Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive4

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 J'accuse 2 Her beatification 3 Suggest "pro-choice" -> "pro-abortion" 4 Split article ? 5 Why is there a POV header?

J'accuse

It's interesting to note that after being asked to do so countless times, Jtdirl still hasn't provided a single coherent criticism of this article and has now instead embarked on a campaign on several user talk pages inviting people for "feedback" (really a transparent attempt to play the nice guy for a while in hope that the other side comes off as the aggressor and will be ostracized). In the past months working on this article, Jtdirl still hasn't made an attempt to cooperate on improving it in mutual consensus. He ignored my peace offers - here, on the mailing list, on his user talk page. He ignored my arguments. He reverted, reverted, reverted without comment. He insulted me here, on user talk pages, on the mailing list, and probably in private e-mail to others. In his edits, he silently removed crucial details (such as the fact that Teresa's order does not separate between curable and incurable patients) and when pushed, said that they were "redundant". He turned image captions into half-sentences while writing paragraph-length captions elsewhere. He has no arguments. None at all.

When he writes about POV, the one thing he will emphasize again and again is how authoritative and indpedendent and unbiased he is, and how many friends and acquaintances in high places he has (Mary Robinson, Bono, Chris Hitchens, I've lost count). I've also lost count of the number of jobs he has claimed to be holding. He accused me - you have to read this twice to believe this - he accused me of "hiding behind a misleading pseudonym" (my real name and link to my homepage are on my user page), but he had probably forgotten that he had earlier admitted that the name "James Duffy" is a pseudonym (and misleading, because it looks like a real one). That alone wouldn't be too bad but now comes the kicker: With all his appeals to authority and claims of being friends to everyone probably including the Pope himself, he says the reason he doesn't want to disclose his identity is that he doesn't want to "create an illusion of hierarchy". If this isn't the pinnacle of audaciousness, I don't know what it is.

James can cooperate with people on minor issues. But when dealing with major ones and someone disagrees with his view, he will go into alpha male mode. He ostracizes the individual who he thinks is causing the problem, tries to single him out. If it's a newbie, they are without hope. Nobody will interecede on the newbie's behalf because they don't want to deal with a guy who's even got fear in his nickname (and you can be fucking certain that this isn't just because it's Irish). A person who will write lengthy, hateful diatribes about them everywhere, try to destroy their credibility, their person, their efforts. If it's a regular, he will start by bullying. Then he tries to start building or utilizing alliances with others, "I rub your back if you rub mine" kind of deals. He writes nice comments on people's talk pages, "Oh I really like what you did here, hey, by the way, I have a problem, could you look at that?" Even people he attacked earlier. He wants to send the message: "I'm the alpha male around here. I'm the expert PR guy with friends in high places. But if you work with me, you get the benefits, too. It doesn't matter if you're a former vandal or a backstabber or a liar. I forgive and forget. Just give me a hand here, will ya?"

All this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with facts or arguments or NPOV or anything like that. If you will look through this discussion back to day one you will find that virtually none of the things that have been said about Mother Teresa here had to be retracted, corrected or otherwise dealt with. When Jtdirl is in alpha male mode, the facts have become meaningless. He will even attack statements that he previously defended, or even attack his own work (as he does when he supports Silsor's edits). The only thing he cares about is maintaining the pecking order. He's a skillful manipulator with just one goal in mind: Attaining control of some of the crucial subjects in Wikipedia. And of course one of the primary subjects he writes about is Catholicism. Coincidence? I know one thing for sure: The Church is a multi-billion dollar organization, and if I was in their shoes, I'd be quite willing to fund someone like Jtd to keep an eye on certain articles. He would maintain enough criticism that accusations of bias would be widely rejected as implausible. But he would keep the juicy parts out, the really crucial elements. A sentence here, a sentence there.

