Wikipedia

Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami/Archive 2

< Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (February 2018)
Archive 1Archive 2

Ecclesiastical province

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As we may have discussed before, the archdiocese is merely a large diocese without any extra domain at all. In addition to administering to his own archdiocese, the archbishop is nearly always an ecclesiastical provincial whose domain extends over a province which includes his own archdiocese as well as other dioceses in the area. As it is with the Archdiocese of Miami which contains only Miami, actually. Favalora's province is much broader and may merit a separate subsection. Including it as part of the lead is confusing IMO. Eventually, I would hope that the province(s) for all archdioceses would be separate articles. Then they couldn't possibly be confused. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... interesting comment. I am recently in possession of a book written about the Archdiocese of Miami that explains the situation very clearly. I will try to make time tomorrow to improve accordingly - right now, it is all explained in the link to metropolitan see which we did in accordance with WP:summary style but maybe I can concisely add a bit to make it more clear to Reader without having to go to the link. Thanks Student7 NancyHeise talk 22:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No urgency

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Because you're in the special torment reserved for FA, I'm not making these changes, but I suggest them: first, none of these terms should be capitalized: Permanent Deacon, Religious Brother, Religious Sister. Second, in an article about a Roman Catholic diocese, it's sufficient to say that "Mass," not "Catholic Mass," is celebrated in however many languages. Avoid excess formalism, omit needless specificity. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be bold and make the changes, even if you won't. :-) —Angr 09:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Good on ya, Angr. I tend to figure that folks working on FAs have maybe discussed stuff (sometimes to death), and so I'm too lazy to enter something that'll be reverted six seconds later. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate any help to improve the article. Thanks to both of you. NancyHeise talk 19:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor mistakes in editing

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sure anyone who has read the whole article noticed the errors in formatting on the references page as well as a citation was actually missing, that's not too good now is it? Such easily fixed problems should have been dealt with before the article being a FA, although I applaud the choice of article on a whole. I live nearby this church and I had no idea about all the details I now know about it. Yaye Wikipedia! If I felt I could've fixed the errors I would have but I don't want to meddle with a FA :) --David Igra (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to help fix any problems. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 19:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Charities

Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion

I'm concerned with the sentence in the last paragraph of the lead dealing with charities. We don't appear to have a reference for the "Pro Life centers", and two of the references are dead (one dealing with "HIV/AIDS office" and one dealing with "Society of Saint Vincent de Paul". I found the online directory for Catholic Charities in Florida, with a section on Miami Archdiocese [1]. It lists HIV/AIDS Programs, but doesn't list St Vincent de Paul, nor Pro Life centers. Before I remove those two from the lead, I wanted to see if anyone could help track down sources. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

