The story of carbon dating
But that does not tarnish the scientists who had nothing to do with the sampling. The problem is that it will take a lot of work to fix it.
I think it should really lose 70% of what there is and just state the points above with references.
If somebody needs the whole article, let me know, I think I have it in spanish, but I can translate it.--FMateos (talk) , (UTC) Ok, please provide the article author, title, date and conference name. Also please provide a wikilink to the Spanish wiki article when it is ready. History2007 (talk) , (UTC) There are a lot of comments in this article which are not referenced.
They tend to be the more contentious statements, and almost all of them are casting unsubstantiated doubt on the validity of the C14 process and on the integrity of the people concerned.
Thucyd (talk) , 11 January 2011 (UTC) I placed the 'dubious' tag amid existence of Pray Codex as the relevant place is disputed.
I suggest the article be updated to reflect these conflicting claims.As a result, when this was conclusively proven, new carbon dating was authorized which confirmed that the date of the shroud is from the time of Jesus' death.Those responsible for this article should have already come back and corrected it since the new results of the latest carbon dating were announced world-wide in March of 2013.Wdford (talk) , (UTC) The scientists involved were both careful and neutral.No serious allegations of lack of personal integrity have been shown to be valid, and indeed there have been very few of these allegations anyway.
This article is within the scope of Wiki Project Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia.