This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
I've just read Veil of Veronica and I, also, don't understand the relation of the phrase "though the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" mentions a woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak." with Veil of Veronica. MATIA 00:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you folks familiar with that legend that the Veil was displayed in Rome in (I think) 1849 and the Face of Christ began to look lifelike and was witnessed? Maybe we can put it in this article. I don't know where to get some really solid primary sources though. Anyone know? User:JesuXPIPassio
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)
Maybe this remodelling of Saint Peter's refers to when they tore down the old Basilica to put up the new one? That would have been in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The current Basilica is actually the second one. I gotta wonder how they would have lost something important like that. It's like moving from one home to another and losing your sofa. If anyone's interested by the way, there's been some recent news of the Holy Father visiting some monastery that houses what might be the holy relic. An interesting fact, the imprint of Jesus' face on that cloth disappears when you hold it up to the light. JesuXPIPassio 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this:
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)
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)
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)
In Wikipedia, a "verified fact" is not something you personally are really sure of. Instead, it is a claim or statement that you can provide a citation for to a reputable source. You claim that "Nobody has removed any {{ Fact}} tag." This is demonstrably untrue. I added a {{ Fact}} tag 4:18 on Sept 9. It was removed in your edit of 00:13 on Sept 11, per the History of the article. Please understand that it also looks to me like a painting, way more fake than the probably fake shroud. In fact, it reminds me of the style of paintings of Henry VIII, so it might be from that era. But that means we share an opinion, not that it is a verifiable fact. Find where a competent expert said it in a journal or newspaper and you're good to go. But people who have seen the actual object say brush strokes are not visible. What you see in a photo may be the weave of the very delicate fabric, not "photographic evidence:" it is a fake. Again opinion and OR. If it had been painted with pigment and medium like an oil painting, the transparency of the image would not survive. Its clarity is said to vary with the angle of the light and of viewing. If a fake, I would assume it might have been painted with transparent dyes. Edison 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Edited comment to correct typos. Edison 18:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your argument has transitioned into the realm of the truly surreal. Suggest you familiarise yourself with Occam's razor. Apologies re the citation needed oversight. I did in fact inadvertently remove it, once. -- Centauri 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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.)
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)
I think this could to be mentioned. The veil of Veronica is mentioned many a time in Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil. It's complete fiction, but uses parts of the story of Veronica to prove to the world God exists.
What are other people's thoughts?
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)
copied from my talk - Johnbod: Sorry, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with your reorgainisation of the photos on this page. They are now all over the place. The lead picture os of a painting executed by an artist who will never even have seen the item exhibted as the Veronica during the Middle Ages and bears only the most tangental relevance to the story. The resized pictures are out of line with the text which describes them, titles are floating loose, the photo of the Veronica chapel is out of place and the whole thing looks a mess. I know others have contibuted to this state of affairs but even so ... what ae you trying to achieve?
-- John Price ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
The article about the Veil of Veronica is very confusing to me, mainly because it starts out talking about the 'story' of the veil and then immediately goes to presenting this story, or myth, as 'history'. Nothing seems to be verified, and the article is filled with fuzzy language like:
"it has often been assumed," "it would appear,"
It becomes even more confusing--and unverified--when the article discusses the Sack of Rome, and basically says: some people say the veil was destroyed; others say it wasn't. Hmmmm.
It then makes the biggest leap of logic, when the author says: "After that the Veil disappears almost entirely from public view, and its history after that date is unrecorded. The possibility exists that it remains in St Peter's to this day."
So, how did we get from unverified myth and rumor to the possibility of existence of the veil?
What is also questionable is that of the two dozen or so references quoted over half of them are from one book, and there appears no references to legitimate historic texts.
I'm suprised that this article hasn't been more broadly critiqued or questioned. There seems to be a 'veil' of confusion over the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedda ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
-- John Price ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This is important please leave this in talk. Archbishop and Australian Ambassador to Rome Guiseppe Lazzarotto is investigating the photographic negative image of the face of Jesus Christ discovered by myself Vincenzo Ruello on the ST Peters Veronica Veil. Guys this is major news and easily verifiable, isnt it worthy of a mention in main article. We are talking here about the only second time in history a phtographic image of Christ has been detected from a Holy relic. Can I have some respect. This is major news. The clips are everywhere have you seen the face search Veronica Veil Vincenzo Ruello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.111.154 ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
For your info I am a Shroud researcher and this is the latest image part of which has recently been requested by Giulio Fanti who is currently attempting to verify my discovery of the positive image in the Vatican Veronica, in the future possibly I would be humbled if a couple of lines were written in the article thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.85 ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
New information to be included, German High Court Judge Markus Van Den Hovel who has a wiki page has recently published his 3rd hard cover book called The Manappello Code II where he writes about commencing on page 125 the discovery of the rival cloth in Rome of the negative image of the alive face of Christ by the experimental photographer Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 ( talk) 06:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
Netems2050 ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)The judge is an religious historian and also has his own wikipage Netems2050 ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello the experimental photographer from Australia has released a documentary detailing his discovery of the Holy face encoded within the Vatican Veronica in 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsd4qzGBmFM&t=649s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E2D:C400:2C44:65B1:1D34:DAFF ( talk) 01:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Copies are copies, but which are the "originals" identified both in legends and actual research (sources & resemblance)? Of how many different "original" images are we talking?
For instance, the image from Constantinople copied at the orders of the last Byzantine emperor (for copy see Alicante image), is it claimed to be an original, or itself a copy of the one mentioned in Rome since an earlier date? Mind that the article on the miracle of Jesus healing the bleeding woman speaks of "[t]his Western rival to the Image of Edessa or Mandylion", so is the Alicante image actually a mix of the 2 separate traditions of " icons not produced by human hands"? Or is it not part of this topic at all, and should be placed in the art. on the Image of Edessa? Basically, what is it claimed to be? The Wikipedia editor who introduced that sentence admits that it is his own interpretation, but the question remains valid.
The Jaén image is "a copy... which probably dates from the 14th century, and originated in Siena" - ?! What image was there in Siena in C14? A copy of the Rome "original", or another image? Does it resemble any other image?
Or does no one dare to even make such assumptions, as it's all murky legends and all copies hardly resemble any "originals"?
See the extra-biblical legend of Saint Veronica: a long row of hardly-related texts, combined by "tradition" into a chain of links between the unnamed bleeding woman who was healed by touching Jesus's garment (Luke 8:43–48), and these images on cloth. At least from the point on when the legend is established, we should try to see how it took physical shape and developed. If possible. Arminden ( talk) 11:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Copying from User talk:100.10.54.40:
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"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)
I've just read Veil of Veronica and I, also, don't understand the relation of the phrase "though the apocryphal "Acts of Pilate" mentions a woman who was cured by touching the hem of Jesus' cloak." with Veil of Veronica. MATIA 00:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you folks familiar with that legend that the Veil was displayed in Rome in (I think) 1849 and the Face of Christ began to look lifelike and was witnessed? Maybe we can put it in this article. I don't know where to get some really solid primary sources though. Anyone know? User:JesuXPIPassio
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)
Maybe this remodelling of Saint Peter's refers to when they tore down the old Basilica to put up the new one? That would have been in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The current Basilica is actually the second one. I gotta wonder how they would have lost something important like that. It's like moving from one home to another and losing your sofa. If anyone's interested by the way, there's been some recent news of the Holy Father visiting some monastery that houses what might be the holy relic. An interesting fact, the imprint of Jesus' face on that cloth disappears when you hold it up to the light. JesuXPIPassio 10:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this:
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)
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)
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)
In Wikipedia, a "verified fact" is not something you personally are really sure of. Instead, it is a claim or statement that you can provide a citation for to a reputable source. You claim that "Nobody has removed any {{ Fact}} tag." This is demonstrably untrue. I added a {{ Fact}} tag 4:18 on Sept 9. It was removed in your edit of 00:13 on Sept 11, per the History of the article. Please understand that it also looks to me like a painting, way more fake than the probably fake shroud. In fact, it reminds me of the style of paintings of Henry VIII, so it might be from that era. But that means we share an opinion, not that it is a verifiable fact. Find where a competent expert said it in a journal or newspaper and you're good to go. But people who have seen the actual object say brush strokes are not visible. What you see in a photo may be the weave of the very delicate fabric, not "photographic evidence:" it is a fake. Again opinion and OR. If it had been painted with pigment and medium like an oil painting, the transparency of the image would not survive. Its clarity is said to vary with the angle of the light and of viewing. If a fake, I would assume it might have been painted with transparent dyes. Edison 18:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Edited comment to correct typos. Edison 18:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your argument has transitioned into the realm of the truly surreal. Suggest you familiarise yourself with Occam's razor. Apologies re the citation needed oversight. I did in fact inadvertently remove it, once. -- Centauri 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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.)
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)
I think this could to be mentioned. The veil of Veronica is mentioned many a time in Anne Rice's Memnoch the Devil. It's complete fiction, but uses parts of the story of Veronica to prove to the world God exists.
What are other people's thoughts?
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)
copied from my talk - Johnbod: Sorry, I don't see what you are trying to achieve with your reorgainisation of the photos on this page. They are now all over the place. The lead picture os of a painting executed by an artist who will never even have seen the item exhibted as the Veronica during the Middle Ages and bears only the most tangental relevance to the story. The resized pictures are out of line with the text which describes them, titles are floating loose, the photo of the Veronica chapel is out of place and the whole thing looks a mess. I know others have contibuted to this state of affairs but even so ... what ae you trying to achieve?
-- John Price ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
The article about the Veil of Veronica is very confusing to me, mainly because it starts out talking about the 'story' of the veil and then immediately goes to presenting this story, or myth, as 'history'. Nothing seems to be verified, and the article is filled with fuzzy language like:
"it has often been assumed," "it would appear,"
It becomes even more confusing--and unverified--when the article discusses the Sack of Rome, and basically says: some people say the veil was destroyed; others say it wasn't. Hmmmm.
It then makes the biggest leap of logic, when the author says: "After that the Veil disappears almost entirely from public view, and its history after that date is unrecorded. The possibility exists that it remains in St Peter's to this day."
So, how did we get from unverified myth and rumor to the possibility of existence of the veil?
What is also questionable is that of the two dozen or so references quoted over half of them are from one book, and there appears no references to legitimate historic texts.
I'm suprised that this article hasn't been more broadly critiqued or questioned. There seems to be a 'veil' of confusion over the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedda ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
-- John Price ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This is important please leave this in talk. Archbishop and Australian Ambassador to Rome Guiseppe Lazzarotto is investigating the photographic negative image of the face of Jesus Christ discovered by myself Vincenzo Ruello on the ST Peters Veronica Veil. Guys this is major news and easily verifiable, isnt it worthy of a mention in main article. We are talking here about the only second time in history a phtographic image of Christ has been detected from a Holy relic. Can I have some respect. This is major news. The clips are everywhere have you seen the face search Veronica Veil Vincenzo Ruello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.111.154 ( talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
For your info I am a Shroud researcher and this is the latest image part of which has recently been requested by Giulio Fanti who is currently attempting to verify my discovery of the positive image in the Vatican Veronica, in the future possibly I would be humbled if a couple of lines were written in the article thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello [ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.85 ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
New information to be included, German High Court Judge Markus Van Den Hovel who has a wiki page has recently published his 3rd hard cover book called The Manappello Code II where he writes about commencing on page 125 the discovery of the rival cloth in Rome of the negative image of the alive face of Christ by the experimental photographer Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.252.228 ( talk) 06:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
Netems2050 ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)The judge is an religious historian and also has his own wikipage Netems2050 ( talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello the experimental photographer from Australia has released a documentary detailing his discovery of the Holy face encoded within the Vatican Veronica in 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsd4qzGBmFM&t=649s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2E2D:C400:2C44:65B1:1D34:DAFF ( talk) 01:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Copies are copies, but which are the "originals" identified both in legends and actual research (sources & resemblance)? Of how many different "original" images are we talking?
For instance, the image from Constantinople copied at the orders of the last Byzantine emperor (for copy see Alicante image), is it claimed to be an original, or itself a copy of the one mentioned in Rome since an earlier date? Mind that the article on the miracle of Jesus healing the bleeding woman speaks of "[t]his Western rival to the Image of Edessa or Mandylion", so is the Alicante image actually a mix of the 2 separate traditions of " icons not produced by human hands"? Or is it not part of this topic at all, and should be placed in the art. on the Image of Edessa? Basically, what is it claimed to be? The Wikipedia editor who introduced that sentence admits that it is his own interpretation, but the question remains valid.
The Jaén image is "a copy... which probably dates from the 14th century, and originated in Siena" - ?! What image was there in Siena in C14? A copy of the Rome "original", or another image? Does it resemble any other image?
Or does no one dare to even make such assumptions, as it's all murky legends and all copies hardly resemble any "originals"?
See the extra-biblical legend of Saint Veronica: a long row of hardly-related texts, combined by "tradition" into a chain of links between the unnamed bleeding woman who was healed by touching Jesus's garment (Luke 8:43–48), and these images on cloth. At least from the point on when the legend is established, we should try to see how it took physical shape and developed. If possible. Arminden ( talk) 11:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Copying from User talk:100.10.54.40: