Talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criteria for inclusion

Unlike the main Shroud of Turin page, where all claims have to be backed up with reliable sources, this page should never contain any claim about the shroud. All; claims should be in the form "person X said Y". We are not trying to document whether the fringe theories are true or false, but rather we are trying to document that they exist, what they are, and whether anyone has responded to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Was a little curious about what you're going for here. I think what you meant to say (though I'm not certain) is that there's no point touching on mainstream theories about the Shroud here (such as extensive discussion of why it dates to the Middle Ages and not earlier) because that's the mainstream view, it has already been covered in detail in the main Shroud article, and since it's mainstream, by definition it's not fringe, therefore is not relevant to the article topic here.

That said, this article is not absolved from Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability or reliable sources, and so in that respect, it's no different than the Shroud article, or any article on Wikipedia. I agree with the part about not trying to document whether the theories are true or false, but that is also true of mainstream science articles as well; we don't try to document if those are true or false either, we just report on what the RSes say. As an encyclopedia, we are not in the business of determining truth. Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe"

@Guy Macon: Is the phrase "fringe theories" a term used regarding discussions about the Shroud of Turin? Perhaps an alternate title would be better. ApolloCarmb (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. "Controversy" isn't right because there is no real controversy -- just a few crackpots publishing pseudoscience on shroudie websites. "Conspiracy theories" isn't right -- few of the shroudies allege a conspiracy. Pseudoscience? Discredited theories? Alas, there isn't a commonly-used term like there is in the case of Homeopathy. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@ApolloCarmb and Guy Macon:What about "Alternative theories"? That still differentiates it from mainstream scientific opinion, but also allows differentiation among different theories that are/would live here, where some would rate being described as promoted by discredited serial fraudsters who end up arrested, like Kouznetsov, and others might perhaps not be pseudoscience but simply very unlikely and supported by very few. "Alternative" gives you a bigger bite than "Fringe" does, and doesn't have quite the pejorative sense of the latter. Was going to try to quote something pithy and brief here from WP:FRINGE, but I would've ended up quoting the whole article from the boxed material at the top, to the intro, right down to the end, so instead I've just linked it, and recommend a re-read. Lots of good info there. And don't hesitate to ask at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard about any questions that may arise or for additional eyeballs on the article if you think it will help. They may have good pointers even at this stage of how to organize or structure the article, or do's and don'ts. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe" is the term preferred by science. "Alternative" is the term preferred by the fringe: "alternative medicine", "alternative theories", "alternative facts" and so on are their euphemisms for the fact that science rejects what they say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would actually go even stronger than "fringe", and use the title "discredited theories" or "refuted theories" if I could. Wdford (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Posted a question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Advice about article naming needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think alternate is best. "Alternate theory/theories" is a phrase used by reliable sources. ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Improper use of Google. First, you need to use quotation marks properly. Your search showed every book that contains "alternate", plus every book that contains "theories", plus every book that contains "turin", etc.

Look carefully at the following results:

• https://www.google.ie/search?q=alternate+theories+about+the+shroud+of+turin&tbm=bks
• https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22alternate+theories+about+the+shroud+of+turin%22&tbm=bks
• https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22alternate+theories%22+%22shroud+of+turin%22&tbm=bks
• https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22fringe+theories%22+%22shroud+of+turin%22&tbm=bks

But more important are the actual search results. How many are about the shroud of turin? How many are religious books? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hob, Alternative facts is a pejorative; it's what detractors claim the "other guys" are doing; i.e., it's not "the real facts". I agree that "alternative medicine" no longer has the strongly pejorative sense it once had and the term has been reappropriated to a certain extent, but it does retain some of that stink, and the vast majority of people still interpret it as meaning, "not real medicine". No one gets an "alternative triple bypass" in an emergency. See for example, the defining first sentence at Alternative medicine.

I'm not opposed to retaining the word "Fringe" in the title if that's what the community wants, I just think that when speaking in Wikipedia's voice we need to maintain a strict attitude of neutrality. Fringe has to do with diverging widely from the accepted view, and being a minority view. It has zero to do with whether it's true or it seems a wild or crackpot idea, and we shouldn't get into that debate. If you had reported to the zoological society in London of seeing a giant, hairy, man-beast on your travels to Africa, you would've been laughed off, or locked up as insane, until someone brought a gorilla back to London. Ditto with just about every "truth" we know in science today. I believe that Kouznetsov is a crackpot, and Jones a bigger crackpot and so do you, I take it, but that's irrelevant; the only thing that matters, here, is what the sources say, and the article should reflect that, and the title chosen accordingly. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, "alternative facts" were an attempt to justify lies by picturing them as just another form of truth. Alternative medicine is pretty much the same: coined and used by its own practitioners (though it was not nearly as easily recognized as fake, since it has lots of followers). Both only become bad things when you look at what they are referring to. So, those are the very opposite of "pejorative": they are euphemisms.

Are we to conclude that you wanted to use the term "alternative theories" to make the shroudies look bad, because you see the term as a pejorative, like the two other "alternatives"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to use the term "alternative theories"; I responded to Guy's call for suggestions, and that one seemed like a possibility. If I think of more possibilities, I'll list them, too. I have no interest in making "shroudies" look bad, or look good. The only thing I care about is representing reliable sources correctly in the article(s), and applying them with due weight. If that ends up making "shroudies" look bad, too bad. If it makes "shroudies" look good; too bad; as long as it's good for the encyclopedia and its users.

What about you? Are we to conclude that you want to make shroudies look bad? Or good? Mathglot (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I want them to look like the reliable sources describe them. Your "are we to conclude" question is not justified. My "are we to conclude" question was directly connected to your earlier suggestion of the term and the way you read the other two "alternative" terms. But this is going on a tangent of a tangent of a tangent. Let's drop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Added strikeout type above to comments by ApolloCarmb (talk · contribs) identified as a sock and indeffed, here. Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Importing Material

On 29 April 2018, I imported large amounts of material from the article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, because it is particularly relevant here. This material can probably be deleted on that side in the near future, once this article is stable. Wdford (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

KGB hacking

This theory by a self-professed "Australian evangelical Christian in his 70s" has a single proponent, as this search will show. Stephen Jones's blog article entitled "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" is here". Not only doesn't Jones's theory rate its own article based on WP:NFRINGE, I don't think it even rates a mention at a collection of alternative theories, because its fringe level is zero. If this rates a mention, then that implies I can write some crackpot theory tomorrow on my blog, and have it shine on Wikipedia the following day. That's crazy. In my view, this theory by a single blogger is too isolated even for fringe notice. I've removed it.

P.S. If you want to see something funny, read Daniel Porter's Shroud of Turin Blog post about Jones's theory where Porter says, near the bottom: "Maybe Stephen’s conspiracy theory will get into Wikipedia." Uh, no. Even a fringe theory page needs some self-respect. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - this is not even a theory, it is total BS. It will need to rather go into the daughter article called Utter Crackpot BS blogs concerning the Turin Shroud. Wdford (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it really any crazier than the Kouznetsov claims? On the other hand, the fact that pretty much everyone ignored the KGB claim does seem like a good reason to exclude it -- unless at some time in the future the shroudie websites pick it up and give it more attention.

My theory? Space Squids. Faking the dates on relics is just the sort of thing that they like to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Blaming Russian hackers is very fashionable at present. They got the blame for Hillary Clinton being exposed as a liar and losing to DJT, for the Brits voting YES for Brexit, and now for the Shroud of Turin being exposed as a fake. Blame it on the Commies. :) Wdford (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It may not be crazier than Kouznetsov, but it depends on reliable sources, and it seems he's got a few of those, though I haven't evaluated the publications against lists of predatory journals. Remember, it's not about truth or wackiness-level, it's about having enough RS citations.

By the way, Wdford that was of course an excellent suggestion about the daughter article, and I've wasted no time to run out and create Draft:Utter Crackpot BS blogs concerning the Turin Shroud. Would really appreciate it if you and Guy could come help me out over there, because it's just a stub at this point. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get right on it. :) Wdford (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Kouznetsov

I can understand that one has decided to create an article to the fringe theories. Nevertheless I am a little bit surprised to find Kouznetsov mentioned among these theories, since he is really at the fringe of the fringe and, furthermore, apparently a real charlatan and fraudster. Just wondering whether it is justified to keep any reference to Kouznetsov in this article. --Lebob (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bien de vous voir ici encore.) That is a good question. I think that exclusion from an article can't be based on how unlikely or even preposterous the theory is (see Modern flat Earth societies), but rather only if there isn't sufficient signficiant coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources, taking into account due weight. The Moon hoax folks get tons of coverage, perhaps merely from bemused news sources, but whatever the reason, they do, so they rate an article. Kouznetsov is a recidivist fraudster, and the article should certainly say that if his theory is included. The due weight consideration is less of a factor here in an article that is about fringe theories than it would be at the main article. But I'm open to excluding him and his theories, if the consensus is that there isn't sufficient independent coverage of his ideas to justify it. I wonder what others think. Mathglot (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to be very liberal in our acceptance criteria. To the average reader, all of the fringe theories are new to them, because the shroudie websites that publish them are not well-read. But to the occasional reader who believes one of the fringe theories, not having it covered in the Wikipedia article about such theories would only encourage him to add it, and the addition would most likely violate NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, that makes sense; if it's going to be there, better that experienced editors deal with it properly. That doesn't mean that we can throw the kitchen sink in there—somewhere there's a line we can't cross—and maybe Jones (see above is over that line (recalling that "the line" is about due weight based on sourcing, and not about how accepted they are). Adding Lebob. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Footer sections

I've added three footer sections in the proper location, per MOS:FOOTERS. These are: See also, Further reading, and External links. There is no content yet, so I've tagged them with {{Empty section}}. Please help add content to these sections, to help flesh out the article. @Guy Macon, Wdford, Lebob, and Hob Gadling: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

For more on External links, see #External links section, below. Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories becoming mainstream

@Guy Macon: Regarding the statement: Most fringe theories are proven to be incorrect, but on rare occasions fringe theories become the mainstream view. The first part is certainly true. The second part, needs a comment about the word "rare", since it's a relative term. While it's true that the second part is also true strictly speaking, that's because paradigm shifts in science are relatively rare; but when they do happen, it's a revolution, and in the relatively infrequent context of one theory replacing another, it's very frequently a previously fringe theory that becomes the mainstream. Big rocks falling at the same speed as small ones, spherical Earth, the sun at the center, the stars not fixed on a sphere, Jupiter having moons, evolution, the universe bigger than just our galaxy, vacuum in space, curvature of space-time, K-T extinction, these were all fringe once. See Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So while "rare" isn't wrong in one way, it is in another. I'm not sure how to improve the wording, though, and maybe it doesn't matter for the purpose here. Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to not include this paragraph at all. Rather just blue-link something to the page wp:fringe. Wdford (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I could go either way on inclusion, but linking to a Wikipedia policy in an article isn't allowed, because Wikipedia is never a reliable source. What I was aiming for is to express the following two points: [1] "Fringe" is not the same as "wrong", and [2] but that's the way to bet, because most fringe theories are indeed wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But when we use the term "fringe" in a Wikipedia article, the word is used in the context of the Wikipedia definition thereof, and surely a wikipolicy is the most reliable source for explaining a wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that is isn't used in the context of the Wikipedia definition thereof. That would not be allowed either. It is the preferred term used by multiple sources.[1][2][3] No other term meets the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME as well as "fringe theories" does. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

