Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora/page1 for earlier comments (this is not an archive, it is still active, however it has been made separate for clarity purposes).

Contents 1 Let's try to start over 1.1 Statements 1.1.1 Student7 1.1.2 Aafm 1.1.3 Dominvs 1.1.4 NancyHeise 1.1.5 Annpavlosky 1.2 Information 2 Arbitration 3 request for edit 4 More info to assist in Arbitration Process of John Fav. and Arch of Miami 5 Info needed to balance Bourassa allegations if those get included 6 This info needs to be on this page too 7 Status?

[edit] Let's try to start over

Let's try to start over with the mediation process. I have protected the Archdiocese article, which I did not want to do but it seems that this can't be resolved otherwise. Please prepare opening statements below, along with a few other exercises, as is customary with a mediation (this one did not really start in a positive way). I will be away for a few days but I will return, hopefully, to some useful developments in this difficult mediation.

Please list below, briefly and to the point, what you wish to be the outcome of this mediation. Try not to mention what other contributors do, think, or have done. This is about your best case scenario, not what other editors may or may not be doing to prevent that. You must touch on specific aspects of information, and try to cite specific policies (WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc). If this means you need to brush up on your policy, that's probably a good thing.

If you do not wish to include a statement, please do not participate in the mediation process. Andre (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements

[edit] Student7

I would like to point out that Student7 is on vacation as he or she stated in a previous conversation with me in this discussion page. Per Student7's past comments, I think we can conclude that Student7 is not in agreement with DominvsVobiscm on these issues.NancyHeise 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aafm

As this situation deals with two articles, I will give my statements as such. First, relating to the John Favalora article, factual representation indicating issues that directly related to him do have a place. I will give a revision back on the 20th of July as an example [1]. In this issue itself, there is a difference between legal action that has been filed against an organization (the Archdiocese) and the individual. Some legal action target the individual, others the organization. Information presented on the individual's article should relate specifically to those issues and nothing more. Statements about investigations by organizations such as Christifidelis about specific legal action against the Archdiocese have no place on a biographical page. Furthermore, links to parishes of supposed homosexual openness are not appropriate on such a document. At present, I believe the link to supposed "Miami Vice" scandals is inappropriate. I would like to call the Bernard Francis Law article as an example of how the issue can be raised, but is properly separated between the individual, the organization, etc. with links to appropriate sub-articles.

Secondly, relating to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, having contributed to this article during its early days, I believe in current form it is extremely difficult to read. Regardless, with the issue at hand. Wikipedia has a root article dealing with the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases issue, similar to the relation of the Duke University article and the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. Using that as a guide, information on the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case does not reappear under the root Duke University article. Already present on the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami article is a link to the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article, which has a subsection already created specifically to the Archdiocese of Miami. Again, material is appropriate here but should not be reappearing in the root article. Being specific, I will point to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston article (a diocese which has had much more national press than anything in Miami) and the fact that details are presented on the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. A brief mention of the issue is present on the Archdiocese of Boston article, with details present on the sub-article...which is how I believed Wikipedia to function. I believe a similar setup should exist here. To this end, even beyond proper placement, the content of the material should be reviewed. An article devoted to Christifidelis should be created, properly sourced, etc. and linked to under appropriate sections of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article. When this entire process started, material posted looked more like an advertisement than anything (intended or otherwise). The material presented needs to be factual, with proper sourcing provided and a neutral point of view. If specific cases are going to be listed, then better formatting should take place to properly indicate which cases have been dismissed and which ones have not. I will point to the Voice of the Faithful organization as an example. Aafm 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AAFM, I agree with everything you just said. I ask the Mr. Andrew Fader, our mediator, to consider that three editors of this article are in agreement against one editor, DominvsVobiscm. As such, I am removing the information I placed in the final section and suggest a link to Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases be placed in the footnotes.NancyHeise 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominvs

I'm happy with the Miami Archdiocese article as it now stands. I thank Ms. Heise for expanding it, elaborating the good work Catholics of the Archdiocese do for their local church and community. DominvsVobiscvm 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And what of John Favalora? Andre (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a brief mention of what he's been implicating in, along with a link to the bigger subsection in the Miami Archdiocese article. DominvsVobiscvm 06:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NancyHeise

I would like to see this mediation result in a factual, unbiased Wikipedia article that is not being used as a propaganda tool for a tiny catholic hate group called Christifidelis. The article is fine as it is right now except for the section titled Church Scandals. As it stands right now, this section is 90% about the Christifidelis group and their leader Sharon Bourasa and her unproven allegations. These are referenced to a source (Matt Abbott columns) and violate WP:REDFLAG, WP:PROVEIT, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and WP:RS. Matt Abbott columns fall under the Wikipedia definition of extremist source. I would like to see a link referencing the reader to the Wikipedia article Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandals. There is a section devoted entirely to Archdiocese of Miami already there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)

[edit] Annpavlosky

I am requesting that the links to CCL's (cclonline.org) web site, specifically our parish listing, be permanently removed. There is no connection between our organization or the parishes named and legal issues involving alleged clerical sex abuse. Also, CCL has no formal or informal association with the Archdiocese of Miami or Archbishop John Favalora.

These links are being used as "evidence" of the promotion of a homosexual subculture in the archdiocese. The point insinuated by the writer(s) is that "gay-friendly" is associated with pedophilia, and the protection of pedophiles. The use of these links in such a way in inaccurate and inappropriate.

Certain parishes are listed on our web site because they are known to be not "actively homophobic" and welcoming to all. This is quite in keeping with Church teaching. We could list many other parishes throughout the United States but we do not out of fear of harassment of families and pastoral staff by hate-mongers.

The links to our site in the Wikipedia article are being used as part of a marketing campaign to promote a personal agenda of homophobia and harassment. Since there is no factual basis for CCL's involvement, I would request these links be permanently removed.

Thank you, Annpavlosky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annpavlosky (talk • contribs) 13:38:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Ann: Be honest with us. You know exactly why I noted these very public parish affiliations. They do corroborate the allegations that there is wide-scale dissent in the Archdiocese regarding Church teaching on homosexuality. Why not be honest, and delineate for us the CCL's position on Catholic teaching on homogenital sex? If you don't want the information on your directory publicized, I advise you take down your "Gay-Friendly" directory. DominvsVobiscvm 17:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As well, what are we to make of your statement: "Certain parishes are listed on our web site because they are known to be not 'actively homophobic' and welcoming to all." So . . .It is your contention that out of over 120 parishes which make up the Miami Archdiocese, viritually all but TWO are actively homophobic? C'mon! The same goes for the other dioceses with parishes you have publicly declared "gay-friendly'.DominvsVobiscvm 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominvs, The entire Archdiocese is gay friendly, we are required to be that way per Catholic Catechism paragraphs 2356 - 2358. To be anything other than welcoming to sinners is against Christian Doctrine. We are all sinners in one way or another. DominuvsVobiscvm, it is really ridiculous to put the gay friendly parishes statement in there. It is not a scandal to be gay friendly. The Archdiocese has a homosexual ministry as one of its ministries. The Archdiocese is gay friendly. South Florida is home to the 2nd largest gay population in the United States. These are some of the sheep in the flock. When you can find a priest saying that homosexual acts are not adultery, then you can call it a scandal. When you can find published information where the Archdiocese promotes the idea that homosexual acts are not adultery that you can reference online, then you can put that in Wikipedia. Until then, it is not a scandal and is irrelevant to any article on the Archdiocese. NancyHeise 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy: If it were the case that the entire Archdiocese was Gay-Friendly in the sense in which you cite the Catechism, the entire directory of the Catholic Lesbians Conference would be moot. The Catholic,Lesbians Conference is a dissenting sect which does not adhere to Catholic teaching on the immorality of homogenital sex. It's blind not to believe that their doctrines influence which parishes they choose to include on a "Gay-Friendly" directive. Whatever protestations to the contrary, they do not mean "gay-friendly" in the sense you describe; otherwise, why bother singling out certain parishes?DominvsVobiscvm 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DominvsVobiscvm, Wikipedia only includes factual representations that can be backed up by online references. Your claims are based on assumptions for which you have no online reference to back it up. If it has no reference, you can't put it in. It violates WP:RS otherwise.NancyHeise 14:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy: Peruse the website for the Conference of Catholic Lesbians yourself if you don't believe me. DominvsVobiscvm 16:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dominvs, Conference of CAtholic Lesbians is not an organization within the church. this is an association of people who are not sanctioned by the church. What they put on their web site does not constitute church teaching. When you can find a sanctioned organization proclaiming something that is contrary to Catholic teaching, then you can put that on Wikipedia under scandals.NancyHeise 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy: I just stated the facts. I said nothing about what implications a parish considered "Gay-Friendly" by a dissenting Catholic organization (which teaches the moral licitness of homgenital sex) has on the nature of the parish's fidelity to Catholic doctrine. This is an insinuation you made all on your own. DominvsVobiscvm 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not the first person to have drawn attention to this (from a Catholic perspective) scandalous directory: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/040330a.html DominvsVobiscvm 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nancy, the statement I made was at the request, and for the benefit, of the mediator at Wikipedia who will make the final decision on the material included in these two articles. Since DomV speaks to us in such a demeaning and disrespectful tone, I have concluded any meaningful discussion isn't possible.

DomV is employing an old tactic--not responding in a straightforward manner to us, but going on the attack again and again. This kind of strategy is employed by people with no interest in sincere dialog or civil debate, but pressure tactics meant to divert and derail. Her or his only interest is to harass Archbishop Favalora, slander the Archdiocese of Miami, and harass the parishes named as "gay-friendly" on my site. I have pointed out the definition of "gay-friendly", but DomV doesn't want to hear it because it doesn't fit her or his purpose.

My web site is not the issue in this Wikipedia challenge - it is acuracy and appropriateness of Domv's links and statements on the John Favalora and the Archdiocese of Miami articles. Anyway, DomV looks a little ridiculous by accusing the Archdiocese of Miami of supporting a vast gay subculture with two (2-emphasis added!) parishes described as "gay-friendly." Don't you agree?

Be well, Annpavlosky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annpavlosky (talk • contribs) 19:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you Annpavlosky. Thank you for saying it so well. NancyHeise 00:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information

In this section, please list items of information. The only requirement for these items is that they be considered by sources to be true and verifiable, not necessarily topical or worthy of inclusion. You may make these items as basic or as complex as you wish. I am not a Catholic, nor am I familiar with the topic area, so I will not be able to tell what is obvious and what is a bone of contention. As long as everything is backed up by a reliable source (see WP:RS) it may be listed here. Do not remove anything that is sourced and verifiable, even if you believe it to be untrue. That's not what this is for. The format should be along the lines of, "The New York Times reported that John Favalora is an archbishop." Obviously, you don't need to list items that are not disputed, though. Andre (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Start here

This is what I propose to go into Archdiocese of Miami Wikipedia Article regarding Church Sex Abuse Scandals: No Heading or separate section for this, only a link to Wikipedia Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases.NancyHeise 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) This is what I propose to go into John Favalora Wikipedia Article: Since John Favalora has not been personally prosecuted in any sex abuse case and there is no pending litigation or conviction against him personally, there should be no mention of lawsuits against the Archdiocese in his biographical Wikipedia page. All of the present lawsuits are against the Archdiocese. He is named in them as head of the Archdiocese as with every other lawsuit that is filed against the Archdiocese for whatever reason. If we are going to include any one of these lawsuits, then logically you would have to include all the lawsuits for other reasons and there are many more of those. Most of which we do not have access to references online. NancyHeise 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

These statements were my last attempt to find some common ground to work with for mediation. However, I think that the rifts in opinion run too deep here. As such, I will be conferring with the Committee to prepare a referral to the Arbitration Committee. Andre (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact it has been a month, as there been any progress on this issue being moved into arbitration? Aafm 06:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 22:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I addition to the above request for removal of ridiculous material now locked into the Archdiocese of Miami Wikpage, I am giving you references to see for yourself how ridiculous the claims on that page really are: For instance, see http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-149600240.html This is the company the Archdiocese owned stock in. On the locked Archdiocese of Miami page, it says that they own several thousand shares of stock in a liquid aphrodisiac which is not referenced to anything but Matt Abbott Columns. The web site I have given you is a third party reference, and unlike Matt Abbot columns, it is not a blog, not an extremist web site but something that is reliable information. I am asking an administrator to please look into this entire section called Church Scandals and see how clearly it violates Wikipolicies WP:RedFlag, WP:Proveit, WP:NPOV#Undueweight and WP:RS

{{editprotected}} Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am requesting immediate removal of material on the wikipage Archdiocese of Miami that you 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 14:13, 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)

This is the general attitude of admins - punish the victims. Ignore those who are making the mess! Second time I have encountered this on these articles. Interesting that vandals are never blocked under any circumstances nor someone violating biographical standards which are supposed to be sacrosant, but, by golly, we are going to make the obedient cringe!Student7 01:44, 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 childrenNancyHeise 19:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More info to assist in Arbitration Process of John Fav. and Arch of Miami

I have added an editprotected tag to the page Archdiocese of Miami which contains material that is against Wikipedia policy. I am including it in this page without the tag to assist in the mediation process since the same editor who added this information, DominvsVobiscm, is trying to add it to the John Favalora page and the page Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases. This is the text of the new editprotected tag: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StacyyW (talk • contribs) 10:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info needed to balance Bourassa allegations if those get included

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 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This info needs to be on this page too

Since the editor DominvsVobiscvm has tried to place his disputed material on this page, I am copying and pasting a comment by NancyHeise that is found on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami because it belongs here too: "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 " StacyyW 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status?

What is the status of this mediation request? Several users want to promote the article, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, to Good Article status, but I don't believe that this is possible as long as this mediation is going on, due to the stability requirement of the GA criteria. Dr. Cash 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)