Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

This article has heavy POV problems

This article appears to advocate HEAVILY for the shroud to be a middle age forgery. As an atheist, I recently watched BBC documentary on the subject, and was fascinated that what I thought was a forgery in fact has more to it and that it is being reconsidered, only to discover a completely one sided article.

The problems of the article are numerous: It just states that "all attempts to disprove C14 dating were discredited" without going into the controversy at all. It is a substantial story, with peer reviewed papers that were completely omitted (and relegated to another specific article). It mentions various possible mechanisms of picture production, without stating in the intro that none have been able to reproduce the image. It presents what are essentially answers to arguments of the side that argues for older date of the shroud - without presenting the arguments it counters. It strikes me as a surprisingly dishonest and one-sided article. This is not how you adhere to NPOV policy. There is a fragment of scientific community - that is not even fringe, many of them are Jewish, agnostics, the Catholic church has their own researchers who publish articles, that fact alone as well as their arguments should certainly be presented. If BBC documentary is making point about the controversy, if reconstructions are being made of the "mystery man" in 3D, if thousands of hours of research - there seems to be even whole department in Catholic church that studies this - are done, and nothing is even MENTIONED in the article, that strikes me as rather strange. Where is the part about 1978 research done by american team consisting of non-Christian scientists? This article is as POV as I have ever seen here.

I have just checked version from 2012, reading through past discussions, and it appears to be far more balanced. What happened to this article? It has apparently undergone some very unhealthy edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.111.189 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE, WP:SPOV and WP:PSCI. The people who believe the thing is real are a fringe subculture. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC documentary is not likely to promote fringe views. There is a number of such views by people who are most clearly NOT fringe - agnostics, etc. One of them even says that, before he would have considered himself a "flat earther" but, as he learned about the whole story he now considers the shroud to perhaps be related to the origin of the ressurection myth, via anismism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks5cnsyLLXQ

The people from the 1978 team were clearly not fringe. Their later research is not even mentioned (nor the 1978 mission at all, which included NASA equipment etc). Also, mainstream catholic shroud research is also not FRINGE - Catholic church has been extremely careful about the issue, has silently accepted the C14 results and Pope refers to it as an icon - not a relic - yet they do research and, while clearly willing to accept forgery as a possibility, are publishing papers on the matter. This needs to be mentioned. Even outlandish theories like radiation - that has, as theory, also been published, would not be fringe, results published in peer review papers are clearly relevant. In the paper mentioned about the "radiation theory" it is examined what happens under some assumptions - that are not in accordance to known physical laws - but then studies these conditions using laws of physics, while clearly stating that it is purely conjectural. These all fall well into scientific mainstream and legitimate considerations. Even skeptic videos I watched, trying to learn about this subject - are far, far more balanced than this article - They present the controversy and explain objections and alternative explanations to spectographic and other evidence presented about the patch. This article just states that "it has been rejected" without stating the truth - that the issue is in fact being debated in peer reviewed articles. In fact, I presume that this is the reason for a number of recent documentaries about the issue. An Italian documentary calls 1988 results "the biggest scientific fiasco". While this might be biased, it is clearly not a fringe view, if documentaries are made by mainstream media, if there are exibitions of 3D model of "mystery man" based on the image on the shroud are organized and covered by mainstream media, AP and the like. This is not a fringe view, but a legitimate historical research - BBC documentary, very recent, is about weather it is really a forgery. In it, you can see Dawkins attending some of these recent exibitions at Oxford. It could be a 5th century forgery - if not middle ages, mentiones the documentary at one point - and indeed, questions like weather images of Jesus with beard starting to appear in the 5th century were based on the shroud, or weather it was the other way around, weather it is authentic, middle ages forgery or perhaps 5th century forgery, are legitimate questions in archeology and history. So it - the question of forgery - is being reconsidered by mainstream, as evidenced by recent interest. NOTHING of that exist in the article, which is far far worse than some of the previos versions. There were some serious Original research etc errors made here - if someone wants to get an overview about what goes on with this subject, current arrticle does not give information about that at all. 109.121.111.189 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

" WP:FRINGE, WP:SPOV and WP:PSCI. "

The claim that views calling, in scientific journals, in published articles, C14 tests from 1988 - come under these policies, is simply wrong. There is nothing usscientific about the question weather test was done on the wrong sample, or about pointing out possibility that the shroud is not a middle ages forgery. Such possibilities, explored in scientific articles, fall completely within the mainstream science and archeology. The question here is not weather this shroud proves that Christ has ressurected - through some unnatural means etc - but a completely mundane one - weather it was indeed a forgery from 14th century, or it was perhaps traceable to earlier times - perhaps it was a 5th century forgery, perhaps it was authentic. The reason some - non Christian in fact - people think it is not a forgery have to do to several discrepancies, and those people who are or were in fact scientists, consider it a valid question to reconsider the idea that the forgery has been proven, given that it has been called in question (and that is why some of the research has been done, some of it failing to produce contamination, for instance, other calling in question the sample etc). There would be nothing unjusual or out of the ordinary if it turned out that this shroud was indeed present in the Byzantine empire - where some thing like that was displayed. This idea has nothing fringe about it. Even the idea that it is an original authentic shroud of Christ - and not an earlier forgery - has nothing fringe about it, it is a completely ordinary - if fascinating - possibility. Unscientific and extraordinary would be theories that this shows evidence of CHrist ressurection like radiation conjecture - but given the relevance for religious pepole, even such speculations (that have also been published) are worth at least mentioning, in a proper way. 109.121.111.189 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC documentary is not likely to promote fringe views. When I tell you that someone rolled five sixes in a row, will you also reject it because it is "not likely"? Unlikely things happen all the time. We follow the science. If the BBC doesn't, that is their problem, not ours.

One of them even says that, before he would have considered himself a "flat earther" but, as he learned about the whole story he now considers the shroud [..] So, you believe that somebody is "not fringe" because he used to be a flat-earther? Somebody who once believed in a flat earth is obviously not competent to evaluate scientific evidence.

After that howler, I stopped reading your wall of text. It is "not likely" that it contains anything worthwhile. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

And frankly, radiation conjecture was made up by someone who smoked too much pot. And no, the Bible does not claim anything about nuclear radiation, either. So, nuclear radiation is by and large not a theological claim pertaining to mainstream Christianity. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, stop placing a pov tag please IP, there is no consensus for it, and despite what you think, the article covers the subject well, according to policy as explained by Hob. -Roxy the dog 18:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

POV tag is overdue because of the issues I explained above. It has a sour aftertaste of heavy advocacy for side of forgery, completely against the NPOV policy. Article should present proper balance of what is going on. If the alternatives were so fringe as you think, BBC (and others) would not make documentaries like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs_kvVsoz80

The article goes contrary to trends of reexamining the issue of carbon dating - the patch shows as anomalous on UV picture taken in 1978 for instance, and there has been talk about redoing the tests with new samples from the shroud - in particular, catholic scholars have pointed out this need, as has been pointed in some recent peer reviewed papers again - not mentioned in the article. 109.121.111.189 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. - Roxy the dog 19:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If we were to stick with this logic, then the fact that the History Channel and Travel Channel exist would be ironclad proof of Bigfoot and "ancient aliens." Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not this sort of documentary. It has interviews with experts, all of them from relevant fields. You are simply wrong in assessing the possiblility - which is both explored in papers by scientists and by Catholic church scholars, they have department for shroud (they study that subject apparently have specialists), and given weight in the mainstream (which presents scientific research, not just speculation for entertainment) - that the shroud might not be a forgery as 1988 results indicate. That side of the story is suppressed, completely contrary to the NPOV policy. The possibility that a particular paper might be in err is not fringe - it happens. In archaeology, if radiocarbon dating contradicts all other evidence about an artifact - then it is routinely reconsidered and even rejected due to "unforeseen contamination". What would be suspicious is that you aim to prove them wrong just because you want to prove that shroud is real - but for instance, Catholic church has officially stated that this is NOT a question of faith, but a purely scientific question, yet their scholars want the result reexamined. The test for carbonmonoxide contamination - that failed to explain the discrepancy - was done BECAUSE there were other things about the shroud that pointed to the strong possibility it is not from middle ages. All of this falls well into the methodology of science - if there is a discrepancy, you explore further - redo the radiocarbon dating, consider possibility of contamination, explore that - some of which have been done, but have not been presented here at all. Also, you have in the article counterarguments to some of the arguments made by those who suspect more ancient origin of the shroud - without presenting the original arguments to which they are replies to. That just tastes like petty advocacy. This is not fair way to present a subject. Even when you write about UFO aliens, or flat earth theories - you aim to present the issue at hand fairly, and there are no scientific papers involved. Here you have a completely legitimate question - is it really a forgery or not - over which there is an ongoing scientific debate - in peer reviewed journals - yet the article presents it as it is some sort of "fringe". The previous stable versions did not read like such advocacy at all. This article is ridiculously one sided. 109.121.111.189 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Have a wonderful day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

.There is a phrase I have seen on the internetz and I never knew who it was for, until now, "Somebody is wrong on the internet." - Roxy the dog 19:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You replied to none of my concrete concerns. For instance, 1978 team of non-Christian US scientists, that first examined the shroud, is not discussed. It was present in the previous versions but somehow dissapeared. 109.121.111.189 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Despite the violations (IMHO) of WP:TPG, you have made your point more than a couple of times here. Consensus in favor of your desired content seems highly unlikely at this point, so I suggest that you drop the stick. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The 1970's STURP project is actually mentioned in detail in the article already.

The hypothetical "methods of manufacture" have also been discussed in the article already.

The radiocarbon dating has been thoroughly reviewed by multiple radiocarbon experts, and has been verified.

The scientists (and others) who have objected to the radiocarbon dating results, are not radiocarbon experts.

The various "theories" about alternative dating are not scientifically valid, and have been scientifically refuted.

The "evidence" leaning toward an earlier date, is not substantive and has all been refuted.

BBC documentaries are made for entertainment and to attract viewership, they are not reliable scientific sources.

Please read the archived talk pages, which have dealt with this issue many many times before. Wdford (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the Shroud of Turin, we've a problem in that there's a huge divergence between scholarly opinion and the coverage that it receives in the popular press (including outlets that one might normally regard as reliable, such as National Geographic and the BBC). This is because there's a small group of enthusiasts of the Shroud (a few of them with academic credentials, but none of them really notable outside of "Shroud studies") who can get the ear of journalists. Meanwhile, most serious researchers in relevant fields are unlikely to spend much of their time countering the Shroud enthusiasts in the press.

Even though I've long accepted that the combination of the historical and the radiocarbon evidence establish conclusively that the Shroud is a 14th-century artifact, until recently I was under the impression that we didn't know how it was made. After watching this 2014 lecture by chemist Joel Bernstein (now deceased), I realized that this is absolutely not the case. Walter McCrone, the "father of modern microscopy" and, in his day, the leading expert in the scientific study and authentication of historical documents and works of art, clearly established in 1980 that the Shroud was painted with dilute red ochre pigment in a gelatin tempera medium, with the "bloodstains" painted over in bright red vermilion. There's absolutely no reason to doubt McCrone's conclusions, except that the Shroud enthusiasts (who dominated the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) to which the Catholic Church granted access to the Shroud in the late 1970s) took back all of the samples that McCrone had analyzed (to prevent him or anyone else from continuing their analyses outside of the STURP's control) and then conducted a campaign of vilification against McCrone in the popular press. But the American Chemical Society gave McCrone the 2000 National Award in Analytical Chemistry precisely for that research on the Shroud and his results are straightforwardly cited as fact, e.g., in the Forensic Chemistry Handbook (Wiley, 2011), pp. 213-14.- Eb.hoop2 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

these were other members of STURP

these were other members of STURP, the sentence was fine and accurate as is STURP is a fringe organization that promotes the pseudoscientific idea that the Shroud is not a fake. When McCrone left, it became an opinion monolith. When they contradict the mainstream, their claims should be characterized as claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hob Gadling. Please read the STURP page, Shroud of Turin Research Project. It is not listed or categorized as a fringe organization or grouping. Please read the professional and affiliated credentials of its members. Where are you getting your characterization of this reputable research organization? It may be just a personal opinion and you don't realize that it's not a fringe group. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL! Since when do credentials get you out of fringe? There are several Nobelists who promote fringe views.

Wikis are not reliable sources. It does not matter what the Shroud of Turin Research Project page says. But if it does, then Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin will show you that STURP members are the main source of fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. It seems that the Shroud of Turin Research Project page is in dire need of NPOVing.

Who says they are reputable? They regularly contradict the scientific consensus with ridiculous excuses, for example by postulating that a fire in 1532 changed the radiocarbon date of the Shroud from 2000 years to 600 years. One would have to be innumerate to believe that, because it would imply that the fire replaced about two thirds of the material of the Shroud. They invent new untested dating methods, such as the vanillin test, which are designed to give the desired result when testing the Shroud. And so on. They need to make at least one rookie mistake per paper to uphold their religious belief that the Shroud is not a fake. They are the Catholic variant of Young-Earth Creationists: religiously moivated pseudoscientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon a close reading I can find nothing on the page which would be worthy of a NPOV tag or edit except the Joe Nickell statement, which may be inaccurate and I've opened up a talk page section on it. I appreciate your lol (like myself, I only write that when I actually am laughing out loud and since you uppercased it I assume you did) but please be aware that STURP is not a fringe group. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware, RK, that STURP is a fringe group. Along with the points made above, the group's own Mission Statement defines it as fringe: "We think that the current complex of historic, forensic and scientific knowledge about the Shroud justifies the rational judgment that the Shroud once wrapped the body of Jesus of Nazareth in the tomb." There's nothing inherently wrong with being a fringe group, of course, and many fringe groups are sufficiently notable to merit pages on Wikipedia. Concerning the Shroud of Turin, however, Wikipedia can not consider STURP a reliable source of WP:FRIND material. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, your link to the mission statement isn't working, at least on my clicking. STURP is not fringe, it is a scientific group which conducted their main research in the 1970s and issued a report in 1981. I see no reason to not use their findings as a reliable source, although one of many. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the link doesn't work - I assume I did something wrong. Here is the full link: https://www.shroudofturin.com/missionstatement.html. I believe that statement is sufficient reason to not use STURP findings/writings/statements/etc. as a reliable source. You clearly disagree. I will now try to follow the excellent advice of WP:COAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats not really how it works... You need to provide reasons the source is reliable if you want to use it, you can't just make a vague hand wave that you don't see anything obviously wrong with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The individual members of STURP were all leading scientists in their various fields. Their credentials were impeccable. No problem there at all. However the "fringe" issue comes from their conclusion that the shroud was the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.

It should be noted that the STURP analysis took place before the C14 testing revealed the true age of the cloth.

It should also be noted that some STURP members disagreed with other STURP members on certain critical issues. For example, Rogers believed that the C14 tests were done on material added in a medieval repair, whereas Jackson proved beyond doubt using actual STURP photographs that there was never any repair done in the sampled area. Jackson in turn espoused a nuclear radiation theory, whereas Rogers (among others) proved that this theory defies the known laws of physics. And so on.

The C14 tests prove that the cloth is not old enough to have been touched by Jesus. No C14 expert has ever contradicted that, although various non-experts have offered hypotheses to "explain away" this inconvenient truth. All such hypotheses have been utterly refuted, therefore continuing to push those hypotheses is "fringe" by Wikipedia standards.

I cannot name names, but it is my understanding that not all members of STURP continue to cling to the original "shroud is authentic" conclusion, and that some of them accepted the C14 dates from the beginning.

Wdford (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

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.

---

It seems to me that the neutrality issue has been dealt with convincingly. Shroud believers will continue to clutch at their straws, however brittle and tenuous, but science is still science. Can we remove this POV neutrality tag? Wdford (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem doing that for me, but perhaps this discussion should have gone in the first topic on this page. - Roxy the dog 13:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I support removal of the tag. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

“Oh yes, we the greatest reddit intellects on thee Globe declare that thee is bad”

I’m not saying the NPOV tag should be up nor removed, but literally three editors isn’t enough for a consensus with an article as controversial as this. Wolfquack (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Make it four. I agree with removing the tag.--Srleffler (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Srleffler I do too, I just thought that three editors weren’t enough for a consensus. Wolfquack (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Srleffler Now thinking about, why on earth was there a consensus in the first place? It’s a stupid tag all you need to do is be BOLD and take it down. Wolfquack (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"I am against it" is not enough. You need to give actual reasons. A tag is not supposed to be a permanent mark, but a pointer to a discussion on the Talk page. Discussion means that you have more than yes or no; see WP:!VOTE. THe matter has been discussed above and in the archives, and the people who think the article is not neutral have not given good reasons. The scientific consensus is that the evidence for the shroud-is-fake position is overwhelming, and that all the shroud-is-real people have is lame excuses for not accepting that evidence, such as:

• The radiocarbon date is wrong because... um... there was.. one moment... I got it, there was a fire! The fire introduced a tiny amount of new carbon, and that changed the radiocarbon age from the actual 2000 years to 600 years, a feat which can be accomplished simply by the fire replacing only about two thirds of the organic material.
• I found out about some long-known small inaccuracy in carbon tests in general. Never mind that correcting it changes the result only by two years.
• I have invented a new dating method which has never been calibrated, tested, or used on any sample other than the Shroud, and which gives an age of 2000 years for the Shroud.
• I saw something in my microscope that nobody else can reproduce.

And so on. Those excuses are motivated by a need to believe, not by attempting to find out what is true.

Just check the sources. Joe Nickell's book "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin", though over 20 years old, still summarizes the evidence well. The shroudies invent new excuses or variants of old excuses every few years, but they are as bad as before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You missed a couple of other shroudie favourites, such as:

• Hey, guess what, if we ignore the fact that the Arizona sample was drawn from both ends of the tested strip of material, and by also ignoring the known fact that different labs used different cleaning techniques, and by assuming various positions for the different samples we can then pretend that there is a gradient in ages across the length of the strip, and then we can sort-of conclude that there is GASP – AN APPARENT ANOMALY in the carbon dating, which we can then use to claim that the C14 tests can be safely ignored in favour of tenuous links to other relics that GASP – TOTALLY PROVE the shroud is REALLY REAL! OMG!

• We can take crumbling fragments of fibres that were hoovered off the backing cloth of the shroud, and assume with no evidence that they are valid shroud fibres, and then stretch these crumbling fragments of fibres until they snap, and then compare the tensile strength of these crumbled-off fragments against the tensile strength of modern linen fibres which we baked in an oven for arbitrary amounts of time at arbitrary temperatures, and then we can add a 500 year "margin for error", and then we can OMG OMG the dates TOTALLY SUPPORT our hypotheses – OH GASP OH GASP the shroud is REALLY REAL! OMG!

• We can take a black-and-white photo of the shroud, and process it using a machine which was specifically developed at US taxpayers' expense to create a 3D image out of a black-and-white photo, and then with a lot of manipulating and "correcting", we see that the 3D image-producing machine has produced a 3D image out of a black-and-white photo - OH GASP OH GASP the shroud is REALLY REAL! OMG!

• We can take certified STURP samples of linen fibres, and compare them against bits of something that we received in the mail after they had been mailed around the world repeatedly starting from a clergyman who was not authorised to possess real shroud material, and when we see a difference between real certified shroud fibres and these totally unprovenanced fibres then we can conclude that the C14 samples were taken from medieval repair material, even though the very same STURP investigation produced conclusive photographic evidence that there was no repair in that particular corner, and then we can blindly conclude that OH GASP OH GASP the shroud is REALLY REAL! OMG!

Etc. Etc. Etc. Wdford (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Wdford Bruh I was against the tag. I agree it didn’t need to be up. The NPOV was already steady. I just had a problem that there was even a consensus in the first place. WP:BOLD exists for a reason you know. Wolfquack (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling I’m not even a “shroudie”, I was even for removing the tag. The problem I had was that there was only three editors that were establishing a consensus. There needs to be at least four or five in my my book. How about you stop name-calling and putting words in others mouths for once. Wolfquack (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be at least four... Including the OP, there were four (later five) editors supporting the tag's removal. Perhaps it's time to move on. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax WTF was I supposed to “move on” from? Listen I’m not a “shroudie”. I was fine with the tag being taken down for goodness sake. Like I said this “consensus” wasn’t needed. WP:BOLD exists, you don’t have to reach an agreement to take down a tag. It’s as easy as going to the main page and deleting it. You can add a tally mark to your “arguments won” wall all you want. I still stand that the consensus was unnecessary. Wolfquack (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax Also BTW maybe edit “later five” to “later six”, if your including me. I like how you guys always assume that if someone complains they are automatically a pseudoscientest. It’s very close minded if you ask me. Wolfquack (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wolfquack, it is time for you to move on from this topic so that your assumptions of bad faith (e.g., I like how you guys always assume that if someone complains they are automatically a pseudoscientest; How about you stop name-calling and putting words in others mouths for once; You can add a tally mark to your “arguments won” wall all you want; “Oh yes, we the greatest reddit intellects on thee Globe declare that thee is bad” can stop. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax I see, thanks for the advice JoJo. I did get a complaint once for assuming bad faith on this IP (which I thought was a troll) so I completely understand. Thanks and keep safe. Cheers Wolfquack (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Update- modern research missed in this wikipedia page: 1. One of the most important studies was commissioned to the well-known anti-clerical Yves Delage. 1902 - After detailed research he said: "... the anatomical details of the figures and the traces of wounds on the canvas are too precise from the medical point of view to be the work of a painter"

1939- the first syndological scientific conference was held in Turin. It featured professors of medicine Ruggero Romanese and Giovanni Judica Corfiglia, who stated that: - on the shroud there is a reflection of a man killed as a result of cruel torment, - they ruled out the possibility of making the image by a medieval painter.

French prof. Pierre Barbet proved that the canvas reflects all anatomical and physiological features of a dying man that were unknown to people in the past centuries. He also found that Jesus was nailed to the beam with his wrists, not his hands, contrary to popular belief.

1988 - Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero agreed to the excision of an 8 cm square sample by Giovanni Riggi. It was then divided into three fragments provided to research teams from Zurich, Oxford, and the University of Arizona at Tucson. Before the test, each of the teams cleaned the samples from contamination in their own way. Using the carbon C14 dating method, the date of the formation of the shroud was determined as 1260-1390 AD. Neither team contacted the other before presenting the results.

The main doubt about this study is the omission of the fact that the Shroud was touched many times by its watchmen and pilgrims, and was exposed to two documented fires, which allowed the amount of carbon isotope to be increased (from a relative amount of the C14 isotope of approx. 78.5% to 90%). especially at the edges (most touched and most damaged by fire) where the samples were taken.

Critics of the 1988 study claim that the sample taken by Giovanni Riggi contained 13th and 14th century fibers woven during repair. Dr. Orazio Petrosillo and his experts found in 2002 that the fabric of the Shroud of Turin consists of 40% of first-century fibers. In 2008, two works - by Benford and Marino and by Robert Villarreal - also challenged the 1988 study. However, the team of Dr. John Jackson in the same year rejected the possibility of examining the sewn patch, not the actual piece of the shroud. However, there is a high probability that the interwoven threads in the original shroud were not noticed, noting only the sewn patches (we will come back to this later).

21st century - a new study was performed - dating based on infrared spectrometry, Raman spectrography and mechanical analysis. Chemistry professor Giulio Fanti (who previously analyzed the mechanical properties of space fibers for NASA) conducted research at the Max Planck Institute. In 2011, the University of Padua granted him funding for research on the Shroud. Three different dating methods were used:

- FTIR infrared spectrometry - showed that the object dates back to 300 BC. (with a deviation up to 400 years) - Raman spectrography - showed that the object dates back to 200 BCE. (with a deviation up to 500 years) - mechanical analysis - showed that the object comes from 400 AD (with a deviation up to 400 years)

In his 2013 book, Il mistero della Sindone. Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull'enigma del telo di Gesù ”and the scientific journal“ Vibrational Spectroscopy ”Giulio Fanti announced the results of the research. Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia questioned the authenticity of the samples used in the study, but the entire process of obtaining samples is documented in paper and electronic correspondence, and the 3M Foundation supervised everything.

2. Plant pollen

The Swiss biologist and criminologist Max Frei-Sulzer studied the Shroud of Turin in 1973 and 1978. He managed to identify 58 different species of plants that remained on the shroud. 17 of them come from Europe, 41 are typical of the flora of Asia and Africa. However, there is only one geographic area where 38 of the 41 pollen mentioned above can be found, and that is ... Judea.

These studies were confirmed by an Israeli botanist who was recognized as the world's best expert on Palestinian flora. In addition, he stated that some of the pollen (e.g. the purge of the Cretan bush parolis) found in the shroud only occurs in Judea and blooms only in spring. In turn, the American Alan Whanger found the concentration of the pollen of the thorn bush around the head on the shroud. Research from 2015 confirms the previous findings.

Prof. dr hab. Grzegorz Karwasz (a physicist from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń) said: "Why can't it be a fake? Pollen from many plants was found in the shroud, incl. from Western Europe, as it was exhibited in France and Italy, from the Middle East, where it was exhibited possibly in Mesopotamia, Edessa, and Constantinople, but also found 46 pollen plants that bloom only around Jerusalem and only in spring. It was not possible to forge this evidence. Nobody in the Middle Ages would even think of it "

3. Weaving technique

In 2002, the German conservator Mechthild Flury-Lemberg expressed the opinion that the weave of the fabric was identical to that used in burial shrouds found in Jewish graves in Masada from 40 BCE. - 73 AD.

In 2005, Raymond Rogers, head of the Los Alamos research team in 1978, included in the journal "Thermochimica Acta" the results of the research showing that during the shroud repairs, fibers resembling the rest were woven with a dye from madder root. His research also showed that the sample to be dated in 1988 contained as much as 37% vanillin, while the vanillin on the main surface of the shroud had completely broken down (same as the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls). On this basis, he estimated the age of the oldest fragments of the canvas in the range of 1000 BCE. - 700 AD. This is confirmed by Marino and Benford's postulate that in 1988 the original fragment of the shroud cloth was not dated.

4. Painting technique research

Walter McCrone challenged the research in 1979. He claimed there were inorganic dyes on the shroud, but Mark Anderson objected, saying that it was organic. In addition, the blue ultramarine blue found by McCrone should turn part of the shroud blue, but there is no such color on it. And Heller stated, "From the whole shroud we would not collect enough red ocher or vermillion for one drop of blood, much less all the blood on it.." It is worth adding that vermilion darkens with time, and the traces of blood on the shroud are still red.

In December 2011, Italian scientists from ENEA, after five years of research, found that the depth of staining is approximately 200 nanometers. Techniques from before the 21st century do not allow dyeing to such a small depth. According to the above-mentioned scientists today such an effect can only be achieved with an ultraviolet laser with a power of 34 billion watts. During the tests, it was found that there was no image under the bloodstains, that is, blood traces had been applied to the cloth before the image was obtained. Marion and Courage commented on this by saying, "There is no doubt that the imprint marks come from more or less close contact of the fabric with the actual bleeding corpse of a shrouded man."

In 2004, the aforementioned Giulio Fanti found, on the opposite side of the canvas, an image invisible to the human eye. Prof. Zbigniew Treppaz of the Department of Image Anthropology of the University of Gdańsk commented on it this way: “In 2004 Giulio Fanti found an image similar to the painting on the opposite side of the canvases - with much weaker characteristics, so we cannot see it. It is not possible to use manual actions here. Besides, even today, if we want to reproduce the body on canvas, using the painting technique, we are not able to avoid making any anatomical mistakes. Medical pathologists point out that the Shroud has a picture of someone who was executed in the way the Gospels describe it. "

5. Blood test

Doctor Pierreluigi Baima Bollone in 1981-1982 identified the blood type on the shroud as AB. This group is present in only 4% - 5% of humanity, but among Jews it is already 18%. The hypothesis that old blood takes on the characteristics of AB blood has been refuted.

6. Coins

Two Italian scientists independently noticed in the spring of 1979 traces of two small coins, 15 mm in diameter, in the eye sockets of the Shroud Man. Soon after, the Jesuit Francis L. Filas (professor of theology from Chicago) identified both discs - they were two bronze coins, dating from the sixteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, i.e. from 29-30 AD.

7. Writing

In 1979, Greek and Latin letters were discovered around the face of the Shroud Man. In 1997, they were examined in detail by the professor of the Institute of Optics in Orsay - Andre Marion. Using computer analysis, the following inscriptions were recognized:

- INNECEM ("in necem ibis" - to death)

- NNAZAPE (N) NUS (Nazarene) - IHSOY (Jesus) - IC (Iesus Chrestus) - IBE (R) (possibly "Tiberius") - PEZO ("I certify") - (O) PSE KIA (THO) (taken out in the early evening)

Medievalist Barbara Frale concluded that it was a reflection of the death certificate of Jesus. Most likely it read as follows: "In the 16th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, Jesus of Nazareth, removed in the early evening after he was sentenced to death by a Roman judge because the Jewish authorities found him guilty, is sent for burial, with the proviso that he may not be released to his family until after a full year. Signed by ... ”. With the right techniques, you can actually read the entire sentence, but critics say that these are just unsubstantiated words.8. Similarities

The Shroud of Turin provides an accurate biblical description of Christ's wounds. The wounds that are on most of the body are characteristic of those inflicted by the flagrum romanum - a whip which, according to the Gospels and testimonies from that period, was used to scourge Jesus and others sentenced to flogging.

In the Middle Ages, it was widely believed that Jesus was nailed to the cross by his hands, but the shroud had traces on the wrists, which is consistent with history and the laws of physics, because pierced hands would not be able to support the weight of the body. This mistake is often repeated even nowadays.

The trace of a spear piercing (according to the Bible by Centurion Longin) is also consistent, because the wound is on the right side. The soldiers held a shield in their left hand, so their spear pierced the opponent's heart through the right, exposed side

However, the most puzzling thing is the resemblance of the Shroud of Turin to the Shroud of Manoppello (a fabric containing an image of a living man's face, considered to be the headscarf put on the face of Jesus) and the Oviedo Headscarf (believed to be the headscarf that wrapped the face of the deceased Jesus) . All traces of blood and wounds coincide perfectly.

9. Giotto di Bondone

In 2011, Luciano Buso, an Italian painter and expert in the field of art conservation, published a book in which he claimed that the author of the Shroud of Turin was Giotto di Bondone, a medieval Italian painter and architect. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists rejected this possibility, as Giotto would need to know more than the best historians and researchers of his time (and there is no indication of such a possibility).

