Talk:Shroud of Turin

The face of Jesus is European

None of this WP:FORUM stuff belongs on this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
so now that the face of Jesus is reconstructed as European, Greek Like, what will pseudo scientists say about him being middle eastern 2600:1004:B0A7:A529:0:27:7522:E201 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC) That he was middle-eastern. By definition. Also, not the first flying clue what you are on about regarding a "reconstruction." Did they find remains and I missed it? Dumuzid (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC) No, it would be unexpected if remains were found, per the Ascension . A Midjourney image"became an overnight social media sensation" in the wake of the wider media storm over Dr De Caro's study. Uncanny how much it looks like Newton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC) But it is expected that he made a selfie using the Shroud before he got beamed up? This is so weird. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC) The following link (click here) claims that: "Jesus’ blood type is the ultra-rare AB+ that universally accepts all other blood types, but is not accepted by any other blood types (probably symbolic of the reality that none can truly come to Christ unless God the Father draws him). This blood type, while extremely rare, has a slightly higher incidence among people of Middle Eastern descent, confirming Jesus’ incarnation and Abrahamic descent." The close-up of the face currently featured on the article is not reliable, because it is an 'enhanced' image. Unaltered close-ups on the link provided, however, could certainly pass for 1st Century Eastern Mediterranean. (click here) It wasn't until several centuries after the beginnings of Christianity, that the Arab expansion changed the demographics of the Eastern Mediterranean. Before this, the region had been a cross-cultural hub of three major continents. In the Acts of the Apostles, there were visiting Arabs among the first Christians at Pentecost (Acts 2:20 - "Both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs — We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”). A prophecy about Jesus is explained to a visiting Nubian African, and a devout centurion hears the Gospel in Caesarea. In the 1st Century, the Eastern Mediterranean was also multi-lingual, with Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin each being widely spoken (among numerous other languages). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:B056:93A8:3C89:6F47 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC) We are not interested in your blog. Take your blog elsewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC) I was referencing the photo provided on the blog. For the blood type, blood samples were taken from the Shroud itself. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:30C7:EDE7:7CA7:7B03 (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Listen, pal: the theology of bloodtype is a hoax. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC) The theological take on it wasn't the point, it was that this rare blood type has a slightly higher incidence among Middle Easterners. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:30C7:EDE7:7CA7:7B03 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC) To correct my earlier comment, I'm not actually certain whether the current face image has been artificially-enhanced, after all. An earlier topic on the subject mistakenly referred to this image as created by a religious artist through filtering, but the artist's concept referred to is actually another image entirely. What I have noticed in comparing genuine photos, is that different degrees of light exposure seem to differently affect the dimensions of the facial features, making it seemingly impossible to know what the most accurate exposure is. However, in all cases, the face looks (in my opinion) to be ancient Semitic. The proportions also match Byzantine depictions while they purportedly had the Shroud, using it as a model for coinage and religious art. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:30C7:EDE7:7CA7:7B03 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC) WP:CITE mainstream WP:SOURCES or be gone from this talk page. We are not interested in your musings. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure whether you realize this or not, but you come across as arrogant. Many people were talking about this without citing a source for every statement they make. This is a talk page, not the article itself. And I was entirely on subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:80E4:FA80:87BA:2BF0 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Citing you own blog does not improve the article in any way. You're just WP:SOAPBOXING your blog. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC) I agree that I could have quoted a reliable source about the blood type test instead of referencing a blog. This very subject, however, 'The face of Jesus is European', is entirely subjective and quotes no references at all. The person who started it is being entirely speculative, whereas a blood type test from the Shroud whose results parallels Middle Eastern incidence, is based on research and fact. And so it would be more a matter of quoting the correct sources. Don't you agree? 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C40F:E514:353C:8183 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Yes... where are those sources? Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Comparing the blood on both the Shroud and Sudarium (head cloth) - "Blood on each of the fabrics match (AB +).. Blood from a human male that is most commonly found in the Middle East was identified on each." The ethnic identification must be from an analysis of the blood's DNA. The quote just cited is from the Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard:Click here Here's the rest of it: An Analysis of the DNA and Hematological [blood study] Findings of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo Citation Dreschnack, Paul Alan. 2023. An Analysis of the DNA and Hematological Findings of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. Master's thesis, Harvard University Division of Continuing Education. Abstract The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo are the two most studied, examined, and analyzed historical artifacts in human existence. No doubt, they are also the most famous. Numerous coincidences exist that have captured the hearts and imaginations of audiences for centuries. Several high-profile scientific inquiries have been initiated in the past few decades. They have been studied extensively and comprehensively. But to what avail? They are examined independently, but there is a lack of collaboration of information and sharing of data, which could be very helpful to all the scientists involved. It has been established that there is historical significance of these two fabrics, having originated in deaths that modern law would readily classify as a homicide. Uniquely killed by crucifixion, and then removed for burial in a time when this did not serve the Roman objective of visually offensive execution. [The Blood Type] Blood on each of the fabrics match (AB (+)), and the location of the blood stains matches as well [i.e., comparing the Shroud and Sudarium]. Blood from a human male that is most commonly found in the Middle East was identified on each. The stains superimpose on each other. [Pollen and Tourist DNA] DNA analysis performed at the University of Padua traced the path across Europe from Jerusalem to Turin by examining the surface pollen. On its journey, many people venerated it, and added their DNA to what was already present. Contamination is extensive. [Conclusion] More studies need to be done. We are examining the only remaining evidence of a violent crime. If there is evidence of a unique singular origin, the implications are more than theological. Even scientifically and medically speaking, it is more than a matter of faith. It already is a legend. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:C40F:E514:353C:8183 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC) According to Google, one of these ladies is Italian (European), and one is Palestinian (Asian). Can you tell at a glance which is which? [1] .. [2] Wdford (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Firstly, the typing of the blood on the Shroud has been questioned, and it is highly uncertain if it can even be typed accurately. [3] Second, AB+ blood is found all over the world. According to Wikipedia, it is highest in North Korea, followed by Japan, Bangladesh and Uzbekistan. Israel is also on the upper end, equal with Finland and Poland but behind India and many other nations. This "evidence", assuming it even exists, means nothing. [[4]] Third, the original pollen would have been washed away by the many attempts in medieval times to wash away the image itself. Modern studies of the pollen have found pollens from everywhere, including North America. This has long since been discarded as "evidence" of anything. Wdford (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC) "We are examining the only remaining evidence of a violent crime." if that is the premise of the research, then we can disregard it all as utter tosh. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC) From what I understand, the pollen samples are not the strongest point of evidence for the Shroud. However, that wasn't the reason I shared this essay — It was about the blood testing and giving the quote in context. The point was that there have in fact been studies on the blood that concluded a Middle Eastern ancestry. These original studies are what need to be located. A possibility I already mentioned was that the findings may have had something to do with the DNA of the blood, rather than the blood type. Yet, even the blood type simply having a higher Mid-East incidence is still relevant. Although Dreschnack wasn't a Shroud hematologist, his reputable thesis clearly shows that he had dealt with this information and that such studies do exist — studies that may prove more difficult to find online than they were ten years ago, when I first read about them. Again, the reputable essay quoted, though not the most primary source, does show that blood studies that make these conclusions do, in fact, exist. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:F9FB:D595:7A9:696F (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC) You write "The point was that there have in fact been studies on the blood that concluded a Middle Eastern ancestry." I don't believe that is true. I don't see that in Dreschnack's thesis. The statement in the abstract "Blood from a human male that is most commonly found in the Middle East was identified on each." is just poorly written. As is clear from the thesis itself, the DNA evidence indicated that the blood on the Shroud came from a human male. He does not say that an ethnicity could be determined from it. The phrase "most commonly found in the Middle East" appears to be a reference to the blood type. The fact that type AB blood is slightly more common in the Middle East is not proof or even particularly strong evidence that the blood came from someone from that region. It could just as well have come from a European who happened to have that blood type. Dreschnack also reports that DNA from ninety-three individuals was found on the Shroud, with haplotypes indicating a wide range of ethnicities. He reasonably asserts that this DNA comes from people who handled the Shroud over the centuries. Skimming through the thesis (which was for a Master's in History) I don't see any actual evidence of anything really surprising. Some speculation about things that would be surprising if they were found to be true and some bullshit, but nothing really surprising with evidence and/or sound logic to back it up.--Srleffler (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Also, just half of Jesus's DNA should be human. If his DNA is fully human, then he wasn't conceived by the Holy Spirit. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC) The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus is half-human and half-divine, as if he were a Greek god (The name 'Jesus' isn't based on the god Zeus, by the way; it's actually the Anglicized form of the Greek 'Iesu/Iesus/Ieson', itself a transliteration of the Hebrew, 'Yeshu/Yeshua', or 'Joshua', who led Israel after Moses). And so, here's how the story goes: First of all, the 'seed' in the Old Testament (Jewish Tanakh) was always the sperm of the male — However, in one sole instance in the Book of Genesis, Jehovah tells Eve that HER seed (a 'seed' of a woman) would crush the head of the serpent (Satan) who had deceived her (the first woman), leading to the fall of humanity and resulting mortality. Thus, in fulfillment of the first prophecy recorded in the Bible, Eve's descendant, Mary of Nazareth, miraculously conceived, resulting in Jesus being both fully divine and fully human, so as to conquer death: If Jesus wasn't fully divine, then he wouldn't have been without sin, and so would have been unable to pay humanity's debt, as the blameless Passover lamb — nor would he have been able to survive God's wrath on our behalf, because he would have been consumed. And if he wasn't fully human, then he wouldn't have been a fellow-mortal, and wouldn't have been qualified to willingly pay the once-and-for-all penalty for all human error. What many believe that the image on the Shroud gives supporting evidence for, is that Jesus has in fact succeeded. Thereby, we have an eternally secure hope in a compassionate mediator who, as a loving creator-redeemer, has paid the ultimate price for us and conquered death. Humanity is in an interim before his multi-dimensionally spectacular return, when all room for doubt will be removed, because the things of faith "will be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:6) Full quote: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all humans to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:3-6) I'm happy to clear that up for you! There's quite a backstory to this artifact, if it turns out to be the real deal. :) 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5471:5B2B:EE96:24F5 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Does anyone have access to the original blood studies? The mention of higher Mid-East incidence wasn't to prove the authenticity of the Shroud. It was to give some probability of Abrahamic descent, because someone proposed that Jesus looked European (that's what this thread is about). Yet, Abrahamic descent is entwined with authenticity, and so it's important. If anyone wants to try and disprove the Shroud, as I once did and failed, then once again, I refer to the following much-contested blog that sums up some of the better evidences, with lots of photographic data to evaluate: Click here, if you dare :) I do suggest giving an honest evaluation.. If it's really him, I've heard that his mama's rather protective of his reputation! :) 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5471:5B2B:EE96:24F5 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Is any part of this thread related to improving the article Shroud of Turin? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC) I agree with your concern. Besides, it's not about how someone looks on the outside that counts, but what's in their heart. "Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature.. for Jehovah seeth not as man seeth. For man looketh on the outward appearance, but Jehovah looketh on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7) "From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23) Jesus' Jewishness, however, is a biblically important subject, as it is part of his human credentials for fulfilling biblical prophecy as the Messiah (or 'Christ'). Apart from the blood tests, what are some other factors to consider? The Woman at the Well First, we have an account from the Gospel of John, where a Samaritan woman visually identified Jesus as a Jew (John chapter 4). However, his attire may have contributed to this, and this doesn't prove that the image on the Shroud is of Jesus. The Josephus Sculpture However, there is a sculpture of the 1st Century Jewish historian Josephus, who, if living in the Mid-East today might be considered European-looking. What the man on the Shroud seems to have in common with Josephus (who wrote about Jesus' half-brother, James the Just) is a prominent nose, sometimes considered a distinguishing Jewish characteristic. The problem here, is that we can't compare a side profile of the image on the Shroud with that of Josephus, because the image on the Shroud is facing straight-on. Some have claimed there is a holographic element to the Shroud image, so perhaps a computer could be used to create a 3-D model, and I think that some have tried. But I'm not sure how certain something like this could be, and there would have to be a lot of solid data, with the results being repeatable independently. Modern Israelis Many modern Israelis are Sephardic or Ashkenazi-Sephardic mixed. The Sephardic, or 'Spanish' Jews look more Arabic, because they stayed in the Mediterranean region after the Arab expansion took place. Many Arabs claim Abrahamic descent through Ishmael, who was Semitic (by Abraham) and Egyptian (by Hagar), and who married an Egyptian. And so, Arabs may be partly Semitic-Egyptian. With a similar language and a religion based on the Jewish Bible (including dietary laws), intermarriage may have occurred between Sephardic Jews and Arabs. The Ashkenazi 'German' Jews left for Roman France at an early stage, and migrated along the Rhine and as far as Western Russia. The timeframe of the Jewish proselyte Khazarian kingdom doesn't fit to explain all of Ashkenazi ancestry, although Khazarian proselytes may have mixed into parts of the Jewish population to some extent. Blood testing of Ashkenazi Jews shows that they have a Jewish and European/Slavic, etc. mixed ancestry to varying degrees. Conspiracy theories about Ashkenazi being completely non-Jewish are thereby false. Dura-Europos Synagogue in Syria This mid-3rd Century Jewish synagogue has relief paintings of Jews that would be considered European-looking for the area nowadays. They lack the contemporary olive skin complexion of the Mediterranean region, that actually came about through a massive influx of desert peoples. Those depicted all have dark hair and mostly fair skin, but also some tanned skin. Unfortunately, all the depictions appear to be facing straight-on, but they seem to generally have prominent noses. Considering the semi-cartoony style of the paintings, if the style utilized was more realistic, one would think that the man on the Shroud could disappear into a crowd of such people without standing out. In fact, according to the Gospels, Jesus had to do this regularly, and so must not have stood out that much from the crowd. Prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament (Jewish Tanakh) Book of Isaiah predict that the Messiah would not look any different from the average Jew of his time. There would be nothing about him that would cause him to stand out from his fellow-Jew. Similarly, Moses predicted that God would raise up for Israel a prophet like himself from among their brethren, understood by both Jews and Christians to be a reference to the Messiah (Book of Deuteronomy). 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:31A9:59FB:5C37:39C2 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Your own musings here are irrelevant, this topic should be closed there is zero indication of it being helpful for improving the article. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Most of this thread was response to critical questions, resulting in clarification afterwards — something that is helpful for bringing understanding, as long as the criticism is constructive and respectful. I suggest waiting the 20 days of no activity for archiving. If people are tired of this thread, then just don't comment on it. Personally, I've only responded to provocative statements or honest criticism. If anyone has any further constructive criticism, then please continue to comment. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:E005:3DEF:E6E:A2EC (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an extensive paper about immunological blood studies — an online PDF file from the Shroud of Turin Research and Education Association site: click here. It may not solve the ethnicity question of the man on the Shroud, however some on this thread seemed more interested about the blood studies in general. There are so many research papers listed (both pro and con) on this site that I had to search alphabetically under the 'b's for 'blood type'. There may be more specific studies, if anyone wants to have at it, but it's an extremely long list of titles to review. Click here Here's one that sounds like those who are skeptics among us may appreciate: Empirical evidence that the blood on the Shroud of Turin is of human origin: Is the current data sufficient? Click here On this latter site, a bunch of related blood studies on the Shroud are listed thereafter, but for these you have to have a Google, Apple or Facebook account or use your email address, to either download them or to read them online. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:98A0:1BD8:4ED4:AB94 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Need to make an important correction: The so-called 'Josephus sculpture' is not genuine. (However, the synagogue paintings are legit). I noticed additional sculptures claiming to be of Flavius Josephus, and so I researched the one that's most widely thought to be of him, and discovered that it was actually a random artifact used as a picture in an old printing of Josephus' works. There are no known depictions of him. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:7CB5:5AD6:A072:5B6A (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

UNBALANCED

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The description here, although very commendably full of information, is very unbalanced; it's fine - and important - to set out the negatives with solemn intent, but the positives should be given the same level of seriousness and consideration. For example, McCrone is quoted as if his studies were proved, when that's simply not true - if anything, he has been discredited in this respect, as well as in the Vinyards Map studies he did. Again, it's fine to quote what he did, but equal prominence - or even more prominent provision - should be made for the STURP studies which showed (with almost complete agreement) that paint was NOT how the image was created. Many other examples in this piece continue in that vein, which is a shame, because there has been serious work done here to present the issue, the trouble is, the writers should keep their prejudices and beliefs out of it, and simply present the true facts, both positive as well as negative. To do otherwise is to do disservice to Wikipedia as well as the subject.

I could revert the edit again, but I don't see any sense in an edit war, I simply appeal to common sense and good judgement to ask the editors of this piece to think again. Perhaps it was oversight rather than prejudice. I hope so. Matthew.hartington (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a myth, propagated by enthusiasts of "sindonology", that McCrone's work on the Shroud of Turin has been debunked. In fact, for that work be was awarded the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000, long after the various critiques of his work by members of STURP (which are, incidentally, mentioned and cited in this article) had been published and discussed. You can see a writeup for that award here (go to the sixth page in the PDF). McCrone is really the only expert on the scientific authentication of ancient artifacts who's been allowed to examine the Shroud in any detail. Note also that in 2021 the authorities of Yale's Beinecke Library, which owns the Vinland Map, declared that that map was a fake, for essentially the same reasons that McCrone had given in 1973: see here. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern.

It sounds like you lack an awareness of how unreasonable the opposition has been around here (Check the archives for this talk page, for example).

The Shroud of Turin article has recently been the subject of a hostile take-over that labeled all scientific research as 'fringe'.

If it is not properly maintained, aggressive subversives, who care nothing about a balanced, factual presentation of the data, will start filling the talk page with mockery, uploading warped images that make the body image look elongated, and will continue to defiantly dismiss and defame all scientifically-researched and academically-published data.

And so, if you have citations you can back-up your information with, then please feel free to continue restoring and improving the article. :)

As far as McCrone goes, there is such a thing as high-profile researchers who get paid off, especially when evaluating something as significant and controversial as the Shroud of Turin (not that there aren't also those who might skew the evidence pro-Shroud).

I agree with your statement: "The writers should keep their prejudices and beliefs out of it, and simply present the true facts, both positive as well as negative. To do otherwise is to do disservice to Wikipedia as well as the subject." 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:5471:5B2B:EE96:24F5 (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, conspiracy theories plus baseless accusations of corruption. Nice. This helps readers see that the Shroud-is-real crowd is just like all the other pseudoscience subcultures, using the same excuses when the evidence does not go their way. Thank you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"the Shroud-is-real crowd is just like all the other pseudoscience subcultures" I thought they were more ridiculous than the average subculture. Dimadick (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Your sarcastic mockery just proved my point! :)

I was explaining what just recently happened on here.

There was an entire thread about the elongated photo, but the problem was corrected. Also, it is an undeniable fact that this article recently had nearly all Shroud research categorized as 'fringe theories'. All of this was documented and can be fact-checked in recent archives and past edits of the article.

Besides, you guys have been around here for awhile, and so you know that what I'm saying is true.

