Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Lack of top reliable sources

In the lead, we find this important sentence: "...challenges to the dating result have been refuted in scientific analyses." But just have a look at the references : where are the top reliable sources?

  • Debate of Roger Sparks and William Meacham on alt.turin-shroud". Shroud.com. Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association. Retrieved 12 April 2009. Not peer-reviewed.
  • Jackson, John P. (5 May 2008). "A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis" (PDF). Turin Shroud Center of Colorado. Retrieved 18 February 2014 – via Shroud.com. Not peer-reviewed.
  • "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. Not-peer-reviewed.
  • Gove, H. E. (1990). "Dating the Turin Shroud: An Assessment". Radiocarbon. 32 (1): 87–92. Clearly outdated...
  • R.A. Freer-Waters, A.J.T. Jull, Investigating a Dated piece of the Shroud of Turin, Radiocarbon, 52, 2010, pp. 1521–1527. Peer-reviewed (but Jull is the editor of Radiocarbon and an author of the Nature paper, and this article was considered by a prominent skeptic as an "own goal".
  • Schafersman, Steven D. (14 March 2005). "A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers". Not peer-reviewed. Thucyd (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe Wdford was the one who wrote that sentence. Let's see what he says. If we're going to raise the bar on our sourcing standards we should also throw out the crappy papers published in low-impact factor journals that no other researchers cite. We're giving a great deal of undue weight to research papers that appear to have no impact on the field. Ideally this article should be sourced mainly to secondary sources. Not directly from research papers. Sizeofint (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thucyd has been trying for years to make it appear as though the radiocarbon dating is unreliable, and that the shroud might thus be authentic after all. This despite all the experts saying exactly the opposite. If we are to apply a higher standard of sourcing, then only experts in radiocarbon-dating would be allowed to be represented. That would reduce us down to the Damon team (who did the initial sampling, and who were careful to ensure they took original shroud material), Gove (who virtually invented radiocarbon dating), Jull (who has inspected actual shroud sample material) and Ramsay (of Oxford, who did the most recent tests and says that none of the shroudie theories holds up.) It would thus utterly remove the shroudie theory from the article, which would not actually be helpful as the shroudies would keep trying to put it back in.
However if we widen the net of “experts” to include textile experts, then we have Flury-Lemburg, who has examined the shroud closely subsequent to the dating, and who says there is zero evidence of any repair on that corner. Only if we extend the net really wide do we include Rogers, a chemist, who determined (quite correctly) that the arbitrary threads he received in the post do not match the STURP shroud threads, but who did not bother to take the basic scientific step of first conclusively verifying the origin of the arbitrary threads he received in the post. We have to extend the net very wide indeed to include Fanti, who has no expertise at all in any related area, but who nonetheless constantly invents new tests to “prove” that the shroud is authentic.
Only if we go ludicrously wide can we include Benford, a psychic healer who had been told by Jesus that the dating was skewed by an invisible repair. Thucyd needs to accept that “peer-review” means that the methodology is valid, not that the conclusion is valid – the reviewers cannot comment on the data or the conclusion. Benford got past peer-review because she claimed (quite correctly) that the presence of repair-threads would skew the dating. That doesn’t mean that there ACTUALLY WERE any repair-threads present. Benford never inspected the shroud at all, and based her theory purely on the special information she got from Jesus. Later on she also claimed to have been vindicated by an extra c14 test done by CalTec, although CalTec denied any involvement and apparently never had the facilities to do c14 tests to begin with. On the other hand, all the c14 experts, and the textile experts, agree that there is no repair in the sampled material. Wdford (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Lot of words, personal POV and attacks but, again, where are the reliable refs for the sentence in question?
Let's focus on facts please. This sentence is in direct contradiction with good and recent reliable sources (2015-2016):
"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" Barcaccia et al., "Uncovering the sources of DNA found on the Turin Shroud", Scientific Reports, http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484
"Results of radiocarbon measurements from distinct and independent laboratories yielded a calendar age range of 1260–1390 AD, with 95 % confidence, thus providing evidence for a Medieval origin of the Turin Shroud. However, several lines of evidence argue against such dating. The heterogeneity in the results from the three laboratories involved in radiocarbon dating makes robust statistics on the age range of the Turin Shroud unlikely. In addition, the production technology of the linens in Medieval age is poorly compatible with the chemistry of fibers obtained from the cloth in 1978". Di Minno, G., Scala, R., Ventre, I., & de Gaetano, G. (2016). Blood stains of the Turin Shroud 2015: beyond personal hopes and limitations of techniques. Internal and emergency medicine, 11(4), 507-516. Thucyd (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, same old Thucyd. I gave the reliable refs – just read them all again.
Re your “good and recent reliable sources”:
The Barcaccia paper is actually about pollens and DNA – the Barcaccia team are not C14 experts. They conclude that the pollens and DNA could support the forgery hypothesis as well as the authentic hypothesis. However they also note that they found pollens and DNA from trees in America, worms from the Canadian Pacific coast and humans from India – which would suggest that this kind of study is less than definitive.
The Barcaccia paper does mention in passing that some papers have raised concerns with the dating. However this is done in passing to establish the context for their own paper. The two papers they reference – Jumper and Schwalbe – were both published BEFORE the C14 tests were done, and thus have no bearing on the validity of the C14 tests. Jumper focuses on the images, and concludes only that the image was not painted on, while conceding that the authenticity question could still go either way, and calling for C14 tests to be done. The Schwalbe paper similarly calls for C14 tests to settle the age debate. In short, this Barcaccia paper offers NOTHING to support your POV.
The Di Minno team are not C14 experts either. They focus on the blood and DNA as well. The heterogeneity of the dates has long since been explained by actual C14 experts as resulting from different cleansing methods at the different labs, which would have removed modern contaminants to slightly different degrees. Secondly, the wording of your quote here is so similar to that of the Barcaccia paper that it looks suspicious. Assuming it’s correct (I have applied for the full paper) it also seems strange that medical specialists publishing a medical paper in a medical journal would be pronouncing on linen production technology and the chemistry of fibres, so assuming this is correct it would again be mentioned in passing to establish the context for their own paper.
Against this we have the conclusions of the actual C14 experts – the Damon team, Gove, Jull and Ramsay (2011), as well as textile expert Flury-Lemburg. So, Thucyd, who are the expert sources really? It seems you are still grasping at straws. Wdford (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you really read carefully Barcaccia et al.? The two papers they mention are Rogers and Riani (refs. 9 and 10), and only after they mention Jumper and Schwalbe. If you have read, read again. Thucyd (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Wdford: I have access. [1] Sizeofint (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint: – many thanks for the link – it was most valuable.
@Thucyd: – The other two links quoted in the Barcaccia paper are Riani and Rogers. Riani is a statistician, not a C14 expert. His paper was co-authored by Fanti, who is not a C14 expert or even a statistician – what was he even doing there? Riani et al did a huge calculation - based entirely on unverified ASSUMPTIONS – to deduce that the test results produced heterogeneity in the dates. This has long since been explained by actual C14 experts as resulting from different cleansing methods at the different labs, which would have removed modern contaminants to slightly different degrees. I explained this already higher up. The Rogers paper compares the arbitrary threads he received in the post to STURP shroud threads, but without first conclusively verifying the origin of the arbitrary threads he received in the post. I explained this already higher up as well. The Barcaccia team thus add nothing new to the debate, and merely mention in passing a few well-known sources whose theories have already been explained and countered.
The Di Minno team wander far away from their field of expertise to pronounce on linen production technology and the chemistry of fibres, in the process referring to five sources.
  1. The Riani / Fanti heterogeneity paper – see above.
  2. Adler: A noted authenticity champion, he was a chemist not a C14 expert. He focused mostly on the blood/DNA issues. His answer to the C14 dates was the 'possibility' of an invisible repair. This has been totally discredited by actual experts using actual evidence.
  3. Meacham: An archaeologist, not a C14 expert. The paper is from 1983, and thus has no bearing on the later C14 dating – not sure why Di Minno even cites this paper. Meacham’s main complaint seems to be that "The thread was hand-spun and hand-loomed; after ca. 1200, most European thread was spun on the wheel". Note the word "most". Meacham also overlooks the possibility that the cloth may have been brought to France from the Middle East - the first owner was after all a leading crusader knight. The image itself may even have been created in the Middle East.
  4. The Rogers paper that tested arbitrary threads he received in the post without first verifying their origin.
In summary, the Di Minno paper adds nothing new to the debate, and merely mentions a few well-known sources whose theories have already been explained and countered.
You claim that the C14 dating is contradicted by "good and recent reliable sources", but in fact these are two papers that add nothing, and which merely make passing references to a few well-known sources whose theories have already been explained and countered. Against this we have the conclusions of the actual C14 experts – the Damon team, Gove, Jull and Ramsay, as well as textile expert Flury-Lemburg. Seriously, you are grasping at straws. Wdford (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
...We are on wiki here, not on a forum.
I am not going here to discuss your highly dubious and biased interpretation of reliable peer-reviewed sources... It could be funny, but no, thanks.
You want to speak with Riani and Atkinson, international leading experts, of the interest of robust statistics... go on please, write them an email: mriani [at]unipr.it ; a.c.atkinson [at]lse.ac.uk
I have provided evidences that the dating results are still contested by chemists, statistians, historians in serious peer-reviewed journals.
I gan give you other top reliable sources in the same direction (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Thucyd (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
You say: we have "the Damon team, Gove, Jull and Ramsay [sic for Ramsey], as well as textile expert Flury-Lemburg [sic for Flury-Lemberg]". Nature paper by Damon is of no interest here, Gove's paper is clearly outdated, Freer-Waters and Jull, a primary research paper do not support your global statement, and Ramsey's quote (an author of the Nature article) is not peer-reviewed and should not even be in the lead...
Again and again, please show us your best reliable sources for the sentence "challenges to the dating result have been refuted in scientific analyses" Thucyd (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
All the C14 experts who have commented on this issue, support the dating result. You don't get to disqualify them just because they don't support your POV. The Damon paper cannot be "of no interest here" - this was a team of the world's best experts, who made the actual sampling decision. Gove and Jull inspected actual dating samples, and found no sign of repairs, dyes, bio-contaminants or other explanations that might skew the test result. Ramsay conducted the latest tests to see if Jackson's "new carbon" theory was valid, and found that it certainly was not. All challenges (invisible repair, bio-contamination, new carbon, supernatural corona discharge etc) have been refuted, by actual experts using actual evidence. Against this you present Riani-Fanti, who demonstrated that you can create the appearance of a statistical anomaly if you really try, but the results can also be explained - much more simply - by differences in cleansing procedures. Do you have any actual C14 experts backing your assertions? Not chemists testing arbitrary unprovenanced threads, not psychic nurses with inside info from heaven, not arbitrary professors of unrelated fields who test crumbling fragments using made-up testing procedures, but actual C14 experts? If yes, please would you share that info? Wdford (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop with all these insinuations and ad hominem attacks against people. Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion on professors, articles, methods. Sorry, but we don't care.
My advice: you can prove that Riani and Atkinson are wrong: publish in a top peer-reviewed journal of statistics and then go back here.
Otherwise: do you understand that when I say that the 1989 Nature paper is of "no interest here", it is because it is useless to support your statement on challenges on the same 1989 paper. How could it be useful? Does it make sense to you?
Again and again and again: what are your best reliable sources? Thucyd (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the issue is larger than this specific statement. Per WP:PRIMARY this article should be mainly sourced from reliable secondary sources (e.g. not WP:SELFPUB sources). This article clearly does not follow this policy as most of the content is sourced to primary sources. This article needs a complete overhaul. Sizeofint (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint - if we followed your suggestion, the article would exclude basically all the dating controversy except for the statements of the C14 experts and the textile experts, all of whom are solidly supportive of the medieval dating. The shroudies would then relentlessly bombard the article with their POV, which would make things worse not better. The article has been stable for a long time, so I don’t advocate stirring it up.
@Thucyd - the numerous C14 expert sources I have presented are rock-solid. If they don't happen to support your POV, then deal with it. However, to top it off, here is an extract from a 2016 scientific book by Taylor and Bar-Yosef. Bar-Yosef is a professor of archaeology, but Taylor has, among many things, served as director of the UCR Radiocarbon Laboratory from 1974 to 2002, and is currently (among other things) a visiting scientist at the Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at UC Irvine. In other words, like my sources but unlike your sources, Taylor is a genuine C14 expert. After a discussion of the Shroud of Turin C14 dating project, they state that: “Based on the best scientifically attested data currently available, it appears that the AMS-based C14 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.” [1]
If you want to argue about reliable sources, then please present just one genuine radiocarbon dating expert who believes that the 1988 Shroud dating was incorrect. Just one. If you can. Wdford (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
We should use that source in the article. An overhaul would require a review of the secondary literature which I doubt anyone is willing to do at this point anyway. Perhaps it should be a long term goal. Sizeofint (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Wdford! finally!
First just a reminder in philosophy of science: radiocarbon dating is always open to the scrutiny of other experts (historians, archaeologists). Look at the point of view of art historian (and agnostic) Thomas de Wesselow in 2012 (The Sign, p. 172): "The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science. It would make an excellent case study for any sociologist interested in exploring the ways in which science is affected by professional biases, prejudices and ambitions, not to mention religious (and irreligious) beliefs. And it should certainly serve as a warning to practitioners of any discipline tempted to see their work as more important and ‘fundamental’ than any other [...]Carbon dating may still make a valuable contribution to sindonology, if the Catholic Church ever allows further tests, and if those tests are integrated into a full, interdisciplinary research programme, as Professor Ramsey recommends"
Unfortunately, your source is partial and already outdated: it does not mention Riani's article, the contestation of the Freer-Water-Jull's article even by outspoken skeptics, Poulle's paper, not to speak of the 2015-2016 articles...
When it comes to Fanti's 2013 book, it becomes even stranger, they write (p. 168): "to our knowledge, no detailed description of the technique(s) to arrive at that conclusion [between 280 BC and 220 AD] has been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal". I hope this is just incompetence: Fanti's article has been available since november 2013 in the Textile Research Journal, a major peer-reviewed journal of the field: you can check the publication history here
I think that this source is a good example of what Habermas writes in the tertiary source (Encyclopedia of Christian civilization) quoted in the lead: when it comes to the shroud "polarized conclusions remain". And Ramsey agrees: "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." Thucyd (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Google scholar shows six articles citing Fanti's article. On five of them Fanti is a co-author. [2] Sizeofint (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@sizeofint. It was not my point and it's not at all surprising for a recent primary research in textile.
The most recent quote from Ramsey, (2015-2016, in A Grave Injustice, a documentary):"With the radiocarbon measurements and with all the other evidence which we have about the shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence and for that reason I think that everyone who has worked in this area – radiocarbon scientists and all of the other experts – need to have a critical look of the evidence that they have come up with in order for us to try to work out some kind of a coherent story that fits and tells us the truth of the history of this intriguing cloth." Thucyd (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Wesselow is hardly qualified to adjudicate on carbon dating matters. (Have you read his bizarre theory?) There are no biases etc on display from the scientists involved in the C14 dating project. On the contrary, various scientists of STURP and elsewhere have tried to bend reality (and occasionally the laws of physics) to suit their own religious biases. This mini-rant sounds more like Wesselow saying “I’m also important, and I also want to be taken seriously.”
A scientific book does not have to deal with each far-fetched theory one by one – when they say “Based on the best scientifically attested data currently available”, it covers all the best scientifically attested data currently available – they don’t have to mention individual names. And to remind you, your so-called 2015-2016 articles merely made passing mention of old contributions, they didn’t add anything new.
The Ramsey quote was ludicrous. This is a very interesting contribution from an editor who sometimes calls for higher standards of sourcing. That was probably the most biased and sensationalist so-called “documentary” I have yet seen. They accused the C14 experts of “machinations”, and they described the “pollen trail” without mentioning the pollens from the USA, while they talked up the STURP crowd and made it sound like no C14 tests could possibly be reliable without the STURP people (none of whom are C14 experts.) They made it sound like the C14 team picked a scrap of cloth at random, rather than mention the hours spent by textile experts to make the sample selection, including using microscopes. Ramsey never said that the C14 dates were wrong, he merely said that some people believe it to be so. Based on Ramsey’s previous comments on the subject, he probably meant that the shroudies need to reconsider their pollens and their invisible writings and all their other so-called evidence, but he was too polite to say so specifically. And who knows what else Ramsey said to provide context to that comment, but which was selectively edited out by the obviously-biased producers?
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia is not a forum and sorry but we don't care about your opinion on people, peer-reviewed articles, etc.
What I have shown is that Codex Pray and Rogers'paper are still under debate, and that the Riani's statistical conclusions on the dating result are still unchallenged. And it is obvious that Ramsey, a coauthor of the 1988 dating and a leading expert, is now much more cautious.
Therefore it is clear that the badly sourced sentence ("challenges to the dating result have been refuted in scientific analyses") does not reflect the current state of the art. Thucyd (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That's right. The sentence "challenges to the dating result have been refuted in scientific analyses" does not reflect the current state of the art. This sentence should be changed to "challenges to the dating result never managed to invalide the dating" or something similar) which is much closer to the actual state of the art. --Lebob (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The current “state of the art” is Taylor, who is a C14 expert.
The Pray Codex is not relevant here. First the “theory” is based on a few decorative dots on a “thing” which is actually the lid of the sarcophagus, not the burial shroud. The burial shroud itself is wadded up on the lid of the empty sarcophagus – and clearly is not significant in any way beyond no longer containing a body. Second, the “thing” does not show the human image – surely that would be shown if it was known to this artist, rather than just a few dots and zig-zags? Third, these “holes” also appear on the sides of the sarcophagus itself, and on the women’s clothing, and on the angel’s wings etc – or were the angel’s wings also full of holes? See [3] for a picture, and see [4] for Rinaldi’s demolition of the Codex as “evidence”. You approve of Rinaldi, don’t you?
The Riani paper of 2013 is actually the same paper as their 2010 paper – the 2010 paper was presented to a conference, and then it was polished up for actual publication in 2013. Read the timelines on the top of the paper – it reads: “Received: 16 September 2011 / Accepted: 1 April 2012 / Published online: 27 April 2012”. The “research” is thus from way back in 2010, and is hardly state of the art. The conclusion in the 2013 “peer-reviewed” paper is that: “Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared.” No mention that “the C14 dating was wrong”. (That softening of the conclusion was probably a demand from the peer-review.) Also significant is that, on pg 556 they state: “It is clear that inference about the slope of the relationship depends critically on whether A2 was analysed”, and on pg 557 they state that, when they include the possibility that A2 was tested the statistics generates “an implausible data set.” Thus on pg 558, they state: “The broader conclusion of our analysis is that Arizona only analysed A1.We can therefore remove from our analysis all the combinations in which A2 was included.” However Rinaldi has demolished this critical assumption, in is famous “Own goal in Tucson” article, at [5]. The Arizona test thus clearly did include material from A2, thus the assumed statistical linearity of the data is actually non-existent, and the Riani paper is shown to be pie in the sky. You approve of Rinaldi, don’t you?
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
As stated by Ramsey, who is the leading C14 expert on shroud, this radiodation is now a problem for all experts. The job of a historian or an archaeologist is to assess conflicting data, this is not the job of a C14 expert. As shown above, Taylor does not even speak about Codex Pray and robust statistics, he is clearly out of touch.
As stated by Poulle in his review article, the Codex Pray enters in direct contradiction with the 1988 results. It constitutes an ongoing challenge for the 1988 dating.
I disagree with Rinaldi on his final point, and it seems to me that Rinaldi has recognized he was wrong on this. Simply because Jull says so. According to Riani in his article, "After we had completed our analysis we received a personal communication from Prof. Jull of the University of Arizona confirming that they did indeed only analyse A1. This finding provides a nice vindication of our methodology."
This is why Riani's paper remains unchallenged and why the poorly sourced sentence in the lede does not reflect the current state of the art. Thucyd (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Ramsey did not say everyone has a problem, and he certainly did not say the C14 results are no longer valid. He merely said that everyone should work together to find a hypothesis that works. You are really stretching here to find some straw of comfort.
As mentioned earlier, there is no rule demanding that a scientist has to address each wild theory by name and to refute them one by one. Taylor does mention at page 165 that “a continuing series of questions, objections and disputations” have been raised. Presumably the Codex nonsense and the Riani paper are included therein. He describes these theories as “creative hypotheses” and “heroic conjectures”. The latter clearly refers to the Pray Codex theory. I don’t think he is at all out of touch, he is merely a highly qualified scientist who disagrees with your POV.
All Poulle offers is that he believes that some dark ages texts are certainly referring to the shroud, even though they don’t actually mention the shroud. Hardly scientific evidence. This does not constitute a challenge to the C14 dating, especially since (as Rinaldi points out) anybody can see that the illustration does not show the shroud other than as a wad of nondescript cloth, and that the object which shroudies claim to be the shroud is actually the stone lid of the sarcophagus. Since you like historians so much, Charles Freeman, author and historian of medieval relics, is similarly dismissive of the Codex and the Mandylion theories. See[6] and [7].
The Riani paper is NOT “unchallenged”. I don’t know why you disagree with Rinaldi on his debunking of the Riani assumed statistical linearity (other than your POV of course), and I see no evidence at all that Rinaldi has “recognized he was wrong on this”. Riani et al claim Jull told them Tucson only tested sample A1. However in the Jull-Freer paper they clearly state that the surviving fragment is part of A1, not A2. They give its measurements as 10mm x 5mm, which is too big for the A2 sample and which – at 50sq mm – makes up about 1/3 of the A1 sample. If A2 wasn’t tested at all, then they must have cut 2/3 of A1 into 4 pieces – tiny bits indeed, as Rinaldi notes. This is hardly likely, because if it was possible to get 4 results from such small pieces then they would not have cut off such big pieces from the shroud to begin with. Also, what then happened to the untouched A2? Why did Jull-Freer not examine that fragment as well, since it would be quite a bit bigger (64 sq mm) than the piece they did study? Either the (Italian) authors misunderstood Jull, or the authors are being economical with the truth. Mmmmmmm. In clarifying that the Tucson remnant is part of A1, and thus the A2 sample was also tested, Rinaldi is clear, the numbers match up, and he is in agreement with Jull’s published data (as opposed to any apparent private correspondence which may or may not have happened with Fanti.)
The part where Rinaldi may indeed be wrong is to claim that Jull scored an “own-goal”. This refers to the great “number of threads per centimeter” debate. Jull obviously got the warp and weft back to front, as other authors have readily accepted – probably just a typo on their paper. If you swap them over, the results from Jull correspond quite well with other measurements taken from the shroud itself. (Jull 40 and 30; Raes 38.6 and 25.7; Vial 37.6; 25.8; etc). Bear in mind that the threads on the tiny Tucson remnant could easily have been pulled loose by all the handling and cutting, and thus are probably not as tightly woven anymore as they once were. Bear in mind also that Jull never had a full square centimeter of fabric left to work with, and that he therefore had to multiply out his count, which would have magnified the variation. Bear in mind that Rinaldi was apparently looking at a photo in a video, which is thus prone to multiple layers of distortion and resizing – Jull stated the fragment is 10mm by 5mm, ie a 2:1 ratio, whereas Rinaldi’s photograph did not show a 2:1 ratio – clearly some distortion was present in the photo as extracted from the video.) Perhaps Rinaldi was therefore a bit harsh in asking if people in Arizona could count to 20.
All in all, the scientific challenges to the dating have been refuted by scientific evidence, and only “heroic conjectures” remain – which don’t stand up to the hard science.
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk)
Rinaldi: "Quindi mi preme far notare che cade l'argomento che avevo espresso circa lo studio statistico di Fanti e colleghi." in January 2011... here.
Your description of the medieval period as a "dark age" leaves me speechless... But, in a way, I now clearly understand why you cannot agree with the reasoning of a former director of the Ecole Nationale des Chartes Thucyd (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I refer you to Rinaldi’s very next paragraph: “In realtà trovo sorprendente (se la notizia verrà confermata) che il laboratorio abbia usato solo metà del tessuto disponibile.” Google translates this as: “In fact I find it surprising (if the news is confirmed) that the laboratory has used only half of the available fabric.” In other words, Rinaldi is very skeptical of Fanti’s assertion – and rightly so. Rinaldi is polite enough to not call Fanti a liar in print – I imagine Italian law allows for libel lawsuits. However we are still waiting eagerly for over 5 years to hear if Jull actually confirms this private correspondence. Until then the Riani thesis is itself deeply suspect. All you have, against the full weight of all the C14 experts and the textile experts who have actually studied the shroud, is one paper by non-C14 experts which is based on a massive and unproven assumption, an assumption which is contradicted by scientific plausibility but which hangs on an unverified assertion about some private correspondence. That is not enough to support your claim that the “state of the art” invalidates the C14 dates.
It would help if the former director could offer some actual evidence. Andrea Nicolotti writes of Poulle's "opinion" that: “It seems to me that this is yet another attempt to see a shroud present somewhere, to the extent of imagining that Gregory Referendarius had wanted to allude, as he spoke of the Edessean image, to another relic kept in the same city, but without naming it, thus forcing his listeners into a leap of logic toward an object that is never mentioned in the sermon.”[2]
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
PPS: The Wikipedia article Dark Ages (historiography) writes (with references) in the lede that "Since the 20th century, [The term Dark Ages] is frequently applied to the earlier part of the era, the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century)." The Andrea Nicolotti comment I used above dates the events in question to AD944 - ergo "Dark Ages". Hopefully that restores your speech. Wdford (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
....I will try to be patient with you even if I detect some bad faith, to say the least...
The Pray Codex is from the late 12th century, not the 10th century. Can you see the difference?
You have made a beautiful cherry picking: why don't you quote the next the sentence in the lede of Dark Ages (historiography): "many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages"
The only thing you have shown is that there is an ongoing contoversy among scolars about the Pray Codex because it contradicts the 1988 dating. And this is my precisely my point. Thank you.
For Rinaldi, Jull has never denied the information, you have to assume good faith until proven otherwise. Even when it goes against your prejudice.
Therefore, it is obvious that Riani's conclusions remain unchallenged. Thucyd (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Your reference on the Poulle article referred to AD944, so I responded accordingly. And that is the Dark Ages, even if modern scholars are more politically correct and prefer not to use the term anymore. The object in the Pray Codex is not a shroud, it’s a stone sarcophagus lid. It has a number of “circles” on it, as do various other things in the painting, so they are probably not “holes”. Most significant is that it does not show the image of the man on the shroud, which is the most singular aspect of the cloth – far more significant than the holes or the weaving. As Rinaldi said, it’s a fallacy to equate them. This is not scientific evidence, this is wishful think – what Taylor called “heroic conjecture”. There certainly is “controversy”, but that is not the same thing as “evidence”. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", as they say, and to overturn a host of C14 experts and textile experts would require a lot more than wishful thinking about a few circles on a stone lid.
As I have mentioned before, Jull is not required to spend the rest of his life painstakingly identifying and refuting every nonsense theory that is throw in his general direction, and his refusal to play that game cannot be held up as a confession of fault on his part. Riani's conclusions have been challenged, on the basis of scientific rationality and the documented evidence, so you cannot continue to claim otherwise. Even if one day Jull does formally declare that the A2 sample wasn’t tested either (which would imply that Tucson only tested half of their material), then it still wouldn’t undermine the C14 dating. All Riani has is an apparent linear trend, which is one of 300,000 possible variations, and which is no more likely to be correct than any of the others. It is most probably due to differences in the extent to which the different cleaning procedures removed the accumulated dirt, and the apparent linearity could easily be simple coincidence. Riani’s conclusion was a very meek one in the end: “Our results indicate that, for whatever reasons, the structure of the TS is more complicated than that of the three fabrics with which it was compared.” This is hardly “extraordinary evidence”, and is certainly nowhere near strong enough to overturn a host of C14 experts and textile experts.
It’s quite amusing to see you demanding that we assume good faith for Fanti’s unverified claim. Why are you not prepared to assume good faith when the entire Damon team assert, in a peer-reviewed publication, that the dating sample was definitely original shroud cloth? Why are you not prepared to assume good faith when radiocarbon expert Gove asserts, from a wealth of experience and a personal study off the sample fragments, that there is zero evidence of dye, contamination or repairs? Why are you not prepared to assume good faith when textile expert Flury-Lemburg asserts, from a wealth of experience and a personal study of the shroud itself, that a completely invisible repair is impossible, and that there is zero evidence of any patching in that corner? Ditto Jull, Taylor and all the other C14 experts. Why do you not also “assume good faith” in their cases?
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Bad faith detected again: my sentence was: "As stated by Poulle in his review article, the Codex Pray enters in direct contradiction with the 1988 results." And what is your answer: "Your reference on the Poulle article referred to AD944, so I responded accordingly"...
My sentence was "you have to assume good faith until proven otherwise." For example: Jull has offered the ultimate proof that the 1988 protocol was not respected and that the Nature article was sometimes insincere (euphemism). And for all the others it is not a matter of good or bad faith but of divergent opinions among scholars.
By the way, I think that you should just stop showing us that your understanding of robust statistics is the same that your understanding of medieval historiography.
I think we should now stop our lengthy discussion. The main arguments are given, others have to decide. Thucyd (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The Riani regression analysis, like every regression analysis, starts with the assumption that there is a trend in there somewhere, and then sets out to identify it. If there is in fact zero trend, ie the relationships are purely coincidental, then the regression analysis may crash, or it may pull out an apparent trend that doesn’t really exist – particularly when you only have a very small number of data samples to begin with. “Robust” statistical methods then attempt to “improve” the identification of that trend by eliminating “outliers”, ie errors resulting from deviations from the original assumptions. Effectively what Riani and Fanti have done here is to assume that the distributions are not co-incidental, and then search out a trend based on that (possibly false) assumption, by assuming a variety of possible sample locations (from among 387,000 possible combinations) and settling on the combination that supports their original assumption, then eliminating all data points that conflict with that original assumption so as to confirm their original assumption.
Since the three labs used a variety of different cleaning procedures, the data was never going to be homogenous to begin with – this was done deliberately so as to get the widest possible spread of data from a small number of samples. However Riani/Fanti have chosen to assume that this heterogeneity is due to differences in the fabric rather than differences in the pretreatment thereof, and have built a model accordingly. The meekness of their final conclusion, compared to the strident proclamation in their original presentation of this study, is a triumph for peer-reviewing.
I dealt with your original Poulle statement higher up – he states an opinion without any evidence to support it, and that opinion has been demolished. You then referred me back to the cited paper, which deals with the AD944 issue – and I responded to that too. Not bad faith from me, just focusing on the data before me.
Clinging to the 1988 protocol is a waste of time – there is more than one way to achieve a result. All you need is competent people, good equipment and reliable samples. The people and the equipment have never been questioned. The reliability of the samples has been savagely attacked, but the various theories – repairs, contamination, added carbon, bending of the laws of physics – have all been disposed of by actual experts using actual evidence. There is no divergence of opinion – the actual experts ALL support the validity of the dates.
The shroudies continue to clutch at straws, certainly, but they have no evidence that the C14 dates are wrong – other than that the C14 dates don’t agree with their own POV. Pollen from Jerusalem is meaningless because there is also pollen from America, and this obvious pollen contamination disqualifies pollen as a reliable indicator. Some people claim to see coins etc in old photographs, but detailed analysis of modern photographs shows there is absolutely nothing there. There is zero actual evidence that the shroud existed at an earlier date – notwithstanding heroic conjectures about the Pray Codex and the wishful thinking of Poulle, Wilson etc. Testing the strength of crumbling fragments and then assuming they represent the strength of non-crumbling fragments is just sad. And there is nothing “insincere” about the Nature article.
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Tons of useless words again. I guess we agree to disagree. Someone else for a comment? Thucyd (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wdford is right. You can only do statistics if you know what you are talking about. Refuting homogeneity when everybody who does know what he is talking about knows beforehand that the samples would not be homogeneous is pointless. The C14 experts are relevant, and non-C14-expert statisticians who didn't inform themselves before starting their calculations are not. What they did is sometimes called "methodolatry": Look up formula, apply it without thinking to a case where it is not appropriate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Complete nonsense... Riani and Atkinson are top leading experts in robust statistics, and they have of course taken into account the laboratory effects. Read the paper.
"the unweighted analysis provides no evidence of heterogeneity in the means of the three control samples and so no evidence of systematic differences between laboratories. The plots of the means for all four fabrics in Fig. 2 of Damon et al. (1989) reinforce this point; heterogeneity, or a laboratory effect, is only evident for the TS."
"Our permutation-based regression analysis has been able to explain the observed heterogeneity of the data without the introduction of laboratory effects. In this we are consistent with the analyses of the other fabrics, where such heterogeneity is absent."
On Wikipedia, you have to produce reliable sources, not your own laborious reasoning. Thucyd (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, you have to use reliable sources for the subject. Subject: Radiocarbon dating. Source: statisticians. Not a reliable source. Duh. Why don't you answer Wdford's "PS: I’m still waiting" question?
BTW, if they are "top leading experts in robust statistics", why don't we have articles about them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You wrote: "Subject: Radiocarbon dating. Source: statisticians. Not a reliable source."
Thank you for this beautiful explanation, Hob Gadling. It is now obious that, according to you, a reliable source which challenges the 1988 radiocarbon dating on a discussion about the challenges of the 1988 radiocarbon dating is unreliable when it challenges the 1988 radiocarbon dating. Thucyd (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Amazingly, Thucyd, in the very next paragraph of the Riani paper, they admit that: “Christen (1994) used these data as an example of Bayesian outlier detection with a mean shift outlier model (Abraham and Box 1978) in which the null model was that the data were a homogeneous sample from a single normal population. He found that the two extreme observations, 591 and 795 were indicated as outlying. When these two observations were removed, the data appeared homogeneous, with a posterior distribution of age that agreed with the conclusion of Damon et al. (1989).” In other words, Riani started with the assumption that there was a linear trend, and they manipulated the data until they concocted an apparent linear trend. Christen started with the assumption that there was NO linear trend, and his robust approach confirmed that the data was indeed homogenous, and that the Damon result was valid. Now isn’t that INTERESTING?
This is a classic case of “confirmation bias”.
The Riani paper also states that: “The alternative we consider is that there is a smooth trend which we approximate by a simple regression model. Justification for this physical model comes from Freer-Waters and Jull (2010) who comment that the various pretreatments used by Damon et al. (1989) ensure that the dates are not so sensitive as to fluctuate over small distances due, for example, to handling.” This is amazing – I have a copy of the Jull-Freer paper, and THEY SAY NO SUCH THING!
What the Damon report actually said was: “there are no significant differences between the results obtained with the different cleaning procedures that each used.” They never said there were zero differences, merely that the observed differences were not significant - which is obviously correct.
Laboratory effects could refer to differences in the calibration of the equipment used – or to differences in the extent to which contamination was removed by the different pre-treatment procedures. Because the contamination of the shroud was probably of a different type and intensity to that on the control samples, a slight difference in the effectiveness of cleaning is not actually surprising – which might not be replicated on the control samples with their different types and levels of contamination. Riani appear to have cherry-picked a bit here.
Riani also then admit that “There is also no evidence of any patching in this part of the TS which might cause a jump in dating.” FASCINATING!
PS: I’m still waiting for you to present an actual C14 expert who refutes the shroud dating result. Wdford (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thucyd, you are a liar. That is not what I am saying and you know it. Why do shroudies have to use such tactics? Because that is what pseudoscientists do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hob, please, remain civil. Thucyd (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You could have easily avoided being called a liar by not lying. You read what I wrote and you chose to misrepresent it. Not my fault. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Tag on scientific perspective

I know where you are coming from. However if we remove all the BS from this section, the supporters of the various camps will just add it back in again - edit-warring if necessary to get their point across. Religious articles really attract the crazies. Arguments about "who is actually a reliable source" are unlikely to be productive here. I would prefer to leave things be, and just add some sort of caveat to the article that most of the points are from primary sources. That doesn't mean that the primary sources are wrong - this is only a problem where secondary sources contradict primary sources. In this case real scientists don't usually get involved in publishing secondary material on the topic because they consider the case to be closed by the C14 tests, while the shroudies are publishing furiously - in conjunction with whichever co-authors they can drag in, regardless of evidence, specialist competence or even the laws of physics. I urge you to find a better path. :) Wdford (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, since there isn't consensus for this I will remove it. Sizeofint (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This article needs to be listed as low quality and in need of revision

This article lists fraudulent sources. Known fakers and frauds are quoted as scientific sources. Articles from theological journals (Heythrup) are listed under "scientific perspective" whatever that is supposed to mean. I suppose the completely shameless and unconscionable editors that choose to include clearly biased and undisciplined writings as science believe that the word "perspective" allows for "sciency" sounding articles with big words gathered from theological sources to be fobbed off as actual science. They are not. This can all be solved by listing ONLY scientific articles in one section labelled "Science Supported Works" and having the multitude of frauds that would write anything for book sales or sponsorship by fooled widows in a section labelled "Unsupported Articles Without Rigor." This article needs to marked as low quality and in need of revision if Wikipedia wishes to be taken seriously. Is there a way for the Wikipedia foundation to step in and ban editors who are knowingly misrepresenting in articles? A ban of the editor or editors who included a Heythrup source as "scientific Perspective" would be a good start. Is there a hall of shame for wikipedia articles? If so, this article should be at the top of the list. Since there is so much garbage like this in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not seem inclined to introduce reasonable standards it seems time for the establishment of an external metawiki maintained by credentialed authorities bound by their shared recognition of the need for rigor and veracity in a so called encyclopedia.2602:306:8B5F:7F50:1807:AA88:9423:D4CD (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see Heythrup being used as a source here - please would you point us to the actual paragraph? Wdford (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It's "Heythrop", and it is in the section "Minimal Facts approach", which could be deleted without loss of information (there would be a loss of disinformation though). --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - the source is probably not WP:RS, and the actual content is based on "what do we think is the most likely explanation, if we ignore actual scientific evidence such as the C14 tests." I would be happy to delete it, but the shroudies like to retain these straws. Does anybody object if this entire little paragraph is removed? Wdford (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am always in favor of removing low-quality sources. Just because it has been published doesn't mean it is accepted knowledge. In this case a grand total of zero other articles cite it four years after publication. Sizeofint (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New research paper

New and recent research has been published on the Shroud of Turin on 30 June 2017 to the open-access journal Plos One titled Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud. Here is a link to the paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180487

Abstract: We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

This paper has already been noted in the article. Sizeofint (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The science is complete.

The recent analysis of Shroud tests reveals a fully consistant date. With all known tests.

However wikipedia anti chr istians are preventing normal edits.

The executive summery is http:// the ub ie . Co m / Shroud Date.htm

And the full paper can be found at http:// theu bie. Com / k.htm

It appears to be the final word on the date. 

Though obviiusly people have no end of things to theorize and say.

While the paper focuses on the date, it does not address the image formation in great detail however that too appears rather simple. Yet the theories of elaborate and mystical physocs is also a beautiful dream.

Info@ t he ubi e . Com

Ps please stop Racist terrorists from attacking what i write.

(racisim is not hate -- racisim is theft)

Theft of freedom, money, property, hope, truth...

All crime is theft.

All theft circulates endlessly through the economy appearing randomly in the form of violence and dispare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.233.120 (talk • contribs)

If the science is complete, we'll wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed scholarly source instead of on a website whose URL you have to camouflage to get through the blacklist. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective, By R.E. Taylor, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Routledge 2016; pg 167-168
  2. ^ From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: The Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend, By Andrea Nicolotti, pg 66-67, at https://books.google.co.za/books?id=W2HPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=poulle,+shroud&source=bl&ots=JTcF2fqJHi&sig=IU8dI23hVKQyjgS9tJXJU27JaVw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAsNubgb3PAhVoIsAKHRtaAGoQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=poulle%2C%20shroud&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shroud_of_Turin/Archive_14&oldid=816383491"