According to this, the last publically available finiancial/tax information for "Society of Saint Vincent DE Paul Archdiocesan Council of Miami Inc " dates to 2006. Since the webpage is down, they are not listed here, and there isn't tax info since 2006, it may be safe to assume that the group is no longer active. Barring any new information to verify the current active existence of this group in Miami, I believe it would be safe to remove the dead link and the reference to the organization. -Andrew c [talk] 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the directory that list HIV/AIDS services, I found this website as well. -Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Saint Vincent De Paul is not a defunct organization and we would be making the article factually incorrect by removing mention of this very popular charity. I will investigate the links tomorrow, I teach a class Tuesday evenings and I am preparing for that right now. NancyHeise talk 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I readded the ministry with reference to archdiocese of miami web site listing president of the organization. NancyHeise talk 20:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I figured out the issue with the pro-life charities. They aren't charities at all, but "ministries" under the archdiocesan Respect Life Office, and therefore the sentence should move sections. Having sources from the get go would have helped. It is still interesting that St Vincent de Paul in Miami's website is down, they aren't listed in those two directories I linked to, and their tax info is out of date, but since they are listed in the main website, that surely will do.-Andrew c [talk] 21:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Life Teen is not mentioned as a ministry on the website, and the phrase that the Archdiocese as especially embraced it was completely unsourced, so I have removed for now, and moved the sentence about the priest into a footnote. Also, as we now discuss what the Respect Life Office does in it's own sentence, it is giving that one aspect of the ministries undo weight given that we don't explain what any of the other ministries do. I'd suggest expanding that section (another option would be removing the extra sentence about Respect Life, but that would not be my preference).-Andrew c [talk] 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I am not in agreement with your removal of the pro-life centers out of charity section [2] because these centers are charities, not ministries. They are not for profit organizations begun by and overseen by the Archdiocese. A ministry is typically not a separate organization from the archdiocese. Project Rachel is connected to the pro-life activities performed at the charities. If you don't mind I am going to put them back under Charity section. I don't know what is up with St Vincent de Paul's website but that is a very big ministry that exists in almost every parish and is very active. LifeTeen is a ministry, I will add a news report about it if that will help. Please, before deleting stuff, can you just ask me to source it instead so I don't have to go back and find it, just to make things easier for me, thanks. NancyHeise talk 02:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not alright with moving the Respect Life Office activities under charities. The official website has a hierarchical structure. It has a ministries section and a charities section. The Respect Life Office is listed under ministries (I guess they are ministering to pregnant women or post-abortion women). However, it isn't my place to decide why they list things the way they do, only to acknowledge them as a source and to accurately represent their structure. You are using your own opinion (original research) when you are classifying them as a charity. None of the Catholic Charities directories list any of the Respect Life Office projects. Unless there is some source that I have missed (could likely be the case;), it is entirely inappropriate to break with the structure the organization itself uses. Also, LifeTeen is not a ministry on the same level as the list in the first sentence of the ministry section. If it was, then the website would clearly list LifeTeen as one of their ministries, which they do not. I'm not sure if you just did a sloppy revert, or if you intended to restore completely unsourced material that I had disputed here on the talk page. Since you did not provide a source, I will restore my changes to the LifeTeen section and hope it was just a sloppy revert.Andrew c [talk] 03:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I also tagged the claim that the Archdiocese runs two CPCs, because Heartbeat of Miami is an ecumenical group. We need to more accurately portray the Archdiocese involvement, and make sure that they are not taking too much credit. All the cited news story says is "while relying on donations from local churches, including Catholic parishes." I'm not sure how the sentence we have written was derived from our cited source. As it stands, the claim is dubious.-Andrew c [talk] 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, Respect life is a ministry. Pregnacy crisis centers are Charities. They are two different things. To elaborate, Respect Life ministries exist in every parish of the Archdiocese. They raise money for the Pregnacy Crisis Centers as well as sponsor supply drives to bring in baby supplies for new mothers. The actual building housing the crisis center is staffed with paid employees as well as volunteers from Respect Life ministry but the center is legally considered a charity. Catholic Charities directories are different from the Catholic directory. Catholic Charities is a separate organization run by the Church. Other charities that are Catholic are listed in the Catholic directory of each Catholic diocese. NancyHeise talk 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
We need a source that lists these Miami CPC as charities. Otherwise, we need to follow our source. We have the Respect Life Office listed as a ministry, and respectlifemiami.org discussing both CPCs and Project Rachel, while neither one is listed in the "Charities" section of the official website.-Andrew c [talk] 03:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Our source lists Respect life as a minsitry, it is listed in the article as a ministry. Our source lists CPCs as Charities, they are listed in the article under Charities. I don't understand your problem with this arrangement. CPC's certainly don't belong under ministries. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I sometimes miss things, so forgive me if I am slow. Could you please quote from me (and link) the source in question that states these CPCs and Project Rachel are charities. Thanks! Maybe my "find" function is broken.-Andrew c [talk] 04:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, this is the Charity newsletter [3]. It is a non-profit organization (a charity, not a ministry). Project Rachel is a ministry that is offered through the charity. I think you are not understanding that there is an overlap of these two that is more appropriate to list under the description of the Charity. NancyHeise talk 04:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
So we DON'T have any sources that state these two projects are charities of the Archdiocese of Miami?? I think you are not understanding that we have the official webpage. They use the terms "ministries" and "charities". Neither the CPC, nor Project Rachel is listed on the official website. However, they are listed on one of their ministries' websites (Respect Life Office Miami). They are not listed as charities on this website either. We DON'T have any sources that state these two projects are charities of the Archdiocese of Miami. Is that clear? -Andrew c [talk] 05:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Article text clearly states that the CPC's are charities supported by the Archdiocese in conjunction with other Christian communities. These Charities receive major support from the Archdiocese and need to be included because of this. The references support article text. NancyHeise talk 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, please quote me this "article text". How can I, as a lay reader, verify that these are charities of the Archdiocese? -Andrew c [talk] 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the article text "The archdiocese also supports, in conjuction with other Christian communities, two pro-life crisis pregnancy centers which provide aid to pregnant women and encourage them not to have abortions. A post-abortion counseling program called Project Rachel is also provided.[4][5]" What part of that article text is not found in the sources cited? NancyHeise talk 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
What isn't sourced? the fact that the archdiocese classify these as charities (instead of beig part of their Respect Life ministry). I thought my concern was clear. We have no sources to verify that Project Rachel and the CPCs are "charities" in the same manner as all the other charities we list in that section (which are clearly classified as such on their official website [6], unlike the CPCs and PR).-Andrew c [talk] 14:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I moved it to ministries as you prefer which is fine too. NancyHeise talk 18:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm curious because I can't seem to find any of this article's Talkpage archives from December 2007 to September 2008. I'm certain it was worked on and discussed during that period...am i missing something obvious? 67.173.185.224 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion on the article after it made FA in December 2007. NancyHeise talk 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo of St. Jude

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

St. Jude is a parish of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, specifically the Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton, and is under the authority of Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros, not Archbishop John Favalora. Although the Melkite Church an Eastern rite sui iuris particular church in communion with Rome, the inclusion of the photo in this article may not be appropriate. Squamate (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was added by someone after the article had achieved FA status, I am fine with removal too. NancyHeise talk 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to do with this article (and so erasable!) - I noticed a pic in my diocesan paper of my bishop standing in an Eastern Rite church. I too got the wrong idea. I guess the intent was to show solidarity but wound up suggesting the Eastern church was less autonomous than it really is.Student7 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

TV

Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

The TV section is very poorly sourced. It mentions EWTN, and previously called it the official Catholic television station, without a source (I've changed that for now). It goes on to say "Several Spanish and English language programs are produced in the Miami Archdiocese. " without a source. Finally, it mentions Padre Alberto's programs and says he is featured on Telemundo. That sounds all good, but none of the sources support any of that. We link to the SIRIUS Satellite Radio page for EWTN, but it no longer lists any programs by Alberto (not to mention that this is a Satellite RADIO site listed under the TV section of this article). The next source [7] is ok, but it doesn't mention Telemundo. So, basically, this whole section needs sourcing. We need a reliable source that we can use to verify that the Archdiocese produces TV programs. Then we need a source to tie the Archdiocese to EWTN if we are to mention that network, and same thing for Telemundo. Shouldn't be that hard to do, I don't imagine, but it saddened me to see so much content not sourced.-Andrew c [talk] 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

added new sources. NancyHeise talk 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vatican approval and oversight.?? Neither provided source, nor the wikipedia article on SIGNIS mention anything about "Vatican approval and oversight". But it seems like I have a history of not finding the information in this article in the cited sources. So forgive me again for being so slow. Could you quote me from the source? I just feel really confused over all this.-Andrew c [talk] 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the sources used to support article text [8] that lists EWTN as a member of SIGNIS. The other source, published by the Vatican, [9] explains what is SIGNIS. This is a quote from that source " Organization: SIGNIS is governed by the General Assembly, the Assembly of Delegates, the Board of Management, which comprises the president, vice president, general secretary and ecclesiastical assistant, the treasurer, a representative of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications (of which the president and the general secretary of the association are a member and a consultor, respectively), representatives of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America and Oceania, and one representative of the international organizations in contact with the association." I bolded the part about the president of the organization being a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications which is an arm of the Roman Curia, which is an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. NancyHeise talk 05:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I still am not connecting the dots. Seems like you are reading too much into this. Could you rephrase it please? -Andrew c [talk] 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Pontifical Council for Social Communications is part of the Roman Curia, the governing arm of the worldwide Catholic Church. SIGNIS is an organization whose president must be a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. SIGNIS members comprise those organizations who have Vatican approval and oversight through SIGNIS. Certain publications that claim to be Catholic do not have Vatican approval or oversight and are not members of SIGNIS. Being a member of SIGNIS signifies to viewers and readers a certain quality that non-members of SIGNIS do not have. For instance, books that have Nihil obstat and Imprimatur designations from the Church allow the reader to know that they meet with Church approval. This is how the Church helps Catholics know if a source is something that has some connection to the Church or is just the invention of someone who has not gained a certain level of Church consultation. NancyHeise talk 05:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to explain it to me. I'm not the one that needs convincing. You need to explain it to our readers (except the only way to do that is not in your own words, but through verifiable, reliable sources). -Andrew c [talk] 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I didnt think that something so obvious needed explaining but I will search later for a source that explains it better than the Vatican already does in the source used in the article. NancyHeise talk 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Being a member of SIGNIS signifies to viewers and readers a certasin quality that non-members of SIGNIS do not have." It only means that EWTN has paid its annual membership fee.
The cited ZENIT news agency report said that, in 2006, two officials of SIGNIS were connected with the Pontifical Council, one as a member, the other as a consultor. The Mozambican priest who at present is acting as secretary general is not a consultor, but the president's membership is certainly ex officio. As a member of the Pontifical Council, he participates in the plenary meetings of the Council that are held almost every year: the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, article 11 § 2 says: "All members must be called in due time to the plenary sessions, held as far as possible once a year, to deal with questions involving general principles, and for other questions which the prefect or president may have deemed to require treatment. For ordinary sessions it is sufficient to convoke members who reside in Rome" (emphasis added). There are several logical leaps in concluding from all this that EWTN has Vatican approval and oversight, especially the latter.
Just a few hours ago I read a news item about an ongoing legal dispute about the €4 million that Corrado Balducci left when he died early this year. He was part of the Roman Curia. He also repeatedly said that extraterrestrials exist and have been seen. Do we conclude that Balducci's statements could boast of the Roman Curia's nihil obstat and imprimatur? And Balducci wasn't someone who only came once a year at most. Soidi (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what Soidi is opposed to so I will answer Andrew. I have replaced article text with quotes from the source which is originally published by the Vatican and featured on Zenit News Agency and EWTN. The article text now reads "Eternal Word Television Network or EWTN is a U.S.-based broadcasting network that carries Roman Catholic-themed programming, based in Birmingham, Alabama and broadcast worldwide.[51] This network is a member of the "World Catholic Association for Communication, or SIGNIS, which appears in the Directory of International Associations of the Faithful, published by the Pontifical Council for the Laity." The president and general secretary of SIGNIS are respectively a member and consultor of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, part of the Roman Curia.[52][53] " Just FYI, if a ministry or organization such as this, is listed in the official directory of the Church, which this one is, it is approved and overseen by the Church. It can legally say it is part of the Church organization and advertise that it is Catholic. This is how all ministries and organizations of the Church operate. I have been involved in a Lay movement that had to get the Bishop's approval to be listed in the Catholic directory so we could advertise for potential members in the Florida Catholic newspaper. If you aren't approved by the Bishop, you don't get listed in the directory. As the Vatican source states, SIGNIS is part of the Church's Directory of International Association of the Faithful - a Roman Catholic Church approved organization who is made up of a group of Catholic News Organizations including EWTN. NancyHeise talk 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, NH, for removing the claim that EWTN "has Vatican approval and oversight". But what is the relevance of the detailed information about SIGNIS? It seems off topic. The section is about EWTN, not SIGNIS.

A minor point: The ZENIT dispatch about SIGNIS is out of date. There is at present nobody who is SIGNIS Secretary General and a consultor of the Pontifical Council. See the 2008 Annuario Pontificio. The verb "are" (which referred to 2006) should now be put in the past tense. Soidi (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The present representative of the Pontifical Council of Social Communications that presently sits on the board of administrators for SIGNIS is Dra. Claudia Di Giovanni [10] who is based in Vatican City. I changed article text to say "The governing body of SIGNIS includes a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, part of the Roman Curia" to avoid the problem of PCSS member being different functions of the Board in the future. I also added the above ref. NancyHeise talk 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that we are ruining this section, and I think we really need to take a step back and reconsider. It had stated simply that "EWTN is the official Catholic television station." I had to go and mess everything up by pointing out "hey, we don't have a source for that". So instead of finding a source that said that, we were lead down various paths until we now have turned "official Catholic television station" into 53 words full of jargon, and very little information. Again, this isn't even the article about EWTN, nor (should I dare point out) do we have a single source that states that the Archdiocese produces any television programs (whether EWTN, Telemundo, or anything else). This latest expansion doesn't help this article at all, and I hope that we can objectively realize that and agree to remove it. If we can find sources that specifically say whatever point Nancy was trying to make (whether EWTN is "official" or whether it has "Vatican approval and oversight") then surely we can add those small features back to the article. But really, the expansion hasn't helped. I think, in relation to this article, time would be better spent producing sources regarding the Archdiocese's role in TV production, instea of trying to bolster the credentials of EWTN. I mean, if we can't even find such simple facts on EWTN's own website, is it really our place to be adding such comments in this article? I really don't see the point or how it helps this article specifically in the long run.-Andrew c [talk] 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, this is one of our references [11]. This is EWTN's Spanish schedule and Padre Alberto is all over it. He tapes his shows in Miami where he is pastor of St Francis de Sales parish on Miami Beach and General Director of Pax Catholic Communications (the Archdiocese's name for all of its communications ministries) see [12] where it is explained in his biography. NancyHeise talk 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I see no need whatever for any mention of SIGNIS, you deserve thanks for cutting it down in size. Soidi (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So we say his programs are features on EWTN and Telemundo. We don't need to go into all the organizational issues behind Telemundo (or EWTN). I strongly support cutting the whole middle paragraph out. It has no relevance to this article, and we don't treat Telemundo in the same manner, although we mention that network as well.-Andrew c [talk] 14:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point, that info is already on EWTN Wikipage. I eliminated that. NancyHeise talk 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio x2

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I've found two instances where our sentences were verbatim copy and pasted from our cited sources. I put quotes around one, but another I blanked and am bringing here. The sentences in question are : "The profiles in this series reveal "the man behind the collar" by giving a quick glimpse of the personal side of priests’ lives. "Building the City of God" has won a Communicator Award of Distinction in the Marketing/Promotion/Campaign category for print media." and the source is [13]. Are any of the primary authors still here and want to fess up to more copyright violations to help us out?-Andrew c [talk] 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I am the primary author. I did not know I had plaigarized so unabashedly. Sorry, I am glad you undid my terrible deed. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 03:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I hope my rephrasing is adequate (tweak/expand if you want). I just wanted to know if you knew of any other places. I know it's been over a year since major work has been done on this article, and you surely have learned a lot about Wikipedia in that time. Another thing, I believe Image:Florida Catholic Nov. 20, 2007.jpg is not actually licenses freely because it is primarily a photograph of a copyrighted publication (therefore we'd need fair use rational), for example see Image:WP01092008.jpg. Since the image isn't free, it needs to be deleted from the commons, but it can be re-uploaded here for the article on the Florida Catholic. I'm not sure if WP:FUC would allow a use of the image on this page though since it is basically for decoration and doesn't really add encyclopedic content based on the text we have here.-Andrew c [talk] 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If I took a picture of the Coke logo, would I then be free to release Coke's logo into the public domain? You took an image of a copyrighted newspaper, and as such, the subject of your photograph is still copyrighted. As it stands, your image is not a free image (even though you created it) and without a proper fair use rational, your image cannot be used here (but it is completely fine at Florida Catholic). Hope this helps. Please revert yourself.-Andrew c [talk] 04:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Andrew, Florida CAtholic is owned by the Archdiocese of Miami. It is entirely proper to have its picture here on this page, even more than on Florida Catholic page. The Archdiocese of Miami is the copyright holder. I can take a picture of a newspaper that is not a direct reproduction of it and use it as I am using it here. No copyright is infringed in this use. You are misinterpreting copyright laws. NancyHeise talk 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is basic wikipedia image use policy. But, I have asked for more opinions and raise this issue at Fair Use Review. Please feel free to comment here.-Andrew c [talk] 05:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks, I already have commented. NancyHeise talk 05:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not an Archdiocese blog or WP:PR or anything else. We are not producing anything that is "pro"- archdiocese. It is all neutral. The Archdiocese (actually Florida Catholic) must release pix etc. into the public domain. They are not available to the public (us) until they do IMO. The only exception are book jackets as far as I know.Student7 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Florida Catholic gave us permission to use the photo which I forwarded to OTS. NancyHeise talk 16:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Main Page drama is over

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a link showing the net changes that took place during the 24 hours the article was on the main page. It doesn't look to me like any vandalism has survived, but it couldn't hurt for one or two other people to check as well. —Angr 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question: why in the devil isn't the FA article fully protected during the 24-hours the page is up? My gosh what a mess! Thanks to all who helped with cleanup! Student7 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ministries/movements

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

We do not have a citation for Men's and Women's Emmaus. We don't have a citation for M.O.M.S. We had "Council of Catholic Women" listed twice, so I have changed it to once. The phrase "a homosexual ministry" is vague and could imply something that we don't want it to. I've quoted the explanation used on the main page. I don't see how any of these edits have been controversial, but still I get reverted. I'd be glad to explain any of this in more details or address issues, but it sure is frustrating to find my efforts to improve this article (so it is actually up to FA quality) are being opposed so bluntly.-Andrew c [talk] 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel really confused right now. This is specifically regarding Emmaus and the link ([14]) recently supplied (BTW why use a google cache that won't last forever when we could just link to the actual page, [15]?) I really think my "find" feature is broken, because I can't ever find (so it seems) any of the content Nancy claims are in these citations. Searching the page for the word "Emmaus" yields no results. Hmmm... actually, now that I look under the "E" I find something called "Emaus Experience". Is that the same thing? If so, is it ok to replace Men's and Women's Emmaus with simply Emaus Experience per the wording of our source? Or are these two different things. And now that I think of it, this brings up another concern. Why mention Emaus/Emmaus, but not "Nueva Vida" or "Neocatechumenal Way" or "Prelature of Opus Dei" or any other of the movements listed on that page? What makes Em(m)aus more notable than the others, given we don't use any citation outside of this list (which doesn't give Emaus any more prominence than the others). -Andrew c [talk] 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Emaus Experience is what they call it in Spanish ministry. In English ministry it's Emmaus. This is English Wikipedia, I used the English version of the word. NancyHeise talk 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No comment on my weight concern? Why single out Emaus/Emmaus but not others?-Andrew c [talk] 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I missed that. Yes, good point. We could include all of them if you like. I just put Emmaus in there because it is more popular in our archdiocese than the others. I am very busy today and will not be able to address your concerns until maybe Sunday but please continue to post your comments and I will attend to them. I appreciate your attention to the article. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the strong points in this article are where we mention independent 3rd party recognition of the Archdiocese (and their works). For example, the video award info I added, and the award for the priest profile series in the paper. It would be nice if we could find media recognition of specific lay movements or their events. I think because there are so many different lay movements, adding all of them would seem unencyclopedic. As I said, if we could find independent sources which cover or recognize specific lay movements and ministries, I think that would be a good way of spotlighting them in this article. I hate to say this, but do we have a source that can verify that Emmaus is particularly more popular (your explanation may be valid, for sure, but it could also be a subjective value judgment, which is where a source could help). I'll do some research myself as well, of course. I apologize for becoming defensive a few days ago when I saw many of my contributions to this article being blanket reverted, and surely we can work together in the future to keep on improving this article!-Andrew c [talk] 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe there needs to be...memory of the many issues that have been involved with blanket changes to this particular article. Dispute resolution has been required on more than one occasion due to, what I still hold, is a massive "gray area" about certain Wikipedia standards. Some...over protection given the previous problems is probably expected. Aafm (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sun-Sentinel reference

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article affirms almost the entire page information and is a very respected third party source. The link is not a dead link although someone tagged it as such. The link goes to the Sun-Sentinel page where the article can be found by doing a search of the archives. I am not familiar with linking articles that are archived. Is there a way to transfigure this reference so it does not show "dead link" in the text and so Reader knows that it can be found in the newspaper archives? NancyHeise talk 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just update the link. The current link does not take you to the article, but instead takes you to a list of topics. If you can find the article through navigation, copy and paste the new link over the old link in the reference. If you want, you can just paste the link here on the talk page and I can update the reference. The concern is that http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/columnists/sfl-liarchmiaminboct06,0,4168353.story no longer takes you to the appropriate story (i.e. that link is dead). -Andrew c [talk] 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it would help Reader to use the term "archived" instead of "dead link" so they can go to Sun-Sentinel archives right away instead of having to figure it out? I don't know if that has been done before but it would certainly be better than "dead link". The link was not dead when the article was promoted to FA and it might be nice to let Reader know that somehow. NancyHeise talk 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Shepherd Catholic High School

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good Shepherd Catholic High School in Miami is not listed as one of the Archdiocese of Miami's high schools [16]. Someone keeps adding it to the list but I think that it is in error. There is a history of organizations, even schools that use the word "Catholic" in their name but are not part of the Archdiocese of Miami. NancyHeise talk 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See also section, Portal updates

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings, Today, I removed the portal for Catholicism because it is are already included in the article's Navbox templates (in the below = parameter). This is per MOS/Layout, See_also_section which states that As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. In addition, I added portals for Christianity, Florida and History since these relate to the article. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: removal of section Other priests of this diocese who became bishops

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings!

* Discussion: 

10:01, 15 May 2016‎ Sundayclose (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,012 bytes) (-265)‎ . . (→‎Leadership: irrelevant to this article)


* Disputed – This section should not be removed, to be consistent with other RC Diocese/Archdiocese articles. For example: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago#Bishops who once were priests of the archdiocese. I would recommend removal of the word Other to clarify the section title. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Miami/Archive_2&oldid=1136235843"