Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive3

For previous discussion, see

• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive1
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive2
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive3
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive4
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive5
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive6
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive7

See Talk:Mother Teresa/Groundrules

Contents

1 Jtdirl on the abortion paragraph 2 Proposed changes 3 Factual accuracy 4 Tone 5 Proposal to move some text to Missionaries of Charity 6 NPOV dispute

Jtdirl on the abortion paragraph

The following paragraph highlights exactly the soft of POV-laiden, agenda-filled writing that has been such a problem in this article.

From the early 1970s Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, although these views were rarely conveyed in the mainstream media. To the dismay of pro-choice campaigners, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the outspoken views of Pope John Paul II. Many viewed this stance as counter to Mother Teresa's visible efforts in helping the poor.

To the dismay of pro-choice campaigners, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. It is blatent agenda-setting to make one side's views alone the central focus of the sentence. The central fact is that she said these things, not the reaction of pro-choice campaigners. And referring to one side of the abortion debate and not the other suggests that the article is implicitly more concerned with the reaction of one side, in other words that that side has the more validity. It is not for wikipedia by its language to decide that either side is more important, so important indeed that their reaction becomes crucial. An encyclopædia's job is not to endorse abortion or to criticise it, but to factually explain it and contextualise the different interpretations attached to it.

Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the outspoken views of Pope John Paul II. Another dodgy agenda-filled POV. Billions agree with her and JPII. Billions disagree. 99.9% of catholic nuns also hold outspoken opposition of abortion. The difference wasn't her opinions, but the fact that unlike other nuns she was high profile so she had a chance to express it. As John Paul's "outspoken views" on the issues, he is no more outspoken than Pius XI at the time of the Lambeth conference, than Pius XII in the 1940s, John XXIII in the 1960s, etc. And Paul VI's Humanæ Vitæ was hardly silent on the issue. The sentence amounts to a highly superficial grasp of Roman Catholic teaching on abortion; RC didn't oppose abortion because of JPII and MT. They opposed abortion because of their RCism.

Many viewed this stance as counter to Mother Teresa's visible efforts in helping the poor. That is a classic POVing sentence. Some people thought that, others didn't. Using many and not pointing out that many others disagreed with that analysis again hammers home only one side of a controversial argument. Put with the earlier sentences, the entire paragraph reads like a 'pro-choice' critique of MT, which is as irrelevant to a factual analysis on its own as a 'pro-life' critique. A thesis arguing one side of the argument can suggest this (from either side) but an NPOV encyclopædia article cannot use language in a way that implies that it supports one side's arguments.

An anti-abortion twist to the paragraph would have produced this version of the paragraph. From the early 1970s Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, largely from groups and individuals supporting abortion. To the delight of defenders of the unborn, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the defence on the family of Pope John Paul II. Many viewed this stance as emboding Mother Teresa's visible efforts to the poor without endorsing western anti-family policies.

If the above article was inserted, it would rightly be deleted as pushing one side of the abortion argument as correct, and as reviewing MT solely from that perspective. NPOV requires language structure and meanings, both explicit and implicit, that do not carry an endorsement of either side.

In inserting that POV article above, Eloquence removed the following:

From the early 1970s, Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, although these views were rarely conveyed in the mainstream media. She was an outspoken critic of abortion, a viewpoint reflecting Roman Catholic teaching, she calling abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He also was an outspoken critic of artificial contraception. Her stances on abortion and contraception and her public campaigns on those issues lead to strong criticism from pro-choice groups and campaigners.

It deliberately (1) makes her opinions central, not other people's opinions on her opinions, (2) explains what was the source of those opinions (ie, RC teaching) and says that she was criticised by those who disagreed with her. The paragraph in no way implies support or the rightness of either side, doesn't attribute POV interpretations of reactions (like dismay) and doesn't imply she simply followed Pope John Paul II, which is a preposterous suggestion that shows zero knowledge of Roman Catholicism. It is clinically factual, not emotion-loaded, much less pushing either side of the abortion debate.

It is the sort of woolly-headed, POV-laiden language in Erik's paragraph that embodies the problems there have been with Erik's edits. That he has a viewpoint that is pro-choice is OK (many have). That he has a chip on his shoulder about MT is his right. But lacing sentences with implicit agenda meanings is completely and utterly against NPOV. Our job is to analyse and explain, not agendaise and lecture. It is for the reader to reach conclusions, not for our articles to force opinions on them. It is no wonder that people not connected with the debate here wrote on the w-list that the Erik's version of the article read like the "case for the prosecution", in this case the pro-choice case against MT. This article is not supposed to be the 'pro-choice, liberal case against MT', nor is it supposed to be the 'pro-life, conservative case for MT', it is supposed to be a factual, trustworthy, unbiased encyclopædia article.

