This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't understand this:
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 Ghostseance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Ghostseance 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 {{Fact}} tag from the article. --Centauri 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read WP:VEdison 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 {{Fact}} 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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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?
Firstly the WP:MOS deprecates the forcing of picture sizes, especially to the tiny sizes most were formerly at - especially unhelpful when most of the images were dark and murky. It is important to begin the article with images that are informative as to the subject as a whole. Previously the first image was the large & almost entirely uninformative one of the chapel, followed by the baroque statue, which does not show the veil very clearly, then a long pictureless section. No image of the veil itself came until several thousand characters into the article. The Fetti is a high quality image which is the best representation of those there of what the relic was thought to look like - or what it ought to look like - across Europe as a whole. Unlike the covered icons it gives a clear idea of the context on the cloth. I moved one of the relics up to the history section - obviously the picture of the Vatican one is so poor as to be all but unusable, and frankly the main group associated with it are all very similar. I agree that, depending on viewer settings, the middle section is now rather messy, because it tries to squeeze so many photos in. Possibly a one-row gallery aroound that point would be an answer. But I am very clear that the layout now is much better than it was before. Unlike the Shroud of Turin, the idea of the relic is arguably more important here than the relic itself - the lead starts off on this track, but the rest of the article so far fails to develop it, and discuss the veil as an iconographic topic. One of the many late medieval Northern paintings of what the relic was thought to look like would be a useful addition too - I see Commons has a good selection of these in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think where we differ is your statement that the article should be about the idea of the relic, not the relic itself. No doubt that explains why you think it better to have pictures dotted about at random and unrelated to the accompanying text. It also explains why think it helpful to start the article with a picture more or less unrelated to the relic itself. Where though is your justification ? If however an article were to begin with a statement that 'the following material only deals with the idea of the subject matter, not the subject matter itself' I suggest that it would rapidly be judged absurd and deleted. And yet that is what you seem to be proposing. If you want to put more stuff in about the influcence of the veil of Western Art, then please go ahead. But the main subject should be the historic item itself, or what we know about it. That is what the article is about - the clue is in the title.
Incidentally I am bemused by your statement that 'the Fetti is ... the best representation of those there of what the relic was thought to look like - or what it ought to look like - across Europe as a whole'. What period are you taking about, and how do you know what people thought across Europe as a whole, or even what they ought to think? --John Price (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead puts it very well:"During the fourteenth century it became a central icon in the Western Church – in the words of Art Curator Neil Macgregor – “From [the 14th Century] on, wherever the Roman Church went, the Veronica would go with it”". The large number of images on Commons show very clearly the range of what people across Europe thought the icon did or ought to look like at various places and times - most of them frankly far more impressive images than those with some possible pretensions to authenticity. It is perhaps not surprising that the image was most popular in Northern Europe, where the fewest people were likely to have seen a "relic" version, rather than iconic ones. I'm not of course saying that the "relics" should not be covered, but they (or one of them) are only the beginning of the story; saying the Fetti "bears only the most tangental relevance to the story" is missing the main point of the subject, as far as I am concerned. Even if only the relics were the subject of the article, the previous picture layout just did not work for the reasons given above. I am not wedded to the existing layout, & the text needs expanding to cover the Veil as an icon, which might loosen congestion. The statue could maybe go to a gallery of derivative images. But the article absolutely needs to start with a high-quality image of a version of the veil itself, and to have "relic" and "icon" versions early on. I'm not sure myself that the article makes the case that all the versions shown were actually regarded as relics, but that's another story. Having all pictures next to the relevant text is usually just not possible, and concentrating too much on that is a very common cause of poor overall layout. I think I will copy all this to the article talk-page & it should be continued there, in case anyone else is interested. I notice you don't attempt to explain why the chapel was a more relevant or useful lead image than the Fetti incidentally. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sugest that your conviction that the point of this article is to cover overtly artistic respresentations of the Veronica is misplaced. The Veronica, viewed as a relic, was a object of great vereration in the Middle Ages, and it at this historic moment that the story gains all its significance. It was then that it became one of the stations of the cross and it then that it aquired the necessary status to make it a subject for art - the middle ages were not just the begining of the story - they saw most of it. And the fact that some subsequent paintings are more impressive artistically is neither here nor there.
The reason I started with the chapel photo was that here, in terms of the myth, was where it all began. The photo of the Veronica pier from the Vatican was also there because that is where the main candidate to be the 'true Veronica' is kept today - where the story ends in my terms. Perhaps though this could be improved on. Re the many framed images, the whole point is that they are very simular - demonstating that we can have an idea of what the original relic looked like. Dotting them around the place destroys this point and confuses the reader. You say 'concentrating too much on [having pictures next to relevant text] is a very common cause of poor overall layout' - I think the reverse is the case. When reading articles I always seek to relate text to pictures (doesn't everyone?) and having to try too hard is a major irritant.
Incidentally. the article is right not to make the case that all images were vererated as relics because I don't think they were.
However, I do have proposals. (1) lead with the face of Jaen - this is an important copy of the Veronica and does offer a visible image. (2) give the 'one row gallery' idea a try to cover all the framed images (3) the chapel image can go in 'the story' section (4) move the Vatican statue to the 'history of the veil' section (with a bit more explanation) and (5) there is scope for the Representitive Art section to be expanded, (by someone else) though this seems worthy of an article by itself. Would you be happy with this? --John Price (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding what I have been saying, but I won't go through it all again. I don't think either of us really think anything started in the chapel, do we? A very late entrant to the story, I would imagine. The Jaen face is, as you say, visible, but not a strong image. The Genoa or Matilda images are much better, despite their theoretically weaker relation to the Vatican one. Ideally the 2nd image (mainly opposite the TOC) should illustrate the actual Via Dolorosa incident (as discussed in the text of the lead & 2nd section) - this one is a strong image, although C19. Then, if we are sticking to the text, we should have a medieval painting - the Memling or truncated French one (both Commons) perhaps. The St Peters statue should go next to all the Vatican stuff - there was text in an earlier version explaining its relevance, which should be restored. Then the "relic" candidates, maybe with a gallery. The oddly named, and odd, "representative art" section logically comes above Manoppello, at least when rewritten. I think the WP Orthodox would be rather cross to see the Russian icons there, when they clearly derive from the Edessa tradition. Is that acceptable to you? I can't see any case for splitting the articles, & in fact splitting the subject would raise considerable conceptual problems. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that ths is OK by me. --John Price (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let's see how it develops. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think the major misunderstanding is that you have not appreciated that the article is drawing a distinction between the physical image that undoubtedly existed and the story of how it came into existance, which is certainly myth. Anyway, I have made this more clear now, as well as cleared up other ambiguities.
Re the Sack of Rome you complain that "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. " Well, the sources conflcit (and references provided to show this) - that statement doesn't confuse me at all - it happens all the time.
'You say it '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.' References to sound secondary texts are the backbone of Wikipedia and that is what you get here. Wilson is a sound historic text not crank literature. It is the only detailed source of which I am aware which attempts to unravel the complicated history of the Veil in a scholarly manner. I'm afraid I haven't seen the primary documents so I can't legitimately provide references to them; Wilson does do this however and if you want, you can find the primary sources from his text. It is not easy , however, to summarise his findings into a few paragraphs and that is why the article can appear vague. It is after all only a brief introduction to the subject.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please, present exact text you think should be added. Vanjagenije(talk) 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Netems2050 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Netems2050: 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)[reply]
Netems2050 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)The judge is an religious historian and also has his own wikipageNetems2050 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Removed unsourced info about Type III in representative art[edit]
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)[reply]
Unclear: how many different "originals" claimed to exist/have existed?[edit]
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)[reply]
I'm no expert, but this seems to be a common problem with relics, particularly ancient ones. An object originally made as a work of religious art or as a copy of a relic is venerated and over time the fact that it is not an authentic relic is forgotten.
Beware of original research in trying to sort that out. Whatever we say about it needs to be solidly grounded in reliable sources.--Srleffler (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"murky legends" is about right. Remember that the vast majority of really early revered icons have been (often very clumsily) repainted, and the original appearance is hardly recoverable. The Veronica legend is more about visual borrowings than an actual narrative story. Hans Belting's book called in English Likeness and Presence is the best recent starting place for all this stuff. I'm not quite sure what you are looking for, bgutr it may not be discoverable. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