Think that's far fetched? Consider this example: Earlier this year the news was broken (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html) by CBS and The Observer that a secret Vatican document ordered Catholic priests to remain silent about allegations of child sexual abuse and threatened them with excommunication if they do not. The document in question is called Crimen solliciationis. Jtdirl has called the media reports extremely overblown and claimed that the document was not secret, ignored by the priests (without any evidence other than the usual "I know a priest who says...") etc. The reality is that Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter in May 2001 informing clerics that the document is still in force. But again, the real kicker is bigger still: Jtdirl has said that the document only refers to crimes taking place in the confessional. The reality is, however, that the document refers specifically and separately to crimes taking part outside the confessional and refers to them as "the worst crime". But that's still not the end of it.

We all know these Catholic codes are open to interpretation, but the Church leaves no doubt when it includes sexual acts with "brute animals" in the list of "worst crimes" (along with sexual abuse of children) that need to be dealt with not by prosecution, but internally and in complete silence to the outside world. When pushed about this ("do brute animals go into the confessional?"), Jtdirl responded: "[W]hile 'brute animals' don't go into the confessional, their owners do; it is talking about the solicitation of owners of animals to allow their animals to be used."

Read that a few times. Really, please do. Now get this: Jtdirl has claimed multiple times that he has been hired as counsel for Catholic church sex abuse victims. Now, does the above statement make sense to you for someone who is supposed to help the victims? Doesn't it sound like there is something really fishy going on here? Now I wouldn't rule out that Jtdirl does in fact do the work he says he's doing. But I doubt he's doing it for the victims. Because the victims want the truth, not ridiculous apologetics like the ones above, the kind of stuff that might appear in official Catholic publications.

Given that Jtdirl has lied about what I have done more times than I can remember (I have pointed out his lies as many times, but as I said often, once a person is sufficiently entrenched it becomes virtually impossible to apply needed disciplinary measures on Wikipedia), given his proven and demonstrable record as a skillful manipulator, given the ridiculous amounts of time he spends on bullying others, given all this, Jtdirl certainly makes a plausible astroturfer. What he does not make is a plausible representative of NPOV on Wikipedia. I have always disclosed my biases, my identity, my work. I have always been willing to work with others to reach acceptable solutions. I have tolerated unhealthy amounts of abusive behavior. In the end, you will have to decide who you find more trustworthy, because I doubt there is going to develop a healthy cooperation between the two of us.—Eloquence 07:51, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Your ad hominem argument (which is becoming an argumentum ad nauseam) aside, Jtdirl is not the only user who disagrees with you about whether the page is NPOV. In addition, I added the NPOV banner prior to his requests for independent review. Jtdirl is beside the point. Daniel Quinlan 17:56, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

You're in the wrong thread, Daniel. I have already responded to your arguments above. I never suggested or implied that you came here on Jt's invitation.—Eloquence

There are so many falsehood, misrepresentations, myths and garbage in Erik's rant it is hardly worth replying. Suffice to say I am concerned with NPOV, factual accuracy and encyclopædic content. Erik is concerned with hammering home his own agenda and hammering anyone who dares question his attempts to use wikipedia as his pulpit. BTW I did not accuse Erik of hiding behind a false name, I joked that his username, Eloquence was misleading because much of what he wrote in this article would not be described as eloquent!!! As to his statement He's a skillful manipulator with just one goal in mind: Attaining control of some of the crucial subjects in Wikipedia. And of course one of the primary subjects he writes about is Catholicism. Coincidence? I know one thing for sure: The Church is a multi-billion dollar organization, and if I was in their shoes, I'd be quite willing to fund someone like Jtd to keep an eye on certain articles that is a libellous and totally ficticious claim, but the sort of behaviour that Erik has practiced elsewhere to bully anyone who disagrees with him and his attempts to push his personal agendas.

Erik has stated quite clearly the POV he wants the article to reflect - 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. He tried to shout down Ed Poor's constructive criticism by calling Ed a defender of MT, told Daniel to "Read the fucking article", called Alexandros a liar, drove Pfortuny away, etc etc. Of the people here questioning aspects of content, the only person (other than a mysterous sock puppet who appeared from nowhere to agree with him) he had not yet verbally abused is Silsor. To get independent viewpoints on the article I asked a number of people to read the article and make observations. A number have indicated that they agree there is a POV problem and disagree with Erik, but have said they won't comment here, not wanting to put themselves in the line of Erik's fire. One said "Commenting on the Mother Teresa article would be like asking for personal attacks to be made against me, which, surprisingly enough, really isn't something I want to do. I saw what happened to Daniel [10] and don't wish to put myself up against such attacks.". It says something about Erik's behaviour that sysops are afraid to come to the page for fear of abuse from Erik. Given that Erik clearly has no wish to work with people, merely abuse everyone, and his behaviour is intimidating people from working here, maybe he should do everyone a favour, leave this page alone and go off and play his POV games somewhere else where standards of NPOV are not required. FearÉIREANN 21:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You specifically used the words "I am the one who has been in articles in ... [insert long appeal to authority], not hiding behind a misleading nickname". If that's a joke you have a very strange sense of humor. Unlike you, I have nothing to hide.

Erik has stated quite clearly the POV he wants the article to reflect

Actually, I have stated that it is a POV that I want the article to include.

He tried to shout down Ed Poor's constructive criticism

He didn't make any.

called Alexandros a liar

Alexandros lied about the nature of his reverts -- he pretended making content edits (spelling mistakes, section reorgs etc.) while in fact he made major reverts that re-included even ridiculous anti-Teresa POV stuff that I had already removed. Even Adam Carr has stated that this article would be better off without a somewhat misguided teenager who thinks that "1-3 people in the world" didn't like Mother Teresa. As for Daniel, his comments clearly showed that he didn't even read the article he was commenting on, as he didn't understand the meaning of the included pictures. I have always worked with people offering constructive criticism. I have no interest in meaningless, generic POV accusations.—Eloquence 01:49, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

If you can't work with people here, then go and find somewhere else to push your agenda. You have threatened, bullied and driven away enough people from this page already. FearÉIREANN 01:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll be ready for useful comments whenever you are.—Eloquence

Her beatification

I included some text from Alexandros's revision (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Mother_Teresa) on her beatification and left out the parts on the controversy around her miracle. However, this article should not shy away from the issue. I need research from primary sources. Talk later, catch bus now. silsor 17:25, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

I reworded the reference to the alleged miracle to match more closely what the Time Asia article actually said, not the spin put on it.

I've also removed the following: On the day of Teresa's beatification, the rationalist society held protests near Calcutta and mounted an "anti-superstitions awareness program," according to news reports. [1] (http://www.southend.wayne.edu/days/2003/October/10202003/nation/india/india.html) People protect regularly. Whether some 'rationalist society' protested or not is irrelevant in the context of this article, as are any counter-demonstrations. The important facts are the alleged miracle, the views of the woman, her husband and the medical services. FearÉIREANN 21:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If people protested regularly against Mother Teresa that should be noted. These protests were remarkable exactly because of the impression that Alexandros and others have, that only "1-3 people in the world don't like Mother Teresa". They show that MT was not uncontroversial even in Calcutta. Events like this should be reported when they are remarkable and unexpected. This is the case here -- the protests were picked up at least by the German media and probably by US media as well for the very same reason.—Eloquence 21:19, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore: The level of detail of our reporting should be even. That means that if we devote a large portion of the text to explaining the details of the beatification, we should also elaborate on the events surrounding it. Similarly, if we eventually write a larger section about her Nobel Prize speech, we will also want to have details about the campaign that preceded it, criticisms etc. If the beatification section was only one paragraph long, I would agree with you that writing about the protests would probably be out of proportion. But this is not the case here.—Eloquence 21:25, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

The issue is the alleged miracle, not secondary campaigners mounting campaigns. The only relevant references are the views of those active participants; the woman, husband, MoC and medical services. Secondary self-appointed participants, whether supportive of the alleged miracle or critical of it, are irrelevant and merely padding, particularly when only one set of secondary participants are focused on. That is simply yet more agenda-pushing. FearÉIREANN 21:27, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not quite. Whether "secondary campaigners" deserve mention or not depends on several factors. One of them is the level of relatedness to the case at hand. In this case, the campaigners clearly referred to the miracle as a "hoax", while applauding Mother Teresa's work. That means that there is a sufficiently strong connection to the case to test further. The second test is the level of detail in the reporting. We report about Besra, her husband (including quotes), the nuns, the doctors - we have set the complete "scene" of the event, so it is only logical to also include the reaction. The last test is whether the event is unusual or to be expected. Many people believe that MT was unequivocally accepted in Calcutta. The protests show that there was at least some level of criticism of the way her work was "presented". They also contribute to the overall scene setting in that they help to dispel some common misconceptions about Calcutta and India in general, for example, that Calcutta is so poor that there is virtually no intellectual community. Aroup Chatterjee criticized that Mother Teresa inadvertently contributed to this image of Calcutta as a hellhole by presenting herself as a helper of the "poorest of the poor". The reality, of course, is that Calcutta is far from the poorest place in the world, and there is quite an active, secular, progressive community.

Insofar the protests pass all three tests for inclusion -- they are related, match the level of detail of the section in question, and they are unusual and unexpected. Perhaps they are even the first recorded protests against Mother Teresa in India.—Eloquence 21:40, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Your proposed compromise works for me.—Eloquence

Erik, give it a rest. This issue is driving you crazy. Please take a few weeks off from MT and take some long walks in the countryside. --Uncle Ed 21:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do you have anything useful to add, Ed?—Eloquence

Yes, on these long walks, please take time to smell the flowers. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:51, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sentimental fool! ;-)—Eloquence

Suggest "pro-choice" -> "pro-abortion"

Summarized: I suggest "pro-abortion" is simpler for "pro-choice" (and of course the mirror "anti-abortion" for pro-life. But below answers this suggestion:

 [Followup note: Feel free to delete this whole "choice"->"abortion" suggestion if it is too off-topic]

Pro-abortion folks call themselves pro-choice; anti-abortion folks call themselves pro-life. These terms are generally used according to the policy of calling people by their preferred name. silsor 02:03, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Both pro-abortion and anti-abortion fail the POV test because using both involves casting value judgments on both sides. Many of those in the former camp strongly refuse claims that they are pro-abortion, merely that they believe that the pregnant woman should have a choice in the matter of the continuation or termination of a pregnancy. Many of those in the latter camp believe their campaign is not one issue-based but entails a larger philosophical belief in a right to life, and that abortion involves two living entities not one. Using pro-abortion risks saying 'I know what you claim, but we are saying you are pro-abortion'. Similarly using anti-abortion risks saying 'I know you claim a larger philiosophical vision, but we are saying you are simply anti-abortion.' Wikipedia rightly decided not to imply judgments on the campaigners on both sides, but simply to use the terms each side uses to describe themselves, allowing the reader, not the writer, to reach opinions on what the words mean. FearÉIREANN 22:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Split article ?

I'd like to split this article and take all the criticism paragraphs in a "Criticism against Mother Teresa", so maybe we will be able to delete the annoying POV header. If no objections, I'll try this this week. gbog 03:36, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gbog, I'm not sure if you are aware that this has been tried before. You might want to read Talk:Criticisms of Mother Teresa and some of the talk archives of this page first to see what the reaction was last time. Angela. 03:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know.

(another newbie): This talk archive has a lot of ad hominem attacks. The original article seems much better, after comparing it with the talk archive, which is a difficult and rather tedious read. The fact that this talk archive has many paragraphs of someone named Eloquence expositing his ad hominem attacks against someone named jtd (who doesn't even seem to appear) in eloquent detail is likely to be a disincentive for any new blood, I suspect; certainly I'm disincensed to contribute anything. I don't know or care who those two people are, but with so much ad hominem flame war, I'm uninterested in finding out.

This would give undue exposure to positive claims about MT, and reduce exposure of negative claims, and is therefore POV and unacceptable.—Eloquence 04:05, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Imo the actual MT article has biais. I would do two things: remove all pictures but the first one. Shorten criticism to one paragraph.

Please read our NPOV policy, as you are clearly unaware of its meaning.—Eloquence 04:19, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

As I am "clearly unaware of NPOV policy" and many other things, I need your explanations: why the hell I do read "The neutrality of this article is disputed" in the very first line of the article ??? (Other silly question: This talk page is very long, takes hours to come to my screen, is it possible to archive part of it?) gbog

75kb was a bit excessive! I've moved 55kb off to archive 3. Hope no-one minds. gbog, I've replied at your talk page too. Angela. 04:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag on this page was not added in consensus, and I do not agree with it.

Are those two statements linked or separated?

They are linked, of course.—Eloquence

Are there many other people thinking like you that this POV header is wrong? If so, why is it there?

There are two principal people in this dispute, me and Jt. Jt thinks the header belongs here, I think it doesn't. There are people with less involvement on both sides of the issue.—Eloquence 05:52, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Reading the discussions, I have the feeling that more than a few wikipedians claim that those photos are pov. Do you need a list? gbog 08:14, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A list might be useful, but only if it goes back to the very first discussions we've had about this. In any case, you won't find answers by counting heads, given MT's amazing popularity, just like you won't find answers about the historicity of Jesus by asking the people who believe in him.—Eloquence 08:20, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

There can only be a dispute if there is an exchange of arguments, and there are none -- just "I think this is biased" type expressions of emotions. These are to be expected as the article contradicts mainstream perceptions of Mother Teresa.

I personnally have no "perceptions" on MT, nor on the Pope or John Lennon. Take JL: what would you say if one third of John Lennon explains that he is evil and why?

If there are people who have made this argument, the argument is logically consistent and on-topic, then it should of course be included.—Eloquence

Yes they are people making strange arguments. For example, sme said, standing on heavy proofs, that Paul McCartney is dead a long time ago. Should that idea be written on a serious encyclopedia?

It is: Paul is dead. But since it is logically inconsistent and easily refuted, it is proper to have it on a separate page. This is not the case for the MT criticisms.—Eloquence

Most of criticism argument are easily refuted, see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1434 and answers. gbog

You're being ridiculous. The author confirms most of what Hitchens and other critics have said and then apologizes for it. Apologies such as the claim that people shouldn't get worked up about secret baptisms if they don't believe in them, a grossly offensive statement. Finally, Hitchens has written a detailed response which the author has again responded to with little more than hand waving. Still, if you want to include these "arguments" in the article, feel free to do so (we already link to them), I personally think it only makes MT's defenders look like complete idiots.—Eloquence 06:29, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I'm "ridiculous" and I look like "complete idiot"... It's quite a pleasure to chat with you, thanks a lot. About the "grossly offensive statement" you argued, would you tell me that anybody praying for people that don't share their beliefs deserve attacks like the ones against MT? And, by the way, do you believe that baptism is much more than a prayer? gbog

If you seriously contend that being secretly baptised before your death, without your consent, by a Catholic nun is equivalent to praying for a non-Christian, then yes, that doesn't make you look very informed about the religious sensibilities involved. But as I said, feel free to add this "rebuttal" to the article.—Eloquence 08:20, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

It is now me that is wondering if or not you now what is a NPOV. Do you really think articles should be filled with arguments and rebuttals and counter-rebuttals and so on...? gbog 15:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point. If it becomes clear that one position is not tenable, it can be shortened, but generally, we make no claims as to which side is holding the key to the absolute truth. Look, I know you're trying to help, but please familiarize yourself with our basic policies before suggesting sweeping changes to an article about a complex subject. Furthermore, if you have not already done so, please read the whole article, and at least parts of Chatterjee's book (http://www.meteorbooks.com), which is available in full text online.—Eloquence 15:26, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Certainly it is ridiculous in terms of NPOV to propose "shortening the criticism to one paragraph" or "remove all the pictures but the first one".

I have read arguments saying that pictures were giving contextual unexplicit biais (or something like that, i don't remember the mane) and I do agree: showing her with bad people she met is heavily biaised. Would you like to see on John Lennon a picture of him visually explaining how "happyness is a warm gun?" :)

Bogus example. These pictures show historical events that are relevant to the life and work of MT.—Eloquence

Well, what if I think taking drugs or having black mass is relevant to the life and music of JL ?...

If you are a published journalist or another authority on JL, if you make a logically consistent argument, and if your opinion is taken seriously by some people, then yes, it merits inclusion. There are much sillier notions which we have articles about, such as the Virgin birth.—Eloquence

The opinion that Paul MacCartney is dead (or that the King is still alive) are taken seriously by some people, no?

Yes, but they are easily refuted, and as such they have been relegated to separate pages.—Eloquence

Yes, it is OK to archive talk pages when they get too long. Just create a new page Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 3 and cut & paste old discussions into it.—Eloquence 04:41, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Why is there a POV header?

Eloquence, I try to summarise a little bit our discussion. First, I think we both (and all others) share the same tiny little goal: be able to remove the POV header, that has nothing to do in an "NPOV" encyclopedia.

My simple idea to be able to reach npov would be to shorten the criticism section to one paragraph. Now, it take half the article, which is much. Some parts in her biography (health problems) should be also shortened, as I don't know what for they are here. In my idea, this article should state mainly what she did that made her so well-known, with basic biography one want to know on any celebrities. Even if you don't like her, what nobody care of, the reason there is an article about MT is its celebrity, and the reason of its celebrity is what she made for the poors in India, to say it quickly. If there is debate about some bad things she made, this is interesting and should be noted somewhere, but not in so deep details (not because they are true or false, but because it is not in the intent of any biographical article to describe so deeply any bad things that one might have made).

I read again the article, as you asked me. It's the fourth time I read it and I still feel that it's strangely pointing out some things made by MT that one might not like, exactly as if in John Lennon half of the article were pointing out that he was a crasy megalomaniac, had relationships with bad guys, and proselyted heavily the use of drugs, not counting how awfull is its music :). And, even after discussing the topic with you, I feel that the photos are insidiously advocating the same thing (how nasty she was). Stated frankly, Whaaoo Woonderful Wikipedia doesn't deserve such an article, even if MT herself deserved it. (Even Mao Zedong is less accusing... and I hope you will not claim that you prefer him...)

I am sure you already have many balanced and polite answers to my simple tiny little ideas, and I will read them again, but I would like you to answer also this one silly question: If you are so sure that the actual article is NPOV, why the hell did you accept that ugly POV header? gbog 16:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion if you make preposterous suggestions like "shorten the criticism section to one paragraph". Such a selective removal of facts is the very opposite of NPOV, and can never be the basis for any meaningful or fruitful cooperation. If you did this, you would be no better than any vandal. Furthermore, you offer no factual criticism whatsoever -- you only provided a link to a rebuttal that is so silly, devoid of facts and apologetic that even a devout follower of MT should be embarrassed by it. The fact that you consider this piece of garbage (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1434) a rebuttal makes me question your own objectivity. In addition to that, the only substantial logical criticism in the two letters, namely that MT probably had to be persuaded to accept sophisticated medical help for herself, refers to a criticism that is not even included in the article!

So we have established securely that you don't have any facts to back up your opinion.

I do really love this sentence :)) Are you backed by a college of specialists that are allowing you to speak in their name?gbog 18:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Prove me wrong. Give me facts.—Eloquence

None. You share the understanding, extremely naive at best and malicious at worst, that unconsensual baptisms before death are equivalent to secret praying.

Yes, I'm really naive. As I don't believe in God for now, I do think that baptism is any kind of injuring activity that could heart someone. I don't believe in prayers for rain neither... gbog

The problem is that the people that were baptised were usually not non-religious. They had a different religion. If you think it is not extremely offensive to a Hindu that one of their loved ones has been secretly baptised as a Catholic shortly before their death, then you know nothing about religion. In the arrogancy that we have come to expect from Catholicism, the nuns declared Hinduism to be little more than heresy, to be replaced by the one true faith.—Eloquence

You work on the basis of assumptions what biographical articles should or should not be that are nowhere reflected in Wikipedia's policy. Should we write a whole article about Hitler's love of dogs and great paintings, "but don't mention the war (http://www.fawltysite.net/episode06.htm)" because it's such a negative thing to be associated with?

Maybe you didn't read me as carefully as you should, or maybe I explained myself badly. I think any biographical artical on a given celebrity should explain his/her life and why he/she is well-known. (BTW, please, leave Hitler where he is.)

You brought up Mao Zedong, so I'm free to bring up Hitler. The facts in the article are of course useful to explain Mother Teresa's life, but it depends on your perspective. If you disagree with the criticisms, you might find them useless. That's what NPOV is for.

It is not the job of an encyclopedia to report only things that are "well known". When we write about Albert Einstein, we don't just write about the theory of relativity just because that's what everyone knows. When we write about Noam Chomsky, we don't just mention his political activism simply because he is most famous for that. It is the job of an encyclopedia to educate and inform, even about little known details of a person's life. Otherwise you might as well stick to the tabloids.—Eloquence

You are right, there is maybe no wikipedia policy on biographies, as anyone can open a dictionnary and get the idea.gbog

Obviously you can't. Biography: "An account of a person's life written, composed, or produced by another" (American Heritage Dictionary). Nothing about "well known".—Eloquence

Of course a biography should contain all relevant criticisms of that person that have been made, the more factual the better. Mao Zedong is not "less accusing", but the negative aspects of his life are more generally accepted, so you don't need a large criticism section but can simply write "Mao's policy XY killed 10 million people".

I didn't find this statement...

"This, along with severe droughts, caused the Great Leap to fail to meet its goals and resulted in widespread famines in which millions of Chinese died." No attribution.—Eloquence

If we wrote "Mother Teresa provided insufficient medical help", however, that would be (rightly) considered POV because there are people who disagree with that statement.

Yes, and then the simple solution is to write "Some criticism claim that Mother Teresa provided insufficient medical help" and its fine.

And that's exactly what we do, with correct grammar.—Eloquence

So this article is in fact less accusing than those about questionable political figures, because it attributes all claims to those who make them.

The problem is that these claims take half the article, as I said.

I'm sorry Mother Teresa fucked up so badly. But why are you complaining to me about it?—Eloquence

The reason I did not remove the NPOV dispute header is that Jtdirl threatened to engage in a long edit war if I did and frankly, I don't care enough about a little tagline to do so.

Yes, because you don't seem to care so much on NPOV policies, sorry to be so dense... I do care myself because no articles should have this tagline, I would prefer no articles at all gbog

You care about taglines. I care about policy.—Eloquence

However, if no real factual criticism of this article is offered within the next week or so, I will remove it.—Eloquence 17:13, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I gave factual criticism on this article, and, as Archives show enough, I am far from alone to think so.gbog 18:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you are far from alone to think you have given factual criticism. You are far from alone in being wrong.—Eloquence

The reason, Gbog, that the disputed line is in is because there is a dispute. On the one side is Eloquence, with his personal agenda and determined to force his opinions on everyone as fact. On the other side is Wik, Daniel Quinlan, Pfortuny, Ed Poor, Alexandros, John Kenney, Angela, Alexandros myself, others and now you, all pointing out the glaring flaws in the article but abused, called "rapid MT apologists", in the pay of the Catholic Church, Catholic apologists and the sort of abuse you have now experienced. Eloquence knows little about biographical writing, has a superficial understanding of Catholicism and a personal detestation of MT and her opinions. But he defends his version like Stalin. And insists that everyone else is wrong, and he the only person who is neutral. Everyone else finds it bizarre. But then he does this on many pages touching religious topics. FearÉIREANN 19:49, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. JT paints a wrong picture of the dispute: The facts are not contested. The dispute is whether certain facts should or should not be included in the article. --snoyes 19:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Alexandros: Thinks "1-3 people in the world" don't like Mother Teresa. Has tried to remove the entire cricisism section and engaged in edit wars while I wasn't even involved in the article, driving away Adam Carr and others.
• Pfortuny: MT admirer, driven away by arguments
• Ed Poor: Rev Moon's Unification Church, a religious fundamentalist cult
• Angela: not involved
• John Kenney: not involved

So we have 3 people who are clearly partisans. As for yourself, I have already explained where your bias lies. I have always declared my own anti-religious bias.—Eloquence

More Eloquence dubious spinning of 'facts'

• Alexandros: made mistakes in how he handled the article at the beginning. Left the page after verbal abuse and threats of banning by Eloquence.
• Pfortuny: one of the most polite and honest wikipedians who never hid his religious beliefs but tried to build a cross community consensus but was driven away by Eloquence's abuse and insults.
• Ed Poor: one of the most widely respected people on wikipedia, subjected to abuse by Eloquence when he as a professional wikipedian suggested there was a problem with the article's bias and loaded Eloquence-created agenda.
• Daniel Quinlan: screamed at by Eloquence who told him to "read the fucking article".
• Wik: someone who shares Eloquence's negative view of religion but who nevertheless said the article was unbalanced.
• Angela: Another respected wikipedian who agreed that there was a problem with the article but declined to comment on the page, saying she had no wish to step into Eric's firing line, having seen his treatment of Daniel.

FearÉIREANN 21:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Alexandros did not just make mistakes in the beginning, he made mistakes until the end (when he engaged in an edit war to restore a version which included even gross anti-Teresa POV). Ironically, when you noticed an edit war on MT, you felt obliged to jump right in, and made the same reverts, restoring anti-Teresa POV in the process. Pfortuny was not driven by abuse, but by my unwillingness to make "compromises" if they are not supported by facts, that is, I won't agree to major changes to the article just to get "peace". Ed is a nice guy, but he is clearly biased (and has said so), and his criticism had no factual substance whatsoever. That's all I've said to him, and it's true. I've apologized to Daniel for not assuming good faith, and we both made some useful NPOV edits to the article.

I have explained several times already that many people who do not know much about MT beyond the mainstream image will find this article unbalanced because it gives so much new information. That doesn't mean it actually is unbalanced or POV, of course, and nobody has made a logical argument that it is. Lastly, this present article is the result of work by several contributors, including Adam and yourself, and many have expressed agreement (here and elsewhere) that it is close to being perfectly NPOV. As usual, you are picking the opinions you like and ignoring the ones you don't. As usual, you don't even care if the users in question have made useful contributions to the article or have made major POV edits -- it's all about ostracizing and attacking a single person whom you perceive to be an obstacle in gaining control over this article.—Eloquence 04:58, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

many have expressed agreement (here and elsewhere) that it is close to being perfectly NPOV - OK we now have our Ludicrous Claim of the Year on Wikipedia!!! Jeez, talk about blindness. People have been queuing to rubbish the article as flawed, POV-ridden and OTT. I know Erik is determined to wage a war to force his opinion but to dismiss everyone else's opinion, ignore all the criticism, swear at people, threaten bans, and then imagine that the article is "close to being perfectly NPOV" is bizarre in the extreme. If nothing else his attempts at biographical writing here form an almost perfect example how not to write a biographical article. But then in true Eloquent style he will probably interpret the above as meaning that he is in line to win the Nobel Prize for Literature. FearÉIREANN

---