Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:29, 12 September 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shroud of Turin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Template:Vital article

	Shroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted November 29, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 23, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Catholicism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Shroud of Turin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Shroud of Turin at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Real talk on lead wording

Nobody actually engaged the wording on the lead in the RfC, which was two bad choices. I gave an alternative in the RfC referencing sources that got no engagement. The RfC closed without prejudice on whether the wording should be fixed in that manner. The unfortunate previous distraction above is beside the point.

Nothing anyone here says or does will make people who are fixed believers no longer want to be fixed believers. But we can still have more accurate wording without being too wordy. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"But we can still have more accurate wording without being too wordy." Now that's the understatement of the year. 157.254.225.66 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The wording really is fine as it is. However we can consider to add a line that says "Shroudies have analyzed the data from every possible angle using statistical methods, and a few of them have made a case that the stated dating interval needs to be a few decades wider in order to allow for 95% confidence." That is probably excessive for the lede, but I could probably live with it? Wdford (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read my post in the RfC. It's unfortunate that only a handful of reputable people care enough to look into this, and when they do so Nature or the like seems to all but have to publish it, and so with that formula nobody's incentivized to say "all is well", but that's what the "mainstream literature" (to the extent 4 or 5 papers can be considered a mainstream literature) looks like. So I don't know who's been "scientifically refuted", other than a different people opining, getting published by a major journal, and the subject still being largely ignored. Like it or not, that's not indicative of some scientific consensus that the original C-14 interpretation was perfect and flawless and every scientist who published against it is a crank, as the current lead implies. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been dealt with so many times before. See for full details. In a nutshell, multiple experts have studied the Shroud using microscopes etc and have found that the Shroud was never repaired or rewoven in that area. The Rogers test compared Shroud fibers against a few threads that he received in the mail, and there is no proof that these threads were from the C14 area as alleged. The contamination theory would require an enormous amount of foreign material to skew the result by so many centuries, whereas actually the samples were made as clean as could be achieved before the tests were conducted, and such a huge crust of foreign material would have been noticed. The radioactive smoke or radioactive candles or radioactive anything theories are contravening the known laws of physics. No C14 expert has spoken against the C14 results - challenges come only from non-C14-experts, ranging from coroners to historians to art experts to psychic nuns. Thus we have a clear line between hard scientific evidence vs unsupported supposition. When an unscientific theory is matched against hard scientific evidence, the hard scientific evidence wins. Hard science cannot yet confirm exactly how the image was formed, but hard science can confirm that the image was formed in the Middle Ages. Wdford (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wow

I guess any time the POV -- that all objections to the C14 testing have been "scientifically refuted" -- is demonstrated to be a flawed and false claim, that discussion gets archived. Pathetic. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And you have no intention to test that guess by checking whether those "demonstrations" in the archive hold water, because the alternative is that you are wrong and the article is right?

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? If not, you are in the wrong place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Funny. No matter how many times I show the article is flawed, you keep repeating the same things. But since you asked.

"All hypotheses put forward to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis."

Let's review the "support" for this suggestion.

Footnote 7 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish scientific consensus.

Footnote 8 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. I don't have any problem with the credential of the author to write as he does. But he is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.

Footnote 9 is to a Random House encyclopedia. Come on already. Try citing that in graduate school, see what happens. Although I have to admit that the citation -- vague as it is -- by one "encyclopedia" to another, has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Footnote 10. I don't have any issue with this citation, per se, but it was published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later, though, is purposefully deceptive and would be academically sanctionable in other contexts. Good thing this isn't a reputable graduate school.

Footnote 11 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. But it doesn't support the claim for which it is cited. Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

Footnote 12 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source of rebuttal. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So my suggestion to improve the article is to delete this sentence, which is plainly POV, as the cited sources are obviously inadequate to support the claim made in the sentence. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked your claims about footnote 7. The source writes, Rogers (2005) suggested that the fibers in his study, which came from the Raes fragments (e.g. Heimberger 2009), were coated with a Madder root dye (e.g. alizarin) and mordant. Linen does not readily accept dye, and any surface “coating” would be loosely adhered. We viewed a textile fragment dyed using traditional methods under UV light, and observed absolutely no similarity in UV fluorescence consistent with such a dye. That sounds very much like a refutation to me.

Your first claim is bullshit, and I see no reason to check the others because there is no reason to assume that they are any better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Your claim about footnote seven is bullshit. I don't even think you understand the subject matter. Keep in mind that Rogers was the head researcher on the project, and he was calling into question the results of testing on subjects collected under his supervision. In any other context, that the lead researcher has accepted that the material collected was not adequate for proper testing would essentially be conclusive. But in the end, all that the paper noted in footnote seven stated was: "We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14 C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously." So this conclusion was based on one sample sent to one lab, when samples were sent to three separate labs. So they found "no evidence" based on analysis of a single sample, which is significant, but NOT dispositive. The authors stated their careful conclusion, as I quoted above, in a manner far more circumspect that you do. YOU run afoul of the maxim of Logic that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The authors themselves do not fall into the logical fallacy that you do. They were careful to state their conclusion. You are not. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

IP 64etc seems to be making a good case here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, but nothing will change here. This page is in the hands of, and controlled by, fanatical skeptics. Soon enough this discussion will be archived and I will be banned again for being "disruptive." 64.67.122.103 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem disruptive, just seeking and arguing for just a bit more neutral point of view language. As a non-admin I'd think that archiving an ongoing discussion of sources and language should be done after a few days of no new additions but not before. No name calling though, civility reigns at Misplaced Pages, and all should assume good faith that other editors are providing situational context as they perceive and present it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Raymond Rogers was a renowned chemist who supervised the STURP research project 1978. The STURP researchers collected the samples later used for the C14 testing. Rogers came to the project as a skeptic. He accepted the C14 results without hesitancy. When questions started being raised about the C14 testing, he said that the advocates of this position were not scientists and their idea was "ridiculous." But he began testing their ideas, intending to disprove them, and was surprised by what he found. He authored his peer-reviewed article, questioning the C14 testing results, while suffering from terminal cancer. His paper is scholarly and science based, as you would expect. But he also gave a number of interviews in which this former skeptic made some completely unexpected and personal (not "scientific") observations about the shroud based on his experiences. You should google Raymond Rogers and see for yourself. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Raymond Rogers has a Misplaced Pages page. Thanks, I'll read more about him and his work. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP cozily forgot that WP:PARITY applies to fringe articles. Again, this is not a level playing field.

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

I don't think it covered anyone. The imprint upon such a shroud is nothing like a portrait photo, but something much more like . I know this is WP:OR, just saying what I think. Source: and . It is completely ridiculous to claim that the imprint would look anything like this: , i.e. like a frontal photo of a bearded man, with his hair hanging in the air, like gravity would pull his hair towards his feet. It's not rocket science, it's like when a child tells a lie and their parents immediately know they have been lied. You make it sound that it is incredibly complicated and that only scientists could tell, but in fact it is a childish lie, it is a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion is about a detail on another front, which has nothing to do with the image but only with radiocarbon dating. But of course what you say is right: the context is important. The subculture which wants to sow doubt about the C12 results exists because people want to believe in the childish lie. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Raymond E. Brown was by no means a fanatical skeptic. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Rogers came to the project as a skeptic Pretty common rhetorical method. "I was a skeptic too" is something you hear from people defending every pseudoscience. I don't know why anyone would think that it matters one bit. Disbelieving a specific claim does not make you a skeptic, and even if it did, skeptics make mistakes too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The STURP researchers DID NOT collect the samples later used for the C14 testing – those C14 samples were collected by the C14 team, which did not include STURP members.

Rogers compared his STURP samples against some threads he received in the post, which were claimed to be from the area "adjacent" to where the C14 samples were taken. The provenance of these threads cannot be tested or proven.

These threads were correctly found to differ from the STURP samples, so Rogers passed peer review. However since the provenance of these threads cannot be tested or proven, this "test" proves nothing about the C14 testing.

Since the person who mailed those threads was not entitled to gather unauthorised Shroud material, the most likely source was from a seam that was trimmed off and discarded by the C14 team specifically because it was seen to be contaminated.

All three of the labs studied their samples closely before they were burned, and the samples were carefully cleaned to remove contaminants. None of them reported the kind of contamination of the type identified by Rogers, thereby proving that these mysterious threads in the post were not representative of the C14 samples.

In addition, Arizona University had a piece of sample material left over, which was rechecked and found to have zero contamination of the type identified by Rogers, thereby further proving that these mysterious threads in the post were not representative of the C14 samples.

Conclusion - the unprovenanced postal threads tested by Rogers were indeed not representative of the Shroud, but they were not representative of the C14 samples either, so they are irrelevant. Wdford (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And the IP will later claim that their objections were "demonstrations" that the "claims" in the article were "false", and that This page is in the hands of, and controlled by, fanatical skeptics because that is how pseudoscience works: either listen only to what you yourself say, or invent excuses why what the other people said does not count. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

PARITY of sources? The number of peer-reviewed works published in notable scientific journals, casting doubt on the accuracy of the C14 testing, exceeds the number of such articles supporting the C14 testing. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't read WP:PARITY, then you don't know what it says. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said the STURP researchers collected the sample. And who is the "C14 team"? The actual sample was collected by technicians, not scientists. The 1978 STURP paper recommended C14 testing of the shroud and recommended that samples be taken from the same area as the Raes sample taken by the team in 1978. Damon reported in 1989 that the C14 samples were taken from the spot next to, and just above, the Raes sample. So you have it completely backwards. It wasn't Rogers who claimed his sample came from the area adjacent to the area where the C14 samples were taken. It was Damon who claimed that the technicians took their samples, as directed as per their protocol, from the same area that the STURP team took the Raes samples -- and this was done as per the direction of the STURP paper and recommended protocols. Everything else you have stated thereafter is speculation, which of course isn't scientific at all. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Your exact words were: "The STURP researchers collected the samples later used for the C14 testing". This is totally false. Bingo.

"The "C14 team" was the large Damon team, consisting of a range of experts in different relevant disciplines. Read their report, and see for yourself.

The C14 team studied the entire Shroud minutely, and chose their sample area based on various criteria – one of which was to not damage the image. There were no STURP members on the C14 team telling them where to sample from.

Rogers was told (without any proof) that the threads he was comparing against were taken from the area adjacent to the area where the C14 samples were taken. He made his conclusions based on that assumption. Because the provenance of these threads cannot be tested or proven, the findings of Rogers' tests can tell us nothing about the C14 testing. On the other hand, the sampled material was studied carefully by the C14 experts to identify contamination, and the scientists found no contamination of the type described by Rogers.

No C14 expert has ever spoken against the validity of those C14 results. Some other non-C14 scientists who don't like the C14 result have written papers – and even invented new "tests" - to support their POV. An unverified new methodology – frequently incorporating huge arbitrary "margins for error" - does not stack against three expert C14 tests. The proposed bases for objection have all been tested, and proven to be false. Ergo, the C14 results still stand. Wdford (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: people who seek to refute the C14 tests are not using evidence, but merely their imagination. And the reality-based community has been invited to play whack-a-mole with their imaginary refutations of hard evidence. As Steven Dutch stated, even if it were a 1st century burial shroud there is no evidence that such person was Jesus, and no evidence that that person got resurrected. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, in that one instance, I didn't get my words right. Still, the results of the C14 testing have been questioned and continue to be questioned by scientists who have published numerous peer-reviewed articles. Period/end of story. This article on its face contains a verifiable falsehood. You guys pick and choose what "science" you want to follow. The verifiable forensic pathology of the shroud and the sudarium of Oviedo, when compared, establish with near certainty that the cloths were in contact with each other at the time the bloodstains were created. Since the Sudarium's existence can be established as far back as at least to 570 AD, the C14 testing of the shroud to a point in time 600 years later than that has no rational explanation. Which is why a number of C14 experts, including Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, have urged caution about the C14 results. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You're using https://rationalwiki.org/Quote_mining

We certainly don't allow WP:GEVAL between the side which has evidence and the side which has only fantasies. I mean: just because these are fantasies it does not follow that these would be false, but these are certainly not supported by evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This is your typical nonsensical response. You don't get it. You guys are the crazy kooks who are holding onto to some fantasy that all objections to the C14 testing have been "scientifically refuted." In the next year, yet another paper will be published in a highly respected scientific journal; and you still insist that some article from 1990 (see fn 10) refutes it. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There is zero "verifiable forensic pathology" to prove that the Shroud and the sudarium of Oviedo were ever in contact with each other, far less "at the time the bloodstains were created". That is fantasy, not science. If you have any science to "prove" this assertion, please start a new thread, and we can discuss it. However until then, it is a fringe statement at best, and will be treated as such. The only science that will overturn the C14 dating, is a new C14 test using state of the art technology. The old tech has been proven many times, so it is highly unlikely that the new tech will overturn the old dating. However, time will tell. Wdford (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You just deny facts. Zero forensic evidence? You are either so uninformed, or intentionally misleading. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello 64etc. You've made some good points. But please adhere to WP:Five pillars and be a bit more civil and assume good faith (i.e. you can personally assume that the other editor, in this case, may be misinformed but then shouldn't say publicly they may be "intentionally misleading" because that is a serious accusation). Misplaced Pages has some good rules and pillars, fine life lessons in fact. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This guy accused me of "fantasies." As usual, I get the warning after they go off the tracks. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Then that's his problem, not yours. Seriously, this stuff seems to trigger many people and would best be discussed without name calling from anybody (and I don't always practice what I preach of course). Even with today's tech nobody knows what caused this image, and it is not listed as an artwork, so it is one of the nice mysteries (and an actual mystery) that the human race has found for itself to argue over and Misplaced Pages should be one of the main places to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

it is not listed as an artwork What does that mean? Listed where? It looks like an artwork, it contains pigments used in artworks, we have documents from the time it as made saying it is an artwork. The people who did not "list it as an artwork" seem to not have done their job. There is nothing more "mysterious" about it than about other medieval art. Hob Gadling (talk) --13:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hob Gadling. Right here on Misplaced Pages, see the page categories where many art-related categories would be added if this were recognized as an artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, WP is not a reliable source and its categorical schemes should probably not be considered as definitive "recognition" of anything. Secondly, sources for considering the Shroud a work of art include art historian Andrew Casper's book "An Artful Relic" (see here), this ("particularly significant for art"), this, this, and I assume many more. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, one side has evidence and the tests were done by proper experts, the other side just has guessiology (their own imagination of what went wrong with the tests performed by experts). tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No sides here, just information. What I'd like to know is why Rodgers made a 180 in his assessments. He doesn't seem like someone who'd be easily fooled. Hopefully new tests will be done at some point, I would imagine by 2028 as that 50th anniversary of the major testing, and 40th anniversary of the carbon dating tests, nears. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The C14 testing has been decisively questioned in numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers published by some of the most notable professional journals. That's just a fact. You have no credentials to question these papers, or dismiss them. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In papers published by professional journals for subjects other than C14 testing, by experts on things other than C14 testing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

C14 testing is a corroborative tool but also yields to other scientific evidence, as any archeologist would tell you. This is why Dr. Ramsey cautions that other scientific fields, relevant to the shroud, must be considered. You refuse to do that. The claim that all challenges to C14 testing has been "scientifically refuted" is a completely non-scientific assessment, made by people who have no credentials in science. That claim isn't accurate and is POV anyway. It should be deleted from this article. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Mid-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics