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
(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]
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]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
