Talk:Shroud of Turin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleShroud 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
November 29, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Blood type[edit]

Can we edit the blood testing and type section? The second paragraph mentions an "Andrew Merriweather" who has no title, comes up nowhere else in the wiki, and the paragraph ends with his dissenting but uncited comment?

"The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.)... Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood." [1] [2]

References

  1. ^ Carlino, Elvio, Liberato De Caro, Cinzia Giannini, Giulio Fanti. 30 June 2017. Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud. PLoS ONE Vol. 12, No. 6, 13 pages. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0180487
  2. ^ https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf

Improcrastinating (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

shroud.com is not a reliable source. Carlino et al say they have found the remnants of blood on a fiber of the shroud. Even if confirmed, this doesn't look weighty enough to include. I have removed it and also the uncited sentences in the second paragraph. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps a better way of organizing this wiki would be, after covering the history, to organize by person/organization instead of by controversial issues regarding the shroud? A paragraph listing STURP's official conclusions, next dissenting opinions by Walter McCrone, then additional work through STERA, Baima Ballone and DiLazzaro, finally throw Joe Nickell on top of the pile? Something like that. Improcrastinating (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Here, we report the main findings from the analysis of genomic DNA extracted from dust particles vacuumed from parts of the body image and the lateral edge used for radiocarbon dating. Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent. Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe..."[1] (emphasis added)
The Americas? If DNA extracted from vacuumed dust particles establishes origin instead of simply confirming that many, many people have handled the cloth, then maybe we here at Wikipedia have Archaeology and the Book of Mormon all wrong! (...Guy ducks as everyone throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
A bit of revered mediaeval cloth has lots of human DNA and even some blood on it... it's really not news and the only conclusion is that a lot of people have got very excited and done lots of pseudoscience. That is, stuff that looks sciencey but actually doesn't test any interesting hypotheses. Perhaps it belongs in a list of "studies saying nothing interesting about the Shroud". Come to think of it, apart from the radiocarbon dates, that's pretty much what we have right now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the Shroud studies are tangential. In addition to C-14 I'd add McCrone's discovery of pigments in both the body-image and the blood-image areas. Those two studies (radiocarbon dating and the observation of pigments) should be considered central. What sindonologists do is basically add a lot of noise to those two central studies. It's such noise what should be moved to another article. --Cesar Tort 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
...which is happening as we speak. See Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case I look forward to removing all the pseudoscience from here, leaving only a short paragraph outlining its existence. I agree, the observation of pigments and radiocarbon dating are both real science, but the rest needs to go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't be sarcastic. It's enough that the article reflects, e.g., the overview of this Skeptical Inquirer article on the Shroud but in encyclopedic format. --Cesar Tort 14:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs to update, it is demonstrated forgery.[edit]

just like it said. They analyzed and reproduced the technic even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:2425:EDF6:DD75:C83E (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

PLoS One study retracted[edit]

I know, you're shocked. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/19/over-authors-objections-plos-one-retracts-paper-claiming-shroud-of-turin-showed-evidence-of-trauma/ Guy (Help!) 18:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I am actually not entirely completely stunned - any shroud paper co-authored by Fanti carries an element of wishful thinking, tacked on to the science. It has long been noted that the shroudies tend to deduce heroic conjectures from tiny fragments, without the basic scientific rigor of first proving that the tiny sample is representative of the rest of the picture. To add to the fun, they then accuse the C14 team of failing to TOTALLY and UTTERLY verify beyond doubt that the C14 samples were representative of the rest of the shroud - even though they did verify exactly that. Never a dull moment. However I am quite surprised that Plos One was big enough to admit the error - over the expected objections of the authors. Wdford (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The article seems to betray an agenda[edit]

The idea that any and all challenges to the original dating of the shroud have been soundly refuted, and that such a consensus is universal, seems disingenuous to me; looking deeper into the controversy, by no means is it impressed upon me that there exists anything even remotely resembling what could rightly be considered a universal, or even near universal, scientific consensus in respect to the original radio-carbon testing carried out in 1988. In and of itself, the fact that the lead chemist of the project in question would later reject his own findings strikes me as quite significant, and therefore it is hard for me to say that due weight is given to this fact, or any other facts inasmuch as they would seem to attest to the Shroud's authenticity, considering the one-sided presentation.

The is made even more problematic due to the fact that the canon response to those challenging POV (e.g "one is free to add their own sources") cannot apply, seeing as how it appears as if the article's "gatekeepers" (the majority of editors most determined to the advancement of particular ideas and sources relative to the article and it's subject matter) all seem to be of one mind, and in such a way that is not at all representative of the diversity found among editors of other entries, nor the public at large. The fact that any weight whatsoever is given to an opinion piece titled "The Shroud of Turin is fake. Get over it.", as a sourced "scientific refutation", does nothing to disavow me of such an observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC5:E000:7C62:AE26:CC23:FB45 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • When the shroud first came to light, the Roman Catholic Church investigated, and caught the person who painted it. John Calvin pointed out that the claim that the shroud was the shroud of Jesus was contradicted by the description of the shroud in the Bible. Not just one investigation, but repeated scientific investigations, have dated the shroud to long after the time when Christ died. So, yes, there is a great deal of evidence that the shroud is not authentic. There are, of course, a large number of people who believe the shroud is real, but the number of people who believe something is not evidence that it is true. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The IP's claims range from dubious to laughable. Example: "looking deeper into the controversy" which in this case apparently means "reading shroudy websites written by pseudoscientists and conspiracy theorists, while ignoring any actual expert who has worked with material known to be taken from the shroud" and the claim "by no means is it impressed upon me that there exists anything even remotely resembling what could rightly be considered a universal, or even near universal, scientific consensus" when there is a near-universal scientific consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hypothesis of a Neutron Radiation Event Has Not Been Refuted.[edit]

The article's statement that ALL hypotheses that hold that the 1988 C-14 evidence is not indicative of a date have been refuted is not correct. The Historically Consistent Hypothesis holds that the vanishing of Jesus' corpse resulted in both a proton and a neutron radiation event. The neutron event would have converted some of the Shroud's nitrogen into C-14. This theory has not been refuted. This theory is consistent with all of the other scientific evidence that has been retrieved from the Shroud, while the theory that the C-14 evidence indicates a date is not. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)jeffrey erwin [1]

References

  1. ^ TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
I suppose it should say that all non-supernatural hypotheses have been refuted. If you invoke magic, as usual all bets are off. But science does not concider magic. RobP (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Saying "all non-supernatural hypotheses have been refuted" leaves the idea that therefore the supernatural explanations are still in the running. But they are not unrefuted because they fit well, they are unrefuted because they are unrefutable in principle.
"All scientific hypotheses" should do. Hypothesis says "For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it."
Hypotheses that are constructed by starting from some random implausible idea, then inventing additional implausible ad-hoc assumptions whose only purpose is to "save the appearances" (salvāre apparentiās), or to explain away the stuff that does not fit, cannot be tested because they cheat by defining themselves as "already tested and passed".
Another possibility: "all hypotheses which are refutable have been refuted" --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The hypothesis that the shroud was weaved by Unicorns and then painted by leprechauns has not been refuted. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, that is not one of "the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating". But I guess people will know what you mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems it was not clear that I was being facetious. I do not think any change was necessary, as the default assumption IS that the supernatural does not exist and need not be considered. RobP (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)