I am removing Erik's agenda-driven article and replacing it the far more neutral alternative which he had previously removed. FearÉIREANN 22:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nicely done. silsor 22:29, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

(The point, not the emotion-laden anti-Erik speech). silsor

Actually, your comment/essay above is an excellent example for what is wrong with your behavior: Instead of trying to work with others in a friendly manner, seeking consensus and treating others with respect, you revert with prejudice and at best write a hate-filled diatribe attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

The paragraph in question in its original form, before Silsor's edits, was poorly worded and even addressed MT as a "He". You may have noticed in your courageous campaign for neutrality that the section under which this paragraph appears is entitled "Criticisms". Thus it is entirely appropriate for this section to primarily note what others criticized about MT's behavior. Whether the paragraph in question should have been in that section in the first place is of course debatable, but the style you criticize was entirely acceptable given its context.

Your insinuations that the paragraph somehow "endorsed" pro-choice views are laughable, as your poorly constructed counter-example, loaded with POV language that does not appear in the original paragraph, makes blatantly obvious. You have to resort to manipulative vocabulary like "anti-family" and "defender of the unborn" to make your point. We have agreed to address the two groups as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" on Wikipedia, respectively, because these are the names they give themselves. This does not imply any kind of endorsement, while your loaded vocabulary does.

What's most annoying, however, is that with your perpetually confrontational stance and your tendency to burn all bridges before even trying to walk over them, you make it next to impossible to achieve compromise solutions in the fashion that is normal and regular on Wikipedia. You seem to seek out a kind of ever-lasting state of war with other contributors, presumably because this fills some emotional void in your life. I'm not interested in that, but I will do what is necessary to preserve both truth and neutrality in this article.—Eloquence 23:02, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Unlike Eric I put an explanation for my edit here. Erik's response was to call it a 'revert with prejudice'. He makes an issue out of using pro-choice. I never did. I used it in my own rewrite! And as usual he fails to offer any reply, just a lot of hyperbole. What is Erik's problem? Is writing in an NPOV form so difficult for him? Or is he really so blinded by his own prejudice that he cannot see the undefensibility of his use of language, the agendas seeming from his sentences, his messianic belief in his own infallibility. Or maybe it is just that he want to be a secular pope but can't find anyone to elect him!FearÉIREANN 23:46, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was no agenda. The language of the paragraph was appropriate given its context -- the criticism section of the article. In any case, it is at best a minor issue. I reworded the para not because I want to inject some "pro-choice POV", but because it was broken. The issue is not that you refuse to explain, the issue is that whenever you explain, you also attack others. There can never be any productive cooperation based on this behavior, only counter attacks and edit wars.—Eloquence 23:59, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Another factually inaccurate Erik add-in- while conservative groups saw these positions as an opportunity to align themselves with her and often cited her to make their case. Some of the most vocal opponents of abortion belong to Christian fundamentalists who detest RCism, detested MT and call JPII the 'anti-christ' (eg, Falwell, Paisley, etc). Erik's edits again misrepresent (or completely misunderstand) the role and influence of someone like MT among anti-abortion campaigners. This and other edits suggest a highly simplistic understanding of both catholicism and the christian right, with a rather black and white belief on the influence of people like MT without understanding the culture and context within which they operated and the extent to which it is culture and context, not big names, that shape people's advocacy of a conservative agenda. FearÉIREANN 00:17, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good edits, Silsor. FearÉIREANN 00:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, if you knew the first thing about MT, you'd know that she was popular among virtually all religious groups except for the die-hard fundies on the far right, the kind of people who have Avro Manhattan's books on their websites. Protestant pro-lifers co-opted her, and even pro-choicers tolerated her because of her spectacularly good reputation. The kind of people who "detested" her are a vanishingly small minority, which is part of the reason there are so few informed critical voices about MT.

Stop being childish. And BTW many protestant 'pro-lifers' detested her while such pro-choicers as US President Bill Clinton, UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson and others were open admirers, Robinson I believe at a dinner party calling one of the critics you place such trust in a "turd". FearÉIREANN 00:41, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed the intellectual level of MT's defenders.—Eloquence 00:45, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

I hardly think one can be proud of the fact that MT's principal detractor is Christopher Hitchens, one of the few humans alive with more critics than Adolf Hitler. And whatever about her views on MT, I'd certainly much prefer to be associated with a real defender of human rights and women's rights like Robinson than a phoney like Hitchens. (And lest I be accused of bias, Robinson is a friend of mine, Hitchens an acquaintance I've met 10 or 12 times.) FearÉIREANN 00:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hitchens is hardly her principal "detractor", but clearly the most visible one. Hitchens' work is based almost exclusively on the research done by others, but he ought to be commended for bringing the matter into the mainstream, even if his tone and style are obnoxious.—Eloquence

As for Silsor's edit, I agree; if I'm not mistaken he removed some of your "analysis" which I wouldn't have touched with a ten foot pole. ;-).—Eloquence 00:30, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Re Erik's edit of To its critics, however, the Order was seen as more preoccupied with dealing with poverty and the treatment of the poor as part of an expression of its religious belief, and the furtherance of its religion's acceptance in India, than with notions of alleviating poverty or of offering medical-orientated as opposed to charity-orientated help to the poor it treated, what is the problem with this? It says that critics suggest that MT and her order's behaviour was not based on a radical vision of alleviating poverty but on using their treatment of the poor as a way of expressing their own religious vision. In other words, whereas others outside religion see the poor as people disenfranchised by society and victims of power-structures, MT's concern was not with the poor themselves but with her belief, based on biblical teaching, that every human is made in the image of God and that in neglecting the poor she would be neglecting and betraying Christ. In effect she saw herself in parable terms as the 'good Samaritan' doing her duty to people created in the image of God. Thus her motivation could be seen as charity-based to help the dying die with dignity, not based on applying medical science to heal them or radical politics to change their lot.