In addition, his art depicted Jesus in a way not known from icons from before the 13th century (i.e., as in the Greek canon, in which the face of Christ from the Shroud of Turin and the Shroud of Manoppello are similar to the faces of the icons), and in his paintings Jesus has his hands pierced, and not the wrists, which showed his ignorance. It would also be strange to create such an elaborate fake relic in the 13th century - many simpler relics attracted crowds of pilgrims. The creator (or creators) could create much more convincing counterfeits for the society of the time. The uniqueness of this canvas was not really appreciated until the 20th century, when technology was used for its research that no one envisioned in medieval Europe. Also why should it create such a precise counterfeit (with an accuracy of half a millimeter), if no one at that time would have noticed such detail. There was also a hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin was the work of Leonardo da Vinci, but it was overturned, especially knowing the fact that he was not born until 1452. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:11AF:4E5:3400:CC49:C378:AC40:AFD5 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the Open Yale Courses upon the historical Jesus (prof. Dale Martin), Roman authorities did not hold trials for Jewish insurrectionists, and the idea that there should have been a death certificate for Jesus strikes me as odd. People in the Antiquity did not use death certificates, and certainly it would have been a waste of papyrus to issue a death certificate for such a lowly peon. And yup, Jesus became famous after his death. There were thousands and thousands of miracle workers in Antiquity, who cast out demons and raised the dead. It wasn't something out of the ordinary. During his life, Jesus was not famous at all. He was just an apocalyptic cult leader, and his cult was tiny. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

To assist the new guy, and in response to his wall of wishful text:

• In the Middle Ages, people lived much closer to death, and had a closer understanding of dead bodies – human and other. Everyone at that time would have known these "anatomical details".
• They probably knew all about how to crucify each other properly as well.
• The C14 scientists knew that the shroud was touched many times by its watchmen and pilgrims, and was exposed to two documented fires. That's why they cleaned their samples so carefully first.
• Fires cannot increase "the amount of carbon isotope" – that is scientifically impossible. This has been scientifically tested and refuted.
• There were no "interwoven threads" - this too has been scientifically tested and refuted.
• Fanti's 21st century study used unproven and uncalibrated technology, which has never been independently verified. The dates (and the suspicious margins for error) are thus fringe. Fanti has a long history of inventing new measurement technologies which unfailingly "prove" that the shroud is authentic.
• The plant pollen test was repeated later, using better technology. They found lots of other pollen too, including from North America. There is no record of the shroud travelling through North America. The shroud was washed many times during its medieval life, and it is unlikely that any prior pollens would have survived – certainly not in the quantities described by Frei-Sulzer. Any Palestinian pollens could easily have come onto the shroud during a medieval Easter pilgrimage – not with intent to forge evidence, just by innocently being in Jerusalem over Easter. The Israeli botanist has subsequently withdrawn their "conclusions".
• Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said this type of weave was in existence at Masada, but not that it was unique to Masada. The various fabrics found at Masada were imported from farther afield – perhaps very far afield. This style of weaving and sewing existed long before 1st century, and long after 1st century, all over the Middle East and beyond. It's presence at Masada was to be expected. Pure coincidence.
• Raymond Rogers was examining tiny scraps of threads which were posted to him, with no proof that they actually came from the shroud. This entire exercise is thus scientifically invalid. Rogers actually proved that these fragments did not come from the shroud, but then he drew a very unscientific conclusion from that data.
• Rogers' vanillin study used unproven and uncalibrated technology, which has never been independently verified. He also had to hypothesis the variable impact of the aging caused by being baked in fires, and washed in boiling water.
• It is generally accepted that the image on the shroud is not the original image, but rather is actually damage on the fibers caused by the original image. All paint (etc) has long since worn off or been washed off, and the image itself is fading as the surrounding fibers deteriorate and "catch up" with the damaged image fibers.
• It is worth adding that blood stains darken rapidly, but the "blood" stains on the shroud are still red.
• The fact that there is no image under the bloodstains, has never been independently verified, and this claim is dependent on one observation by one man on one fiber. Since the image was caused by dehydration, it is also possible that smearing liquid blood onto the cloth inhibited the image-forming process.
• The so-called invisible image on the back of the shroud has never been independently verified. Subsequent high-resolution photographs found no such thing.
• Any good artist is able to "avoid making any anatomical mistakes". Have you seen the Elgin Marbles, which are 1800 years older than the shroud?
• Of course the shroud "has a picture of someone who was executed in the way the Gospels describe it." Of course the wounds are exactly as the gospels describe them. The artist responsible obviously read the gospels.
• There is no reason to suppose that the soldiers who stabbed Jesus on the cross were holding shields at the time. Why would they?
• The determination of the blood type has never been independently verified, and is dependent on one observation by one team. The scientific possibility of identifying a blood type from an ancient sample has been refuted by experts.
• Subsequent high-resolution photographs found no images of coins, writings, sandals or any other objects. This nonsense has been refuted.
• The resemblance of the Shroud of Turin to the Shroud of Manoppello and the Oviedo Headscarf is rough, approximate and coincidental. A face is a face, and the creators of all three "relics" (as well as all the many other such relics) all researched the same gospels first.

No C14 scientist has questioned the reliability of the C14 test results. The shroud fabric is conclusively medieval. All else is merely clutching at straws.

Hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well this is a little off topic Mr. IP, maybe move this to a different section. Wolfquack (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2023 (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.

"most experts now regard it"

To write that, you need to be able to name a single expert who does not. A real expert on the methodology, not some expert on something else. You can't.

Any compromise between the scientific consensus and the fundie wackjobs who grasp at straws to justify their unfounded opinions is halfway to Crazytown and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We have an article Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, and when you portray the consensus as a mere majority position, you are trying to pretend that the fringe theories are in any way legitimate. Why is that so difficult to understand? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

C14 dating is science. Seeing invisible sandals and flowers in an old photo that nobody else can see, is not science. All the C14 experts who have expressed an opinion, are clear that the C14 dating is correct. There are many hypotheses attempting to undermine the C14 dating, and all of them have been debunked using evidence and science. People keep inventing new "tests" to prove the shroud is much older, but those tests and techniques need to be independently verified before they can be considered to be scientific. Until that happens, the science is solid that the shroud fabric is medieval, and "coincidentally" the image was first attested at around that same time as well. Any claim to the contrary is thus FRINGE, until it is supported by extraordinary evidence. If that ever happens, I'm sure it will be headline news, and we will all notice the story. Wdford (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

95% confidence

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.

---

The edit comment on this edit by Randy Kryn bugs me, so pardon me for venting about it: It is not true that "the lead says that the date has a 95% chance of being from the Middle Ages". What the lead says is that radiocarbon dating established that the shroud's linen material was produced between the years 1260 and 1390 (to a 95% confidence level). That doesn't mean that there is a 5% chance that the linen could have come from anytime in human history. That's not how scientific statistical analysis works. If you have a 95% confidence level that an object originated within a certain 130-year span, you will have a much higher confidence that the origin was in a span only twice as large, so for example the confidence that the origin was between 1195 and 1455 might be 98% or 99%. The exact confidence level for a given span can be calculated from the experimental data. The middle ages extended from about 500 to 1500 ad. The confidence level that the linen originated in the middle ages is damn near 100%. There is no rational way to construe a range of 1260–1390 with 95% confidence as consistent with a date in the early first century AD.

I'm sure this was an innocent mistake/misunderstanding by Randy, but there are certainly shroud fans that seem to willfully ignore facts and logic in pushing claims like this. -- Srleffler (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, apparently I've never put the dates of the "Middle Ages" into my conscious memory. Good catch. I admit fandom, this is about the most interesting old-timey mystery of them all, how was this thing created and just what is it about the negative-positive image that a copy using present day technology can't duplicate it (or am I mistaken about that too?). Thanks for the interesting comment and concern, a deserved and nice educational rant. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm doubtful about the idea that there is anything all that special about the negative image, and particularly that it "can't be duplicated" using present day technology. Media treatments of the Shroud and similar ancient objects like to play up the mystery, because it appeals to their audience. There are lots of ideas about how the images might have been created. The fact that we aren't sure which method the artist used doesn't make those ideas less plausible. Nobody can exactly duplicate the Mona Lisa either; that doesn't mean we have any doubt that it was painted.

You can certainly duplicate the negative image by photography. A photograph of the shroud will exhibit the same negative-image property as the original. --Srleffler (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the Shroud of Turin.

How about this? The image at right is not a picture of the Shroud of Turin. It is a negative image of part of the replica of the Shroud of Turin in the Real Santuario del Cristo de La Laguna in Tenerife. Is it convincing enough?--Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you created that, nice work. I've been wanting to see a negative image of that copy (and learn more about the copy). Others have had to have done this, I just haven't seen it posted anywhere. It looks pretty good, there seems something missing between the two images though, the Shroud seems to have a better quality definition to it but I could just be reading that into it. Does the rest of the copy come out similarly? Would be interested in comments from others, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it took me about five minutes to create this negative image from the image of the replica on Commons (including the time to download the image editor). I have no doubt that a professional photographer taking his/her time to produce a high quality negative image of the actual replica could do better. The artist who produced the Shroud may well have just been a better artist than the one who produced the replica. A difference in image quality is not particularly mysterious. --Srleffler (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice work, doesn't look like anyone has loaded up a negative of the copy on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't find anything not behind a cookie-wall on how the replica shroud was made or even where it came from. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2023 (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.

The scourging of Jesus and the body of Andrea Cosimo D'Amicis

By comparing the image of Andrew's back with the image of the Shroud, we can see the extreme similarity between the marks on his skin and those left imprinted on the Holy Shroud by Jesus Christ. ... https://andreacosimodamicis.blog/2021/04/27/example-post-3/ 2A02:810D:243F:ECB8:A971:416:D345:376D (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS because it is a WP:BLOG. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Vatican Position ?

In the article paragraph Vatican Position, it states in the first paragraph "However, in 1506, Pope Julius II reversed this position and declared the Shroud to be AUTHENTIC and authorized the public veneration of it with its own mass and office" with a reference. YET, elsewhere the article maintains, with references, that the Vatican avoids taking a position and never states that it is authentic. Am I missing something? I've been reverted once, so I will leave it to others to resolve.

 IceDragon64 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You've raised a good point. I adjusted the text to "like most of his predecessors", which I think was what you originally proposed.--Srleffler (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

McCrone was discredited by the Sturp Experts of 1978, years ago. Article is now bogus.

The leader of the Sturp team of 1978 was present during McCrone's work. McCrone found pigments, but they did not come from the original cloth rather came from paintings that were overlayed that were sketched from the cloth and had paint pigments. This is according to John Jackson, Phd....Sturp Leader.

This article is bogus because it does not agree with current science testing theory. This theory, including presentation by Shroud Scientists can be found at two places "Shroudofturin.com", and "Shroud Research Network". Both provide evidence based details, including reference to science work done and in some cases video presentations of the scientists, themselves.

The former site (Shroudofturin.com) is the authored by John Jackson, Phd and lead researcher. The latter is be a group of scientists that continued to investigate the Shroud.

This article requires a complete rework. Looks like atheist propaganda. Shameful....given Wikipedias normal reputation. Jim051 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

STURP is not a reliable source. The only people they can discredit is themselves, and they do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Jackson's work is completely referenced to science and evidence. Sturp has provided 95% of the physical evidence gathered. The Shroud Research Network continues in the tradition of science and evidence.

The science has moved a long way from McCrone's errors.

You can misinform whomever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the attached article misinforms and is misleading. Bogus. Jim051 (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Walter McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000 specifically for his work on the Shroud of Turin. This was long after all of the criticism of his work by the members of STURP had been aired and published. The late Prof. Joel Bernstein gave various public lectures on the subject in the 2010s (here's one from 2014). The notion that McCrone's work is discredited is a fringe belief sustained by a tiny community of researchers that has generated a lot of attention in the non-technical press. The trouble is that no one has been allowed to take physical samples from the shroud after STURP did so in 1978. Moreover, after McCrone published his findings STURP took back the tapes that they'd given to him and have never again shared them with researchers outside of their tiny circle of "sindonologists". - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

McCrones work was never peer reviewed. And fellow scientists never concurred.

The Shroud science is not about the observations by one person, who got it wrong (McCrone), but about a group of scientists from multiple countries, who studied the artifact after spending a lot of time gathering data.

Here is what the peer reviewed STURP findings were (https://shroud.com/78conclu.htm).....the following official Summary of STURP's Conclusions was written by John Heller (in non-technical language) and distributed at the press conference held after STURP's final meeting in October 1981:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

,,,,,,We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

Your article is bogus. Jim051 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jim051:, this page is NOT a forum. It is dedicated to discuss improvements to the article. If you have a specific change you want to propose, please do so in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please insert X between Y and Z" followed by the reliable sources supporting the change. If you do not have any specific change to propose, you should fill free to just close this tab and move on with your life. --McSly (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

New research regarding the Cloud of Turin supporting its authenticity

There is updated information in the April 2023 issue of Newsweek using the most recent science actually supporting its authenticity. This information should be included in your article. It debunks the previous radiocarbon dating explanation. (Read the section 'Jewish Expert'. It explains that that part of the Shroud had been repaired. And it offers other scientific evidence addressing other issues presented in your article. Chrisys421 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek is popular press, not a scientific journal. Till now, radiocarbon, prize-winning chemistry, and anatomical knowledge all concur that the shroud is fake. E.g. Father Brown was a top scholar of the history of Christianity, nevertheless he found a reason why the shroud is fake. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And the claim that repairs affected the radiocarbon dating is not at all new, and not credible.--Srleffler (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

“Neutrality” reflection.

Uhm ackshully there’s a heavy neutral point of view with this article (see what I did there?).

But it seems like many expierenced editors seem to do many “[Insert stupid topic] Consensus?” sections to do these pointless “discussions” so they can show others that they are Mr. Fancy Pants for mere brownie points. You guys understand that there doesn’t need to be stupid discussions over whether we should revert an edit made by an IP address right? Or whether we should take down a NPOV tag? There is no need for this snobby formality. I know you feel superior and intellectual when you get this “aureate discourse” but it’s laughably embarrassing when its over a damn IP edit request.

If your seriously afraid of ip addresses ruining the article, consider this. A) the article itself is registered users only, and b) maybe just request the talk page to be protected? this stupid show is getting ridiculous, especially when you consider the overall view count of this article (FYI: Nobody reads it. Except for bots).

Also the name calling on here needs to stop. I remember when I mocked the absurdity of this “formality” (and the small “consensus” numbers)you all were doing, with this quote:

Oh yes, we the greatest reddit intellects on thee Globe declare that thee is bad

When I wrote that I was reffering to how stupid the “consensus” was, since it was merely removing the damn NPOV tag. Somehow that got translated as “I am a shroudie”.

This “Look at me, I’m Mr. Fancy Pants! I’m doing a fancy consensus! Please give me more Brownie Points!” shit needs to seriously stop. I hope everybody on here can give their thoughts on the matter.

Yours truly. Wolfquack (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

TLDR: I’m trying to get rid of “consensus” threads that are really just a waste of everybody’s time.Wolfquack (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: I’m not trying to start any WP:UNCIVILITY with this post, but merely want to get rid of the stuffiness. Wolfquack (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Was the last edit remove just because it is an IP address ? AnneBD (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• removed AnneBD (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Some very experienced users will tell you that if you WP:CITE Really Good Sources™, your edits will stick. I'm afraid that defending the Shroud as Jesus's genuine shroud is epistemically doomed. And we don't pamper epistemically doomed POVs. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu are you responding to me @Wolfquack? Because if you are… your comment is quite irrelevant because I wasn’t defending anything in my post. Wolfquack (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Sorry I just realized you were talking to AnneBD. My bad. Wolfquack (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to today's IP edit that summarizes and properly references a 2022 paper (in a minor MDPI journal) that was quickly reverted by Hyphenation Expert and again by Cjse23 with the nondescript policy edit summaries of "WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:MDPI", then reverted back by other editors since on its face it seems like it a fine edit that should instead be directed to the Talk page?

When an IP editor writes a good faith edit that conforms to policy, at least do them the courtesy of writing a full edit summary. Properly, though, an edit like that with a source should go to the Talk page, particular since the quoting of WP:MDPI shows that you didn't actually care to understand it, or didn't respect the other editors enough to explain it (because the WP:RSP entry to which that is linked says neither that all MDPI journals are bad nor which specific MDPI journals should and should not be allowed).

(Aside in response to tgeorgescu: I don't know whether, short of using Prof. Farnsworth's doom-o-meter, we can determine whether a POV is epistemically doomed in a way that isn't itself epistemically doomed. It doesn't mean you don't have time to politely say to an IP who makes a good faith edit how their particular edit was not proper.)

For example, one could avoid even having to argue the issue of epistemic this-or-that with an IP if you direct them to understand that a quantitative research paper is a primary source, and that there are only limited circumstances in which it may be appropriate on WP to give any attention or weight to one paper that hasn't been supported by independent sources. (All that, if I removed the passive voice, would fit in a single-sentence edit summary, and it only required me to look up the section link within the explanatory essay.) SamuelRiv (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh and Wolfquack: if you're trying to call out the behavior of other editors in a post, you should link and/or ping their usernames and some specific edits (or examples) to which you are taking issue. See my first paragraph above. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv I wasn’t aware of the IP edit made this morning, my post was written last night before I went to bed. Read my post above to understand the context. This post was a reflection on a discussion that in my opinion really shouldn’t have been started in the first place. Wolfquack (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv What later ensued was that people were accusing me of being a shroudie. Most missed the point of my comment, which was raising the question of there even needed to be a “consensus” for the tag, when it could have been easily removed, and the absurdly small number of volunteers. Wolfquack (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you posted a comment about a discussion from ten months ago that isn't even on this page anymore, and didn't make any direct reference to that discussion until now. Yes, most people missed the point of your comment.--Srleffler (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv Yeah it was a bad on my part, I wrote this post pretty late night (12:00 ish) and my brain was just really tired. I agree I should have linked the discussion to advoid confusion will keep in mind for futrue. Wolfquack (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Srleffler not true, I put ““Neutrality” reflection” as the title, and while it’s true I should have linked it to avoid confusion, my point is still clear, some consensuses are stupid and just should not exist. Regarding the Yes, most people missed the point of your comment. you are also correct. I realized now I should have had a “transition” so most wouldn’t misunderstand my point (which was admittedly vague). It’s something I’ve learned the more I’ve used the internet is to have your thoughts coherent, something I regret not doing earlier. My neurodivergence hindered me in some writing areas but I think I have improved significantly. Wolfquack (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Srleffler To be clear I’m not pulling my neurodivergence for sympathy. I just felt I should mention it. Wolfquack (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned it. I did wonder what was going on. Neurodivergence, I understand. Agreed, it's really helpful to get one's thoughts coherent first when writing. I also find re-reading helpful. I re-read almost everything I write before I submit it.--Srleffler (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: If my message was cynical, giving them false hope is even more cynical. The gist is that science has spoken. There is a tiny WP:FRINGE group of denialists who get a lot of press and fool a lot of gullible people. But even the Catholic Church does not claim that it was Jesus's shroud. If this were the shroud of a corpse, it would not look like a portrait photo. The fact that it looks like that, is evidence that it is fake. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What is this in response to? SamuelRiv (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You're giving them hope that someday their POV will be vindicated here at Wikipedia. That day will never come, because the shroud is a rather clumsy fake. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I'm annoyed at Wolfquack's ambiguously impersonal response to a months-old archived thread without linking to it, they are entirely correct. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu What meds are you on? I wasn’t complaining about the “POV”. I said there’s a NEUTRAL point of view. Think before you type (and on while that, perhaps read what I wrote). Wolfquack (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

By and large I did not comment on your post, perhaps only tangentially. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu whoops. Looks like I need to check my meds… last time I went to the doctor was 1889 and they told me this white powder will help my brain function… Wolfquack (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Why I used them: Anne is in France a name for women, in the Netherlands it is a name for men. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A man of culture I see… er, or I guess… a “Anne” of culture ;-) Wolfquack (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the radiocarbon dating was affected by a patch, again

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.

---

"The shroud's authenticity as a holy relic has been disputed even within the Catholic Church, and radiocarbon dating has shown it to be a medieval artifact." is false. The part that was radio carbon tested was taken from fibers that were patched in a repairs to fire damage in the middle ages. 2600:4041:25B:4500:10E0:E189:CEA0:D91C (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

and where is the reliable source for that? Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The claim that "radiocarbon dating has shown it to be a medieval artifact" is not a genuine scientific assertion and cannot be taken seriously. Radiocarbon dating is a tool, an important tool, of CORROBORATING dating of an object, but radiocarbon testing alone does not "demonstrate" or "show" anything -- and no scientist or expert in radiocarbon dating would ever say such a thing. A trained scientist might say that the history of the cloth that can be documented (i.e., its first documented appearance in or around 1300) along with corroborative radiocarbon dating, "suggests" it is a medieval artifact. This is because there are other fields of science, equally significant as radiocarbon dating, that would impeach the idea that this cloth was created in medieval times. In fact, Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, who was part of the Oxford team that performed the 1988 C-14 testing. Dr. Ramsey believes that the C-14 testing was generally accurate. However, the article, as drafted, does not fairly characterize Dr. Ramsey's comments about the corroborative nature of radiocarbon testing: "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." 69.124.88.234 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Of course scientists say that things have been demonstrated. Also, everybody who has any 3D geometric ability can see that the image was not made by wrapping the shroud around a person, everybody who can tell a painting from a person can tell it is a painting, and we have a confession from the person who did it and a confirmation from a high cleric, both from the Middle Ages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from vulgarity and implied personal attacks. I never said scientists never claim things have been "demonstrated." I said, in cases like this one, when proofs point in different directions, the claims made about c-14 testing are not stated with scientific certainty. But, again, are you a scientist, because you don't speak like one. As for the balance of your comments, who is the person who confessed? And is that scientific? People confessed to all sorts of dastardly things in the middle ages to avoid harsh punishments. Galileo confessed he was wrong about the earth revolving around the sun. So even if there were such a confession, what value would it be? Finally, your comments about what the shroud looks like are not well informed. For example, experts in digital radiography have performed imaging of the Shroud and have discovered that the image on the cloth is present in three dimensions. If you claim that the image is painted, you'd have to explain how the image was painted into the cloth in three dimensions; and, if you claim that the image was painted in medieval times, then you need to explain how knowledge of that procedure was known to an artist in medieval times. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

If you, 69.124.88.234, have any reliable sources to support your claims, then go ahead and add that sourced content to the article. It doesn't matter what you, I, or any other editors think/know/believe, what matters is material reported in reliable, secondary sources. Keep in mind, however, that what ultimately appears in Wikipedia articles is based upon the policy of consensus. If you do not like that policy, or if you are otherwise unable to operate within its parameters, then Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you. Also keep in mind the purpose of article Talk pages, per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM, which I once again ask you to read. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The archives suggest there is no genuine attempt to establish or follow consensus here. There have been to my knowledge at least six peer-reviewed scholarly articles, published in distinguished journals of scientific study, that cast doubt on the reliability of the dating of the cloth to medieval times. Some of them are actually cited in the text of the article, or in the footnotes, although the assertions of these papers are always misrepresented here. But, to be clear, that the c-14 results are so frequently questioned in legitimate scholarly papers shows beyond any doubt, that there is no scientific consensus as to the dating of the cloth to medieval times. That the article claims such a consensus exists is pure perfidy. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"peer-reviewed scholarly articles" is not enough. The need to be peer-reviewed scholarly articles with good reception. Experienced scientists are aware of the fact that not every published study is worth the paper it is written on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

are you a scientist This is not how Wikipedia works. Read up on the rules: start with WP:RS and WP:OR. If one could dominate articles by claiming to be a scientist, Wikipedia would go down the drain because of all the liars. Also, your mimicry is bad. Real scientists argue not by saying "I am a scientist", they argue by demonstrating their competence using good reasoning. Argumentum ad verecundiam is not good reasoning.

who is the person who confessed? Read the article.

People confessed to all sorts of dastardly things This is a typical Shroud situation. One side has data. The other side has excuses.

the image on the cloth is present in three dimensions Yeah, that is what happens with paint and cloth.

If you think you have a good case for the Shroud being authentic, go publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and convince the scientific community that you have valid points. Then we can use it. Until then, you are just a poser on the net and we cannot use what you say. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The C14 dating is supported by every C14 expert who has taken an interest. All the alternative explanations have been refuted by a range of scientists using actual scientific evidence. All of this has been discussed ad nauseum in the past talk pages - go check the archives. This is clearly reported in the article already - in a balanced and neutral manner. Dr Ramsey stated - correctly - that other evidence "suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow", he does not say that he believes them himself. Of course more research is welcome, but as Ramsay himself also said, no evidence has yet come to light to indicate that the C14 dates are wrong. You seem to have missed that part? Wdford (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. A claim that the C14 testing is accurate to within a specified period of years is not tantamount to an outright assertion that the cloth dates to a medieval period. Dr. Ramsay, as a person trained in science, understands this. He speaks from the authority of his field; however, he acknowledges that other specialists in other -- and equally valid -- fields of scientific study have raised valid issues concerning the accuracy of a conclusion dating the cloth to medieval times. There is no doubt what the c-14's conclusions were; the doubt is over whether those conclusions can coexist with conclusions reached by scientists in other relevant fields. To be clear, Dr. Ramsay cannot explain how someone in medieval times could have made such a three-dimensional image on the cloth; nor does he pretend that he can do so. What Dr. Ramsay does do, quite properly, is stand behind the accuracy of the contribution of his field of expertise. For this reason, no expert in digital radiography can claim the cloth dates to some other period. Don't you see how science works? There can be no scientific consensus until all relevant fields of study reach conclusions pointing in the same direction. In this case, it is quite likely that the best science will ever be able to do is tell us, someday, what the cloth is not; but it is doubtful that there will ever be a consensus over what the cloth is. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, before the C14 test, it was already obvious to Catholic priests-scholars, like Father Brown, that the shroud is a forgery.

Hint: you can't get a portrait photo with a shroud made of cloth, but only with a metal sheet that does not bend. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's scary you think that this is a logical response to what I wrote. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia has the WP:RULES it has, you cannot prevail. The objective truth is that the Shroud of Turin wasn't the shroud of a corpse: of any corpse, from any century.

Forget about its age. Just prove that a corpse could leave such image upon its shroud and you win the debate. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

But that's not my point. That comment, though, does reflect your inherent bias. You see any questioning of the accuracy of the c14 testing as "establishing" the cloth as a medieval artifact as as tantamount to a claim that the shroud was the burial cloth of a corpse. I think you might have missed a few logic courses in college. My point is simply that there is no scientific consensus that the shroud is a medieval artifact. I made no claim as to what the shroud "is." 69.124.88.234 (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, while it is not The Absolute Truth™ that the shroud is medieval, the scientific consensus is that it is medieval. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The dating of the C14 tests stands until disproved scientifically. There actually is consensus on this, among real scientists. Only the straw-clutching shroudies stand outside that camp, and their numbers have dwindled almost completely, as science has steadily debunked the various alternative claims and theories.

The alternative datings have all been disproved scientifically, so they fall way. That is how science works. If you were a real scientist, you would know that. That is what Ramsay said, and he called for "fresh" theories, not a petulant rehash of disproved theories. This would mean scientific theories, not a baseless and unprovable theory that divine magic was involved, or Fanti's innumerable innovative tests with their unverified methodology and their huge margins for error.

It is easy to make a 3D image from a black-and-white photo, if you use modern equipment specifically designed to make a 3D image from a black-and-white photo. There is no mystery in that. Any black-and-white photo will suffice.

The medieval artist was not trying to make a 3D image, he (or she) was merely painting a picture onto a cloth. This paint was subsequently washed off, and the paint chemicals co-incidentally burned a dehydration-shadow onto the cloth, which was used as a money-spinning "holy relic" thereafter. This process has actually been duplicated, although not exactly as they don't know all the details of what paint was used and what brushes and what linen pre-treatment and what temperatures and what detergent etc etc etc, and how long did it bake for in the fires and at what temperatures, and what kinds of smoke soaked into it when it was displayed and what weather did it endure along the hundreds of years thereof, and nobody can be bothered to spend the time and money trying to reverse-engineer it exactly because the C14 dating has proved that it is merely a medieval object.

All of this has been discussed many times, and can be found in these archives. Go do some research, like a scientist, and become better informed. Wdford (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You betray you lack of familiarity with scientific inquiry with this response. We are not equals in this field. Plus, you are all over the place with this response. But, as to the issue of dating, which is the only issue I'm addressing at the moment, there have been six peer-reviewed scholarly papers, including one as recent as 2022, that question a conclusion that this is a medieval artifact. The claimed scientific consensus as to the age of the cloth simply does not exist, and the existence of these papers reflects that. Period. There is nothing you can say to respond to that. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is one statistically responsible paper from Shroudies, whose real conclusion is that the age of the shroud should be shifted by 88 years. And consensus isn't unanimity. Not every new paper which questions the scientific consensus can change the scientific consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You see, that is NOT what the paper concluded. The paper does, at a minimum, impeach the accuracy of the testing by about a century. But there is a lot more in that paper, which you clearly have not read. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading what they wrote does not imply we consider them reliable for every claim they made. Some of their claims are evidence-based, other claims are just fantasy. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Papers which studied unverified samples, do not count as scientific evidence of dating. Papers which claim the presence of a repair, where microscopic examination proves no such repair ever existed in that area, do not count as scientific evidence of dating. Papers which claim a hypothetical contamination, where detailed studies and cleansing procedures prove that no contamination was present, do not count as scientific evidence of dating. Papers which hypothesize a type of radiation contamination which contravenes the laws of physics, do not count as scientific evidence of dating. Papers which consider hypothetical statistical correlations which only appear to exist if erroneous assumptions are made, do not count as scientific evidence of dating. Since the claims of these peer-reviewed scholarly papers have all been refuted, they no longer count for anything scientific. This is all in the archives. You can push your POV all you wish, but the reality is undeniable. Until a new test is performed, using verified methodology and based on actual shroud evidence, the medieval date stands unchallenged. The mournful wailing of shroudies does not constitute a scientific challenge. Wdford (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You have zero credentials to assert any of this. This is all vapid, pseudo-science. Again, what are your credentials to dismiss peer-reviewed papers published in authoritative scientific journals? Your ability to discuss (i.e., distort) the content of those papers and the procedures followed by the experts is based on WHAT precisely? 69.124.88.234 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITIZENDIUM: we are not required to have any credentials. Based on what? WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. If you don't get all of these overturned, you will never prevail here.

Let me be very clear: you don't have a quarrel with me or Wdford. You have a quarrel with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

tgeorgescu referred to “one statistically responsible paper from Shroudies”.

If tgeorgescu is referring to the Casabianca paper, they concluded only that the “reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval” is questionable, and that a small widening of this interval would correct all statistical problems. They also admit, on page 7, that “Each TS raw and published radiocarbon date indicates a medieval interval for the fabric.”

If tgeorgescu is referring to the much-more-reliable paper by Walsh and Schwalbe, this paper concludes that there are two hypotheses which could account for the observed statistical anomaly – either that some inherent variation was present in the carbon isotopic composition of the samples themselves (with no idea what this could possibly be, short of divine magic), or else that some differences in the sample cleaning may have introduced differences in residual contamination. They concluded that tiny amounts of residual contamination would account for the observed statistical anomaly, (without any need for magic.)

This is clear and obvious in those papers, which we actually have read closely. However you state that “there is a lot more in that paper”. What more, exactly? Wdford (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are just cherry picking statements from these papers, out of context. I have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss with you papers that you clearly have not read and are, even so, intent on distorting. To be clear, the Casabianca paper discussed each potential for analytical erroneous outcome separately, and stated separate conclusions as to the significance of each potential erroneous outcome. That is where you are drawing the finding that the “'reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval' is questionable." BUT, in the overall conclusions, putting together all the incongruities in the data, he writes: "The discussed statistical analysis reinforced the argument against the goodness of the radiocarbon dating of the TS, suggesting the presence of serious incongruities among the raw measurements. Our results, which are compatible with those previously reported by many other authors (Brunati 1996; Van Haelst 1997, 2002; Riani et al. 2013), strongly suggest that homogeneity is lacking in the data. 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."

So, I see nuance is not your strong suit, but Casabianca casts doubt on the whole of the accuracy of the range. While he did acknowledge that it was possible for the C-14 dating range to be correct, the incongruity in the data bars any responsible claim that the testing is conclusive. Note that this paper, published in an Oxford University journal, is consistent with Dr. Ramsay's own observations as to the conclusivity of the C-14 testing results. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what I'm saying? The WP:RULES of Wikipedia are formulated so that they will prevent Shroudies from prevailing. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Science works on evidence and facts, nuance is for hiding things. We are not cherry-picking from the report, we are reporting their official conclusions. As you quoted above, Casabianca focuses his conclusion on the date range - which he has called both the "interval" and the "calendar age range". The lack of homogeneity was quite small, and the required correction was actually minor. Then the paper by Walsh and Schwalbe, which made much reference to the Casabianca paper, concluded that the heterogeneity could be explained either by a mysterious inherent variation in the carbon isotopic composition of the samples, or simply by the known differences in the cleaning techniques used to first clean the samples. They also agree that the calendar age range needs to be widened slightly. Both papers therefore agree that the shroud is medieval, barring some unspecified supernatural and unscientific event. Job done, case closed, next customer please. Wdford (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A complete misreading of the papers. I already quoted from the Casabianca paper. Plainly you have misinterpreted Casabianca. Again, he wrote: "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." Why is this so hard for you? He not saying that the date range of the sample of cloth tested is inaccurate; he is saying that the range stated isn't "accurate and representative of the whole cloth."

Now here's the conclusion from the Walsh/Schwalbe 2021 paper: "As the present findings join with observations of other unique aspects of the Shroud's makeup (see e.g. [11-13]), it appears the composition of the relatively small sample removed for the 1988 study is proving to be surprisingly complex. Indeed, the collection of evidence should encourage researchers to begin reconsidering the validity of the assumption that this sample adequately represents the composition of the Shroud as a whole. Should these concerns prompt follow-on radiocarbon studies, their test plans should include at a minimum 1) careful deliberations about sample locations, 2) a set of narrowly targeted non-destructive tests including optical microscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and UV fluorescence studies [14, 15], and 3) complete documentation not only of the sample locations on the main body of the cloth but also the locations of the subsamples, their respective δ13C values, %C content, pre-treatment yield etc."

So the problem here would appear to be either you didn't actually read the paper; or you have very little reading comprehension skills. Or maybe both are true. But the way these papers have been represented here on this page is not accurate. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is you go-to tactic. When you cannot defend your position, you post gibberish about shroudies and WP:Rules -- as if they permit you to post the nonsense that you do. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We have thoroughly defended our position. Citing actual scientists who have used actual scientific methods on actual shroud material to produce actual scientific evidence. And yes, Rules are Rules. Wdford (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction. You "mis-cite" actual scientists. Is that intentional? Or do you not understand what you have read? 69.124.88.234 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

My point about WP:RULES: you have lost this debate before you started posting here. Sometimes the fact that you have lost the debate is obvious in advance, and debating is futile. And that's precisely the reason why I do not debate about abortion inside Wikipedia. What happens to those fetuses is sad, but I'm not here to WP:RGW. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You are an unwitting parody of yourself. You have been been completely manhandled in this discussion, and you declare yourself the winner. Obtuse. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem very proud of your debating skills, but Wikipedia is not Debatepedia. So, I know for a fact that you cannot prevail. There is no argument, however smart, which can change that. Since Wikipedia is not based upon "rational debating skills", but upon WP:RULES which are highly biased against your POV. So: Yes. We are biased. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (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.

Crucified man

@Nh12345678910: How do they know that man was crucified? Did they call 1-900-PSYCHIC? Claiming that they know that man was crucified makes their work look sloppy and idiotic. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Give me a chance to finish my article witbout beimg a smart ass, I have to add references too. thanks Nh12345678910 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not your article, and the references will probably crap, judging from similar events in the article history. How about presenting your suggestion here and trying to achieve consensus instead of adding it again and again, getting reverted and eventually getting blocked for WP:WAR? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

who wrote it? you are an aggresive and and abusive individual, I have to learn how to reference how about suggesting to help first? Nh12345678910 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

there is a further article which I have to find regarding how they knew this if I find it I will update Nh12345678910 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if this was the real shroud of a corpse (crucified or not), it would not look like a portrait photo.

So we have: radiocarbon dating, prize-winning chemistry, anatomic knowledge, and projective geometry, which all concur that the shroud is fake. It is patently fake to anyone who has a little bit of reason. It takes a great deal of self-delusion to believe it's authentic. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would have to disagree entirely have you not seen the countless other studies on the shroud, youd rather not because your a convincted non believer. Anyway I dont deal with abusive types but I do report them. the reason your not keeping the article up has nothing to do with any of the objections you state,or my referencing they can all be edited by other users and people are entitled to put content up without consulting you. Nh12345678910 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the other way around: one has to be indoctrinated into believing that the shroud is authentic, since the knee-jerk reaction of somebody confronted for the first time with such image is to disbelieve it. Really? Is this a cloth which shrouded a corpse? Or just a cinematographic projection of an image upon a screen? Geometrically, the picture makes no sense. Like in no sense at all. Or like in lies, damned lies, and statistics. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

the countless other studies on the shroud On Wikipedia, content is derived exclusively from reliable sources. Editors' personal opinions/beliefs/ideas/etc. are not reliable sources. You can learn what a reliable source (RS) is, and isn't, by reading WP:RS; that is, click that link and read the content therein. Referring to "countless other studies" is insufficient, particularly as you have yet to provide for discussion here even a single RS to support your desired content. And before you get blocked from editing this Talk page, I further suggest that you learn how to engage with other editors, as Wikipedia has rules about that, too. Two good places to start are the policy page WP:NPA, and the brief civility essay WP:APR. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the last interaction i will be having with you, once again I dont deal with abusive types. Good day. Nh12345678910 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The website you cited does not appear to be a reliable source. Anything added to this article is going to need such a source. The topic is too controversial to have unsourced additions. --Srleffler (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

LEDECITE

[1] The lede does not need any cites, according to WP:LEDECITE. The part about the medieval artifact and the radiocarbon dating belongs at that place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Origin Date

1st century not 13th century wrong date Hudgrdgjy (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the carbon dating results clearly show that the Shroud is not a first-century artifact.--Srleffler (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I’m a catholic Hudgrdgjy (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So am I, but facts are facts. Your faith ought not to depend on this particular artifact being authentic. All too often relics are a distraction from faith rather than an aid to it.--Srleffler (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@fake information there information that can prove is 1st century I want a new studies Hudgrdgjy (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is for reasonable suggestions to improve the article, not for demands that the article reflect your baseless opinion, not for demands of new studies until you like the result, and also not for unnecessary statements of belief. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

^ This. I suggest, @Hudgrdgjy:, that before posting here again you read WP:TPG, which explains that article Talk pages are not to be used as a soapbox or forum for editors' personal beliefs, and WP:RS, which explains that content in Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable, secondary, independent sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall, the article as it stands today, is a highly biased and misleading presentation. It is flawed in a multitude of ways. Walter McCrone, if one actually examines the relationship of McCrone to others in the STURP team you will find that McCrone made pronouncements without presenting or sharing the materials upon which his claim were made. He just flat out refused to share them. This must give one pause. Further, there is no longer any debate that the radio-carbon dating done in 1988 was done on portions of the shroud that are NOT part of the original shroud. This is just the tip of the iceberg.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3e40:4ca0:2539:6ab9:a69e:b568 (talk • contribs) 18:32, February 7, 2024 (UTC)

Go publish that in a reliable source, then we may be able to use it. Until then, no. It's just the usual fringe bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

---

To all of the Wikipedia authors who took the time & care to compile this info. about the Shroud of Turin:

First of all, thank you for all of your work & care. Secondly, I would like to make the following edits to this article, to improve its accuracy & objectivity:

EDIT 1 In the introductory section, in its paragraph 3, it says that "The microscopist Walter McCrone found ... that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium." However, by using that word "found", that sentence makes it seem as if McCrone's hypothesis is an established fact, which it is not; it's just his own belief/conclusion, disputed by others. I believe that that sentence should be re-written "The microscopist Walter McCrone concluded ... that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium."

EDIT 2 In the introductory section, in its paragraph 4, it says "Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself,[7] including the medieval repair theory,[8][9][10] the bio-contamination theories[11] and the carbon monoxide theory.[12][13]" However, using that term "fringe theories" implies that those hypotheses are from a lunatic fringe, which is false. First of all, reasonable hypotheses (put forward to be considered as possible explanations for some phenomenon, which hypotheses should then be tested) are not lunatic: they are part of the scientific method. And the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis, and the carbon monoxide hypothesis, are all reasonable hypotheses thought of & proposed as possible factors which could have affected the results of the carbon-14 dating measurements. Secondly, those hypotheses have NOT all be REFUTED. They have been DISPUTED. I believe that this sentence should be re-written: "The carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis has been experimentally refuted[12], the bio-contamination hypothesis has been doubted[11], and the medieval repair hypothesis has been disputed[8][9][10][13]."

EDIT 3 In the section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Tests_for_pigments , in its second paragraph, it says "Other members of STURP rejected McCrone's conclusions and concluded, based on their own examination of the Shroud and the tape samples, that the image on the Shroud could not be explained by the presence of pigments.[17]" I believe that the following sentence should be added after that one, to explain the reasoning of the STURP team, based on reference 147 (to be added), please see it section "First, there is no possibility that the Shroud is “just a painting.": "The STURP team did find iron oxide particles, but very very few of them, and that they were evenly distributed over the Shroud (i.e in both image & non-image areas), and that these particles were not responsible for the image.[147] These iron oxide particles exist on the Shroud from the fifty-two well-documented occasions when artists are known to have “sanctified” their Shroud replicas by touching them to the original Shroud, causing an unintentional transfer of microscopic paint particles onto the entire Shroud, and not just where the image appears.[147]"

147. "Trial of the Shroud of Turin", https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/trial-of-the-shroud-of-turin .

EDIT 4 In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Historical_fabrics , it says "In 1998, shroud researcher Joe Nickell wrote that no examples of herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus." However, reference 148 (to be added), says "If one examines literature on the Turin Shroud, one will find statements claiming in effect that the 3-1 herringbone weave found on it can only be found in ancient times in the Middle East and also statements that it can be only be found in medieval times in Europe." And reference 149 (to be added) says "The linen of the shroud was manufactured and woven in the Middle East, most probably Syria, and is a design used in the 1st century, albeit uncommon and expensive." I believe that after this first sentence in this section, the following sentence should be added: "Other sources disagree with that conclusion, and say that "the 3-1 herringbone weave found on it can only be found in ancient times in the Middle East"[148][149]

148. "The Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud in 1988 and its Aftermath -- an English language Bibliography", https://www.academia.edu/38607635/Radiocarbon_Dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud_New_Evidence_From_Raw_Data

149. "The Shroud of Turin", https://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

EDIT 5 In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Painting , its first sentence says "According to Walter McCrone, the technique used for producing the image on the shroud could well be the same as a medieval grisaille method ..." However, reference 150 (to be added), says ""The characteristics of the image are so unique it is impossible for the image to have been made in 1260-1390 because the technology did not exist, and still does not exist." And reference 147 (to be added) says “No physical, chemical, medical, or biological methods can adequately explain the image.” I believe that after that paragraph, a second paragraph should be added which says "However, Robert Rucker, a nuclear analyst turned Shroud of Turin researcher, says that "The characteristics of the image are so unique it is impossible for the image to have been made in 1260-1390 because the technology did not exist, and still does not exist."[150][151] Others argue that "“Experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. No physical, chemical, medical, or biological methods can adequately explain the image.”[147]

150. "Carbon-14 Dating Method is Outdated: New Evidence Defends Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin", https://www.tfp.org/carbon-14-dating-method-is-outdated-new-evidence-defends-authenticity-of-the-shroud-of-turin/

151. "Date of the Shroud of Turin", https://www.academia.edu/43756118/Date_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

EDIT 6 In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Radiocarbon_dating , it says ""However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted ...". For the reasons already mentioned above, I believe that the use of the word "refuted" here is incorrect. So, I believe that that sentence should be replaced with the following: "Various people, however, have argued that late 13th century to early 14th century dates (concluded by those who performed the radiocarbon dating studies) are not the true age the Shroud, arguing that errors were made in how those radiocarbon dating studies were conducted: (1) The samples chosen for those studies were taken from a single area near one corner of the Shroud[152][153], not from across the entire Shroud. (2) Those samples are contaminated by various additions to the Shroud over time[153], which additions were not necessarily removed when the radiocarbon dating studies were performed[149][154], and which additions have skewed the radiocarbon dating results toward a much younger date of origin for the Shroud. Those additions include contamination by dust & pollen[155], contamination by centuries of tallow candle smoke and incense[149], contamination by a "bioplastic varnish or coating" caused by bacteria and fungi[154], and the addition of cotton fibers[156][157][147], to repair damage in that area of the flax linen Shroud after a fire in 1532 at the Sainte Chapelle, Chambery, France where it was being stored at that time.[158] Various other people dispute that the area of the Shroud sampled contained any additions[9], or that a bioplastic varnish would not have been removed by the cleaning done on the samples before the radiocarbon dating measurements.[11]

152. "Study of data from 1988 Shroud of Turin testing suggests mistakes", https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html

153. "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud", http://shroud.com/pdfs/benfordmarino2008.pdf

154. "What is the Shroud of Turin?", https://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin/

155. "New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ", https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/

156. "Turin shroud older than thought", https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/01/26/1289491.htm

157. "Shroud of Turin Shocks Chemist By Carbon Dating Discovery", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11jCJo-8PF4

158. "SO HOW COULD THE CARBON DATING BE WRONG?", https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n20part2.pdf"

EDIT 7 After all of the various studies discussed in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Scientific_analysis , no mention was made of the following two studies. So, I believe that the following two sections should be added:

"Other Scientific Analyses

Dr. Liberato De Caro, of Italy’s Institute of Crystallography of the National Research Council in Bari, used a “Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering” (WAXS) method to examine the natural aging of cellulose in a thread sample taken from the Shroud. Its “experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the Turin Shroud is a 2000-year-old relic."[150][159] This method was also found to give accurate results on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 A.D., Siege of Masada (Israel). And Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, used infra-red light and spectroscopy on the same fibers from the 1988 tests, and date the Shroud to "between 300 BC and 400 AD"[155]

159. "New Scientific Technique Dates Shroud of Turin to Around the Time of Christ’s Death and Resurrection", https://www.ncregister.com/interview/new-scientific-technique-dates-shroud-of-turin-to-around-the-time-of-christ-s-death-and-resurrection

EDIT 8 In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Pray_Codex , it says "Although the Pray Codex predates the Shroud of Turin, some of the assumed features of the drawing, including the four L-shaped holes on the coffin lid, have pointed some people towards a possible attempted representation of the linen cloth." I believe that this should be re-written to also include the following info.: "Although the Pray Codex predates the Shroud of Turin, some of the assumed features of the drawing (including a herringbone pattern in the supposed cloth, similar to the weaving pattern of the Shroud, four L-shaped holes in the cloth, corresponding perfectly to the four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud; Jesus being shown entirely naked, with his arms crossed on his pelvis; his thumbs appearing to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand) have pointed some people towards a possible attempted representation of the linen cloth."

The next sentence of this section says "However the image on the Pray Codex has crosses on what may be one side of the supposed shroud, an interlocking step pyramid pattern on the other, and no image of Jesus." For accuracy's sake, I believe that this sentence should be re-written "However the image on the Pray Codex has a pattern of crosses on what may be the stone platform on which Jesus & the supposed shroud were laid, and no image of Jesus on the supposed cloth, unlike the image on the Shroud of Turin."

Cordially yours, RMS1964

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RMS1964 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This Talk page has repeatedly covered/discussed these issues, and I suspect that new editors will forever be coming along to reintroduce them. User:RMS1964 is apparently such an editor, and I will later add some material to their Talk page to introduce them to some things they should know about editing Wikipedia (such as the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and WP:TLDR). But OK, here is a brief response to the laundry list of requested edits, using their terminology as much as possible. And no, I am not going to engage here in verbose, repetitive debates about every single detail. I will instead follow WP:COAL and let other editors chime in, confident that, one way or another, WP:CONSENSUS will do its thing.

EDIT 1 - "found" is the appropriate word.

EDIT 2 - "fringe" is the appropriate word, implying in no way an association with "lunatic."

EDIT 3 - "reference 147" comes from www.catholic.com, and that is not a reliable source for this topic.

EDIT 4 - "claiming in effect" is original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia; coming from historian.net, "reference 149" is almost certainly not reliable; the first two authors (I don't know about the third) of "reference 148" appear to be committed shroudies, so anything they write about this topic should be considered biased, pro-fringe and unreliable for factual information.

EDIT 5 - "reference 150" comes from "The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property" which, as the name suggests, should never be considered reliable for, well, pretty much anything; "reference 151" is by a fellow named Rucker, who is clearly a biased, pro-fringe source for this topic.

EDIT 6 - these issues have been covered on this page previously, and they do not have consensus; many of the suggested references are derived from sites that are clearly not reliable for this topic.

EDIT 7 - Caro's and Fanti's reports (and methodologies) have been repeatedly rejected here; the suggested source is not reliable.

EDIT 8 - these suggestions are all original research and are thus inappropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Hob Gadling,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me about my suggested edits to this article, and for doing so in a polite manner.

If I have enough free time in the future, I will try to find more reliable & more primary sources for each of the edits that I suggested. However, I do believe that those edits are greatly needed in this article. much of the article's section on the Scientific Analysis of the Shroud is on hypotheses about the Shroud originating in medieval times and/or due to man-made (i.e. not supernatural) causes. Those hypotheses exist, so they must be covered. However, too little of the article's section on the Scientific Analysis of the Shroud covers the evidence for the Shroud originating during the time of Christ, reasons to believe why its image was not man-made, and evidence which refutes the pro-medieval-origin & pro-man-made-origin hypotheses. (For example, in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Tests_for_pigments, at the end of its first paragraph, it says "McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.[5]" McCrone may have concluded that, and so that conclusion must be reported. However, it is flat-out wrong: those stains have been confirmed as human blood, human blood from a person who has undergone severe trauma, and blood which wetted the cloth prior to the image appearing there. However, this info. wasn't reported in this article.) The lack of the pro-ancient-origin & anti-man-made-origin arguments & evidence seriously hurt both the accuracy & objectivity of this article. And yes, some of the references upon which I base my suggested edits come from pro-ancient-origin & anti-man-made-origin authors. That doesn't necessarily make their arguments, nor the evidence for their arguments, invalid. Walter McCrone clearly has a pro-medieval-origin bias & pro-man-made-origin bias, and yet his conclusions are included in this article (as they should be).

Lastly, I apologize to you and all of the other authors of this article for not properly signing my post in the "Talk" section of this article. I thought that by ending my post with "RMS1964", I had properly signed my post.

Cordially yours,

RMS1964 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)RMS1964

Roman Michael Skikun

Novi, MI, U.S.A. RMS1964 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The gist is that here at Wikipedia pseudoscience does not have equal rights with science. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The guideline on this is at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. We do not give all points of view equal weight, and in particular mainstream views are given higher weight than fringe viewpoints. See also WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE.

More broadly, science does not treat all hypotheses as equally worthy of exploration nor require every hypothesis to be disproven. We would never get anything at all done if we approached the world that way. Thomas Kuhn argued that what distinguishes science from prescience is the development of a paradigm that determines, among other things, which hypotheses are worth testing.--Srleffler (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)