This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 placed the 'dubious' tag amid existence of Pray Codex as the relevant place is disputed. Brand t] 07:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ----
The STURP situation, how they got permission to do the sampling, etc. Also teh process for the selection of the labs.
How the sampling was performed, etc.
Discuss the labs, the methods used and the results
The debates that ensued after analysis.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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:
On the other side we have:
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.” [1] [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 ..” [2] [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)
References
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)
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 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. [1] Jeffreyerwin ( talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)jeffreyerwin
References
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)
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?
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 placed the 'dubious' tag amid existence of Pray Codex as the relevant place is disputed. Brand t] 07:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. ----
The STURP situation, how they got permission to do the sampling, etc. Also teh process for the selection of the labs.
How the sampling was performed, etc.
Discuss the labs, the methods used and the results
The debates that ensued after analysis.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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:
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:
On the other side we have:
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.” [1] [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 ..” [2] [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)
References
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)
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 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. [1] Jeffreyerwin ( talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)jeffreyerwin
References
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)
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?
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)
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)