It is quite elementary stuff that goes to the heart of the competing visions of what MT stood for and achieved, and the differing standards by which, depending on one's own vision, she is judged. That sort of underlying analysis is central to understanding MT and her critics. Erik has offered nothing in the way of justification for its removal, other than it is philosophical. Given that much of the criticism of her is based on differing philosophical analyses it is crucial that some effort is made to explain them. The paragraph may need tweaking, but it is something that cannot be ignored if one wants to understand the clash of philosophies of MT and her critics. FearÉIREANN 23:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was editing it at the same time because I could take out about half the words and leave the same meaning. Being long-winded is fine in talk pages, but in the article it might pay to be a little sharper. The paragraph was also on the verge of being off-topic. silsor 00:00, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re Silsor's edit, I think Her critics, however, viewed Mother Teresa as being preoccupied with the furtherance of Catholicism and its causes, rather than with alleviating poverty or offering medical help to the poor she treated is somewhat misleading. Many on the left subscribe to a more complex theory and are opposed to the principle of charity which MT espoused, seeing it as tolerant of the class and economic structure that produced the poverty and largely concerned with mitigating the extreme effects of capitalism. They see charity workers (whether MT, Bob Geldof of mainstream charities) the same way the far left sees social democrats, as 'ineffective do-gooders' not willing to take a radical stand to break the class structure and liberate the masses and the poor. So while some criticised MT for what they saw as organisational failures, and others criticised her on religious grounds, many saw her as in effect an appeaser with class interests that were responsible for causing poverty. The complexity of analyses at the heart of the criticisms of MT is not conveyed in the edit. That is why I deliberately wrote of criticism of MT not offering medical-orientated as opposed to charity-orientated help because medical-orientated implies active intervention whereas charity-orientated implies passive mitigation. FearÉIREANN 00:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That was Eloquence's edit, not mine. silsor

Well, it seems to me that you are writing less about what Mother Teresa's critics have said and written, and more about what you think they should have said and written. Neither Hitchens nor Chatterjee nor Shields nor Louden ... and so forth, concern themselves much with the underlying theology or ideology of Mother Teresa's actions, and what Hitchens has expressed in polemical form -- that MT cultivated and celebrated suffering -- is a recurring theme in the criticism of her work. That is a much more dramatic accusation than saying that she tried to fulfill a vision and neglected the purpose of charity in the process.

Now, maybe that latter interpretation is more in line with your own views, and far be it from me to censor it. But it does not reflect the views of the critics we have cited so far (except perhaps for Robin Fox), so it would seem to me that you have an obligation to actually cite people holding this view before including it. Furthermore, if this view is included it should only be in combination with the other point of view, that MT did not act out of good motives but did a (partially) bad thing, but that she acted out of bad motives and did a (mostly) bad thing.

In addition, we may want to move this whole block of text into its own section, perhaps "The morality of Mother Teresa's actions".—Eloquence 00:02, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I propose to remove this paragraph from ==Criticism==:

Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

I want to remove this because the section is already far too long and this paragraph delves into the specifics of a critic who is already sufficiently covered in the previous paragraph. It breaks the rhythm of the section, being the only paragraph which does not outline a specific major criticism. silsor 05:28, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

If you remove it, please retain that quote in a different location. It is very fundamental to the criticism of Mother Teresa.—Eloquence 08:06, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Factual accuracy

The Encyclopædia Britannica says that her father was a grocer, but this article says her father was a successful contractor. What gives? silsor 18:20, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

here (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=1659421&oldid=1659004) is the edit that added the contractor bit. By Cimon avaro --snoyes 18:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have stared at the diff, at several diffs at either sides of it, and I don't have the haziest of recollections of doing the edit, or comprehension of ever being in possession of facts that could lead me to make such edits. It is conceivable that this is an artefact of some stupendously weird edit conflict, or more probably my memory just is very poor. I certainly will be racking my brains over this. Good that it was taken note of. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:47, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I know, the history of this article is pretty dense. For a while I thought I had tracked down this little gem:

For all Catholics the saving of souls is more important than any material consideration, and for a particularly zealous (and in some ways unsophisticated) Catholic like Mother Teresa, it seems to have been the overriding consideration.

to you, but it turns out you had just reverted to something older. I went back a few hundred more revisions but I still can't figure out how that crap got in there. silsor 00:05, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this appeared first in Adam Carr's rewrite of Oct 22: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&oldid=1606804 (this was first a separate article but later the histories were merged). --Wik 00:35, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I edited that crap out a while ago. Obviously it somehow got in again. It shows the scale of just how bad the article was that people were so busy correcting other things (or trying to) that something as ludicrous and POV as that crap as that wasn't spotted and binned on sight. But then I have lost sight of the number of factual corrections that were lost when edited text (edited over weeks) was replaced by pre-edited text recently. This may well be something that cropped back in when that was stage. FearÉIREANN 01:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense. Actually, in your reverts you reinserted *anti-Teresa* POV stuff that was copied into the article from the talk page. You didn't read, you just assumed Alexandros did the right thing (which he did not). Furthermore, the paragraph in question was written by Adam Carr, I would never write something like that, but it should be noted that your analysis of Mother Teresa's motivations is no more or less biased than what he wrote.—Eloquence

Of course I inserted anti-MT stuff. And pro-MT stuff. And analytical stuff. And perspective. And context. Your contribution has largely been anti-MT stuff, snide anti-RC comments and supposed analytical stuff littered with loaded terminology, as the abortion pargraph epitomised. FearÉIREANN 01:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tone

The tone is a bit more sympathetic towards Theresa, even the criticisms seem a bit muted.

This is good in one sense, since we shouldn't be endorsing the point of view that Theresa is a fake saint, as some of her most hostile critics seem to regard her.

On the other hand, if she really did any of the following, I see no reason to pull any punches:

• financial misdealing - if money is earmarked for schools or hospices but really spent on evangelism, this might be against the law - at least in SOME countries. I don't know the law in India.
• medical malpractice - if all patients were dumped in a "ward for the dying", with no triage by a real doctor, this seems harsh at best. Too bad the article (a) mentions only one instance of this and (b) omits the name of the doctor making this claim.

As a religious man, of course I would like to read a lot more about Teresa's religious motivation and spiritual activities. Mostly, I'm disappointed with this article because it just gives a enough details about her early life to set up the meat of the article, which is an expose` of the (allegedly terrible) Missionaries of Charity.

My evaluation? A work in progress - not even 25% done. If it wouldn't make everyone scream, I would take the cutting shears to the article and eliminate everything that insufficiently fleshed out. As it stands, the article stinks. It's not up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd rather see a stub. --Uncle Ed 23:10, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is illogical. Articles should be expanded if they are incomplete, not cut. I for one feel that the article includes most of the thing one needs to know about MT.—Eloquence 23:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I guess you haven't written much software, Erik. Sometimes the fastest way to complete the project is to start over. More than once I've deleted the source code for an entire module, forcing the programmer to re-do the whole thing from memory (they never document anything, in their youthful confidenc ;-) -- and have consistently found that it takes less than 20% of the time spent so far, to reconstruct the lost work, with two to five times the quality. I bet it would work for English prose, too. Wanna try? --Uncle Ed 23:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't guess too much. The article has already been completely "refactored" by Adam Carr and edited many times over. Complete sections have been removed, restored, summarized. If you have any specific criticisms, make them. Better yet, add the material that you think is missing. I do know that I wouldn't want to work in your programming team.—Eloquence 23:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

If you don't like it you're welcome to improve it. No steps backwards, please. silsor 23:21, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know. But the way things work around here, nothing short of the labors of Hercules could fix the MT article in a single edit. And doing it by the "death of a thousand cuts" method would be too much work, also. Not interested. JTD asked my opinion, I gave it; that's all. --Uncle Ed 23:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree completely with your point about most of the article being a setup to the Missionaries-of-Charity-bashing. silsor 23:36, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

It MIGHT be easier to make MT an article just about Teresa's life, and push nearly all the 'bashing' stuff to M of C. I'm more concerned with the process than the product, here, remember. This is not the kind of article where I can swoop in and make a few quick changes, then sit back in bask in everyone's admiration. There was a long and ugly edit war over this, and it's not going to end so cheaply. We have to find a way out of the situation, a road to the destination; it's less about product and more about process.

Material should only be moved to MoC if it relates primarily to that organization, and not to the way MT conducted its operations. And I object to the term "bashing", in quotation marks or without them. This is factual information about the person andd her work that has a definite and obvious place in this article. It is quite bizarre that over all the months this article has been edited, MT's defenders have spent most of their time trying to remove or hide facts, instead of adding meaningful information about her life. If there is so much material missing, shouldn't it be trivial to add it? Where is it? I'd really like to know.—Eloquence 23:55, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Material should only be moved to MoC if it relates primarily to that organization, and not to the way MT conducted its operations. I was thinking about this article on the bus ride home and I also reached this conclusion. silsor 00:05, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

Was there a discussion on that already? silsor 23:49, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article is improving, but then it was so bad it could hardly disimprove. I think Silsor is doing a good job in editing and rewriting. It is a pity so many others who might have had a lot to contribute were frightened off by accusations that they were pushing Catholic agendas. But this article is still far from encyclopædic standard and rather one dimensional, with no analysis of the belief system of MT, of her spiritual vision, of the theological framework that shaped her activities, etc. Instead it plays heavily on too many one dimensional impressions of Catholicism that seem like a rambling pass level sociology exam answer rather than anything based on a comprehensive understanding of the topic, let alone anything purporting to be an NPOV-style encyclopædia article. It certainly cannot count as one of wikipedia's better efforts as writing an article. The fact that someone thinks it includes most of the things one needs to know about MT speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge possessed about the topic. It will take a lot of work and a lot of rewriting to bring it to pass standard, let alone honours. But Silsor has made a good start in rescuing it and I would certainly welcome Ed's ongoing observations on the rewriting of this article. FearÉIREANN 23:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JTD got it just right. I hesitate to help, not because I fear accusations of pushing an agenda -- that hasn't stopped me from writing on global warming etc. -- but because I'm daunted by the amount of WORK involved. It's hard enough writing a long article, when people are working together... --Uncle Ed 23:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to help, then I would suggest not to make sweeping generalizations. Specific criticisms are helpful, general "I don't like this" comments are not and will merely be instrumentalized by either side of the debate.—Eloquence

I think you mean, if I /DO/ WANT to help, then I should avoid general comments. If that's what you're saying, then, I'm sorry: I don't always have specific suggestions.

Thus I'm going to give another one of those "unhelpful" general criticisms and say:

• Dividing into two "sides" is going to impede progress on this article
• It would be better if both "sides" would agree to stop fighting and to work together to make a neutral article

--Uncle Ed 16:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we wrote this article, the way I lead programming teams, then we would start by "doing the simplest thing that could possibly work". Begin with a stub which says something like:

Mother Theresa, the founder of the Missionaries of Charity, is beloved by millions of people worldwide for her devotion to the poor yet vilified by some as a charlatan.

That is just off the top of my head, of course. The next step is to ask the primary "disputants" if each agrees that this stub is (A) accurate and (B) fair.

1. If they agree, then we move on to fleshing out the article.
2. If they disagree, then we try for a more agreeable stub.

Process over product is the fastest way to get a product to market. This advice is coming to you from a man who has never missed a deadline. (That's why I get the big bucks <smirk>). --Uncle Ed 19:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You assume that everyone agrees with you that the current article is not a proper basis to work on. I don't, and nor, I assume, does Silsor. Even Jtdirl pushed for using Adam Carr's version as the basis for further edits, and this is what we're using right now. I have always accommodated useful additions, I won't even stand in the way of a rambling section on philosophy or theology if some people want it. But the continuing attempts to butcher this article are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I think highly of you, Ed, but you've really lost your perspective here. —Eloquence 21:51, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article in its current form can be salvaged. Stubbing it would be the nuclear option if it was so ludicrously overblown and one sided, whether glorifying MT or demonising her. This article did border on that (actually it was so OTT it was hilarious even if it belonged in the page on bad jokes!) but was been pulled back. But the nuclear option should only be gone for if all efforts at turning it into a proper article fail. It really is up to Erik as to whether he continues to wage war on everyone to force his agenda. If he manages to restrain his POV (which he entitled to have) and apply elementary rules on NPOV and encyclopædic content to an NPOV encyclopædia article then we have a chance to make a good article out of a dog's dinner. FearÉIREANN 22:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you stop with the rhetoric and hyperbole, and start with pointing out what you perceive to be POV, then we can talk about ways to change it that will accommodate both sides.—Eloquence

People have been queuing for weeks to list problems. You turned a deaf ear every time. You know very well where the problems are. Everyone (now including Ed) keeps telling you. But then your response when the patiently obvious deficiencies in the abortion were pointed out didn't show much evidence of any awareness of POV in language, structure, layout and content. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I clearly explained why your interpretation was wrong.—Eloquence

No. As usual you expressed your POV and decreed that your POV is of course correct. No-one agreed with your analysis of the paragraph. FearÉIREANN 01:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I provided logical arguments, while all you do (and continue to do as below) is make assertions and hope that, given that majority opinion will always favor MT, your POV will prevail on those grounds alone. The intellectual level of discussion you have shown here in the last months is quite pathetic (hyperbole, appeals to authority, ad hominem ad infinitum, circular logic -- it's all there).—Eloquence 01:45, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to move some text to Missionaries of Charity

If anybody thinks that the current text of any of the "specific criticisms" except ===Criticism of her motivations=== belongs on Mother Teresa rather than Missionaries of Charity, please talk about it here. I may soon edit those sections to, for example, replace "Mother Teresa and her followers" with "the Missionaries of Charity" and "Robin Fox observed that Teresa's order" with "Robin Fox observed that the Missionaries of Charity" in preparation for this sort of transferal. silsor 00:14, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

The only thing I see that can be moved is the first 2/3 of "Diversion of donations"; a summary needs to be left in place. The part about missionary activity should not be moved because this directly relates to Teresa's calling (it's very short anyway). The Fox testimony cannot be moved because he visited the Home of Dying Destitutes in Calcutta, and Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for the conditions in the home. He referred to her several times and called it "Mother Teresa's approach" (which is why he received a lot of hatemail as a result). The "Secret baptisms" part should not be moved for obvious reasons - it describes actions taken and openly supported by MT.—Eloquence 01:29, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think what you suggest is quite correct, Silsor. Much of the text belongs elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 01:36, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have fixed the section on Dr. Robin Fox according to Eloquence's new info. According to that info that much should stay in MT. I still wish to move the first 2/3 of ===Diversion of donations===. silsor 01:48, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I can agree with that, as long as you leave a summary behind that notes that it was on MT's request that the order does not use funds to purchase medical equipment, and that the order does keep very few records of its operations. The details of the financial situation of the order are perhaps better placed in the MoC article, but there should be a prominent link in the summary paragraph ("see Missionaries of Charity for further details").—Eloquence 01:56, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely not, MT either knew, or should have known what was going on in her order. She is personally responsible for many of the criticisms of the order, especially since it seems to have been such a cult of personality.Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair! 01:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe true, but I feel that the text is far more relevant to an article on the Missionaries of Charity than it is to an article on Mother Teresa. I would go right ahead and start copying text into that article, but maintaining the same text in two places is not the Right Way. silsor 01:52, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Duplicating text in two places is not the best idea. I think the text is far more relevant in MoC article. A short summary can be kept here, with a standard wikipedia link. FearÉIREANN 02:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know, some day you will learn to write "I agree with what Eloquence said" ;-).—Eloquence

Actually, I have often said I agreed with you in various places. (Even praised you on occasion elsewhere.) On this page I even reverted to your version rather than Alex's. But in your above version, you proposed bolding a link in the text. That is not wikipedia policy. I suggested the 'standard wikipedia link', which is different. FearÉIREANN 02:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the MoS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#See also and Related topics styles: "Sometimes it may be useful to have an explicit cross-reference in the text, for example, when a long section of text has been moved somewhere else. In these cases, please make the link bold so that its significance is easier to recognize."—Eloquence 02:25, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not know of that recommendation. In that case I withdraw my objection. Once the link is neutral it will be OK with me. :-) FearÉIREANN 03:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would prefer that s/he learn to indent ;) silsor 02:12, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately on a lot of pages I find the indent commands don't seem to work well and typing in the command would be a waste of time. So I simply stopping doing it. :-) FearÉIREANN 02:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Consensus is currently held up by User:Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!. S/he seems to be a puppet user created solely to dissent in this talk page. If s/he does not respond to my point about the text being more appropriate in the other article (though it would also be useful here) I will move it anyway. silsor 04:40, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This user seems to be one of these mysterious creations who just appears, starts their 'contributions' with a talk page message (usually showing an incredible knowledge of debates and procedures of wikipedia given that they are supposedly a 'new' user) and then either disappears completely or makes a few edits over a short space of time to make themselves look 'real' and then disappears. Of course now that this has all been said, this 'user' will probably be recreated to make a few symbolic edits elsewhere to 'prove' they exist, but will not be heard off again within a week. Those users creating phoney identities like that should be banned. FearÉIREANN 06:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I added an NPOV dispute banner to this article. The article contains two guilt by association images which is over-the-top POV. Articles should not try to make a point via which images are included and the point, the POV, of this article is quite crisp: Mother Teresa hangs out with dictators and future felons. Occasionally, the Pope too, but mostly criminals. Daniel Quinlan 22:18, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

The images depict unusual historical events that have occurred and are both factual and neutral. What you read from them is your business. This is not a neutrality dispute, this is pointless whining. We are not implying anything by including these images. You have made quite clear that you condemn what you believe to be Wikipedia's practice of shoveling dirt on other persons. I'm sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia's NPOV policy has nothing to do with not including negative information. It has to do with attributing this information in a way that Wikipedia does not make controversial claims itself (and the historical events in question are not even controversial, i.e. nobody denies they have happened). We do not have a "Let's be nice to the person we write about" policy, much as you would like to have it, and it is certainly not an element of NPOV. Your dispute header is therefore bogus, and I will remove it unless you can provide meaningful criticisms of this article.—Eloquence

The images depict unusual historical events in a way that is non-neutral and not at all dispassionate. I do condemn Wikipedia's practice of shoveling dirt because most dirt shoveled on Wikipedia is idiosyncratic, in the form of criticism rather than factual information ("so and so believes or says X or Y"), or both. And while that is a general concern of mine and may be a problem here, it is not the immediate reason why I added the NPOV banner. Your ad hominem argument and other hand-waving does not change the fact that the images chosen for this article are designed to present a certain POV. Incidentally, it is the same POV you push. It's the same guilt by association and POV image selection also seen at Donald Rumsfeld (which I just noticed was also added by you). I personally don't revere Mother Teresa, but that does not change that images can be misused to make someone look bad or to make someone look good (not too common here, but Joseph Stalin is an example). Anyway, I'm not asking for the article to be nice, just for it to not present a specific POV. That fact that a Charles Keating image is included is ridiculous. Nobody has ever alleged that she was involved in the S&L scandal, nor is she a supporter of Keating's, nor is the image particularly noteworthy in terms of her history, yet there it is. By the same token, the dictator wife image is also a problem. Daniel Quinlan 04:20, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Read the fucking article. She defended Keating in a letter to the DA, and the DA personally responded and asked MT to give back the stolen money that Keating donated to her. She complimented the Duvaliers when the world community was allied against them. It is absurd to even insinuate that this material does not belong in the article. The documentation of the facts concerning Teresa's life, in pictures or in words, is not "POV", but their removal clearly would be. Whether you deduce from these pictures that MT, or Don Rumsfeld, or anyone else, is guilty of anything is your own business and I don't give a shit if you do or don't. The facts will stay in this article, and in other articles I work on, whether you like them or not. You don't "dispute" anything. You don't have facts. You didn't even read the article you're commenting on. All you do is act on the basis of your gut feelings. Here's a clue: The image of Teresa posing with the Pope is far more meaningless and generic than the image of her posing with Miss Duvalier or with Charles Keating. Yet you don't, and would never, criticize such an image on NPOV grounds. Why? Because you are not interested in the truth, Daniel. You are only interested in hiding it, because it makes you uncomfortable, and like so many conservatives, you can only uphold your contradiction-riddled worldview through constant self-censorship. You can censor yourself, but you cannot hide the truth from others. We won't let you.—Eloquence 04:56, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

It is difficult to reply to such an abusive attack as yours, but I will try my best. First, to reply to your request that I "read the fucking article": The article says that Mother Teresa asked for leniency, which (in my estimation) is not an unusual position for a Catholic. I can also see Mother Teresa's position as understandable that she did not give the money back if it had already been allocated to her causes, although I may disagree (actually, I'm not sure what I think about that). I'm not sure what the law has to say about that particular money, but the DA did ask, not demand, according to the article. My impression is also that she probably had to suck up to a lot of dictators to get access to help the poor of those countries. I personally disagree with that policy and would rather not had her support the Duvaliers, support sending Keating to jail forever, but as those are my views, they don't belong in the article. I'm not sure how you can claim the image of the Pope is meaningless. Didn't she work with and interact with the Pope and the institutions of the Catholic church much more often than Charles Keating or the Duvaliers? Second, I'm tired of people falling back on the "facts" to support their one-sided negative view of people. I just saw that Bill Gates had a mugshot from the 1970s (1 of 2 images) of when he was arrested for speeding. Very factual and equally POV as the above examples (note: it was not Eloquence's image). And finally, the point of view that you have, that these past associations illustrate how she is a bad person, seems to be why you have included these images, so don't pretend you are interested in NPOV. If you were interested in NPOV, you would not be trying to portray her as primarily in the company of thieves and dictators, more firmly link to actions for which she has been criticized. Instead, you would aim for images that are representative of her life. You even admitted the images were unusual. Daniel Quinlan 05:28, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC) P.S. Please don't call me a conservative.

It's nice to know that you can come up with excuses for MT (regarding "sucking up to dictators", you should note that a large part of her order's activity, especially outside India, is not charitable at all but purely missionary activity). That does not justify the removal of these images, which you called for, in any away, however. Images of MT with the Pope are a dime a dozen. It is widely known and utterly uncontroversial that she was a staunch ally of the Pope. They are pure photo-ops that do not convey useful information and therefore, as images, they provide little more than "fluff" content. Images are particularly useful when they tell us something interesting. The image of the Home of the Dying gives a rather accurate portrayal of the real conditions in these homes, for example, and therefore is useful.

That has nothing at all to do with NPOV. Nor does NPOV say that facts or pictures about a person need to be "representative" for that person's life. I'm fairly sure that O.J. Simpson didn't kill more than two or three people, that doesn't mean that the murder trial or related material should not be part of the article. We have policies besides NPOV to avoid confusion, such as Wikipedia:Establish context. In fact, the original image captions provided a lot more context to prevent people from drawing any wrong conclusions. Jtdirl reduced these captions to half-sentences, inconsistent with his own behavior elsewhere, arguing that they would "distract" from the image instead of letting it speak for itself. I tolerated this behavior in the interest of peace, hardly anticipating that it would provide the grounds for attempts to remove the images entirely.

NPOV does say something about balance and proportion, and it is true that the criticism section was intially out of proportion in relation to the rest of the article (I always acknowledged that). However, the solution to that was to expand the article accordingly, not to remove facts. I have always been willing to compromise on matters such as summarizing quotes or moving material elsewhere that might be considered off-topic. I have even sized the pictures down to avoid immediate offense. None of this was required by Wikipedia policy, but hey, I try to work with people as long as they are not trying to distort or censor facts. You say that I am not interested in NPOV. I confess: I regard it merely as a vehicle for truth, useful, but not as an end in itself. If I write an article about Mother Teresa outside Wikipedia, you can sure as hell bet that it won't be anywhere near NPOV. But I respect this principle, and the article in its present form is completely in compliance with it. To remove crucial elements of an article simply because you feel that they are not "representative" for that person's life is the exact opposite of NPOV. It is POV censorship.—Eloquence 06:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Of course the banner should be there. You were right to add it. It should never have been removed. FearÉIREANN 23:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The dispute header is not bogus. This article's neutrality is disputed by me, by Ed Poor, by Daniel, by Alexandros, by pfrotuny, by others in page after page of comments and by Silsor, who has spent his time doing excellent work removing its patent POV aspects. Any attempt to remove the dispute tag will be reverted every time. When are you going to listen, Erik? Are you so blinded by your own prejudices that you cannot grasp what people are queuing to tell you? In the vote, wikipedian after wikipedian told you there was a problem with your edits. Everyone since has told there is a problem. Everyone on the w-list said there was a problem? How many people have to tell you there is a problem before you listen? Have you some sort of of Christ-complex? Are we supposed to believe in your infallibility? I don't believe in the pope's and I sure as hell don't believe in yours! FearÉIREANN 03:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You keep telling me how you keep telling me how you keep telling me how this article is POV, without relevant or factual criticisms. Ed, a self-confessed admirer of MT, spent an entire section on this talk page saying how he didn't like it and would love to rewrite it on the basis of a stub, without saying anything about its content. You have just spent another long paragraph saying essentially nothing, as you have done countless times before. Don't you have any better things to do? Please stop wasting my time. If you have anything to say, factual, relevant, pertaining to this article, other than meaningless insults and rants, do so. Take your Alpha male crap elsewhere and bring me facts, then we can talk like adults.—Eloquence 04:56, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I shall wade randomly into the dispute. I think that everything in it is good. It does seem a little more tilted towards the negative, but I think the way to improve it is not to take out the criticism but to put in more positive stuff. All the criticism is well-phrased and relevant. Those who would like to see it say more nice things about MT should start writing! moink 05:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have so far forced myself to stay out of this controversy, being involved in enough other disputes as it is, but as I was asked to comment, I will say this: My personal view of MT is probably as critical as Eloquence's, and I think that his criticisms section, taken by itself, is sufficiently NPOV and relevant. However, the fact that it made up some 70% of the article made the article as a whole unbalanced so that it couldn't be seen as NPOV. And I think it is too easy to say "well, others are free to add the positive stuff". You can't just fill up an article with only praise or only criticism. Articles should be NPOV at any time and NPOV applies not just to all parts of the article but also to the balance of the whole article. For that reason, I think Jtdirl did the right thing originally when he moved the criticism to a separate article, linked to from the main article, and leaving only an adequately-sized summary of the criticism in the main article. This way all the information was still there, and there was no POV issue. It wasn't fair to suggest that Jtdirl wanted to hide or bury this information because of a pro-Catholic bias. The alternative to a separate article can only be a severe pruning of the criticism. The current version is already much better than it was originally, but the criticism still seems to be out of proportion, and a dispute header is justified. But in any case, both of you went over the line in terms of personal sniping and as someone who likes to think you are both very valuable contributors I still hope you can settle this in a more amicable manner if you remember to discuss strictly the issues and to avoid getting personal (and even if one side starts it is not necessary for the other to respond in kind). --Wik 05:53, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I more or less agree, except that I don't think the separate article worked out as a superior solution to the NPOV problem. It primarily served to hide the POV and made the main article less balanced. I should also note that there are alternatives to simply deleting criticism. Rewriting, adding positive information, etc. are also helpful. I am generally in favor of removing idiosyncractic criticism, though, as it is too easy to find someone who will criticize any major figure or institution. I generally prefer when we write about things than about what people say (or what we think they believe) about things. Daniel Quinlan 06:10, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, guys for offering advice. It was much appreciated. Please contribute as much as you wish to this page. It needs a lot of work. FearÉIREANN 06:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Splitting away material from either side of the issue is as POV as it gets, and nobody supported Jtdirl when he tried to do that. Balance is not simple to define. What may be an unbalanced article for you is a balanced article for a Teresa critic. If you think that Teresa's primary accomplishments are the reduction of poverty and of the ailment of the poor, then you may want more information about that in the article. If you think, like I do, that she contributed to suffering on a global scale through her tireless anti-abortion and anti-contraception campaigning, through her missionary activity, through her Kevorkian style medical care, through her involvement in financial transactions of a highly dubious nature, then you don't particularly care to read more of the official story. I have detailed previously lots of criticisms that are still missing from this article. From this perspective, which I ask you to take for a second, it is absolutely unreasonable and POV to argue that criticisms should be removed. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the main article should only convey the "official story" and the real story should be discussed elsewhere to avoid offense to the reader. This is not NPOV, and I think that becomes quite clear if you see it from the point of view of the other side.

"Adding positive information" in general is not NPOV either. The information also needs to be true or attributed, and relevant. The same rigid criteria need to be applied to all positive things about MT as are applied to all negative things about her. But if there are important facts missing from this article, those who feel this way are free to add them. If you ask yourself, in all honesty, what NPOV means, if you substitute Mother Teresa with any other person, I think you will have to admit that this is the only approach that is applicable and universal. As a matter of fact, some people on the other side have argued that Mother Teresa is a "special case" because of her "aura of holiness" (I'm not making this up). This is of course nonsense. There can be compromises on details, and I have made many of them, but there can be no compromise on NPOV.—Eloquence 06:36, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)