Talk:Shroud of Turin: Difference between revisions
Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) →The Shroud of Christ: A pictorial look at its forensics and history: {{tq|We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia}} |
→2022 WAXD testing shows dates about 2000 years ago: new section |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
{{re|99Moons}} As {{u|Doug Weller}} said at {{diff2|1218403737}}, {{tq|We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia}}. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 05:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
{{re|99Moons}} As {{u|Doug Weller}} said at {{diff2|1218403737}}, {{tq|We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia}}. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 05:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
== 2022 WAXD testing shows dates about 2000 years ago == |
|||
Please update your article as the sample that was taken earlier was a repair. |
|||
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 |
|||
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/holy-shroud-of-turin-s-authenticity-can-no-longer-be-disputed-expert-asserts [[Special:Contributions/73.228.186.92|73.228.186.92]] ([[User talk:73.228.186.92|talk]]) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:43, 15 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shroud of Turin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 20 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Shroud of Turin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Shroud of Turin at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Shroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Shroud of Christ: A pictorial look at its forensics and history
This got booted almost faster than a blink: click here
I find it interesting how much Wikipedia has changed in 10 years, when an almost identical version of this page was in the external links, and stayed there (in different forms) for over half a year, until the link became defunct.
From what I understand, exceptions for blog pages are possible, and I thought that this one would be appreciated, as it not only offers a concise but thorough look at the subject, but does so pictorially, as well.
I'm wondering if Wikipedia is using newer technology, allowing editors to stalk certain articles. Obviously, these changes, if they occur in less than one minute, are being made without giving the contribution any fair consideration. Quite a difference from 10 years ago! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:D40E:7267:23D0:E01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is a WP:PROFRINGE page, and it does not belong here. If it was tolerated ten years ago, that was a mistake, and it is a good thing if Wikipedia has changed since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- But these sentences, which cite to sources that DO NOT SUPPORT the text of the sentences, remain untouchable:
- "Such fringe theories have been refuted by carbon-dating experts and others based on evidence from the shroud itself. Refuted theories include the medieval repair theory, the bio-contamination theories and the carbon monoxide theory." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean "DO NOT SUPPORT"? Did you read those sources? -
-Hob Gadling (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Along those lines, there are MANY forensic experts and pathologists who have concluded that there was no way known to man that the image on the cloth, documented to be in three-dimensions, could have been created by any way known at the time to which the C14 testing dates the cloth.
- A forensic expert would note that there was no way known to mankind at that time on how to create a 3-diminensional image of cloth.
- Pathologists say that the accurate biology of the cloth [blood tested reflects that it came from one who was dying by asphyxiation] is astounding, because no one from that time was familiar with details of pathology.
- In a room full of forensic experts and/or pathologists, you [as a devotee of the C14 testing] would be called a "fringe" theorist -- according to the [argumentative] way that term is being used within this article.
- Genuine scientists don't dismiss the conclusion of another field of science as "fringe" simply because their own area of expertise indicates something different that other field of science. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is WP:NOTAFORUM. There are many crank shroudies publishing fringe nonsense about it. If you have a concrete proposal based on a reliable source, please make it. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Footnote 8 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish "scientific consensus" but contributing to the consensus that additional testing is needed (over which there is, in fact, incredible scientific consensus that SHOULD be mentioned in this article).
- Footnote 9 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. He is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.
- Footnote 10 is a citation to an out-of-date Random House encyclopedia. That's just incredibly poor scholarship. And how does this refute scholarly papers that came later.
- Footnote 11 is a citation to an article published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later (Rogers paper) is intolerable.
- Footnote 12 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. In that paper, Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."
- Footnote 13 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source to establish the claimed "scientific consensus."
- I don't see how these two sentences can stand. They are not supported by legitimately cited sources. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Settled science is not "out of date". The book on this was closed long ago. All this stuff (including Ramsey) is covered in detail at Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doubt it. But even so it doesn't matter because Wikipedia doesn't try to be "right", merely to reflect what authoritative mainstream published sources are saying about a topic. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the response that I expected. Not very impressive at all. Six citations that clearly do not carry the weight of these two flawed sentences -- and your response is even worse. Just a warning: those who use the words "this is settled science" are usually proven wrong at a later date. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Settled science is not "out of date". The book on this was closed long ago. All this stuff (including Ramsey) is covered in detail at Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Bon courage (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be delete the two sentences, since the footnoted sources don't support the claims made in the sentences. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is WP:NOTAFORUM. There are many crank shroudies publishing fringe nonsense about it. If you have a concrete proposal based on a reliable source, please make it. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read them. The problem should be obvious: the article is claiming that the footnoted sources "refute" what are called "fringe" theories. First, the so-called "fringe theories" discussed are raised in many studies and papers that post-date the sources cited. It should be clear (for example) that a 2005 paper cannot "refute" a 2020 paper. Second, the labeling as "fringe" certain theories advanced by studies and articles published in highly respected academic and scientific journals, is argumentative. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your response makes no sense. 69.12.13.37 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's pretty common for advocates of pseudoscience to continue publishing ideas that have been refuted. It is entirely possible for a 2005 paper to refute a 2020 paper if the latter rehashes arguments that have been raised before. When the same ideas are recycled over and over it is not necessary to prove them false each time. It's sufficient to call them out as already dealt with and move on.--Srleffler (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is part of the normal fringe-theory situation: people refute the bullshit, and new bullshit is published afterward. Not impressive. Your opinion that something does not refute something else is also part of the normal fringe-theory situation: fringe believers deny that there has been a refutation of their claims because they conflate the refutation of reasoning in favor of unfalsifiable ideas with the logically impossible refutation of the ideas themselves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes 69.12.13.37 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Scientific papers both for and against the Shroud should be presented fairly.
Many years ago, it was estimated that the Shroud had already undergone some half-a-million research hours by experts. Whatever the exact figures are, it's definitely the most researched object in human history, with many specialists in numerous fields presenting cases for its authenticity. That's about as far from 'fringe' as you can get.
I personally set out to disprove the Shroud through an honest analysis of all available data. Whether I liked it or not, I was willing to admit that there is, without any doubt, an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor. I felt like I'd have to deceive myself to continue denying it, so I decided to let the guy live (besides, he seems to have humanity's best interests in mind, according to the New Testament).
This skeptic-frustrating piece of linen, it should be pointed out, is a world apart from Roman Catholic fakes (created to capitalize off of it), and it also has a proven history that far antiquates the existence of Roman Catholicism. Maybe it should be in a museum of human mysteries or something. Check out that blog, it really turns out to be well worth it: click here
By the way, if that main picture, the close-up, is in fact photo-shopped, shouldn't it be replaced with an accurate photo-negative? Otherwise, it should be described as 'artificially-enhanced'. But why have a false halo effect? The real photo-negative is impressive enough. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:1C38:461:747C:51E5 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on your opinion, say-so, or argumentation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
STURP
@99Moons: As Doug Weller said at [1], We aren't impartial, we are a mainstream encyclopedia
. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
2022 WAXD testing shows dates about 2000 years ago
Please update your article as the sample that was taken earlier was a repair.
https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47 https://www.ncregister.com/interview/holy-shroud-of-turin-s-authenticity-can-no-longer-be-disputed-expert-asserts 73.228.186.92 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Arts
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Arts
- B-Class vital articles in Arts
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Mid-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Catholicism articles
- Mid-importance Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Catholicism articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Textile Arts articles
- Low-importance Textile Arts articles
- WikiProject Textile Arts articles
- B-Class Middle Ages articles
- Low-importance Middle Ages articles
- B-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- B-Class Italy articles
- Low-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages