The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Shroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
Wow. The comments read like reddit. Thanks for the response. If you'll indulge me on another question, why isn't The Lancet on the reliable sources list? 98.4.89.168 (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary on this edit exemplifies the problem with this paper. It is precisely the fact that it is a novel dating technique that makes it unacceptable. A well-established dating technique can be used to support a surprising finding. A novel technique giving an expected result is good science too—that's how you establish that your novel technique works. A novel technique giving a surprising result, that is contradicted by an established technique's results, is not worth very much scientifically. Science works by consensus, replication, and review. Other researchers have to use this technique and write about it to establish whether it works. Researchers familiar with the technique have to review the article mentioned above and discuss it. This is why we require secondary sources for references. A researcher writing about their own work, even if it is effectively peer-reviewed (and it's not clear that this was) is just not good enough. It doesn't help that some of the authors on this paper have a history of scientifically dubious work aimed at establishing an earlier dating for the Shroud. It rather feels like they were casting around for a novel dating technique that would support their preconceived bias about this one artifact, rather than that they were trying to develop a new dating technique that might be of general use.
Another reason behind the requirement for reliable secondary sources: If there are no secondary sources that discuss this paper, it means that other researchers didn't think it was worth responding to. If a novel technique is worthwhile, other researchers will try to use it and try to improve on it, and will publish papers and books about it. If that doesn't happen, one can be pretty certain that the new technique is worthless.--Srleffler (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a source of neutral content. Your personal scientific appraisal of this primary source’s methodology is irrelevant to its suitability for inclusion in the article. Gilgur (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "personal scientific appraisal". There is no positive reception of that paper from the scientific community. And it is not the first newly-invented, untested dating method that was only ever used for dating the Shroud to th first century. Trying to sell it as the last word on the Shroud, or even as relevant here, is disingenous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He claims the paper is “not worth very much scientifically,” so it literally is his personal appraisal. Regardless, you are missing the point. The paper’s scientific methodology cannot disqualify it from inclusion Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. The paper should be included because it is generating significant public discussion in major magazines such as Newsweek and in high-view-count YouTube videos. You are violating Wikipedia’s behavioral guidelines. Please review WP:GF regarding assuming good faith. Also, I never tried to “sell the paper as the last word on the Shroud” nor did I render an opinion regarding the paper’s scientific validity at all. Gilgur (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions in Newsweek and YouTube are not the criterion for inclusion. MDPI gets knee-jerk rejected, especially if contentious. A new, untested method for dating gets knee-jerk rejected. WP:PROFRINGE gets knee-jerk rejected. We are entitled to judge the reliability of a source, especially seen from mainstream vs. fringe.
Please see WP:FRINGE. An article in Newsweek, among other publications, and YouTube videos with hundreds of thousands of views are in fact criteria for discussion of a fringe idea within a mainstream article. They are reliable independent sources discussing in a serious and substantial manner the relationship between De Caro's results and the accepted Carbon dating result. On the other hand, judging a fringe theory's suitability for inclusion within its mainstream article solely the basis of its seminal work's reliability or methodology has no basis in Wikipedia rules regarding fringe theories or their suitability for inclusion. This approach undermines Wikipedia's Neutrality policy, as it is an example of engaging with a disputes rather than describing them. Gilgur (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
article in Newsweek, among other publications, and YouTube videos [..] are in fact criteria for discussion of a fringe idea within a mainstream article Wrong. See WP:ONEWAY: If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. This article is not about a fringe subject, so, fringe theories like the first-century dating by religious fanatics should be given very little space. That is what the other article is for: Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paper’s scientific methodology cannot disqualify it from inclusion That is absurd. If that were true, we would have to cite every paper ever written, no matter how shitty. The scientific process does not stop at publication, after peer review. The reception of a paper by the scientific community is the most important criterion here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a section in this article regarding De Caro’s WAXS assessment of the shroud’s age. This paper has drawn significant public attention, including an article in Newsweek, and videos on YouTube with hundreds of thousands of views. Biased Wikipedia editors are abusing their guidelines regarding “fringe theories” to exclude this discussion on the basis of their personal scientific disagreement with the article’s premise. Gilgur (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(From the lede) The microscopist Walter McCrone found, based on his examination of samples taken in 1978 from the surface of the shroud using adhesive tape, that the image on the shroud had been painted with a dilute solution of red ochre pigment in a gelatin medium. McCrone found that the apparent bloodstains were painted with vermilion pigment, also in a gelatin medium.[5] McCrone's findings were disputed by other researchers and the nature of the image on the shroud continues to be debated.
Given that there are numerous conflicting theories about the shroud, it isn't appropriate to select one, mention their findings in the lede to the exclusion of all others, and only acknowledge at the end of the para that those findings are disputed. Not good enough. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a theory. He found those pigments. "Other researchers" may well be the STURP cranks who "dispute" everything that points to the Shroud being anything else but a 2000-year old miraculous Jesus selfie. I cannot access the source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He says he found those pigments. Others obviously disagree with him. But whether he did or didn't find what he says he found, is not the point. We're not interested in "the truth" here, just in the verifiability of the info we present. It's fine to mention his research findings, but not in such a prominent place as the lede. That is, unless we also mention in the lede the other theories and their supporters. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]10:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who are those "others"? Are they the gullible loons from STURP? McCrone was a down-to-earth scientist who had no reputation for introducing fancy notions into his work, unlike the sturpies. There is no reason to doubt what he wrote, and there is no reason to mention fringe ideas in the lede. There is another article that does that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no reason to doubt what he wrote" - that is exquisitely irrelevant to this issue. But you sound like you're wedded to his findings, finding all alternative points of view by definition unworthy of consideration. You then compound your error and further display your bias and disinterest in a neutral point of view, by referring to "the gullible loonies from STURP". Until such time as McCrone's - or anyone else's - explanation for the Shroud is widely and generally accepted by the scientific community, ALL research findings are theories, not facts. And that is the crux of my objection to giving undue weight to McCrone's - or anybody else's - theories in the lede. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]09:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. Not all ideas are treated equally on Wikipedia. STURP is a bunch of people who grasp at straws. All of their reasoning is based on rookie mistakes and baseless speculation.
I've said this several times already in earlier discussion in this talk page, but it's very important to bear in mind that Walter McCrone is by far the most qualified expert who's ever been allowed to examine physically the material of the Shroud of Turin. He's the only scientist who's worked on the Shroud directly who was an acknowledged expert on the authentication of ancient artifacts (indeed, that's why Ian Wilson had invited him to join STURP and work on the Shroud). And McCrone's work, far from having been convincingly debunked (as most "sindonologists" try to make it seem), was eventually published in a leading scientific journal (the Accounts of Chemical Research, a more prominent journal that any in which other members of STURP have published) and rewarded in 2000 with the National Award in Analytical Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reception for that book although it is a quarter of a century old. Is it WP:DUE? From the descriptions on sites that want to sell it, it seems to be all conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I chanced upon this book in a second-hand shop recently, having never heard of it previously. It's exceptionally well written and his conclusions - which I don't necessarily accept - are well argued. He goes to considerable trouble to discuss the principal alternative theories and explains in detail why, in his opinion, none of them hold water. He also convincingly demonstrates that the head and the torso are from different people. I've come across this notion previously, but it's never been explained so clearly, in my experience. A very thought-provoking read. I'm stunned the Shroud community seem to be unaware of it. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]10:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit that added it. It also seems undue to me. The book is on the Internet archive. The preface starts with the author saying Jesus is descended from the line of the pharao Akhenaten. Jesus was ritually decapitated and his head embalmed. This head was then discovered by the Knights Templar beneath the Temple who worshipped it as Baphomet. They buried it under Rosslyn Chappel.... The shroud. Rolluik (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is also salty that he wasn't allowed to dig under Rosslyn Chappel based on his "evidence". But no worries there is a secret tunnel so the head isn't there anymore. Frankly it reads like an author who wants to connect multiple Christian cinematic universes together. Rolluik (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any. Unless you can provide them, Laidler's writings are WP:UNDUE because he just a book nobody competent was interested in enough to comment on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
