Talk:Shroud of Turin

Fringe Theories?
Why not just theories? 12.196.231.156 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To give better information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all theories are equally valuable. It is noteworthy that a theory departs significantly from the mainstream view in the field. Such theories are called fringe theories. See Fringe theories for the guidelines on this.--Srleffler (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This term is rarely used and appears dismissive and intentional. The carbon dating is the only test to suggest inauthenticity and has reason to be questioned. There are many issues that must be explained even if the C-14 test is rock solid. How was it made? Explain all those points: the blood, the anatomical accuracy in negative, the pollens, and so on. To simply state, "Carbon-14!" shows that one has no answer for everything else.
 * So you use the term "fringe theories." That is the reason. 24.19.128.64 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many threads of evidence which debunk the authenticity of the shroud, and C14 is only one of them. People who think that you throw a shroud upon a bleeding corpse and you get something like a portrait photo have lost their common sense. It's so basically obvious that if you don't get the point I have a bridge to sell you. People do sophisticated scientific research for something looking like a product for April Fools' Day. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The shroud looks ridiculous, but it is a great way to bring tourists to Turin. Dimadick (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A portrait photo that has features of medieval art. Also, blood, the anatomical accuracy in negative, the pollens, and so on are debunked in the sources cited in the article. They are wishful thinking by religious zealots who happen to be scientists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is an open debate and the term "fringe" is sometimes applied by one side to discredit the other.  Its use here is applied incorrectly. 50.225.175.210 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are not two equal sides here. There is a mainstream scientific point of view, and there are fringe theories outside the mainstream. There is not an "open debate" between mainstream science and fringe theories. That's not how it works. --Srleffler (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The former incredibly biased text of this article has been significantly improved. However, these two sentences remain unsupported by the footnotes attached to them: "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. Though accepted as valid by experts, the carbon-dating of the shroud continues to generate significant public debate." 69.12.13.37 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Photo of Shroud of Turin on Wikipedia
That is the worst picture of the shroud I have ever seen. Really? Couldn't come up with a descent photo to be fair and how about more than one? It's ridiculously small and distorted. Surely people will find this questionable. "Furthermore" I can not believe this minute bias evidence is here on a respectable site like Wikipedia and boasting to have proven the claim of forgery.The data here is horrifically mutteled. Majority of these details are incorrect and obviously not well studied. Anyone interested should check out the Shroud of Turn web site for all the true facts. 108.147.193.37 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you have taken a better photo, feel free to upload it. We can't use photos without permission, though. Better photos you see elsewhere are likely copyrighted and not available to us.
 * We base content on reliable sources, not fringe websites. If you're relying on some website to give you "all the true facts" you will likely find yourself led astray.--Srleffler (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Turin plasch.jpg is the original 1898 photo, much better than the processed artwork in the infobox. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I like that the image in the infobox shows a positive image, at the same scale. --Srleffler (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)