Talk:John Favalora

Inflammatory sections

Editors should be familiar with the Wikipedia standard on verifiability. Statements need footnote reference from reliable source. Sometimes these are newspapers. Sometimes newspapers are simply promoting rumors that sell papers. Please use discretion. Student7 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having contributed heavily to the article in general, I re-worked the legal section which was inflammatory. While I do not believe simply stating a deposition is appropriate, making note of involvement in the abuse scandal is probably appropriate. However, a difference must be maintained in this section between lawsuits filed against the Archdiocese...which should be noted on that page...vs the Archbishop himself. Making sure that appropriate sources are used and facts, not theory, are presented are key. Aafm 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Gay Sex Scandals

"In 2004, a group of concerned lay Catholics of the Miami Archdiocese constituted themselves a lay "watchdog" organization, under the name Christifidelis. Broward County attorney Sharon Bourassa, a member of Christifidelis, was counsel for The Rev. Andrew Dowgiert in a lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese in May of 2005. In 2005 and 2006, Catholic columnist Matt C. Abbott (of RenewAmerica.us) published several articles tracing developments in what became known as the "Miami Vice" scandal."

1. The article fails to state in what way homosexuality is connected with the rest of the article. What does "Gay" refer to?
2. I have trouble finding Christifidelis on the internet. They may have a presence nationally. I'm not sure there is more than a paper organization in Miami. In short, it is a sham organization for purposes of reporting anything.
4.RenewAmerica.us has a noticeable presence on the web. It is run by Alan Keyes, a right wing columnist/politician. It is heavily biased and therefore not a referenceable site.
5.What "vice?" This is a cute name. But there's nothing here to connect anything to "vice," except the accusations against Dowgiert which the editor apparently disagrees with.
6.None of this seems reportable anyway. So what? Even if Christifidelis is a big organization. Why does this section deserve space? There are 4000 organizations in America all wanting to be heard. And most of them have opinions about the Catholic church. What makes this one so special that it deserves space in Wikipedia?
7.And what is this doing under "Favalora" anyway? I don't see how it ties in with him (except for the mysterious reference to Dowgiert. If encyclopedic in some other way, the Dowgiert reference alone might go here).
8.Anyway, as currently written, the paragraph is incoherent.Student7 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues, Mediation, etc.

I have removed the possibly controversial/BLP-problematic sections, because I am getting email from people throwing around words like "defamatory" and "unfounded accusations." Those editing and adding this content are welcome to join us at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Favalora. If they do not, I recommend the issue be taken to arbitration. Andre (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Favalora.jpg

Image:Favalora.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Favalora misconduct allegations

An editor has persisted in adding a WP:POV comment from an unWP:RELYiable source that Favalora resigned "early" due to pressure from the media fallout from a sex scandal. Odd that the WP:RELY media neither noticed nor reported this. Only a blog-ish reference by the "more Catholic than the Pope" source which sees craziness everywhere except in themselves, of course. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to this article: if there were some sort of scandal then it would have appeared in the major newspapers in South Florida, namely either the Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel or even one of the many other smaller publications like Miami New Times but I searched for any kind of scandal information and there was none to support the Eric Giunta opinion piece. It is a violation of WP:BLP to include information sourced to an opinion written by someone with a chip on his shoulder and no other sources to support such accusations. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Should be plenty more now. http://gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal NSFW I'm not exactly neutral here HAHAHAA so I'll refrain from editing while I'm laughing. He he. These people crack me up. Someone needs to start a support group for gay Catholic priests. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I had written the following para. under the heading "misconduct allegations", but it has been deleted. Given that the material was carried not only by Gawker, but also by a non-aligned Catholic news site (Catholic Culture) and the Miami New Times, I think there is good reason to believe that its removal was ideological. It seems to me to be both notable and worthy of inclusion, and its non-inclusion suggests an editorial POV to me. What do others think? [BEGIN PARA.] An extensive investigative report published in July 2011 by Gawker, the details of which were subsequently carried by the Miami New Times and Catholic World News, described alleged sexual and financial misconduct by Archbishop Favalora and the priests of the Archdiocese of Miami. Favalora, the reporters alleged, "ran his organization like the don of a lavender mob, rewarding his favorite homosexual sons and forgiving their many indiscretions — rampant sex, hedonism, embezzlement, alcoholism, and the railroading of chaste priests among them — while punishing those with the temerity to complain." Among other allegations made against Archbishop Favalora himself were: that he partially owned a company that manufactured an aphrodisiac drink marketed to youth (promising "the hands-down best sex of your life"); that he frequently visited Key West with homosexual associates; that he behaved inappropriately towards seminarians (referring to himself as "papa" and inviting at least one seminarian to sit on his lap); that he employed practising homosexuals as his second- and third-in-command in the archdiocese. [END PARA.] 13afuse (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We have already discussed the Miami New Times above. The other citation is from a similarly obscure publication. If this were real, reliable, actual news, it would be headlined by the Miami Herald and carried on the local news channels. It is not carried by them because they have editorial oversight (a requirement for a reliable source). It cannot be verified by them and they haven't carried it. When editors get an actual, reliable, scholarly source with no axe to grind, it can be re-added with those neutral source(s). There will be more than one since a number of reliable sources are present in Miami. They have all ignored it so far. Apparently, they don't believe it, nor expect their readers to. The encyclopedia does not want to publish WP:FRINGE theories. That is for tabloids. Please stop adding the material without reliable sources. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have explained this more extensively on the editor's talk page. The main problem is lack of truly unquestionable, WP:RS like the Miami Herald, Sun Sentinel, etc. that have a reputation to uphold and would not report rumors circulated by this one disgruntled priest, discharged by the diocese several years ago and unable to find work anywhere in the country, an unusual position to be in. Well, maybe he was defrocked. Hadn't checked that. Student7 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Favalora is a living person, and WP:BLP sets a higher standard than is done for historical figures. Student7 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Favalora. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060506122920/http://www.flacathconf.org:80/aboutus/bishops/favalora.htm to http://www.flacathconf.org/aboutus/bishops/favalora.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060506122920/http://www.flacathconf.org:80/aboutus/bishops/favalora.htm to http://www.flacathconf.org/aboutus/bishops/favalora.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)