They're not likely to be wrong because once they were fringe, they're likely to be wrong because once there were lots of theories, and only one can be right. But agree with Wdford, here that we don't realy need the paragraph, but also agree with Guy that we shouldn't link WP:FRINGE, although we could certainly link the article fringe theory or fringe science, and we don't have to explain further if we don't want to. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories are not normally wrong because they are fringe, fringe theories are normally fringe because they are wrong. There are of course many examples where a fringe theory is eventually proven to be correct, such as the historicity of Troy and the fact that the Plague is caused by micro-organisms not witchcraft. However this is invariably a case of ignorance or absence of facts, where proper investigation reveals the true facts eventually, and thereafter the truth stays fixed. In the case of the shroud, proper investigation has now revealed the true facts, and it is highly unlikely that further tests by Fanti etc will reveal a different reality. Any theory that continues to ignore actual scientific evidence is thus fringe.

I am happy to link to the article fringe theory, but preferably without having a paragraph explaining fringe science in detail. I note also that the article fringe theory has a header that reads: "For the Wikipedia guideline, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories". Can we perhaps do likewise? Wdford (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This feels like the angels dancing because we disagree on a point nobody cares about, but agree on the main points, which is that we don't need the paragraph, and can link the fringe article; maybe even the guideline from a hatnote, as you pointed out. I'd say, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to any of the above suggestions. Whoever feels like changing it should just go ahead and do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. I have lost count of the number of cranks and charlatans who have cited Kuhn as if ti validates fairy tales. Kuhn's point was that there are points during the development of natural philosophy and science where a concept can be articulated and studied for the first time. This does not apply to things which are already well understood. The shroud is well understood. It's a medieval fake. There is no mystery. This is not quantum mechanics or string theory. The scientific explanation is complete, coherent, internally and externally consistent, plausible and supported by the evidence. Some people don't like the reality-based view, and that is one place where philosophy can help. Read up on the development of the word fact, and the difference between objective truth and religious Truth. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. More precisely, the most consistent and most coherent scientific explanation is medieval pious fraud (which see). But leave Thomas Kuhn out of this, because there is no paradigmatic disconnect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

External links

Seems like if there's anyplace where the fringies get to have their blog or website listed, then it's in the external links section of an article dedicated to Fringe theories about something. So, I'm planning on adding links to the official websites of those fringe theories mentioned in the article (but not others). Also, it would, in fact, be convenient for someone wanting to research these fringe theories, to have them all listed in one place. OTOH, listing them on a Wikipedia page, will improve their page rank, which isn't my intention. Then again, anyone searching 'shroud of turin' already finds all of them, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Just thought I'd throw this out there, in case there were any strong objections to this. Also pinging the WP:FTN here, so they can chime in as well.

If you're coming here from WT:FTN or WT:EL, the yes/no question is:

Is the #External links section of this article an appropriate place to add links to the official websites of Fringe theory bloggers and other websites or sources that are discussed in this article about fringe shroud theories?

Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - support as nom. (Even though it contravenes what I said above (see this "P.S.") about it.)
• No - they do not merit inclusion standards, there is no gain in linking to them - if information from the sites is used in the article, then they should be linked through referencing standards (and there is hardly any reason to duplicate them). Any that were not used are arguably not 'notable' enough to be mentioned (as they apparently do not contain suitable information), and that may result in an undue list and/or a linkfarm. Where they could be listed is in a section in the document, properly listed (and there a link could be added to said website) but that needs a proper, independent reference as to why that website should be listed in that list (mere existence is NOT enough). (and I think that such a list could be informative). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - It's not unheard of, see for example Marlovian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Further_reading and Oxfordian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#External_links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral: I am good with whatever choice has the most support. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. After thinking about it, I find the arguments by JzG and Beetstra to be compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• No per Beetstra (talk · contribs) above. Looking over the article, I notice that we still have some shroud.com links on the article. Because they probably violate copyright and the site itself is deep fringe territory, these links need to go as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. If a fringe view is significant, we include it with references to reliable sources. If it's not, why would we promote links to advocates? EL sections are not a dumping ground for crap that would never make it into the article. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that seems to settle it, then. Thanks for all the feedback! Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

Have there been any fringe theories proposed that the shroud is approximately 1984 years old, and was subjected to radiation approximately 1984 years ago by a process not understood by modern science which would have changed its carbon-14 balance and otherwise altered its chemical and physical properties so that it now appears to be 840 years old? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See for example here [4] and here [5]. Jackson in particular is a reliable source on paper, but he does include in his "Final Remarks" section the following gem: "It is unclear how physics would have to be modified in order to accommodate the thesis presented here." That pretty much defines a fringe theory, doesn't it? Wdford (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said in the remarks closing the DRN, I would like to believe that the Shroud is genuine, and that inclines me toward going along with a Jackson-like explanation, but that still doesn't explain why the Shroud doesn't show up until about 1390. (As I noted in the closing comments, the burial place of Jesus has been known since ancient times. Discovering the burial cloth more than a thousand years later is weird.) Pious fraud does explain that, and we know that pious fraud was not uncommon in the Late Middle Ages. A few of the aspects, especially the negative nature of the image, are intriguing. There are two possible avenues to pursue. The first is that there was an unknown process 1984 years ago (and two billion of us do believe that there was an unknown process 1984 years ago) that created an image that managed to shift the apparent date of origin of the shroud to 1360 after the event. Interesting and complicated. The second is that the pious fraud happened to leave an interesting image. Take one or the other, knowing that you don't have to accept the Shroud to accept its Messiah. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb. 1:1) There is no problem when people believe things on faith, and Wikipedia reports those beliefs in an NPOV fashion. It is only when, as in this case, they start claiming that scientific evidence supports those beliefs while the real scientists say otherwise that we have a fringe/pseudoscience problem. It goes both ways; if someone claims that there is scientific evidence that no God exists, we also have a fringe/pseudoscience problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear emissions theory

Guy, this empty section with just a weblink about "Nuclear emissions theory" is something you started. There are a handful of things left to do before we can make this a mainspace article, and this is one of them. Do you want to expand that to a section, move it here to Talk for further discussion, remove it, or what? Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Do whatever you think best. I am dealing with some medical issues involving a family member and don't have a lot of free time at the moment. There are some fringe theorists who imagine some sort of nuclear emissions during the resurrection of Christ, and by an amazing coincidence these alleged nuclear emissions had the exact attributes to fool all of the scientists into thinking that the shroud was created in the middle ages. Sort of like wrapping up "it's magic!" with something that sounds like science. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The late Marvin Mueller wrote a good article in The Skeptical Inquirer, with sources, criticizing this nuclear emissions theory by pro-authenticity advocates. The Shroud Of Turin: A Critical Appraisal --Cesar Tort 06:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cesar Tort: thanks, can you add something about this to the draft? Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time. But the above link is fairly recent. I don't remember having seen before a PDF of any of the seminal Spring 1982 articles on The Skeptical Inquirer, a special issue on the Shroud, since I read the hard copy decades ago. --Cesar Tort 00:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Blanked the section, empty but for one source, in prep. for move of draft. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

DRN resolution link

Just for the record: This conversation at the Dispute resolution noticeboard was opened in March 2018, and closed in May. The gist of the result was that this draft article is being developed and "will be moved into article space when it is ready", that "anyone [who] thinks that fringe theories should be discussed in the main article, may use a Request for Comments" for that, and that "attempting to insert the theories into the main article may be considered disruptive editing and may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement". Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good decision, as this former featured article got corrupted precisely because Shroud buffs started to add, here and there, such fringe theories. --Cesar Tort 19:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Move this to article space now?

Looks good enough to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:, It still has many improvements that could be made, but then, so do most mainspace articles. Paging original author Guy Macon, and contributors Wdford and Graeme Bartlett. If there's no objection within a reasonable time (a week?) we should move it. I can move it without leaving a redirect, if desired; the draft has no mainspace in-links. Mathglot (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Adding Cesar Tort to ping list. Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good enough to move to main space to me. I don't see a good reason to leave a redirect. I can manually update the 8 pages that link here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I only did gnome work on this. But it looks suitable for mainspacing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)