Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

"...bearing the image of a man..."

Does the phrase "...bearing the image of a man..." imply that the image was made by a body and not painted? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

All it means is that "there is an image of a man on the cloth". The phrase is not intended to pronounce on how the image got there to begin with. Wdford (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced

The sentence I deleted as unsourced was: "However, none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically proven.[12][sources 1]" N.B. [sources 1] expands to [13][14][15][16][17][18][19].

The seemingly unassailable list of 8 sources supporting this statement are:

[12] Chivers, Tom (20 December 2011). "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 1 August 2016. Behind paywall, here's an alternative link: https://www.sott.net/article/239118-The-Turin-Shroud-is-fake-Get-over-it

[13] "Debate of Roger Sparks and William Meacham on alt.turin-shroud". Shroud.com. Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association. Retrieved 12 April 2009. http://www.shroud.com/c14debat.htm

[14] Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge 2016; pg 167-168

[15] Jackson, John P. (5 May 2008). "A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis" (PDF). Turin Shroud Center of Colorado. Retrieved 18 February 2014 – via Shroud.com. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf

[16] "The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality" (PDF). Shroud.com. Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association. Retrieved 10 February 2014. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf

[17] Gove, H. E. (1990). "Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment". Radiocarbon. 32 (1): 87–92. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/1254/1259

[18] R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521–1527.

[19] Schafersman, Steven D. (14 March 2005). "A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers". llanoestacado.org. Retrieved 2 January 2016. http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

Technically the original sentence is nonsense as no scientific hypothesis can be proven, only falsified. So as a working hypothesis I assume the sentence actually means "the radiocarbon dating has not been seriously challenged by alternative hypotheses".

So I looked at as many of those 8 sources I could. I found NONE of the sources available to an average reader seriously and/or scientifically challenged the idea that the alternative hypotheses were wrong and I even found that some of them actually challenged the radiocarbon dating - not the opposing hypotheses! Hence I deleted the statement.

Detailed criticism of sources:

[12] As flagged by the title "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it", this article doesn't support the thesis that the shroud is genuine. However, it doesn't actually directly attack the idea either, instead it quotes arguments by various people. In the article it quotes one of the scientists who did the testing: "It's also been hypothesised that the patch we tested was a modern repair, but most of us agree that's implausible, because the weave is very unusual and matches the rest of the shroud perfectly." As stated, this is only a hypothesis, and also as stated it's not a universal view, so is not appropriate as a source for such a strong statement. And an obvious riposte is if someone was going to try and do a good job of repairing the shroud they would try to match the unusual weave. So it is not even a good hypothesis and this source cannot be used to support the statement.

[13] Actually strongly supports the case that the experiment was flawed and challenges the radiocarbon dating! Quote from debate: "When I attended the 1986 conference in Turin for planning the C14 dating of the Shroud, at the invitation of the Vatican Academy of Sciences, I argued strongly for an extensive testing program (including various staining and microscopic studies) that would have examined the Shroud samples in detail for contamination. This was met with arrogant dismissal by 5 of the 7 radiocarbon lab heads in attendance. They ridiculed the notion that contamination could account for more than 1 or 2% of the C14 after standard pretreatment. Their stance was decidedly haughty then, and now shown to be dead wrong. The truth is that there are many possible sources of error which are not fully understood, and it simply behooves us to at least look for all the possibilities that we can."

[14] Not online so haven't looked.

[15] Is a preliminary report on a possible method to account for the contamination needed to throw the date off. There are no references to this work. This reference, as a preliminary note with no references should be ignored, but why was it used as a source to support the accuracy of the radio-carbon dating when the research hypothesis is the experiment was flawed?

[16] By Mechthild Flury-Lembergs is an interesting but non-academic piece by someone who appears to know about textiles. They are critical of the idea that the test piece was mended, but they are also highly critical of the radio-carbon dating: "... would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, without having to construct an untenable "mending theory"." So how can this article be used to support the carbon 14 date? N.B. they make certain assumptions about the mending e.g. that the corners would not need to be repaired (when possibly someone had snipped an inconspicuous bit as a relic from the corner, just as the scientists did 500 years later), and that if it had been repaired it would have been done in the same way as the other repairs and thus be more noticeable (why do they have to do it the same way?).

[17] The date of this reference is 1990, well before the 2005 publishing date of Ray Rogers' paper or 2000 when Sue Benford began her investigation which challenged the radiocarbon date, so an irrelevant source in this context.

[18] Not online so haven't looked.

[19] This piece is by, quoting from the heading of the article, "Consulting Scientist and Administrator of the The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website". It's not going to be a neutral balanced article and it isn't. In the article it says: "Ray Rogers, ... recently published a pro-authenticity Shroud of Turin paper in a legitimate and peer-reviewed chemistry journal, Thermochimica Acta ... The real story in this controversy is not the mistaken age of the Shroud of Turin, but the misjudgment of a science journal editor and the breakdown of its peer review process." So the author here is proposing censorship of articles which conflict with their views. This is scientism, not science, and this article should not be used as a source for anything except evidence of scientism.

N.B. Ray Rogers' 2005 article is available here: http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Not proven" is indeed not a good way of saying it. I suggest we reinstate it but change the wording to something like "none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have any factual basis".

Your item 12 is silly. You think that it is "not appropriate as a source for such a strong statement", but that strong statement is the result of looking at the preponderance of evidence. "Matches the rest of the shroud exactly" is the part you are overlooking. If that silly "hypothesis" is right, some exceedingly clever fraud has managed not just to fake the "unusual weave", but make it indistinguishable from the genuine part - except for that fact that the radiocarbon dating caught him. But this just an ad-hoc excuse for the fact of the radiocarbon dating saying "middle age". The smart money is on the rest of the shroud having the same age.

Your item 13 comes from a Dunning-Kruger effect victim. The idea that contamination can make a 2000-year old object appear 600 years old can only come from an innumerate who deserves to be dismissed in that way. They probably tried to explain but he didn't get it. Learn how to do the math involved, then do it. You will see that this is only possible if there is more contamination than original material, which is not called "contamination" but "switcheroo".

Your item 16: This source is indeed irrelevant and should be removed.

Your item 19 is bullshit. The author is proposing nothing of the sort. Your "censorship of articles" is a strawman. You are beefing about his honesty in posing as a skeptic, but this is a field where everybody has an opinion. One party (scientists) has one because of the evidence, the second party (believers) has one in spite of the evidence, and the third party (postmodernists) has no idea what evidence is, therefore cannot decide and insists that both other parties are hasty in choosing a side. It can be plainly seen from your writing that you belong to one of the two ignorant parties. So, by your own reasoning, nobody should listen to you either. This line of reasoning (X belongs to Party Y! Do not use him as a source!) leads nowhere. In serious discussions, contributors are not chastised for their standpoints but for their reasoning. And your reasoning is crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

(item 12) Hi :) I've just deleted the preponderance of evidence as presented by these sources, so at the moment there is no preponderence of evidence. N.B. an argument based on the preponderence of evidence is a circular argument. About the possible fraud, possibly it has or possibly it hasn't been forged, but the scientist's quoted defense of the experiment was so weak it is actually an admission that the experiment was flawed.

