 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 12, 2008, October 12, 2009, October 12, 2010, October 12, 2011, October 12, 2012, October 12, 2013, October 12, 2014, October 12, 2015, and October 12, 2016. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
I think I improved the article by translating and adapting the information given on the main site for the Basilica. (Vogensen 22:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
According to the article abou the city, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aparecida the statue was "attacked" in 1978 and repaired. If this is the case, it should probably be mentioned here. Isaac Crumm 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The story is true and is certainly to be mentioned. I'll search for further references and add it later. Rafael Calsaverini (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some editing to the intro paragraph, but I think it still has problems. One of the issues I'm trying to figure out is whether Our Lady of Aparecida is just the statue, or also an actual instance of Mary's appearance. I went to this section of the entry on Marian apparitions, but even this well-written article doesn't appear to have citations I could look at for use in this article. I did find a Reuters article that references the new Basilica's construction and popularity. Joliefille (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the section about the race and color of the statue. The following sentences were removed due to bias, lack of sources, irrelevance to the topic of the article, bad grammar, and engagement in speculation: " Although members of the Church condoned with slavery & the Vatican is said to have blessed slave ships, it was not opposed to the idea of a black Madonna, as it was a way to keep the Catholic faith popular in a highly miscegenated country. Besides that, black Madonnas are popular even in Caucasian countries such as Poland. However, the features of the statue are not African at all, looking more Lusitanean (i.e. Portuguese) or Southern European, and it was never painted black, having a wooden brown color since it was carved in wood.It seems, nonetheless, to have been profitable to have it painted dark black in plaster images in a curiously Mulato (the mixture of African & European)country that often prefers to be considered white and has different names for different shades of color!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.240.39 (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) I think the article takes a very short sighted approach to the seperation of Church and State, a very liberal slant, some might say, but, also, rejecting the widespread Catholicism of the country, as well, in particular, of the tourism value to the economy and government of the bascilica. Thus, the interpreation is very USA liberal, going out of its way to even bring it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.16.21 (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC) ... Continuing from previous comment... While not precisely the same, it is similar to criticizing France for helping to repair the Church facilities at Lourdes. It is very proud to think in the US sense that the Church cannot be appreciated merely because it is religious in nature.[reply]
Perhaps some mention should be made of the relation between this feast and Our Lady of the Pillar which is celebrated on the same day. Rwflammang (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a researcher on Vatican documents and this topic, this article is one of the most confusing articles I have ever read. Since I have read it many months ago, it has SO many contradictions on dates, places and times.
I have corrected most of them using reliable sources,
but one of the most intriguing issues I have is I cannot find any reliable source proving or documenting that the Basilica ever received the title of "Minor Basilica" in formal writing.
Various sources point to December 8, 1904 or April 29, 1904 but no Vatican document I have dugged up both in my personal library at home or in the Vatican archives prove this.
Please help so we can verify if this is even true or not. I am sure the Basilica has many followers, but this the Minor Basilica should also be verifiable. LimosaCorel (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I saw what happened. It was Pope Paul II who elevated it as Basilica, there is no mention of this prior and this is why he came according to his own homily and papal bulls. 2606:6000:80C1:6900:18EB:E93F:D747:E587 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen several detailed accounts, in English and Portuguese, about the 1978 smashing.
A typical example in English:
The story goes back to May 15, 1978, when a heretic pastor of the Pentecostal church in the city of São Paulo, São José dos Campos, Brazil, delivered an impassioned plea to his audience, telling them to break Catholic statues. He especially asked the congregation to break the miraculous statue of the Patroness of Brazil, Our Lady of Aparecida.
As a result, a young man, named Rogerio Marcos de Oliveira, devised a plan to destroy the original and miraculous statue of this national devotion of the Brazilian nation.
Rogerio went the next day, May 16, to the city of Aparecida do Norte, entered the shrine of Our Lady, broke the glass encasing of the statue, and shattered it on the spot.[1]
Not included in the English account is that the 19-year-old attacker was mentally ill; he was imprisoned, but released because of this. I think the church mentioned is the UCKG church there.
I don't know if this is true; if so I'd consider it relevant. But, whatever else, it needs a reliable source I can't provide. If anybody has a source, they might consider adding this information to the article.
Pol098 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Our Lady of Aparecida. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
