Talk:Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

Untitled

It's one of my first translation: so, please, correct where you find mistakes. I'll finish it as fast as I can do... though I thought useful save it incomplete too. Anarchy is Order (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision/proofreading

Hello,
I'm undertaking the revision and proofreading of the article (a feat many seem to undertake and then abandon...) - please contact me or write here for any question/suggestions etc.
--Campelli (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finished the rewrite and the proofread (wow, it took a long time!) - I've also added significant referencing.--Campelli (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Amount of Contamination?

The article states "Contamination by as little as 2% additional carbon molecule may be sufficient, the documentary suggests, to backdate the shroud by almost 14 centuries" Although this quote is cited, the claim that contamination of 2% additional carbon isn't realistic. Walter McCrone calculated the amount of contamination needed to shift the results by 13 centuries would be double the amount in the shroud itself. (See http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index.html for one source.) I did the calculation in 1999, and got a result of 1.8, or 180%, much closer to McCrone's result than that cited by Jull.

I suggest the article be updated to reflect these conflicting claims. It might also be a good idea to show the calculation.

(By the way, whether the calculation is "simple" or not depends on your math skills.)

SlowJog (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC). Amended SlowJog (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Gove calculated that 71% of the sample must be non original to bias the data. This was written in his book.

Also - Since when was Harry Gove in STURP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.140.240 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So Harry Gove calculated slightly more contamination (71%) of the total sample than McCrone (67%) or I (64%) did. SlowJog (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "2% carbon" claim should be removed altogether as it's completely false. I also don't think that Jull, a staunch critic of Kouznetzov, implied that this was the case, although I don't have access rights to view the article. Possibly misinterpreted by original author of this section? JTansut (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked into this issue, so can not comment, but if you want to be sure, leave a message for user:Thucyd who knows a lot about the topic and discuss it. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello JTansut and History. Unfortunately I am not an expert in this 2% thing. In my opinion it is just a detail. But I can tell you that currently there is a huge discussion between all scientists around a peer-reviewed article published by Timothy Jull in december in Radiocarbon, his own journal (University of Arizona). Jull claimed that he kept in secrecy in 1988 a unknown sample and that he cannot confirm Rogers' findings (Thermochimica Acta, 2005). However shroudies are not convinced and even a well known skeptic (pro forgery) wrote a couple of days ago that in fact Jull demonstrated that the datation was invalid ! You can follow the controversy day by day here (Shroud of turin blog, Dan Porter). Thucyd (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Earliest record

I placed the 'dubious' tag amid existence of Pray Codex as the relevant place is disputed. Brand[t] 07:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent News

Hi, I know that I am not a complete expert in this subject, but I am working on the spanish article regarding the shroud, and I would like to let you know, so that somebody may update this article, that a recent congress in Valencia has said that the radiocarbon proof was not valid, having included other samples of wool. If somebody needs the whole article, let me know, I think I have it in spanish, but I can translate it.--FMateos (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, please provide the article author, title, date and conference name. If there is a weblink to it will also be good. Also please provide a wikilink to the Spanish wiki article when it is ready. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up needed for neutrality

There are a lot of comments in this article which are not referenced. They tend to be the more contentious statements, and almost all of them are casting unsubstantiated doubt on the validity of the C14 process and on the integrity of the people concerned. No attempt has been made to add references, although they were tagged a while back already. Should these non-referenced statements be removed now, in terms of WP:Policy? Wdford (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not read the article in any detail, it just separated from the main article. From what I know of the state of the field the scholarly consensus is that:

The scientists involved were both careful and neutral. No serious allegations of lack of personal integrity have been shown to be valid, and indeed there have been very few of these allegations anyway.

The equipment the scientists used was generally well maintained etc.

The key contention has been all along that the person who did the actual sampling of the cloth showed up out of nowhere (his name was Reggia I think) and he had been selected by the manufacturer of something. The key contention is thus that the sample was non-representative. But that does not tarnish the scientists who had nothing to do with the sampling.

A secondary allegation at the beginning of the 21st century was that the Oxford lab made a mistake of some type and Christopher Ramsey issued various statements on that.

Anyway, this article is a real mess. The problem is that it will take a lot of work to fix it. I think it should really lose 70% of what there is and just state the points above with references. If you want to trim it go ahead, but please do not push it back the other way too far. The pendulum has a habit of swinging back and forth. I think we should also ask the opinion of Thucyd who knows more about it than myself. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it a little more and I think the section structure needs to change and whatever can be referenced and salvaged can move in there. Then a smaller, better quality article may emerge. I will suggest a section structure below. I also made a copy of the current rummage sale here so we can grab material from it and add it as things get cleaned up. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up is definitely needed because those who hate Christianity and don't want the shroud to be genuine want their perspective to rule, not only wikipedia but all the Internet and the world. But the fact is that the original radiocarbon dating was made on a patched piece of the shroud and this has been proven beyond doubt and the 16th century cotton that was rewoven in that repair gave a false reading in the carbon dating. As a result, when this was conclusively proven, new carbon dating was authorized which confirmed that the date of the shroud is from the time of Jesus' death. Those responsible for this article should have already come back and corrected it since the new results of the latest carbon dating were announced world-wide in March of 2013. This angers and annoys those who hate Christianity and their failure to correct this page shows it pains them to report the truth that the shroud is not a fake after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.92.180 (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's easier to discuss neutrality if you assume good faith of other editors, rather than guessing that they all hate Christianity. The criticism of the carbon dating being taken from a patched part of the shroud and Giulio Fanti's 2013 research are both documented in the section titled "The sample was part of a later repair". I agree that if Fanti's research was regarded as "conclusive" by the scientific community then it should be more prominent - is that the case? --McGeddon (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that good faith should be assumed. Nevertheless, I think that the opening text is unscientific and betrays a POV: "These results are generally accepted by the scientific community." Which scientists were polled? When were they polled? Did they have an informed view about the shroud? Do those scientists who "generally accept" the results have the vaguest notion of how the image was formed? Or are they just "generally accepting the results" because they believe that other scientists generally accept the results.

Within the scientific community who have actually studied the shroud, there are, as the article later points out, several different points of view: peer-reviewed scientific literature goes in different directions. Moreover, the 1988 radio-carbon dating does not find much support in other historical evidence: the pollen, the concordance with the Sudarium of Oviedo; the dirt from Jerusalem; the inability to account for how the image was formed in the 14th century; etc. I believe that the main wikipedia page on the shroud gives a much fairer and balanced account when it states: "According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[3] The shroud continues to remain one of the most studied and controversial artifacts in human history." To say "These results are generally accepted by the scientific community." suggests that the controversy exists between informed objective scientists and mostly uninformed superstitious non-scientists.CarlosChio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Padua tests were NOT C14 tests - they used some other ideas which they thought up themselves, the reliability of which has not been verified.

Second, there is dispute over the authenticity of the fibers tested - they were not from the C14 test, and they may or may not even be from the shroud.

Third, the so-called "repair controversy" has been debunked conclusively and by multiple specialists using actual shroud evidence - there was no repair in that section of the shroud, and thus the C14 dating is fine.

Fourth, the Padua "tests" imply that the shroud was really old, which contradicts the repair theory.

All in all, the pro-authenticity camp are undermining and contradicting each other in their separate attempts to "prove" that the shroud is authentic, while the actual scientific dating says clearly and unequivocally that its medieval. They have not yet agreed on how the image was made, but the cloth itself is clearly not an authentic 1st century artifact.

The existence of the pollen and dirt etc is disputed, not least of all because the single sample which appears to be laden with pollen from the Holy Land was not backed up by the many pollen samples taken by STURP, and because the pollens were heavy on foreign plants but lacking in French and Italian plants even though the shroud was frequently exhibited outdoors in France and Italy. Ball stated that the remaining uncertainty is about how the image was formed, not when it was formed.

Wdford (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire to get into a detailed ping-pong match about pro and anti. Of course the pollen, dirt, etc are disputed. Practically everything about the shroud is disputed, including the carbon dating. I simply ask: how do you scientifically arrive at a statement: "Results are generally accepted by the scientific community"? I submit that this is not a scientific claim, but a gut-feel claim made by someone with a POV that the shroud has to be a fraud. I don't know whether or not it is. I am agnostic about the matter. But committed skeptics cannot afford to admit the possibility that it may be genuine without jeopardising their core POVs (which they conflate with science). They have to hand-wave and claim "scientists generally agree" in the hope of lending weight to their POV. I don't mind that you or anyone else has the POV that it is a fraud, but I do feel uncomfortable about wikipedia being used as a forum to propagate (probably unconsciously) that particular POV. I am content to leave the matter at that. I doubt that the POV will be removed. In my experience, the skeptical POV tends to seep into wikipedia pages, despite the best of intentions to remain neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosChio (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientists normally accept the results of other scientists, unless there is good reason not to - that is how science works - otherwise they would all be continually reinventing the wheel. The C14 tests were done by a collection of experts, working in three different teams with three different labs and multiple different cleaning methodologies etc, and they all came out with a medieval result. The pro-camp then claimed the samples were contaminated, but as per the article - various actual experts with actual shroud evidence conclusively debunked those claims. The repair-supporters were largely testing "mystery threads" which they believed came from the shroud, rather than material which could be proved to be shroud fibers. Various pro-campers continue to hold conferences to rehash the hope and keep the flame alive, including some POV scientists who continually invent new tests that consistently give the result they desire, but the general scientific community accepts the scientific results from the scientific tests. It's not because they hate Christianity, it's because the evidence is conclusive.

The specific details are all in the article already.

If you gather all the pro-authenticity literature, most of it comes from bloggers, and only a handful of actual scientists still claim to believe the shroud is authentic. Wdford (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I likewise have no desire to engage in an extended debate over this, but the claim made in the article that most scientists accept the validity of the conclusions of the 1988 C-14 testing is neither accurate nor supported by the citation. In fact, most scientists believe that the samples tested from the edges of the cloth may not have been representative of the whole of the cloth, and have recommended additional testing from a sample from the center of the cloth. Moreover, the claim that only a few handful of scientists claim the shroud is authentic is misleading. Science is never going to prove the shroud is authentic, and no scientist can offer a scientific assessment that the shroud is authentic. As one trained in science, I believe science has disproven conclusively that the shroud is the work of a medieval artist. However, I have no scientific explanation for how that image appeared on that cloth, and to date, no satisfactory scientific explanation has been offered. In fact, every time the cloth is examined forensically with innovations in technology, that issue becomes clouded with more mystery. ----

Suggested section structure

Background and history

The STURP situation, how they got permission to do the sampling, etc. Also teh process for the selection of the labs.

The sampling process

How the sampling was performed, etc.

Laboratory analysis

Discuss the labs, the methods used and the results

Late 20th century perspectives

The debates that ensued after analysis.

21st century developments

New developments, etc.

Do Marino and Benford qualify as reliable sources? Marino is an ex-monk, Benford is an ex-athlete, they are both apparently "paranormal researchers" and I am not aware that either is a "scholar" as such? Wdford (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly my position if you look through the previous archives on the other page. I joked about them as nobodies. Then Thucyd pointed out that they got published in peer-reviewed places. So he changed my mind on that one. So if they publish in peer reviewed (I forget where) they are OK but if non peer-reviewed then probably not. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the pendulum has gone too far now in the lede, e.g. the statement: "linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval" should be "the tested sample from the Shroud of Turin" because they only tested one piece of it - obviously. The whole debate is that they do not have access to it. And if it had been that conclusive Philip Ball would not have said what he did about the situation being still very murky etc. History2007 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't change that sentence as part of "swinging the pendulum" - that was part of the original wording. However I have since changed it as well, per your suggestion. Wdford (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have too much time. The last peer-reviewed article questioning the radiocarbon dating was published last month in Statistics and Computing. See abstract. Thucyd (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but that link is "unavailable". I'll try again later. Wdford (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is obsolete and out of date. The carbon-14 dating referenced on this page was proven wrong by Ray Rogers (of the STURP team) and new carbon dating was done. That should be on this page. Ray Rogers' paper was published in the January 2005 edition of Thermochimica Acta and the results of the new carbon-14 tests showed that the shroud was indeed from the time of Jesus.

Ray Rogers paper addressed the contamination of the shroud samples by dyed medieval cotton fibers professionally woven into the linen shroud to repair it in the middle ages and not discovered by the STURP team but suggested by a paper written be Sue Benford and Joe Marino. Their paper so angered Ray Rogers that he told Barrie Schwortz that he could prove them wrong in five minutes. Barrie said "go for it." Rogers called him back the same day and said, "They were right" SO THIS PAGE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED because Ray wrote his final paper which I addressed above and that paper compelled action and new carbon-14 tests were done from the scapings of the charred remains cleaned from the shroud in 2002. Wikipedia editors are exceptionally lazy on this issue.71.2.183.232 (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The most recent survey of the various claims that I know of in a reliable source is Taylor & Bar-Yosef, Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective (2014), which reviews the shroud, the testing, and the subsequent controversy. It unequivocally concludes that the AMS dates were "entirely consistent with the best documented historical context of this artifact", and that the various arguments put forth against the validity of the dates were not sound. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There have been zero official C14 dating attempts since 1988 - please provide references for the dating of charred remains. Benford was a psychic ex-nurse who concocted her invisible repair theory after Jesus appeared to her in a vision and tipped her off. Rogers did his stuff on a few threads that were sent to him in the post, without any means of verifying their origin. The most likely source was that they originated from the hem of the shroud that was trimmed off during the original sampling process and discarded because of visible contamination, but certainly the Vatican has declared that they are not valid shroud samples. I dispute your accusation of laziness. Wdford (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Challenges refuted?

Wdford, just have a look at the Barcaccia paper. This the sentence you want to keep: "These challenges have been refuted by experts using actual shroud evidence."

Now look at what write actual experts by experts who analyzed actual shroud evidence, in their introduction: "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" The two papers are explicitly the Riani's and Rogers' articles (see the refs.). (paper).

So, do you still think that this sentence in the lead reflects correctly the ongoing controversy? Seriously? If so, please give a more recent and reliable source. Thucyd (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no helping a shroudie. However, for the sake of other readers, let us try one more time.

This contested sentence refers specifically to the repair hypothesis. The repair hypothesis has been debunked, by actual experts using actual shroud evidence. We have had this discussion many times before. The details are in the article, and the numerous discussions are in the talk page archive.

The Barcaccia paper makes absolutely no mention of the repair hypothesis. It certainly does not over-ride or invalidate those reasoned arguments of actual experts who were studying actual shroud material. It merely mentions the mere existence of the main pro-authenticity papers, and adds no new material other than to mention the existence thereof. We have done the same in the article. Maybe Barcaccia et all derived this background info from Wikipedia?

The Barcaccia paper notes the presence of many tree species, including samples from the USA and China which are “not negligible”. All of these species are now present in Europe, so they conclude that these pollens may be from recent contaminations rather than traces from 2000 years ago. This of course opens the possibility that ALL pollens on the fabric are of more recent contamination – especially as the cloth has been repeatedly washed (and even boiled) thereby removing most of the original pollens anyway. This point is however valuable for the articles, as it demonstrates that the Max Frei tests were rigged – he apparently only found pollens that perfectly traced a hypothetical route from Jerusalem via Constantinople, and somehow his samples excluded all the American and Chinese pollens.

The Barcaccia paper concludes that the human mtDNA traces are compatible with both alternative scenarios, i.e. that the cloth had a Medieval origin in Western Europe or that it came originally from the Middle East. This is again based on the probability that much of the DNA arises from recent contamination. They do also raise the possibility that the cloth originated in India, because there was “Indian DNA” on the fibers. The most likely explanation is of course that the shroud has been touched by recent pilgrims with Indian ethnicity, but the mere fact that they propose an Indian origin with apparent seriousness opens questions about their credibility. This is also likely to upset the shroudies quite a lot. :)

Wdford (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wdford. You wrote:

1) "There is no helping a shroudie". In case you don't know, it s an ad hominem (association fallacy) . I understand your reaction on this heated topic, your POV and bias, but please don't overreact.

2) "The Barcaccia paper makes absolutely no mention of the repair hypothesis." The paper explicitly mentions Rogers and Riani articles, as explained above. And you know it. Just read the lines and the refs.

3) "It merely mentions the mere existence of the main pro-authenticity papers, and adds no new material other than to mention the existence thereof. We have done the same in the article." The review made in their intro. explicitely underlines that there is still an ongoing controversy on the radiocarbing dating. The review does not say that the controversy, including on the repair hypothesis, is over. Quite the contrary, it is crystal clear!

4) I repeat my question, because you left it unanswered: have you a better source for the unreferenced sentence you wanna keep in the lede? Thucyd (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated above, this article is only about the radiocarbon dating, not the entire story about the shroud generally, and this contested sentence refers specifically to the debunking of the repair hypothesis. The repair hypothesis has verily been debunked, by actual experts using actual shroud evidence. I have added the references etc as requested by you, although the lede is actually supposed to be a summary of the referenced material in the body of the article.

The Barcaccia paper deals with DNA testing, not the repair hypothesis, and it concludes that the DNA evidence does not offer a definitive answer on the dating question. It merely mentions the existence of the main pro-authenticity papers, and adds no new material to support them. The fact that a research paper on a different topic happens to mention the existence of old papers does not suddenly give those old papers fresh legitimacy.

Benford concocted the repair hypothesis after Jesus tipped her off in a vision. Rogers performed his comparisons against unprovenanced threads which he received in the post from a person who was not authorised to possess genuine shroud material, and even the church itself has scorned the authenticity of such threads. Riani (egged on by Fanti) concluded that – IF you ASSUME that the dated samples occurred in one specific hypothetical combination out of 387072 possible hypothetical combinations, then it COULD be made to SEEM as though a trend exists which MIGHT indicate contamination which POSSIBLY could sway the date by a few centuries – although not by the 13 centuries needed to make it authentic. Read that paper again and see how many times they use the word “ASSUME”. As discussed previously, their core assumption – that Arizona did not date the A2 sample at all – is demonstrably false. The Riani conclusions are thus statistically invalid anyway.

On the other hand, Damon et al, Lemburg, Jackson and Jull all separately confirmed, from ACTUAL SHROUD EVIDENCE, that there is no evidence of a repair in the sampled area. You would need to produce a powerful new source to overturn all these experts – not Fanti endlessly developing new tests with hypothetical margins of error, and not papers on unrelated subjects which mention in passing that some papers were once published on the subject.

The repair hypothesis is dead, Thucyd, although a small and dwindling handful of wishful thinkers continuing to clutch at straws. They do not constitute a scientific controversy – the case on the dating is as closed as the case on the flat earth.

Wdford (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wdford. I reverted your bold edit in the lede. In a controversy, "talk page first" is for everybody, including for you.

Barcaccia introduction includes an evaluation of the ongoing controversy on the radiocarbon dating.

Please, for the third time, give at least your most recent reliable secondary source, also published in a prestigious journal.

I remind you that "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." WP:RS/AC

My suggestion: we could just say: "Polarized conclusions remain". Cf. Habermas, the encyclopedia of Christian civilization, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, p. 2161.

PS. Sorry but your dubious personal interpretation of peer-reviewed papers is of no interest on WP. Please, save our space and your time. Thucyd (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have given - repeatedly - a range of top experts who have all refuted this repair hypothesis based on actual evidence - not speculative statistics, not psychic visions, ACTUAL EVIDENCE. I have also added expert secondary sources such as Ramsey, who was clear and unequivocal, but you reverted all that because its didn't agree with your POV. My suggestion: we could just leave it as it is - an expert team and three experts labs all reached the same conclusion based on actual shroud evidence, a few random people disagreed based on assumptions and unprovenanced threads, and then a few additional experts refuted them using actual shroud evidence. That is the reality, and the current wording is thus just fine. Wdford (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add, to the last sentence: "These challenges have been refuted by experts using actual shroud evidence, but a small number of scientists in various non-radiocarbon-dating specializations refuse to accept this, and continue to search for alternative explanations." I think that is factually accurate, yes? Wdford (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ramsey'interview is low-quality RS: not even peer-reviewed. Same thing with Flury-Lemberg article.

The sentence you propose doesn't reflect the state of the art and is not backed by a high-quality RS. Again: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." WP:RS/AC

3 examples of good RS : "The scientific community today is still divided as regards the authenticity of the cloth and related sequence of events, and studies undertaken so far have not enabled the enigma surrounding the identity of the person whose image is imprinted on the cloth to be resolved. Not even the fairly accurate chronological range resulting from the radiocarbon 14C tests, dating it from around the thirteenth to fifteenth century, have been able to settle differences among scholars."Lorusso, 2012, Conservation science in cultural heritage.

"this traditional view was challenged severely by carbon-14 tests (...) For many, this is the last word on the subject. A subsequent chemical study indicated that threads taken during the 1988 test differed significantly from testing threads taken a decade earlier. The study concluded that the carbon-14 dated material was not part of the original cloth. Still, polarized conclusions regarding the shroud remain." Habermas, Enclyclopedia of the Christian civilization, 2012.

"Radiocarbon dating results assign the Shroud a date of approximately 1260–1390, which remains one of the most contentious topics among both skeptics and pro-Shroud enthusiasts." Kearse, 2013, Theology and Science.

This the reason why I think that a sentence such as "polarized conclusions remain" is the most accurate, and explicitly backed by high-level reliable secondary sources. Thucyd (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course the “controversy” is still sputtering along at a barely-surviving-zombie-level - it’s dying embers are fanned occasionally by people like Fanti for their own reasons. However Habermas makes it seem like it’s a 50/50 situation, which it clearly is not. Such a comment would thus be unacceptably POV.

You cannot cherry-pick sources, and discard evidence from experts, merely on the basis of peer-review. Peer reviewed journals are not the only sources viewed as reliable by Wikipedia – see WP:V for details.

It specifically says at WP:V: :Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers
• Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria.

So it is clear from WP:V that the published statements of an acknowledged expert can be used as reliable sources without need of peer-review.

To quote another important point from WP:V:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

• The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
• The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)

All three can affect reliability.

And another important point from WP:V: The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

Since the field here is radiocarbon dating, let’s look at the reliability of the sources IN THIS CONTEXT:

One the one side, we have:

• The Damon team – the radiocarbon dating experts of their day, working from actual shroud material and backed by a team of statisticians working directly from actual lab data. They published their report in the journal Nature.
• Dr. AJT Jull, Professor of Geosciences and Physics at the University of Arizona, and Director of the NSF-Arizona AMS Facility – a radiocarbon-dating lab. Published in the journal Radiocarbon, which is obviously a specialist journal on this particular subject.
• Professor Christopher Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, a current radiocarbon dating expert and directly quoted in the mainstream Telegraph newspaper, and thus a reliable source.

On the other side we have:

• Habermas - Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, the largest Evangelical Christian University in the world, and his comment was published in the Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. He is undoubtedly very expert in what Christians believe about resurrections, although probably not very objective about that topic, but is he an expert on radiocarbon dating?
• Ray Rogers – a chemist (i.e. non radiocarbon dating specialist) – published in a chemistry journal and peer-reviewed by chemists (i.e. non radiocarbon dating specialists). His work was done on unprovenanced threads which he received in the post from a person who was not authorised to possess genuine shroud material, and his conclusions were directly refuted by Jull the radiocarbon dating expert working from actual shroud sample material.
• The Riani team – statisticians plus Fanti (i.e. all non radiocarbon dating specialists) who were published in a statistics journal and peer-reviewed by statisticians (i.e. non radiocarbon dating specialists). They admitted openly in their paper that they were working on assumptions in the absence of actual shroud material, and their conclusions were contradicted by those of three independent labs all working from actual shroud material and backed by teams of statisticians working directly from actual lab data.

If we have to distinguish between reliable sources, which set of sources is more reliable IN THIS CONTEXT?

I don’t generally agree with including quotes in the lede, as the lede is supposed to be a summary of the material in the article, not a separate source of material in itself. However if you absolutely MUST do this, Habermas is not a very reliable source IN THIS CONTEXT.

See instead this quote from Ramsey, an actual expert: “It's also been hypothesised that the patch we tested was a modern repair, but most of us agree that's implausible, because the weave is very unusual and matches the rest of the shroud perfectly.” [Italics mine]. This is thus a good secondary expert source backing up the identical conclusions of Lemberg, Jackson and Jull.

See also this quote from Taylor et al, in a book which specifically considers radiocarbon dating in the context of archaeology: “Despite such evidence, some continue to urge that to settle definitively any remaining reasonable objections to the validity of the original set of C14 measurements as accurately dating the Turin Shroud, another set of C14 measurements is needed ..” [Italics mine]. Ergo, another good secondary expert source backing up my original lede sentence.

These quotes both indicate that the controversy is not silent, but that “most” scientists agree that the C14 results are reliable, and that only “some” people are still searching for new straws to clutch at. This comprehensively supports my original sentence in the lede. However they also put the statements you quoted into a more accurate and more neutral light, do they not? Since these quotes are coming from expert sources who are much more reliable than Habermas or Fanti, and since their conclusions are much more neutral, if you really want to include a quote in the lede then perhaps it should be one of these rather?

Perhaps we should rather drop the last two sentences of the lede (ie the entire final paragraph), and say instead that: "While most scientists accept the accuracy of the C14 dating, some continue to urge that additional testing be undertaken." What do you think? Wdford (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you say: "You cannot cherry-pick sources, and discard evidence from experts, merely on the basis of peer-review. Peer reviewed journals are not the only sources viewed as reliable by Wikipedia – see WP:V for details." It think I see where our problem is. You and I are searching the most reliable source. But you have forgotten that "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." Wikipedia:Sources.

Therefore you believe that an interview in a newspaper of an author of the C14 dating could be "the most reliable source"...

Otherwise, again, I won't comment your laborious interpretation of papers that tend to disagree with your POV and your ad hominem fallacies.

So I think we can ask for other user comments: what do they prefer: "While most scientists accept the accuracy of the C14 dating, some continue to urge that additional testing be undertaken." or "Polarized conclusions remain". Someone? Thucyd (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ooooookay. Let me see if I understand you correctly - you are actually suggesting that a professor of religion who knows nothing about radiocarbon dating, should be considered to be a more reliable source on radiocarbon dating than an actual professor of radiocarbon dating, because the professor of religion was peer-reviewed by a panel of fellow religious authors who also know nothing about radiocarbon dating, while the actual professor of radiocarbon dating was merely stating his expert opinion to a mainstream newspaper? Are you sure that is what Wikipedia means by “reliable sources”?

Consider also this statement in a book on the Resurrection co-authored by the same Habermas: “In our minimal facts approach we will not consider the shroud, since it is not accepted as genuine by the vast majority of all scholars who study the subject.”

Wdford (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! A simple interview of an author of the C14 dating does not even constitute an independent source and therefore cannot be considered as an high-quality reliable source. Sorry if it goes again your POV but it's obvious.

The reliability of the C14 dating must be judged not only by radiocarbon experts but also by historians, chemists, statisticians, etc. C14 dating is sometimes wrong you know. All archaeologists for example will tell you this.

So, again, if someone else want to say a word on this, it's your turn. Thucyd (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Firstly, Ramsey was NOT an author of the 1988 dating report. You can see the report here - I'm surprised you have not read it yet. https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm Ramsey is thus both expert and independent, and is therefore reliable.

Second, by your definition of an independent source, Rogers, Riani, Fanti etc must all be disqualified. Ramsey and Gove and Habermas would be the only surviving sources - two are independent experts in the field who both support the dating result, and the third knows nothing about radiocarbon dating but pushes his Christian views anyway, while openly admitting that the shroud "is not accepted as genuine by the vast majority of all scholars who study the subject".

Third, the reliability of C14 dating must obviously be judged by people who know what they are judging, not by people who don't understand this specialist field and who are only pushing their POV from a position of assumption and wishful thinking without any actual shroud evidence to go on. C14 dating certainly could sometimes be wrong, which is why the Vatican had three different labs doing multiple tests each. The results all clustered, so the result is judged to be correct. It is always stated with a margin for error, as there are many variables which could affect the final result, and that margin could perhaps be a bit larger or smaller, but it would need a margin in excess of 1300 years to allow for an authentic shroud. That is just not credible.

Wdford (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

According to you "Ramsey was NOT an author of the 1988 dating report". Boy! Tell me who, according to you, is this "C.R Bronk" from Oxford?...

Otherwise, you don't understand what "independent" means here. It does not mean to have a POV, it just means not be directly implied in the 1988 dating process. Thucyd (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Fanti/Marinelli source

A Fanti/Marinelli paper is cited in the "The calculations were done incorrectly" section, but nothing in the paper mentions the Damon et al paper in Nature. Also, the paper appears to have been presented at a 1998 Church-sponsored symposium, but I could not find it published in any journal. I've tagged this source as failing verification and possibly self-published. It may be unsuitable for inclusion in this section. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Exporting material

On 29 April 2018, I exported large amounts of material to the article Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin, because it is particularly relevant there. This material can probably be deleted on this side in the near future, once the other article is stable. Wdford (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The Result of the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating is Unreliable and Scientifically Meaningless

The title is a quote from pg 159 of the reference. The reference quotes this from Italian society of statistics Review:

...the 12 measurements produced by the 3 labs cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity, therefore an environmental contamination in the analyzed piece of fabric that acted in a non-uniform linear way, adding a non-negligible bias, can be hypothesized.

From pg. 161: The deviation of the obtained result can also be caused by an environmental effect linked to the body image formation. The radiocarbon average date obtained by the 1988 test, of 1325 A.D., can br temporarily acceptable, provided that an uncertainty of some millenniums will be assigned instead of the +/_65 years declared in the report published in NATURE. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)jeffreyerwin

Fanti's opinion is unreliable and scientifically meaningless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

2019 Archaeometry Study deems 1989 study inconclusive?

Can we include the 2019 study done in Archaeometry? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.12467 Abstract:"In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.249.206.28 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the statement "no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is unreliable" too definitive given its source?

In the opening paragraph, the last sentence states that "no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is unreliable," but it cites a Radiocarbon article from 1990 to support this. The statement may well still be true, but given that the article is now 31 years old, can such a definitive statement still be reasonably sourced from a piece that old?

Do you have any reliable C14 experts stating on the record that the C14 dating is unreliable?? Wdford (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of unreliable source?|date=March 2017 tag after a source for the statement "Aspects of the 1988 test continue to be debated,"

On January 19, 2022, the statement "Aspects of the 1988 test continue to be debated," in the lede was followed by three references. The first of these had been tagged as an unreliable source. This source contained an extensive debate about the 1988 test. Although individual statements by those carrying out the debate may have been unreliable, their continuing debate certainly showed that the debate existed. Consequently, I have removed the "unreliable source" tag. Another tag might be appropriate (such as individual research concluding that the existence of this debate means that debate occurs, or something), and I do not claim that the source should not be tagged, somehow. 172.78.142.111 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mention of handheld contamination?

There is another theory that is worth mentioning as to why the carbon dating does not match up, which is what I am calling the 'handheld contamination' theory. Essentially, at least one image recognized as the shroud from before the 1900s shows bishops holding it up, with one's hand being over where the sample was taken from (around the left foot). The idea is that there was enough contamination from this event that it caused the carbon to be thrown off. Images: https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/6/10/earliest-painted-representation-of-shroud-of-turin SaavayuAdrin (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is why the samples were carefully cleaned by expert scientists before the dating process was done. The amount of "foreign material" needed to swing the dating was huge, and would have been easily noticed, but actual experts who studied the actual samples noted that there was no such contamination present - and that was BEFORE the samples were chemically cleaned. Wdford (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)