Jump to content

Talk:Chico Xavier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notes

[edit]

This section:

Seriously, this article seems as if the brazilian writers simply google translated the entire article, there are a lot of ortography errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosoldfox (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A letter channelled by Chico Xavier from a supposed victim of a murder once helped to establish the innocence of the presumed murderer. The case became nationally famous because the case had already been tried and a man was convicted. The letter caused new investigation and the real murderer was arrested.[1]"

The article referenced has got the facts wrong. The case in question was indeed a murder, but not as told in that article. The victim was shot by a friend, who was, according to the shooter, showing him a weapon that went off by accident. The letter channelled from the victim simply stated that what had happened was an accident, and no-one's fault, and that his friend (the shooter) wasn't guilty of any wrong doing. The letter was accepted as evidence on a first trial by the judge. That judgement was thrown off and the letter was accepted again in a second trial by jury. In both cases the man was considered not guilty. However no "real murdered" was ever arrested, as there wasn't anyone else involved. The victim's family also accepted the letter as legitimate. As told in "As Vidas de Chico Xavier (2003)" and "Fantastico - Rede Globo (1997)" with interviews from all parties involved (except the dead man :)

Then, is it possible that the process was thrown on a technicality or for some other reason? Do we have plenty evidence that the letter was really decisive? jggouvea 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deletet the part that sugested partial issues about the bralizian judiciary sistem. This article is not about the eficiency of bralizian judgement sistem and the author had no solid element to make that conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.48.164 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to conceal that is just religious partiality. If a reference is needed, I have added the Brazilian constitution. It states, Article 19:

Art. 19. É vedado à União, aos Estados, ao Distrito Federal e aos Municípios:

I - estabelecer cultos religiosos ou igrejas, subvencioná-los, embaraçar-lhes o funcionamento ou manter com eles ou seus representantes relações de dependência ou aliança, ressalvada, na forma da lei, a colaboração de interesse público;

II - recusar fé aos documentos públicos;

III - criar distinções entre brasileiros ou preferências entre si.

Free translation:

Art. 19. It is denied to the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities:

I - to establish religious cults or churches, to support them, interefere in their workings or to maintain with them, or their representatives, relations of dependence or allience, exceptuated, according to Law, collaborations of public interest;

II - to deny faith to public documents;

III - to create distinctions or preferences among Brazilians.

The legal precedent established in that event violates both the first and third items. Plus, this is now the only referenced entry in this article. If you, Tony Fox, the administrator responsible for this page, decides still to remove it, you will be proving your own partiality and allowing your own beliefs to interfere with your work. Plus, I might add, an encyclopedia need not be impartial in all its assertions, but it should strive to maximize the quality and quantity of *true* statements. But in fact, criticizing a crime or the judicial system's inability to properly deal with a crime is not at all 'partial', it is mere common sense and it has only been given leeway because of its involvement with religious matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.28.24 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded Light

[edit]

Deleted this section. Whoever wrote it please write it again for clarity. -WakingSetember 19th, 2006.

Nobel Peace Prize

[edit]
  • Chico Xavier was recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1981 and 1989 but did not win because of his scarce popularity elsewhere in the world. Although he did not win either of the nominations, his popularity remained unchanged in Brazil.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official and not necessarily prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements. Altogether, I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Willmcw 03:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Emmanuel name

[edit]

In the book "Há 2000 anos" the Emmanuel's name was Públio Lentulus. I don't know if it's an Portuguese adaptation. Should we modificate the name in the article?

No. "Há 2000 anos" was supposedly authored by the spirit Emmanuel by means of Xavier's mediumship. In that book the spirit tells a story that happened to him in one of his lives, one in which his name was Publius Lentulus, a Roman personage who supposedly lived from 10BCE to 65CE. It is clear when you read the book that Emmanuel and Lentulus are two different characters, yet the same person (that's reincarnation, after all...) jggouvea 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. The question was about how is the correct spelling. If it is Públio or Publius. I know that the Portuguese version is Públio, but I don't know if the English translation is Publius. dmelorj

I know Wikipedia isn't a source by itself, but even the portuguese Wikipedia says his Latin name would have been Publius. Gschadow (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A quick search on Google reveals only Portuguese pages. Thanks.--Jondel 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category change

[edit]

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the box at the rigth, named spiritualist topics, I must tell you that "fortune-telling" cannot be related with Spiritism by no meaning. Spiritismo is philosophy, with moral consequences, and respects Science. It's a Christian philosophy and his goal it's to live according to the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. Fortune-telling is a frivolous activity that spiritists NEVER do! Ricardo/Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.235.235 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've semiprotected the article for a week. To the IP who's been adding the commentary re: schizophrenia, etc., please discuss your edits here, don't just keep reverting. If there's an issue you want to bring up about the article, do so here. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is partial

[edit]

"The good spirits healed his wounds"? Seriously? 177.143.133.42 (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have removed that part. It is in history and can be re-written, and cited if need be. I will probably remove more of this article, which appears to be poorly translated from somewhere, unless proper sourcing can be found fairly quickly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
No kidding it's partial. He's like the national hero of Brazil, a country where some estimate 80% of the population believe in spirits and mediums. I'm guessing this article is a translation of the entire [Brazilian language article]. Shouldn't be hard to rewrite it with some objective sources [1], [2] but I'm guessing it'll be much smaller once you remove all the sources written by authors who consider him a saint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a joke. Seriously, any source that portrays his claims as fact, can be considered a fringe theory and removed. Huge amounts of highly dubious content without sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fk off with your nihilism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.20.194 (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nihilism is when people don't believe wild claims of spiritual activity at face value with zero evidence, apparently 2603:3018:CD9:100:FCFB:C71C:B795:E6E0 (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chico Xavier. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chico Xavier. 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).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chico_Xavier&oldid=1211004449"