Former featured articleShroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
November 29, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 23, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

The Hypothesis of a Neutron Radiation Event Has Not Been Refuted.

The article's statement that ALL hypotheses that hold that the 1988 C-14 evidence is not indicative of a date have been refuted is not correct. The Historically Consistent Hypothesis holds that the vanishing of Jesus' corpse resulted in both a proton and a neutron radiation event. The neutron event would have converted some of the Shroud's nitrogen into C-14. This theory has not been refuted. This theory is consistent with all of the other scientific evidence that has been retrieved from the Shroud, while the theory that the C-14 evidence indicates a date is not. Jeffreyerwin (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)jeffrey erwin [1][reply]

References

  1. ^ TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
I suppose it should say that all non-supernatural hypotheses have been refuted. If you invoke magic, as usual all bets are off. But science does not concider magic. RobP (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "all non-supernatural hypotheses have been refuted" leaves the idea that therefore the supernatural explanations are still in the running. But they are not unrefuted because they fit well, they are unrefuted because they are unrefutable in principle.
"All scientific hypotheses" should do. Hypothesis says "For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it."
Hypotheses that are constructed by starting from some random implausible idea, then inventing additional implausible ad-hoc assumptions whose only purpose is to "save the appearances" (salvāre apparentiās), or to explain away the stuff that does not fit, cannot be tested because they cheat by defining themselves as "already tested and passed".
Another possibility: "all hypotheses which are refutable have been refuted" --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hypothesis that the shroud was weaved by Unicorns and then painted by leprechauns has not been refuted. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that is not one of "the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating". But I guess people will know what you mean. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it was not clear that I was being facetious. I do not think any change was necessary, as the default assumption IS that the supernatural does not exist and need not be considered. RobP (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<banned user>

The hypothesis that the shroud was made by extraterrestrials also hasn't been falsified. You see, there are no limits for what Almighty God can do: only natural processes have to abide by the laws of physics, miracles, by definition, could perform all kind of impossible things. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death and resurrection of Jesus

Might be worth adding a short introductory section exploring the appearance and growth of the idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus - there's no bodily resurrection in Paul or Mark or Matthew (only a spiritual one in which the dead ascends direct to heaven in a new spiritual body); it first appears in Luke and John, and even there it's mixed (some post-resurrection appearances are spiritual, others bodily). A useful background perhaps? PiCo (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this rather belong in Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin? It has nothing to do with medieval art. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't known that article existed. It looks fork-ish to me - best to merge with this one. As for my suggestion about giving some background on the NT, the idea is that without those stories there would certainly be no shroud.PiCo (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(See post-resurrection appearances of Jesus for more on the development of the tradition).PiCo (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not be merged. This article was full of pseudoscientific bullshit until it was split up into those two articles. Now the article is about the scientific facts about a fake medieval relic, and the other article is about the fantasies some Catholics get when they try to think about it, and about the mistakes they make when they try to test their ideas. If that is a POV fork, then NASA and Moon landing conspiracy theories is also a POV fork. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity

This article frequently refers to the shroud as being "authentic" (or discussing its "authenticity").

Maybe just someone was wrong. It happens. It doesn't mean the thing they speculated about was an elaborate forgery / hoax / conspiracy - whether we're talking about America or a cloth. I think the wording should be changed (except when "authentic*" appears within direct quotations) to emphasise that it's the speculations that are dubious: eg "Columbus believed X but evidence suggests he was wrong" rather than "investigations continue into whether America is authentic or a hoax". 49.195.120.86 (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the quality of something being "authentic" can refer to a variety of subject matter or phenomena. Does there actually exist a piece of cloth that is known by (many?) as, "The Shroud of Turin?" For example, to my knowledge, there does not exist much evidence to suggest that "Noah's Ark" has been found. In fact, the wiki page on, "The Great Flood" suggests that scientific evidence is scant to support the claim that there was a great flood that covered all of the world at some point. Obviously, there were different continents and different oceans at various times, which would suggest that the water levels of those ocean(s) were higher or lower, but "a flood" as we currently define it? Apparently no. To continue, "Is the Shroud of Turin an authentic piece of cloth?" Obviously, it would depend upon the definition of "cloth" versus "paper" (which is not so straightforward as one might initially think). Is the Shroud an authentic burial cloth at all, or just an artist's rendition of one, or both (started as an artist's rendition and then subsequently used as a burial cloth or a burial cloth which was then modified by an artist after the fact? OR, if a rendition, did the author use actual biomatter as either a medium for the art or deceptively added biomatter to suggest that it was an actual shroud? If a real burial shroud, then was it Jesus' authentic burial shroud (that there was such a person who did the things the Bible talks about)? Which even if the Shroud is authentically the burial shroud of Jesus, doesn't mean that Jesus, the person, was necessarily divine, as at around that time, there were lots of people claiming to be the Jewish Messiah and others believing them to be so. [In the end, does it matter? If someone believes that the Shroud of Turin is what it purports to be, who am I to argue?....unless they are also somehow claiming that this belief is somehow backed by scientific evidence of it being so.... Merry Christmas everyone ! (hugs) - Shannon — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShannonMcCoven (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, fake gold is real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics stuff

Should this article say in the lead that recent studies cast cast serious doubts on the reliability of the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin? Frezase (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" In 2019, researchers reported on a statistical analysis of the raw data of the radiocarbon dating tests. They concluded on statistical grounds and original documentation that it was impossible "to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers 'conclusive evidence' that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth". They did however admit that their "statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they accepted that every measured radiocarbon date from every laboratory indicates a medieval age for the cloth.[1][2]"

In 2019, researchers reported on a statistical analysis of the raw data of the radiocarbon dating tests. They admitted that their "statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they accepted that every measured radiocarbon date from every laboratory indicates a medieval age for the cloth. However they concluded on statistical grounds that "homogeneity is lacking in the data" and that the procedure should therefore be "reconsidered".[1][2]

I removed these two parts, which are almost exact duplicates of each other. Please explain why that study is relevant, and why it is relevant enough to put it in the lead.

Didn't PROFRINGE editors try to put another Casabiance study in there before? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Casabianca, T.; Marinelli, E.; Pernagallo, G.; Torrisi, B. (2019). "Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data". Archaeometry. 61 (5): 1223–1231. doi:10.1111/arcm.12467. ISSN 1475-4754. View at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331956466_Radiocarbon_Dating_of_the_Turin_Shroud_New_Evidence_from_Raw_Data
  2. ^ a b Ball, Philip. "How old is the Turin Shroud?". Chemistry World. Retrieved 2020-01-11.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Sorry, but what is your point? This is clearly not fringe. Your source, Philip Ball, explains in Chemistry World why those findings are very important and why they have made headlines: the C14 results were unreliable. In my humble opinion, it would be highly misleading not to include this information in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.213.226 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ball writes "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong – but apparently it was not definitive either."
When is one study definitive? That new one does not change much. It certainly does not belong in the lead. And even if it were to be in the lead, it should be much shorter there. The lead is rather too long than too short. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". These statisticians - who have never personally seen the shroud up close - would be more scientific if they worded their conclusions a bit more honestly to say "we believe that it is not correct to claim a date range of 1260 to 1390 with 95% confidence, because a 95% confidence level would actually require a date range of 1210 to 1440." This is effectively what they are concluding, but because they have a personal POV they word it a bit more vaguely, so that straw-clutching shroudies can seize upon this to mean that the entire C14 test is invalid, and that the subject is wide open once again.
The argument that the "lack of homogeneity" means the tested samples were not a single representative sample, is total hogwash. Various experts who have actually examined the shroud, all concluded "definitively" that the samples are all part of the original shroud textile. The "lack of homogeneity" has been explained by C14 experts as resulting from the fact that the different labs all used completely different cleaning processes, and that these different processes seemingly varied in effectiveness by a few percent. They were counting atoms, after all. This would cause a problem if they were trying to pin down the date of manufacture to "during the 1st Crusade vs during the 2nd Crusade", but for the purposes of determining "during medieval times vs during biblical times", the C14 test is totally "definitive".
The "theory" that there is a dating "trend" or "slope" across the three samples is also hogwash, because the Arizona sample was actually made up of fragments taken from both ends of the sampled area.
Wdford (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your anonymous opinion about the quality of the articles is of no interest here. If you want to submit an article in a leading academic journal on this topic, feel free to do so.
The question is: is this a reliable source which should be included in the article? Short answer: yes, and in the lead otherwise, it would be highly misleading to the uninformed reader. Another article, just published, agrees with the Oxford paper: "we find the Shroud data to be heterogeneous, while data from three control samples show no heterogeneity", Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.231.213.226 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, yet another paper written by shroudies, trying to use "lies, damned lies, and statistics" to create the impression that the C14 dating is wrong, and the cloth may still possibly be authentic. Pathetic.
Re the Walsh and Schwalbe paper:
Both Walsh and Schwalbe are long-time "legendary" shroudies, who have dedicated entire life-times to "proving" that the shroud is authentic. Their POV is not a secret, so their objectivity is questionable.
They assume that the Arizona test was only conducted on one piece of material from one end of the sampled area, rather than incorporating material from both ends, as this assumption is essential to create the impression of an "inherent variation" in the "carbon isotopic composition of the samples themselves". However the residual fragment in Tucson is too big to have come from the smaller sample piece, so therefore material from both sample pieces must have been tested. The "inherent variation" hypothesis is thus automatically false.
They disregard the fact that multiple experts have studied the actual shroud itself, and have determined conclusively that the sampled material is representative of the entire shroud.
They concede that the Oxford and Zurich data analysis were both statistically fine, so the medieval dates from those two tests is solid and reliable. Ergo, the shroud is NOT AUTHENTIC.
They agree that the "proposed" calculation errors of the Damon statisticians can be corrected by adjusting the date range by a mere 88 years or less - so once again they are confirming that the shroud is NOT AUTHENTIC.
They accept that the lack of heterogeneity can be accounted for simply by the known differences in cleaning processes applied by the three labs, which is obviously much more plausible than a wild theory about variations in isotopic composition which somehow eluded multiple examinations by multiple experts.
In short, these repeated statistical "analyses" add nothing. They do not overturn the original dating, since they all assume that the sampled material is not actual shroud material, whereas real-life expert studies of the actual shroud have shown conclusively that the sampled material really was actual shroud material.
If you want to include this mush, you would need to include mention that the conclusions are based on an invalid assumption about the Arizona samples, and that the authors still concluded that the date range is only wrong by 88 years. Wdford (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP. The arguments given by Wdford have clearly no value. We are interested in reliable sources, not in personal comments made by an anonymous user on Wikipedia. This talkpage is not a forum. Frezase (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Frezase: This is your third week as an editor and you have already mastered ((rfc)). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the ((rfc)) tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Not his fault, he did not put ((rfc)) on top of it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Ask User:Frezase about this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The personal interpretations of studies published in leading journals have 0 weight and are laughable. Wikipedia is about reliable sources.
It is easy to find sources showing why the newest studies must be included. According to Bruni et al. in Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2020, "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud". article
McAvoy in Applied Optics, 2019: "Recently, Casabianca et al., carried out a thorough statistical analysis of the raw data that was collected during the 1988 radiocarbon dating study. [...] Casabianca et al. concluded that their statistical analysis reinforced the argument against the validity of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, suggesting the presence of serious incongruities among the raw measurements. They further state that the measurements made by the three laboratories on the Shroud samples suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects of the 95% AD 1260-1390 interval. These authors recommend that additional testing be done on the Shroud." article. Frezase (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that they refuted the post-Great Schism origin of the shroud: they didn't. So why should we mention just another study which fails WP:SCIRS and WP:EXTRAORDINARY? There is no obligation to mention whatever is published with peer-review. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't give any good reasons not to mention the current state of knowledge about the 1988 carbon dating.
You should first try to prove that the study published in Archaeometry, quoted by many secondary sources, is not a reliable scientific source and that this reliable source makes an extraordinary claim (it does not). Frezase (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Derrida has been smeared with claims that he believed that all opinions are equal. As described by Rick Roderick in a TTC course, the only people who said that all opinions are equal were those permanently committed to the insane asylum.

— WP:ABIAS
WP:FRINGE applies to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC debate seems moribund, so I'll post here. I can't read the Casabianca et. al. article because it's behind a paywall and I have better things to spend money on, but I've read Ball's review article in Chemistry World and it says this: "Casabianca and colleagues don’t assert that their analysis shows the shroud to be much older (than claimed in the paper they criticise), but only that re-analysis is needed 'to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers “conclusive evidence” that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth.’ In other words, this paper does not overturn the original analysis, it merely questions the range of dates. At this point it's probably not worth including, as there are sure to be further opinions in coming months.Achar Sva (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: since the general conclusion is the same, adding this material adds nothing other than potentially casting unnecessary doubt on the science involved. Especially considering the fringe tradition of quote mining, it seems undue. —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet more cherry-picking stats-manipulating straw-clutching wishful thinking.
  • The sampled material was representative of the shroud - this has been confirmed many times, by different experts who examined the shroud personally. The statistics offer only a statistical inconsistency, whereas actual physical examination has definitively debunked the theory that the samples were not representative. This has been published by actual experts.
  • There certainly were contaminants in the samples, but these were identified by deliberate inspection, and removed prior to the testing. This has been published by actual experts, and the removal thereof is actually confirmed by Casabianca themselves - bottom of page 7. Expert Gove has stated that the residual contaminants would have to make up well over half the sampled material in order for the shroud to be authentic, and that was definitely not the case.
  • The "linear trend" in the dating can only exist if Arizona tested material from one end of the sample and not from both ends - this assumption has been debunked long ago already. Ergo, there is no linear trend in real life.
  • Casabianca et al state that "our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they conclude that a new radiocarbon dating process is required "to compute a new reliable interval". They do not claim the medieval dating is invalid, far less that the shroud may be authentic, but their wording is dangerous vague, and this gives the shroudies a new straw to clutch at. Casabianca's conclusion is confirmed more clearly by Ball, a reliable secondary source, as noted above already.
This "study" can only be included in the article if the wording clearly states that only the confidence interval is being questioned, not the medieval result itself. Other statistical analyses have concluded that the interval is wrong by 50-90 years only. Wdford (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient to read the study (for free on academia.edu), to notice that Wdford and others biased users do not understand what they are talking about, or that they are trying to mislead uninformed Wikipedian users. It's funny that those users do not trust the scientific process and rules about reliable sources when those things go against their obvious prejudices.
For example, I guess that Wdford, who seems be an expert, has already read the papers where the laboratory of Arizona admits that it tested only one part of their sample (Freer-Waters and Jull, Radiocarbon; Riani et al.,Statistics and Computing), and that Wdford knows that the linear trend has been confirmed in the latest paper published some weeks ago in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Nevertheless, Wdford is not interested in mentioning those facts.
The conclusion is clear, as noted by all the reliable secondary sources (including Philip Ball, Bruni and McAvoy, already quoted), and that's all what matters on Wikipedia: the 1988 dating is not reliable, and no one can say that the tested sample is representative. The last sentence of the paper: "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. Frezase (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the expert Jull:
  • Freer and Jull, Radiocarbon Volume 52, 2010: "In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants." Clear and simple.
  • Freer and Jull, Radiocarbon Volume 52, 2010: "Six samples were taken from the warp and weft fibers at different locations on a fragment remaining from the 14C study in 1988. This fragment, labeled A1B, is approximately 0.5 × 1 cm and originally weighed 12.39 mg." They are thus conclusively stating that the surviving sample material is part of the A1 (larger) sample fragment, so the A2 sample really was used in the testing. The assumption on which the linear trend is based, is thus invalid. Clear and simple.
On the other hand, Riani (2013) state that they "received a personal communication from Prof. Jull of the University of Arizona confirming that they did indeed only analyze A1." There is no such statement from Jull himself in any of Jull's many publications. Not clear and not simple.
Casabianca et al state that "our statistical results do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out", and they conclude that a new radiocarbon dating process is required "to compute a new reliable interval".
The evidence published by the experts, is clear that the statistics DO NOT show that the C14 dating is out by 1300 years, or prove the shroud to be ancient. Please quit this POV-pushing, and accept that the experts know what they are doing. Wdford (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop calling Prof. Jull an incompetent or a liar! If Jull says, in writing, that only A1 was analyzed, it is because only A1 was analyzed, not because you are the only guy in the world to be right. And a useful reminder: Wikipedia is not interested in your personal interpretation based on a invalid argument (solution to your false dilemma: only A1 was tested, A2 was never tested, Jull is not an incompetent or a liar, and the linear trend detected by Prof. Riani and confirmed by Walsh does exist).
The experts are clear: the results of the 1988 test are not reliable and there is no conclusive evidence that the calendar age range is representative of the whole cloth. Like it or not, this is the current state of our scientific knowledge.
We have many reliable secondary sources (Ball, McAvoy, Bruni), and even if you don't like them due to your own bias, we have to mention Casabianca et al. This is how Wikipedia works. Sorry if it hurts. Frezase (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you bother to read my posts properly, you will see that I am NOT calling Jull an incompetent or a liar - I am actually citing Jull as one of the few experts who has had hands-on experience with the actual shroud material. Jull said clearly that the medieval date is still valid - How are you able to cite Jull as a reliable source without registering this FACT?
Jull did not say only A1 was analyzed - Riani claimed that Jull confirmed this, but in his own paper Jull actually stated that the remaining fragment was from A1, not A2, so A2 was actually used in the test after all. Why are you not seeing that either?
All radiocarbon experts agree that the shroud test was valid. Textile experts who have actually examined the shroud, all confirm that the tested samples were original cloth. Jackson, a STURP member and leading shroudie, confirms from STURP photographic evidence that there was no evidence of any repairs in the sampled area. All these actual experts, who had actual sight of the actual shroud, all confirm that the tested samples were original shroud material. How are you not able to see these FACTS?
The statisticians who claim "lack of homogeneity", do so on the basis of manipulating the data based on unverified assumptions about their point of origin. They also admit that the differences in the effectiveness of the cleaning processes could also explain the "lack of homogeneity" noted in the data. Yet some people choose to believe that this indicates the C14 tests were invalid - despite the mountain of evidence from actual experts who actually handled the actual shroud.
Ball himself made it clear that Casabianca admitted that their statistical results show the shroud is medieval, and that only the range of the dating result needs adjustment. He actually wrote that "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong." How are you able to cite Ball as a reliable source without registering this FACT?
So we have a number of actual experts, who had actual sight of the actual shroud, all saying the C14 tests were performed on representative cloth. We have a few statisticians who have never examined the shroud, claiming that the lack of homogeneity "might" mean the samples were not representative, although they also admit that other explanations exist. The "maybe perhaps" hypothesis of a few statisticians cannot outweigh the mountain of evidence from a range of actual experts who had actual sight of the actual shroud. That is how Wikipedia works. Even if it hurts. Wdford (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Jull actually stated that the remaining fragment was from A1, not A2, so A2 was actually used in the test after all. Why are you not seeing that either? " You are still calling Jull an incompetent or a liar. Only A1 was tested and A2 was, according to Jull and to the statistical tests, never tested.
And a reminder (again): on wikipedia, no one cares about your faulty reasoning. We care about reliable sources. Even if it hurts.
The fact that you do not want to include a peer reviewed paper saying "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth. " You are quite at peace with multiple other ridiculous references included the lead when in favor of your ideological bias (Schafersman, Chivers). This point proves your bad faith. Frezase (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so at all.

In his own paper, Jull stated clearly that the remaining Arizona fragment was part of A1, not A2 as you assume. An unsubstantiated claim from Riani that contradicts Jull, is automatically not as reliable as a published statement from Jull himself. Please provide a published source where Jull says the A2 fragment was never tested?

We already have a statement in the lead which reads "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating." All the "lies, damned lies and statistics" are summarized by this statement as well. You can add your latest analysis here as an additional reference with pleasure. However it is not appropriate to waffle on with cherry-picked details in the lead.

The detail will need to be stated in the body of the article, in order that it be "summarized" in the lead. In order to meet the requirements of Neutrality, this additional paragraph will need to also include the following FACTS:

Is this clear enough for you? Wdford (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darwin Naz - put too much detail in the lead and people simply don't read it.Achar Sva (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We already have a sentence in the lead that reads "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating". Is that sufficient, or should we add a few more words about damned lies and statistics? Wdford (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The laughable hostility of Wdford towards statistical analysis and the veiled attacks against Timothy Jull show that this user does not understand the basis of a C14 test, and the reasons why an intercomparison can be valid. As shown above, Wdford is not able to interpret honestly the content of the reliable sources (Wdford's summary of Archaeometry's article is at best a total disaster: don't trust me or Wdford, read the paper).
For the lead, we can rely on respected physicists, Bruni et al., who published this year a peer reviewed article in Radiation Physics and Chemistry: "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud" article
Who is afraid of reliable secondary sources? Frezase (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frezasethe Casabianca et. el. paper says that their results "do not imply that the medieval hypothesis of the age of the tested sample should be ruled out" and that 't]he measurements made by the three laboratories on the TS sample suffer from a lack of precision which seriously affects the reliability of the 95% AD 1260–1390 interval" - in other words, the 95% range should be or could be wider.This is hardly revolutionary, as I think three editors beside myself have pointed out.Achar Sva (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am NOT attacking Jull, I regard him as the best expert source on the topic. I am quoting Jull who said in his own paper that the remaining fragment come from A1 and not from A2. Frezase is the one who is denigrating Jull by suggesting that the unverified claim of Riani-Fanti outweighs the published statement by Jull himself. If you have a source showing that Jull actually published that the A2 fragment was never carbon-tested, please provide that source?
A number of actual radiocarbon dating and textile experts have all proved definitively that the tested shroud samples were in fact representative of the entire cloth, using actual shroud evidence as opposed to simply massaging data. However Frezase refuses to accept these reliable sources, who are all specialists in very relevant fields. Instead he favors the conclusions of statisticians who have never handled the shroud, but who formulate their opinions by massaging data based on unverified assumptions.
The paper by Bruni et al deals with a completely different topic, and merely makes a passing reference to the work of Riani-Fanti etc. This does not count as a reliable source on the Shroud of Turin topic. It is merely a group of Italian Catholics giving a nod to the work of another group of Italian Catholics.
However, the Bruni paper does make some very interesting points, such as:
  • "The double-peaked age probability confirms the well-known difficulty to obtain unambiguous radiocarbon age of cellulose-based textiles, due to the influence of many possible contaminants." When Riani-Fanti saw a double-peak with the Turin Shroud data they railed about non-homogeneity. Talk about double-standards.
  • "the most peculiar feature of the Arquata shroud is the absence of perceptible drawings or paintings on the front and back body impressions." Shroudies claim that the Turin Shroud is unique in having no evidence of painting or brush-strokes, which they claim as evidence of divine manufacture. However here we have Bruni stating calmly that another shroud also exists which used the same "brushless" manufacturing method.
Now isn't that INTERESTING??? Wdford (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latest absurd remarks, cherry-picking and ad hominem attacks made by Wdford show that he is very much in trouble: in his mind, the physicists who are Italian are therefore Catholics and therefore are in favor of the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and therefore are not reliable on this topic.
We are not here to read about the personal assessments and desperate arguments of an anonymous user. We care about reliable sources: "it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers "conclusive evidence" that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth; "recent statistical analyses (Riani et al. 2013, Di Lazzaro et Mura, 2015, Casabianca et al. 2019) cast serious doubts on the reliability of the carbon dating of the Turin Shroud". article
If you can't mention those reliable sources when the article uses dozens and dozens of poor quality, never peer reviewed sources, don't talk about neutrality any more. Frezase (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories