the only relevant difference would seem to that one camp holds the shroud to be a genuine mystery, in ways that the faithful would find relevant in associating it with a miracle but in no wise demands it, and the other side denies that such mystery exists. Work by both camps seem to meet the criteria for a neutral inclusion in that article. There is no reason that the reader must come away believing that that matters such as the age of the shroud are firmly comprehensively settled, withing the community of researchers or otherwise. 2601:603:5380:5FE0:91D:B4A1:E84B:E59E (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There is NOT "a plethora of research published by both sides of the argument." There is a substantial amount of research published which proves that the shroud is medieval, at which point proper scientists move on to other projects. Then there is a huge amount of straw-clutching published by shroudies, including some people who publish the debunked stuff over and over, and including some other people who develop new test after new test which all "prove" that the shroud could be genuine, but their test methodologies are usually never verified by independent parties, and thus have no scientific value, or the samples they use cannot be proved to be genuine shroud material, in which case they again have no scientific value.

Every theory raised to disprove the C14 dating has been debunked - therefore the C14 dating stands. Every "test" which yields a different date to the C14 dating has been shown to be flawed - usually blatantly and obviously flawed - therefore the C14 dating stands.

Please list here every piece of evidence that purportedly "supports" a genuine relic, and I will give you a quick summary of why that evidence has failed. Wdford (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

See Category:Map projections. That is thoroughly documented, well-established science, which is even taught to schoolchildren. That's why children can see on themselves what is wrong with the shroud. There is no need that they read it upon a website, if they are intelligent they will understand it just by thinking about the famous "photo of Jesus" ventilated in the mass media. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that the C14 testing is accurate. That is just a misrepresentation. It has been years since any legitimate scientific journal has published an article defending the accuracy of the testing. I believe it has now been six consecutive articles, published in respected scientific journals, that have impeached the accuracy of the C14 testing. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I propose that we keep keeping the newsticker stuff out, just as the Wikipedia rules say. "Breaking news! Scientist found that scientists were were wrong!!" is on the first page, and "Turns out that scientist was wrong himself" is on the last page in small print. As usual, we wait until other, more credible scientists have confirmed what the guy says who has spent decades inventing one invalid dating method after the other to use on the Shroud, all of them "showing" that fundie Catholics this time did not fall for yet another obviously fake relic as they have done for centuries. Please read WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty common for advocates of pseudoscience to continue publishing ideas that have been refuted. It is entirely possible for a 2005 paper to refute a 2020 paper if the latter rehashes arguments that have been raised before. When the same ideas are recycled over and over it is not necessary to prove them false each time. It's sufficient to call them out as already dealt with and move on.--Srleffler (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The case made by 69.12.13.37 (hike) to delete the sentences seems strong based on their source analysis. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No matter how many times it is shown that those two sentences are not supported by the citations, the editors here will not remove or change it. There is an agenda here 69.12.13.37 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Shroud has been confirmed as around his real time. Wikipedia Page should be edited. https://www.newsweek.com/turin-shroud-study-claims-controversial-cloth-date-time-jesus-1942310 Aerist (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is just the usual "I invented a new dating method, its reliability has not been checked, but if I date this object I get the date I wanted it to have". Fanti does this regularly.

I moved your contribution down where it belongs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Scientific papers both for and against the Shroud should be presented fairly. Many years ago, it was estimated that the Shroud had already undergone some half-a-million research hours by experts. Whatever the exact figures are, it's definitely the most researched object in human history, with many specialists in numerous fields presenting cases for its authenticity. That's about as far from 'fringe' as you can get.

I personally set out to disprove the Shroud through an honest analysis of all available data. Whether I liked it or not, I was willing to admit that there is, without any doubt, an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor. I felt like I'd have to deceive myself to continue denying it, so I decided to let the guy live (besides, he seems to have humanity's best interests in mind, according to the New Testament).

This skeptic-frustrating piece of linen, it should be pointed out, is a world apart from Roman Catholic fakes (created to capitalize off of it), and it also has a proven history that far antiquates the existence of Roman Catholicism. Maybe it should be in a museum of human mysteries or something. Check out that blog, it really turns out to be well worth it: click here

By the way, if that main picture, the close-up, is in fact photo-shopped, shouldn't it be replaced with an accurate photo-negative? Otherwise, it should be described as 'artificially-enhanced'. But why have a false halo effect? The real photo-negative is impressive enough. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:1C38:461:747C:51E5 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion, say-so, or argumentation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And it just so happens that "reliable sources" on Wikipedia are those that perfectly align with what Wikipedia editors believe to be true. Amazing how that works. 98.128.158.210 (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true. There are also clueless Wikipedia editors who do not accept those sources. Can you please stop using this page as a forum? See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no science favouring the religious narrative. The shroud is a forgery. The "science" to the contrary consists of policy-based evidence making.

Plenty of religious people have no problem at all with this. It's only idolaters who do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Idolaters?..

So you think that everyone who finds the evidence compelling also automatically feels compelled to worship the Shroud? That's silly.

I suppose there are those prone to worship the Shroud.

In fact, in Bible times, King Hezekiah disposed of a genuine artefact of Moses for this reason (Nehushtan). However, not everyone who considers the Shroud's realness a possibility wants to bow down and worship it.

Also, to assume that all scientific research of the Shroud is policy-based is not accurate.

STURP, for instance, had agnostics and atheists on board.

The radio-carbon dating, by contrast, was extremely policy-based. They were absolutely intent on disproving the Shroud, and did so by testing a medieval repair piece that had been documented by STURP. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:840A:4A8A:2D9B:8F50 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The radio-carbon dating did NOT test a repaired piece - this has been proven by actual science. In fact one of the leading STURP scientists verified that himself, using the actual photos taken by STURP. If you continue to ignore the actual evidence, then you will continue to wallow in self-imposed ignorance and frustration. The way it actually works is that Wikipedia editors align with the "reliable sources". That is not "amazing", it is merely scientific. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the repair theory, to quote Jackson: "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." See here [4] You can get all this information at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, with minimal effort. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason the piece was removed was that it was given to the pope as a good luck charm.

There's a time-period painting showing the piece missing before it had been repaired. See the link provided at the top of this topic. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5CDE:A36:F6B2:CF36 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

At Video on YouTube Habermas (who is a believer) says:

• no other historical shroud of dead people has a body image on it (there are hundreds and hundreds of burial shrouds);
• the image is not a contact image (Habermas suspects it was due to radiation). tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image

Amongst the discussion of eras and studies, a bit of attention on the lead image. It is now digitally filtered and a bit refined, but not the original or later negative image straight from the camera. Quite a few editors have discussed replacing it with the true negative image, either from 1898 or later. Main article editors, any objections? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

What's a 'true negative image'? I'd expect anything photographic from 1898 to have very limited fidelity. Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is that, Bon courage? Black and white photography was very sophisticated by 1898, and the lens quality of high end cameras was outstanding. Cullen328 (talk)

Largely because of the generally-apparent limitations of old plate photography. However, reading up on it, I see the photographer for the first photograph (Secondo Pia) did use large plates and get floodlights lights set up, although this caused a glare problem since the shroud was under glass. I'd expect more recent analogue or digital photography to obtain a more 'true' result. Bon courage (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I imagine the OP is referring to the lead image which has a description indicating that the right-hand picture is from a digital filter applied by Dianelos. See c:Special:Contributions/Dianelos and c:Category:Shroud of Turin. Shroud of Turin mentions "negative" and includes an 1898 image. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The opening image is a two-panel, with the first photograph being unretouched and the second one retouched. That itself is confusing, as presenting the unretouched image implies that the second is as well. It is not. The image you linked is a portion of the original and historic 1898 negative photograph of a human head and face that caused much of the resulting brouhaha and is what the page is largely about. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed skeptic friendly update to resolve concerns re Dr De Caro's study, and for concordance with mainstream science

Hello all. For ease of discussion I made this demo edit to show changes that might resolve the neutrality and accuracy issues that have caused the recent concern.

I've read all discussions above and may have identified a slight oversight by the veteran editors on this page, which may explain recent contention. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but veteran editors here seem to believe the 1988 Nature finding , AKA Damon et al. (1989) is still considered valid. In fact, it's been undeniably discredited, at least from a mainstream science perspective. Granted, the maths behind this may be little challenging to follow if one lacks post grad training in stats. But it's can be easily demonstrated by a look at WP:BESTSOURCES. The article already has the two best recent sources: Casabianca 2019 & Walsh 2020 but doesn't do an especially good job of representing them accurately.

As you may know, refusal to release the raw data on which Damon et al. (1989) was based was always a red flag for the impartial mainstream scientist. The first few pages of Walsh 2020 reviews previous work casting doubt against the medieval dating. This started to get interesting after good Tristan Casabianca was baptised into faith in 2016. In 2017, he successfully used legal action to force British Museum to release the data. With help from accomplished statistics Professor Benedetto Torrisi & others, he published a paper showing why Damon et al. (1989) can no longer be considered reliable. All credit to Oxford University, despite hosting one of the labs responsible for the embarrassing Nature article, they agreed for Torrisi to publish the study in Archaeometry one of the most prestigious journals in the admittedly somewhat niche field of radiocarbon dating.

Turning back to the other quality recent source, the current version of our article suggests that Walsh 2020 concludes "the stated date range needs to be adjusted by up to 88 years in order to properly meet the requirement of "95% confidence"" This is an entirely false WP:OR reading of what the source actually says. Walsh 2020 could not be more clear that Damon et al. (1989) is too flawed to draw any meaningful conclusions. It states that Damons's procedure is inappropriate since it deliberately ignores the heterogeneous nature of the data uncovered by the analysis and introduces error into the statistical analysis. That We reject the Damon et al. (1989) approach as outlined above. And from its 'Summary and Conclusion' section: Our review and analysis of the Shroud radiocarbon data reveal a significant shortcoming in the original report by Damon et al. (1989). No one has made a serious attempt to counter the rebutals of Damon et al. (1989) as the mathematical case is undeniable.

Turning back to the hundreds of media reports inspired in August by good Dr De Caro , several of them note the fact that many of the > 170 peer reviewed studies released since Damon et al. (1989) have found HS to be genuine, or at least dating to 1st century AD, with some stating this interpretation is increasingly favoured. Of course, these sources were just newspapers, and editors here are free to ignore such sources when it comes to science. And if you don't agree with my WP:BESTSOURCES analyses, I guess it's fine to retain the current pro Damon version. At least until we have a meta analyses or similar review level source that says otherwise, published in a quality journal. Trying to be agreeable here as I'm appreciative of the work you guys do against fringe so don't want to demotivate skeptics by pushing the mainstream view too strongly. But of course I hope you'll find my contribution helpful and will chose to re-revert my revert back to this more accurate version of our HS article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, Habermas's conclusion is that it was due to a miracle. Since no way a vanilla shroud covering a vanilla corpse could produce "the photo of Jesus". He knows full well that's impossible, that's why he claims the shroud is evidence of a miracle. If there is a rule of mainstream science, that is 'there will be no miracles here'.

Stated otherwise, Habermas knows that the claim that the Shroud of Turin was produced by natural processes (i.e. not art) is untenable.

If you want to believe that the shroud was due to a miracle: it's a free country, but that is by default not a scientific claim. Science cannot do anything with such claim, it has no use for it. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. 20 year's back I'd have welcomed the opportunity to explore that line of thinking further, especially with a keen minded editor like your good self. WP:OR is expressively not forbidden on talk pages, and can sometimes be most valuable for thrashing out the best way to improve an article. But in this case, it's seems more productive to focus on what the best quality scientific sources have to say, rather than offer our own WP:OR opinions on the supernatural etc. Unless I'm missing something, good professor Habermass is not relevant to the WP:BESTSOURCES case for revising this article. I'm not planning to reply further to WP:OR type arguments. And as said, no worries if editors here want to disregard my analysis. As a PS , if you guys are wanting to have a less WP:RS focussed chat with an editor like myself, I'd recommend you consider voting support next time Sennalen appeals her indef. She has quite a liking for some of the editors here, is 30 years younger than me, much cuter and much more patient. PS - I do appreciate the gentle natured reply though tgeorgescu , and what seems to be consideration for my possible feelings as a believer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Habermas is not the only one positing radiation. Again: why do people posit radiation? Because they know that ordinary physical and chemical processes cannot deliver such image from a shrouded corpse.

And you don't have to know the laws of physics and chemistry in order to tell that for a fact. You just have to know geometry. Geometry does not have a "margin of error", or anything like that.

For those with knowledge of geometry, there are not that many options: either it is art, or the shroud was stretched upon a zinc plate when Jesus got radioactive. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The fun part of a discussion about the Shroud of Turin is that nobody knows how the thing exists or how or where it came from. It has not been duplicated, contains no evidence of being an artwork, and sits uncomfortably, since the 1898 photographic negative, in the middle of a historic whodunit (and whatisit). We cannot claim in Wikipedia's voice that a miracle or a radiation-sensation occurred, which is OR at its finest, but room for cited legitimate doubt about the certainty of dating the cloth deserves a well-written line or two. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Even Ken Ham does not fight against geometry. The only naturalistic explanation for the shroud is that it's art. So, the shroudies have to say it's a miracle because that's the only way of saying "not art". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not a painting, as the image only exists on the very top of the strands of the fabric, not possible with paint. The other artwork explanations have not been duplicated except in piecemeal fashion (which don't approximate the totality of the factors involved). Quite an interesting topic, and that such a mystery exists so deep into the 21st century tests the ingenuity of those who wish to create a reasonable facsimile. And since I'm commenting, I agree with those who say that the first image should be one of the negatives and not a retouched rendition. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

not possible with paint—then not possible with blood, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I know! What I don't know, nor does anyone else, is how this thing was made. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia just reflects the sources. See Shroud of Turin#Hypotheses on image origin. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Casabianca's "proof" is based purely on statistics. This is based on the fact that the dates from the three labs were slightly different - which Walsh et al admit could have been due to the different cleaning methodologies used. There were only three labs, so it is easily coincidental that the three dates were in an apparent gradient. In addition, as has been discussed many times before on this talk page, the Arizona sample was actually taken at both ends of the sampled strip, so there is actually no gradient in real life. Therefore, based on statistics, Casabianca's "gradient-based proof" is fictitious. Just more straw-clutching from a convert recently baptised into the faith. Sad. Wdford (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for engaging with the WP:RS! That's a valiant way to make your case, but I'd suggest it's more helpful to look as this way round:

• Damon's claim to "95% confidence" rests purely on statistics.
• Casabianca forced British Museum to release the raw data on which Damon et al. (1989) was based, exposing it to the public scrutiny of mainstream science.
• Casabianca and colleagues clearly demonstrated Damon's fallacious statistical bases.
• Given that Oxford University allowed Casabianca to publish in the prestigious Archaeometry , that Casabianca's been corroborated by others, and with no significant rebuttal after five years, Damon can no longer be considered reliable.

Just my take of course, if you guys still prefer to retain the existing heterodox treatment of Damon in the article, I guess we can leave it at that.

But how about a mention of Dr De Caro's study, now it's been covered by a skeptic friendly source ? I was thinking of something like: In August 2024, intense media attention was given to a 2022 study finding that the Shroud may date back to the time of Jesus. The study used the novel wide-angle X-ray scattering technique, and caution has been expressed about drawing conclusion on the Shrouds' true age, unless further research validates the results. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Damon et al based their results on an established radiocarbon dating process, which has stood the test of time, and which has been verified repeatedly by a range of C14 experts. No C14 expert has ever refuted the Damon result. Some stats boffins have argued that the dating range is too narrow and should be widened by a few years – see Walsh as already mentioned. Nothing about this is “fallacious”, other than your claim.

Casabianca’s methodology is fine, hence the publication. However his conclusions are unreliable, because he side-steps the FACT that the dating variations could easily be explained by the different cleaning protocols between the three labs – as per Walsh - and that this apparent “gradient” does not require some sci-fi anomaly explanation. Casabianca also leaves out the FACT that the Arizona samples were taken from both ends of the sample strip, which completely eliminates any theories about anomalous gradients. I see that you ignore these FACTS as well?

I am opposed to including any fringe clickbait in the article. However if it was perhaps to be included in the parallel article Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, then the wording would need to be a bit more neutral, such as perhaps this: “In August 2024, intense media attention was given to a 2022 dating study which was based on the untested and unverified wide-angle X-ray scattering technique. This study claimed, like so many others before it, that the Shroud may date back to the time of Jesus. The study has many flaws, including that the sample tested is not verified Shroud material, and thus any conclusions drawn from this about the Shrouds' true age are unreliable and speculative.”

How about that? Wdford (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd expect it might be a little challenging to find a WPL:RS to support that proposed wording. That said, I'm not concerned either way about edits to the Fringe article.

Going back to our main HS article, it may be helpful to clarify that it's a misreading of Walsh 2020 to imagine he's saying we could still have 95% confidence in Damon's 1260 — 1390 date range if only it was adjusted by 88 years. Walsh is saying that if the Zurich & Arizona results were adjusted up by ~ 88 years, then the heterogeneity issue would not have arisen. But they weren't, so even if Damon widened his range by 300 years either way, it would still have been fallacious to claim 95% confidence. Don't worry if this isn't easy to see - the phrase Lies, damned lies, and statistics hasn't resonated in mainstream conversation for over a hundred years for nothing. Even the very brightest can easily misinterpret stats if they lack proper training You could ask the good folks over at wiki project maths if you dont want to take my word for it.

Even better you could learn to be a stats boffin yourself! The extensive quality free training over at Khan's academy might be a place to start. After seeing tgeorgescu wax lyrical about Euclidian Geometary, I'm inspired to quote from Proclus's Commentary on Euclid's Elements : "When 'the eye of the soul' is blinded and corrupted by other concerns, mathematics alone can revive and awaken the soul again to the vision of being, can turn her from images to realities and from darkness to Light

At this point, I think I've stated the mainstream position on Damon's unreliability with perfect clarity. If y'all don't find it convincing, then so be it.I'm going to take my leave from further discussion. As a parting gift though, I'll concede you're essentially correct with your point about cleaning protocol. Walsh does indeed mention several hypothetical improvements for the 1988 work, which had they actually be done, might have afforded Damon's medieval dating hypothesis some validity.FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

IFLScience is not a "skeptic-friendly source". It's mainly clickbait.

It's also a mistake to both-sides this and denigrate as "skeptics" those who accept the prosaic explanation. Mediaeval forgeries are a thing, miracles aren't. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, you do not seem to be reading Walsh's paper correctly. I don't see anything in there that casts doubt on the medieval dating. I see a statistical indication that the dates might be off by something on the order of a century at most, and that's it. Walsh's analysis questions whether it was correct to combine the three lab's dates into a single mean, but it does not change the fact that each of the three labs found dates that fell solidly in the medieval era and precluded any possibility that the material that was tested was as old as 2000 years. Walsh's point that the heterogeneity should have been investigated does not really impact the overall conclusion that the shroud is medieval in origin.--Srleffler (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

To repeat.[5] Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

From the Casabianca paper - page 7 - "Each TS raw and published radiocarbon date indicates a medieval interval for the fabric."

From the Casabianca paper - final paragraph - "The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."

Casabianca has show considerable bias in his assumptions and conclusions. He doesn't bother to mention the differences in the cleaning methodologies, or the FACT that the "foreign material" was cleaned off the samples before they were dated, or the FACT that no C14 expert has ever contradicted the Damon results, etc etc. This paper passed peer review only because he made it clear that Damon's reliability is only being questioned for the size of the confidence interval.

Casabianca was clearly clutching at straws, attempting to keep the "debate" alive by twisting the facts. As Walsh recognized, the problem with the confidence interval can be fixed by expanding the confidence interval by just a few decades, and the "lack of heterogeneity" could easily be due to the differences in cleaning protocols. Nothing supernatural going on here, move along. Wdford (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is fair to say that Casabianca was biased or clutching at straws, but it is certainly true that many people who are not experienced in reading scientific and statistical papers misread his concern about the accuracy of the size of the interval as having invalidated the whole test. For anyone who doesn't yet get it: there is no conceivable statistical analysis of the data that is going to expand the interval from 1260–1390 AD to include dates as early as first-century AD. Casabianca and Walsh have made a reasonable argument that the interval might be a bit bigger than was quoted; maybe by as much as a hundred years. Walsh has made a reasonable case that the original team could have approached the statistical analysis differently. Neither paper throws any actual doubt on the conclusion that the Shroud is medieval in origin. --Srleffler (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point.

If we know one thing about True Believers, it's that every criticism of the reality-based explanation is unassailable and validates the entirety of their mad alternative. This applies to all True Believers, from homeopathists to moon hoaxers. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)