Jump to content

Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Scandal

Putting information regarding the Archdiocese involvement in the church sex abuse scandal is appropriate. However, information needs to be factual and not inflammatory. Attempts to date have failed to meet this criteria. Furthermore, being blunt, the scandal itself is not focused specifically on the supposed homosexual activity of some clergy but the overall abuse of power. It should be treated as such if ever added to this article in an appropriate way. Information specific to the Archbishop's involvement should be located under his article, not here. Aafm 04:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with DominvsVobiscvm

I have contributed more facts to this article that are referenced. Each time I contribute something, DominvsVobiscvm deletes my entire effort and makes the entire article about Christifidelis. I don't think a Wikipedia page on the Archdiocese of Miami should be the sole property of Christifidelis. His edits are not in keeping with Wikipedia policy and they should be considered vandalism. He has done this repeatedly several times a day on this article. I am trying to build a respectable site and he wants to create an advertisement for Christifidelis. NancyHeise 03:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is probably an "organization" which never meets with an unverified paper membership of dozens, but three or four active members. In other words, a sham organization at the local level. Kind of like the "Student7 Movement." :) Student7 11:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On The Unimportance of the Christifidelis Group

My experience with this group has only included 5 members. From looking at the edits of Dominvs to both the Archdiocese of Miami page and Archbishop John Favalora page, I think Dominvs is one of these 5 members who is trying to use Wikipedia to push an agenda or try to save face for attorney Sharon Bourassa who was quite embarrassed when her lawsuit was dismissed. Dominvs seems to want to add a lot of information on that issue. If you google the Archdiocese of miami, you can easily see the unimportance of Sharon Bourassa's dismissed lawsuit and absolutely no respectable news coverage of the group Christifidelis. They are only mentioned in a few gossip column blogs. Neither the South Florida Sun Sentinel nor the Miami Herald make mention of either Christifidelis or the Andrew Dowgiert lawsuit. Why then is this then such an important issue that it should take up the entire Wikipedia page on the Archdiocese of Miami. That makes Wikipedia look stupid and unreliable as a source of information. NancyHeise 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! The reason we sometimes use Miami Herald and other reliable papers is that their copy is edited by a second editor who independently checks the sources. This clearly does not get done for blogs. There are some peer reviewed stuff online, but short of that, for a topic like this, only very reliable sources should be used. A key is: do they use inflammatory language? Usually only unreliable, biased, point-of-view sources use inflammatory language. Normally both sides can normally accept material written in NPOV fashion. Fights don't usually start over events reported in an unbiased fashion in the Miami Herald or other reliable sources. Student7 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Heise

Even assuming that the editor going by this name really is THE Nancy Heise, we cannot post mere hearsay. Anything published needs to be backed up by some sort of documentation, and it needs to be neutral, neither anti-Diocese or apologetic. We can't accept pure hearsay. I could find no documentation naming the alleged rejected seminarian, or Heise's correspondence with the Broward sheriff's office. As well, Ms. "Heise" might want to do a Google search on "Yohimbe" to see for herself how this drug is marketed to popular audiences. Also, I don't know what relevance Heise's occupation as a CPA has to any of this, but I kept the reference anyway. DominvsVobiscvm 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mischaractierizing my efforts. Do note that my posts say nothing about the veracity of the allegations made by Christifidelis. As well, I have kept in your mention, along with your entie (and well-written) section on the Ministries and Charities of the Archdiocese. I've just insisted that this article is not a place to give Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and in any even is irrelevant with regards to the Conference for Catholic Lesbians, which is a group that dissents from Church teaching on that and other subjects. DominvsVobiscvm 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
While not conceding that any of this belongs, could the article on homosexuality be placed in a higher level article, like Roman Catholic Church and make reference to it here?
Also, do "church teachings" include canon law? What about the ones on scandal? How selectively do we apply "church teachings"? Is it only to other people or can it be to ourselves, as well? If I find a mote in someone else's eye, have I managed to conceal the beam in my own? Student7 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was not the person who included the reference to the gay friendliness of the parishes or universities, that was Dominvs, whose sole purpose in contributing seems to be some sort of statement on homosexuality issues. I added the reference to the Catechism because the segment deals with the issue of homosexuality and it did not have any reference to this actual fact. Either the entire segment should be deleted or it must contain the reference to the Catechism. NancyHeise 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Broward County Attorney"

The attorney happens to do business in Broward County. She does not represent Broward county nor is she a state's attorney. I don't think the article makes this clear. Student7 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this attorney works for LegalAid of Broward County. See: http://ejm.lsc.gov/EJMIssue6/specialfeature01.htm DominvsVobiscvm 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

DomivsVobiscvm repeated vandalism

Each time DiminvsVobiscvm has edited this article in the past few days, he has eliminated almost all of the important, relevent, and properly referenced facts to replace them with a huge article on the topic of Christifidelis and the Dowgiert lawsuit. To illustrate how absurd his edits are: Please note there is no major news coverage of his additions and Christifidelis has no website. The facts he deletes have major news coverage and web sites. His efforts are pure vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. I will place links to articles which appeared in the mainstream media as well, namely the Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinel. DominvsVobiscvm 05:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Article tags should remain in place please

I would like to explain why I re-instated the tags I placed on the article. This article has many issues that need attention, and I'm not talking about content.

NancyHeise, I'd request that when you post here, you sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) as it is difficult to follow conversations when you do not know who is writing. Thanks!

This article is full of "naked" urls (URLS should never appear in an article's prose), and the references are not done in proper form. Simply typing <ref> </ref> around a URL is not a proper reference. Please refer to Harvard referencing, as well as how to cite sources, which will have information regarding proper formatting.

Finally, while I freely admit I'm not an expert in the area, looking the article over, with attention to all those URLs, it seems few, if any, are from reliable sources. Sources that are affiliated with the church would not be considered impartial, so would not qualify, although most certainly they can be included in the "external links" section. References from news sites that are respected, such as the New York Times, Miami Herald, Associated Press, etc., are what this article needs to balance it. I'm concerned there may be neutrality issues as well, but not being knowledgeable, I will not add that tag. I'll let that be done by someone who knows the subject.

Advanced thanks to those who comply and can assist! Ariel♥Gold 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

moving sex abuse cases to different page

I have moved the detailed references to sex abuse cases off this page because the topic is already listed in a place on the page Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases. I have added a paragraph to the Archdiocese page that discusses the scandals giving all sides of the controversy and references the Wikipedia page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. If you look at that page,you will find a separate heading for each diocese in the United States that had these problems. There is a heading for the Archdiocese of Miami. That article could be expanded and made more complete. It lists some but not all of the sex abuse cases that were brought against the Archdiocese of Miami.NancyHeise 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Fader

Dear Mr. Fader The section of the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami titled Sex Abuse and other Scandals that was recently added by DominvsVobiscm does not conform to many Wikipedia standards. The third party references are not a respectable source (Matt Abbot opinion columns) Matt Abbott does no research, he is not a journalist, he is a blog columnist that does no fact checking and whose columns are not reveiwed by a fact checker before publishing. The statements in the last paragraph by attorney Jeffrey Herman are actual statements published in a major local newspaper. These statements remain unproven to this day, there have been no arrests of any archdiocesan official who Herman claims knew about a priest being a pedophile and doing nothing. The only person on record as knowing about his past is the deceased former archbishop of Miami. Archbishop John Favalora has not been implicated by the Broward Sheriff's office because there is no evidence that he knew anything about the priest pedophile. Pope John Paul II appointed Favalora our bishop in Dec 1994. He didn't come here until a year later. He came from the New Orleans Diocese and did not know intimate details of this archdiocese upon arrival.If I were editing a Wikipedia article on the Duke Lacrosse scandals, I could easily quote the prosecutor in that case many times from reliable news sources saying the Lacrosse players were guilty. As we all know, that did not happen. For Wikipedia to include the statements of Jeffrey Herman when there are no prosecutions to back up these claims is irresponsible.I do not think any of Dominvs additions merit inclusion in the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. The article does need to make mention of the scandal and such mention should include the Archdiocesan response. I did this in my last edit of the article yesterday but it has been since deleted by DominvsVobiscm. If my edit is going to be included, I can spend more hours referencing it. I did not want to spend any more time on this if it was going to be tossed in favor of DominvsVobiscm's lengthy replacement. I am awaiting the decision of the arbitration before I do any more work on this article. It is frustrating to try to create a respectable factual article when it is being persistently vandalized by a person with an obvious bias and axe to grind. NancyHeise 18:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Fader, I have reviewed the article as left by DominvsVobiscm. I have left his information in and added information to make his addition less biased. The information I included is included in the references already there. Excluding the information makes the entry biased and inflammatory. I also removed from the article statements that were not included in the references and were without reference but appeared to be opinion. Please see my corrections to his work as a possible alternative to what he has offered. He has again eliminated all my work without explanation and I undid this. I am sure he will keep undoing my work unless you can help us. I still think the article does not need to include most of his information but refer to the Wikipedia Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandals instead. Could you please give me feedback on your opinion of this article? NancyHeise 21:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions about conflict

I am not a mediator. I understand this article is in conflict resolution and offer these suggestions in hopes they will be useful. 1. A tilde signature is important in trying to understand an article's (or editor's) history. 2. Some short, neutral, factual context has to be provided for references casual readers will not understand. 3. Accusations, even if not court-proven, are sometimes newsworthy enough, and have enough repercussions, that they must be included in a comprehensive article.

  1. Everyone should please remember to use a tilde signature (~~~~) so that it is easier to follow your edit history, even on talk pages. Just typing in your name and time doesn't have the same effect on Wikipedia's records, and makes it harder to see what you're talking about regarding past article changes.
  2. I came to the talk page because there is a bare reference to a group in the article with no explanation and no wikilink. Apparently the size and nature of the group is under dispute. Meanwhile, article readers are getting no info at all on Christifidelis. If they are significant enough to be mentioned by name, they should be introduced with a little context. Would an explanatory clause like "a small group of local Catholic activists" be acceptable? Would the parties be able to agree to something more, like "a small group of local Catholic activists addressing ___ issues" work? "Small" covers a lot of territory and might help get past the conflict about whether the group is five people, fifteen, fifty, etc.
  3. Regarding the attorney's statements v. lack of prosecution, the statements themselves — whether true or not, whether accompanied by prosecutions or a settlement or a verdict or not — are part of the history of the Archdiocese. If the accusations were newsworthy, they can and should be included in a Wiki article. That someone has said whatever is a fact; whether whatever is true or not is a different issue. Careful NPOV writing can handle this so that the reader can draw their own conclusions. Sample with fake citations for illustrative purposes:

    Jane Jones, attorney for Sally Smith, stated that Fred Fumblefoot had intentionally and maliciously stepped on Smith's blue suede shoes.[1][2] The resulting civil suit was dismissed without prejudice on February 29, 2009.[3] In the first weeks after the incident, the state's attorney was reportedly considering filing misdemeanor assault charges [4] but, a year later, no charges had been filed.[5]

I don't want to get in the way here; just thought new eyes might help. -- Lisasmall | Talk 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

request for edit

{{editprotected}} I am requesting for an administrator to eliminate the section called Church Scandals from the Archdiocese of Miami Wikipedia page. This information is already included on another Wikipage called Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases under a subsection titled Archdiocese of Miami. If one were to look on the Wikipedia page Duke University, they would not find a subsection called Duke Lacrosse Scandal because it is already the subject of an entire Wikipedia page to itself. The size of the Archdiocese of Miami subsection Church Scandals takes up the entire Wikipedia page on Archdiocese of Miami. It is referenced almost entirely to a source that is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards (Matt Abbott Columns have no second editor or fact checker, he merely prints people's emails without any verification a person is who they say they are.) The Archdiocese of Miami has been sued numerous times on many issues. Many of these lawsuits are much more important than the dismissed lawsuit that takes up the entire section called Church Scandals as it stands now. It is therefore misleading to the reader to place so much importance on this one, dismissed lawsuit whose accusations are referenced to a source that violates Wikipolicy. NancyHeise 22:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is the subject of mediation, and protected from editing, so without great evidence of consensus it would be inappropriate for any admin to edit the page. Please feel free to add this to the list of concerns being mediated, if it is not already under discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Dear Administrator CBM, I am requesting immediate removal of material on the wikipage Archdiocese of Miami that is locked in under the version edited by DominvsVobiscm. Specifically, allegations by Sharon Bourassa's dismissed lawsuit saying our priests are all practicing homosexuals who steal church funds to live exhorbitant lifestyles, the ownership in the liquid aphrodisiac which happens to be this http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-149600240.html , everything in this section. As you can see by visiting the third party reference to the supposed liquid aphrodisiac, the beverages sold by this company are marketed as "energy drinks". No where does this company say that it is selling a liquid aphrodisiac. In no newspaper is it reported that any of these drinks are aphrodisiacs that are sold in gay bars. I would also like to point out that there are no references that Wikipedia would allow to sustain having any of the material in this section, yet you are clearly allowing it to stay. I searched for any third party references to any investigations of any Archdiocese of Miami priest for stealing money and there are none. I searched for any third party references to find any kind of evidence that would sustain an accusation that over 400 priests are sexually active homosexuals. There are none. Wikipedia policy states that extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources. This does not exist to sustain these claims. I have four school age children here. Sharon Bourassa and her tiny catholic hate group told entire schools full of children, including my own that the priests they have loved and known all their lives are practicing homosexuals because they own real estate (just like doctors do when investing) with other priests. (Archdiocese of Miami requires their priests to provide for their own retirement) I watched my child cry for over two hours and she only stopped after I told her that her own father owns a hunting cabin with his hunting friends, owning real estate does not mean a person is an active homosexual, nor that they have bought it with stolen funds. One priest lives in a home on the intracoastal. He is an only child who has lived in this home most of his life with his parents. When his parents died, he inherited the home which is three blocks from his parish. Sharon Bourassa assumes that since it is on the intracoastal, it is a luxury home he owns with stolen parish funds. This is such a horrible defamation of good, innocent priests who have been loving and kind to our kids and it is so painful to see this garbage being proclaimed on Wikipedia, with your help and approval. Please remove this material that clearly violates wikipolicies WP:Redflag, WP:Proveit, WP:NPOV#undue weight, and WP:RS If you visit the mediation page of John Favalora you will see many editors who have a consensus that this material should be removed. The only person who wants this material on this site is DominvsVobiscm. If you visit his talk page you will see how many times he has been reprimanded for vandalizing Catholic sites in Wikipedia. This is not an unbiased Wiki editor. This is a person using Wikipedia to turn Catholic sites into anti Catholic propaganda. .NancyHeise 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please contact info-en-o@wikimedia.org with such issues, making legal threats here will result in your account being blocked. --ST47Talk·Desk 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not punish the perpetrator. That's too difficult! Punish the obedient, by golly, that's the ticket! Make us responsible editors fear admins. The vandals sure as heck don't! Student7 01:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. This issue will be referred to arbitration. Andre (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of giving Wikipedia a chance to abide by its own policies, I have removed my threat to send this issue to the Catholic League. Please consider that there are millions of parishioners like me living in the Archdiocese of Miami who feel the same way and they are not Wikipedia editors who will be banned if they report this obvious violation of Wikipolicy that causes real harm to real, innocent priests and children.NancyHeise 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

list of items that need to be removed from this edit locked page and why

{{editprotected}} The following comments are in regard to the section called "Church Scandals" and items referenced to the source of Matt Abbott columns who has no fact checker or editor as required by Wikipedia to be considered a reliable source. He prints emails on the protestant web site "Renew America" which could be considered by many to be anti Catholic propaganda. 1)paragraph two is an entire section devoted to a lawsuit that was dismissed and received no major news coverage. A few paragraphs down, the editor who contributed this section states that the lawsuit was dismissed because of church/state separation reasons and courts did not comment on the veracity of the allegations. There is no reference to sustain this sentence. We have no third party reference to see what was the court's actual ruling in why they dismissed this lawsuit. In a similar lawsuit like this one in New York http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/021307crotty.pdf, you can see that the justices ruled for sanctions against the attorney after they dismissed the case. Beginning on page 29, they state that the attorney used the courts only to generate propaganda against the Catholic Church. Sharon Bourassa may have also been sanctioned for the same reasons. (google her name to see the places her allegations in Matt Abott columns were published, with no references to the dismissal) To place any sentence in this paragraph without an actual reference to the actual ruling is not only against Wikipolicy, it makes Wikipedia look ridiculously unreliable. Likewise, to mention a lawsuit that was dismissed outright and withdrawn by the plaintiff does not make sense. It makes Wikipedia a possible tool of anti Catholic propaganda, also against Wikipedia policy. 2)Paragraph three lists the allegations contained in the dismissed lawsuit just discussed. Listing these allegations is further evidence that the editor intends to use Wikipedia as an anti Catholic propaganda tool. I have searched for local and national newspaper coverage that would sustain these allegations that are over two years old, I find nothing in local or national papers. I do not find any articles about Archdiocese of Miami priests stealing money from parishes, being investigated or prosecuted for such felony crime. I do not see where any luxury properties have been confiscated because of such felony crime. I do not find where homosexually active priests in the Archdiocese of Miami are being removed or investigated. Further, how can anyone state with a straight face that they personally know the sexual orientation of over 360 United States Bishops? Yet this paragraphs states that almost all of them are sexually active homosexuals. This is anti Catholic propaganda. I did find that one of the attorney's who brought the lawsuit in the first place, Sharon Bourassa's co-counsel, Mr. Joe Titone, was disbarred. Maybe this lawsuit and its allegations do not belong in this article for the very reasons that they can not be substantiated with any real news sources Wikipedia requires. To include this paragraph would violate Wikipedia policy and make it appear to be a tool of anti Catholic propaganda. 3)This sentence "Christifidelis claims to have sent their investigation to the Vatican for adjudication; they claim Pope Benedict XVI is "well aware" of these scandals, and is currently deliberating a solution to them" does not make sense. We do not know who "Christifidelis" is. There is no reference to a web site for them, I do not find any. There are some groups with the name Christifidelis on the web, searching their sites, there is no mention of their suppposed founder "Sharon Bourassa" nor this claim to have sent their investigation (also not mentioned) to the Vatican. I have searched to find where Pope Benedict XVI has stated he is "well aware of these Archdiocese of Miami scandals and is currently deliberating a solution to them". There is no reference to back up this statement. It is a completely unreferenced statement. Wikipedia policy states that "extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources". This is an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy and further evidence that the article is possibly being used as a tool of anti Catholic propaganda. 4)"Archbishop Favalora and Catholic Charities of Miami owned several thousand shares in stock for a liquid aphrodisiac popularly sold in gay clubs and strip joints". This sentence has no reference. Going to the source, Matt Abott columns, I do not find a list of stockholders for Xstream Beverage Network, Inc., the alleged stock. Searching news articles of this company, I do not find any drink they sell that is called a "liquid aphrodisiac" nor any news articles stating that any of their drinks are sold in gay bars. This appears to the average reader to be a blatant display of anti Catholic propaganda. I don't think it serves the purpose of Wikipedia to include such a statement. 5) "Two of the Miami Archdiocese's parishes (Saints Anthony and Maurice, both in Fort Lauderdale) are publicly featured on the directory of the Conference for Catholic Lesbians as being "Gay-Friendly"; a complimentary directory lists both Archdicoesan universities, Barry and Saint Thomas, as "Gay-Friendly"." This sentence does not explain why it is a scandal to be "gay friendly". The Archdiocese has a homosexual ministry and also and AIDS ministry. South Florida is home to the second largest homosexual population in the country. Why shouldn't they be gay friendly? What purpose does this sentence serve under "Church Scandals". This is referenced to a source that is not part of the Catholic Church. It does not state that the Church sanctions homosexual behaviour, blesses unions or other activities that would violate church teaching and possibly be considered a scandal in the Catholic Church. Likewise, there is no local or national newspaper coverage of these parishes being gay friendly or any scandal associated with being so. I did find in the Catholic Catechism the requrement to be welcoming to gays see:http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/mysite.html?q=paragraph+2358&sufs=0&order=r&cmd=context&id=4810ea482028fc5b#hit1 Evidently, it is not a scandal to be "gay friendly" and this sentence does not belong in this article under Church Scandals. 6)"Archbishop Favalora has been deposed in a lawsuit filed against retired Broward priest Neil Doherty; at least four lawsuits are alleging the Archdiocese knew Doherty was a pedophile and covered-up allegations, keeping Doherty in ministry until he was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2002" This paragraph is incorrect. Neil Doherty was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2005. He was removed from ministry by Archbishop Favalora in 2002 after Favalora went through priest files and found an accusation against Doherty that had occured under the previous and now deceased Archbishop of Miami. Please see the first lawsuit at http://www.hermanlaw.com/pdf/complaint-02.pdf date is on bottom of page. Also see http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/01_02/2007_02_20_Weaver_ArchbishopDeposed.htm 7) " In July 2007, Miami lawyer Jeffrey Herman announced new lawsuits against the Archdiocese, alleging sexual abuse by six Florida priests, including Doherty. "This whole scandal is far from over," Herman said. "We're still in the heart of people coming forward." This sentence stands alone. It does not give both sides of the story making it biased. This sentence is already included in the article Roman Catholic Sex Abuse cases under the subsection Archdiocese of Miami. However, in that article, both sides of the story are given. Either this should be eliminated here and a reference to the other article inserted or it should contain the unbiased version.StacyyW 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected requests are not appropriate for issues such as this. I believe this article is the subject of mediation; you are free to join that mediation group to discuss your concerns. You can also contact Wikipedia representatives using the "Contact Wikipedia" link on the left side of the screen. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

unprovable allegations

There is a Wikipolicy that would prohibit statements in this article. The statement made by Sharon Bourassa that 70-90% of priests are practicing homosexuals and 90% of Catholic Bishops are practicing homosexuals is an extraordinary claim. Wikipedia policy states "Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources" see WP:REDFLAG. If there were a Gallup Poll conducted asking priests if they were practicing homosexuals and the results showed that 70-90% of them were, then I could see including this statement by Sharon Bourassa. But there is no such source for this comment. Courts have thrown out lawsuits with such allegations. How do we know this is not what happened to Sharon Bourassa? I can not find the court opinion for the dismissal of the Dowgiert lawsuit on the web. In this Wiki article it says it was dismissed because of church state issues, not because of the allegations but clearly, lawsuits are being tossed specifically for those reasons as we see in this opinion beginning on page 28 of this lawsuit http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/021307crotty.pdf. NancyHeise 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, If you search the internet for any evidence of convictions of Miami priests for "stealing money to live exhorbitant lifestyles" you will find one lawsuit against a Miami priest that the plaintiff lost because of lack of evidence. In addition, the court did not allow the plaintiff to go on what it called a "fishing expedition" to find such proof. See opinion at http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d06-1948.pdf That is one lawsuit with no conviction. There are 400 priests in the Archdiocese of Miami. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary sources - I think that means we would need to see several major news sources covering lawsuits against at least 280 priests (70% of the 400 priests in the Archdiocese of Miami) to justify including this statement in this article.NancyHeise 19:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the text of part of the opinion of the dismissed New York lawsuit that contains similar allegations to Sharon Bourassa's "Finally, further evidence of Mr. Aretakis’s motives is the drumbeat of publicity which Mr. Aretakis has sought. The day he and his client filed this complaint,he held a press conference to announce his lawsuit. This appears to be his common practice. The immediate link between the filing of the complaint and the press conference support the inference that Mr. Aretakis’s intention was to injure. That intent is confirmed by Mr. Aretakis’s statements in which he describes himself as an activist for clergy sexual abuse victims and is quoted as intending to “continue to humiliate and embarrass the Church” by bringing incidents of sexual abuse to light, even if he cannot bring them in court. 18 This intent to humiliate and embarrass is further manifested in the amended complaint which is littered with wholly irrelevant, inflammatory, and embarrassing facts concerning defendants and non-defendants alike that have no bearing on the actions brought, such as “it was widely known that he [one of the defendants] was an alcoholic.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 27.) Accordingly, the Court finds that sanctions are necessary in this case." http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d06-1948.pdf The copied text begins on page 28 of this opinion. In light of this opinion on a lawsuit which contained identical claims (in another diocese) as Sharon Bourassa's, I find it difficult to be able to include her statements without considering the possibility of Wikipedia appearing to be part of that effort to "continue to humiliate and embarrass the Church", expecially when including these claims would clearly violate WP:REDFLAG. If you Google Sharon Bourassa, you might conclude that her lawsuit was filed for identical reasons, ie: not to win, but to use the courts as a means to humiliate and embarrass. NancyHeise 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If the allegations are attributable and notable they can be included, if attributed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46 15 September 2007 (GMT).
The allegations in this article from Sharon Bourassa are blanket accusations which are neither attributable, notable or provable. NancyHeise 03:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

problem with reference number 25

Reference number 25 is for a lawsuit for which this is the court opinion:http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d06-1948.pdf . The evidence to support the accusation does not exist and the court denied the plaintiff's attempt to use the court to go on what it called a "fishing expedition". If this article includes a reference to number 25, it should include a reference and a statement for the opinion about the lawsuit or it is factually incorrect and incomplete.NancyHeise —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 32 is a problem, does not match info in corresponding sentence

This sentence is factually incorrect. If you go to the reference (number 32) at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/01_02/2007_02_20_Weaver_ArchbishopDeposed.htm This is the sentence from the article: "Archbishop Favalora has been deposed in a lawsuit filed against retired Broward priest Neil Doherty; at least four lawsuits are alleging the Archdiocese knew Doherty was a pedophile and covered-up allegations, keeping Doherty in ministry until he was first publicly accused of sexual abuse in 2002." According to the reference, there is no mention of four lawsuits, only one. The reference also states that Favalora removed Doherty from ministry in 2002. That was four years before the first public accusation against Doherty which was Sept 2006 (this is in reference 32). The reference also specifically states that Favalora did not know of previous allegations against Doherty until he had an archdiocesan official go through all the priests files and found an allegation that was settled under the previous and now deceased archbishop. To omit this last sentence makes the paragraph biased.NancyHeise 04:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, Nancy. Once the hold is lifted, I will post an additional reference: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/01_02/2006_01_28_Santiago_AttorneySays.htm DominvsVobiscvm 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference 33

The subject matter referenced to number 33 is included in the Wikipedia article Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. However, in that article, the subject matter is complemented with the other side of the story making the paragraph unbiased. I suggest that this article either refer the reader to that Wiki article or make the paragraph more like the one in Sex Abuse Cases. That paragraph reads: "In July 2007, Miami lawyer Jeffrey Herman announced new lawsuits against the Archdiocese, alleging sexual abuse by six previously accused priests except one. "This whole scandal is far from over," Herman said. "We're still in the heart of people coming forward." One of the lawsuits is for an allegation that was previously investigated by the State Attorney's office and was deemed not credible. The investigation was dropped and the priest remains active in ministry. The Archdiocese has stated it will defend him vigorously" NancyHeise 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with quoting everything directly is the overblown nature of lawyer's statements to the media generally. The phrase "this scandal is far from over" falls into the "trying the case in the press" that lawyers are famous for. An attempt to wring money out of the diocese without a trial. Putting it in Wikipedia fulfills the same ambition. These are inflammatory statements. They are unprovable. While the fact of the suit itself may belong in the article, the essentially nonsense blather shouldn't be in there. The quotes are in the nature of quoting from a .com site - the article would be doing the same thing for the "seller" (lawyer) that he is supposed to do for himself and his client in another venue, that is, the courts (for a seller, in the marketplace). Student7 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph would be much more informational and less inflammatory if it omitted the Jeffrey Herman statement which is pure speculation on his part.NancyHeise 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiablity and Notablility of Bourassa allegations

I would like to ask if it is notable that the Sharon Bourassa accusations were never repeated in the local news media, either in South Florida Sun Sentinel, Miami Herald or local television stations? If the local news doesnt carry accusations that are clearly exaggerations, why should Wikkipedia? NancyHeise 18:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Sharon Bourassa allegations were like allegations made against OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton, I would advise including them in the Wikipedia article. However, her allegations are different from these cases since they are heresay. She claims a group of straight priests are feeding her this information. This is not a direct allegation from a vicitim or a witness, this is heresay. We have no news articles of Archdiocese of Miami priest making these same allegations. In one of the references to these allegations http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051129, Nancy Heise states she spoke to two members of Sharon Bourassa's group who beleived the priest making the allegations was Sharon's former pastor, Fr. Mulderry. His statement to Nancy is that the allegations are so ridiculous that he wonders how it could be possible for any person to know the sexual orientation and practices of all 400 Archdiocese of Miami priests. He states he has never told Sharon such a thing. Further evidence as to why these allegations should not be printed is that the local papers would not print them. The only people to print these allegations are blogs who carry Matt Abbott columns, this is a gossip column, not someone with a fact checker or an editor as required by WP:RS. Is it not obvious enough evidence that an allegation is an extraordinary claim when someone claims to know the sexual orientation of 400 priests? It was obvious enough to our local papers and television news.NancyHeise 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Content that needs to be included to make article unbiased

If this article ultimately includes the Bourassa allegations based on heresay that are never printed in the local or national newspapers of the area affected, then the article should include more information regarding the Nancy Heise investigation. Specifically I would add to that paragraph the statement "Nancy Heise stated 'Sharon Bourassa has been proven to be lying about having a group of secret priests telling her that 90 percent of all our priests are practicing homosexuals here in the Miami archdiocese." Heise says Christifidelis, a group of lay Catholics with whom Bourassa is associated, is a "witch hunting group" that is "no different than the KKK' " This statement comes from one of the Matt Abbott columns that are cited as a reference http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060506. If we can include every salacious comment by Bourassa, why not Heise. Not to do so is clearly bias. However, the entire episode does not deserve mention in this article. Note:,unlike the Bourassa comment, Heise's is not heresay.NancyHeise 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong about including the Bourassa suit. The suit was for him to be reinstated. It failed and was ultimately withdrawn. The statements that accompanied it are lawyer hype. They couldn't be successfully demonstrated to anyone neutral, so they don't get included IMO. If the suit had succeeded, on the other hand, then what the judge said in his ruling would have been appropriate to quote. The rest is simply lawyer rant. Even had it got into a legitimate newspaper it shouldn't be included. Student7 16:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Sharon Bourassa statements about 90 percent of the priests are practicing homosexuals, the liquid aphrodisiac and the comment about homosexual bishops is not in the Dowgiert Lawsuit. The priest Bourassa was representing did not make any of these allegations. These are statements coming from a lawyer who is writing a letter to columnist Matt Abbott and the columnist printed the allegations. See original lawsuit at: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050521 See Sharon Bourassa statements that are not part of a lawsuit at: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060412. If these allegations are not part of a lawsuit, why would they be included in a Wikipedia article?NancyHeise 16:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've gone ahead and unprotected this article as it's been protected for a month, and no headway seems to be being made in mediation. —Angr 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I have removed the section entitled Church Scandals due to the consensus of editors and am currently adding content, more sex scandal info and references to the page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. Relevent and properly sourced content that was removed from this page under Church Scandals has been left on the page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. StacyyW 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sex Abuse Cases

Student7, I see you placed the section Sex Abuse Cases in this article. I am not opposed to mentioning this scandal that was a real event in the Catholic Church in the United States. As long as it is unbiased, noninflammatory and is not a poorly sourced propaganda page for a hate group. I think having the link to Roman Catholic Sex Abuse cases is fine, I was going to add that today. I do not think it is right to list every sex abuse case on this page if we have a link to the Wikipedia Sex Abuse Case, that would be redundant. Did you see the example of the Archdiocese of Chicago I sent you? I am going to try to add more info on the founding of and history of the Archdiocese just like on that page and expand the information in the sections already on this page to make them more complete.StacyyW 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Info Referenced to Florida Catholic Newspaper official Catholic Directory 4/28/06

I have added info to this article that comes from a Florida Catholic Newspaper I kept with the Archdiocesan Annual Report for 2006. It lists statistical information and actual numbers of students, etc. I can not find this newspaper online but I am continuing to search for it. I may ask the Florida Catholic Newspaper if they will publish online the next annual report to we can reference this article to those numbers.NancyHeise 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for Good Article Status

I have nominated this article for Good Article Status WP:GAC since many of the kinks have been worked out.NancyHeise 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Major third party reference confirms almost all info on this page

I would like to point out that a recent South Florida Sun Sentinel story called "Archdiocese to Mark Anniversary" dated October 6, 2007 confirms almost all of my edits to this wiki article. This is a major third party reference and I have included it in the article at various points. I am explaining this here because some have suggested the article needed more third party references to certain items that previously could only be found on Archdiocesan linked or Catholic linked web sites. This is the first time this information has been offered in a major third party newspaper that is not out of date or archived. The newspaper article is here http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/columnists/sfl-liarchmiaminboct06,0,4168353.story NancyHeise 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA

This article is being quick-failed at WP:GAN per criterion 5 of the Good Article criteria (stability). This is due to the current mediation going on, which could also be evidence of WP:NPOV issues. Furthermore, a glance at the article's text shows some significant manual of style issues, a very short lead section, poor overall organization (some very short main sections that could probably be either lengthened or combined), and some inconsistent referencing (references appear to cover most of the main info, but why are there 5 & 7 citations on some of the sentences?). Please feel free to renominate the article once the mediation is complete and the article's issues have been addressed. Dr. Cash 08:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes requested by Dr. Cash and added the GA tag with a request for a 2nd opinion and reviewer. The mediation situation does not reveal a lack of stability. One editor of this article wanted to add material that violated many wikipolicies. Two admins have already blocked that editor and asked him to respect the consensus of editors. See talk pages of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and this mediation pageview. Also see talk page of DominvsVobiscvm NancyHeise 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick glance: The article suffers from overkill of referencing in certain areas: For example, the last sentence in the opening introduction is followed by 7 footnotes, and the sentence before that has five. This is really not needed, and if the footnotes are only relevant to the one single sentence, then 3-4 of them could easily be removed completely. If the footnotes are relevant to other areas of the article, consider moving them to the appropriate passages. The same goes for the last sentence of the charities section, and Catholic charities section. Consider moving the references to be after sentences, not just after entire paragraphs (where they are applicable to the sentence's content, of course). I fixed the broken link in the last sentence of the introduction, (South Florida), and I'll take a look at it again tomorrow. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with your and Dr. Cash's recommendation to remove some of the references completely. I would leave parts of sentences without reference if I eliminated some of the references and it took me a lot of time and hours of research to find many of those third party references. If you remember, in the beginning before I got to this article, there was a tag on it that said it needed references from reliable sources. My effort to add these references was in response to whoever it was that placed that original tag and I fear having replaced if I were to eliminate these references. I did move all of the relevant references out of the end of paragraphs to the end of the sentence within the paragraph but the ones that remain at the end of the paragraphs now relate to those specific sentences that end the paragraph.NancyHeise 17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the article, as it appears to have increased significantly. My earlier quick-fail was primarily due to mediation, but I would like further confirmation from the mediation committee and not editors as to whether the process has concluded or not, so I have placed the article on hold for now. Dr. Cash 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead section looks very good. It covers a reasonably good summary of the article. The overall prose (of the whole article), could use a good, thorough copyediting. I am finding lots of places where incorrect grammar is used:

  • sometimes there's no space between two sentences
  • some references look funny (the citation should be placed immediately after punctuation, not after punctuation and a space (e.g. it should look like this,[6] or like this.[7] ... not like this. [8]
  • the history section starts of with a very awkwardly phrased sentence, almost run-on, and could be improved a bit. overall sentence structure in the article could be improved.

All images meet the GA criteria, with the exception of Image:LifeteenHome.jpg, which needs a fair-use rationale added to it. Though one could almost make a good argument for it's removal, since it's just a screenshot of a website, and as such, only shows one aspect of the ministries program in the text with which it is associated. It's inclusion is almost an advertisement for the website and not so much of an encyclopedic nature.

Several of the section headers still don't comply with the manual of style. For example, the upper case lettering in 'Schools, Universities, and Seminaries' -- this particular title is pretty long, and could be shortened simply to 'education'. 'Ministries, Retreats, Charities' is just repetitive of its subsection titles; maybe this could be changed to a much shorter, more descriptive title, such as 'Outreach'?

The 'High schools' section is just a list of high schools. And it's separated in context from the mention of the other educational programs, too. I would think combining it with the discussion on K-12 education would be a good idea here. It might also be advisable to move it to a separately linked page, linked to via a 'see also' link in the education section; though the list is still short and not likely to grow very large, so you could probably get away without a separate page.

I've looked at several of the sentences that have many references (5-7 citations). If you look more closely at these, the citations don't seem to be backing up the information that they are supposed be citing. Plus, there's a couple of '404 not found's in some of them, which should be addressed. For example, if we look at the following sentence: "Charities include a homeless shelter, legal services for the poor, pro life centers, an HIV/AIDS ministry, the Missionaries of Charity and St. Vincent De Paul ministries to the poor."

  • Reference #10 goes to the wikipedia article Camillus House. The citation is invalid as a reference; wikipedia should never cite itself.
  • Reference #11 goes to a directory listing for Catholic Charities Legal Services, which does technically verify the existence of the legal services. But it's just a directory listing, and could be construed as spam, especially since it's just contact information. Is there an actual website for this agency?
  • Reference #12 goes to a directory listing for social services orgs in the area. Yes, catholic charities is covered, but nothing is said about their HIV/AIDS programs, as the link description states.
  • Reference #13: Missionaries of charity - 404 not found. This is useless.
  • Reference #14: the link description says 'St. Vincent de Paul', but the link goes to the exact same link as reference #13, which is, as I've already said, 404 not found! WTF?

So there are mostly spam here. And it doesn't get any better. The next sentence has 7 citations: "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Miami is a separate not for profit entity operated by the Archdiocese of Miami. It is the largest non-governmental provider of social services to the needy in South Florida."

And if that's not enough for you, references 15-21 are repeated, word-for-word, in references 40-46, citing the sentence, "In 2006, it served over 17,000 families in the tri-county area of Broward County, Miami-Dade County and Monroe County." None of them really back up that sentence, either. Procedurally, the preferred way of reusing a reference is not to list it again in its entirety, but to name the reference in its first instance (e.g. <ref name="reference_name">Put the reference info here.</ref>). Then, the next time you use information from that reference, all you need to do is insert the following: <ref name="reference_name"/>

So, in other words, I hate to sound blunt but, the references are pretty much a complete disaster. While I didn't check the other citations used explicitly, I wouldn't be surprised to find more spam and directory listings and very little info actually backing up information in the article.

It might also help the citations to include full citation information, not just a link & title, but also, where applicable, the author, publisher, date of publication, and date the URL was last retrieved. The more information contained in the reference, the better, as it clearly establishes the reference's notability and legitimacy, and makes it much easier for readers to verify claims, as well as to track down the citation when doing further research into the topic, especially if the link disappears from the web (404 not found). The article is also 100% dependent on online references, and it would help if offline references were used as well.

Ok, so I hope this helps. The article is looking much better, but there's still obviously a long way to go. Dr. Cash 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA (second sweep)

The article looks much better! Especially the references. Although there are still some minor issues.

  • It would help to give the article another good, thorough copyedit, looking specifically at some grammar and punctuation issues. Two specific issues that I can point out to right off the bat, include:
"Then Archbishop Joseph Patrick Hurley sensing a future population boom," -- I think we're missing commas after "Then" and after "Hurley".
"He is also featured on the Spanish speaking television networkTelemundo." -- there is no space between "network" and "Telemundo".
These are the types of things that should be looked at in the copyedit (also, spelling should be covered is well, but I don't see any major spelling errors right offhand).
  • The list of high schools is in kind of an awkward position. While it's still in the education section, why is the list after the 'seminaries' section and not after 'schools', which would seem like a logic place for it? I would also ditch the bolded high schools semi-header and put in an introductory sentence like, "High schools supported by the archdiocese include:" then go to the list. Also, why is St. Thomas Aquinas High School featured over all the rest with its logo next to the list? Is there something special about this school, and if there is, that should be stated. But I would actually recommend just removing the logo, and moving the list up a little bit. Specifics on the individual schools' histories are more applicable on their own wiki articles.
  • References 15 & 16 still don't cite the sentence, "It claims to be the largest non-governmental provider of social services to the needy in South Florida." Both citations appear to be going to lists and directories, with no information about being the largest non-governmental provider of social services in S Florida.
  • I wonder if the coat of arms might find a better place in one of the other sections? The history section, perhaps? It seems kind of awkward being all alone next to the TOC.
  • The life teen homepage screenshot still does not contain a fair-use rationale. It's tagged with a copyright tag, yes, but it should have a section in the image description page entitled 'fair use rationale', with some reasons why fair-use is being used. The recently-promoted GA, Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) provides some good examples of this, as it has several screenshots.
  • I'm not understanding why, "2006 Archdiocese of Miami Official Catholic Directory published in The Florida Catholic Newspaper on April 28, 2006, page A8" is in the 'sources' section. The article uses inline citations, which are preferred, since it's the best way to verify the information in the article. If multiple items in the article are being cited by this source, then the source should still be an inline citation; just used more than once -- as I previously described).

Ok, those are the issues that still remain based on this version of the article. I think the article can be promoted to GA once these things are done. I will be out of town on business on Tuesday (Oct. 16) and Wednesday (Oct. 17), so I will look at this again when I return (unless all the issues are addressed on Monday ;-) ... Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Cash, I have addressed all the GA second sweep concerns. Please see my comments on your talk page regarding your last comment here about the Sources section and let me know if it is OK to leave it alone. thanks for your time and attention to this article.NancyHeise 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good, and will be listed. Good work! Dr. Cash 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Cash Concerns addressed, except

I have addressed all of Dr. Cash's concerns and made appropriate repairs to this article as he has listed above. I am not able to correct the references that are repeated. I am not doing something right and it messes them all up when I try to correct them. I will do some research on another day when I have the time to spend on this or hope that some other editor comes along and helps out here. Thank you Dr. Cash for your detailed analysis and comments to improve this article. Sincerely, NancyHeise 22:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy, as requested, I've fixed the references. I also removed non-reliable sources, such as links to Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is not a reliable, third-party source. Also, I removed invalid URLs: [1], replaced [2], with a valid URL, replaced [3] with a valid URL, and fixed a similar URL to point to the proper URL: [4] to [5]. I'd suggest never using google cache links, they aren't stable, or reliable. Same with Yahoo news links, as Yahoo recycles its news URLs. Additionally, the external links section had three links to http://www.miamiarch.org, which I removed, because it is the same page as http://www.miamiarchdiocese.org, so it doesn't need multiple links. They have alternate URLs for people searching, but they are still just one page. The article still suffers from using primary sources way too much, though. (Sorry Nancy, I know you struggle to find the same information in reliable sources.) I also removed a link to about.com, which is also not remotely a reliable source (Sorry!).
Now, when doing a reference, name them. Instead of using the <ref> tag, use a "name" tag, so the reference will start with <ref name="refname">. It must have quotation marks around the name (give it a name that associates it with the passage or title for ease of remembering it), and then when referring back to that reference elsewhere, you'll use the exact same format, but you'll "empty close" it, like this: <ref name="refname" />. You must use the backslash for it to work, and you do not add anything else, just that one thing. Use the diff viewer to see how I've done it. The references could still use some work, but I've fixed a number of obvious issues. Ariel♥Gold 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

All Dr Cash concerns have been addressed

This article is ready for a thorough review. All points of Dr. Cash listed above have been addressed and corrected. (with the very much appreciated help of Ariel♥Gold) NancyHeise 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lifeteen Image

I removed the lifeteen image per Dr. Cash concerns. Then I replaced it after I took a second look at the image info and found that it does have proper free use documentation that it may not have had before when Dr. Cash looked at it. Of all the ministries listed in that section, this is the only one that has a photo that is really relevant to this section and actually looks good. If this image is going to fail the article for WP:GA, I can remove it easily and replace it with a Knights of Columbus logo but I really think this picture makes the article a better and more informative article.NancyHeise 02:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote section

I have added a section to the bottom of the page entitled Footnotes. Per WP:Cite, if you have info that is not likely to be disputed and is not found in an online source, you may include a footnote section and list the source. The Footnote section on this page lists the 2006 Official Catholic Directory. From this source, I obtained the number of teachers and students in the schools. Since the schools section also contains a third party reference listing and linking the schools, I do not anticipate this information being contested. This source was also used to add content in the Catholic Health Services section listing how many people were served by each facility. The largest number of people served is with the Catholic Hospitals and I do not anticipate those numbers being contested either since they also have other third party and not third party references.NancyHeise 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy, since that source is not an inline citation, it isn't technically a footnote. I'd suggest renaming the section to "Sources", and moving it below the references section (above external links) per WP:MOS and WP:FOOT. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ariel, I have made this change per your request. I appreciate your help. You deserve an award for your constant kindness and help to educate me in the ways of Wiki world. Am I allowed to give you some kind of award or do I place your name on some kind of list somewhere?NancyHeise 03:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I found the awards page and awarded ArielGold the AngelHeart Barnstar for her never ending kindness and help.NancyHeise 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With great emotion

I am happy to announce that all Dr. Cash concerns have been addressed with the continued help of the Wikipedia Good Fairy Ariel♥Gold This is the first time I am writing this on Wikipedia...Cheers! NancyHeise 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And, big congratulations, Nancy. The GA review has passed, and this article is now officially a Good Article! Nancy, your hard work, dedication, and perseverance paid off. You have not given up on this since we first came across the article so many months ago, and I'm really glad to see your work come to fruition! Ariel♥Gold 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent article! Tiny suggestions for the future, I realize you are hard pressed to find pix to support charitable organizations. I did not find the pic of St. Vincent de Paul helpful. It would seem more appropriate to a higher level of the organization.
Maybe deaneries should be listed someplace? Great work! Student7 03:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Related article

I see there is a new article List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Some people here might be interested. I don't want to mess with the article since it has FA status. Barrylb (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ .
  2. ^ .
  3. ^ .
  4. ^ .
  5. ^ .
  6. ^ a
  7. ^ ab
  8. ^ b
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Miami/Archive_1&oldid=1136235850"