64.67.122.103

August 2022

I didn't make a single edit to the article, even though its entirely POV and non-factual. I was looking for facts -- which are painfully lacking for this entry. I wanted to find out precisely how many times the shroud has been tested for age -- and what were the opinions of the experts who conducted the analysis.

I am not in the least bit interested in what the shrinking number of defenders of the 1988 testing think about these more recent testing procedures and outcomes.

In any event, the article is not factual and a massive re-write is needed. Just as a mere example, the scholarly article cited as FN87 does not support the claim "that the stated date range needs to be adjusted by up to 88 years in order to properly meet the requirement of '95% confidence.'" This 2019 article, which to date has not been effectively rebutted (actually, that was something I was trying to find on the page), claimed the C-14 testing was not reliable at all.

Purpose

User 64, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy it here, and decide to stay. May I ask why you are here, and what areas of the encyclopedia you are thinking about contributing to? There are a mass of things that need doing; one place to check might be the WP:Task center. There are also numerous introductions and tutorials like Adventure to learn how to get on board here. Thanks, (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I am trying to correct a non-factual POV on the face of the article, i.e., that there is a scientific consensus that the C14 testing was accurate. That is not a fact; it is an opinion. Moreover, the lead chemist on the STURP research project, under whose supervision the samples of the cloth were collected, published a peer-reviewed paper in 2005 in a University of California science journal, in which he conceded that the samples taken were not representative of the cloth as a whole. Therefore, the C14 results were irrelevant for purposes of dating the shroud. Under ordinary circumstances, when the lead researcher on a scientific project disavows conclusions drawn from his own research, it would render further reliance by other scientists on that research infirm and not credible -- at least without acknowledging the lead researcher's opinion about the conclusions being drawn from his work. What has happened is that a devoted (but small and shrinking) community of shroud skeptics has refused to accept Rogers' conclusions about the results flowing from his own research. This community is led by a man who signs his papers by identifying himself as a "Dr." and a "PhD." But his terminal degree is actually in English Literature. In the field of science, there is really no way to "refute" the conclusions of a lead researcher about test results flowing from his own research, other than to run re-tests. Perhaps Rogers's opinions about the worth of the test results can be questioned, but to say that Rogers was obviously and completely wrong about these test results, emanating from his own research, is wholly non-scientific and betrays an agenda. Rogers just cannot be entirely ignored -- and anyone holding an advanced science degree would tell you that. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that every researcher involved in the 1978 STURP project -- the project examined the shroud and which team collected the samples -- who has commented on the matter has questioned the accuracy of the C14 testing. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you are actually a reasonable person (and I don't have any reason to assume otherwise at the moment), you might want to take a look at the footnoted sources for the sentence: "All hypotheses put forward to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted, including the medieval repair hypothesis, the bio-contamination hypothesis and the carbon monoxide hypothesis." And then read them. Do these sources actually support this statement?

Footnote 7 is to a highly reputable paper which does, in fact, question Rogers' conclusions, but it does so in a far more nuanced way than this sentence suggests, concluding: "We assume that there will be future studies on the Shroud of Turin. Any such future sampling should include another sample of the shroud away from the previous area sampled. In our opinion, such a study would be useful to confirm the previous results and should include both textile analysis and 14C measurements." Thus, the authors of the paper themselves are not claiming to establish "scientific consensus."

Footnote 8 is from a dead website/blog, not a scholarly paper, and the archived copy would reflect this website entry was from a personal blog of the author and not peer-reviewed. That's really not a worthy citation to rebut Rogers' peer-reviewed paper published in a scholarly U of Cal science journal. I don't have any problem with the credential of the author to write as he does. But he is plainly speaking personal opinion in this article, and not requesting peer-review -- in fact, he was being open and honest about that point.

Footnote 9 is to a Random House encyclopedia. Come on already. Try citing that in graduate school, see what happens. Although I have to admit that the citation -- vague as it is -- by one "encyclopedia" to another, has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Footnote 10. I don't have any issue with this citation, per se, but it was published in 1990 and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. To claim it rebuts an article written 15 years later, though, is purposefully deceptive and would be academically sanctionable in other contexts. Good thing this isn't a reputable graduate school.

Footnote 11 cites to a web article by a genuine giant in this field, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey. But it doesn't support the claim for which it is cited. Dr. Ramsey expresses measured doubt over the contamination by carbon monoxide theory, advanced by John Jackson, but he does not dismiss it out-of-hand: "The only way to see if this sort of contamination is possible is to do experimental work on modern linen. The key question is whether carbon monoxide reacts to any significant extent with linen." Notably, Dr. Ramsey also writes: "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."

