Talk:Shroud of Turin

New dating

Why isn't this on the article? Most recent, peer reviewed, academically published

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 98.4.89.168 (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been discussed here many times; you can find past discussions of it in the archives. For starters, MDPI is not a reliable source. See WP:MDPI. There is an extended discussion of this particular paper at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#RfC: MDPI/Heritage, and in Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 19#Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering, Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 21 among other places. --Srleffler (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow. The comments read like reddit. Thanks for the response. If you'll indulge me on another question, why isn't The Lancet on the reliable sources list? 98.4.89.168 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably because it has never been challenged. Medical sources are at Wikipedia:MEDRES Doug Weller talk 16:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS Doug Weller talk 16:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary on this edit exemplifies the problem with this paper. It is precisely the fact that it is a novel dating technique that makes it unacceptable. A well-established dating technique can be used to support a surprising finding. A novel technique giving an expected result is good science too—that's how you establish that your novel technique works. A novel technique giving a surprising result, that is contradicted by an established technique's results, is not worth very much scientifically. Science works by consensus, replication, and review. Other researchers have to use this technique and write about it to establish whether it works. Researchers familiar with the technique have to review the article mentioned above and discuss it. This is why we require secondary sources for references. A researcher writing about their own work, even if it is effectively peer-reviewed (and it's not clear that this was) is just not good enough. It doesn't help that some of the authors on this paper have a history of scientifically dubious work aimed at establishing an earlier dating for the Shroud. It rather feels like they were casting around for a novel dating technique that would support their preconceived bias about this one artifact, rather than that they were trying to develop a new dating technique that might be of general use.

Another reason behind the requirement for reliable secondary sources: If there are no secondary sources that discuss this paper, it means that other researchers didn't think it was worth responding to. If a novel technique is worthwhile, other researchers will try to use it and try to improve on it, and will publish papers and books about it. If that doesn't happen, one can be pretty certain that the new technique is worthless.--Srleffler (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of neutral content. Your personal scientific appraisal of this primary source’s methodology is irrelevant to its suitability for inclusion in the article. Gilgur (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a "personal scientific appraisal". There is no positive reception of that paper from the scientific community. And it is not the first newly-invented, untested dating method that was only ever used for dating the Shroud to th first century. Trying to sell it as the last word on the Shroud, or even as relevant here, is disingenous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

He claims the paper is “not worth very much scientifically,” so it literally is his personal appraisal. Regardless, you are missing the point. The paper’s scientific methodology cannot disqualify it from inclusion Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. The paper should be included because it is generating significant public discussion in major magazines such as Newsweek and in high-view-count YouTube videos. You are violating Wikipedia’s behavioral guidelines. Please review WP:GF regarding assuming good faith. Also, I never tried to “sell the paper as the last word on the Shroud” nor did I render an opinion regarding the paper’s scientific validity at all. Gilgur (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussions in Newsweek and YouTube are not the criterion for inclusion. MDPI gets knee-jerk rejected, especially if contentious. A new, untested method for dating gets knee-jerk rejected. WP:PROFRINGE gets knee-jerk rejected. We are entitled to judge the reliability of a source, especially seen from mainstream vs. fringe.

WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And we reject disreputable papers precisely because we are an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. About neutrality see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE. An article in Newsweek, among other publications, and YouTube videos with hundreds of thousands of views are in fact criteria for discussion of a fringe idea within a mainstream article. They are reliable independent sources discussing in a serious and substantial manner the relationship between De Caro's results and the accepted Carbon dating result. On the other hand, judging a fringe theory's suitability for inclusion within its mainstream article solely the basis of its seminal work's reliability or methodology has no basis in Wikipedia rules regarding fringe theories or their suitability for inclusion. This approach undermines Wikipedia's Neutrality policy, as it is an example of engaging with a disputes rather than describing them. Gilgur (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

article in Newsweek, among other publications, and YouTube videos [..] are in fact criteria for discussion of a fringe idea within a mainstream article Wrong. See WP:ONEWAY: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. This article is not about a fringe subject, so, fringe theories like the first-century dating by religious fanatics should be given very little space. That is what the other article is for: Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY supports my argument, not yours. In contrast to your assertion, it affirms that high-exposure magazines and Youtube videos are criteria for inclusion, as they connect the fringe theory to the main theory in a prominent way. Your conclusion that describing De Caro's theory would be giving it "undue weight" is based in your personal assessment that the article was written by "religious fanatics." This is a personal bias and it contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Please see WP:NPOV Gilgur (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You are a WP:Single-purpose account and "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

You also are far too new to understand NPOV IMHO. Although I see you didn't answer my question about this being your first account. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I think they use a LLM in order to understand WP:PAGs and reply here. LLMs don't understand how the Wikipedia Community interprets PAGs. LLMs just use those words according to English language dictionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The paper’s scientific methodology cannot disqualify it from inclusion That is absurd. If that were true, we would have to cite every paper ever written, no matter how shitty. The scientific process does not stop at publication, after peer review. The reception of a paper by the scientific community is the most important criterion here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There should be a section in this article regarding De Caro’s WAXS assessment of the shroud’s age. This paper has drawn significant public attention, including an article in Newsweek, and videos on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of views. Biased Wikipedia editors are abusing their guidelines regarding “fringe theories” to exclude this discussion on the basis of their personal scientific disagreement with the article’s premise. Gilgur (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this paper is mentioned at Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin#Fringe dating, which you may want to edit or discuss. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is McCrone's theory given undue weight?

• (From the lede) The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium.[5] McCrone's findings were disputed by other researchers and the nature of the image on the shroud continues to be debated.

Given that there are numerous conflicting theories about the shroud, it isn't appropriate to select one, mention their findings in the lede to the exclusion of all others, and only acknowledge at the end of the para that those findings are disputed. Not good enough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a theory. He found those pigments. "Other researchers" may well be the STURP cranks who "dispute" everything that points to the Shroud being anything else but a 2000-year old miraculous Jesus selfie. I cannot access the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

He says he found those pigments. Others obviously disagree with him. But whether he did or didn't find what he says he found, is not the point. We're not interested in "the truth" here, just in the verifiability of the info we present. It's fine to mention his research findings, but not in such a prominent place as the lede. That is, unless we also mention in the lede the other theories and their supporters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Who are those "others"? Are they the gullible loons from STURP? McCrone was a down-to-earth scientist who had no reputation for introducing fancy notions into his work, unlike the sturpies. There is no reason to doubt what he wrote, and there is no reason to mention fringe ideas in the lede. There is another article that does that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"There is no reason to doubt what he wrote" - that is exquisitely irrelevant to this issue. But you sound like you're wedded to his findings, finding all alternative points of view by definition unworthy of consideration. You then compound your error and further display your bias and disinterest in a neutral point of view, by referring to "the gullible loonies from STURP". Until such time as McCrone's - or anyone else's - explanation for the Shroud is widely and generally accepted by the scientific community, ALL research findings are theories, not facts. And that is the crux of my objection to giving undue weight to McCrone's - or anybody else's - theories in the lede. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. Not all ideas are treated equally on Wikipedia. STURP is a bunch of people who grasp at straws. All of their reasoning is based on rookie mistakes and baseless speculation.

ALL research findings are theories See category mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. We are not obligated to give equal weight to all points of view. We do not "balance" mainstream viewpoints against fringe ones.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Who decides what's a mainstream view and what's a fringe one, in such a unique case as this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia might be helpful, in addition to the pages referenced above.--Srleffler (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've said this several times already in earlier discussion in this talk page, but it's very important to bear in mind that Walter McCrone is by far the most qualified expert who's ever been allowed to examine physically the material of the Shroud of Turin. He's the only scientist who's worked on the Shroud directly who was an acknowledged expert on the authentication of ancient artifacts (indeed, that's why Ian Wilson had invited him to join STURP and work on the Shroud). And McCrone's work, far from having been convincingly debunked (as most "sindonologists" try to make it seem), was eventually published in a leading scientific journal (the Accounts of Chemical Research, a more prominent journal that any in which other members of STURP have published) and rewarded in 2000 with the National Award in Analytical Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Divine Deception by Laidler

I cannot find any reception for that book although it is a quarter of a century old. Is it WP:DUE? From the descriptions on sites that want to sell it, it seems to be all conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I chanced upon this book in a second-hand shop recently, having never heard of it previously. It's exceptionally well written and his conclusions - which I don't necessarily accept - are well argued. He goes to considerable trouble to discuss the principal alternative theories and explains in detail why, in his opinion, none of them hold water. He also convincingly demonstrates that the head and the torso are from different people. I've come across this notion previously, but it's never been explained so clearly, in my experience. A very thought-provoking read. I'm stunned the Shroud community seem to be unaware of it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit that added it. It also seems undue to me. The book is on the Internet archive. The preface starts with the author saying Jesus is descended from the line of the pharao Akhenaten. Jesus was ritually decapitated and his head embalmed. This head was then discovered by the Knights Templar beneath the Temple who worshipped it as Baphomet. They buried it under Rosslyn Chappel.... The shroud. Rolluik (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously an expert as he's uncovered so many amazing previously unknown things. AND he was a tv producer and cameraman. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

He is also salty that he wasn't allowed to dig under Rosslyn Chappel based on his "evidence". But no worries there is a secret tunnel so the head isn't there anymore. Frankly it reads like an author who wants to connect multiple Christian cinematic universes together. Rolluik (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, and all that. Best to actually read a book before deeming to judge its worth or otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Not needed. WP:PRIMARY tells us we should prefer secondary sources - reliable people who read the primary sources and check if they make sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And where are those commentaries or reviews? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I could not find any. Unless you can provide them, Laidler's writings are WP:UNDUE because he just a book nobody competent was interested in enough to comment on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No mention of the Jospice Imprint?

Here: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/imprint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.177.247 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm extremely wary of relics, originally very skeptical of the Shroud itself (Click here for a recommended overview on the subject). If this Jospice Imprint, that hitherto I've never heard of, really has indeed been well-studied as claimed, then it's either an unsolved hoax or an unsolved phenomenon, similar to the one on the Shroud of Turin.

If this is a genuine translation-to-heaven image from some burst of energy, then it wouldn't be a resurrection of Les' body, as in Jesus case, but a resurrection of his soul as his soul was about to leave his body.

Question: Why is the wrist so thin? Also, I don't see much of a face imprint. Isn't that the back of his head?

If part of Les' face actually does look different, rather then it being a re-manifestation of the image on the Shroud (that it obviously is not) this could, instead, explain why Luke says that Jesus' face looked different when he was transfigured on the mountain. Perhaps Jesus looked homelier during his earthly life, pre-Resurrection, from DNA mutations inherited through Mary, while the Transfiguration and Resurrection image shows his true human appearance; an appearance that looks similar, yet minus the inherited mutations.

In Les' case, however, at least in the photo provided, he already looks fairly handsome. I guess he must look even better now if his face changed!

Unless things have improved around here, there'll automatically be an adverse reaction to this post, even though it's entirely on subject. Hopefully things have improved. If not, then why can't we respectfully stand up for each other? Maybe people thought I was doing a good job of single-handedly dealing with mockers, but then it's good to know that people care. And so, if anyone's had a hard time on here and no one seemed to care or help, please know that my heart goes out to you.

Blessings to all. :) 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:A9A4:5999:A90A:B0DB (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This page is about a real thing, not about the absurd fantasies people think up about it. If there is a Wikipedia page this belongs, it is Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. But even for there, the sourcing is too thin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this mattress cover phenomenon sounds more like a fringe theory, that is, unless more information can be provided about the supposedly extensive expert studies done on this thing.

There would definitely have to be a lot of clear documentation about the nature of the studies to show that this alternate image is in fact similar to the one on the Shroud.

And if real, how was this image formed? Did someone figure out how to produce an image like the one on the Shroud, or is this mattress cover image a fake, or is there some other explanation?

The article claimed that: "The Q.E.D. team from the B.B.C. went to great lengths over a period of six months to find the finest experts in the textile industry and leading figures in the medical world; again, to see if a solution could be found to the aforementioned questions, all to no avail."

Is there more specific, reliable information about this? 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:2019:781E:DEC7:8099 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is not what this page is for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed paper on why Shroud of Turin is not medieval work

There is a peer-reviewed paper (https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/view/50593) the summarizes the arguments and evidence against the Shroud of Turin being a medieval work. Could the wiki editors update this wikipage based on this paper as well as citing this paper? Acdc250 (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

This paper is based on a literature source and what the author calls an argument map.[1]

"Jose L. Fernandez does research and mentoring on Systems and Requirements Engineering methods and tools"

So far it's had no citations on Google Scholar.[2]. So no, we can't use it, sorry. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Where does Wiki require citations of peer-reviewed papers to be qualified to be mentioned in wikipages? Acdc250 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. Primary sources like research papers are not sufficient. We need secondary sources like books and review articles that analyze the primary sources, not the primary sources themselves. A new peer-reviewed paper that makes a controversial claim is never a suitable reference for Wikipedia, regardless of the topic.--Srleffler (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the research paper a primary source? It summarizes the arguments and evidence for a particular synthesized perspective based on other sources. Shroud of Turin claims are all controversial. I would have thought that the carbon dating is controversial yet it is presented as if it is a fact. I think all one needs to do is present the new presented peer-reviewed paper as a plausible perspective just like carbon dating results. I thought both viewpoints of for and against the Shroud of Turin being the medieval work should be presented. The mention can be just a short sentence like "there are people who doubts the Shroud of Turn being a medieval work" with a reference to that paper. You don't have to present everything in the paper in the wikipage. Acdc250 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that the problem here is that the paper in question is not a reliable source and adds nothing significant to the debate surrounding the Shroud of Turin. According to the author's bio, it's by a retired professor with "a PhD in Computer Science, and an Engineering Degree in Aeronautical Engineering" who worked on "software development and maintenance of large systems", i.e., by an amateur in anything relevant to dating the Shroud. The journal in which it was published is run by the Faculty of Theology of a Polish university. It's not a journal of chemistry, archaeology, forensic science, history, or any other discipline directly relevant to the dating of the Shroud. After having a look a it, it seems to me to be a very tendentious review by an enthusiastic amateur of work by others, the most important of which is already covered in this Wikipedia page. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you show us why the work is not reliable? I thought the author(s) has/have used reliable sources to synthesize his/her/their arguments as well as citing reliable evidence. I don't know why a retired professor cannot produce reliable work? Yes, it synthesizes a perspective for the Shroud of Turin being not medieval work and is therefore published in a journal run by some Department of Theology because scientific journals run by atheists would reject the paper. My PhD adviser tried to publish an atheist position paper in a religion and science journal and got rejected immediately. Do you expect Christians to be impartial and Atheists can be biased? Do you think Nature journal is impartial or has its own (atheist) agenda? All the journal needs to do is that one in three reviewers is an atheist may reject the paper, and would that be impartial? Do you think most scientists are Christians so most reviewers are sympathetic to the theist view? I am a retired professor too (but not related to the author of the paper) and has published over hundreds of journal papers and conference papers and has been programme committee members of conferences as well as the Board members of journals, so I know how impartial the review process can be. Does that make all research papers unreliable or does that make books to be more reliable?

Is the first sentence in the radio carbon dating section neutral or impartial: "Radio carbon dating established that the shroud is medieval"? I do not find it established because it cites the "fringe" theories to explain it is not but never get down to the details like those from Ray Rogers. Why put "fringe" there? Isn't radio carbon dating also a fringe interpretation of the data since the data is not homogeneous. Why put some explanation to show that it has just missed the mark of being homogeneous if the data moved a bit? Is that impartial or goal posts moving? The wikipage can tolerate this kind of unreliable, fringe interpretation of data as established facts but cannot tolerate what the retired professor synthesized from reliable sources. Is that impartial? Are we getting the full picture from this wikipage (i.e. the "full" coverage or a biased coverage)? Acdc250 (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The author himself writes that the article merely "proposes to use an argument map, a representation borrowed from argumentation science, to claim grouping evidences into arguments, that the ST is not a medieval work." In other words, he's simply collecting claims by others that the Shroud of Turin (ST) isn't medieval. This would make for a usable secondary source if the author could claim the expertise needed to evaluate that evidence reliably, but that's not the case. Evidently, the problem isn't that he's retired. The problem is that he has no professional background in any of the scientific matters that he covers. I don't think that this even qualifies as a research paper in the usual sense. It's more like a term paper that a student might write as assignment for a class. I'm a bit surprised that even a Faculty of Theology found this to be worthy of being published in a refereed journal.

As for why I say that the contents aren't reliable, let me give just one example. The author states as a fact that "no pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on ST fibrils". But the only expert in the scientific authentication of ancient artifacts who's ever been allowed to analyze the ST fibrils, Walter McCrone, claimed the opposite in work that was published in Accounts of Chemical Research (a considerably more prominent scientific journal than any cited to the contrary) and which was rewarded in 2000 with the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry. The fact that the piece in question doesn't even mention McCrone is, I think, clear evidence that this can't be taken to be a reliable secondary source.

Finally let me add that I'm under no delusion that what's published in Nature is necessarily true or that the scientific peer review process is unbiased. But this is Wikipedia and the only thing that we can or should do is to summarize mainstream expert opinion. If the scientific establishment as a whole is corrupted by some atheistic bias, this isn't the place to combat it. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, I think the references [16, 19 and 20] in the radiocarbon dating section have a conflict of interests and they should be removed from the wikipage. Acdc250 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

How can references have a conflict of interest? Doug Weller talk 11:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement in lead

"Details of the image are consistent with traditional depictions of Jesus of Nazareth after his death by crucifixion." - pretty broad and vague statement. Shroud show a naked man with his hands folded across his groin - think it needs to be more specific, i.e. if it is actually consistent with depictions that existed around the time of his crucification which this seems to imply, or which depictions it is consistent with as this varies wildly. The article doesn't prove this statement later either, despite discussion, that research has also pointed to a Gothic origin closer in time to the 13th/14th century, which is almost accepted as the consensus. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Things that could be added are the numerous whip marks, blood marks at the points of biblical discussion of the crown of thorns, blood marks at the points in the wrists where nails would have been used, the side wound, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)