 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Racism
editThe text
The nine other miracles listed deal with the maintenance rather than creation of icons, which resist or repair the attacks of assorted pagans, Arabs, Persians, scoffers, madmen, iconoclasts and Jews.
is .... I hope a quote. If not then its still offensive. It needs BLOCKQUOTEs putting round it. I cannot do this as I don't know whether this is a quote or not. The text should make this more clear.Victuallers 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a quote as such, but a summary of a quoted list; sufficienly clear I think. Johnbod 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- the paragraph summarizes the gist of the document, adopting the author's point of view. That's certainly permissible, but I understand that the list should momentarily puzzle the casual reader. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, there is _alot_ wrong with this article. First, it is not stating clearly enough that these claims are a HOAX, second, i agree that the passage about the list needs a rewrite. The whole topic should be rewritten from a NEUTRAL point of view. Swungarguexxx (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Calling them a "hoax" would be a NPOV? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Our Lady of Guadalupe
editShouldn't the Our Lady of Guadalupe icon count as a form of Acheiropoieta included in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.179.240 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Shroud of Oviedo
editI removed the paragraph on the Shroud of Oviedo. As others have pointed out, it is not an acheiropoieton. It is a relic, not an icon that appeared miraculously. It's off-topic for this article.-- Srleffler (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Intense debate
editRegarding this edit comment:
Edited again because this is a summary of an artifact which retains a certain richness of data that, if carbon dating conclusively ended discussion, would not be "intensely debated," even post carbon dating. Clarified as well that such intense debate usually revolves around its authenticity. ...
There is intense debate because some people are unable to evaluate scientific evidence or reconcile it with their unfounded beliefs. The existence of "intense debate" among "scientists, believers, historians, and writers" does not bear on the question of whether the scientific evidence is conclusive. If there were intense debate among credible scientists, that would be relevant. Debate between scientists and nonscientists is not. Debate between credible scientists and crackpots is not relevant either. See WP:FRINGE, which is very relevant here. We are not obligated to treat all points of view as equal, and in particular must not present fringe ideas as equal to mainstream ideas supported by scientific evidence. Srleffler (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The actual edit with this comment was not bad, and I left it intact except for adding back the word "medieval" for context. --Srleffler (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)