(item 13) Actually that was another part of the debate, but OK, I think you're agreeing the source is no good?

(item 19) You are contrasting scientists with believers, but this guy is a believer, although he poses as a scientist. This is what scientism is. He is trying to use non-scientific methods to undermine Ray Rogers' argument. The straw man argument is also unscientific, but I disagree that I've made a straw man argument - I think in fact you've just made one :). I think an unbiased person reading [19] would agree the author is actually proposing that the article should not have been accepted and the editor is criticised for accepting it. A scientist would not criticise the editor, but address the arguments. Cheers! Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Do NOT insert comments into other people's contributions. That way, if there is more discussion after your contributions, nobody who reads this will know who wrote what. I corrected that.

(item 12) "I deleted the preponderance of evidence"? Who are you, the Ministry of Truth? You cannot delete things like that. You can only delete text that mentions them. So you think if you delete information here, it is gone? What you give us here is just meaningless words. That "maybe, maybe not" of your is just your opinion.

(item 13) Yes, bad source, because of the site (a newsgroup). But your spin on it is completely wrong. You quoted only those parts which agreed with your position and concluded that the whole text is like that and cannot be used to support another position. That's naive.

(item 19) Again, bullshit. When I say "believer", I obviously do not mean it in the postmodern sense of "someone who does not sit on the fence". The word "scientism" is mainly used by people who do not understand science. For example, people who get their ideas about science from TV shows and mistakenly think that scientists should be "unbiased" like Spock instead of normal humans with expertise. Of course you do not know how to recognize "non-scientific methods".

For instance: "proposing that the article should not have been accepted" is perfectly acceptable. It is also not the same as "proposing that the article should not have been accepted because it conflicts with one's views". Schafersman wrote in his introduction "it contained plenty of legitimate and reliable scientific information and had the veneer of scientific respectability, but it also contained subtly illogical arguments, speciously misused data, and omitted the vital scientific information that completely refuted its pseudoscientific conclusions." That was the reason given for his suggestion that the article should not have been published. Did you miss that? Did you also miss all the more detailed reasoning given below, starting with "Ray Rogers relies on papers that were neither peer-reviewed nor published in legitimate scientific journals"? You did not need to invent that reason for him. He actually gave a reason. You inventing a reason for him is that strawman I was talking about. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead contains the sentence: "However, none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically proven." This sentence is true – all challenges have been scientifically refuted. This sentence is paraphrasing the statement by C14 expert Professor Christopher Ramsey, whose actual words were "There are various hypotheses as to why the dates might not be correct, but none of them stack up." He goes on to refute the contamination theory, the repair theory and the carbon monoxide theory. This is as per reference [12]. We can argue about pedantic wording here, but the underlying fact is that these challenges have all been refuted by actual scientists using actual evidence.

1. Reference [13] is Rodger Sparks, a carbon dating expert, shooting down the contamination theory, while Meecham (a non-C14 expert) clutches at straws.
2. Reference [14] is a scholarly work by C14 expert Taylor and archaeologist Bar-Yosef. They support the C14 dating. You can access it at [1]
3. Reference [15] is included here because Jackson shoots down the repair theory and the bio-contamination theory comprehensively. He goes on to propose a carbon-monoxide theory, which was duly tested at Oxford and refuted in turn.
4. Reference [16] reports an examination by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who is a leading textile restoration expert and who has actually examined the actual shroud. She clarifies that invisible mending can never elude a microscope, and states that: "The theory that repairs had been done to the corner areas in the Middle Ages, unfortunately is based on a false presupposition." She notes that contamination COULD cause a distortion, but does not debate the fact that the C14 experts are well aware of this risk and that they therefore carefully cleaned the samples first. You are seriously cherry-picking here.
5. Reference [17] cites Gove, who basically invented C14 dating. He is confirming that the contamination theory is untenable, as the samples were properly cleaned, and that modern threads were detected under microscopes and removed. He also refutes the radiation theory. It predates the nonsense-theories of Benford et al, but it is still highly relevant to the point. If Benford had read Gove before she started her crusade, this might have worked out differently.
6. Reference [18] is a paper by Jull, who did the Arizona testing, confirming that the remaining fragment shows no signs of any of the dyes or contaminants which Rogers found on the threads he examined – the threads whose provenance he never bothered to first establish.
7. Reference [19] points out that Rogers' methodology was bad, in that he failed to first establish the provenance of those threads. He also refutes Rogers' vanillin test on the basis that the process has never been verified as reliable, and that Rogers disregards all the factors that would skew his results. It is nothing to do with censorship.

These references are all credible people who point out that the challenges to the C14 results are unfounded. Wdford (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"all challenges have been scientifically refuted" is something different from "none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically proven". So, let's write "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hob, in your argument about source [19] above you write: "Schafersman wrote in his introduction "it contained plenty of legitimate and reliable scientific information and had the veneer of scientific respectability, but it also contained subtly illogical arguments, speciously misused data, and omitted the vital scientific information that completely refuted its pseudoscientific conclusions." That was the reason given for his suggestion that the article should not have been published. Did you miss that?". End of quote.

This is your quote presumably trying to show that Schafersman can be accepted as a reliable and objective source. However, just reading the paragraph from which you take the quote you will see that it is actually talking about another paper entirely. To save you looking it up, the paragraph starts "There is a very recent similar example in which a legitimate biology journal published a paper about intelligent design creationism... As is typical with creationist ID papers, it contained plenty of legitimate and reliable scientific information ..." Clearly he's talking about a paper on ID not on the Shroud of Turin? Thank you though for your careless reading because the paragraph clearly demonstrates that Schafersman is hopelessly biased - what other reason can there be for him dragging in talk about an ID paper and how it should not have been published into a discussion about a paper on the Turin shroud and suggesting it too should not have been published? Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I quoted the wrong part of his text. But this does not damage the gist of my argument, since further below he does argue against Rogers' paper, as I already pointed out to you above: "Did you also miss all the more detailed reasoning given below". The paragraph starting with "At the beginning of his paper, Rogers states" is one of those. A few paragraphs down from there, there is a big fat caption "Rogers' Analytical Methods: Deception and Illogic". If you still keep up your claim that Schafersman is "proposing censorship of articles which conflict with their views", in spite of him actually giving factual reasons why Rogers' paper was bad, you are grasping at straws in a particularly self-serving and dishonest manner. In your response, you picked out my small mistake and ignored the greater, correct part.

Now you have the opportunity of using me as a role model and retract parts of your reasoning. But usually, people who defend religious pseudoscientific bollocks like creationism or the Shroud will avoid that at any cost, because once they start admitting mistakes, their whole edifice of fantasy collapses, so I am not holding my breath. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. Please take up the reliability of source [13] and [16] with Hob, as he agrees with me they should be dismissed. Source [19] is being used as support for this sentence, but I've shown above, with the unwilling help of Hob, that it cannot be used for that purpose since the author is hopelessly biased. It is not peer-reviewed, so any arguments it makes are untested and highly liable to have been contaminated by bias and should therefore be ignored. Source [15] for the strong reasons I have already given is totally unsuitable as a source for any scientific statement, etc. For those reasons I have reverted your edit. Sorry Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot completely delete a scientific fact supported by eight scientific references, simply because you believe some of the eight are not strong enough (although they are much stronger than the references which support your POV). If you have an issue with individual references, then discuss them here first and reach consensus. Meanwhile, the rest of the references are more than sufficient to support the retention of the original comment.

Source [13] is a C14 expert shooting down the contamination theory. It is thus very valid here. There are other sources that also shoot down the contamination theory, so we can do without this one on the grounds of the website where the debate took place. However this does not in any way invalidate the expert or his point.

Source [15] is a STURP scientist, who refutes the repair theory and the bio-contamination theory based on actual STURP evidence. That cannot be casually dismissed as an unsuitable source. You have not given "strong reasons", you have merely stated your own POV, which is at odds with the scientific evidence.

Source [16] reports an actual examination of the shroud by an actual textile expert, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who was entrusted with the restoration of the actual shroud. She is by no means irrelevant. Hob is once again making a point that the paper is viewed on a shroudie website, but that does not invalidate the expert or her conclusion – which is that there was no repair in the area where the sample was taken. Again, this conclusion is also supported by other scientific sources based on scientific evidence.

It's interesting that you complain that source [19] is biased, because blatant bias is a common feature of the pro-authenticity camp. If we were to insist on sources being objective, we would need to delete virtually all the pro-authenticity people, from Benford (who received her revelation in a dream from Jesus himself) to Fanti (who continually invents new tests that all mysteriously support the authenticity of the shroud, however tenuously.) There is no evidence that source [19] is biased, other than the fact that he shoots down the methodology of Rogers – based on fundamental scientific principles.

Please stop deleting material that is sourced from multiple reliable sources – that is edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wdford on all this. Aarghdvaark, you are misrepresenting what I said. I do not agree with you about "reliability" of source [13], just about its site, and though I did not see the point of source [16] at the time, I never said anything about its "reliability". --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Answering your comments on the sources above, I still believe some of these sources are rubbish, others don't actually unambiguously support the sentence you say they do. So I am not "deleting material that is sourced from multiple reliable sources" as you accuse me of doing. Seriously, most people who actually take the time to look at these sources would conclude your sentence in the introduction "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted." is not proven.

[13] this source has a go at the way the whole carbon dating experiment was carried out. Using it to support the validity of the 14th century date as found by the carbon 14 experiment is perverse.

[15] is the source by John P. Jackson. OK, googling his entry at "The Definitive Shroud of Turin FAQ" makes it clear he believes the Shroud of Turin is authentic. So it may seem fair to you to quote him against the idea that the sample had been contaminated. But this is just a "gotcha", and what we're trying to do in Wikipedia is deal with facts. His piece is unsatisfactory as a source, for the reasons I have already given. I would guess it is a very preliminary draft. Also he is not actually engaging in an argument about a repair, but "... [the] sample has been contaminated by intrinsically younger (in a radiocarbon sense) material that is alien to the cloth such as bioplastic residues from microbial action". This is nothing to do with a repair, so it shouldn't be used anyway to refute the idea that a repair had been done.

[16] by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg as I said seems to be written by someone who knows textiles, however, its arguments are not one-sided. Wdford accuses me of "You are seriously cherry-picking here" and hob says "You quoted only those parts which agreed with your position". Both of you therefore recognize that this source can provide support for both sides of the argument, so using it to support the introduction sentence "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" is perverse.

[19] Wdford says "because blatant bias is a common feature of the pro-authenticity camp". That may or may not be so, but I don't see why that is relevant? I think it would be as wrong for someone who believes in the authenticity of the shroud to attempt to suppress scientific discussion as for someone who believes it a fake to attempt to suppress scientific discussion. Anything wrong with that statement? As for Wdford's "There is no evidence that source [19] is biased", that statement is showing bias itself - as I repeat, why else does he bring in discussion about a creationist ID paper being banned into his paper? If you want supporting quotes from his paper how about "The real story in this controversy is not the mistaken age of the Shroud of Turin, but the misjudgment of a science journal editor and the breakdown of its peer review process [in publishing the Turin Shroud paper]."? Later he says that "First, the references he cites are STURP papers that were written with an obvious pro-authenticity bias and lack of scientific objectivity; although published in legitimate scientific journals, their methods and conclusions are suspect and I claim they are exercises in pseudoscience;". Dismissing scientific papers in a supposedly scientific paper because of their "obvious pro-authenticity bias and lack of scientific objectivity" betrays a complete lack of objectivity on his part. However in Wikipedia we don't contest the facts in a paper as he should have done, we just try and get good sources. He proclaims himself to be biased and unobjective, but that doesn't bother you - is that because he supports your point of view? What then, are the differences between the people you characterise as "shroudies" and yourself? Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, any objective person who actually took the time to look at these sources would UNDOUBTEDLY conclude that the challenges to the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted. There have been two main categories of challenge – the repair hypothesis and the contamination hypothesis.

• Source [13] is a discussion between a C14 expert and a non-C14 expert. The C14 expert makes it clear that the bio-contamination hypothesis in not valid. The subsequent waffling of the non-C14 expert is irrelevant to our point.

• Source [15] is a statement by John P. Jackson, a STURP scientist, who says clearly and unequivocally in the very first paragraph that: "One hypothesis is that the linen sample used in the radiocarbon dating actually came from a medieval “re-weave”. While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating." You seem to have missed that paragraph. In the next paragraph he states that: "Another hypothesis to explain the medieval radiocarbon date is that the Shroud sample has been contaminated by intrinsically younger (in a radiocarbon sense) material that is alien to the cloth such as bioplastic residues from microbial action. The problem here is that the amount of carbon mass in such a contamination needed to skew the radiocarbon date of the Shroud from the first to the fourteenth century would be in excess of twice that present in the Shroud sample itself, assuming that the intrinsic radiocarbon date of the contamination is of modern age or older." Jackson is very clearly shooting down both the pro-authenticity hypotheses, based on scientific evidence, and as you note he is a credible source.

• Source [16] is from Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She is NOT "someone who knows textiles", she is the person who directed the conservation of the shroud, and she has directly examined the shroud looking for evidence of a repair. She DOES NOT "provide support for both sides of the argument", she merely points out that the greasy spots could skew the C14 tests. She does not imply that the grease was never cleaned first, and we know that the samples were very thoroughly cleaned, so your insinuations are indeed perverse. She does however state very clearly that there is zero evidence of a repair, and that an invisible repair is impossible.

• Source [19] is basing his case on scientific evidence, and is criticizing papers that contradict the scientific evidence. This obviously bothers you because it contradicts your own POV. Rogers failed to authenticate his samples, and that is a serious scientific error.

I see you have not even tried to refute the other scientific sources, which all support the position that the C14 tests were valid. Wdford (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford,

[15] yes, sorry missed that when re-reading. But it also is critical of the carbon-14 dating, so using it to support the statement "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted." When the main subject of this source is a proposal to explain why that statement is false, how can you possibly justify using it to support the statement?

[16] I have argued that whilst Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is critical of the patch hypothesis she is clearly against the validity of the carbon-14 dating. She clearly states and with emphasis (her emphasis) "These imponderables, together with the fine coal dust embedded in all the fibres of the cloth make the use of the carbon-14 analysis unsuitable in this case. The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the "removal site" alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, without having to construct an untenable "mending theory". So I stand by what I said, that using her to support the carbon-14 dating is perverse. N.B. and when I said she is someone who knows textiles, that is also correct - "someone who knows textiles" and "the person who directed the conservation of the shroud, and she has directly examined the shroud looking for evidence of a repair" are not incompatible statements.

For some reason you cannot see that sources critical of the carbon-14 dating result cannot be used to support the statement "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.". It is not possible to come to consensus. (Sorry forgot to sign) Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated repeatedly, we use Source [15] to justify the statement because Jackson is very clearly shooting down both the repair hypothesis and the contamination hypothesis based on solid scientific evidence, and specifically because Jackson is a STURP scientist and a pro-authenticity supporter – thus eliminating the usual accusation of bias. Jackson goes on to propose another possible explanation for the dating supporting the medieval origin, which was tested at Oxford and refuted as well.

Source [16], Flury-Lemberg certainly did note that the sampled corner was heavily contaminated. So did the C14 experts – which is why they carefully cleaned the samples first, as they always do. All C14 samples suffer from some degree of contamination, and therefore thorough cleaning is a standard part of the C14 process.

A number of experts have also stated that, in order to swing the dating of an authentic 30AD textile to a 1360AD date, the amount of contamination present would need to be more than double the amount of actual cloth. One of them was Jackson, himself a believer. The experts have concurred that the cloth was made very clean, so while we can perhaps still expect a few decades of fluctuation due to missed contaminants, the origin would still be medieval, and the chances of the shroud being authentic are absolute zero.

Since anti-authenticity scientists are inevitably branded as biased, and since many of the pro-authenticity scientists seem to refute the various hypotheses of other pro-authenticity supporters using solid scientific evidence, it is perhaps actually better to use them to support the refutation point. The fact that Jackson believes the shroud to be authentic does not in any way disqualify him from being a reliable source when he says that the STURP photos clearly show there was zero reweaving at that spot – in fact, quite the opposite. Wdford (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford, yes you make a case, but it would be better if you wrote this all up in a paper or blog yourself and got it published, explaining the issues with the various hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating, and then quoted that as the source. A reader looking at these sources to substantiate the claim made would be confused - they won't know that someone is a carbon 14 dating expert and someone else isn't. Sources [13], [15] and [16] do in places criticise the carbon 14 experiment or propose hypotheses as to why it is wrong. You argue here which bits from those sources should be used and which ignored, who is an expert and who isn't, but all the reader has to go on is what the sources say. Further weakening the statement, source [17] is an early paper from 1990, so an alert reader would immediately question how that source could possibly refute hypotheses challenging the dating, since they come after 1990. And source [19] is a scientist attacking the peer-review process itself, which weakens all science, so very odd to use it to support a scientific statement. Just trying to be helpful, Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"A reader looking at these sources to substantiate the claim made would be confused" - well yeah, life is tough. Those people who want to understand will have to invest time, for example by looking the names up in a search engine. We cannot have all the information in the sources we link, especially not in a subject that almost only crackpots and skeptics written about. We have to use what is there.

"propose hypotheses as to why it is wrong" - or rather, why they think it is wrong.

Source 19 does not attack "the peer-review process itself". It says "peer review failed this time for this journal". This is simply correct and cannot in any way be construed as an "attack" on peer-review in general. Everybody who knows anything about scientific methodology is aware that peer review is not perfect and that there are examples where it fails.

Thank you for this excellent example of pseudoscience proponents distorting facts. I do not have time at the moment to refute your other items. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not have to publish a summary of the scientific evidence versus the wishful thinking – this has obviously been done already by experts. Ramsay – a leading C14 expert - made the position very clear when he said none of the pro-authenticity hypotheses stack up. (Source [12]). In 2016 Taylor (a C14 expert) and co-author ‎Ofer Bar-Yosef (an archaeologist) wrote in a scientific book that "Based on the best scientifically attested data currently available, it appears that the AMS-based 14C dating of a sample of linen removed from the Shroud of Turin undertaken by three laboratories yielded an age entirely consistent with the best documented historical context of this artifact." (Source [14])

Source [13] states in the heading: "In it, Rodger Sparks, a carbon dating expert from New Zealand, and William Meacham, archaeologist and Shroud researcher from Hong Kong, debated some of the theories that have been proposed … " It's made very clear who is a C14 expert and who is just a "Shroud researcher".

In Source [15] Jackson makes it very clear where the evidence comes from, and in the first paragraph he states with zero ambiguity that this evidence shows without doubt that there were no repairs in the C14 sampled area.

As stated above repeatedly, Flury-Lemburg (source [16]) does NOT confuse an intelligent reader. On the contrary, she states unequivocally that the shroud was never mended in that particular area. She does not undermine the C14 dating, merely points out that the cloth was dirty and would have needed careful cleaning before being tested. Various C14 specialists have pointed out that the cloth was in fact carefully cleaned. Everything is fine here too.

Source [17] (Gove) was published in 1990 – two years after the dating results were announced. The screeching from the pro-authenticity camp actually started almost immediately. Gove states right in the beginning (in the abstract section) that "However, many doubts have been raised, both real and fanciful, concerning the validity of the results and these are discussed." Nobody reading the paper would be the slightest bit confused as to why he was writing the paper, and which challenges he was refuting. The interesting take-away here is that some people continued to suggest contamination could be a factor LONG AFTER experts like Gove had made it clear that this was not in fact scientifically possible.

Source [19] is a scientist pointing out that the peer-review process is not a perfect defense against poor science, and that we need to be alert to all such failures.

Are you now clear on why the article quotes these (and other) sources? Wdford (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford. In my last missive above, I didn't mention sources [12] and [14]; as far as I'm concerned they're OK. Source [17] is I think a bit old, but otherwise OK and as you think its age is not an issue, I'll go with that. But you keep picking bits from source [13] which support your view and ignoring the rest. It is a debate after all, between two people who although both reasonable and courteous do not budge. The last statement by Meacham is "it is the C14 age of the Shroud that must be viewed with deep suspicion, until another round of very careful and methodical testing is done."

I cannot see how this debate can be taken as support for the statement in the article introduction: "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted." With this source you seem to have decided off your own bat who is right and who is wrong, but that's obviously POV.

Source [16] (Flury-Lemberg) states (her emphasis):

The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the "removal site" alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, without having to construct an untenable "mending theory"

Since she is emphatically critical of the radio carbon dating I cannot see how this source either can be used to support the established radio carbon date.

Source [15] states: "These considerations have led our research team to consider a new contamination-enrichment hypothesis that does not suffer from these limitations ... This raises the possibility of enrichment if carbon monoxide were to slowly interact with a sample so as to deposit its enriched carbon into the sample." I understand from elsewhere that this hypothesis didn't go anywhere, but that is not what is said in the source. Standing on its own as a source it actually states there is a possible explanation for the carbon 14 dating to be in error. I understand this explanation didn't fly, but nowhere does it say it didn't work. So this source also cannot be used simply on its own like this to support the established radio carbon date.

I agree with you that source [19] is discussing the peer review process, and I agree sometimes the peer review process doesn't work as it should, but to then suggest as source [19] does that some papers should not be allowed to be published is a grave disservice to science. It destroys the argument that since the majority of published papers support X then X should be taken as correct, because proponents of Y can just turn around and say "but only papers supporting X can get published, so your argument about the numbers supporting X is irrelevant". But anyway, it is not a paper primarily about the scientific aspects, but about peer review and scepticism. So it shouldn't be used as a source talking about scientifically refuting alternative hypotheses.

So, I think source [13], [15], [16] and [19] are wrongly used here as explained above. I have tried to reach consensus and have accepted some of the sources as valid which I originally challenged, but you won't budge. Hence I am removing just these sources from supporting the sentence "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" and am leaving the rest. All the best. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You are still going in circles. To repeat it yet again, the challenges to the C14 dating concerned the BASELESS HYPOTHESIS that the sampled material might have been part of a later repair, as well as the BASELESS HYPOTHESIS that the test was skewed by contamination of a more recent biological nature.

Source [13] is a "debate" between an actual C14 expert, and a shroudie with zero C14 credentials. The C14 expert is telling the shroudie that the bio-contamination explanation holds no water. The issue is perfectly simple – a credible source is debating a non-credible source, in a very technical field where actual expertise trumps wishful thinking. Gove – another C14 expert – confirms the same conclusion. No C14 expert has given the contamination theory any traction at all. The contamination theory is thus refuted by scientific evidence as presented by actual scientists. Case closed on the contamination theory. The fact that Meecham doesn’t want to accept this, is meaningless other than to show how very pathetic the shroudie camp can be when their precious dream is exploded by actual scientific evidence. That is interesting in itself, but not relevant to this point.

Jackson and Flury-Lemburg both make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, using ACTUAL SHROUD EVIDENCE, that there was never any repair in that section of the cloth. Jackson proposes a different hypothesis which defies the laws of physics, but this source is quoted on this point because Jackson was a STURP scientist who had actual evidence of the shroud structure at that place, and he is unequivocal that there was no repair. Flury-Lemburg is IN NO WAY "emphatically critical of the radio carbon dating". She merely points out that a greasy dirt deposit would skew a C14 test – which is obviously correct, and which is why the samples were first cleaned. However this source is used as EMPHATIC SCIENTIFIC EVIENCE that there was no sign of any repair at that site. This supports the Damon team, who selected the samples very carefully, with exactly that risk in mind. Case closed on the repair theory. This is accepted by all objective persons – but obviously not by shroudies.

Source [19] is a paper that says emphatically that Rogers messed up. The peer review was perfectly correct on every aspect of Rogers' work, except that it didn’t point out the obvious flaw – he failed to properly validate the provenance of his samples first. Perfectly obvious, that is, to everyone except a shroudie.

These sources are not being used to support a statement that says "The C14 date is perfectly correct", they are supporting a statement that says "The challenges to the C14 date have all been refuted by scientific evidence". I have tried to reach consensus with you, but you won't see the obvious, and you persist with your POV deletions. Hence I am putting back these perfectly valid and reliable sources. If you are still confused, please go back and read the explanations I gave you already in such painstaking detail. All the best. Wdford (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Source [19] is not a "paper", it is a blog. Also, you keep saying X is a shroudie and Y is a Carbon-14 expert, and you will use this comment from a source, but reject another comment. You are building a case here, making it your original work. Sorry, going to redo my edit. All the best.Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The references are all valid, as has been explained repeatedly on talk. Your refusal to accept this is merely your own POV. The C14 experts I cite are all valid C14 experts, and this is not contested by anybody. A "researcher" who denies the validity of the C14 dating because Jesus told her it is wrong, is not a reliable source. A scientist who fails to verify the provenance of his samples, is not applying necessary scientific rigor. These issues are not controversial to proper scientists. Please stop edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since we cannot reach consensus I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard "Talk:Shroud of Turin#Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced". Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

N.B. Factual error in Hob Gadling's 'Summary of dispute'. I did not delete sources [17] and [18]. I deleted sources [13], [15], [16] and [19], those sources are what this dispute resolution process is about.

Replying to @Johnuniq: who requested a focus on one source. Choosing source [15] by Jackson, John P. "A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis". One issue I have with this source is that it is simply a self-published web page, it is neither a blog nor a published paper. However, setting that aside for now, I agree with Wdford and Hob Gadling that Jackson dismisses "a medieval re-weave" and "that the Shroud sample has been contaminated by intrinsically younger (in a radiocarbon sense) material". This would be fine if that was all he did, but he then introduces his own theory about how the Carbon-14 date could be wrong by "enrichment if carbon monoxide were to slowly interact with a sample". Jackson does not say in this source that his new theory is unsatisfactory. So the source actually raises a new hypothesis challenging the radiocarbon dating. How this source can be used to support the sentence in the introduction to the Shroud of Turin page, namely "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted", is beyond me - it is self-contradictory. Thanks, Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I just examined the shroud.com pdf. The above objection misrepresents what the author of the paper wrote. Putting the question of whether the author is a reliable source to one side, the author is merely examining all possible ways that a first-century fabric might have been contaminated in such a manner as to make radiocarbon dating incorrectly conclude the fabric is from the fourteenth century. If all possible methods of contamination were examined and found to be insufficient to account for the hypothesized error, then the radiocarbon dating could be relied on with more confidence. The author is not introducing his own theory—he is merely methodically examining all possible theories.

This discussion is not concerned with whether the source is reliable, but a confounding factor is WP:PARITY which says that gold-plated scientific sources are not required to provide evidence to counter fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

N.B. It is okay to keep pointing out other people's mistakes - if they keep repeating them. But pointing them out more than twelve hours after they have corrected them? Bad style.

You need to use every single bit that can be construed as supporting your side, don't you? No matter if it is obsolete, misunderstood, far-fetched, or even untrue. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Hob, the bit I wrote about this on the dispute resolution board had been removed and I was told to use the talk page instead. If it hadn't been removed I wouldn't have inserted it here. Apologies for not noticing that you had corrected your piece, but in my defence I think you should have redacted it to show it had been corrected - otherwise how would anyone know? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That is right. I guess not everybody uses the page history to see what has changed since the last time they looked. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Why undo my edits on the shroud of Turin

(This discussion was copied into here on 4 April 2018, from User talk:Wdford)

Hi, you undid my edit to the Shroud of Turin. I made a constructive edit, changing the language to support what is in the sources and to help promote a more neutral POV. In your revert, you say that "the challenges have actually been scientifically refuted", but I've read the sources behind that statement, and there was no scientific refutation of medieval material in the carbon dating sample. What the sources do have is plenty of conjectures regarding features of the C14 sample and why they believe it is valid. If there are actual scientific refutations in any of the sources in the class of the Raymond Rogers tests described in his 2005 paper, please point them out. Otherwise, your revert goes beyond your evidence. If you can't provide the actual scientific refutation, please do not revert my edit. Thanks Actuarialninja (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit?[2]

The juxtaposition of "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating" and "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate" gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory. It's like saying "Some moon researchers say the moon is made out of green cheese" and ""Other researchers maintain that the moon consists of rocks and dirt". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Raymond Rogers' 2005 paper, see Raymond Rogers#Criticism of the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin: "A few months before his death, Rogers submitted an article describing his findings to a peer-reviewed journal and it was published less than two months before Raymond Rogers died. The essential conclusion of the article is that the radiocarbon datings were accurate, but because the samples were from cloth that was not part of the original Shroud, they are irrelevant regarding the age of the image area."

Also see:[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Guy Macon.

Yes, that is the edit.

For the matter of assigning weight, the whole issue hangs on which position you wish to relegate to the “fringe”. Unfortunately, I could find no comprehensive survey of Shroud researchers on the matter to help decide which view is fringe and which is not.

There are several lines of reasoning that would lead one to believe that changing to my preferred wording is not promoting fringe views:

I) The best I could find was the opinions of individual STURP researchers. A good number of them believe the date of the Shroud is older than indicated by the 1988 carbon dating (I can provide a list and references if you want it [these are available readily enough online], for now, let’s keep this as brief as possible). These researchers have more direct hands-on experience examining the Shroud than anyone else. Put in terms of your moon analogy, these researchers are like the astronauts that actually visited the moon. Their findings and opinions should carry at least as much, if not more, weight than those who did not work as extensively (if at all) on the Shroud. This line of reasoning most definitely shows that questioning the C14 results is common (and not “fringe”) among many of those with actual, direct experience working on the Shroud.

II) There are numerous decently mainstream outlets that reported on Rogers’ finding. For example, the BBC, National Geographic, The Telegraph, and so on. Note carefully that this doesn’t prove authenticity (and is not my argument), but it surely does lend support to the proposition that Rogers’ findings are not as fringe as you say they are (Please tell me, how many decently mainstream articles do you see seriously reporting on the idea that the moon is made of cheese? If you can produce some that are sincere [and not obvious satire], I should very much like to see them).

But we can also reverse the question: Please explain to me how it makes sense to assign more weight to this Joe Nickell fellow in your CFI reference (a former magician/teacher/private investigator) than to Ray Rogers (a professional chemist, who worked first-hand on the Shroud as part of STURP, and who based his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud)? Rather, doesn’t it make a great deal more sense to give more benefit/weight to Rogers than Nickell?

With all of that said, if there are no objections, I would like to move forward with my edit.

P.S: I am going into a busy period at work and may take several days to respond if you post a follow-up. So please don’t take a few days silence as a sign of absence.

P.P.S: To possibly save some time down the road, I want to say outright that I don't want this to degenerate into yet another authenticity debate. It’s already been beaten to death countless times. Everyone has their opinion, and I can honestly say that I don't care very much about some other fellow’s take.

--Actuarialninja (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nickel's point is merely that Ray Rogers DID NOT base his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud – he was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure. Rogers himself admits this in his own papers - Nickel is not adding "new science", he is merely pointing out the obvious. On the one side we have various experts with hands-on experience such as the entire Damon team, Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc, who all state emphatically that there is no evidence of any repairs in that area. One the other side we have Rogers, whose tests on two tiny unverified threads found the opposite. How do we reconcile this? Did the Damon team check carefully that their sampled area was representative? Yes, they did. Did Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc work with actual shroud material? Yes, they did. Did Rogers check carefully that his samples were representative? No, he did not. Did Rogers get his samples directly from the actual shroud itself? No, he received them in the mail, after they had been mailed back and forth for two decades, having apparently originated with a person who had no authority to possess original shroud material to begin with. Is it therefore possible that Rogers' samples were not in fact representative? Yes, quite possibly. Which side is more likely to be correct???

Please can we move this discussion to the article talk page, so that other people can also follow and participate, and so that all the discussion is in one central place? Wdford (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably best to move the discussion to the main talk page. Unfortunately, I am very much tied up with work at the moment, and will probably only have time to advance my best effort at a response on the weekend. --Actuarialninja (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources 101

Our content is supposed to be based on secondary sources. So why are large parts of this article built on primary sources? By doing that we make Wikipedia an ersatz secondary publication. We are supposed to be a tertiary publication, summarizing accepted knowledge (as generally found in secondary and tertiary sources) and not inexpertly reviewing the experimental, unverified primary literature. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I fully agree that the ideal approach is to use secondary sources – no argument there. However in this particular topic there is very little quality secondary material available. There are plenty of books out there which are pure bunk, written by authors supportive of a religious fringe view, and hopelessly biased and unscientific but still secondary. On the other hand, objective scientists don’t waste their time and energy churning out books or papers on this topic, because the shroud has been conclusively proved to be medieval by a valid scientific process, and therefore the scientists have largely moved on to fresh challenges. Therefore, unless we include valid primary sources where necessary to address any aspect which is not adequately covered (yet) in reliable secondary sources, the mountain of books "proving" the shroud is an authentic relic would swamp out the science by sheer weight of bullshit. That is not helpful to readers, or good for the encyclopedia.

WP:RS does not prohibit primary sources. We therefore fill in the gaps with quality primary material for now, and we do it carefully. Where we drop the ball in any particular case we obviously need to fix it, but deleting it is a bit strong, and will result in a misleading article. Wdford (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed claims from Ruffin

The book "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin is not a WP:RS for claimed statements of fact. Ruffin is an apologist and his book is at odds with the mainstream interpretation in key areas (e.g. reliability of the radiocarbon dating), so invokes WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed another claim from the same source. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the Door of Inquiry Open

In the interest of further inquiry, I recommend amending this statement found at the end of the second paragraph of this article: "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[12][sources 1]". My basis is that while it might be accurate, it is such a strong statement that many users may be inclined to stop exploring. It could state: "However, all of the hypothesis to date (enter the date) which have challenged the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin have been convincingly rebutted by highly regarded scientific processes.[12][sources 1]". The brevity of the original statement sounds so exacting and final that many users will not go beyond it or their inquiry will be tainted. While the essence is the same the latter statement keeps the door open slightly for users to explore an excellent article.Pythias45 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

_{— Pythias34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.} ^~~unsigned

I disagree. An encyclopedia's purpose is to inform. We should not try to water down facts merely because some readers may not wish to accept them. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As I once suggested, how about: "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors nonetheless lead some people to believe that this is the actual burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." There are elements pointing toward authenticity too, scientifically researched and published elements: the Jerusalem area travertine aragonite, evidence of blood from a torture victim, consistency with ancient weaving, uncannily accurate signs of just the kind of crucifixion Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have received (despite the conventions of medieval art), amazing unduplicability and complexity of the image, blood stains first and then image, plausible history of transportation from near east to France, likely impact on iconography, consistency of pollens with the proposed authenticity, identifiable Semitic features of the face and head. (Notice I did not mention Pontius Pilate's coins on the eyes because they are especially controversial...but some specialists see them there, and they would be very near a slam dunk for authenticity. How would a medieval forger get just the right coin?) And in the other corner...a single test of one tiny area from a very smeared and dirtied edge of the cloth...possibly cleaned well enough for C14 testing...and possibly NOT! Pernimius (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No. There are no "elements pointing toward authenticity". The shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century -- far too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. Please see WP:FRINGE. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, C14 zealotry that disregards other scientific and historical considerations is junk science. Macon's gratuitous denial fails. I should add the absence of vanillin as an indicator of greater age. The large bulk of the evidence points to authenticity. Pernimius (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pernimius, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your behavior on this talk page. The thread is "Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius" --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, calling a position "fringe" does not make it so. The vast materials pointing to authenticity, books, scientific articles, historical studies, etc. indicate that you are avoiding the question of evidence that does not fit with your POV. Several original Shroud-skeptics like Barrie Schwortz have changed their minds because of the weight of accumulated evidence. Let the article be written by truly neutral people who can see valid counter-arguments when they appear. Pernimius (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." The mainstream scientific view is that the Shroud of Turin is medieval forgery rendered in tempera paint.[4] Your position is, by definition, fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: vanillin, see [ http://www.religioustolerance.org/vanillin-dating-shroud-of-turin.htm ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Schaferman's article used here says "Although I point out the errors of logic and scientific evidence in Rogers' paper, I include my own speculations and suspicions, for which I obviously lack real evidence. It should be clear which is which. Future investigation needs to be conducted." http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm . Hardly a powerful and decisive argument. Pernimius (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The painting proposal has been utterly debunked. See above, where I said

In the list of all the things that should be non-controversial about the shroud, the fact that it is not a painting should be near the top. Google "shroud" "not a painting" and you'll get sites that help you, like this (https://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm). The image is non-directional (very hard to do with a medieval painting--is there a single parallel?), it is extremely super shallow (beyond what any painting could achieve), it is non-pigmental, the blood was first then the image, etc. Just research serious intelligent people who are not overly affected by anti-religious zealotry.

So is there a single parallel from medieval art for such a painting that replicates the major characteristics of the TS? Where is it, Guy Macon? Tell us! You may hear just what you want to hear, but in an encyclopedia article other voices have their say too. The fact is that even if the TS is proved a medieval object, it would still be an amazing, astounding, virtually miraculous forgery. Any fair-minded informed person would probably admit that. Pernimius (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Shroud.com is not a reliable source. See Shroud of Turin Research Project. Isabel Piczek is not a scientist. And it has been 23 years since 1995. Rather than parroting material from fringe websites, might I gently suggest that you turn your attention to WP:AN, where topic banning you from this page is being discussed? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source, Guy Macon. And it has been 30 years since 1988. You change the subject, failing to cite even a single real parallel to the Shroud. Pernimius (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The authenticity theory is clearly not fringe in mainstream science, and the image is obviously not a painting.

According to Barcaccia et al. (Scientific reports, 2015, article), "Results of radiocarbon measurements from distinct and independent laboratories yielded a calendar age range of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence, thus providing robust evidence for a Medieval recent origin of TS. However, two papers have highlighted some concerns about this determination, and a Medieval age does not appear to be compatible with the production technology of the linen nor with the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main part of the cloth in 1978"

According to Marzia Boi (Archaeometry, 2017, article): new pollen study "confirms and authenticates the theory that the corpse kept in the Shroud received a funeral and burial with all the honour and respect that would have been customary in the Hebrew tradition".

According to new atomic resolution studies by Di Carlino et al. (Plos One, 2017, article) "obtained results are not compatible with a painting but evidenced the presence of nanoparticles of pathologic blood serum related to the presence of creatinine bound with ferrihydrate, which are typical of an organism that suffered a strong polytrauma, like torture" Thucyd (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

When that paper has been checked by reliable secondary sources and holds up, the secondary sources can be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"You are not a reliable source" - That does not matter because nobody intends to use Guy Macon as a source.

Shroud.com is not reliable and will not be used as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The 3 papers are published in top peer-reviewed journals, and quoted in other top peer-reviewed journals, as already mentioned in the article. Sorry if it goes against your controversial POV. But it is Wikipedia here. We need the latest top reliable sources.

Moreover, a majority here is clearly not familiar with the latest scientific developments on the topic in top scientific journals. Maybe you should try to read the introduction by Barcaccia et al. in Scientific Reports. And this presentation in Live Science (article). Courage. Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

One of the great ironies of Shoudology is that Rogers criticised the C14 team for failing to make 1000% certain that their sample material was actually representative of the original shroud fabric. Rogers himself however made zero effort to ensure that his own sample was representative of the original C14 sample, and happily accepted the anecdotal word of a man who was not authorised to possess actual shroud material. This is a classic example of the double standards that "shroud researchers" apply when their POV is refuted.

We do not need a comprehensive survey of "Shroud researchers" on the matter to help decide which view is fringe and which is not. Wikipedia demands evidence from RELIABLE sources. "Shroud researchers" by definition believe the shroud is authentic, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. To ask for a comprehensive survey of "Shroud researchers" on this issue is like asking for a comprehensive survey of flat-earthers to settle a dispute about the true shape of the earth.

The STURP people had hands-on contact with the shroud, but zero C14 involvement (or skills). They are like astronauts giving opinions about the geological history of moon, when they have no knowledge about geology, have not studied samples from the moon's interior, and wouldn’t know what they were looking at if they ever did see such a sample. However STURP scientist Jackson was unequivocal about the fact that the STURP PHOTOGRAPHS prove that there was never any repair in the C14 sampled corner at any time.

Please always remember that Ray Rogers DID NOT base his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud – he was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure.

We all agree that the shroud image is not a painting – it is caused by the image fibers having dehydrated more extensively than the other fibers on the cloth. The precise backstory for this is as yet uncertain, but Garleschelli proved that painting an image onto linen and then washing it off would cause a very similar effect, while leaving no trace of the original paint. This has been discussed many times already on the talk page. There may be no other known items of exactly this nature because other paintings were not washed off and boiled – either they still have the paint on as per the original intention, or they were destroyed completely. The earliest known records of the shroud state unequivocally that it was a painting – whereas now it clearly it is just the shadow of that original painting. Also, it is fading rapidly as the rest of the fibers are dehydrated by aging to match the dehydration of the image fibers.

The pro-authenticity papers cited by Barcaccia et al. are old works, long since debunked, and Barcaccia does not give them equal credence with the C14 dating. Two of them are actually by Rogers. Barcaccia concluded, of the pollens etc, that "Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East." To quote from Hugh Farey, editor of the British Society of the Turin Shroud newsletter, in the LiveScience article: "As far as the plant DNA goes, they've done a good job, and they've identified a number of species that mean, broadly speaking, nothing at all." See [5]

Marzia Boi makes certain claims about pollen on the shroud. However her "findings" contradict the detailed work of Barcaccia et al above. Boi has been debunked by none other than the British Society for the Turin Shroud – see the details at [6]. Their rebuttal was based in part on Boi relying on photos from Frei, who is already an unreliable source, rather than actual shroud evidence. She also apparently seriously misinterpreted ancient Jewish funeral practices. They state in their opening paragraph: "While her science is excellent, her premises are flawed, and her inferences tenuous, as there is no other evidence for such ointments on the Shroud, scientifically, archaeologically, biblically or historically." So in effect, this is just more "heroic conjecture".

The Di Carlino study merely says that they found no remaining paint – hardly a revelation – and that they did find blood from a traumatised human – hardly a revelation either. Nothing new here. However they worked on a single fiber provided to them by Barrie Schwortz, who is not exactly objective, and once again there was no attempt to first ensure that they were dealing with a genuine shroud sample. They found that the person from whom the blood came had suffered serious trauma, and they then speculate that the donor might have been tortured – although the donor might equally have fallen off a horse or died in battle etc. Also, this team included Fanti, the Persistent Prover of shroud authenticity, so its "heroic conjectures" are no great surprise either.

The so-called "elements pointing toward authenticity" all have much simpler explanations, as follows:

• The Jerusalem area travertine aragonite: This "evidence" came from tape samples originally taken by STURP member Ray Rogers, and the chain of evidence was neglected. Jackson, in his important summary of the "evidence" (see [7], pg 64), admits re the limestone dust that: "Consequently, the sampling was limited, and the rigor in the custodial management of the samples that were taken has been justly criticized." Since the shroud was washed – and boiled – in the middle ages, this dust – if in fact it really exists at all – probably came onto the cloth when its wealthy owner undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and took his prized relic along.
• Evidence of blood from a torture victim: The blood came from a person who suffered severe trauma – anything from a riding accident to a war wound to (possibly) childbirth.
• Consistency with ancient weaving: This does not prove it was ancient, merely that weaving techniques didn’t change very much.
• Uncannily accurate signs of just the kind of crucifixion Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have received: The forger read the Bible himself, and followed all the clues as carefully as he could.
• Amazing unduplicability and complexity of the image: Garlaschelli duplicated the mechanism, but the precise details depend on a complex combination of tools and techniques and conditions and baking times and baking temperatures and aging humidities etc – which were entirely chance events.
• Blood stains first and then image: This is derived for the study of a single damaged fiber, and might not be representative of all image fibers. It might also be that the blood was smeared onto the model before the paint was applied, or that the blood went on while the paint was wet and the alkalinity of the blood cancelled out the image-forming mechanism on those fibers. All these explanations are more simple and probable than a miraculous resurrection.
• Plausible history of transportation from near east to France: This same route was almost certainly the best route followed by wealthy pilgrims too. Also, they found pollens from North America and India, so the "pollen record" is not all that reliable as an indicator.
• Likely impact on iconography: The iconography is not definitive – any iconographer would have assumed the same generic image anyway.
• Consistency of pollens with the proposed authenticity: An Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem would have encountered the same pollens along the route. Also, they found pollens from North America and India, so the "pollen record" is not all that reliable as an indicator.
• Identifiable Semitic features of the face and head: This is pure conjecture – the features are not identifiable as distinctly Semitic at all.
• Coins on the eyes: This is pure conjecture – proper detailed studies found no sign of coins, flowers, nails, death warrants etc etc.
• The absence of vanillin: This "test" was invented on the fly, and the so-called calibration curve was purely speculative. No accurate allowance could be made for the impact of the several known fires, and baking linen is known to strip away the vanillin as well.

In the other corner, multiple C14 experts and textile experts who have actually examined the shroud have stated emphatically that scrutiny with modern microscopes and photographs show there is zero evidence of a medieval repair, and that a contamination sufficient to swing the dating that far would have required a quantity of contaminant in excess of double the weight of the original fabric – which was manifestly NOT PRESENT either. That's hard science, and it's well attested. While the cleaning was probably not 100% perfect, it was close enough to give a reliable indication of age – and that age was decidedly medieval. On the other hand, the pro-authenticity "elements" are speculative, capable of alternative explanation, or simply pure conjecture to begin with.

Ergo, since all challenges to the very-professional C14 testing have been scientifically refuted, and the evidence pointing the other way is manifestly unreliable, the results of the C14 dating must be taken to be accurate. That is how science works. It's not based on a vote of the flat-earthers. Wdford (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Secondly, because of controversy surrounding the meaning of the radiocarbon result, measurement aspects of artifact dating have been given intense scrutiny. Such scrutiny is quite positive, for it gives the possibility of added insight into unsuspected phenomena and sources of measurement uncertainty." Pythias45 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Gulio Fanti and dating of the shroud

Undid revision 813872329 by Erni120 (talk) Unjustified removal of sourced material + redundancy + Fanti's pseudo-science researches have nothing to do in the lede + go to talk page - Lebob

1 I did not delete anything 2 Pseudo-science? The methods of dating were described by four chemists: Pietro Baraldi - Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences, Modena and Reggio Emilia University Roberto Basso - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua University Giulio Fanti - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua Universit AnnaTinti - Bologna University - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924203113000490

And This text has been published by a science magazine ,,Vibrational Spectroscopy” - https://www.journals.elsevier.com/vibrational-spectroscopy However some criticized this dating method and I added their opinion

That's why I think you need to restore the previous version.[Erni120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is already developed in the article and there is not need to copy/paste it in the lede where it becomes redundand. And certainly not when it is a partial copy/paste where the opinion of the archbishop of Turin, i.e. "as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the shroud no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments" is forgotten. By the way, Fanti is not a chemist but he is known for his continuous attempts to prove that the shroud is authentic. --Lebob (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

1 So remove the mention about radiocarbon dating tests  It was already described in the text below

2 I did not add this information because Fanti described his book [He has documentation] from where he has fragments of the shroud. And exactly from Giovanni Riggi di Numana - http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age 3 ,,But according to Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the University of Padua, "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics” 4 Fanti's views do not matter. he stated that his dating is not proof that the shroud belonged to Jesus Erni120 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs)