Talk:Sudarium of Oviedo

Whoever wrote this article on the Sudarium of Oviedo, specifically the first sentence: "is a bloodstained piece of cloth manufactured in around 700CE" needs to read much more carefully the reference he/she used. The Sudarium may very well be a fake, but one cannot conclude this from this particular reference which mentions the claim by one laboratory which conducted one kind of test that it is a fake. In the very same paragraph there is a discussion of the reliability of carbon dating. Furthermore that paragraph ends with this quote: "Finally, the history of the Sudarium is very well established and there are definite references to its presence in Jerusalem in AD 570 and at the beginning of the fifth century". Indeed, there is much evidence to the contrary. Did you not read the whole article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.141.254 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does this page attempt to assert that all blood types become AB after time? This simply isn't true, and is even clarified in the comments section of the blog that supposedly provides reference to this. I'm sorry I'm unsure as to how to sign this, but hope someone clears this up. 92.23.188.90 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Shaun


 * Not any more... And I removed Lulu, a self publisher. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There were a couple of comments now that rightly point out that the Sudarium and the Shroud have very little connection and that there is no solid proof of authenticity for the Sudarium. The conclusions do represent modern scholarly views, but the arguments presented here are seriously lacking, e.g. McCrone is just one ref, even if there is blood it is not clear if it was placed there later, so makes no difference, etc. That needs to be cleaned up "at some point". But given that the conclusion is correct, probably no rush. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * McCrone's article claims that he didn't find blood, his opinion has always been that what he found were pigments consistent with a painting, but it is true that even if blood was found, this would be irrelevant as it could come from anyone who handled the Shroud. Anduin13 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the Shroud for almost every opinion there is an opposite opinion, Newton's 4th law I guess. There are people who disagree with McCrone and say there is blood but it is too old and decomposed to tell anything. Even McCrone's own research assistant later turned against him. Anyway, all that is beside the point, given that the blood could have come from the hand of the person repairing it and they cut their hand with the scissors, etc... who knows. I was not there. As usual, no conclusion on any of these issues. History2007 (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * McCrone's work is 23 years out of date, and Baden's is 32 years out of date. In this field of science that is seriously antiquated as so many hundreds of tests have been done since that completely contradict both author's conclusions. This is similar to quoting Newton in refutation of Einsteins theory on the behavior of gravity. So why arent more recent studies used in refutation? Because they dont exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Dallas Tanner's book "The Shroud," which was used to support the blood type assertion, because it is a work of fiction. RugTimXII (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious phrasing
The claim the sample came from the Middle Ages is disputed by in a book by Joe Nickel, an author who holds degrees in the Humanities but not in Science.

Is this wording trying to suggest that the author has no idea what he's talking about and his opinion should be discarded? What's the point in mentioning his degrees? I'm tempted to remove this phrase altogether, since it doesn't add much relevant information to the article, or at least remove the degrees part.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Looks like it's been removed.Daniel Robert Sum (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why no photo of the Sudarium?
Torzsmokus (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lebob (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Definite history?
This article states that the Sudarium has "a definite history extending back to approximately 570 AD". However, this is based on the writings of an anonymous pilgrim Anonymous pilgrim of Piacenza, later misidentified as Antoninus of Piacenza, who merely says that, "On that shore of the Jordan is a cave [...]. In that place it is said that there is a cloth which was on the Lord's forehead." He didn't even see the cloth, and his account makes it clear that fake relics abounded in that area at that time. As the Wiki page on this pilgrim's account states, it is "marred by gross errors and by fabulous tales which betray the most naive credulity". To claim this account is evidence of a "definite history" is disingenuous. Also, the account of the travels of the Sudarium from the Holy Land to Oviedo was penned by Bishop Pelayo, known as “El Fabulador” (the Storyteller) and as "prince of falsifiers" Pelagius of Oviedo, who had every motive to invent a provenance for a fake relic in his Cathedral. So this alleged "definite history" is based on very poor evidence, and is not definite at all. The first definite description of the Sudarium is in the 8th century AD, when it arrived in Oviedo. This date consistent with the published radiocarbon date of ~700 AD, making it very likely the cloth is yet another a medieval fake. This article should really be edited to be a little less credulous and better referenced. Krebiozen (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)