Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Dating from 2013

At the introduction, we should add information about dating the shroud from 2013, or delete information about 1988 dating. Wikipedia should be neutral and should not favor dating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The dating from 1988 is solid scientific fact, comprising multiple tests all following a solidly developed process and conducted by multiple experts, which all arrived at a similar result. The 2013 process was a made-up test which followed an unproven and unverified process, based on samples of uncertain provenance which were already known to be damaged and thus unreliable, subject to highly arbitrary assumptions and conducted by a person with a known bias. Thus, the 1988 tests were scientifically reliable, and the 2013 tests were not. Simple. Wdford (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

First, 1988 dating was repeatedly criticized, William Meacham points to violations of researchers. Fanti's work was described in a scientific journal, where the authors were three more chemists. That's why we should add information about dating 2013. Let's add criticism, of course. However, you favor the dating from 1988. And this is unacceptable [Tor234] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tor234 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is to try to favor the 2013 "dating" made at the initiative of Giulio Fanti, who is not a chemist, over the 1988 C14 dating. The 2013 dating in fact pretends to date the shroud using a method which is not scientifically acknowledged as a reliable dating tool. This was only the latest attempt of Fanti to give an apparence of scientific approach to his countless pseudo-scientific "experiences" in relation to the shroud. What wonders me is that has always managed to find scientific publications, although usually with poor impact factor, to get his "findings" published. If it was only me to decide none of Fanti publications relating to the shroud would be mentioned in this article. --Lebob (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The 1988 dating certainly has been criticized, but only by people who are not C14 experts. People like Meacham made a big fuss about deviations from the "agreed protocol", but those deviations were all made for good reasons, and the process they eventually followed was perfectly valid, so the Meacham argument is void. Fanti's work is based on an unverified process, using samples of unverified provenance which were already known to be damaged and thus unreliable, subject to highly arbitrary assumptions and conducted by a person with a known bias. The fact that the "results" were published in a scientific magazine of some sort does not guarantee the process was valid or that the results were meaningful. Once again, the 1988 tests were scientifically reliable, and the 2013 tests were not. Really simple. Wdford (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not favor dating from 2013, you favor those from 1988, Fanti is not a chemist, but he did research with chemists like Pietro Baraldi. And as you pointed out you do not decide. You are not a chemist or researcher to question Fanti's findings. The work is published in a scientific journal, has 4 authors and not adding it is the result of prejudices. Such a thing should not take place on wikipedia Meacham is just an expert on C14. He carried out hundreds of dating and, as he himself pointed out, there were often strange results. Once again, he indicates that we do not decide what is reliable and what is not. Let's add information about 2013 dating and criticism. For now, we remove information supporting the authenticity of the shroud, and we differentiate against it. It should not be so, it is not a wikipedia task. [Tor234]

"Fanti is not a chemist, but he did research with chemists" - Unfortunately, competence is not contagious enough for that to work as a reason to accept Fanti's expertise.

"The work is published in a scientific journal" - That is not a reason to include it. If every article in a scientific journal were mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the same subject, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be thousands of pages long. We have to make decisions what to include and what not. If the journal has a low impact, the authors are experts for something else, and the actual experts ignore or reject it, we should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Note this quotation from a non-religious website:

There is now plenty of scientific research that demonstrates the following about the Turin Shroud... [...]:

The cloth appears to be many centuries older than the 1988 carbon dating suggested

The famous carbon dating published in Nature in 1989 was not peer reviewed, did not follow established protocol and used samples from the most contaminated part of the cloth. The statistics even in the original paper provide evidence of significant variation in carbon 14 content even within the small strip that was tested and there is ample evidence that the sample was not representative of the rest of the cloth.

Prof. Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Unit which was involved in the original dating has publically gone on the record about the age of the shroud: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."

The article should try to be fair to the best of arguments on both sides. One side depends almost exclusively on the 95% chance given by the RC dating of one small and suspicious marginal section of a very large cloth. The other side has many different lines of argument pointing toward authenticity and singularity. Pernimius (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that someone who writes in the homepage of his website that "the famous carbon dating published in Nature in 1989 was not peer reviewed, did not follow established protocol and used samples from the most contaminated part of the cloth" manages to do is to prove that despite 30 years of self-research on the question he has still no clue of what he is talking about. Therefore his personal opinions are of no interest for this article.

Furthermore, and to respond to Tor234, William Meacham is not a C14 specialist but an archeologist and has never carried out one single C14 dating himself because, as every archeologist, he needs to rely on specialized laboratories to make the C14 tests when he needs them for his work. --Lebob (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Your POV is duly noted, Lebob, as is your lack of proof for your judgment. Many informed people disagree with the C14 zealots who think C14 results from a questionable edge of the cloth is "all ye know and all ye need to know." An encyclopedia article should neutrally report the scope of the problems and major positions, all that speaks for authenticity, and alternative paths that scientists have taken (and published in peer reviewed journals). I support the tenor of Tor234's remarks. Pernimius (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Only a handful of people and very few scientist think that this particular edge of the shroud was "questionnable". It has been stated countless times that it took two hours to specialists to choose this part of the shroud. Furthermore, Mrs. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who was responsible for the restauration of the shroud in 2002 has clearly stated that there is not such things as "invisible mending" and that she didn't found any evidence that could back the theory that this particular edge of the shroud would have be different in texture and/or age than the other part of the cloth. I really wonder who are the "zealots" here: those who push a faith based agenda without sustainable evidences or those who stick to a test carried out on a piece of the shroud made with a well-know and widely acknowledge as accurate technique? As explained by Jimbo Wales, What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't. Maybe you should read this essay with great attention before pushing forward things which are noting else than crank theories. --Lebob (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are calling some renowned scientists "lunatic charlatans" without cause, people like Dr. Ray Rogers who did so much work on the Shroud and was as objective as anyone could hope a scientist would be. Also it is typical of your side to quote a textile expert saying there is no such thing as invisible mending without mentioning the opposite argument:

[Citation:] When in 2005 textile expert M. Flury-Lemberg continued to insist that such reweaving did not exist and that the patch would be recognizable on the reverse side, Benford and Marino produced a fourth paper. In it they quoted the owner of a textile repair business, Mr. Michael Ehrlich, stating that “French Weaving [a textile repair practiced in Late Medieval and Renaissance periods] involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is undetectable” and therefore invisible from both sides (Benford and Marino, 2005:2). The paper then went on to discuss the Shroud’s historical circumstances in the early 16th century that may have led to repairs at the cloth’s corner that was later to be radiocarbon dated. Taken from here.

(Addendum: See French Weaving. No such thing as invisible mending, eh?? Think again.])

How revealing these tactics of yours are! Let's have some fairness, please!! And keep away from anti-religious bigotry and scientism. Empiricist rationalism does not have the only or last word...not by a long shot. Pernimius (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Light of the Shroud" is not a scientific website, nor is it an objective website. It reports the work of Dr. Andrew Silverman, who believes that reality is not what we perceive it to be. Interesting, but not scientific.

Wikipedia is not based on biased websites, it is based on balanced scientific evidence. There is strong scientific evidence which proves that the shroud is made of cloth which is only medieval in age, and there is ZERO scientific evidence which proves that the shroud is authentic. "Nature" is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the English-speaking world. The SUGGESTION that the dating may have been conducted on repair material was investigated and has since been PROVEN to be false. The SUGGESTION that contamination could have swung the dating was investigated and has since been PROVEN to be false. However some people refuse to accept this, and they continue to publish biased and incomplete assessments of discredited suggestions, in the attempt to keep their own hopes alive. That is their right, but that is not scientific, and that is not how Wikipedia works.

Meachem was correct that very early C14 results were inconsistent, but that was in the 1970's. By 1988 these issues had been ironed out, the fresh atmospheric radioactivity from atom bomb testing had been calibrated and the technology was much more reliable. Meachem of course doesn’t bother to acknowledge these inconvenient truths, because they mess up his POV.

Every piece of evidence which purportedly supports authenticity can be explained away, if you are objective. I challenge you to present me with a list of the "pro-authenticity" evidence, and I will give you all the refutations – one by one.

Fanti's latest "tests" involved the following:

1. Obtain some fragments of fibers which somebody else apparently vacuumed off the shroud decades earlier – with no chain of evidence to prove that these fragments were actual shroud material;
2. Glue these tiny crumbling fragments onto an apparatus he invented for the purpose, and stretch them until they snap, to measure their "remaining strength" – ignoring that they seemingly had crumbled off their original fabric for some reason, and so were obviously much weaker than the original fibers;
3. Create a "control" to compare this against, by obtaining modern linen and baking it to simulate aging – ignoring possible differences in original fiber quality, bleaching techniques, spinning techniques and quality of storage conditions over 600 years, as well as the true heat and duration of the fires that baked the shroud;
4. Compare the "strength" results of the unverified and crumbling fragments against the results of the arbitrary modern linen which had been "aged" by an arbitrary process, and discover that the crumbling "shroud" fragments STILL don't reach as far back as the 1st Century, being about 400 years too recent;
5. Incorporate a huge "margin for error" of 400 years which he totally sucked out of his thumb, but which (only just) permits the crumbling "shroud" fragments to potential have a 1st Century origin;
6. Back this up by testing crumbling "shroud" fibers using lasers etc to measure "degradation", and compare them against the measured degradations of other old linens from around the world – although the true ages of the control linens is only approximately known, and ignoring the vastly different manufacturing and storage techniques involved, and the shroud's history of being boiled and baked in fires;
7. Discover that the laser tests indicate that the crumbling "shroud" fragments are much too old to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, so add on a different huge "margin for error" of hundreds of years which he also totally sucked out of his thumb to make the crumbling "shroud" fragments seem newer;
8. Average out all the above nonsense, to achieve a mean date of 33AD;
9. Declare that the shroud is the true burial cloth of Christ.

This is called "junk science". It does not compare equally in scientific quality with the C14 testing, so it is not accorded the same respect as a reliable source.

If you read carefully what Prof. Ramsey said, you will see that he is actually saying that some other evidence "suggests" that the shroud may be older than the carbon dating, but that actual experts need to "assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence" to achieve a consistency with the "available scientific and historical information" – in other words, the "other evidence" is not reliable, and needs to be reviewed. He said this when he was about to test a hypothesis put forward by Jackson that the cloth may have absorbed fresh carbon from the fire – a test which soon thereafter proved that Jackson's new hypothesis was wrong.

This article (together with its daughter article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin) does neutrally report the scope of the problems and major positions, including those that claim to support authenticity. However it then presents also the FACTS which show that those pro-authenticity arguments have been debunked. This is what objectivity means – present ALL the relevant evidence, and don’t try to manufacture an even balance where no such balance actually exists in reality.

When you use phrases like "C14 zealots" and "a questionable edge of the cloth", in the face of solid scientific evidence to the contrary, then you are demonstrating your own non-neutral POV. Wdford (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You want science? Okay:

[Citation:] Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for vanillin. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin. See: [PDF] Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review by Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.

Cited from here. Doesn't sound like religious zealotry to me. Of course I wonder if you will simply take every indication of authenticity as junk science and look for some spurious way to discredit this. Then there is this:

[Citation:] Italian scientist Paolo DiLazzaro tried for five years to replicate the image and concluded that it was produced by ultraviolet light, but the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst “would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

Cited from here. The fact that the blood was first and then the super-extremely thin non-directional image followed also speaks strongly against any kind of fabrication. Refute away...I'm sure you'll think of something, though your scientific credentials are wanting...those very credentials that you are so imperiously demanding of others. You'll probably say that if a religious website quotes a scientist, it thereby renders the science invalid for purposes of this argumentation. That is indeed a spurious and illegitimate response.

Note: I have never argued for a Wikipedian declaration of TS authenticity, merely for fair and adequate coverage of the pro-authenticity arguments. It is no trouble to say "Many scientists think X, but there are others who insist on another conclusion for these reasons...The former group rejects those reasons with these explanations..." Now why should it be so hard for an objective encyclopedia to do that? Pernimius (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: Proof of the invalidation of the RC14 testing is available at this page. Multiple scientists so confirm. Pernimius (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pernimius: Flury-Lemberg is a textile expert, who specialises in restoring old fabrics. She examined the actual shroud specifically looking for evidence of repairs, and found none. This supports the conclusions of the textile experts who supported the C14 team in 1988, who also specifically checked the sample area for evidence of repairs, and found none. Against all these experts, you offer a website from a commercial clothing repair business. Can you see the difference in the quality of the sources? The commercial repairs are intended to be "undetectable" to the naked eye, but not to magnifiers. Modern magnifiers are much better than Renaissance magnifiers, if they even had magnifiers back then. There is no possible way that they could have repaired a cloth 600 years ago without it being detectable today with modern instruments – as Flury-Lemberg makes clear. Benford and Marino are grasping at straws, and the shroudie community is delighted to grasp along with them.

The main problem with Rogers' work is that he failed to properly verify that the threads he was working on were actual shroud material to begin with. Since the presumed source was not authorised to possess valid shroud material, this failure by Rogers is very significant. When Rogers' conclusions directly contradict the conclusions of ALL the specialists who DID have access to the ACTUAL shroud, one is forced to conclude that Rogers' sample threads are not valid shroud material. In a nice bit of irony, Rogers actually accuses the C14 team of failing to first ensure that their sample is valid shroud material.

The THEORY by Di Lazzaro is very interesting, and he may well be on to something. Of course the Sun puts out a lot more ultraviolet light than any other source. There is actually no need to run ultra-high intensities for ultra-short durations – the same fading effect is achieved a million times a year by accident, simply by exposing fabrics to direct sunlight for a few weeks or months. Perhaps that might be a less-exotic explanation? Also interesting to note that the image on the shroud has been fading away progressively over the centuries, as the rest of the cloth dries out and discolours as well.

The "fact" that the image does not exist underneath the blood was determined by examining one single fiber, which had been ripped off the shroud with adhesive tape, and this conclusion may not be correct for the rest of the shroud. It can also have many other possible explanations, some of which I have cited on this talk page previously. On its own this "fact" does not overturn the huge weight of scientific evidence from the C14 testing.

The cotton thread issue means nothing. First, this applies to the Raes sample, not to the C14 sample. Second, when the C14 sample was made, a strip along the edge was trimmed off and discarded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE foreign threads were detected – those foreign threads were thus EXCLUDED from the C14 tests. The actual sample material was studied under magnification, and any other extraneous threads present in the samples were removed. Please note also that to swing a dating from 1st C to 14th C would require an amount of foreign threads equal to more than the weight of the original material, so random foreign cotton threads have been discounted as a possible explanation. Note also that you are once again citing an internet blog rather than a quality scientific source.

You ask for a sentence that says: "Many scientists think X, but there are others who insist on another conclusion for these reasons...The former group rejects those reasons with these explanations." The article already says: "Certain shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating. However, none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically proven." Seriously, what are you still complaining about? Wdford (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well this section debates how much Fanti's work should be noticed. I have veered off that topic to counter what I see as argumentation deriving from a biased and all too dismissive attitude (roughly something like "This scientific quote comes from a believer's website therefore it is not scientific reality we need to take seriously). The article is not bad at all, but consider the implications of a lede-sentence like "The cloth itself is believed by some to be the burial shroud he was wrapped in when he was buried after crucifixion although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages." That might have been expressed this way: "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors lead many to believe that this is actually the burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." (And if it is such, it is an astounding relic. Even if not, it is an amazing object in itself.) See the difference? You can debate provenance, but that is not probative of the science involved. That requires non-scientific, procedural and historical considerations: what is the likelihood the material came from the right source? Pernimius (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A further consideration: we just archived the Talk-page section in which it was mentioned that the article made it seem that only a fringe group was promoting the authenticity of the Shroud. Whatever your position on the Shroud, this is an impression that should not be given. There is robust research, conferencing, and argumentation favoring authenticity. There are scientists on both sides. Many people who were originally skeptical have changed their position on consideration of the total range of evidence and aspects (e.g., from art history, coinage, geology, etc.)

You criticize me for citing a commercial site on invisible weaving. The point to be made was that it does indeed exist pace Flury-Lemburg who seems to outright deny even the possibility of its existence. The page I gave also provided an actual photograph of such reweaving for the skeptical. A blanket denial of existence is overturned by a single counter-example such as that. It is called evidence. Whether it could have be done in the middle ages / Renaissance period is another question requiring original research. Pernimius (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to rewording the sentence to read something like "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."

The argument in favor of authenticity is very much fringe, because there is solid scientific evidence of a medieval origin, and nothing yet presented has threatened that dating. The "other evidence" is all highly speculative, and is capable of multiple interpretations. The issue of the hypothetical coins is probably the most fringe of everything.

The issue of "invisible weaving" hangs around the definition of the word "invisible". If you use the word to mean it is undetectable to a casual glance with a naked eye, then I would agree that it does exist. If you mean it is undetectable to a group of scientists with modern magnifiers who are specifically looking for evidence of a repair, then no there is no such thing as invisible weaving. Wdford (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have said "iconography" instead of coins, as in this paper, which comes with a convenient one-paragraph abstract at the start. But the paper does mention how coins may show the influence of the Shroud image as well, and that is what I was thinking of, even more than the icons. (That said, how interesting that some people claim to find the markings of a Pontius Pilate coin. I fully agree that this is difficult to prove. But even here we do have more than one scientist claiming to see the same markings.)

Thank you for your openness on the rewording. I think we must agree to disagree on the dating, not on the validity of the testing as such or on the result, but on the nature of the area from which the sample was drawn. I think it is time for me to sign off again, until there's new evidence or a compelling re-interpretation. Pernimius (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Change the wording of "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted"

Hi, I would like to propose changing the wording in the article from “However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted” to “Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date represents the Shroud’s date of origin”. I believe my proposed wording is constructive, is a true statement, is fair to all sides, is supported by the sources, promotes a neutral point of view, and avoids the problems associated with the current wording (I can get into this if anyone wants).

A similar edit of mine (I have tweaked my proposed wording a bit here to be more precise, though the substance is largely the same) has already been reverted once by Wdford, and we had some discussion on Wdford’s talk page and my talk page. Please, I ask that anyone wishing to get in on this conversation read these discussions first. Also, I especially want point out that I have no intention of proving/disproving authenticity/inauthenticity to anyone; and have no special interest in someone else’s personally held views.

With that said, I would like to respond to Wdford’s latest post on his talk page: @ Wdford: You have a number of assertions in your last post, some of which I could not find support for in the CFI reference, or elsewhere. Let’s start with this:

“he [Raymond Rogers] 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” – I could not find any source on Rogers’ effort levels with respect to the samples; if you can, please provide the support. “Rogers himself admits this in his own papers”. Again, I could not find this reference to any effort level in Rogers’ papers, please provide.

Rather, what I do see is that in Rogers’ 2005 paper, Rogers does note that he “received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample”. The Damon team results are already well represented in the Wikipedia article, and I take no issue with the team, nor is that my intention for this edit.

You ask which conclusion is more likely to be correct. The honest answer is that I don’t know. But now that we are entering into the territory of personal judgements (only because you first brought it up), my own take (though who cares about someone’s own take, right? ;) ) is that the C14 test needs to be done again, this time from several distinct and diverse sites, so that we can remove any reasonable doubt one way or another. But that’s just my take. Feel free to disagree. If possible, I would like to not get bogged down in personal judgements (people’s own personal takes on the Shroud have outlets elsewhere).

I think this is enough to go on for now. Best, Actuarialninja (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

These theories have been assessed and rejected by multiple mainstream researchers publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For one example see Dating the Turin Shroud—An Assessment -- Article in Radiocarbon. "All of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" is an accurate statement, only disputed in shroudie blogs and other purveyors of pseudoscience.

Radiocarbon is a legitimate scientific journal.[1] The source you cited ( http://www.shroud.it ) is not. Read WP:RS and try again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Dating the Turin Shroud—An Assessment -- Article in Radiocarbon was written prior to Rogers' findings WP:AGE MATTERS. Use it as a source for the medieval hypothesis if you like... I have read the WP:RS, please explain to me why Thermochimica Acta does not qualify. Rogers' 2005 article is behind a paywall, but we can go with this paywall link anyway if you prefer. Actuarialninja (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording proposed at the top is inadequate, because it makes it look as though the argument is evenly weighted, whereas in actual fact the C14 dates are accepted by all C14 experts as solid.

I propose instead the following: "However, multiple experts having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence, have scientifically refuted all of the medieval repair hypothesis [ref and ref and ref], the bio-contamination hypothesis [ref and ref and ref] and the carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis [ref]." How about that? Concise, but also factually accurate.

More important evidence on the Rogers' threads comes from the paper THE ORIGIN OF ROGERS’ RAES AND RADIOCARBON SAMPLES, presented to the Saint-Louis Shroud Conference in October 2014, by Dr Thibault Heimburger, a noted "shroud researcher". ([2]). In this paper Heimburger admits that the Rogers threads were mailed back and forth for years, that Gonella and Riggi did not have actual authorization to be handing them around in the first please, and that Rogers' threads may well have come from the trimmed band (which was removed and discarded by the C14 team specifically because it could be seen to be contaminated). The amount of supposing and fudging in the presentation is an education in itself.

The fact that multiple experts using VERIFIABLE shroud evidence have refuted the repair hypothesis, puts Rogers' tests in serious doubt, as Rogers's arbitrary threads could not possibly "prove" a repair when all the actual shroud material shows there was no repair. It's not a case of "he who cries last wins" – there is much evidence that there is no repair, so Rogers has to present high-quality evidence to overturn the C14 dating, and his arbitrary and unverified threads don't come close to meeting that standard.

This is all being discussed at DRN, where you started the process - why are you trying to go around that process now? Wdford (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford, before we get to anything else, I have to ask about your last sentence. I never started any dispute resolutions. All I ever did was make edits to the Shroud article and engaged in discussion on talk pages. Could you pls link me so I know what you are talking about. Actuarialninja (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wdford made an error. The DRN case was filed by User:Aarghdvaark, not User:Actuarialninja.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I confused the two names. My mistake, and my apologies. Wdford (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s no prob. Thanks for clearing that up.

Wdford, your source from Heimburger states that Gonella had the authority to possess the samples, and that Rogers confirmed the location of the threads with Gonella. Also, it concludes that the samples were genuine. These are all things you are against. But I don’t want to get too bogged down in Rogers’ samples, because I think the disagreement really lies elsewhere.

I believe that the real heart of the disagreement lies in the word “refute”. My main objection to using that word is that it is misrepresenting what is happening. There certainly has not been anything like a scientific refutation of the conclusion in Rogers’ 2005 paper. I went through the trouble of actually looking into the sources behind the sentence and reading them. Most of the sources aren’t written by people who had any first-hand dealings with the Shroud, and some are even editorials written by proponents of secularism. Some sources don’t even deal with Rogers’ findings directly. But a debate on the sources is part of the dispute you were referring to, so I’m not going to get too much into which sources should be included/excluded, as this has been done elsewhere.

The word “refute” is unfair to the work of Rogers and others, and that it is not supported by the sources. It is the view that is promulgated by secular advocacy groups like the Center for Inquiry, and Wikipedia is to remain as neutral as possible and not push for the agenda of secular advocacy. Now, people have certainly responded to the work of Rogers. Whether or not they are good responses is up to each of us to decide. I would not object to use the word “respond” instead of “refute”, to have a wording like “there have been responses in the scientific community and elsewhere to challenges of the carbon dating”. Actuarialninja (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but just as is the case with young-earth creationism, antivax, and astrology, there exists a near-unanimous scientific consensus on one side and a few people (some of them scientists) on the other side who are unable to get their research published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. To do as you suggest would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And once again - multiple scientists have PROVED that there was no repair done in that area. Therefore, the C14 sample taken from that area - under huge scrutiny - was indeed valid shroud material. All claims of intrusive repair material, past and future, are thereby fully refuted.

Rogers samples were not verified as valid shroud material. Per Heimburger, a "shroud researcher", you have:

• Gonella had no verifiable authorization from Cardinal Ballestrero to possess shroud material, far less to distribute it as he chooses;
• A sketch exists explaining the origin of the threads, but it is not signed by Gonella, nor is it dated;
• Nonetheless, the samples were mailed up and down for years, with no proper custody;
• Five years later, Rogers "called" Gonella, who apparently confirmed verbally on the phone that the samples were from the C14 area;
• Ten years later, a private letter from Tom D’Muhala (who is he?) to Barrie Schwortz (and who is he?) "confirms" that the samples are original.

On this, Heimburger claims that the authenticity of the threads is "proven". There is no equivalence at all.

In 2013, Mons Cesare Nosiglia, Archbishop of Turin and Custodian of the Holy Shroud, issued a written statement (see here [4]) as follows:

"The statements about “experiments and analysis concerning the Holy Shroud” to which Mons. Cesare Nosiglia refers, were made by Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini in September 1995 and Cardinal Severino Poletto on May 4th, 2009 when analogous research was attempted on material supposedly belonging to the Shroud. More specifically, Mons. Cesare Nosiglia underlines that, as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the Shroud, the Holy See and the Papal Custodian declare that no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments."

Wdford (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks, sorry for a delayed response. Work has kept me from getting back to you sooner (if you ever had to do quarter-end short-staffed, you’ll know what I mean :S )

@Guy Macon. That is nothing more than association fallacy. Of course anyone can come up with some example of a ridiculous position (moon is made of cheese, earth is 6,000 yrs old, etc, etc…) and then entangle some view they don’t like with their preferred example. I already explained why Rogers’ view is not fringe on Wdford’s talk page.

@Wdford: The quote in your reference refers to a response to a set of experiments done by Prof. Julio Fanti (i.e. in first sentence of your source “Referring to the news about the release of the volume “The Mistery of the Shroud” by Rizzoli, written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta”). It looks like you are mistakenly attributing to Rogers a set of statements made about someone else.

So far, your preferred source (Heimburger) has concluded things about Rogers' fibers that are different from yours. Our job on Wikipedia is to report what sources say, not to editorialize WP:NPOV. There is still no scientific refutation, either in the sources in the article, or in sources in the talk (I actually went through the trouble of reading them). If there is an actual scientific refutation of Rogers, please produce it. Actuarialninja (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And yet again - a large number of experts, working with verified shroud material, have PROVED that there was no repair done in that area. Therefore, all claims of intrusive repair material, past and future, are fully refuted. Rogers cannot have threads proving there was a repair on the shroud, if there is hard evidence showing there was never any repair on the shroud. The experts are not required to produce a paper every year specifically refuting whatever fringe theory has just been published, and it is NOT a case of he who cries last wins. There was never any repair, so Rogers' theory is wrong. Why Rogers made that mistake is presumably due to his threads not being valid shroud material, but the actual reason is irrelevant - the core issue is that the verified evidence shows there was zero repair. As Heimburger's summary shows, Rogers' chain of evidence is anecdotal and unscientific. To pursue a theory based on anecdotal and unscientific "evidence", in the face of multiple experts who all used actual verified shroud evidence, is "fringe".

The statement from Nosiglia, in the first sentence, actually says "the Papal Custodian of the Holy Shroud, Mons. Cesare Nosiglia, confirms the statements of his predecessors .. made by Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini in September 1995 and Cardinal Severino Poletto on May 4th, 2009 when analogous research was attempted on material supposedly belonging to the Shroud." It would help if you read the entire source. The Church is also not required to respond individually to each fringe theory that comes along. There was no repair, this has been scientifically proven, the repair hypothesis is thus refuted, the serious scientists move on, the Church moves on, and the shroudies join support groups (called Shroud Conferences). Wdford (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford and Guy Macon. I am looking at the dispute resolution with Aarghdvaark, and since there is a process in the works for a rewording that has considerable overlap with my objections, I think it would be wise for me to first focus my effort to contributing to the DRN (if, of course, there is something constructive/useful I can add) instead of making a separate case for revision of wording here. If the DRN does not address the concerns, I will have to go back to making my case on this talk page. Best, Actuarialninja (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

NVoE

Looking through the revision history, this article has consistently been defended for originally being written in English English, from mistaken "corrections" by speakers more familiar with a derivative regional dialect:

• artefact
• judgements
• artefact
• sceptic
• sceptical
• sceptic
• sceptic

These precede the advent of Template:British English, but now that we do have templates to flag pages as being in standard English English or foreign dialects, I suggest we apply it to this page and edit the article consistent with it. 58.167.145.112 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, go with original spellings. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aarghdvaark and 58.167.145.112: I care little about which variety you end up going with, but if you wish to observe Wikipedia's recommendation on this, then it would have to be to use AE, not BE. By mid-2002 there was already a trend towards American English, and by the end of 2005, this trend was clear: traumatized, theorize, authorize, utilized, oxidized, recognize, analyzing, specializing, lemmatizes, colored, color (5x), uncolored, colorless, coloration, discolor, favor, hemoglobin, aging, skeptic (23 times).

Also, your examples above are not persuasive: in your first example, from 2004, there are 19 skeptics and 0 sceptics (artifact was the spelling in BE for centuries, recently overtaken by artefact); in your last example, from 2009, there is one sceptic and 23 skeptics, so you've hardly made your case, here. Unless you believe national ties link the shroud to Great Britain in some way, then MOS:RETAIN governs and American English should be retained. Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Scanning the article, I see several websites used to cite claims throughout this article. They are:

• shroudstory.com - An amateur website with a sidebar on every page that says "Is the shroud real? Probably. The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus."
• shroud.com - Another amateur website operated by the "Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, Inc." It opens with the the following lines: "The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth" and hosts stuff like this.
• shroudofturin4journalists.com - Evidently a file repository with a blank index page
• shroudcentersocal.com - Either a dead link or another file repository

All of these links need to go. We're not here to promote amateur websites on the topic of the Shroud of Turin, and anything used in this article needs to pass strong scrutiny of WP:RS. Additionally, anything remotely smell of WP:UNDUE needs to be rooted out immediately. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is currently a topic of discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Shroud_of_Turin. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?

The argument that the shroud is authentic is primarily a religious argument, very similar to the arguments given by creationists arguing for a 10,000-year-old earth. Like that so-called "controversy" you have on one side the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on the other side you have "shroud researchers" publishing in blogs and other poor-quality sources.

• There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that all three labs got the the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud or Turin as being medieval in origin wrong. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material disputes the dating conclusion. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.

• There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that "invisible repairs" or "re-weave".that cannot be detected by a microsope exist today or that they existed hundreads of years ago. Not a single legitimate textile expert who has actually examined shroud material disputes that the samples were representitive. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.

• There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that there was significant modern C-14 contamination -- including possible gaseous contamination by modern carbon monoxide -- that escaped cleaning of the samples tested, much less that such contamination comprises the two-thirds of the sample needed to change the measured date from the first to the fourteenth century. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material believes that the post-cleaning samples contained even 1% modern contamination. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists think that contamination changed the results and made a 1st-century sample look like a 14th century sample.

• There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that a burst of photons, neutrons or any other sort of radiation burned an image on the cloth. Not a single legitimate physicist who has actually examined shroud material thinks that any such thing happened. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists believe it.

These are fringe theories and should be treated as the pseudoscience that they are.

To confuse the issue, as documented here[5] both the creationists and the "shroud researchers" managed to get something pubished in a peer-reviewed journal, and in both cases the overwhelming consensus of scientists was that these are examples of the peer-review process gone badly wrong. In both cases the papers relied on sources other than the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

So, what do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?

WP:FRINGE says

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

WP:WEIGHT says

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

and

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

WP:PARITY says

"If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable."

and

"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia."

WP:FALSEBALANCE says

"Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it"

Finally, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. by an 11-0 vote, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee decided that

"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."

Addressing the pro-authenticity arguments in detail violates WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. All that is needed in this article is a single sentence saying that the fringe views exist and have been rejected by mainstream science. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that you are putting too much reliance on a single data point. One sample of cloth was taken and carefully tested by three different C14 labs, who all came up with a mediaeval date. This contradicted some other evidence that the shroud was of an earlier date. More samples should be taken and tested, but I don't think that will happen. All the evidence needs to be re-examined and tested to see why there is disagreement, before coming to a definitive answer as to the date. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no other evidence that the shroud was of an earlier date. Wishful thinking is not evidence. Wdford (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like a clarification from Aarghdvaark. We all get that you disagree with the medieval date. You don't have to repeat the reasons why you disagree in your response -- we all know what they are. My question is this: do you or do you not agree that your position is not held by the majority of experts who have done actual tests on full samples of material from the shroud? I can understand you arguing that your view is correct, but I am really hoping that you will at the same time agree that the majority of textile and C14 experts do not agree with you. Also, I am a bit dismayed that you appear to not have read and understood any of the policies and guidelines I just quoted. Can you provide a reason -- any reason at all -- why those policies and guidelines don't apply to you? Please read the policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE) before responding, and please refer to specific wording of the policies and guidelines in your response. Right now you are just asking us to violate Wikipedia policy without explaining why we should do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guy and Wdford, "We all get that you disagree with the medieval date"! No I don't, go back and read what I've said. For Pete's sake in the small paragraph I wrote just above I said: "and carefully tested by three different C14 labs, who all came up with a mediaeval date". What is wrong with that? But to continue, I quote from the best source you have on this topic (Ref 20 in the current Dispute Resolution case: Christopher Ramsey 2008): "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed". Note that here I provide a very reputable source who says 1. there is other evidence that the shroud was of an earlier date; 2. the the dating issue is open. This is the point I have been arguing, but I think the time for us to argue our case is long over and we should only state things which are supported by sources. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford, I really do need to turn your own comment back on you: "Wishful thinking is not evidence". Quite, please only state things you have a reputable source for. Or perhaps the reason for our clash is that you are arguing about evidence and I am arguing about sources? Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"that suggests to many" - not to Ramsey himself, obviously. Ramsey is bending over backwards here. He is pointing out that "many" still cling to what they think is evidence for authenticity. He does not say what evidence he means, but it could be the vanillin stuff, Frei's ideas, or any other refuted concepts. In any case: does he still think that "further research is needed", ten years after he wrote that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hob, I quite agree with you that Ramsay wouldn't support an early date for the shroud. However he is summarizing the situation as he sees it, and summarizing what he thinks other people believe, and he says quite plainly what he means. To try and dismiss what he says because it doesn't suit your narrative is just wrong. He's an eminent and respected scientist. And I think he probably does think that further research is needed, because little further research has since been done (not his fault though). Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course Ramsey calls for more research to be done – it would be unscientific for any scientist to suggest otherwise. Ramsey also adds – very politely – that "It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence." In other words, where the spurious tests disagree with the C14 dating, then the spurious tests should be "reinterpreted". However that does not mean that the question of the dating is still open. The critical sentence from Ramsey – which you consistently ignore - is his conclusion: "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." This conclusion is shared by EVERY C14 expert who has commented on the matter of the shroud. As you well know. Wdford (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• So, is ANYONE going to discuss what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? If not, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and instead report any failure to do what the policies and guidelines tell us to do at WP:ANI so that the violator(s) can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Note: this does not imply that any particular individual is or is not in violation of the policies and guidelines; I have my opinions on that, but unless someone is willing to actually discuss this I see no point in singling out individual violations here -- you will no doubt figure it out when you get blocked, and if you aren't doing anything wrong it will never come up). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That fringe material has to go somewhere, Guy, and until we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, it will end up being added here - over and over. Even once we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, the believers will still try to add their material here, on the basis that "This theory is not Fringe, this theory is REAL". A proper encyclopedia should also mention all the fringe challenges, as they are also notable, but obviously we must add all the refutations and alternative interpretations from actual experts and actual verified evidence as well, to correct Weight and Parity etc.

Fanti is going to churn out a fresh paper every year for the rest of his life, and he has enough academic contacts in his home town to ensure they all get published eventually in a peer-reviewed journal of some description. The believers are then going to insist on including them here, to "prove" that the debate is still open. That is unavoidable. However until Fanti finds a credible C14 expert willing to demonstrate on the record that the C14 dating is technically faulty, or a credible textile expert (not a carpet-repairman) who can demonstrate that there is actual evidence of a repair that all the other textile experts with their microscopes somehow missed, or the Vatican allows a retest which proves the rest of the shroud actually is 2000 years old, then the current dating stands and the fringe theories all fail.

All the pro-authenticity arguments have been refuted, and that material is either already here, or in the daughter article on the C14 dating. However if there is more cleaning up required, then that must obviously be done. We don't have to argue about the applicability of the policies, we need to focus on correcting identified contraventions of those policies. Could you perhaps list the top three sentences which you feel are most offensive, so that they can be attended to ASAP?

PS: Can we agree on a title for the dedicated fringe theories article, which doesn't use the word "conspiracy", so that we can move forward with exporting all the fringe material soonest? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

We could remove those "Hypotheses on image origin" ideas that are clearly bonkers and summarize them in a few sentences. The first candidates that come to mind are "Medieval photography", "Energy source", "Corona discharge", and "Minimal Facts approach". I am sure the same applies to more of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wdford, thanks for the thoughtful response. Could you comment on how your statement "A proper encyclopedia should also mention all the fringe challenges, as they are also notable" compares with WP:WEIGHT, which says "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views"? The policy does not even mention notability, which is in general how we decide whether to keep an article, not whether to include content in the article. The policy says that we should include "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" I don't see where any of the challenges to the C14 dating have been given any prominence in published, reliable sources.

As I said before, the policy does give us an out: create a Fringe theories about the dating of the Shroud of Turin article. In such an article we can create a section titled "Quantum Hologram Theory" with the only sourcing requirement being to show that such a theory exists and was published -- even if only in a blog (blogs are reliable sources about what the contents of the blog are, unreliable about whether what is in the blog is true). This would normally be followed by a sub-level titled "Reception to Quantum Hologram Theory" where articles from skeptical blogs could be documented -- again merely establishing that the opinion was published without commenting on whether it is true.

As for the problem you expressed with "the believers will still try to add their material here, on the basis that 'This theory is not Fringe, this theory is REAL' ", we can address that with an RfC. Let them try to get a consensus that a particular theory is not fringe. After that, persistent refusal to abide by the result of an RfC is a blockable offense. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific, you asked

"All the pro-authenticity arguments have been refuted, and that material is either already here, or in the daughter article on the C14 dating. However if there is more cleaning up required, then that must obviously be done. We don't have to argue about the applicability of the policies, we need to focus on correcting identified contraventions of those policies."

The identified contraventions of those policies are [1] that the pro-authenticity arguments have been included, [2] that the pro-authenticity arguments have been refuted, and [3] that the material is already here and has not been deleted. Read our policies. None of that material should be in this article. It is allowed in a "see also" sub article, which I suggested above, but I challenge you to find anything in the actual wording of our policies that allows it to be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wdford, thank you for your response in the paragraphs starting: "That fringe material has to go somewhere...". I agree with much of what you say there. But, as I pointed out also to Guy a few paragraphs above ('Hi Guy and Wdford, "We all get that you disagree with the medieval date"! No I don't, ...'), you guys completely and consistently misrepresent what I say. This does make this process a lot longer than it should be :) Quoting you above:

The critical sentence from Ramsey – whích you consistently ignore - is his conclusion: "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate."

This is completely wrong, as I even quoted Ramsay and proposed what he said should be used at the DRN on 12 April. Repeating it here as I still think this is a strong scientific rebuttal to the challenges to the C14 dating and is a better sentence than the current one and the alternatives I've seen so far:

I agree ref [20] is an excellent source. So why not simply say:"But Christopher Bronk Ramsey who contributed to the original dating which determined a mediaeval date for the shroud says there is no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.[20]".

This statement reflects what the source says, is a strong rebuttal to the challenges to the C14 dating, and is scientifically coherent. What's there not to like? Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

...and we are once again back to arguing about article content and sources instead of whether or not we are following Wikipedia policies. I ask everyone involved to please ignore the above comment and any future comments like it (in this section only). Don't respond (or respond in another section) if the comment is about anything other than what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do. Perhaps if Aarghdvaark finds himself shouting into an empty hall he will finally address the topic at hand instead of continuing to ignore it and re-argue issues he has argued multiple times elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You make a strawman argument by misrepresenting what I say to be something you want to argue about, and then don't respond to a request for comments but accuse me of re-arguing issues! Pot calling the kettle black here! But you ask for policies, so:

Wikipedia:No original research states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I think that applies here? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No. It does NOT apply here ("here" meaning "in this section"). Feel free to make the above argument in a section that is not dedicated to examining the Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE and seeing what those Wikipedia policies and guidelines tell us to do. (You have several sections where you can argue about sources and content -- and you have.) I am ignoring your repeated attempts to try to change the subject, and I advise everyone else to do so as well. I can't help thinking that the reason you refuse to discuss what the above Wikipedia policies and guidelines tell us to do is that you have read them and know that what you propose violates them. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How to break this logjam? Maybe time for a Rfc? I think there would be a snow-close, but that's just my opinion, and that's what Rfc's are there for, to settle questions of community opinion. I'm more of an observer here than anything else, but I'll vote if pinged. Mathglot (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guy, how many times do I have to ask you to stop making assumptions about what I think? No, the reason I'm not discussing these policies here is that I don't see any evidence of any of these policies being transgressed, and talking about policies in the abstract is a painfully irrelevant waste of time. The only policy which I think it could be argued is being violated is No Original Research. But you've excluded that from the list of policies to discuss! Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You can also repeatedly ask me to stop climbing Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man if you want, because I haven't done that either. I have merely commented on your observable behavior. It is an easily-observable fact that you have so far refused to do discuss what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE tell us to do. It is an easily-observable fact that you keep trying to change the subject, and it is an established fact that everyone else involved in this discussion is ignoring your efforts (in this section -- you have made pretty much the same point in other sections and many editors have responded there.) This is the last response you will get from me in this section unless you decide to discuss what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines listed above tell us to do. Clearly responding in any way only encourages you. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

For everyone else: I believe that we have a consensus to create an article titled Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, moving all of the fringe theories and responses to those fringe theories to that article, and reducing all mention of said fringe theories in this and all related articles to one or two sentences with a "Main article: Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin" note. Once we get that new article written, if any shroudies insist on inserting fringe material in the other articles, we can treat them just as we treat Flat Earth proponents trying to insert their fringe theories into the Earth article. I can follow this up with an RfC if the predictable claims that we don't have consensus to do the above are made, with an easily predictable outcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you cannot move all the reliable sources published in leading peer-reviewed journals to a special page, because you dislike their conclusions.