Footnote 12 is to an on-line chemistry publication. Again, not really a worthy source of rebuttal. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I will try to get back to you with a response more on the merits, I've been busy on a number of things. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea for you: I have in mind another topic area which has absolutely no relation to sindonology, or even to religion, archaeology, or anything remotely related to it, where your evident skills in detailed examination of the reliability and applicability of sources at an article could be a big help. Are you interested? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I also have an xkcd cartoon for you: Duty Calls. Hope you enjoy it! Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Thanks for the invite. But I can't spend so much time debating facts with people who are stubbornly wedded to a flawed, narrow, POV; get showered with abuse; and then be accused of being the one behaving badly. Go over the discussions again, and you'll see I was actually the only one being respectful. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments and reasoned discussion at the Shroud of Turin page (I can't "send" thanks because you are doing the IP thing and not logged in as a named editor). I've always enjoyed the mystery and back-and-forth information about the shroud, and actually corresponded a bit with McCrone at the time of the 1981 results when he was arguing for finding "paint chips" or some such which, I seem to recall but may be wrong, has been discredited. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the paint chip theory is completely discredited. I have actually had discussions with a forensic pathologist who examined the shroud in 1978 as part of the STURP research team. Although Catholic, he entered believing that the shroud would be easily dismissed through 20th century pathology. After all, how could a medieval artist know enough about pathology to fool state-of-the-art forensic methods? And yet he had discovered over time, that the details on the cloth are highly specific, and so incredibly accurate, of a man who was tortured and died from asphyxiation. Of course, that doesn't mean it necessarily covered a man who died from crucifixion/asphyxiation. What he could not explain, though, is how a medieval artist could have known, or would have known, to include blood stains that would survive 20th century/21st century examination by forensic pathology. Any event, there is blood on the shroud. It has been identified as AB (Plus) (which is the same blood type, BTW, on the Sudarium). 64.67.122.103 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. An editor at the talk discussion seems surprised that the shroud isn't called an artwork. I think it is wonderful that such an unsolvable mystery as the creation of the shroud exists so deep into the 21st century, with all of its tech and tools still unable to figure out how it could have been done or how to duplicate it. Better than a locked-room mystery for sure, and much of what you're bringing to the discussion adds to the article's understanding. Hopefully a pope will allow another full investigation at some point soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it will not be possible to run ant further C14 tests on the shroud, as per Rogers in his 2005 article, after the 2002 restoration project. Even if a C14 test could be run, in order to satisfy all involved, the sample would have to be cut from the very center of the cloth. Taking a section from a corner would not suffice in light of the problems which have now mooted the results of the 1988 testing. There is no way that the Catholic Church would allow the center of the cloth to be desecrated. So there will no future C14 testing. It is curious that alternative aging methods all date the cloth to the time of Christ, but it is a fair point that none of these methods have gained the general acceptance of C14 testing. Nonetheless, these methods have been peer-reviewed and published in leading scholarly journals. Rogers' paper in 2005 was published in a Berekeley science journal. Casabianca's paper was published by an Oxford journal.

The main Wikipedia article includes the fib that all objections to the C14 testing have been "scientifically refuted," but that's demonstrably false. Neither Berekely nor Oxford has retracted the papers which were published by Rogers or Casabianca. Of note, Dr. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, an Oxford professor who is one of the most preeminent C14 experts in the world today, was one of the original peer reviewers of the Damon paper reporting the results of the 1988 C14 testing. He also attested to the results of the specified date range with 95% certainty at that time. But over the past 15 years or so, his former full-throated support for the results had become less certain. And now he has not spoken about the C14 results at any time during the past four years. If you are familiar with the politics at an university as renowned as Oxford, it is nearly inconceivable that an Oxford journal would publish a paper like Casabianca's, highly critical of the most famous C14 testing ever, without consulting with its own most famous authority on the subject, Dr. Ramsey, before publishing. There is an implied blessing here. 64.67.122.103 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not know about not running further C14 tests, and haven't kept up on the research. Thanks for all of the information. Maybe you can come up with very specific language of what short additions and citations should be made to the page and, when the wording is worked out (I'd be happy to help edit it for brevity but, as mentioned, I don't know the field, players, and papers like you do) you can present an RfC (request for comment) somewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really a Wiki guy. I originally checked this page to confirm information: how many times has the Shroud been tested for age, and what the results of that testing established. This FACTUAL information is not found on this page. To my knowledge, there have been five aging tests published after peer review in scientific journals, one which established a medieval date (the C14 testing), and four which would point to dating to the time of Christ. I would suspect like most people drawn to this page, I want to weigh factual information for myself. So in terms of imparting factual information, this page as drafted has little value. It is, in fact, entirely POV.

As for the specified sentence, there is no modification to the sentence to the effect that all objections to the C14 have been "scientifically refuted" which would suffice. It should be deleted entirely because it is straight opinion, POV. Notably, it is not even well-founded opinion. That scientists continue to test the shroud for age, on repeated occasions, reflects that the C14 results are not accepted entirely in the scientific community. That the journals which published alternative aging results have not retracted those articles demonstrates that they have not been "scientifically refuted" in any material way.

Since you are familiar with procedures here, perhaps you can escalate this beyond the narrow, small group which controls the content of this page so rigidly]. [

I appreciate that you were so respectful until they crossed the line, and then you gave it back to them so far better that they could not keep up and ran to the moderators. It seems, though, that you might have been better off reporting it directly to moderators, without returning fire, since the first to complain always wins in Wiki world. I get you're not a wiki guy and didn't know where to go. I have to admit, though, I enjoyed how you harpooned their arrogance and shot it back far more accurately. Watching them have their heads handed to them was special. 69.119.138.232 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

---