Talk:Shroud of Turin

Herringbone IS NOT a complex weave

So I made perhaps my first ever Bold edit on wikipedia on the subsection of Historical fabrics, so please “don’t kill me” for this. As much as I respect Joe Nickell’s work on the shroud, to put it bluntly he is a idiot when it comes to “complex” weaves. Anyone who has studied textiles knows that herringbone is not a “complex” weave, it is incredibly simple. Nickells ignorance to the subject of weaves is embarrassing, is also very misleading. My edit doesn’t denounce any findings and I still kept the reference, but I just removed the part that is obvious misinformation. Wolfquack (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

WAXS Study Dates Shroud to Time of Christ

A new scientific method revealed that the Shroud of Turin may truly originate from the 1st Century, around the time of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Italian scientist Liberato De Caro told the National Catholic Register (NCR) in April 2022 that his fabric test shows the Shroud is roughly 2,000 years old. De Caro and his colleagues made the discovery by utilizing a technique called "Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering" (WAXS). Why can’t a reference to this study be added to Wikipedia?? Do you edit out truth?? 2601:681:5782:A00:11F7:2BD:B3CF:BDBE (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to a reliable source for those claims? Please and thanks? Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any independent evidence whatsoever (i.e., not De Caro or their group) that Wide-angle X-ray scattering can be used as a technique for dating samples? If it was such a useful and powerful technique, I would have expected my on-line search to reveal all sorts of information along those lines. But no. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The closest my search came to anything useful was this, which does feature an "accelerator." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample April 2022Heritage 5(2):860-870 DOI:10.3390/heritage5020047 LicenseCC BY 4.0 Truth in Erda (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

X-Ray Dating of Ancient Linen Fabrics November 2019Heritage 2(4):2763-2783 DOI:10.3390/heritage2040171 LicenseCC BY Authors: Liberato De Caro at Italian National Research Council Liberato De Caro Italian National Research Council Cinzia Giannini at National Resarch Council CNR Cinzia Giannini National Resarch Council CNR R. Lassandro at Italian National Research Council R. Lassandro Italian National Research Council Francesco Scattarella at Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro Francesco Scattarella Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro

Truth in Erda (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 19. Why do we have to repeat the same discussion? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This talk page probably needs a FAQ subpage to be written, and then transcluded above using {{FAQ}}. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)