Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

The article seems to betray an agenda

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)

Minimal Facts approach subsection at the end of the Turin Shroud article

Th "Minimal Facts Approach" subsection appears to be out of line with the rest of the article in that it simply links to an e-book which can't be read without paying the $42 fee. I'm resisting calling the link "spam" but even if it isn't, there is no way to verify the rather bold claim in that subsection without paying the $42 fee to read the linked source. RoyalNW1 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot do it, others may do it. There was never a requirement that WP:RS should be gratis. As a matter of fact, most aren't, like academic books and scholarly articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The main issue here is whether the "Minimal Facts approach" is valid in the first place - since it calmly ignores the FACT that the C14 process has conclusively found the Shroud to be medieval. Published as it is in a theological journal, this is more of a wishful-thinking exercise than a fact-based exercise. Wdford (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Quite. I've just removed it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge got reverted, but I think his removal was proper. A claim such as "the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high" is not a theological claim and thus a theological journal is not a reliable source for that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I don't have anything against the removal, it is just that the argument with paid source wasn't decisive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a common misconception. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is very badly organised, probably from people adding to it in an ad hoc manner. Someone might like to tidy it up.PiCo (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We started cleaning it up, but it got dirty again. :( The way to fix this article is to move every shroudie argument to Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin (along with what actual scientists say about that particular fringe theory) and to move any new ones there as the shroudies add them. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved a sentence

I've move this sentence in Biological and medical forensics, flowers and pollen; "However it was subsequently determined that Baruch's work was "scientifically unsafe", and Danin thereafter disowned the publication of this work." to come directly after the mention of Danin and Uri Baruch's work, since it didn't refer to what came before it. If it was meant to be a rebuke of "Mark Antonacci argues that the pollen evidence and flower images are inherently interwoven and strengthen each other." it would have to also cite some doubt of Maz Frei's work in order to cast doubt on all the work on the pollen and since it doesn't do that however would be misleading in that instance. 217.210.93.240 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Death and resurrection of Jesus

Might be worth adding a short introductory section exploring the appearance and growth of the idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus - there's no bodily resurrection in Paul or Mark or Matthew (only a spiritual one in which the dead ascends direct to heaven in a new spiritual body); it first appears in Luke and John, and even there it's mixed (some post-resurrection appearances are spiritual, others bodily). A useful background perhaps? PiCo (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't this rather belong in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin? It has nothing to do with medieval art. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't known that article existed. It looks fork-ish to me - best to merge with this one. As for my suggestion about giving some background on the NT, the idea is that without those stories there would certainly be no shroud.PiCo (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(See post-resurrection appearances of Jesus for more on the development of the tradition).PiCo (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it should not be merged. This article was full of pseudoscientific bullshit until it was split up into those two articles. Now the article is about the scientific facts about a fake medieval relic, and the other article is about the fantasies some Catholics get when they try to think about it, and about the mistakes they make when they try to test their ideas. If that is a POV fork, then NASA and Moon landing conspiracy theories is also a POV fork. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Authenticity

This article frequently refers to the shroud as being "authentic" (or discussing its "authenticity").

• Christopher Columbus encountered America and speculated that America was India.
  • Would people then debate whether "America is authentic" or discuss "the authenticity of America"?
  • Surely it would make more sense that people would debate whether "Columbus was right" or discuss "the accuracy of Columbus's speculation" since America simply is what it is — whether people think it is India or not.
• Someone encountered the shroud and speculated that the shroud was a specific Hebrew burial cloth.
  • Would it make sense for people to debate whether "the shroud is authentic" or discuss "the authenticity of the shroud"?
  • Surely it would make more sense that people would debate whether this or that theory "is right" or discuss "the accuracy of speculations" since the shroud simply is what it is — whether people think it is miraculous or not.

Maybe just someone was wrong. It happens. It doesn't mean the thing they speculated about was an elaborate forgery / hoax / conspiracy - whether we're talking about America or a cloth. I think the wording should be changed (except when "authentic*" appears within direct quotations) to emphasise that it's the speculations that are dubious: eg "Columbus believed X but evidence suggests he was wrong" rather than "investigations continue into whether America is authentic or a hoax". 49.195.120.86 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the quality of something being "authentic" can refer to a variety of subject matter or phenomena. Does there actually exist a piece of cloth that is known by (many?) as, "The Shroud of Turin?" For example, to my knowledge, there does not exist much evidence to suggest that "Noah's Ark" has been found. In fact, the wiki page on, "The Great Flood" suggests that scientific evidence is scant to support the claim that there was a great flood that covered all of the world at some point. Obviously, there were different continents and different oceans at various times, which would suggest that the water levels of those ocean(s) were higher or lower, but "a flood" as we currently define it? Apparently no. To continue, "Is the Shroud of Turin an authentic piece of cloth?" Obviously, it would depend upon the definition of "cloth" versus "paper" (which is not so straightforward as one might initially think). Is the Shroud an authentic burial cloth at all, or just an artist's rendition of one, or both (started as an artist's rendition and then subsequently used as a burial cloth or a burial cloth which was then modified by an artist after the fact? OR, if a rendition, did the author use actual biomatter as either a medium for the art or deceptively added biomatter to suggest that it was an actual shroud? If a real burial shroud, then was it Jesus' authentic burial shroud (that there was such a person who did the things the Bible talks about)? Which even if the Shroud is authentically the burial shroud of Jesus, doesn't mean that Jesus, the person, was necessarily divine, as at around that time, there were lots of people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah and others believing them to be so. [In the end, does it matter? If someone believes that the Shroud of Turin is what it purports to be, who am I to argue?....unless they are also somehow claiming that this belief is somehow backed by scientific evidence of it being so.... Merry Christmas everyone ! (hugs) - Shannon — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonMcCoven (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, fake gold is real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Statistics stuff

Should this article say in the lead that recent studies cast cast serious doubts on the reliability of the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin? Frezase (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

" In 2019, researchers reported on a statistical analysis of the raw data of the radiocarbon dating tests. They concluded on statistical grounds and original documentation that it was impossible "to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers 'conclusive evidence' that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth". They did however admit that their "statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they accepted that every measured radiocarbon date from every laboratory indicates a medieval age for the cloth."

In 2019, researchers reported on a statistical analysis of the raw data of the radiocarbon dating tests. They admitted that their "statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they accepted that every measured radiocarbon date from every laboratory indicates a medieval age for the cloth. However they concluded on statistical grounds that "homogeneity is lacking in the data" and that the procedure should therefore be "reconsidered".

I removed these two parts, which are almost exact duplicates of each other. Please explain why that study is relevant, and why it is relevant enough to put it in the lead.

Didn't PROFRINGE editors try to put another Casabiance study in there before? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Sorry, but what is your point? This is clearly not fringe. Your source, Philip Ball, explains in Chemistry World why those findings are very important and why they have made headlines: the C14 results were unreliable. In my humble opinion, it would be highly misleading not to include this information in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.213.226 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ball writes "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong – but apparently it was not definitive either."

When is one study definitive? That new one does not change much. It certainly does not belong in the lead. And even if it were to be in the lead, it should be much shorter there. The lead is rather too long than too short. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". These statisticians - who have never personally seen the shroud up close - would be more scientific if they worded their conclusions a bit more honestly to say "we believe that it is not correct to claim a date range of 1260 to 1390 with 95% confidence, because a 95% confidence level would actually require a date range of 1210 to 1440." This is effectively what they are concluding, but because they have a personal POV they word it a bit more vaguely, so that straw-clutching shroudies can seize upon this to mean that the entire C14 test is invalid, and that the subject is wide open once again.

The argument that the "lack of homogeneity" means the tested samples were not a single representative sample, is total hogwash. Various experts who have actually examined the shroud, all concluded "definitively" that the samples are all part of the original shroud textile. The "lack of homogeneity" has been explained by C14 experts as resulting from the fact that the different labs all used completely different cleaning processes, and that these different processes seemingly varied in effectiveness by a few percent. They were counting atoms, after all. This would cause a problem if they were trying to pin down the date of manufacture to "during the 1st Crusade vs during the 2nd Crusade", but for the purposes of determining "during medieval times vs during biblical times", the C14 test is totally "definitive".

The "theory" that there is a dating "trend" or "slope" across the three samples is also hogwash, because the Arizona sample was actually made up of fragments taken from both ends of the sampled area.

Wdford (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your anonymous opinion about the quality of the articles is of no interest here. If you want to submit an article in a leading academic journal on this topic, feel free to do so.

The question is: is this a reliable source which should be included in the article? Short answer: yes, and in the lead otherwise, it would be highly misleading to the uninformed reader. Another article, just published, agrees with the Oxford paper: "we find the Shroud data to be heterogeneous, while data from three control samples show no heterogeneity", Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.213.226 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, yet another paper written by shroudies, trying to use "lies, damned lies, and statistics" to create the impression that the C14 dating is wrong, and the cloth may still possibly be authentic. Pathetic.

Re the Walsh and Schwalbe paper:

Both Walsh and Schwalbe are long-time "legendary" shroudies, who have dedicated entire life-times to "proving" that the shroud is authentic. Their POV is not a secret, so their objectivity is questionable.

They assume that the Arizona test was only conducted on one piece of material from one end of the sampled area, rather than incorporating material from both ends, as this assumption is essential to create the impression of an "inherent variation" in the "carbon isotopic composition of the samples themselves". However the residual fragment in Tucson is too big to have come from the smaller sample piece, so therefore material from both sample pieces must have been tested. The "inherent variation" hypothesis is thus automatically false.

They disregard the fact that multiple experts have studied the actual shroud itself, and have determined conclusively that the sampled material is representative of the entire shroud.

They concede that the Oxford and Zurich data analysis were both statistically fine, so the medieval dates from those two tests is solid and reliable. Ergo, the shroud is NOT AUTHENTIC.

They agree that the "proposed" calculation errors of the Damon statisticians can be corrected by adjusting the date range by a mere 88 years or less - so once again they are confirming that the shroud is NOT AUTHENTIC.

They accept that the lack of heterogeneity can be accounted for simply by the known differences in cleaning processes applied by the three labs, which is obviously much more plausible than a wild theory about variations in isotopic composition which somehow eluded multiple examinations by multiple experts.

In short, these repeated statistical "analyses" add nothing. They do not overturn the original dating, since they all assume that the sampled material is not actual shroud material, whereas real-life expert studies of the actual shroud have shown conclusively that the sampled material really was actual shroud material.

If you want to include this mush, you would need to include mention that the conclusions are based on an invalid assumption about the Arizona samples, and that the authors still concluded that the date range is only wrong by 88 years. Wdford (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. The arguments given by Wdford have clearly no value. We are interested in reliable sources, not in personal comments made by an anonymous user on Wikipedia. This talkpage is not a forum. Frezase (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Frezase: This is your third week as an editor and you have already mastered {{rfc}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Not his fault, he did not put {{rfc}} on top of it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Right. Ask User:Frezase about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The personal interpretations of studies published in leading journals have 0 weight and are laughable. Wikipedia is about reliable sources.

It is easy to find sources showing why the newest studies must be included. According to Bruni et al. in Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2020, "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud". article

McAvoy in Applied Optics, 2019: "Recently, Casabianca et al., carried out a thorough statistical analysis of the raw data that was collected during the 1988 radiocarbon dating study. [...] Casabianca et al. concluded that their statistical analysis reinforced the argument against the validity of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, suggesting the presence of serious incongruities among the raw measurements. They further state that the measurements made by the three laboratories on the Shroud samples suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects of the 95% AD 1260-1390 interval. These authors recommend that additional testing be done on the Shroud." article. Frezase (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you think that they refuted the post-Great Schism origin of the shroud: they didn't. So why should we mention just another study which fails WP:SCIRS and WP:EXTRAORDINARY? There is no obligation to mention whatever is published with peer-review. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't give any good reasons not to mention the current state of knowledge about the 1988 carbon dating.

You should first try to prove that the study published in Archaeometry, quoted by many secondary sources, is not a reliable scientific source and that this reliable source makes an extraordinary claim (it does not). Frezase (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida has been smeared with claims that he believed that all opinions are equal. As described by Rick Roderick in a TTC course, the only people who said that all opinions are equal were those permanently committed to the insane asylum.

— WP:ABIAS

WP:FRINGE applies to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The RFC debate seems moribund, so I'll post here. I can't read the Casabianca et. al. article because it's behind a paywall and I have better things to spend money on, but I've read Ball's review article in Chemistry World and it says this: "Casabianca and colleagues don’t assert that their analysis shows the shroud to be much older (than claimed in the paper they criticise), but only that re-analysis is needed 'to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.’ In other words, this paper does not overturn the original analysis, it merely questions the range of dates. At this point it's probably not worth including, as there are sure to be further opinions in coming months.Achar Sva (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree: since the general conclusion is the same, adding this material adds nothing other than potentially casting unnecessary doubt on the science involved. Especially considering the fringe tradition of quote mining, it seems undue. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is yet more cherry-picking stats-manipulating straw-clutching wishful thinking.

• The sampled material was representative of the shroud - this has been confirmed many times, by different experts who examined the shroud personally. The statistics offer only a statistical inconsistency, whereas actual physical examination has definitively debunked the theory that the samples were not representative. This has been published by actual experts.
• There certainly were contaminants in the samples, but these were identified by deliberate inspection, and removed prior to the testing. This has been published by actual experts, and the removal thereof is actually confirmed by Casabianca themselves - bottom of page 7. Expert Gove has stated that the residual contaminants would have to make up well over half the sampled material in order for the shroud to be authentic, and that was definitely not the case.
• The "linear trend" in the dating can only exist if Arizona tested material from one end of the sample and not from both ends - this assumption has been debunked long ago already. Ergo, there is no linear trend in real life.
• Casabianca et al state that "our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they conclude that a new radiocarbon dating process is required "to compute a new reliable interval". They do not claim the medieval dating is invalid, far less that the shroud may be authentic, but their wording is dangerous vague, and this gives the shroudies a new straw to clutch at. Casabianca's conclusion is confirmed more clearly by Ball, a reliable secondary source, as noted above already.

This "study" can only be included in the article if the wording clearly states that only the confidence interval is being questioned, not the medieval result itself. Other statistical analyses have concluded that the interval is wrong by 50-90 years only. Wdford (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It is sufficient to read the study (for free on academia.edu), to notice that Wdford and others biased users do not understand what they are talking about, or that they are trying to mislead uninformed Wikipedian users. It's funny that those users do not trust the scientific process and rules about reliable sources when those things go against their obvious prejudices.

For example, I guess that Wdford, who seems be an expert, has already read the papers where the laboratory of Arizona admits that it tested only one part of their sample (Freer-Waters and Jull, Radiocarbon; Riani et al.,Statistics and Computing), and that Wdford knows that the linear trend has been confirmed in the latest paper published some weeks ago in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Nevertheless, Wdford is not interested in mentioning those facts.

The conclusion is clear, as noted by all the reliable secondary sources (including Philip Ball, Bruni and McAvoy, already quoted), and that's all what matters on Wikipedia: the 1988 dating is not reliable, and no one can say that the tested sample is representative. The last sentence of the paper: "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. Frezase (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I quote from the expert Jull:

• Freer and Jull, Radiocarbon Volume 52, 2010: "In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants." Clear and simple.
• Freer and Jull, Radiocarbon Volume 52, 2010: "Six samples were taken from the warp and weft fibers at different locations on a fragment remaining from the 14C study in 1988. This fragment, labeled A1B, is approximately 0.5 × 1 cm and originally weighed 12.39 mg." They are thus conclusively stating that the surviving sample material is part of the A1 (larger) sample fragment, so the A2 sample really was used in the testing. The assumption on which the linear trend is based, is thus invalid. Clear and simple.

On the other hand, Riani (2013) state that they "received a personal communication from Prof. Jull of the University of Arizona confirming that they did indeed only analyze A1." There is no such statement from Jull himself in any of Jull's many publications. Not clear and not simple.

Casabianca et al state that "our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they conclude that a new radiocarbon dating process is required "to compute a new reliable interval".

The evidence published by the experts, is clear that the statistics DO NOT show that the C14 dating is out by 1300 years, or prove the shroud to be ancient. Please quit this POV-pushing, and accept that the experts know what they are doing. Wdford (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop calling Prof. Jull an incompetent or a liar! If Jull says, in writing, that only A1 was analyzed, it is because only A1 was analyzed, not because you are the only guy in the world to be right. And a useful reminder: Wikipedia is not interested in your personal interpretation based on a invalid argument (solution to your false dilemma: only A1 was tested, A2 was never tested, Jull is not an incompetent or a liar, and the linear trend detected by Prof. Riani and confirmed by Walsh does exist).

The experts are clear: the results of the 1988 test are not reliable and there is no conclusive evidence that the calendar age range is representative of the whole cloth. Like it or not, this is the current state of our scientific knowledge.

We have many reliable secondary sources (Ball, McAvoy, Bruni), and even if you don't like them due to your own bias, we have to mention Casabianca et al. This is how Wikipedia works. Sorry if it hurts. Frezase (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you bother to read my posts properly, you will see that I am NOT calling Jull an incompetent or a liar - I am actually citing Jull as one of the few experts who has had hands-on experience with the actual shroud material. Jull said clearly that the medieval date is still valid - How are you able to cite Jull as a reliable source without registering this FACT?

Jull did not say only A1 was analyzed - Riani claimed that Jull confirmed this, but in his own paper Jull actually stated that the remaining fragment was from A1, not A2, so A2 was actually used in the test after all. Why are you not seeing that either?

All radiocarbon experts agree that the shroud test was valid. Textile experts who have actually examined the shroud, all confirm that the tested samples were original cloth. Jackson, a STURP member and leading shroudie, confirms from STURP photographic evidence that there was no evidence of any repairs in the sampled area. All these actual experts, who had actual sight of the actual shroud, all confirm that the tested samples were original shroud material. How are you not able to see these FACTS?

The statisticians who claim "lack of homogeneity", do so on the basis of manipulating the data based on unverified assumptions about their point of origin. They also admit that the differences in the effectiveness of the cleaning processes could also explain the "lack of homogeneity" noted in the data. Yet some people choose to believe that this indicates the C14 tests were invalid - despite the mountain of evidence from actual experts who actually handled the actual shroud.

Ball himself made it clear that Casabianca admitted that their statistical results show the shroud is medieval, and that only the range of the dating result needs adjustment. He actually wrote that "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong." How are you able to cite Ball as a reliable source without registering this FACT?

So we have a number of actual experts, who had actual sight of the actual shroud, all saying the C14 tests were performed on representative cloth. We have a few statisticians who have never examined the shroud, claiming that the lack of homogeneity "might" mean the samples were not representative, although they also admit that other explanations exist. The "maybe perhaps" hypothesis of a few statisticians cannot outweigh the mountain of evidence from a range of actual experts who had actual sight of the actual shroud. That is how Wikipedia works. Even if it hurts. Wdford (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: "Jull actually stated that the remaining fragment was from A1, not A2, so A2 was actually used in the test after all. Why are you not seeing that either? " You are still calling Jull an incompetent or a liar. Only A1 was tested and A2 was, according to Jull and to the statistical tests, never tested.

And a reminder (again): on wikipedia, no one cares about your faulty reasoning. We care about reliable sources. Even if it hurts.

The fact that you do not want to include a peer reviewed paper saying "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. " You are quite at peace with multiple other ridiculous references included the lead when in favor of your ideological bias (Schafersman, Chivers). This point proves your bad faith. Frezase (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Not so at all.

In his own paper, Jull stated clearly that the remaining Arizona fragment was part of A1, not A2 as you assume. An unsubstantiated claim from Riani that contradicts Jull, is automatically not as reliable as a published statement from Jull himself. Please provide a published source where Jull says the A2 fragment was never tested?

We already have a statement in the lead which reads "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating." All the "lies, damned lies and statistics" are summarized by this statement as well. You can add your latest analysis here as an additional reference with pleasure. However it is not appropriate to waffle on with cherry-picked details in the lead.

The detail will need to be stated in the body of the article, in order that it be "summarized" in the lead. In order to meet the requirements of Neutrality, this additional paragraph will need to also include the following FACTS:

• Casabianca are only contesting the Arizona results, and accept that the other labs gave statistically reliable results.
• Casabianca have acknowledged that the shroud is still medieval, and are only attacking the spread of the dating range.
• Casabianca have noted a lack of homogeneity in the data, but concede that this might be due to differences in cleaning techniques.
• A number of actual radiocarbon dating and textile experts have all proved definitively that the shroud samples were in fact representative of the entire cloth, using actual shroud evidence as opposed to simply massaging data. This directly refutes the chosen conclusion of Casabianca that the tested samples were non-representative.

Is this clear enough for you? Wdford (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is what happens when you put too much detail in the lede. Why not just cite the 1988 carbon-dating result and then a sentence or two that mention the disputes to the findings. Then take all the debate and controversies elsewhere in the body. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Darwin Naz - put too much detail in the lead and people simply don't read it.Achar Sva (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We already have a sentence in the lead that reads "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating". Is that sufficient, or should we add a few more words about damned lies and statistics? Wdford (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The laughable hostility of Wdford towards statistical analysis and the veiled attacks against Timothy Jull show that this user does not understand the basis of a C14 test, and the reasons why an intercomparison can be valid. As shown above, Wdford is not able to interpret honestly the content of the reliable sources (Wdford's summary of Archaeometry's article is at best a total disaster: don't trust me or Wdford, read the paper).

For the lead, we can rely on respected physicists, Bruni et al., who published this year a peer reviewed article in Radiation Physics and Chemistry: "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud" article

Who is afraid of reliable secondary sources? Frezase (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Frezasethe Casabianca et. el. paper says that their results "do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out" and that 't]he measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval" - in other words, the 95% range should be or could be wider.This is hardly revolutionary, as I think three editors beside myself have pointed out.Achar Sva (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I am NOT attacking Jull, I regard him as the best expert source on the topic. I am quoting Jull who said in his own paper that the remaining fragment come from A1 and not from A2. Frezase is the one who is denigrating Jull by suggesting that the unverified claim of Riani-Fanti outweighs the published statement by Jull himself. If you have a source showing that Jull actually published that the A2 fragment was never carbon-tested, please provide that source?

A number of actual radiocarbon dating and textile experts have all proved definitively that the tested shroud samples were in fact representative of the entire cloth, using actual shroud evidence as opposed to simply massaging data. However Frezase refuses to accept these reliable sources, who are all specialists in very relevant fields. Instead he favors the conclusions of statisticians who have never handled the shroud, but who formulate their opinions by massaging data based on unverified assumptions.

The paper by Bruni et al deals with a completely different topic, and merely makes a passing reference to the work of Riani-Fanti etc. This does not count as a reliable source on the Shroud of Turin topic. It is merely a group of Italian Catholics giving a nod to the work of another group of Italian Catholics.

However, the Bruni paper does make some very interesting points, such as:

• "The double-peaked age probability confirms the well-known difficulty to obtain unambiguous radiocarbon age of cellulose-based textiles, due to the influence of many possible contaminants." When Riani-Fanti saw a double-peak with the Turin Shroud data they railed about non-homogeneity. Talk about double-standards.

• "the most peculiar feature of the Arquata shroud is the absence of perceptible drawings or paintings on the front and back body impressions." Shroudies claim that the Turin Shroud is unique in having no evidence of painting or brush-strokes, which they claim as evidence of divine manufacture. However here we have Bruni stating calmly that another shroud also exists which used the same "brushless" manufacturing method.

Now isn't that INTERESTING??? Wdford (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The latest absurd remarks, cherry-picking and ad hominem attacks made by Wdford show that he is very much in trouble: in his mind, the physicists who are Italian are therefore Catholics and therefore are in favor of the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and therefore are not reliable on this topic.

We are not here to read about the personal assessments and desperate arguments of an anonymous user. We care about reliable sources: "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth; "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud". article

If you can't mention those reliable sources when the article uses dozens and dozens of poor quality, never peer reviewed sources, don't talk about neutrality any more. Frezase (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you are suddenly concerned about neutrality, please consider the following:

The statistical analyses are NOT reliable sources, because they extrapolate from their data-massaging a conclusion that contradicts reality. The statistical analyses you cite all conclude that the tested samples are not representative of the whole cloth. However a whole range of textile and radiocarbon experts have proved, using actual shroud evidence, that the sampled fragments were indeed representative of the whole cloth. When a statistical result contradicts the physical evidence, then the statistical result must be wrong. Any conclusion to the contrary will thus be WP:FRINGE, and cannot be regarded as a reliable source for this topic. Until you accept this FACT, your edits cannot be considered to be neutral either.

This conclusion about not being representative is based on an assumption that Arizona only dated the A1 material, and did not test the A2 material at all. This is clearly a false assumption.

Firstly, Jull in his 2010 paper clearly states that "This fragment, labeled A1B, is approximately 0.5 × 1 cm and originally weighed 12.39 mg." The unsubstantiated claim of Riani-Fanti that Jull privately confirmed to them the contrary, will need powerful proof to overturn the published statement of Jull himself. I am still waiting for you to present that source please.

Second, Jull in his 2010 paper clearly states that "This fragment, labeled A1B, is approximately 0.5 × 1 cm and originally weighed 12.39 mg." Per Riani-Fanti, the A2 fragment measured 16mm x 4mm, so this surviving fragment was not the A2 fragment. Further per Riani-Fanti, the A1 fragment was cut into 4 pieces, each measuring 16mm x 2.5mm. Once again, this does not match the real-world dimensions of the surviving fragment. Ergo, Riani-Fanti made incorrect assumptions, and the A2 material was indeed tested. This is not rocket-science. In fact, if Arizona used the A2 fragment as one sample, and cut the A1 fragment into three portions (horizontally), then two of those three portions would have measured 5mm x 10mm (A1A and A1B), with one fragment being 6mm x 10mm (A1C). This fits the real-world evidence exactly. Since all the statistical "linear trend" conclusions are dependent on A2 not having been tested, the "linear trend" conclusions are thus wrong. When the statisticians claim otherwise, they are contradicting the real-world evidence, and their claim is thus fringe.

Apart from the false linearity conclusion, consider what the statistical papers actually concluded:

• Riani-Fanti: "Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared."

• Lazzaro: "Obviously, the results of Riani et al. published in [28, 30] do not mean the ST is authentic: rather, they suggest that the dating results are not reliable and the C-14 measurement should be repeated."

• Casabianca: "The measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval. The statistical analyses, supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. … Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."

BTW: Your tone and style of debate are very similar to that of an editor named Thucyd, who was also obsessed with statistical analyses, and who also refused to acknowledge all the real-world evidence which proved the statistical conclusions to be wrong. Wdford (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And to clarify this even further - the latest "statistical analysis" paper on Shroud-related testing appears to "An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin", by Bryan Walsh & Larry Schwalbe, published in 2020 in the Journal of Archaeological Science (Reports Volume 29, February 2020, 102015), freely available here [1]

In the Discussion section, the authors state as follows:

• "At this time, the source of the statistical heterogeneity of the Shroud data is unknown, but one of two broad hypotheses could reasonably account for the effect. One is that some differences may have existed in either the sample processing or measurement protocols of the different laboratories. The other is that some inherent variation was present in the carbon isotopic composition of the Shroud sample itself. …..

• "An alternate hypothesis is that some difference in residual contamination may have occurred as a result of differences in the individual laboratories’ cleaning procedures. ….

• "In support of the contamination hypothesis, Fig. 4 illustrates how the mean results from the Zurich and Tucson data (open symbols) agree within their calculated experimental error (note level B-B′), whereas that from Oxford does not (A-A′). If the Zurich and Tucson data were displaced upward by 88 RCY as shown in the figure all of the results would agree within the uncertainty observed. Indeed, if the magnitude of the “adjustment” were as small as ~10 RCY, the χ2 analysis would confirm a statistical homogeneity assuming the uncertainties in the data did not change."

Both authors are respected pro-authenticity advocates, so their honest and professional analysis should carry weight with the shroudie community. They are openly acknowledging the long-known fact that a simple difference in cleaning procedures would easily account for the apparent non-homogeneity of the three lab results, and that an adjustment of just 88 years would eliminate the "statistical problem". If only Riani-Fanti had been so open and transparent, yes? Wdford (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The original question was "Should this article say in the lead that recent studies cast cast serious doubts on the reliability of the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin". The point with the shroud is traditionally whether it is over two thousand years old or from the late middle ages (BTW, even if it was 2,000 years old, this would be of course no proof of "autenticity".) The possibility that the results of the carbon dating could be another 50 years off track doesn't change anything to a medieval origin, so it can be no question of "serious doubt on the reliability". We can mention in passing these "recent studies" in the section Radiocarbon dating but in my opinion not in the lede. 2003:F5:6F0E:7200:3461:3461:C6F3:C7C7 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Agreed. However the issue is that the shroudies are now using "statistical analyses" to "prove" that the C14 dating is unreliable, using very ambiguous language to conceal the deception. We should perhaps address it by including in the lead a sentence along the lines of "a statistical analysis in 2020 (Walsh & Schwalbe) suggested that the stated range of the C14 dating would need to be widened by several decades to properly meet the stated confidence level of 95%." Ideas? Wdford (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps for the body, if included. I also don't find the sentence particularly clear for the general public, and if simplified, something like "In 2020, Walsh & Schwalbe suggested that the C14 dating could be off by a few decades." doesn't seem so important, it's a trivial detail... —PaleoNeonate – 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The wording "could be off by a few decades" is good. And it does not belong in the lead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I added an extra paragraph in the body of the article. Comments please? Wdford (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing

@John N. Lupia III: The problem with your edits is that you did not WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. See WP:OR, WP:VER and WP:Editorializing. Also, anything smacking of WP:PROFRINGE will be reverted by any experienced editor. We don't indulge in WP:GEVAL. There is something you should know: for us the WP:SOURCES need to be laid bare in the open and evaluated objectively (i.e. intersubjectively). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

References

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)

<banned user>

The hypothesis that the shroud was made by extraterrestrials also hasn't been falsified. You see, there are no limits for what Almighty God can do: only natural processes have to abide by the laws of physics, miracles, by definition, could perform all kind of impossible things. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Back to last agreed version: there is no intense scientific debate since 1988 anymore, only a rearguard fight by a core of believers. These changes in the lead should be discussed in in the talk page anyway." This statement was used to justify removing about 20 edits made by myself and several other users. I disagree with the statement that "there is no intense scientific debate" about the shroud anymore. New scientific research is being done every year and both sides of the debate should be fairly represented in this article. Jonbrach (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Both sides are already being fairly represented here. The core of believers keep throwing up speculative theories, which are inconsistent with the actual scientific evidence. This is made clear in the article already. Totally fair and correct. If the believers ever come up with a theory that actually is scientifically valid and consistent with the evidence, then it will be added at that time. Wdford (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jonbrach in this matter. Without both sides of an idea being expressed, the article stops being an encyclopedic entry and becomes an opinion blog. Taram (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Taram:

To provide a bit of context: You are not the first person who comes to the Talk page of an article about a pseudoscientific idea or about a proponent of pseudoscience and writes things like "this violates NPOV", "the article should say less about what scientists say about it and more about what <X> themselves say". This happens every day, at one pseudoscience article or another. It is caused by the fact that many pseudoscientists have successfully given the public the wrong impression that their ideas are a valid part of science. The public then sees that Wikipedia articles are in conflict with that perception and thinks that changing the Wikipedia article is easier than changing their own perception. The attitude of those editors is always the same: "I know better than all the other editors here. I just need to convince them." The methods are always from the same set: *edit-war, *personal attacks, *sealioning, *wikilawyering, *soapboxing (walls of text), *misinformation from and links to questionable websites, *attempts at logically deriving the truth of their own beliefs from platitudes and from wrong assumptions about science. *I probably left out a few. The result is always the same: *it will not happen. The reason is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and pseudoscientific sources are not reliable sources. *An additional result that occurs if the editor in question does not back off in time is that the editor is blocked. You have already exhibited the attitude and some of the methods we know so well. Doug Weller's comment on your user talk page "Your fate is in your own hands" refers to the expected result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Now I see why you left that vague message on my talk page, T George. Let's be clear about what I said, first. I wrote: "I am in agreement with Jonbrach in this matter. Without both sides of an idea being expressed, the article stops being an encyclopedic entry and becomes an opinion blog." You, T George, claimed that I said " 'this violates NPOV', 'the article should say less about what scientists say about it and more about what <X> themselves say' " which I did not write. If you want to argue against those claims which you indicated that I wrote, go ahead, but do not indicate that I made those statements as you craft your arguments against them in order to make a point you want to make. To craft an argument, you do not need to paint a broad brushstroke and apply it to an individual in order to demonize the individual to make your point sound more credible. You might enjoy studying the art of rhetoric. Let me know if you would like some text suggestions for that study. 22:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Taram: I was not demonizing you. Just saying that according to WP:GEVAL the two sides are not equal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tudor! I appreciate your clarification at your page, too! Be well and stay safe! Taram (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Sorry to bother again, Tudor, but I have I have one more question for clarification purposes. You wrote "Doug Weller's comment on your user talk page 'Your fate is in your own hands' refers to the expected result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)}}" I did a word search in my user talk page, user talk page history, and user page for "Hob, Gadling, Doug, Weller, fate, hands" and anything posted on 15 February 2019, but did not find anything that said "Your fate is in your hands" by a Doug Weller or a Hob Gadling. Could you tell me where you saw that on any of my pages, please. That sounds like somebody posted a threat to me and I would like to follow up with that if need be. Thank you and be well, Tudor! Taram (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Taram: It was a quote from Hob Gadling, talking about someone else. So, it wasn't about you. But I offered it in order to learn from it, even if you are another person, in another circumstances, and you have not violated WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I see. In the English language proper use of conventional punctuation such as quotation marks helps to reduce misunderstandings in what you write. The missing quotation marks in your original message to me reminds me of what drew me to the article page in the first place: bad English grammar and atrocious use of English punctuation. Taram (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Giulio Fanti's dating

Fanti's dating by vibrational spectroscopy is not published in any peer-reviewed journal, the article mentioned before has nothing of this sort; it is published only in a popular, non-scientific book G. Fanti, S. Gaeta Il mistero della Sindone. Le sorprendenti scoperte scientifiche sull’enigma del telo di Gesù (chapter "Le datazioni alternative", starting from "Gli straordinari risultati conclusivi, che verranno sinteticamente..."). There is no positive reviews of this dating by scientists, while this one is negative, and Fanti is not a very notable scientist by himself. Moreover, his results are completely inconsistent with the conventional dating, 300 BC and 400 AD vs. 1260–1390 AD. Thus I deleted his dating from the article. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohhhh....that sort of dating! The editor's summary sent to me had me wondering what some guy's romantic life had to do with the Shroud of Turin. (Specificity, which is sadly lost in some English as a second language writing, is key to clarification.)

Taram (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

Although not a Catholic or a believer, I am not sure about the accuracy of this assertion in the introduction: "The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud". My problem is that I have stumbled upon an article where it's mentioned that, to list a few examples, the current pope and his two predecessors all called the shroud "Holy" and referred to it a "relic" (relic being by definition "the preserved physical remains or personal effects of a saint or venerated person") and an "icon of a man who was crucified". Coming from the supreme leader of the Catholic Church, it would seem like an endorsement to me. Still, in the spirit of consensus, I think we can leave the claim, if immediately followed by the three sourced quotes from the three most recent popes, which are very relevant to the article. Cheers. Arrasarro (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, calling it a relic is not a "formal endorsement". Especially since the vast majority of relics are fake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That statement in the introduction is correct as it stands. An endorsement would be: "The Shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ." No Pope has ever made that claim. Numerous Popes have refused to either endorse it or reject it. See section "Vatican position", which gives various summaries and quotations of what they have said. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Popes have always been careful to ensure that their proclamations are too obfuscatory to enable clear unambigious meaning. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and popes are not really objective sources on the topic of the authenticity or otherwise of "relics". These few quotes are really just non-committal observations by non-objective observers, which do not in any way constitute the official opinion of the church. They are reported in the section on the Vatican's position, but they are not really notable enough to be in the lead. Wdford (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

More than that, I feel that we should consider that any pope is not a reliable source on religion because of COI and unreliability issues. Just an observation. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

And this material is coming from the National Catholic Reporter, which is not a quality source either. I propose that the addition of these quotes be reverted from the lead as per WP:BRD, and that the material be incorporated into the article in the Vatican section - bearing in mind that the observation of a pope is not the same thing as the official position of the church. Wdford (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course popes aren't scientific experts and no modern pope has claimed to be. But the pope always has the final word on all matters of faith and morals. "Endorse" is vague. Popes have come short of declaring things like Marian apparitions legitimate but still allow people to pray to the apparition because it encourages faith. Something similar is true for the Shroud, but it has not been officially declared a legitimate relic by the church. The pope could declare it so (based on faith rather than scientific proof), but that would be an exceedingly rare occurrence in modern times. As for whether an "observation" by the pope is the official position of the church, for the most part that's true depending on the meaning of "observation". If the observation is expressed ex cathedra it's official. But that's rare. The Church does exhort Catholics to take official comments by the pope very seriously even if not ex cathedra, but that has some gray area. Sundayclose (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Popes always obfuscatory? Nonsense. Here's Paul VI in Humanae Vitae: "Direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, [is] to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. ... Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." How's that for direct, and to the point? When they want to say something clear, they say it, in no uncertain terms. Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's direct, and other popes have made similar direct declarations. But there is no pretense that it's based on science for modern popes (if we go back to Galileo it's a different matter). It's a statement of morality (even though many Catholics ignore it). My point is that the Catholic church's teaching is that the pope can officially (ex cathedra) declare the Shroud a valid relic (or declare that it's not a valid relic) as a matter of faith but not science, and the church teaches that it's binding on all Catholics. That doesn't happen very often, especially for things like relics or apparitions. But that's largely a moot point because no pope in his right mind would do that and it's questionable that even a majority of Catholics understand it or care about it. However, recent popes have made less direct comments about faith and morals which are considered important but not binding. Sundayclose (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sundayclose:, agree that it's non-scientific (I would say "dogmatic" rather than based on morality, but that's a quibble). Also agree that less direct comments which are "important but not binding" are the majority, and maybe also that that is the case more recently. That could be the fallout resulting from the doctrine of infallibility that came out of Vatican I; there was no consistent concept of that before then, and the Pope's word was taken as the final word of truth and/or almost directly from God before that, with no real gradations afaict, but I'm not too up on that topic. Mathglot (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

OK so do we all agree that the original statement in the lead re the position of the church was correct? Do we need to add all these non-binding observations from popes into the lead, or can we go back to mentioning just Julius (the first) and Francis (the most recent)? Wdford (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wdford: Just so I'm not confused, does your question mean the third paragraph of the lead stay like it is now? Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, we take out Pius, John Paul and Benedict, and leave Julius (the first) and Francis (the most recent). The others all go in the body of the article only. Paragraphs 2 and 3 can then be merged. Wdford (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To be worded thus: "The shroud has been kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Turin, in northern Italy, since 1578. First mentioned in 1354, the artifact was denounced in 1389 by the local bishop of Troyes as a fake. In 1506 Pope Julius II became the first pope to encourage devotion to the shroud as an authentic relic, but currently the Catholic Church neither formally endorses nor rejects the shroud, and in 2013 the current Pope Francis referred to it as an “icon of a man scourged and crucified”." Wdford (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with moving most of it to body only. Wdford, your first draft is not bad, but I'd suggest a change for this reason: saying that in 1506 the first pope approved, and then 2013 current pope doesn't, kind of leaves the spread 1507-2012 uncertain, with the implication that maybe only in 2013 did the story shift; i.e., from 1506-2012, it was venerated as authentic. Not looking for more dates or any detail to be added, just to have it made clear that it *hasn't* been considered authentic for most of that period (or hasn't been addressed), rather than that it's been considered authentic ever since Julius, until a shift took place a handful of years ago. Other than that, it looks fine to me. Mathglot (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point. OK, then how about this: "The shroud has been kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Turin, in northern Italy, since 1578. First mentioned in 1354, the artifact was denounced in 1389 by the local bishop of Troyes as a fake. Currently the Catholic Church neither formally endorses nor rejects the shroud, and in 2013 the current Pope Francis referred to it as an “icon of a man scourged and crucified”. Even simpler, and zero ambiguity. The detailed history of successive papal opinions can be included in the body of the article. Agreed? Wdford (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Mathglot (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Me too! (I still feel that popes are generally obfuscatory, but I've certainly been shown fantastic evidence for the opposite view). -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting the change just made but, after opening the discussion, I hadn't had the time to read the new proposition nor discuss it. I do thank you all, by the way, for engaging in the discussion proposed. Hoping we can find a consensual text, I must say I still agree with the users above who indicate that Papal official statements are clearly relevant to an article about a purported Catholic relic. Firstly, I think an unbiased text cannot remove the sourced affirmation that Pope Julius II "encouraged devotion to the shroud as an authentic relic". Secondly, regarding the paragraph discussed above, I'd personally prefer to leave it as it has been for the past two weeks, but, hoping to achieve a consensus acceptable to all parties, I propose these even more resumed 2-and-a-half lines: The Catholic Church neither formally endorses nor rejects the shroud. Yet, Pope Pius XII called it "a holy thing perhaps like nothing else"; Pope John Paul II referred to it as a "relic", and his successors Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have both referred to it as an “icon of a man crucified”.What do you guys think? Thank you all again. Arrasarro (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Wikipedia policy: WP:3RR.

Timeline:

• 10:02, 24 September 2020:[2] Wdford edits with the summary "Removed papal opinions from lead, as discussed on talk." 0RR.

(Discussion is at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Introduction)

• 12:55, 24 September 2020:[3] Arrasarro reverts. 1RR.
• 13:44, 24 September 2020:[4] William M. Connolley reverts. 1RR.
• 08:41, 28 September 2020:[5] Arrasarro reverts. 2RR.
• 09:33, 28 September 2020:[6] Wdford removes papal opinions. 1RR.
• 09:51, 28 September 2020:[7] Arrasarro reverts. 3RR.
• 09:53, 28 September 2020:[8] William M. Connolley reverts. 2RR.
• Revision as of 10:01, 28 September 2020:[9] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 4RR.
• 10:55, 28 September 2020:[10] Roxy the dog reverts. 1RR.
• 11:05, 28 September 2020:[11] Arrasarro reverts. 5RR.
• Revision as of 11:09, 28 September 2020:[12] Roxy the dog reverts. 2RR.
• Revision as of 11:14, 28 September 2020:[13] Arrasarro re-ads papal opinions. Slightly different wording, but still a revert. 6RR.
• 12:22, 28 September 2020:[14] Roxy the dog reverts. 3RR.
• 12:45, 28 September 2020:[15] Arrasarro reverts. 7RR.
• 15:16, 28 September 2020:[16] Guy Macon reverts.1RR.
• 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC):[17] Arrasarro blocked for 36 hours for edit warring.

---

• Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arrasarro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked Arrasarro a few minutes ago from editing the article, but not the talk page, for reverting four more times after being warned and then having the audacity to go to another user's talk page to accuse them of edit warring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Arrasarro, if you have a suggested change for the Shroud of Turin#Religious views section about papal views with citations, post it and if it is good I or someone else will no doubt add it. We have no problem with including the views of religious leaders, but they don't belong in the lead because the Pope is not a scientist and his opinions are not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Being a Christian artifact, I would argue that the words of the head of the Catholic Church have a place in the lede, but in fact Pope Francis is already quoted there, describing the Church's current opinion. Adding the contradictory words of a former Pope just makes things confusing. I think a history of the Church's changing views would be a useful addition to the article, but not in the lede. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This material is already present in the article in much detail, at [18]. Wdford (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. the place for even more detail, if it were needed (doubtful), would be the body. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-neutrality of the article

So what is being said here is that sourced official pronunciations made by the "Supreme Leader" of the Catholic Church are not relevant to the lead of an article about a purported Catholic relic, but an unsourced claim by an unnamed local bishop saying it was a fake belongs in the lead?

I've come here in the best of collaborative intentions to point out that even to an Atheist the article read as biased, claiming the Catholic church doesn't endorse it while other encyclopedias do list in their introductions what recent popes have said about it, calling it "holy" and "a relic". Instead of accepting my suggestion of including those in the list, the edits done in "response" to my comment actually made the article more biased, as my suggestions were not included in the lead and in an unrelated move the phrase "but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus", which had been in the article lead for over nine years (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shroud_of_Turin&oldid=419117568) and which was there until I opened this discussion, was removed from the lead. Arrasarro (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason you have been blocked from editing the article, Arrasarro. If you have nothing to say here on talk other than repeating what you have already said, you can be blocked from this talkpage also. Please don't nag, nag, nag, as it wastes everyone's time. Also, this is being discussed in the section "Introduction" above (which was opened by you), so why open another section about the same thing? Is the answer "because that section already reached consensus against you"? Well, then. This page is not a forum. Bishonen | tålk 08:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

The "unnamed" bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis, was close to the event, and, contrary to your claim, he is mentioned in reliable sources. A pope, on the other hand, is just a guy with opinions, and there were a few hundred of them. Why pick this one?

For Wikipedia, it does not matter which of two Church figureheads has more tinsel on their clothes. Start your own Catholicpedia, and you can write whatever you think the pope wants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that the bishop of Troyes actually met the forger, whereas some subsequent popes ignored the technical input of their own bishop to thereafter falsely claim authenticity (and thereby earn money by exploiting the "relic".) We do not include the "opinions" of popes in the lead - just as we do not include in the Toyota article any comments from past CEO's of Toyota saying that their products are good and people should buy them. To include such comments from CEO's (or popes) would in fact be non-neutral. We state that the carbon dating has proved beyond any scientific doubt that the shroud is not a genuine relic, and we state that the church itself has not taken any stance, preferring to rely (in this case) on "faith" rather than "relics" to pull in customers. We mention the comment of Pope Francis because he is in the hot seat at present, and because his comment concurs with the official position of the church - we cannot include any comment which contradicts the church, as that would not be neutral. We can also remove the Francis comment without affecting the lead at all. I have no issue personally with mentioning the link to the Holy Face devotions, as they don't impact on the authenticity argument, but that is a question of WP:Notability. Wdford (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Bishonen, Hob Gadling, and Wdford. Arrasarro, might I suggest that you read the following essay? WP:1AM. It gives good advice for those who are in your position. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC) ]

I just want to add an amendment re Guy's note: I'm not taking sides for or against Arrasarro's opinions here, but merely speaking as an uninvolved admin, and telling them about good talkpage practice. Bishonen | tålk 14:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC).

This article is so biased, compared to your Shroud of Turin Research Project article. Even the descriptions of John H. Heller's and McCrone's samples and relationship is incorrect and inaccurate. Their samples were completely different, McCrone did no experiments on his samples but made conclusions without testing them, and John Heller's proved there was blood on his samples. (John H.Heller|1983|p140-145) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohre6 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Holy Shroud: A Brilliant Hoax in the Time of the Black Death by Gary Vinkan

For an idea of the content, see [19] [20]. The author is a reliable source.[21] He was director of the Walters Art Museum for many years. --Doug Weller talk 11:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Are these reliable mainline science sources or are they fringe theory sources?

The edit: [22]

The sources:

• Pierre Barbet, A Doctor at Calvary, Allegro Editions[23], 1963
• Bernard Ruffin, The Shroud of Turin, Our Sunday Visitor, 1999
• Frederick Zugibe, The Crucifixion of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry, M. Evans, 2005,
• Frederick Zugibe, The Man of the Shroud was Washed, crucifixion-shroud.com [24] 1989

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of material on fringe theories

@Roxy the dog, Wdford, and Serial Number 54129: Stop this utterly stupid edit war and discuss here. Thanks and good luck. Lennart97 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

About 48k of material was mass-deleted without any discussion. I restored it all, in terms of WP:BRD. This material includes fringe theories, but these fringe theories are what makes the article notable – otherwise the shroud would merely be one of a million other religious illustrations or artworks. The fringe theories were all debunked in the article by actual science, as required by WP:Fringe. This achieved a stable article, which survived for a long time with only the occasional attempt at POV-pushing. A separate daughter article was created for the fringe material, but a brief mention of the nonsense is still required in the main article, in terms of WP:Fringe and WP:Spinoff. The editor who performed the original mass deletion made no attempt to discuss their Bold edit, or to seek consensus, or to move the material to the fringe article. This is a clear contravention of wikipolicies. I am asking why this happened, and instead I am getting threats, and accusations of dishonesty. What gives? Wdford (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that you were right to restore the content per BRD. I hope the issue will get settled here through fruitful discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: why not say whatever you have to say here instead of continuing the abovementioned utterly stupid edit war? Lennart97 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a new one. I made a single edit and have made zero reverts so I am "continuing the abovementioned utterly stupid edit war". I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. Please don't ping me again. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: lol ok Lennart97 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree there should be a brief mention of theories: not 48K's worth of text. The notability of this topic is not defined by the fringe theories surrounding it, and any understanding of WP:N would see the suggestion never even made. The shroud is clearly notable in its own right (the suggestion that the shroud would merely be one of a million other religious illustrations or artworks is wholly bizarre).

Good faith instructs me to assume that there is no other motivation for the reinsertion of this material; but, likewise, good faith is not a suicide pact. Wdford mentions WP:SPINOUT and WP:FRINGE. I'll see your guidelines and raise you policy, viz. WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Ciao. ——Serial 15:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying edit summary for the benefit of talk page readers who aren't looking at diff view: Consensus was reached at Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 17#What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? and Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 17#WP:FRINGE and religious relics and reliquaries. Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus was reached back in 2018 at

• Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 17#What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?
• Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 17#WP:FRINGE and religious relics and reliquaries.

...discussions that Wdford is well aware of and participated in.

The consensus was to keep the actual science in Fringe theories and split the fringe science into Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin.

In that discussion Wdford wrote:

"That fringe material has to go somewhere, Guy, and until we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, it will end up being added here - over and over. Even once we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, the believers will still try to add their material here, on the basis that "This theory is not Fringe, this theory is REAL"

and

"Can we agree on a title for the dedicated fringe theories article, which doesn't use the word 'conspiracy', so that we can move forward with exporting all the fringe material soonest?"[25]

In the years since some of the fringe theories has slowly crept back into the article, so I just did what Wdford asked for in 2018: "exporting all the fringe material".

Among other things, I removed the flash-like irradiation hypothesis -- that when Jesus was resurrected there was an intense flash of high energy protons or possibly ultraviolet radiation that created the shroud image. Wdford edit warred to restore this and other fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: - in the discussion of April 2018, we were on the same side. The consensus we reached then was as follows: "For everyone else: I believe that we have a consensus to create an article titled Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, moving all of the fringe theories and responses to those fringe theories to that article, and reducing all mention of said fringe theories in this and all related articles to one or two sentences with a "Main article: Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin" note."

We did subsequently create an article titled Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, which I helped to build. We also agreed that this main article should still retain a mention of said fringe theories - and wikipolicy requires that these mentions should clearly indicate that the fringe material is fringe material. That has also been done, and I have worked for years to rebut POV-pushing on this article ever since. Since 3 October 2018 (as far back as I can scan), no fringe theories were allowed into the article without a proper counter and rebuttal from the mainstream science. Your concern about fringe material "creeping back in" is hard to understand.

Suddenly you embark on a mass-deletion, without any discussion, and without attempting to move the "undesirable material" to the fringe article as agreed, and without leaving any mention of the issue behind in the main article as agreed - why? You claim you "exported" the fringe material to the fringe article, which would have been fine, but I can't see it arriving there – please clarify? There was no new consensus for this, or even any attempt to reach a new consensus - what happened? Wdford (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not edit war to include fringe theories, I restored material that was deleted without consensus, because it was presented in a way which clearly showed that the fringe theories were disproved by science, as per the wikipolicies. Since the fringe theories are a big part of the notability here, and are probably the reason why many readers come to this article in the first place, the encyclopaedia is better for their honest and balanced inclusion, which clearly illustrates that the fringe theories are false. Your accusation here is unbecoming of an experienced editor.

@Serial Number 54129: The shroud is only notable for the belief that it is the genuine burial shroud of a resurrected god – there is nothing else worthy of mention. This belief has been wrecked by radiocarbon dating. The believers thus advance a raft of other (fringe) theories to "restore" the original belief.

On top of all the other policies, the deleted material has stood here for over two and a half years – that seems to indicate consensus for inclusion, does it not?

Wdford (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly not, according to the number of different editors reverting you. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:ONUS. ——Serial 17:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:1AM would be helpful. -Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

As a result of recent discussions at the Fringe theories Noticeboard here [26], WP:1AM doesn't apply. These discussions resulted in a reaffirmation of the 3–year consensus that fringe theories about the Shroud are notable, and that while the detail thereof must be reported at the Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin article, a summary of the fringe material must be reported here also, with proper disclosure that it is actually fringe and not mainstream science.

I have copied across the "scientific" fringe material to the Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin article as best I can. Many of the references were defined in this article and are now broken, so we would need to reinstate the material here for a few days to allow the bots to copy across all the broken ref links.

We also need to review the reinstated material to summarize it better, as agreed on the Fringe theories Noticeboard. We should again wait a few days to allow the bots to work, before we implement this pruning.

Wdford (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion held on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

A discussion recently took place on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard which is very relevant to the development of this article, over here [27]. I have therefore copied it in verbatim below, for the benefit of editors who were not aware of that discussion: Wdford (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Prepare for the excrement to impact the rotational air impeller...

In [28] I removed a bunch of fringe theories from Shroud of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). We decided a while back to document those theories on our Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin page and to only feature mainstream science on the SoT page.

I expect that the shroudies will not be happy with what I have done.

Among other things, I removed the flash-like irradiation hypothesis -- that when Jesus was resurrected there was an intense flash of high energy protons or possibly ultraviolet radiation that created an image that by an amazing coincidence has the exact same attributes as a medieval forgery. Totally mainstream science, dude, and don't let anybody tell you different. Can you name anyone who came back from the dead without atomic power being involved? I didn't think so. ^{Source: Marvel Cinematic Universe}

Please watchlist the page to see the fireworks show. I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Aha, so Jesus was Captain Universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm surprised there are so many subarticles (found via {{Shroud of Turin}}). —PaleoNeonate – 23:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I see that Template:Creationism topics doesn't list a dedicated page for the arguments young-earth creationists use to try to refute radiocarbon dating and there is way more material on that.

I am surprised that so far the end result of digestion has failed to achieve the expected high-speed interaction with the atmosphere moving equipment. Has shroudology gone out of style?

Is anybody here willing to work with me to clean up and condense the whole topic? I have a limited amount of time I can put in each day, so would need some help.

Let me start with some ideas:

• Merge VP8 Image Analyzer into a couple of sentences in Shroud of Turin Research Project.
• Merge any actual science in Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is into Radiocarbon dating (for general info about RD), merge into Shroud of Turin (for actual science that is shroud specific) and merge any fringe criticisms of RD into Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Much of it will already be in those three targets, so mostly this will be checking.

Anyone interested? sign up below. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just had a look at VP8 Image Analyzer. It does not look as if there is anything worth preserving in there, it seems to be just an incoherent jumble of white noise written by people who don't know how to make a cogent argument and are very impressed by doctorates. I don't know what that thing is supposed to do and how, but from context, I guess its results prove that the Shroud is real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, all but one of the sources were unreliable shroudie sites, so I removed them. I suspect the remaining content is WP:CSD#A7. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. I just did a search and found some interesting pages about it, Dodgy sources but a fascinating read for an engineer such as myself:

• http://shroudnm.com/docs/seam-vp8-presentation.pdf
• https://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm
• https://shroudstory.com/2014/03/30/nasa-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/

What I could not find is any evidence of it being used for anything else, ever, or any evidence establishing notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the shroudies have been temporarily subdued by the weight of scientific evidence, although they still insert sections on vanillin aging from time to time.

The VP8 Image Analyzer was a NASA machine, which was used to create 3D images out of photos of the moon, to help analyse the topography of the moon. Some NASA guys were shroudies, and they used it on the Shroud photos. It is interesting that the VP8 images show the burnt holes in the Shroud as pyramids standing up from the flat background, and these have to be trimmed away whenever the "miraculous 3D image" is displayed.

A two-line summary on the VP8 Image Analyzer would fit better in the Shroud of Turin article, under the "Image analysis" sub-section.

The article on the Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is a 53k daughter article, which exists separately because the detail here would over-whelm the main article. It would help a lot to keep it as a separate article. There is minimal over-lap, because the main article has been pared down, although more polishing could help.

The article on the Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin is a 42k daughter article, which also exists separately because the detail here would also over-whelm the main article. It would help a lot to keep this article as well.

Wdford (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I do however think you have over-done the removal of non-mainstream material - especially since you have not moved it into the Fringe article as far as I can see, but seem to have merely deleted it. This deletion included an explanation of the VP8 analyzer. The article has been stable for a long time, in part because this non-mainstream material has been reported in summary - although always together with a thorough debunking. I think it would be best to restore it to the main article, to facilitate the relocation of the various individual discussions to the Fringe article. This relocation should be discussed on the talk page first, not here. Wdford (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion takes place at Talk:Shroud of Turin#Removal of material on fringe theories. Lennart97 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The related article on History of the Shroud of Turin could certainly use a clean up as part of the condensation project. Wdford (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I know some NASA guys are Shriners, but there are also shroudies implicated? ~ cygnis insignis 14:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems that way. Wdford (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding VP8 Image Analyzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) the good news is that nobody contested the speedy on the merits. The bad news is that DGG says I used the wrong template. (Not my fault! The Other Guy made me do it! (I always wanted to say that -- smile) ) "It's a product. products are not eligible for A7, just companies. Use AfD". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A fair bit of effort was made to isolate the fringe material out of the main article. Because there are a ton of theories about the shroud (which has it's own, proprietary -ology word), the majority of them crackpot fringe theories, the fringe theory topic is clearly notable. The content of the fringe article doesn't have to be, however, as long as it has reliable sourcing, and is proportionate. I have no problem with reliably described nutball theories being described in "Nutball theories of..." er, I mean, "Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin", any more than I do the Moon hoax, or Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. There's no need to duplicate any of the fringe theories in the main article, nor should they be. However, the Shroud article is clearly parent article to the Fringe theories article, and a section of a couple of paragraphs or so in the main article summarizing the main fringe theories with {{Main}} and {{Further}} links, as called for by WP:Summary style is entirely appropriate, but 48k is way out of proportion.

On the other hand, there is currently nothing in the article about fringe theories, and that is just as wildly out of proportion, given the amount of sourcing and significant coverage devoted to it. Recreate a section, #Fringe theories in the main article, and duly summarize the content of the fringe article, and all will be well. Mathglot (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

How much materiel about Moon landing conspiracy theories do you find in our Moon article? Nada. Moon landing has one small small section: Moon landing#Historical empirical evidence that contains no details about the fringe theories and cites no fringe sources.

How about earth? Any material about Creation science, Flat earth or Hollow Earth there? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think these aren't one to one comparisons, the Shroud of Turin is largely notable because of all the fringe theories about it, if those fringe theories never existed then the shroud probably wouldn't have ever been very notable. The moon landing is an extremely noteworthy event in its own right, if there weren't nutjobs out there who think that it's fake it would still be an equally noteworthy event. Same goes for the Earth. I think a section on fringe theories, summarizing the ancillary article (and the mainstream view that these theories are wrong), would be due and helpful to the article in this case, but that doesn't mean that irrelevant fringe nutjobs need to find their place on mainstream articles like Earth. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not equivalent, since the shroud is already considered to be a hoax (or at least, its most notable initial interpretation/claims to be incorrect). For Earth and Evolution WP:MNA indeed applies... —PaleoNeonate – 08:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the page should continue to document the religious views (as we would any catholic relic) and the investigations done prior to the radiocarbon testing, which while not great science, aren't actually fringe because at the time there really was no mainstream view. The business about a flash of atomic power when Jesus was resurrected and how that atomic flash both created the image and screwed up the carbon 14 ratios is purely a fringe theory concocted to deny the actual science. It has no place in the article. It's a lot like the young earth creationists who react to science saying that many stars are more than 10,000 light years away and thus the light should not have reached us yet with absurd theories that the speed of light is not a constant or that all of the the stars are no more that a hundred light years away (yes, people believe these things) -- the fringe theory only exists to give the true believers a plausible reason to reject the science. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Right. The ideas people just "plucked from their arses" in Hahnemannian style should go. <pluck>But the flash of atomic power is plausible if Jesus had been bitten by a radioactive photographer...</pluck> --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Good. Now that we have had a broader discussion - albeit still not on the article talk page - it seems there is agreement on the same consensus that was established about three years ago. So how do we implement it now?

I suggest the following process:

• First, we temporarily reinstate all the material that was mass-deleted, because it would be easier to fix it if we can actually see it.
• Second, we copy the various chunks of fringe material in full to the Fringe article. That won't take long.
• Third, we agree on what summaries to keep in the main article, and where to put it, and then we summarize it accordingly.

That approach would work, and it will be quick and easy, provided everyone co-operates. Shall we proceed? Wdford (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should copy more of the discussion, as the latest response really settles the issue for me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice selective cut and paste there, Wdford. Here is the reply you left out:

You are a long way from "it will be quick and easy, provided everyone co-operates", considering that everybody else disagrees with you and nobody supports you.

There is zero need to "temporarily reinstate all the material that was mass-deleted, because it would be easier to fix it if we can actually see it" that's just an excuse to get your way when the consensus is against you. Just go to the page history, click on the time and date of whatever version you prefer, and you will be able to "see it" just fine. I recommend copying that version to your sandbox so you can easily access and edit it and move whatever you think best to the fringe article. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well Guy Macon, I did NOT actually do a "selective cut and paste" as you allege - and once again you are ignoring WP:AGF. I copied the material across to this talk page at 13:42, and you only added your confrontational response on the other side at 13:49. Obvious, yes?

In your latest accusation above, you selectively left out my own most recent response on the Fringe theories noticeboard page at 13:56, which was the following:

First, the consensus didn't go against me - review the discussion above.

Second, I have already done as you suggest. However many of the references think they are broken, although I copied them verbatim. They seem to need time for the bots to fix the broken refs, and that can only be done if the material is temporarily reinstated.

Please WP:AGF, and don't make unfounded accusations based on unfounded assumptions.

Apart from this referencing issue, I have finished working on the Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin page for now. Please go ahead as per the consensus.

Please would you refrain from further attacks, and help to build the encyclopedia?

Wdford (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Pointing out that nobody supports your preferred version is not a personal attack.

Re your claim that you have consensus, please name a single editor who favors putting the business about a flash of atomic power when Jesus was resurrected back in the article, as you suggested ("reinstate all the material that was mass-deleted") that we do above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of doing a "selective cut and paste" is a personal attack.

It is obvious that I didn’t propose to "reinstate all the material that was mass-deleted", in fact I proposed to "temporarily reinstate all the material that was mass-deleted", to make it easier to fix the article. I don't know how you missed seeing that either?

We have a clear consensus to move the detail of the fringe material into the Fringe article, but to keep summaries thereof in the main article. That is what I am currently doing.

However because some editors have converted every reference into a named reference, we need to allow the bots a chance to reconnect them all. I did not suggest putting all of the fringe discussions back into the article permanently, just temporarily to give the bots a chance. From past experience this takes a day or two, but I don't know exactly how long it will take them here. If you know a faster method, please assist.

The corona-discharge nonsense was clearly debunked in the article already, including by the pro-authenticity scientist Raymond Rogers. I don’t understand why you are getting so worked up about this point?

Wdford (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussions at [29] agreed that the fringe theories about the authenticity of the Shroud are notable, and that while the detail thereof must be reported at the Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin article, a summary of the fringe material must be reported here also, with proper disclosure that it is actually fringe and not mainstream science.

I have therefore added back the summaries of the main fringe theories.

I have also added back scientific material that is not fringe, but which was deleted anyway.

Wdford (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Article

False balance

"You're telling me that image was only seen when a photographer checked the negative? Get Conway on the other line, pronto."

I noticed that after the dlede, the Shroud of Turin article gets extremely messy. It also feels like its not being neutral but rather leaning on the atheist side rather being in the middle. Which makes it look more of a rant rather than a informative article if you know what I mean. It also seems to include extremely outdated information. It also doesn’t include the new research findings, like the recent findings of unusual amounts of radiation, and the recent DNA test findings. The article seems to omit these findings away and sees 1988 radiocarbon dating as the final nail, and goes on to see the shroud as a fake.
It also doesn’t mention the fact that several scientists raised doubts about the researchers methodology, where even the Vatican (the ones who conducted the test) encouraged scientists to conduct further research. Sticking to one side and omitting new evidence is destroying a neutral standpoint, and if we can find a way to fix up and write it neutral (without leaning on either side) than I think we can make it more understandable and less confusing for the reader. Now I don’t have the time to fix it all, so I’d be happy if someone would like to work as a team. Teertrevo (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not aim to be "in the middle" of, for instance, Christianity and atheism; that's not what the neutral point of view policy means. (Please have a read of it, especially the section FALSEBALANCE, and see the cartoon I've posted.) Wikipedia articles are supposed to present factual text based on reliable sources. In what way would unusual amounts of radiation, and/or DNA findings (assuming they're real, and done by real scientists), invalidate the 1988 radiocarbon dating, anyway? Bishonen | tålk 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

While the Vatican does claim that the shroud is holy, it does not put all its money on it being Jesus's shroud. In other words, the Vatican did not officially declared it Jesus's shroud. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd bet 30 Morgan dollars that it's the real deal. Either that or one of the greatest artworks of all time. Either way, any improvement in this page, which for Wikipedia means sources from reputable publications or papers, would enhance the page of an amazing artifact or top-tier artwork hidden until a photographic negative unveiled it (Banksy couldn't have presented it better). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn I agree, but who is Bansky? Can you please inform me on that? ThanksTeertrevo (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Banksy, who as far as I know hasn't used the photographic negative trick as yet (has anyone successfully pulled it off?). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen Forgive me but I don’t think you read my post. I never said the 1988 carbon dating was false. I was saying that the article seems to think the carbon dating test was the final nail in the coffin. Omitting all the new findings Teertrevo (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I also was not saying the new findings invalidate the radio carbon. Nor did I say that it should be in the middle. Please read my post again. Thanks Teertrevo (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu that was not what I said at all. I never said they thought it was Jesus’s shroud. I never said they were pouring there money on it. What I was saying was that the Vatican (who did the carbon-dating test)encouraged the scientists to conduct further research on it. I’m starting to think you didn’t actually read my post.Teertrevo (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Volunteers aren't required to read anything, even as they reply. The magic of Wikipedia and volunteer culture. Do you have sources about the Vatican stance? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t forcing or “requiring” them to read it. I was just asking them to read it again because it seems they misunderstood what I was saying. And yes I do have a reliable source about the Vaticans stance.Teertrevo (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Randy Kryn just wondering is Britannica a reliable source?Teertrevo (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Has a rating of WP:MREL, and a descriptor in the listing below it that clarifies. Seems to be reliable in some instances and not in others. If your source is one of the reliable ones is above my paygrade (found a quarter at a Wikipedia conference once). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Teertrevo I am confident that both Bishonen and tgeorgescu carefully read and fully understood your post. I did too. I strongly encourage you to read WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RS. I know that is a lot of reading, but it really will help you to understand this article's content. If after reading those Wikipedia policies you wish to modify the article's content, go right ahead following the tried-and-true models of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I did read those articles you sent me, and thanks for reading my post. But these proposals are not minority views. And when there is reliable sources publishing articles and papers daily that suggest otherly, (made by scientists with pHd’s btw) it gets really buggy when articles like this one omits all the evidence and barley updates the page. It feels more like a rant. Now if there is something I am misunderstanding please let me know.Teertrevo (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We get this all the time: some new user thinks that having a PhD in whatever makes a person more credible regarding everything, that if a scientist (however defined) says something, it must have merit, and that something that has been published in a journal must be credible. All wrong. There are scientists who are more competent than others, pretty much all scientists are idiots outside their own fields, and there are papers with fewer rookie mistakes than others. Scientific questions are not decided by the superficial criteria you amateurs are using ("scientists with pHd’s btw"). When we scientists hear that, we just sigh and roll our eyes. Display of rank works with soldiers; scientists are completely different.

This Wikipedia article gives you the consensus among serious scientists. Please read the archives of this Talk page to find what your predecessors tried and failed to do. WP:YWAB is also a good page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO the cartoon which I posted, and which the OP removed without supplying a reason, says more than a thousand words, so I've restored it. (If a respectable user feels it's too light-hearted or uses up too much space for a talkpage, feel free to remove again. Note, though, that it's used to illustrate the article False balance.) Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC).

References

Contributions

I value the independence of Wikipedia. However I don’t trust financial transactions over the internet. If you would/ could provide details of how I could go into my bank and make a direct contribution I would be more than happy. At this stage your probably doubting me as much as I do financial transactions over the internet. Chris. 2A02:C7F:226:1100:A590:483F:DC14:C626 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I suggest that you click this link to learn about the many options available to people who wish to contribute to Wikipedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussing critical evidence and "mechanical and opto-chemical" dating?

I've recently read some interesting papers and don't see them referenced in this article. I would like to add them, but I think someone more familiar with the subject and with a more holistic understanding of it would be better suited to the task. If anyone is interested, there is a regression analysis that casts doubt on the radiocarbon dating as well as a new, radically early dating. I'd prefer to understand these better in the context of everything else that's known but I don't have the time to commit to it. So hopefully someone else can take this on. 🙏 Aminomancer (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Aminomancer, both your links return "404 not found" when I attempt to follow them. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC).

They sound like wishful thinking anyway - an attempt at hypothetisizing hypothesizing a few years of inaccuracy where several centuries would be needed and a likely untested new method that does not work - so, probably, not a big loss. Critical evidence does not lead anywhere either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen, sorry it seems like wikipedia encoded the URLs wrong. Try these: (hope it doesn't screw them up again)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257665548_Regression_analysis_with_partially_labelled_regressors_Carbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud

Hob Gadling — Are you literally judging the quality of an article by its title? Do I really need to explain how absurd and anti-intellectual your remarks are? I'm not sure what you mean by "hypothetisizing" (sic.), the former is a statistical analysis and the latter is an experimental study. Having read the articles, I didn't get the impression that they were suggesting a small measure of a "few years." I don't have some kind of wish for the shroud of Turin to be real. I am an atheist. Still curious. I don't see how the articles would prove that the artifact is real in the first place. The question of whether it's a 500 year old rag or a 2,000 year old rag isn't worth trading insults over. One of my colleagues emailed them to me, I didn't know what to make of them, hadn't read much about the shroud, so wikipedia is the first place I came. I didn't find any discussion of these papers in the article, so I'm asking on the talk page. If you don't want to participate in that inquiry, then don't. You seem to wear your heart on your sleeve so it's pretty clear where you stand on the issue anyway. Aminomancer (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

First sentence: When I have nothing but the title because the links do not work, what else am I supposed to use? Tea leaves?

Second sentence: Whine whine whine, someone disagrees with me, lets try to insult him.

Third sentence: Nitpicking a typo.

Stopped reading there, it was not likely to get any better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The statistical claims have been dealt with exhaustively over the years. See eg here [30]. In summary, the minor variation between labs is most likely attributable to the fact that different labs used different cleaning procedures before testing, which would have removed carbon contamination to slightly different extents. However the resultant variation is insignificantly small. Some stats experts have claimed that the derived confidence interval needs to be a few years wider to be mathematically accurate, but once again, the variation is insignificantly small and changes nothing. The hypothetical "dating gradient" is based on the assumption that only one of the two Arizona samples was actually tested, which is not factual, so the gradient itself does not exist to begin with.

Fanti's claims of mechanical testing are unfounded, because he invented a new testing system which has never been validated. Furthermore he used in his tests some tiny fragments of fiber which were vacuumed off the shrouds' backing cloth, which by definition would have been more brittle than the average shroud fiber. In addition the tests were calibrated against modern fibers which had been "aged" by Fanti in a manner which could never exactly replicate what the shroud underwent over hundreds of years of use and abuse. On top of all of this, Fanti still had to add in a completely arbitrary "margin for error" of many centuries in order to create an interval of possibility wide enough to allow a 1st century date.

For future reference, Fanti has made a career out of producing papers which "prove" the shroud to be authentic, often using "tests" which are more wishful than scientific. Any paper on this topic which was co-authored by Fanti therefore does not stand against the weight of numerous radiocarbon experts, who all agree on the reliability of the radiocarbon testing and the medieval date of manufacture.

Wdford (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity

This article frequently refers to the shroud as possibly being "authentic" (or discussing its "authenticity").

Christopher Columbus encountered America and speculated that America was India.	Someone encountered the shroud and speculated that the shroud was a specific Hebrew burial cloth.
Would people then debate whether "America is authentic" or discuss "the authenticity of America"?	Would it make sense for people to debate whether "the shroud is authentic" or discuss "the authenticity of the shroud"?
Surely it would make more sense that people would debate whether "Columbus was right" or discuss "the accuracy of Columbus's speculation" since America simply is what it is — whether people at certain times argue that it is India or not.	Surely it would make more sense that people would debate whether this or that theory "is right" or discuss "the accuracy of speculations" since the shroud simply is what it is — whether people at certain times argue it is miraculous or not.
Clearly it is not possible for America to be authentic. Authenticity is not a logical property of a continent.	Clearly it is not possible for the shroud to be authentic. Authenticity is not a logical property of a cloth.
Clearly it is not possible for America to be a forgery or hoax. They are not logical properties of a continent.	Clearly it is not possible for the shroud to be a forgery or hoax. They are not logical properties of cloth.

(I realise people in a hurry and with a horse in this race are prone to fixate on one phrase in this table, speculate wildly that my motivations vehemently oppose their own, and use that to justify ignoring or reverting whatever they feel like. There's no need to do that. You can clearly see I am advocating neither side of the debate. I only require the language to make logical sense.)

Maybe just someone's conjecture was wrong. It happens - especially when people don't know the facts and just guess or hope. That doesn't mean the thing they speculated about becomes some sinister elaborate forgery / hoax / conspiracy - whether we're talking about America or a cloth.

• Evidence suggests Columbus's belief was untrue (no matter how credible it seemed at the time) but that doesn't make America a hoax.
• Evidence suggests the shroud recorded a human resurrection was untrue (no matter how credible it seemed at times) but that doesn't make the shroud a hoax. A hoax or a forgery has the explicit intent to deceive and we have no idea what the intent (if any) the creator(s) (if any) of the shroud had. Assigning an insidious intent is nothing but pure conjecture.

Except where "authentic*" appears within direct quotations, that word needs to be eradicated from this article because it is illogical and senseless. An encyclopaedia is there to record the facts (as best we know them). We can record the fact that people believe this or that and the fact that people are quoted as referring to the cloth as being authentic or a hoax, but the Voice of Wikipedia cannot make reference to the shroud's authenticity or hoax status for the same reasons it cannot make reference to America's authenticity or hoax status. It just does not make sense.

Please factor this into future edits to the article. 49.186.238.127 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The artist who made it confessed it is a forgery, case closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Religious leaders have been extracting confessions for centuries. Perhaps you find them convincing. I remain sceptical.

Recently this article was split into the facts here, and the religious speculation under a fringe subarticle. As expected, much of the fringe content was promptly reinstated here. If you believe that now "case closed" has reached consensus, I support you testing your hypothesis by boldly reinforcing the divide between facts here and speculation under the fringe page. It would be very tidy if you are right. 49.186.224.42 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Case closed" reached consensus in the 1980s at the latest, when the carbon dating was done. Of course there are still some crackpots who do not accept the consensus, but they can give no solid reasons for that, only hare-brained innumerate excuses, silly ideas and untested new dating methods. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Shroud is presented as the burial cloth of Jesus. If that claim is not true, then the Shroud as presented is not authentic. That doesn't automatically make it a hoax. As mentioned in the article, it may have been made as an object of religious devotion with no intent to deceive. There are certainly other examples of works of religious art that became venerated as relics due to misunderstanding by the public.

The relevant definition of authentic is the first one in the dictionary entry to which you linked: "not false or copied", with the example "an authentic antique". When talking about the authenticity of the shroud, that is exactly the relevant concept. An authentic antique is one that actually dates to the historical period it appears to come from. An antique that isn't authentic is younger than one would assume from its appearance. See also Authenticity in art. --Srleffler (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you Srleffler.

So, indulge/humour me, if you will, as I check I have understood this usage of "authentic" using a contrived scenario:

A librarian discovers in the bin a sketch of a turtle wearing a mask with a name written underneath. Mistaking this for an early prototype illustration by Michelangelo rather than of Michelangelo, the librarian frames it and tells plenty of friends that quantum flux capacitance brought it to the wastebasket. An arbitrary number of people think it's a cool story.

If I understand you correctly, the kiddy's scribble started off authentic when it was binned, ended up a forgery by the end of the story, and had its status flipped at some point in the middle. This is because at the start it was really an illustration of a turtle; at the end it was not really an illustration by a famous Italian; and at some crucial juncture the assumption imposed on it turned it into something sinister. Hypothetically if prevailing opinion in a hundred years is that both the shroud and the scribble of a turtle are both merely some abstract experimental debris, then they would both at that point go back to being authentic in that sense, because then both their nature and the public's presentation of them are aligned.

Have I got that correct? 49.186.224.42 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite close.

The shroud is an Authentic piece of cloth. It is NOT an Authentic burial shroud, far less the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore if it is presented as a medieval piece of cloth, it can be called Authentic. If it is being presented as a burial shroud, it is Not Authentic. Since the shroud is still being called "The Shroud", rather than "The interesting medieval cloth with an image on it", it is by definition Not Authentic.

Similarly, if it is one day proved that it was made as a pious illustration intended for educational decoration, and it is presented as such, then it can be called an Authentic medieval pious illustration intended for educational decoration. Currently this is not the case – it is currently presented as the burial shroud of Jesus, and thus it is Not Authentic.

The person who made it is not on record as to his/her original intentions. However the cloth was soon being exhibited as a genuine relic, and it was used in that capacity to milk money from believers for hundreds of years – even until today. In that sense, it is a Forgery.

PS: The original creator may have had innocent motives or sinister motives - this is unclear. However, unlike the librarian of your allegory, who apparently "mistook" the scribble for an old masterpiece, those who exhibited the old cloth as a genuine relic, in order to defraud gullible peasants, did indeed have sinister motives. And while the Catholic Church of today does not openly claim the shroud to be a genuine relic, they are not trying too hard to clarify the matter either - and all the while they continue to benefit from the continued influx of gullible peasants. Not nice.

Wdford (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

True; my librarian was just ignorant and made a convenient but false assumption. If I assume good faith, I thought that was a good representative of the relic wardens, but they may well have had sinister motives. I had thought authenticity was absolute and perspectives were accurate or misled. Now I see authenticity is relative to perspective, making the authenticity genuine or false. Thankyou for your patience. 49.186.224.42 (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)