Don't you believe that lying and belittling is wrong? 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:31A9:59FB:5C37:39C2 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows WP:THETRUTH, so, no, endorsing mainstream science is not lying, even if techically mainstream science could be wrong.

Also, Wikipedia is built upon mainstream WP:RS, apologetics gets knee-jerk rejected. So, yeah, some sources are considered WP:FRINGE because those are apologetics, and apologetics has a bad name, a very bad name. And some claims about the Shroud (I won't repeat which) are outright heretical. So, yup, Shroudies, by seeking to validate the Shroud, actually give the lie to Christianity. At a certain point, the Pope will ask them to take it easy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there does exist some questionable pro-Shroud theories, but not all Shroud proponents believe all pro-Shroud opinions. I myself set out to disprove the Shroud and found the better pro-Shroud research to be quite interesting. Not all skeptics, for example, believe that man has never been to the moon. And within an individual subject, such as the Shroud of Turin, there exists a whole spectrum of views.

I agree that people professing Christianity are doing a disservice by being naïve. Jesus, who taught a lot about faith, also said not to believe everything, especially when people are making religious claims. The New Testament also teaches to test, or evaluate, all things, retaining only what is proven trustworthy.

But what I was specifically talking about was what people had done to this specific article and talk page in recent months, not rejecting apologetic claims, but rejecting academically-published, scientifically-evaluated research (By the way, Christian apologetics should be completely honest and accurate).

Again, to be clear, I'm talking about professional scientific research academically published. Not the fringe stuff. There's a big difference. Do you acknowledge that there's a difference?

What people seemed to be lying about is acting as if there wasn't recently a complete take-over of this article by skeptics. Do you deny that this was a fact? And if so, is that not lying? What else can one call it? Rhetorical manipulation? It's still lying. 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:31A9:59FB:5C37:39C2 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased for mainstream sources. You can't change that, trying is futile. And yup, there have been some papers published by Shroudies in bona fide journals, but those papers actually make very modest claims, and fail to show evidence that the Shroud is Ancient. So, yes, they have published some good papers, but those papers fail to show that the Shroudies are right. So, no, saying that the Shroud is Ancient is not epistemically responsbile. As K.R. Popper would say, the Shroudies are exclusively about ad hoc reasoning, in order to dodge falsification of their theory. The tests which were approved by the Catholic Church showed that the Shroud is not Ancient, and there is not much real scientific research since then. Just papers filled with guessiology, and an otherwise untested dating method. And dating unprovenanced fibers. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that there have been some good papers on the Shroud.

Polarization on any subject is wearisome! 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:E005:3DEF:E6E:A2EC (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Your sarcastic mockery just proved my point! :) Yes, I know. If you are a pseudoscience believer, everything that can happen proves your point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Socially irresponsible comments really need to stop. They're also against Wikipedia policy.

What I said has absolutely nothing to do with pseudoscience. Perhaps you misunderstood.

You were jokingly saying I was resorting to conspiracy theorizing and baseless accusations, for merely pointing out what was already obvious to everyone who has been around here for awhile, that there had recently been a serious imbalance to this article (documented in past revisions), as well as mockery on this talk page.

By mocking, you actually helped proved my point. That's all I was saying.

Maybe calling the then-prevailing bias a take-over sounded a bit much, but in effect that was what it was. I didn't claim it was some kind of clandestine conspiracy. I've tended to see it as more of a social phenomenon.

Love and peace! :)

Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Really. Read it. I will stop feeding you now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You're still being rude by saying, 'I'll stop feeding you now.'

Shouldn't I respond if I'm being challenged?

False balance is about fringe theories, not scientifically-researched, academically-published papers. There's a difference. The article doesn't need to say that the Shroud is proven true or false, but simply to present the various professional studies and counter-studies.

I'm not trying to make you look foolish nor to win an argument for argument's sake, so let's just both admit to some misunderstanding of each other's communication and call it quits.

Fair enough? 2600:8801:CA00:DDD0:98A0:1BD8:4ED4:AB94 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.