Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa

VfD

See also the vote in the MT talk page, question 4 is this question exactly

• Criticisms of Mother Teresa
  • Redundant with Mother Teresa, has been split away from the main article in violation of NPOV by User:Jtdirl without prior discussion.—Eloquence 21:16, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • Not reduntant. Doing an RK-style edit (as RK did with Mel Gibson) Eloquence decided to add in a large chuck of detailed questionable analysis into the original article, making 30% about the person, 70% one person's critique of her policies based on a TV show. That is not how you write a biographical entry, as the discussion over what RK did in Mel Gibson showed. I moved the detailed critique to a linked article, and replaced it with a short paragraph in the original text which explained that serious criticisms of Mother Theresa's missionary organisation and her associations had been made. I then explained, as is standard, that the full details could be found at Criticisms of Mother Theresa. Others previously had criticised Eloquence's add-in as unreadable and convoluted, not to mention hardly NPOV. Having the critique separate allows that page to be linked elsewhere and to be edited separately, as much of it has questionable content. (Eloquence's knowledge of 'facts' in it is so questionable that he thought MT extreme in Catholicism for opposing abortion in the case of incest and rape. Duh! That is standard Roman Catholic belief. If he doesn't even grasp something as simple as RC views on abortion, you can imagine how many other clangers are in his add-in. FearÉIREANN 21:33, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Perhaps merge with the Mother Teresa article and list as a seperate sub-heading. Iam 02:19, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • Definately merge with MT page, this page seems to be just an attempt to remove negative content from the main page.2toise 16:28, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • That is a lie. It is an attempt to move an overlong polemic from an article where it took up 70% of the text and was littered with inaccuracies, possible breaches of copyright law and various NPOV concerns, to a separate link page, and leave a shorter summary in the main page, with a link to the longer version. That is standard wikipedia practice where one segment of a biography page is of such length that it takes over the entire article and makes the person the article is about secondary in terms of size. That is done whether the segment is pro- or anti- the person, and is standard encyclopædic practice in all encylopædias on the planet. Having it separate also allows links to be made to other articles exploring similar themes. The Mother Teresa article is about MT, not about Christopher Hitchens' opinions of MT, which can be summarised on the MT article without devoting 70% of the space in the article to them. If it was an attempt to remove negative comment, it would simply have been deleted, not given its own article, covered in a summary and mentioned in the opening paragraph of the MT article FearÉIREANN 20:55, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • I have no idea whether you know 2toise personally, but if not may I suggest that you not call people liars based on what might be an genuine difference of opinion, rather than deliberate dishonesty? If it seems a certain way to 2toise, then it's not reasonable to call him/her a liar for saying so. Onebyone 10:14, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Should be merged with Mother Teresa. Merge, then redirect or delete. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • We should really discuss this kind of thing in a more general context. Nowhere yet I have found a discussion on what to do when NPOV is threatened by the amount of material on one side of a subject rather than the way it is presented. Andre Engels 08:56, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, it's standard for Wikipedia articles to drag people through the mud, especially if an editor disagree with their views, hates them (or it, if it's a country or institution). Where have you been all this time? Remember: most obsessed editor wins and unsubstantiated information, slander, and misquotes are all okay as long as you attribute it to "critics" or "detractors". Daniel Quinlan 17:03, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep until Mother Theresa gives a rounded view of the person and falls to one edit a week when not protected. JamesDay 09:26, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wartortle 21:36, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. We need to contaminate POVs with NPOV manner.
  • Delete and merge with Mother Theresa. We don't have dedicated articles for "criticism of foo" when we can just have "foo". -Nydigoveth 18:10, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. --AaronSw 04:36, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Criticisms/Critique of X" is a terrible encyclopedia article. Relevant information should be in the main page. I think this page was only created to remove content that someone found objectionable, meaning it's deletion should be an almost certainty. Do all the people who voted "keep", know why this is here? Maximus Rex 04:57, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge the content with Mother Teresa) for the obvious reason: (otherwise there shuold be a www.wikipedia_criticisms.org if any page has a "criticisms" mirror). BUT please insert FACTS in the article.

Any of the above has read User:Adam Carr/Mother Teresa? I think opinions on it in this page would be most welcome. Thanks Pfortuny 13:05, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Procedures?

I'm not quite clear on the status of these comments and votes, but the page is currently listed in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion so I've put in the boilerplate text from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Listed_for_deletion_notice just in case anyone misses that fact. The VfD page does say that discussion is back here, and there are relatively few votes there. Andrewa 01:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Discussion

There are few persons in recent history where there is so much one-sided bias as on Mother Teresa. And it is completely wrong that the criticism section of the article is based "on one person's critique of her policies based on a TV show". The criticism is based on

• the 400-page book by Calcutta-born writer Aroup Chatterjee, which is further backed up by video and audio tapes
• claims made by former missionaries of charity
• investigations by the German newsmagazine Stern
• investigations by the Guardian
• investigations by the editor of The Lancet
• Christopher Hitchens' research (both a book and a TV documentary)

and so forth. To claim that this is based on "one person's critique of her policies based on a TV shows" reveals that you have not even bothered to read the segment you have so quickly moved elsewhere.

Then come your standard attacks -- "unreadable, convoluted" -- which you make against any segment of an article, of any article, which you do not like, followed by personal attacks against me, as usual (completely without basis, as usual). This kind of behavior, Jtdirl, is so much in violation of our established principles of cooperation that it is likely to get you banned if you continue with it. NPOV dictates that criticism and praise, when properly attributed and from reasonably trustworthy sources, can get equal time in an article. If you think the criticism section is too long, write more about all the great things she is supposed to have done. To simply split away everything you do not like instead of expanding the article where it is needed simply highlights your pro-Catholic bias and your lack of commitment to our neutrality policy. As always, you try to bully your way through by engaging in an edit war instead of seeking consensus on the discussion page. This is not the way Wikipedia works, and you know it. Start behaving like an adult. —Eloquence 21:44, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'll treat your childishness with the contempt it deserves. And yes I do intend to extend the link paragraph but it is unworkable to turn one biographical page into a detailed critique that covers her, her motives, her community, their medical treatment, etc. That can be done properly in the standard method, of giving it a whole separate article where it can be covered in detail, not turning one biographical article into a massive, convoluted article that is not about her but about criticism of her, her community, her methodology, her medical approach, her associations, her community's associations, a controversial TV show that was criticised even by critics of her, etc. Stop pushing your personal agendas and start acting like a professional encyclopædist. FearÉIREANN 22:00, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More nonsense. Of course any biographical article will rely on accounts by people who have dealt with or investigated the person the biographical article describes. There is no functional difference here between positive or negative accounts. You want to treat positive accounts different from negative ones. This is in clear and obvious violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and will not be tolerated. And before you continue to trot out the "TV show" claim, you may want to take at least a passing look at Aroup Chatterjee's book (http://meteorbooks.com/), which is available in its full text online. (I guess this makes it an "Internet source" in your vocabulary, so I'll add that I have a Calcutta-printed hardcopy on my desk.) —Eloquence 22:05, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

---

I've linked both the protected pages to Talk:Mother Teresa. To avoid confusion, I suggest that page be used for this debate. Evercat 23:14, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Talk:Mother Teresa page is too long already. I think discussion as to whether this page is a good idea belongs here.

I think it is a very good idea. To have the Mother Teresa page dominated by this controversy sugggests that this is the most important thing in her life. That's not true. Most people looking up Mother Teresa (hence MT) want bio details, not this material. But, this material does deserve an article. It's just no substitute for a proper MT article. It should be summarised in the MT article, and a link provided to this article. Andrewa 09:49, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

The selection of images for this article are far-flung from NPOV. Guilt by association. Daniel Quinlan 11:01, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I'm quite comfortable to have them in this article. As User:Eloquence said on the w:Village Pump discussion recently, the photographs are factual documents. And, they are central to the subject of this page.

I'm not at all comfortable to have them on the Mother Teresa page, but removing them should be part of a larger exercise. At present the MT page is very POV, IMO, and these two pictures make this quite obvious, they are straight out of the gutter press (literally). But that's exactly the sort of thing that does belong here, just so long as it's accurately described.

Now that's not to say that MT doesn't have a case to answer. IMO she does (and I guess depending on your theology perhaps she can (;-> ). I just think we need to present it a lot more dispassionately than we are currently. Andrewa 14:20, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Right now (I am repeating myself) there are two articles talking about criticisms and NONE about her life (I do not mean prizes, I mean real life, as in [[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_Carr/Mother_Teresa|Adam's)] first 3 sections. It would be fair at least to paste them into the present one and then modifying the style. I do not want to do it myself because I have not written any part or corrected anything (that I remember) and I think it would be more than fair play (something praiseworthy) from a "critic" to insert them there. Thanks. Pfortuny 20:20, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I'm holding back myself until we get a bit more consensus concerning the Mother Teresa article. We're making progess IMO but we've got a way to go. But I'd be delighted if somebody else had a go. Andrewa 14:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Just browsed this page. I am ashamed a -pedia has an article like this one: please, people, think on 200 years' time.... Good grief! Of course, if those sources of information are SO RELIABLE! Would you create a page "Praise of Mother Teresa?". There has been a several-years long study by the Vatican which has ended in her beatification. But of course, sorry, the Vatican is completely biased and is such a powerful and unreliable organization... Sorry for mentioning it in this discussion.
'Unbelievable'. I worry about the wikipedia, not Mother Teresa or her institution. These articles disprove the usefulness of the -pedia. :( Pfortuny 20:50, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)