Talk:Veil of Veronica

message: "The story of Veronica and her veil does not occur in the Bible, though the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" mentions a woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak."
I can't vouch for anything in the Acts of Pilate, never having read it, but I can say that such a story is recounted in the Gospel of Luke (8:43-48). But my main question is what does this story have to do with Veronica's Veil? Could someone explain this? Otherwise, I think the sentence should be taken out. --User:Jenmoa 05:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Acts of Pilate 

message: The article right now states that the Veil disappeared when the Basilica was remodeled (when was that?). Was it later recovered? The German article states that it is kept in a safe in the Veronica column of the Basilica. AxelBoldt 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the image was brought to Saint Peter's, and until 1608 it was kept in the Vatican Basilica ...  When the part of the Basilica housing the relic was remodeled in 1506, the veil disappeared.
How can it have been kept until 1608 if it disappeared in 1506?  This needs to be explained. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance / Basilica Remodelling 

message: I've moved the images around to try to get a better layout; in particular, I've put the actual picture of the veil at the top of the article, which makes a lot of sense to me.  I've also removed the sizes on thumbnails, as we should not override the preferred thumbnail size setting in users' preferences.  I also put the headings in this page.  Hope this helps. — Johan the Ghost seance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial 

message: The article says it is "very obviously a man-made image - probably dating to the late middle ages or early renaissance; typical of representations of the human form from this period, it is naiively-executed, with numerous stylised features, showing that the artist either did not understand, or did not wish to comply with the basic principles of proportion that apply to realistic renderings of the human form." but when the Pope recently visited it, the tv news news story (might have been CNN) said that researchers have determined it is not a painting. Now it looks fake to me, but my opinion is as OR as that of the editor who wrote the sentence. Some websites offer evidence it is the real thing: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stv02001.htm Therefore the sentence in the article is a bit POV and OR and needs a cite from an art expert in a verifiable source. Edison 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stop this nonsense right here please. A 3 year-old child could tell you this thing is a mediaeval creation. You can even see the brushstrokes in the stylised hair for heaven's sake! The only "original research" here is from anyone who claims it is of divine origin - the onus is on such persons to present evidence of that allegation. The burden of proof is most certainly NOT on those who assert that it is exactly what it appears to be - a poorly executed man-made image. --Centauri 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no different from a self proclaimed art expert stating that some painting is obviously not by the famous painter it is attributed to. A 3 year old expert in medieval style? Maybe it is a 19th century copy of a medieval fraud. But it is Original Research to give your opinion, with all the stylistic shortcomings enumerated. If it is so obvious, do a little research and find an expert in a published work who says so. For the Shroud of Turin, there was the late Walter McCrone. On the other side, there are adults way beyond three years old (see the website I listed above) who do not share your opinion. I may agree with you as to my opinion of how it looks, but Wikipedia policy says my opinion and your opinion and your stylistic criticisms are OR. Edison 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me repeat myself. It is not original research to state that something is what it appears to be. It is original research to say that something is something other than what it appears to be. Thus, we don't require a citation to support the assertion that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is a large steel arch bridge - nor do we require a citation to support the assertion that the Veil of Manoppello is a man-made image. --Centauri 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say it as many times as you wish, and it is still your OPINION as a self styled art expert. It is like stateing that a person is ugly or beautiful. Clearly other responsible adults feel differently. Still OR. Edison 19:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely missing the point here. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can articulate the issue for you. The bottom line is that we have photographic evidence of the "veil" being a man-made image. It's not a matter of personal opinion; it's an established, verified  fact. If others want to claim that god created it, then it's up to them to provide evidence of it. It would also be a good idea not to post deliberately misleading edit summaries in future. Nobody has removed any  tag from the article. --Centauri 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:V Edison 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry if Wikipedia policies seem surreal. I have been shaving away at BS for over 30 years with Occam's Razor: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem," or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." Please familiarize yourself with WP:OR. With the  tag restored, feel free to remove the qualifier I added "Some feel that.." before your analysis of how much it looks like a painting. I have looked for a citation to the effect that it appears to be a painting in Google books to no avail, and in the NY Times online historical file (subscription) through the end of 2003 also without finding such a reference. Most online references are just blogs and don't make a very reputable cite. Will keep an eye open for one. There is also the argument that what is newly in the spotlight is if anything a copy of the historical veil.Edison 16:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: The following text is difficult to understand, probably because it was written by a non-native English speaker who was translating from Spanish.  (No offense intended here.  If I were to write in Spanish, the result would probably be equally difficult to understand.)
:In an alternative Spanish tradition, the existence of more than one real reply would be possible for a legend, according to which, Veronica realized two folds in the veil before drying Christ's face, being stamped his face in various sides of the veil, for what four replies should exist.
I think "reply" means "impressions" or "replicas".  "realized two folds in the veil" is probably better translated as "made two folds in the veil".  I hesitate to make these corrections as I would prefer someone who is familiar with this variant of the legend to correct it.
--Richard 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Spanish tradition 

message: I have pretty much re-written this article, based on Ian Wilson's book Holy Faces, Secret Places, the only English language text to discuss the Veronica in detail. In the course this I have had to get rid of a number of statements which do not seem to me to have any support. In particular, I have been careful to avoid saying the Manopello image is anything other than a distraction in the story of the Veronica - in my opinion, it is most unlikely that this has any connection with the image displayed in the Vatican during the 'golden age' of Veronica worship.
In making revisions, please bear in mind that this is a very complex subject. Consider (1) The Veronica story grew over many centuries, in interaction between East (where the idea of a God-made image arose) and West. (2) The Veronica itself (assuming it is the one kept in St Peter's) is not available for inspection. (3) Source material if often hard to interpret as it uses a religious rather than a historical mode of discourse. (4) Possible connections between the Turin Shroud, the Mandylion and the Veronica are the subject of much speculation which I haven't gone into.
Also, can people avoid using the words fake or fraud. To describe any image in this way implies knowledge of the the motives of whoever produced the image in question - such knowledge is not available. In the case of the Manopoello image we do not even know whom the image is meant to represent - it's not the fault of the artist that later generations have constructed a legend that it was made by God.
--John Price 19:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manopello is indeed a distraction, but a notable one. More to the point, I see no references to the theory that the remodelling of St Peter's (and the broken frame in the post-remodelling inventory) had something to do with Urban's decision to withdraw the Veronica from sight, which is less of a distraction than Manopello. Relata refero (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Is the stuff about 2 types of iconography from Wilson, does anyone know - or where else it is from? Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not from Wilson - it predates my involement and it was me who introduced the Wilson material. I think this section needs a lot of work - all around the use of the Veronica theme in paintings. One other comment I would make is re the Chapel photo, which is out place in this section - could it be swapped with the Memling which strikes me as more of contemplation of the story rather than an illustration of it? If it were into the Art section then perhaps we could describe it in more detail. --John Price (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Representative art

message: I'm speaking of this paper whose ref has been brought by History2007 http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf . The physicist Fanti and the chemist Jaworski claim whatever they want, their paper exists and can be cited that is one thing I do not refute, but people MUST know (because they often don't read the refs on wikipedia unfortunately and prefer reading the conclusions of a wiki article instead whatever the status of the article is) that it is not scientific to say the following things in a "study": that the hypothesis of having the image being made by divine means (acheiropoieta ) is supposedly realistic (with no refs nor any proof to back this up, suffices to read the paper which only debates the 3d charcateristics, iconographic elements and pictural techniques) , that the image supposedly corresponds to "His Body" using capitals (it insinuates the image is from Jesus, with no evidence, proof, Fanti and Jaworski simply give their opinion). 
Worse, wiki member History2007 knows that this paper cites Falcinelli and his theory of a manmade artifact , but avoids to write it down and transforms the conclusions of the paper to accomodate his personal views. The paper never once said "corresponds exactly", but History2007 wrote it. He also refuses to write from who originated this PARTICULAR study (Fanti and Jaworski), which is not corroborated by other studies done by other experts.
Now a personal message to History2007: if you think I4m stupid, you're WRONG. I know what your little game is all about, you're trying to control all articles about supposedly "miraculous" christian items, and you also pretend to check sources but you spend your time structuring articles in order to give the reader the impression that the only valid theory would be the miraculous one. Suffices to see how you took a pro-authenticity paper by Fanti (the one we're talking about) and inflated the claims to make them solid rock conclusions when even the proponents of the theory keep a tongue in cheek attitude: you say the images of the veil and shroud "correspond exactly" when Fanti only says there are many similarities with distortion (he says the size and shape differ)and that these same analogies are "interesting". Read the friggen paper and stop playing games, it won't makke the article better. Why didn't you cite Falcinelli for example, 
the correspondant french and italian wiki articles do? I say you did it on purpose. 82.240.163.245 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are dead wrong. I have neither written that section, nor read that paper. The issue is hardly of interest to me. But I did object to your addition of an item with no source and the apparent personal obsession with Fanti's work in the edits and the personal commentary on it. But from the above comments and the edits, it is clear that you do not know how Wikipedia works. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: We'll consider it...once it passes policies like WP:Verifiability, WP:Secondary sources, and WP:No original research. Until then, there is no reason the text should be included, and there are any number of reasons to leave it out. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious lack of neutrality  

message: Request for inclusion of discovery by Ruello of the face in the Rome Veronica considering German Judge now writing about it in his book The Manoppello Code II, Ruello has just released his book The Veronica Veil Code. Ruello posts video detailing first miracle of the 21st century from his discovery https://www.gloria.tv/video/adMq2HGccjZK4tCiTxEM2zBAZ— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The discovery by Vincenzo Ruello in 2011 has indeed been published by the German author Judge Markus Van Den Hovel and believe it deserves a mention in the main article as newly discovered evidence regarding the Rome Veronica— Preceding unsigned comment added by Netems2050 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, present exact text you think should be added. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regards to the Veronica held in Rome an Italian photographer named Vincenzo Ruello processed a photographic image of the Veronica in 2011 revealing a battered and alive face of Christ in which the discovery was recently published in a book by the esteemed German Judge Markus Van Den Hovel  something like this I supposeNetems2050 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, WP:indent your comments. I don't see how a judge can be wp:reliable source in the fields of history and religion. Are there some other sources about this "discovery"? According to our policy, we should'n give WP:UNDUE weight to minority views. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruello 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Veil of Veronica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417235143/http://www.trinityevansville.org/stations-of-the-cross/ to http://www.trinityevansville.org/stations-of-the-cross/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930065732/http://www.voltosanto.it/Inglese/index.php to http://www.voltosanto.it/Inglese/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Veil of Veronica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130401021839/http://www.sudariumchristi.com/uk/come/index.htm to http://www.sudariumchristi.com/uk/come/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why has the photograph of the Rome Veronica been removed? it was in a gold frame could some one place it back  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As  noted in their edit summary when they removed the image, "relictour.com is not a reliable source, and the placement of the image in this article is WP:UNDUE." —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The image he or she is describing is not the one I removed in that edit. --Srleffler (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The image he/she is describing seems to be File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg, which was deleted. The deletion was discussed at Files for Discussion on Sept. 13 last year.--Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I asked  for help, to see if the deletion can be reversed. User talk:Fastily#FfD deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg.--Srleffler (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: An earlier version of the article is archived at archive.org. The image in question is the first one in the gallery under heading "Images traditionally connected with the Veil of Veronica". While quite blurry, there is value in showing it next to the other three images for comparison. As I noted in my post to Fastily, this was the only actual photograph this article had of its subject. All the other images are drawings or reproductions, or photographs of other similar artifacts.--Srleffler (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I started a deletion review on this image, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_September_8.--Srleffler (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 September 17#File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg. —Cryptic 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Rome Veronica image

message: I removed the following: "Another (Type III), common in the Philippines shows Christ's face three times with hair down to the shoulder and with the Crown of Thorns.", since that was unsourced since June 2011. --Bensin (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced info about Type III in representative art 

message: Copying from User talk:100.10.54.40:
:The Ian Wilson book was incorrectly cited, as the two quotes he supplies are on page 36, not page 63 as cited before. The German of Joseph Wilpert is here translated directly, so that Wilpert's quote is seen in correct context. Added is the quote from de Montault, as it appears in Analles Achaeologiques, V. 23, which Wilson somehow mispresents. Mispresents, because Wilson supplies the quote thusly: ""one cannot see the face behind, hidden by a useless metal cover, and the place of the impression exhibits only a dark surface, giving no semblance of a human face", when this is actually not what de Montault reported to Didron. The actual quote from de Montault is that he could not see the bottom of the fabric, not the face: "In short, we do not see the bottom of the fabric, hidden by an unnecessary application of metal, and at the place of the imprint we only see a blackish surface, not giving the form of human figure". Concerning the face, de Montault said, "To these contours, frankly accused, we suspect long hair that falls on the shoulders, and a short beard that turns into two little -supplied wicks. The rest of the features are so vaguely drawn, or rather so completely erased, that I needed the best will in the world to see the trace of the eyes or the nose." - Annales Archeologiques, V. 23, p.232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.10.54.40 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect cite?