This article published in Scientific Reports, a Nature group journal, in 2015, shows that the 1988 dating is still controversial for many mainstream scientists.

"In 1988, the age of the TS linen cloth was assessed by accelerator mass spectrometry. 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". Thucyd (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

And your reasons for refusing to follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE are? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you have no justification for saying "I believe that we have a consensus" Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I will by happy to post an RfC to demonstrate that yes, the Wikipedia community does have a strong consensus in favor of following our policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The source referred to by Thucyd above makes a passing reference to some old papers, which were published many years earlier. This in no way indicates that the issue is still a live controversy among mainstream scientists. This has been explained to Thucyd before on this talk page. Wdford (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and religious relics and reliquaries

First, as there seems to be some confusion here, Wikipedia is not a platform to promote objects as genuine religious relics. Wikipedia is not a reliquary for fantastical claims about medieval or classical objects, and anything that looks remotely like a claim that this object is a "genuine" relic belonging to any particular deity or demigod is in deep violation of WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE and falls plainly in violation of Wikipedia's policies of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. First, we report what peer-reviewed, academic sources say about this object, and then we can get into its reception — and only to the point where it's due. This article, as it stands, is a total mess, and needs looks like it needs to be completely rewritten and its sources restricted to what Wikipedia policy deems to be reliable, specifically scholarly sources from respected peer-reviewed publications or academic presses (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Strong support for a rewrite along those lines. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Strong support. I would also suggest a liberal application of WP:WEIGHT, which is quite clear: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views". I suggest that we we create that "see also" article as discussed elsewhere on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we create the Fringe article first, and then move the fringe material across, and then polish up what remains over here. Seems more logical that way around? Wdford (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Tentatively support - there are already a lot of high-quality sources cited, but it looks like some weaker sources like "Shroud.com" have made it in, and I would support cleaning these out.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that the address shroud.com appears 45 times in the article at the moment. Yikes. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support creating the Fringe article, moving the fringe material across, and then polishing up what remains over here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• I just created Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Right now it is just a stub, and needs more content. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Per request, can now be found at Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. Mathglot (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Will people please stop attacking shroud.com as a source, as it isn't actually used much as a source itself. It provides a depository of sources for articles about the Shroud of Turin. Hence the number of times it will come up in the references when searched. Replying to User:Bloodofox who found it came up 45 times, all of the ones I tested went to original articles, except a presumably uncontroversial simple list of STURP investigators. I also tested the Higgs Boson article, and what do you know, CERN came up in the references an awful lot :) Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This amateur site fails WP:RS and needs to be removed. It hosts material within a highly POV, deeply fringe framework. A more valid comparison is linking to a flat earth theory site because it hosts geology articles. That isn’t acceptable on our geology articles, and this isn’t acceptable here. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Obviously the material they publish themselves is not acceptable, and they may also be hosting material whose copyright they don't own. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

IP's concerns

All of the information I paste here needs to be addressed and added, otherwise people are laughing at Wikipedia. This entry seems to be on insisting using data that is 20 - 40 years out of date. Seriously, the McCrone experiment was from the 1970s. If you want to insist on using old data because you don't like the more recent data, then Wikipedia will deserve whatever reputation it gets.

A representation of some of the most important recent findings and data: 1) The image on the shroud was caused by some form of energy. "Energy would have been required for the functioning of the discoloration mechanism that to alter the covalent bonds of the carbon atoms in the cellulose molecules that caused the discoloration." (1a) "Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy"s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) conducted five years of experiments, using state-of-the-art excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image"s coloration" (1b) Citations: 1a (academic): http://www.academia.edu/28946606/Role_of_Radiation_in_Image_Formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin 1b (popular): https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150417-shroud-turin-relics-jesus-catholic-church-religion-science/ 2) The possibility that the image was painted has been ruled out. The image is uniformly 1-2 threads deep throughout the entire image. Any paint or dye should bleed further into the cloth. While previous scientific research had indicated that it was at least possible that there were base paint-like components in the image that could have been used, this has been ruled out with the development of microscopic imaging. There are no brush strokes and the image is exactly uniform in depth throughout the entire image. The famous counter argument was Dr. Walter McCrone's analysis in 1979 http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin Asserting that iron oxide, hematite, mercuric sulphide was present in the cloth and must have been used as paint. It is important to note that the shroud was venerated and painted copies were made, so the shroud was certainly exposed to paint at the microscopic level, having been in front of painters as they painted it. There is 0 evidence that the burnt image itself contains paint or pigmentation. If the image is a fake, the forger was able to prevent the paint from going more than 2 threads deep and there are no brush strokes. See image citation below. Dr McCrones claim was that the blood was not authentic, but was painted over the image. DNA has been found in the blood. (2d) The most glaring statement from done by Dr Raymond Rogers at Los Alamos National Laboratory "This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted." (2c) Citations: 2a)(book) Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.73 2b) Small sample of image fibers. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-abTXSktObRw/VvHbNAgco1I/AAAAAAAAFKc/UN6OYX5AVEQrb-17Ewgtl-rsqUnm0cKWQ/s1600/ImageRightEyeAreaLavoie2000p58Cropped.jpg 2c) (Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers4.pdf Raymond N. Rogers University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM, USA 2d) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 "Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud" 3) The shroud was Carbon Dated to be from the middle ages by independent labs. It has since been proven that a bad sample was taken. The Church demanded that the sample be taken from a damaged far corner. It has since been shown that this corner had been repaired in the past. Cotton existed in the samples that were taken, but there is no cotton in the rest of the shroud, showing that repair work had been done to the edges during the middle ages. The shroud has since been dated to the time of Christ. This includes spectroscopic dating. "The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ."(3a) Even Dr Ray Rogers, one of the leading Shroud Research Team and was an initial vocal skeptic, admitted the Carbon Dating result was useless. Citations : 3a) (Popular)https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ 3b) (Popular) https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html 3c) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311809159_Mechanical_Characterization_of_Linen_Fibers_The_Turin_Shroud_Dating 3d) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284132559_Ageing_of_flax_textiles_Fingerprints_in_micro-Raman_spectra_of_single_fibres 3e) (scientific) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287294012_Mechanical_ond_opto-chemical_dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud 3f) (scientific)https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276400494_Optical_features_of_flax_fibers_coming_from_the_Turin_Shroud 4) Coins on the eyes of the individual (this was a common practice at the time) can be dated to be in circulation by Pilate. Citations: 4a) http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/jewish-coins.html 4b) http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille4.html 6) There is human blood on the shroud, which refutes one of the most reliable science to dismiss the shroud Dr. Walter McCrone's assertion that it was merely painted. Not only is no paint found on the image, but now we know that the blood is blood. Citations : 6a) (Scientific) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484 "Uncovering Sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud" 7) There is bilirubin in the blood on the shroud. Bilirubin is responsible for the coloring seen in bruises. If the shroud is a hoax, it means a man was beaten severely. To create a hoax, the individual tortured somebody to get their blood. They anticipated that we would know how to extract it in the future and prove that it was from a beaten individual. "Prof. Pierluigi Baima Bollone has shown that the stains on the Shroud of Turin are human blood group AB. From a biochemical viewpoint...not only haemoglobin but also other specific compounds of blood and, among other things, the presence of bilirubin in significant quantities." (7a) citations: 7a) (medical) http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p04.pdf Dr. Carlo Goldoni Doctor of Medicine, Clinical Pathologist 8) The person on the shroud has a damaged nose and a facial bones are badly damaged, and eyes were swollen shut. Evidence of a severe beating. (The bible states that Jesus was struck as well as scourged) Citations: 8a) (medical) https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud" Robert Bucklin, M.D., J.D. 9) There are pollen fossils on the shroud from plants that occur in Israel, not just from Europe. I guess the forger anticipated this as well. "An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the "Shroud of Turin," thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century." (9a) Citations: 9a)(Scientific) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990803073154.htm XVI International Botanical Congress 9b)(Scientific) https://www.shroud.com/danin2.htm (STRUP) Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.45.219 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see little new here, and nothing worth adding to the article. Through point #8, IP reiterates a lot of previous claims already discussed elsewhere, such as the theory that the sample used for dating wasn't from the original shroud. IP also mentions various irrelevant associations not indicative of provenance, such as coins on the eyes (contrary to his assertion that this was "common at the time" there is no evidence that it occurred at all; see Biblical Archaeologist, vol. 45-46, p. 82) or a broken nose. The claims about pollen and other plant material being traced to Israel are already discussed in the article along with similar claims by Max Frei in section #Flowers and pollen. Dr. Danin's publications on the shroud appear to have little support, as all of the citations in Citeseer to his publications seem to be by himself (except for one by fringe blogger Stephen E. Jones). Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - just more of the same. Danin has actually withdrawn his earlier pollen paper, after the science was shown to be bad - as the article already states. Wdford (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories Draft available

This has already been stated above, but possibly lost in a wall of text, so just repeating this here for better visibility:

The page Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin has been created. It's probably 85% ready, but needs some additional expansion and clean-up; see its talk page for more info.

Please do not move this Draft to article space without consensus, as it will be rapidly moved back again. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence unclear

" It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed. Radiocarbon dating of a sample of the shroud material is consistent with this date."

As someone who knows very little about the shroud, much less the history of it- after reading that, I was left baffled.

What does attested mean? What does securely mean? What does an admission of forgery have to do with it being tested? Consistent with what date?

Not saying those need to be answered in the intro... and a clearer sentence would be helpful. TantraYum (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Blood type

Can we edit the blood testing and type section? The second paragraph mentions an "Andrew Merriweather" who has no title, comes up nowhere else in the wiki, and the paragraph ends with his dissenting but uncited comment?

"The blood on the Shroud is real, human male blood of the type AB (typed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin and confirmed in the U.S.)... Drs. Victor and Nancy Tryon of the University of Texas Health Science Center found X & Y chromosomes representing male blood and "degraded DNA" (approximately 700 base pairs) "consistent with the supposition of ancient blood."

References

Improcrastinating (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

shroud.com is not a reliable source. Carlino et al say they have found the remnants of blood on a fiber of the shroud. Even if confirmed, this doesn't look weighty enough to include. I have removed it and also the uncited sentences in the second paragraph. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps a better way of organizing this wiki would be, after covering the history, to organize by person/organization instead of by controversial issues regarding the shroud? A paragraph listing STURP's official conclusions, next dissenting opinions by Walter McCrone, then additional work through STERA, Baima Ballone and DiLazzaro, finally throw Joe Nickell on top of the pile? Something like that. Improcrastinating (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Here, we report the main findings from the analysis of genomic DNA extracted from dust particles vacuumed from parts of the body image and the lateral edge used for radiocarbon dating. Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent. Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe..."[6] (emphasis added)

The Americas? If DNA extracted from vacuumed dust particles establishes origin instead of simply confirming that many, many people have handled the cloth, then maybe we here at Wikipedia have Archaeology and the Book of Mormon all wrong! (...Guy ducks as everyone throws things at him...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A bit of revered mediaeval cloth has lots of human DNA and even some blood on it... it's really not news and the only conclusion is that a lot of people have got very excited and done lots of pseudoscience. That is, stuff that looks sciencey but actually doesn't test any interesting hypotheses. Perhaps it belongs in a list of "studies saying nothing interesting about the Shroud". Come to think of it, apart from the radiocarbon dates, that's pretty much what we have right now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Shroud studies are tangential. In addition to C-14 I'd add McCrone's discovery of pigments in both the body-image and the blood-image areas. Those two studies (radiocarbon dating and the observation of pigments) should be considered central. What sindonologists do is basically add a lot of noise to those two central studies. It's such noise what should be moved to another article. --Cesar Tort 20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

...which is happening as we speak. See Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case I look forward to removing all the pseudoscience from here, leaving only a short paragraph outlining its existence. I agree, the observation of pigments and radiocarbon dating are both real science, but the rest needs to go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't be sarcastic. It's enough that the article reflects, e.g., the overview of this Skeptical Inquirer article on the Shroud but in encyclopedic format. --Cesar Tort 14:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs to update, it is demonstrated forgery.

just like it said. They analyzed and reproduced the technic even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:2425:EDF6:DD75:C83E (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

PLoS One study retracted

I know, you're shocked. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/19/over-authors-objections-plos-one-retracts-paper-claiming-shroud-of-turin-showed-evidence-of-trauma/ Guy (Help!) 18:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am actually not entirely completely stunned - any shroud paper co-authored by Fanti carries an element of wishful thinking, tacked on to the science. It has long been noted that the shroudies tend to deduce heroic conjectures from tiny fragments, without the basic scientific rigor of first proving that the tiny sample is representative of the rest of the picture. To add to the fun, they then accuse the C14 team of failing to TOTALLY and UTTERLY verify beyond doubt that the C14 samples were representative of the rest of the shroud - even though they did verify exactly that. Never a dull moment. However I am quite surprised that Plos One was big enough to admit the error - over the expected objections of the authors. Wdford (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)