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.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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 Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This got booted almost faster than a blink: click here
I find it interesting how much Wikipedia has changed in 10 years, when an almost identical version of this page was in the external links, and stayed there (in different forms) for over half a year, until the link became defunct.
From what I understand, exceptions for blog pages are possible, and I thought that this one would be appreciated, as it not only offers a concise but thorough look at the subject, but does so pictorially, as well.
I'm wondering if Wikipedia is using newer technology, allowing editors to stalk certain articles. Obviously, these changes, if they occur in less than one minute, are being made without giving the contribution any fair consideration. Quite a difference from 10 years ago! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:D40E:7267:23D0:E01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these sentences, which cite to sources that DO NOT SUPPORT the text of the sentences, remain untouchable:
"Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself. Refuted theories include the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories and the carbon monoxide theory." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "DO NOT SUPPORT"? Did you read those sources? -
Along those lines, there are MANY forensic experts and pathologists who have concluded that there was no way known to man that the image on the cloth, documented to be in three-dimensions, could have been created by any way known at the time to which the C14 testing dates the cloth.
A forensic expert would note that there was no way known to mankind at that time on how to create a 3-diminensional image of cloth.
Pathologists say that the accurate biology of the cloth [blood tested reflects that it came from one who was dying by asphyxiation] is astounding, because no one from that time was familiar with details of pathology.
In a room full of forensic experts and/or pathologists, you [as a devotee of the C14 testing] would be called a "fringe" theorist -- according to the [argumentative] way that term is being used within this article.
Genuine scientists don't dismiss the conclusion of another field of science as "fringe" simply because their own area of expertise indicates something different that other field of science. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 8 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" but contributing to the consensus that additional testing is needed (over which there is, in fact, incredible scientific consensus that SHOULD be mentioned in this article).
Footnote 9 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. 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 10 is a citation to an out-of-date Random House encyclopedia. That's just incredibly poor scholarship. And how does this refute scholarly papers that came later.
Footnote 11 is a citation to an article 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 (Rogers paper) is intolerable.
Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. In that paper, 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 13 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source to establish the claimed "scientific consensus."
This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read them. The problem should be obvious: the article is claiming that the footnoted sources "refute" what are called "fringe" theories. First, the so-called "fringe theories" discussed are raised in many studies and papers that post-date the sources cited. It should be clear (for example) that a 2005 paper cannot "refute" a 2020 paper. Second, the labeling as "fringe" certain theories advanced by studies and articles published in highly respected academic and scientific journals, is argumentative. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
