→What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?: So, is ANYONE going to discuss what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? |
|||
Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
* So, is '''ANYONE''' going to discuss what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? If not, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and instead report any failure to do what the policies and guidelines tell us to do at [[WP:ANI]] so that the violator(s) can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Note: this does not imply that any particular individual is or is not in violation of the policies and guidelines; I have my opinions on that, but unless someone is willing to actually discuss this I see no point in singling out individual violations here -- you will no doubt figure it out when you get blocked, and if you aren't doing anything wrong it will never come up). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
* So, is '''ANYONE''' going to discuss what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? If not, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and instead report any failure to do what the policies and guidelines tell us to do at [[WP:ANI]] so that the violator(s) can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Note: this does not imply that any particular individual is or is not in violation of the policies and guidelines; I have my opinions on that, but unless someone is willing to actually discuss this I see no point in singling out individual violations here -- you will no doubt figure it out when you get blocked, and if you aren't doing anything wrong it will never come up). --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::That fringe material has to go somewhere, Guy, and until we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, it will end up being added here - over and over. Even once we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, the believers will still try to add their material here, on the basis that "This theory is not Fringe, this theory is REAL". A proper encyclopedia should also mention all the fringe challenges, as they are also notable, but obviously we must add all the refutations and alternative interpretations from actual experts and actual verified evidence as well, to correct Weight and Parity etc. |
|||
::Fanti is going to churn out a fresh paper every year for the rest of his life, and he has enough academic contacts in his home town to ensure they all get published eventually in a peer-reviewed journal of some description. The believers are then going to insist on including them here, to "prove" that the debate is still open. That is unavoidable. However until Fanti finds a credible C14 expert willing to demonstrate on the record that the C14 dating is technically faulty, or a credible textile expert (not a carpet-repairman) who can demonstrate that there is actual evidence of a repair that all the other textile experts with their microscopes somehow missed, or the Vatican allows a retest which proves the rest of the shroud actually is 2000 years old, then the current dating stands and the fringe theories all fail. |
|||
::All the pro-authenticity arguments have been refuted, and that material is either already here, or in the daughter article on the C14 dating. However if there is more cleaning up required, then that must obviously be done. We don't have to argue about the applicability of the policies, we need to focus on correcting identified contraventions of those policies. Could you perhaps list the top three sentences which you feel are most offensive, so that they can be attended to ASAP? |
|||
::PS: Can we agree on a title for the dedicated fringe theories article, which doesn't use the word "conspiracy", so that we can move forward with exporting all the fringe material soonest? [[User:Wdford|Wdford]] ([[User talk:Wdford|talk]]) 08:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:57, 21 April 2018
Shroud 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. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Gulio Fanti and dating of the shroud
Undid revision 813872329 by Erni120 (talk) Unjustified removal of sourced material + redundancy + Fanti's pseudo-science researches have nothing to do in the lede + go to talk page - Lebob
1 I did not delete anything 2 Pseudo-science? The methods of dating were described by four chemists: Pietro Baraldi - Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences, Modena and Reggio Emilia University Roberto Basso - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua University Giulio Fanti - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua Universit AnnaTinti - Bologna University - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924203113000490
And This text has been published by a science magazine ,,Vibrational Spectroscopy” - https://www.journals.elsevier.com/vibrational-spectroscopy However some criticized this dating method and I added their opinion
That's why I think you need to restore the previous version.[Erni120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is already developed in the article and there is not need to copy/paste it in the lede where it becomes redundand. And certainly not when it is a partial copy/paste where the opinion of the archbishop of Turin, i.e. "as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the shroud no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments" is forgotten. By the way, Fanti is not a chemist but he is known for his continuous attempts to prove that the shroud is authentic. --Lebob (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- 1 So remove the mention about radiocarbon dating tests It was already described in the text below
2 I did not add this information because Fanti described his book [He has documentation] from where he has fragments of the shroud. And exactly from Giovanni Riggi di Numana - http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/science-shines-new-light-on-shroud-of-turins-age 3 ,,But according to Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the University of Padua, "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics” 4 Fanti's views do not matter. he stated that his dating is not proof that the shroud belonged to Jesus Erni120 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs)
Dating from 2013
At the introduction, we should add information about dating the shroud from 2013, or delete information about 1988 dating. Wikipedia should be neutral and should not favor dating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- The dating from 1988 is solid scientific fact, comprising multiple tests all following a solidly developed process and conducted by multiple experts, which all arrived at a similar result. The 2013 process was a made-up test which followed an unproven and unverified process, based on samples of uncertain provenance which were already known to be damaged and thus unreliable, subject to highly arbitrary assumptions and conducted by a person with a known bias. Thus, the 1988 tests were scientifically reliable, and the 2013 tests were not. Simple. Wdford (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- First, 1988 dating was repeatedly criticized, William Meacham points to violations of researchers. Fanti's work was described in a scientific journal, where the authors were three more chemists. That's why we should add information about dating 2013. Let's add criticism, of course. However, you favor the dating from 1988. And this is unacceptable [Tor234] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tor234 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- What is unacceptable is to try to favor the 2013 "dating" made at the initiative of Giulio Fanti, who is not a chemist, over the 1988 C14 dating. The 2013 dating in fact pretends to date the shroud using a method which is not scientifically acknowledged as a reliable dating tool. This was only the latest attempt of Fanti to give an apparence of scientific approach to his countless pseudo-scientific "experiences" in relation to the shroud. What wonders me is that has always managed to find scientific publications, although usually with poor impact factor, to get his "findings" published. If it was only me to decide none of Fanti publications relating to the shroud would be mentioned in this article. --Lebob (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- The 1988 dating certainly has been criticized, but only by people who are not C14 experts. People like Meacham made a big fuss about deviations from the "agreed protocol", but those deviations were all made for good reasons, and the process they eventually followed was perfectly valid, so the Meacham argument is void. Fanti's work is based on an unverified process, using samples of unverified provenance which were already known to be damaged and thus unreliable, subject to highly arbitrary assumptions and conducted by a person with a known bias. The fact that the "results" were published in a scientific magazine of some sort does not guarantee the process was valid or that the results were meaningful. Once again, the 1988 tests were scientifically reliable, and the 2013 tests were not. Really simple. Wdford (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- It does not favor dating from 2013, you favor those from 1988, Fanti is not a chemist, but he did research with chemists like Pietro Baraldi. And as you pointed out you do not decide. You are not a chemist or researcher to question Fanti's findings. The work is published in a scientific journal, has 4 authors and not adding it is the result of prejudices. Such a thing should not take place on wikipedia Meacham is just an expert on C14. He carried out hundreds of dating and, as he himself pointed out, there were often strange results. Once again, he indicates that we do not decide what is reliable and what is not. Let's add information about 2013 dating and criticism. For now, we remove information supporting the authenticity of the shroud, and we differentiate against it. It should not be so, it is not a wikipedia task. [Tor234]
- "Fanti is not a chemist, but he did research with chemists" - Unfortunately, competence is not contagious enough for that to work as a reason to accept Fanti's expertise.
- "The work is published in a scientific journal" - That is not a reason to include it. If every article in a scientific journal were mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the same subject, a lot of Wikipedia articles would be thousands of pages long. We have to make decisions what to include and what not. If the journal has a low impact, the authors are experts for something else, and the actual experts ignore or reject it, we should not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- It does not favor dating from 2013, you favor those from 1988, Fanti is not a chemist, but he did research with chemists like Pietro Baraldi. And as you pointed out you do not decide. You are not a chemist or researcher to question Fanti's findings. The work is published in a scientific journal, has 4 authors and not adding it is the result of prejudices. Such a thing should not take place on wikipedia Meacham is just an expert on C14. He carried out hundreds of dating and, as he himself pointed out, there were often strange results. Once again, he indicates that we do not decide what is reliable and what is not. Let's add information about 2013 dating and criticism. For now, we remove information supporting the authenticity of the shroud, and we differentiate against it. It should not be so, it is not a wikipedia task. [Tor234]
Note this quotation from a non-religious website:
- There is now plenty of scientific research that demonstrates the following about the Turin Shroud... [...]:
- The cloth appears to be many centuries older than the 1988 carbon dating suggested
- The famous carbon dating published in Nature in 1989 was not peer reviewed, did not follow established protocol and used samples from the most contaminated part of the cloth. The statistics even in the original paper provide evidence of significant variation in carbon 14 content even within the small strip that was tested and there is ample evidence that the sample was not representative of the rest of the cloth.
- The cloth appears to be many centuries older than the 1988 carbon dating suggested
- Prof. Ramsey of the Oxford Radiocarbon Unit which was involved in the original dating has publically gone on the record about the age of the shroud: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information."
The article should try to be fair to the best of arguments on both sides. One side depends almost exclusively on the 95% chance given by the RC dating of one small and suspicious marginal section of a very large cloth. The other side has many different lines of argument pointing toward authenticity and singularity. Pernimius (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- The only thing that someone who writes in the homepage of his website that "the famous carbon dating published in Nature in 1989 was not peer reviewed, did not follow established protocol and used samples from the most contaminated part of the cloth" manages to do is to prove that despite 30 years of self-research on the question he has still no clue of what he is talking about. Therefore his personal opinions are of no interest for this article.
- Furthermore, and to respond to Tor234, William Meacham is not a C14 specialist but an archeologist and has never carried out one single C14 dating himself because, as every archeologist, he needs to rely on specialized laboratories to make the C14 tests when he needs them for his work. --Lebob (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your POV is duly noted, Lebob, as is your lack of proof for your judgment. Many informed people disagree with the C14 zealots who think C14 results from a questionable edge of the cloth is "all ye know and all ye need to know." An encyclopedia article should neutrally report the scope of the problems and major positions, all that speaks for authenticity, and alternative paths that scientists have taken (and published in peer reviewed journals). I support the tenor of Tor234's remarks. Pernimius (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Only a handful of people and very few scientist think that this particular edge of the shroud was "questionnable". It has been stated countless times that it took two hours to specialists to choose this part of the shroud. Furthermore, Mrs. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg who was responsible for the restauration of the shroud in 2002 has clearly stated that there is not such things as "invisible mending" and that she didn't found any evidence that could back the theory that this particular edge of the shroud would have be different in texture and/or age than the other part of the cloth. I really wonder who are the "zealots" here: those who push a faith based agenda without sustainable evidences or those who stick to a test carried out on a piece of the shroud made with a well-know and widely acknowledge as accurate technique? As explained by Jimbo Wales, What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't. Maybe you should read this essay with great attention before pushing forward things which are noting else than crank theories. --Lebob (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Your POV is duly noted, Lebob, as is your lack of proof for your judgment. Many informed people disagree with the C14 zealots who think C14 results from a questionable edge of the cloth is "all ye know and all ye need to know." An encyclopedia article should neutrally report the scope of the problems and major positions, all that speaks for authenticity, and alternative paths that scientists have taken (and published in peer reviewed journals). I support the tenor of Tor234's remarks. Pernimius (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You are calling some renowned scientists "lunatic charlatans" without cause, people like Dr. Ray Rogers who did so much work on the Shroud and was as objective as anyone could hope a scientist would be. Also it is typical of your side to quote a textile expert saying there is no such thing as invisible mending without mentioning the opposite argument:
- [Citation:] When in 2005 textile expert M. Flury-Lemberg continued to insist that such reweaving did not exist and that the patch would be recognizable on the reverse side, Benford and Marino produced a fourth paper. In it they quoted the owner of a textile repair business, Mr. Michael Ehrlich, stating that “French Weaving [a textile repair practiced in Late Medieval and Renaissance periods] involves a tedious thread-by-thread restoration that is undetectable” and therefore invisible from both sides (Benford and Marino, 2005:2). The paper then went on to discuss the Shroud’s historical circumstances in the early 16th century that may have led to repairs at the cloth’s corner that was later to be radiocarbon dated. Taken from here.
(Addendum: See French Weaving. No such thing as invisible mending, eh?? Think again.])
How revealing these tactics of yours are! Let's have some fairness, please!! And keep away from anti-religious bigotry and scientism. Empiricist rationalism does not have the only or last word...not by a long shot. Pernimius (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Light of the Shroud" is not a scientific website, nor is it an objective website. It reports the work of Dr. Andrew Silverman, who believes that reality is not what we perceive it to be. Interesting, but not scientific.
- Wikipedia is not based on biased websites, it is based on balanced scientific evidence. There is strong scientific evidence which proves that the shroud is made of cloth which is only medieval in age, and there is ZERO scientific evidence which proves that the shroud is authentic. "Nature" is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the English-speaking world. The SUGGESTION that the dating may have been conducted on repair material was investigated and has since been PROVEN to be false. The SUGGESTION that contamination could have swung the dating was investigated and has since been PROVEN to be false. However some people refuse to accept this, and they continue to publish biased and incomplete assessments of discredited suggestions, in the attempt to keep their own hopes alive. That is their right, but that is not scientific, and that is not how Wikipedia works.
- Meachem was correct that very early C14 results were inconsistent, but that was in the 1970's. By 1988 these issues had been ironed out, the fresh atmospheric radioactivity from atom bomb testing had been calibrated and the technology was much more reliable. Meachem of course doesn’t bother to acknowledge these inconvenient truths, because they mess up his POV.
- Every piece of evidence which purportedly supports authenticity can be explained away, if you are objective. I challenge you to present me with a list of the "pro-authenticity" evidence, and I will give you all the refutations – one by one.
- Fanti's latest "tests" involved the following:
- Obtain some fragments of fibers which somebody else apparently vacuumed off the shroud decades earlier – with no chain of evidence to prove that these fragments were actual shroud material;
- Glue these tiny crumbling fragments onto an apparatus he invented for the purpose, and stretch them until they snap, to measure their "remaining strength" – ignoring that they seemingly had crumbled off their original fabric for some reason, and so were obviously much weaker than the original fibers;
- Create a "control" to compare this against, by obtaining modern linen and baking it to simulate aging – ignoring possible differences in original fiber quality, bleaching techniques, spinning techniques and quality of storage conditions over 600 years, as well as the true heat and duration of the fires that baked the shroud;
- Compare the "strength" results of the unverified and crumbling fragments against the results of the arbitrary modern linen which had been "aged" by an arbitrary process, and discover that the crumbling "shroud" fragments STILL don't reach as far back as the 1st Century, being about 400 years too recent;
- Incorporate a huge "margin for error" of 400 years which he totally sucked out of his thumb, but which (only just) permits the crumbling "shroud" fragments to potential have a 1st Century origin;
- Back this up by testing crumbling "shroud" fibers using lasers etc to measure "degradation", and compare them against the measured degradations of other old linens from around the world – although the true ages of the control linens is only approximately known, and ignoring the vastly different manufacturing and storage techniques involved, and the shroud's history of being boiled and baked in fires;
- Discover that the laser tests indicate that the crumbling "shroud" fragments are much too old to belong to Jesus of Nazareth, so add on a different huge "margin for error" of hundreds of years which he also totally sucked out of his thumb to make the crumbling "shroud" fragments seem newer;
- Average out all the above nonsense, to achieve a mean date of 33AD;
- Declare that the shroud is the true burial cloth of Christ.
- This is called "junk science". It does not compare equally in scientific quality with the C14 testing, so it is not accorded the same respect as a reliable source.
- Fanti's latest "tests" involved the following:
- If you read carefully what Prof. Ramsey said, you will see that he is actually saying that some other evidence "suggests" that the shroud may be older than the carbon dating, but that actual experts need to "assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence" to achieve a consistency with the "available scientific and historical information" – in other words, the "other evidence" is not reliable, and needs to be reviewed. He said this when he was about to test a hypothesis put forward by Jackson that the cloth may have absorbed fresh carbon from the fire – a test which soon thereafter proved that Jackson's new hypothesis was wrong.
- This article (together with its daughter article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin) does neutrally report the scope of the problems and major positions, including those that claim to support authenticity. However it then presents also the FACTS which show that those pro-authenticity arguments have been debunked. This is what objectivity means – present ALL the relevant evidence, and don’t try to manufacture an even balance where no such balance actually exists in reality.
You want science? Okay:
- [Citation:] Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for vanillin. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin. See: [PDF] Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review by Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.
Cited from here. Doesn't sound like religious zealotry to me. Of course I wonder if you will simply take every indication of authenticity as junk science and look for some spurious way to discredit this. Then there is this:
- [Citation:] Italian scientist Paolo DiLazzaro tried for five years to replicate the image and concluded that it was produced by ultraviolet light, but the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst “would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”
Cited from here. The fact that the blood was first and then the super-extremely thin non-directional image followed also speaks strongly against any kind of fabrication. Refute away...I'm sure you'll think of something, though your scientific credentials are wanting...those very credentials that you are so imperiously demanding of others. You'll probably say that if a religious website quotes a scientist, it thereby renders the science invalid for purposes of this argumentation. That is indeed a spurious and illegitimate response.
Note: I have never argued for a Wikipedian declaration of TS authenticity, merely for fair and adequate coverage of the pro-authenticity arguments. It is no trouble to say "Many scientists think X, but there are others who insist on another conclusion for these reasons...The former group rejects those reasons with these explanations..." Now why should it be so hard for an objective encyclopedia to do that? Pernimius (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: Proof of the invalidation of the RC14 testing is available at this page. Multiple scientists so confirm. Pernimius (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Pernimius: Flury-Lemberg is a textile expert, who specialises in restoring old fabrics. She examined the actual shroud specifically looking for evidence of repairs, and found none. This supports the conclusions of the textile experts who supported the C14 team in 1988, who also specifically checked the sample area for evidence of repairs, and found none. Against all these experts, you offer a website from a commercial clothing repair business. Can you see the difference in the quality of the sources? The commercial repairs are intended to be "undetectable" to the naked eye, but not to magnifiers. Modern magnifiers are much better than Renaissance magnifiers, if they even had magnifiers back then. There is no possible way that they could have repaired a cloth 600 years ago without it being detectable today with modern instruments – as Flury-Lemberg makes clear. Benford and Marino are grasping at straws, and the shroudie community is delighted to grasp along with them.
- The main problem with Rogers' work is that he failed to properly verify that the threads he was working on were actual shroud material to begin with. Since the presumed source was not authorised to possess valid shroud material, this failure by Rogers is very significant. When Rogers' conclusions directly contradict the conclusions of ALL the specialists who DID have access to the ACTUAL shroud, one is forced to conclude that Rogers' sample threads are not valid shroud material. In a nice bit of irony, Rogers actually accuses the C14 team of failing to first ensure that their sample is valid shroud material.
- The THEORY by Di Lazzaro is very interesting, and he may well be on to something. Of course the Sun puts out a lot more ultraviolet light than any other source. There is actually no need to run ultra-high intensities for ultra-short durations – the same fading effect is achieved a million times a year by accident, simply by exposing fabrics to direct sunlight for a few weeks or months. Perhaps that might be a less-exotic explanation? Also interesting to note that the image on the shroud has been fading away progressively over the centuries, as the rest of the cloth dries out and discolours as well.
- The "fact" that the image does not exist underneath the blood was determined by examining one single fiber, which had been ripped off the shroud with adhesive tape, and this conclusion may not be correct for the rest of the shroud. It can also have many other possible explanations, some of which I have cited on this talk page previously. On its own this "fact" does not overturn the huge weight of scientific evidence from the C14 testing.
- The cotton thread issue means nothing. First, this applies to the Raes sample, not to the C14 sample. Second, when the C14 sample was made, a strip along the edge was trimmed off and discarded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE foreign threads were detected – those foreign threads were thus EXCLUDED from the C14 tests. The actual sample material was studied under magnification, and any other extraneous threads present in the samples were removed. Please note also that to swing a dating from 1st C to 14th C would require an amount of foreign threads equal to more than the weight of the original material, so random foreign cotton threads have been discounted as a possible explanation. Note also that you are once again citing an internet blog rather than a quality scientific source.
- You ask for a sentence that says: "Many scientists think X, but there are others who insist on another conclusion for these reasons...The former group rejects those reasons with these explanations." The article already says: "Certain shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating. However, none of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically proven." Seriously, what are you still complaining about? Wdford (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well this section debates how much Fanti's work should be noticed. I have veered off that topic to counter what I see as argumentation deriving from a biased and all too dismissive attitude (roughly something like "This scientific quote comes from a believer's website therefore it is not scientific reality we need to take seriously). The article is not bad at all, but consider the implications of a lede-sentence like "The cloth itself is believed by some to be the burial shroud he was wrapped in when he was buried after crucifixion although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages." That might have been expressed this way: "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors lead many to believe that this is actually the burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." (And if it is such, it is an astounding relic. Even if not, it is an amazing object in itself.) See the difference? You can debate provenance, but that is not probative of the science involved. That requires non-scientific, procedural and historical considerations: what is the likelihood the material came from the right source? Pernimius (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- A further consideration: we just archived the Talk-page section in which it was mentioned that the article made it seem that only a fringe group was promoting the authenticity of the Shroud. Whatever your position on the Shroud, this is an impression that should not be given. There is robust research, conferencing, and argumentation favoring authenticity. There are scientists on both sides. Many people who were originally skeptical have changed their position on consideration of the total range of evidence and aspects (e.g., from art history, coinage, geology, etc.)
- You criticize me for citing a commercial site on invisible weaving. The point to be made was that it does indeed exist pace Flury-Lemburg who seems to outright deny even the possibility of its existence. The page I gave also provided an actual photograph of such reweaving for the skeptical. A blanket denial of existence is overturned by a single counter-example such as that. It is called evidence. Whether it could have be done in the middle ages / Renaissance period is another question requiring original research. Pernimius (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to rewording the sentence to read something like "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors nonetheless lead some people to believe that this is the actual burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion."
- The argument in favor of authenticity is very much fringe, because there is solid scientific evidence of a medieval origin, and nothing yet presented has threatened that dating. The "other evidence" is all highly speculative, and is capable of multiple interpretations. The issue of the hypothetical coins is probably the most fringe of everything.
- The issue of "invisible weaving" hangs around the definition of the word "invisible". If you use the word to mean it is undetectable to a casual glance with a naked eye, then I would agree that it does exist. If you mean it is undetectable to a group of scientists with modern magnifiers who are specifically looking for evidence of a repair, then no there is no such thing as invisible weaving. Wdford (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I should have said "iconography" instead of coins, as in this paper, which comes with a convenient one-paragraph abstract at the start. But the paper does mention how coins may show the influence of the Shroud image as well, and that is what I was thinking of, even more than the icons. (That said, how interesting that some people claim to find the markings of a Pontius Pilate coin. I fully agree that this is difficult to prove. But even here we do have more than one scientist claiming to see the same markings.)
- Thank you for your openness on the rewording. I think we must agree to disagree on the dating, not on the validity of the testing as such or on the result, but on the nature of the area from which the sample was drawn. I think it is time for me to sign off again, until there's new evidence or a compelling re-interpretation. Pernimius (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Keeping the Door of Inquiry Open
In the interest of further inquiry, I recommend amending this statement found at the end of the second paragraph of this article: "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[12][sources 1]". My basis is that while it might be accurate, it is such a strong statement that many users may be inclined to stop exploring. It could state: "However, all of the hypothesis to date (enter the date) which have challenged the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin have been convincingly rebutted by highly regarded scientific processes.[12][sources 1]". The brevity of the original statement sounds so exacting and final that many users will not go beyond it or their inquiry will be tainted. While the essence is the same the latter statement keeps the door open slightly for users to explore an excellent article.Pythias45 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- — Pythias34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~unsigned
- I disagree. An encyclopedia's purpose is to inform. We should not try to water down facts merely because some readers may not wish to accept them. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- As I once suggested, how about: "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors nonetheless lead some people to believe that this is the actual burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." There are elements pointing toward authenticity too, scientifically researched and published elements: the Jerusalem area travertine aragonite, evidence of blood from a torture victim, consistency with ancient weaving, uncannily accurate signs of just the kind of crucifixion Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have received (despite the conventions of medieval art), amazing unduplicability and complexity of the image, blood stains first and then image, plausible history of transportation from near east to France, likely impact on iconography, consistency of pollens with the proposed authenticity, identifiable Semitic features of the face and head. (Notice I did not mention Pontius Pilate's coins on the eyes because they are especially controversial...but some specialists see them there, and they would be very near a slam dunk for authenticity. How would a medieval forger get just the right coin?) And in the other corner...a single test of one tiny area from a very smeared and dirtied edge of the cloth...possibly cleaned well enough for C14 testing...and possibly NOT! Pernimius (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. There are no "elements pointing toward authenticity". The shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century -- far too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. Please see WP:FRINGE. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, C14 zealotry that disregards other scientific and historical considerations is junk science. Macon's gratuitous denial fails. I should add the absence of vanillin as an indicator of greater age. The large bulk of the evidence points to authenticity. Pernimius (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pernimius, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your behavior on this talk page. The thread is "Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius" --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, calling a position "fringe" does not make it so. The vast materials pointing to authenticity, books, scientific articles, historical studies, etc. indicate that you are avoiding the question of evidence that does not fit with your POV. Several original Shroud-skeptics like Barrie Schwortz have changed their minds because of the weight of accumulated evidence. Let the article be written by truly neutral people who can see valid counter-arguments when they appear. Pernimius (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- From WP:FRINGE: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." The mainstream scientific view is that the Shroud of Turin is medieval forgery rendered in tempera paint.[1] Your position is, by definition, fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Re: vanillin, see [ http://www.religioustolerance.org/vanillin-dating-shroud-of-turin.htm ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Schaferman's article used here says "Although I point out the errors of logic and scientific evidence in Rogers' paper, I include my own speculations and suspicions, for which I obviously lack real evidence. It should be clear which is which. Future investigation needs to be conducted." http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm . Hardly a powerful and decisive argument. Pernimius (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Re: vanillin, see [ http://www.religioustolerance.org/vanillin-dating-shroud-of-turin.htm ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- From WP:FRINGE: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." The mainstream scientific view is that the Shroud of Turin is medieval forgery rendered in tempera paint.[1] Your position is, by definition, fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, calling a position "fringe" does not make it so. The vast materials pointing to authenticity, books, scientific articles, historical studies, etc. indicate that you are avoiding the question of evidence that does not fit with your POV. Several original Shroud-skeptics like Barrie Schwortz have changed their minds because of the weight of accumulated evidence. Let the article be written by truly neutral people who can see valid counter-arguments when they appear. Pernimius (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pernimius, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your behavior on this talk page. The thread is "Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius" --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, C14 zealotry that disregards other scientific and historical considerations is junk science. Macon's gratuitous denial fails. I should add the absence of vanillin as an indicator of greater age. The large bulk of the evidence points to authenticity. Pernimius (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. There are no "elements pointing toward authenticity". The shroud dates to the 13th or 14th century -- far too recent for the shroud to have been associated with Jesus of Nazareth. Please see WP:FRINGE. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- As I once suggested, how about: "Although three radiocarbon dating tests in 1988 dated a sample of the cloth to the Middle Ages, other factors nonetheless lead some people to believe that this is the actual burial shroud that wrapped Jesus's body after the crucifixion." There are elements pointing toward authenticity too, scientifically researched and published elements: the Jerusalem area travertine aragonite, evidence of blood from a torture victim, consistency with ancient weaving, uncannily accurate signs of just the kind of crucifixion Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have received (despite the conventions of medieval art), amazing unduplicability and complexity of the image, blood stains first and then image, plausible history of transportation from near east to France, likely impact on iconography, consistency of pollens with the proposed authenticity, identifiable Semitic features of the face and head. (Notice I did not mention Pontius Pilate's coins on the eyes because they are especially controversial...but some specialists see them there, and they would be very near a slam dunk for authenticity. How would a medieval forger get just the right coin?) And in the other corner...a single test of one tiny area from a very smeared and dirtied edge of the cloth...possibly cleaned well enough for C14 testing...and possibly NOT! Pernimius (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The painting proposal has been utterly debunked. See above, where I said
- In the list of all the things that should be non-controversial about the shroud, the fact that it is not a painting should be near the top. Google "shroud" "not a painting" and you'll get sites that help you, like this (https://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm). The image is non-directional (very hard to do with a medieval painting--is there a single parallel?), it is extremely super shallow (beyond what any painting could achieve), it is non-pigmental, the blood was first then the image, etc. Just research serious intelligent people who are not overly affected by anti-religious zealotry.
So is there a single parallel from medieval art for such a painting that replicates the major characteristics of the TS? Where is it, Guy Macon? Tell us! You may hear just what you want to hear, but in an encyclopedia article other voices have their say too. The fact is that even if the TS is proved a medieval object, it would still be an amazing, astounding, virtually miraculous forgery. Any fair-minded informed person would probably admit that. Pernimius (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Shroud.com is not a reliable source. See Shroud of Turin Research Project. Isabel Piczek is not a scientist. And it has been 23 years since 1995. Rather than parroting material from fringe websites, might I gently suggest that you turn your attention to WP:AN, where topic banning you from this page is being discussed? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are not a reliable source, Guy Macon. And it has been 30 years since 1988. You change the subject, failing to cite even a single real parallel to the Shroud. Pernimius (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The authenticity theory is clearly not fringe in mainstream science, and the image is obviously not a painting.
- According to Barcaccia et al. (Scientific reports, 2015, article), "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"
- According to Marzia Boi (Archaeometry, 2017, article): new pollen study "confirms and authenticates the theory that the corpse kept in the Shroud received a funeral and burial with all the honour and respect that would have been customary in the Hebrew tradition".
- According to new atomic resolution studies by Di Carlino et al. (Plos One, 2017, article) "obtained results are not compatible with a painting but evidenced the presence of nanoparticles of pathologic blood serum related to the presence of creatinine bound with ferrihydrate, which are typical of an organism that suffered a strong polytrauma, like torture" Thucyd (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- When that paper has been checked by reliable secondary sources and holds up, the secondary sources can be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- "You are not a reliable source" - That does not matter because nobody intends to use Guy Macon as a source.
- Shroud.com is not reliable and will not be used as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- The 3 papers are published in top peer-reviewed journals, and quoted in other top peer-reviewed journals, as already mentioned in the article. Sorry if it goes against your controversial POV. But it is Wikipedia here. We need the latest top reliable sources.
- Moreover, a majority here is clearly not familiar with the latest scientific developments on the topic in top scientific journals. Maybe you should try to read the introduction by Barcaccia et al. in Scientific Reports. And this presentation in Live Science (article). Courage. Thucyd (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are not a reliable source, Guy Macon. And it has been 30 years since 1988. You change the subject, failing to cite even a single real parallel to the Shroud. Pernimius (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
One of the great ironies of Shoudology is that Rogers criticised the C14 team for failing to make 1000% certain that their sample material was actually representative of the original shroud fabric. Rogers himself however made zero effort to ensure that his own sample was representative of the original C14 sample, and happily accepted the anecdotal word of a man who was not authorised to possess actual shroud material. This is a classic example of the double standards that "shroud researchers" apply when their POV is refuted.
We do not need a comprehensive survey of "Shroud researchers" on the matter to help decide which view is fringe and which is not. Wikipedia demands evidence from RELIABLE sources. "Shroud researchers" by definition believe the shroud is authentic, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. To ask for a comprehensive survey of "Shroud researchers" on this issue is like asking for a comprehensive survey of flat-earthers to settle a dispute about the true shape of the earth.
The STURP people had hands-on contact with the shroud, but zero C14 involvement (or skills). They are like astronauts giving opinions about the geological history of moon, when they have no knowledge about geology, have not studied samples from the moon's interior, and wouldn’t know what they were looking at if they ever did see such a sample. However STURP scientist Jackson was unequivocal about the fact that the STURP PHOTOGRAPHS prove that there was never any repair in the C14 sampled corner at any time.
Please always remember that Ray Rogers DID NOT base his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud – he was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure.
We all agree that the shroud image is not a painting – it is caused by the image fibers having dehydrated more extensively than the other fibers on the cloth. The precise backstory for this is as yet uncertain, but Garleschelli proved that painting an image onto linen and then washing it off would cause a very similar effect, while leaving no trace of the original paint. This has been discussed many times already on the talk page. There may be no other known items of exactly this nature because other paintings were not washed off and boiled – either they still have the paint on as per the original intention, or they were destroyed completely. The earliest known records of the shroud state unequivocally that it was a painting – whereas now it clearly it is just the shadow of that original painting. Also, it is fading rapidly as the rest of the fibers are dehydrated by aging to match the dehydration of the image fibers.
The pro-authenticity papers cited by Barcaccia et al. are old works, long since debunked, and Barcaccia does not give them equal credence with the C14 dating. Two of them are actually by Rogers. Barcaccia concluded, of the pollens etc, that "Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East." To quote from Hugh Farey, editor of the British Society of the Turin Shroud newsletter, in the LiveScience article: "As far as the plant DNA goes, they've done a good job, and they've identified a number of species that mean, broadly speaking, nothing at all." See [2]
Marzia Boi makes certain claims about pollen on the shroud. However her "findings" contradict the detailed work of Barcaccia et al above. Boi has been debunked by none other than the British Society for the Turin Shroud – see the details at [3]. Their rebuttal was based in part on Boi relying on photos from Frei, who is already an unreliable source, rather than actual shroud evidence. She also apparently seriously misinterpreted ancient Jewish funeral practices. They state in their opening paragraph: "While her science is excellent, her premises are flawed, and her inferences tenuous, as there is no other evidence for such ointments on the Shroud, scientifically, archaeologically, biblically or historically." So in effect, this is just more "heroic conjecture".
The Di Carlino study merely says that they found no remaining paint – hardly a revelation – and that they did find blood from a traumatised human – hardly a revelation either. Nothing new here. However they worked on a single fiber provided to them by Barrie Schwortz, who is not exactly objective, and once again there was no attempt to first ensure that they were dealing with a genuine shroud sample. They found that the person from whom the blood came had suffered serious trauma, and they then speculate that the donor might have been tortured – although the donor might equally have fallen off a horse or died in battle etc. Also, this team included Fanti, the Persistent Prover of shroud authenticity, so its "heroic conjectures" are no great surprise either.
The so-called "elements pointing toward authenticity" all have much simpler explanations, as follows:
- The Jerusalem area travertine aragonite: This "evidence" came from tape samples originally taken by STURP member Ray Rogers, and the chain of evidence was neglected. Jackson, in his important summary of the "evidence" (see [4], pg 64), admits re the limestone dust that: "Consequently, the sampling was limited, and the rigor in the custodial management of the samples that were taken has been justly criticized." Since the shroud was washed – and boiled – in the middle ages, this dust – if in fact it really exists at all – probably came onto the cloth when its wealthy owner undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and took his prized relic along.
- Evidence of blood from a torture victim: The blood came from a person who suffered severe trauma – anything from a riding accident to a war wound to (possibly) childbirth.
- Consistency with ancient weaving: This does not prove it was ancient, merely that weaving techniques didn’t change very much.
- Uncannily accurate signs of just the kind of crucifixion Jesus of Nazareth was reported to have received: The forger read the Bible himself, and followed all the clues as carefully as he could.
- Amazing unduplicability and complexity of the image: Garlaschelli duplicated the mechanism, but the precise details depend on a complex combination of tools and techniques and conditions and baking times and baking temperatures and aging humidities etc – which were entirely chance events.
- Blood stains first and then image: This is derived for the study of a single damaged fiber, and might not be representative of all image fibers. It might also be that the blood was smeared onto the model before the paint was applied, or that the blood went on while the paint was wet and the alkalinity of the blood cancelled out the image-forming mechanism on those fibers. All these explanations are more simple and probable than a miraculous resurrection.
- Plausible history of transportation from near east to France: This same route was almost certainly the best route followed by wealthy pilgrims too. Also, they found pollens from North America and India, so the "pollen record" is not all that reliable as an indicator.
- Likely impact on iconography: The iconography is not definitive – any iconographer would have assumed the same generic image anyway.
- Consistency of pollens with the proposed authenticity: An Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem would have encountered the same pollens along the route. Also, they found pollens from North America and India, so the "pollen record" is not all that reliable as an indicator.
- Identifiable Semitic features of the face and head: This is pure conjecture – the features are not identifiable as distinctly Semitic at all.
- Coins on the eyes: This is pure conjecture – proper detailed studies found no sign of coins, flowers, nails, death warrants etc etc.
- The absence of vanillin: This "test" was invented on the fly, and the so-called calibration curve was purely speculative. No accurate allowance could be made for the impact of the several known fires, and baking linen is known to strip away the vanillin as well.
In the other corner, multiple C14 experts and textile experts who have actually examined the shroud have stated emphatically that scrutiny with modern microscopes and photographs show there is zero evidence of a medieval repair, and that a contamination sufficient to swing the dating that far would have required a quantity of contaminant in excess of double the weight of the original fabric – which was manifestly NOT PRESENT either. That's hard science, and it's well attested. While the cleaning was probably not 100% perfect, it was close enough to give a reliable indication of age – and that age was decidedly medieval. On the other hand, the pro-authenticity "elements" are speculative, capable of alternative explanation, or simply pure conjecture to begin with.
Ergo, since all challenges to the very-professional C14 testing have been scientifically refuted, and the evidence pointing the other way is manifestly unreliable, the results of the C14 dating must be taken to be accurate. That is how science works. It's not based on a vote of the flat-earthers. Wdford (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- "Secondly, because of controversy surrounding the meaning of the radiocarbon result, measurement aspects of artifact dating have been given intense scrutiny. Such scrutiny is quite positive, for it gives the possibility of added insight into unsuspected phenomena and sources of measurement uncertainty."[1] Pythias45 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Primary sources 101
Our content is supposed to be based on secondary sources. So why are large parts of this article built on primary sources? By doing that we make Wikipedia an ersatz secondary publication. We are supposed to be a tertiary publication, summarizing accepted knowledge (as generally found in secondary and tertiary sources) and not inexpertly reviewing the experimental, unverified primary literature. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I fully agree that the ideal approach is to use secondary sources – no argument there. However in this particular topic there is very little quality secondary material available. There are plenty of books out there which are pure bunk, written by authors supportive of a religious fringe view, and hopelessly biased and unscientific but still secondary. On the other hand, objective scientists don’t waste their time and energy churning out books or papers on this topic, because the shroud has been conclusively proved to be medieval by a valid scientific process, and therefore the scientists have largely moved on to fresh challenges. Therefore, unless we include valid primary sources where necessary to address any aspect which is not adequately covered (yet) in reliable secondary sources, the mountain of books "proving" the shroud is an authentic relic would swamp out the science by sheer weight of bullshit. That is not helpful to readers, or good for the encyclopedia.
- WP:RS does not prohibit primary sources. We therefore fill in the gaps with quality primary material for now, and we do it carefully. Where we drop the ball in any particular case we obviously need to fix it, but deleting it is a bit strong, and will result in a misleading article. Wdford (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Why undo my edits on the shroud of Turin
(This discussion was copied into here on 4 April 2018, from User talk:Wdford)
Hi, you undid my edit to the Shroud of Turin. I made a constructive edit, changing the language to support what is in the sources and to help promote a more neutral POV. In your revert, you say that "the challenges have actually been scientifically refuted", but I've read the sources behind that statement, and there was no scientific refutation of medieval material in the carbon dating sample. What the sources do have is plenty of conjectures regarding features of the C14 sample and why they believe it is valid. If there are actual scientific refutations in any of the sources in the class of the Raymond Rogers tests described in his 2005 paper, please point them out. Otherwise, your revert goes beyond your evidence. If you can't provide the actual scientific refutation, please do not revert my edit. Thanks Actuarialninja (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- This edit?[5]
- The juxtaposition of "Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating" and "Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date is accurate" gives too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory. It's like saying "Some moon researchers say the moon is made out of green cheese" and ""Other researchers maintain that the moon consists of rocks and dirt". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Re: Raymond Rogers' 2005 paper, see Raymond Rogers#Criticism of the radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin: "A few months before his death, Rogers submitted an article describing his findings to a peer-reviewed journal and it was published less than two months before Raymond Rogers died. The essential conclusion of the article is that the radiocarbon datings were accurate, but because the samples were from cloth that was not part of the original Shroud, they are irrelevant regarding the age of the image area."
- Hello Guy Macon.
- Yes, that is the edit.
- For the matter of assigning weight, the whole issue hangs on which position you wish to relegate to the “fringe”. Unfortunately, I could find no comprehensive survey of Shroud researchers on the matter to help decide which view is fringe and which is not.
- There are several lines of reasoning that would lead one to believe that changing to my preferred wording is not promoting fringe views:
- I) The best I could find was the opinions of individual STURP researchers. A good number of them believe the date of the Shroud is older than indicated by the 1988 carbon dating (I can provide a list and references if you want it [these are available readily enough online], for now, let’s keep this as brief as possible). These researchers have more direct hands-on experience examining the Shroud than anyone else. Put in terms of your moon analogy, these researchers are like the astronauts that actually visited the moon. Their findings and opinions should carry at least as much, if not more, weight than those who did not work as extensively (if at all) on the Shroud. This line of reasoning most definitely shows that questioning the C14 results is common (and not “fringe”) among many of those with actual, direct experience working on the Shroud.
- II) There are numerous decently mainstream outlets that reported on Rogers’ finding. For example, the BBC, National Geographic, The Telegraph, and so on. Note carefully that this doesn’t prove authenticity (and is not my argument), but it surely does lend support to the proposition that Rogers’ findings are not as fringe as you say they are (Please tell me, how many decently mainstream articles do you see seriously reporting on the idea that the moon is made of cheese? If you can produce some that are sincere [and not obvious satire], I should very much like to see them).
- But we can also reverse the question: Please explain to me how it makes sense to assign more weight to this Joe Nickell fellow in your CFI reference (a former magician/teacher/private investigator) than to Ray Rogers (a professional chemist, who worked first-hand on the Shroud as part of STURP, and who based his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud)? Rather, doesn’t it make a great deal more sense to give more benefit/weight to Rogers than Nickell?
- With all of that said, if there are no objections, I would like to move forward with my edit.
- P.S: I am going into a busy period at work and may take several days to respond if you post a follow-up. So please don’t take a few days silence as a sign of absence.
- P.P.S: To possibly save some time down the road, I want to say outright that I don't want this to degenerate into yet another authenticity debate. It’s already been beaten to death countless times. Everyone has their opinion, and I can honestly say that I don't care very much about some other fellow’s take.
- --Actuarialninja (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Nickel's point is merely that Ray Rogers DID NOT base his findings on analysis of actual physical samples from the Shroud – he was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure. Rogers himself admits this in his own papers - Nickel is not adding "new science", he is merely pointing out the obvious. On the one side we have various experts with hands-on experience such as the entire Damon team, Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc, who all state emphatically that there is no evidence of any repairs in that area. One the other side we have Rogers, whose tests on two tiny unverified threads found the opposite. How do we reconcile this? Did the Damon team check carefully that their sampled area was representative? Yes, they did. Did Jull, Ramsey, Jackson, Lemburg etc work with actual shroud material? Yes, they did. Did Rogers check carefully that his samples were representative? No, he did not. Did Rogers get his samples directly from the actual shroud itself? No, he received them in the mail, after they had been mailed back and forth for two decades, having apparently originated with a person who had no authority to possess original shroud material to begin with. Is it therefore possible that Rogers' samples were not in fact representative? Yes, quite possibly. Which side is more likely to be correct???
- Please can we move this discussion to the article talk page, so that other people can also follow and participate, and so that all the discussion is in one central place? Wdford (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is probably best to move the discussion to the main talk page. Unfortunately, I am very much tied up with work at the moment, and will probably only have time to advance my best effort at a response on the weekend. --Actuarialninja (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed claims from Ruffin
The book "The Shroud of Turin" by C. Bernard Ruffin is not a WP:RS for claimed statements of fact. Ruffin is an apologist and his book is at odds with the mainstream interpretation in key areas (e.g. reliability of the radiocarbon dating), so invokes WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Change the wording of "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted"
Hi, I would like to propose changing the wording in the article from “However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted” to “Other researchers maintain that the radiocarbon date represents the Shroud’s date of origin”. I believe my proposed wording is constructive, is a true statement, is fair to all sides, is supported by the sources, promotes a neutral point of view, and avoids the problems associated with the current wording (I can get into this if anyone wants).
A similar edit of mine (I have tweaked my proposed wording a bit here to be more precise, though the substance is largely the same) has already been reverted once by Wdford, and we had some discussion on Wdford’s talk page and my talk page. Please, I ask that anyone wishing to get in on this conversation read these discussions first. Also, I especially want point out that I have no intention of proving/disproving authenticity/inauthenticity to anyone; and have no special interest in someone else’s personally held views.
With that said, I would like to respond to Wdford’s latest post on his talk page: @ Wdford: You have a number of assertions in your last post, some of which I could not find support for in the CFI reference, or elsewhere. Let’s start with this:
“he [Raymond Rogers] was looking at two tiny fragments of threads that were sent to him in the mail, and whose true provenance he made no effort to assure” – I could not find any source on Rogers’ effort levels with respect to the samples; if you can, please provide the support. “Rogers himself admits this in his own papers”. Again, I could not find this reference to any effort level in Rogers’ papers, please provide.
Rather, what I do see is that in Rogers’ 2005 paper, Rogers does note that he “received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample”. The Damon team results are already well represented in the Wikipedia article, and I take no issue with the team, nor is that my intention for this edit.
You ask which conclusion is more likely to be correct. The honest answer is that I don’t know. But now that we are entering into the territory of personal judgements (only because you first brought it up), my own take (though who cares about someone’s own take, right? ;) ) is that the C14 test needs to be done again, this time from several distinct and diverse sites, so that we can remove any reasonable doubt one way or another. But that’s just my take. Feel free to disagree. If possible, I would like to not get bogged down in personal judgements (people’s own personal takes on the Shroud have outlets elsewhere).
I think this is enough to go on for now. Best, Actuarialninja (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- These theories have been assessed and rejected by multiple mainstream researchers publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For one example see Dating the Turin Shroud—An Assessment -- Article in Radiocarbon. "All of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" is an accurate statement, only disputed in shroudie blogs and other purveyors of pseudoscience.
- Radiocarbon is a legitimate scientific journal.[7] The source you cited ( http://www.shroud.it ) is not. Read WP:RS and try again. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- The Dating the Turin Shroud—An Assessment -- Article in Radiocarbon was written prior to Rogers' findings WP:AGE MATTERS. Use it as a source for the medieval hypothesis if you like... I have read the WP:RS, please explain to me why Thermochimica Acta does not qualify. Rogers' 2005 article is behind a paywall, but we can go with this paywall link anyway if you prefer. Actuarialninja (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- The wording proposed at the top is inadequate, because it makes it look as though the argument is evenly weighted, whereas in actual fact the C14 dates are accepted by all C14 experts as solid.
- I propose instead the following: "However, multiple experts having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence, have scientifically refuted all of the medieval repair hypothesis [ref and ref and ref], the bio-contamination hypothesis [ref and ref and ref] and the carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis [ref]." How about that? Concise, but also factually accurate.
- More important evidence on the Rogers' threads comes from the paper THE ORIGIN OF ROGERS’ RAES AND RADIOCARBON SAMPLES, presented to the Saint-Louis Shroud Conference in October 2014, by Dr Thibault Heimburger, a noted "shroud researcher". ([8]). In this paper Heimburger admits that the Rogers threads were mailed back and forth for years, that Gonella and Riggi did not have actual authorization to be handing them around in the first please, and that Rogers' threads may well have come from the trimmed band (which was removed and discarded by the C14 team specifically because it could be seen to be contaminated). The amount of supposing and fudging in the presentation is an education in itself.
- The fact that multiple experts using VERIFIABLE shroud evidence have refuted the repair hypothesis, puts Rogers' tests in serious doubt, as Rogers's arbitrary threads could not possibly "prove" a repair when all the actual shroud material shows there was no repair. It's not a case of "he who cries last wins" – there is much evidence that there is no repair, so Rogers has to present high-quality evidence to overturn the C14 dating, and his arbitrary and unverified threads don't come close to meeting that standard.
- Hi Wdford, before we get to anything else, I have to ask about your last sentence. I never started any dispute resolutions. All I ever did was make edits to the Shroud article and engaged in discussion on talk pages. Could you pls link me so I know what you are talking about. Actuarialninja (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wdford made an error. The DRN case was filed by User:Aarghdvaark, not User:Actuarialninja.[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It’s no prob. Thanks for clearing that up.
Wdford, your source from Heimburger states that Gonella had the authority to possess the samples, and that Rogers confirmed the location of the threads with Gonella. Also, it concludes that the samples were genuine. These are all things you are against. But I don’t want to get too bogged down in Rogers’ samples, because I think the disagreement really lies elsewhere.
I believe that the real heart of the disagreement lies in the word “refute”. My main objection to using that word is that it is misrepresenting what is happening. There certainly has not been anything like a scientific refutation of the conclusion in Rogers’ 2005 paper. I went through the trouble of actually looking into the sources behind the sentence and reading them. Most of the sources aren’t written by people who had any first-hand dealings with the Shroud, and some are even editorials written by proponents of secularism. Some sources don’t even deal with Rogers’ findings directly. But a debate on the sources is part of the dispute you were referring to, so I’m not going to get too much into which sources should be included/excluded, as this has been done elsewhere.
The word “refute” is unfair to the work of Rogers and others, and that it is not supported by the sources. It is the view that is promulgated by secular advocacy groups like the Center for Inquiry, and Wikipedia is to remain as neutral as possible and not push for the agenda of secular advocacy. Now, people have certainly responded to the work of Rogers. Whether or not they are good responses is up to each of us to decide. I would not object to use the word “respond” instead of “refute”, to have a wording like “there have been responses in the scientific community and elsewhere to challenges of the carbon dating”. Actuarialninja (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but just as is the case with young-earth creationism, antivax, and astrology, there exists a near-unanimous scientific consensus on one side and a few people (some of them scientists) on the other side who are unable to get their research published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. To do as you suggest would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And once again - multiple scientists have PROVED that there was no repair done in that area. Therefore, the C14 sample taken from that area - under huge scrutiny - was indeed valid shroud material. All claims of intrusive repair material, past and future, are thereby fully refuted.
- Rogers samples were not verified as valid shroud material. Per Heimburger, a "shroud researcher", you have:
- Gonella had no verifiable authorization from Cardinal Ballestrero to possess shroud material, far less to distribute it as he chooses;
- A sketch exists explaining the origin of the threads, but it is not signed by Gonella, nor is it dated;
- Nonetheless, the samples were mailed up and down for years, with no proper custody;
- Five years later, Rogers "called" Gonella, who apparently confirmed verbally on the phone that the samples were from the C14 area;
- Ten years later, a private letter from Tom D’Muhala (who is he?) to Barrie Schwortz (and who is he?) "confirms" that the samples are original.
- On this, Heimburger claims that the authenticity of the threads is "proven". There is no equivalence at all.
- In 2013, Mons Cesare Nosiglia, Archbishop of Turin and Custodian of the Holy Shroud, issued a written statement (see here [10]) as follows:
- "The statements about “experiments and analysis concerning the Holy Shroud” to which Mons. Cesare Nosiglia refers, were made by Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini in September 1995 and Cardinal Severino Poletto on May 4th, 2009 when analogous research was attempted on material supposedly belonging to the Shroud. More specifically, Mons. Cesare Nosiglia underlines that, as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the Shroud, the Holy See and the Papal Custodian declare that no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments."
- In 2013, Mons Cesare Nosiglia, Archbishop of Turin and Custodian of the Holy Shroud, issued a written statement (see here [10]) as follows:
- Wdford (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi folks, sorry for a delayed response. Work has kept me from getting back to you sooner (if you ever had to do quarter-end short-staffed, you’ll know what I mean :S )
- @Guy Macon. That is nothing more than association fallacy. Of course anyone can come up with some example of a ridiculous position (moon is made of cheese, earth is 6,000 yrs old, etc, etc…) and then entangle some view they don’t like with their preferred example. I already explained why Rogers’ view is not fringe on Wdford’s talk page.
- @Wdford: The quote in your reference refers to a response to a set of experiments done by Prof. Julio Fanti (i.e. in first sentence of your source “Referring to the news about the release of the volume “The Mistery of the Shroud” by Rizzoli, written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta”). It looks like you are mistakenly attributing to Rogers a set of statements made about someone else.
- So far, your preferred source (Heimburger) has concluded things about Rogers' fibers that are different from yours. Our job on Wikipedia is to report what sources say, not to editorialize WP:NPOV. There is still no scientific refutation, either in the sources in the article, or in sources in the talk (I actually went through the trouble of reading them). If there is an actual scientific refutation of Rogers, please produce it. Actuarialninja (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- And yet again - a large number of experts, working with verified shroud material, have PROVED that there was no repair done in that area. Therefore, all claims of intrusive repair material, past and future, are fully refuted. Rogers cannot have threads proving there was a repair on the shroud, if there is hard evidence showing there was never any repair on the shroud. The experts are not required to produce a paper every year specifically refuting whatever fringe theory has just been published, and it is NOT a case of he who cries last wins. There was never any repair, so Rogers' theory is wrong. Why Rogers made that mistake is presumably due to his threads not being valid shroud material, but the actual reason is irrelevant - the core issue is that the verified evidence shows there was zero repair. As Heimburger's summary shows, Rogers' chain of evidence is anecdotal and unscientific. To pursue a theory based on anecdotal and unscientific "evidence", in the face of multiple experts who all used actual verified shroud evidence, is "fringe".
- The statement from Nosiglia, in the first sentence, actually says "the Papal Custodian of the Holy Shroud, Mons. Cesare Nosiglia, confirms the statements of his predecessors .. made by Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini in September 1995 and Cardinal Severino Poletto on May 4th, 2009 when analogous research was attempted on material supposedly belonging to the Shroud." It would help if you read the entire source. The Church is also not required to respond individually to each fringe theory that comes along. There was no repair, this has been scientifically proven, the repair hypothesis is thus refuted, the serious scientists move on, the Church moves on, and the shroudies join support groups (called Shroud Conferences). Wdford (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wdford and Guy Macon. I am looking at the dispute resolution with Aarghdvaark, and since there is a process in the works for a rewording that has considerable overlap with my objections, I think it would be wise for me to first focus my effort to contributing to the DRN (if, of course, there is something constructive/useful I can add) instead of making a separate case for revision of wording here. If the DRN does not address the concerns, I will have to go back to making my case on this talk page. Best, Actuarialninja (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
NVoE
Looking through the revision history, this article has consistently been defended for originally being written in English English, from mistaken "corrections" by speakers more familiar with a derivative regional dialect:
These precede the advent of Template:British English, but now that we do have templates to flag pages as being in standard English English or foreign dialects, I suggest we apply it to this page and edit the article consistent with it. 58.167.145.112 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- OK, go with original spellings. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?
The argument that the shroud is authentic is primarily a religious argument, very similar to the arguments given by creationists arguing for a 10,000-year-old earth. Like that so-called "controversy" you have on one side the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on the other side you have "shroud researchers" publishing in blogs and other poor-quality sources.
- There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that all three labs got the the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud or Turin as being medieval in origin wrong. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material disputes the dating conclusion. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.
- There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that "invisible repairs" or "re-weave".that cannot be detected by a microsope exist today or that they existed hundreads of years ago. Not a single legitimate textile expert who has actually examined shroud material disputes that the samples were representitive. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.
- There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that there was significant modern C-14 contamination -- including possible gaseous contamination by modern carbon monoxide -- that escaped cleaning of the samples tested, much less that such contamination comprises the two-thirds of the sample needed to change the measured date from the first to the fourteenth century. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material believes that the post-cleaning samples contained even 1% modern contamination. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists think that contamination changed the results and made a 1st-century sample look like a 14th century sample.
- There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that a burst of photons, neutrons or any other sort of radiation burned an image on the cloth. Not a single legitimate physicist who has actually examined shroud material thinks that any such thing happened. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists believe it.
These are fringe theories and should be treated as the pseudoscience that they are.
To confuse the issue, as documented here[11] both the creationists and the "shroud researchers" managed to get something pubished in a peer-reviewed journal, and in both cases the overwhelming consensus of scientists was that these are examples of the peer-review process gone badly wrong. In both cases the papers relied on sources other than the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
So, what do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do?
WP:FRINGE says
- "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
WP:WEIGHT says
- "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
and
- "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
WP:PARITY says
- "If an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable."
and
- "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia."
WP:FALSEBALANCE says
- "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it"
Finally, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. by an 11-0 vote, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee decided that
- "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
Addressing the pro-authenticity arguments in detail violates WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. All that is needed in this article is a single sentence saying that the fringe views exist and have been rejected by mainstream science. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that you are putting too much reliance on a single data point. One sample of cloth was taken and carefully tested by three different C14 labs, who all came up with a mediaeval date. This contradicted some other evidence that the shroud was of an earlier date. More samples should be taken and tested, but I don't think that will happen. All the evidence needs to be re-examined and tested to see why there is disagreement, before coming to a definitive answer as to the date. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would like a clarification from Aarghdvaark. We all get that you disagree with the medieval date. You don't have to repeat the reasons why you disagree in your response -- we all know what they are. My question is this: do you or do you not agree that your position is not held by the majority of experts who have done actual tests on full samples of material from the shroud? I can understand you arguing that your view is correct, but I am really hoping that you will at the same time agree that the majority of textile and C14 experts do not agree with you. Also, I am a bit dismayed that you appear to not have read and understood any of the policies and guidelines I just quoted. Can you provide a reason -- any reason at all -- why those policies and guidelines don't apply to you? Please read the policies and guidelines (WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE) before responding, and please refer to specific wording of the policies and guidelines in your response. Right now you are just asking us to violate Wikipedia policy without explaining why we should do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Guy and Wdford, "We all get that you disagree with the medieval date"! No I don't, go back and read what I've said. For Pete's sake in the small paragraph I wrote just above I said: "and carefully tested by three different C14 labs, who all came up with a mediaeval date". What is wrong with that? But to continue, I quote from the best source you have on this topic (Ref 20 in the current Dispute Resolution case: Christopher Ramsey 2008): "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed". Note that here I provide a very reputable source who says 1. there is other evidence that the shroud was of an earlier date; 2. the the dating issue is open. This is the point I have been arguing, but I think the time for us to argue our case is long over and we should only state things which are supported by sources. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Wdford, I really do need to turn your own comment back on you: "Wishful thinking is not evidence". Quite, please only state things you have a reputable source for. Or perhaps the reason for our clash is that you are arguing about evidence and I am arguing about sources? Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- "that suggests to many" - not to Ramsey himself, obviously. Ramsey is bending over backwards here. He is pointing out that "many" still cling to what they think is evidence for authenticity. He does not say what evidence he means, but it could be the vanillin stuff, Frei's ideas, or any other refuted concepts. In any case: does he still think that "further research is needed", ten years after he wrote that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hob, I quite agree with you that Ramsay wouldn't support an early date for the shroud. However he is summarizing the situation as he sees it, and summarizing what he thinks other people believe, and he says quite plainly what he means. To try and dismiss what he says because it doesn't suit your narrative is just wrong. He's an eminent and respected scientist. And I think he probably does think that further research is needed, because little further research has since been done (not his fault though). Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Of course Ramsey calls for more research to be done – it would be unscientific for any scientist to suggest otherwise. Ramsey also adds – very politely – that "It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence." In other words, where the spurious tests disagree with the C14 dating, then the spurious tests should be "reinterpreted". However that does not mean that the question of the dating is still open. The critical sentence from Ramsey – which you consistently ignore - is his conclusion: "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." This conclusion is shared by EVERY C14 expert who has commented on the matter of the shroud. As you well know. Wdford (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- So, is ANYONE going to discuss what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines tell us to do? If not, I am going to withdraw from this discussion and instead report any failure to do what the policies and guidelines tell us to do at WP:ANI so that the violator(s) can be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Note: this does not imply that any particular individual is or is not in violation of the policies and guidelines; I have my opinions on that, but unless someone is willing to actually discuss this I see no point in singling out individual violations here -- you will no doubt figure it out when you get blocked, and if you aren't doing anything wrong it will never come up). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- That fringe material has to go somewhere, Guy, and until we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, it will end up being added here - over and over. Even once we have a dedicated Fringe Theories article, the believers will still try to add their material here, on the basis that "This theory is not Fringe, this theory is REAL". A proper encyclopedia should also mention all the fringe challenges, as they are also notable, but obviously we must add all the refutations and alternative interpretations from actual experts and actual verified evidence as well, to correct Weight and Parity etc.
- Fanti is going to churn out a fresh paper every year for the rest of his life, and he has enough academic contacts in his home town to ensure they all get published eventually in a peer-reviewed journal of some description. The believers are then going to insist on including them here, to "prove" that the debate is still open. That is unavoidable. However until Fanti finds a credible C14 expert willing to demonstrate on the record that the C14 dating is technically faulty, or a credible textile expert (not a carpet-repairman) who can demonstrate that there is actual evidence of a repair that all the other textile experts with their microscopes somehow missed, or the Vatican allows a retest which proves the rest of the shroud actually is 2000 years old, then the current dating stands and the fringe theories all fail.
- All the pro-authenticity arguments have been refuted, and that material is either already here, or in the daughter article on the C14 dating. However if there is more cleaning up required, then that must obviously be done. We don't have to argue about the applicability of the policies, we need to focus on correcting identified contraventions of those policies. Could you perhaps list the top three sentences which you feel are most offensive, so that they can be attended to ASAP?
- PS: Can we agree on a title for the dedicated fringe theories article, which doesn't use the word "conspiracy", so that we can move forward with exporting all the fringe material soonest? Wdford (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)