Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Mother Teresa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Hers relationships

I'd like to replace

In 1981, Teresa flew to Haiti to accept the Legion d'Honneur from the right-wing dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who, after his ouster, was found to have stolen millions of dollars from the impoverished country. There she said that the Duvaliers "loved their poor," and that "their love was reciprocated." In 1987 Teresa visited Albania and visited the grave of the former Communist dictator Enver Hoxha. Critics said her actions compromised her perceived moral authority through unwise and controversial political associations; however, her supporters defended such associations, saying she had to deal with political realities of the time in order to lobby for her causes. By the time of her death, the Missionaries of Charity had houses in most Communist countries.

Criticism of Teresa in the United States grew after it was revealed that Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, had donated $1.25 million to Mother Teresa's order. Teresa interceded on his behalf and wrote a letter to the court urging leniency. The district attorney responded in private and asked her to return the money, which she declined. She also accepted money from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who, as was later revealed, embezzled UK£450 million from his employees' pension funds. There is no suggestion that she was aware of any theft before accepting the donation in either case.

With something like

Criticists pointed out Mother Teresa's relationship with

the right-wing dictator of Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier (she received the Haitian Légion d'Honneur in 1981);
the Communist dictator of Albania Enver Hoxha (she visited his grave in 1987);
Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s;
the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who embezzled UK£450 million from his employees' pension funds.
Defenders claim that she had to lobby for her cause, therefore had to deal with dictators in poor countries and with thieves in rich ones.

Sorry, but this is the kind of "summary" that I find unacceptable, both from a pro- and an anti-Teresa POV. You completely lose the context of these historical events -- what was her relationship with Charles Keating? Did she have an affair with him? Did she do publicity work for him? What did she have to do with Duvalier? I think even Jtdirl will agree that only providing this kind of murky information is worse than what we currently have, because now people will get an even stronger impression that we are merely trying to feed some smear campaign.—Eloquence 16:53, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

What kind of relationship she had with Keating is clear enough: she did receive money from him. May be I could add a little adjective on "thieves" ("generous" thieves?). Let's wait for Jtdirl comments.

No, it isn't clear at all -- where in the above summary does it say that she received money from him? And it's not just that she received money, she refused to return it when asked to do so. These kind of bullet point summaries are nice for Power Point presentations, but they do not make encyclopedia articles.—Eloquence

If you don't like the bullets,it's easy to inline (and add the info you claim is missing):

Criticists pointed out Mother Teresa's relationship with the right-wing dictator of Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier (she received the Haitian Légion d'Honneur in 1981) and the Communist dictator of Albania Enver Hoxha (she visited his grave in 1987). They complain (?) that she accepted donations from Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, and from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who embezzled UK£450 million from his employees' pension funds. Defender claim the received those donation before thefts was uncovered and that she had to lobby for her cause, therefore had to deal with dictators in poor countries and with thieves in rich ones.

Again, you are losing vital information. She did not just accept a donation, she refused to give it back when asked so by the District Attorney. You can't just summarize away facts that are critical to the ethical understanding of these issues. The word is "Critics", btw, not "Criticists".—Eloquence

I don't understand why this information is so "vital" to you. If fact, I think that adding this thing here is on the contrary pushing the critic-part out of the road and becoming unfair. Why? Simply because MT may not have herself all the money asked in her wallet, and also because it is far from sure that she had to give it back. What are saying the laws about that? Someone gives you something, and steels something, and you have to give back the gift? Why? (If you convinced to collusions, things are different, but it is not the case afaik) So, think twice and try to recognize the efforts I am making to improve this article, and please please please allow me to change this part... (I guess you took a lot of time to gather those arguments on MT and this may explain why you do want to keep each little bit of them, and why it hurts when I try to filter the critic-part) gbog 10:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are far exceeding your authority here. It is not your job to judge whether arguments against Mother Teresa are fair or not. It's our job as an encyclopedia to report these arguments. I don't go into an article about religion and remove theological arguments about Trinity because I find them silly. As to whether it is fair, Mother Teresa's order is estimated to have billions of dollars and would have easily been able to pay back that money if they wanted to. There is no question about that at all. You seem to assume, like so many others, that the money they get is used for charity. This has been proven wrong. The nuns working for Mother Teresa are specifically instructed not to use donations to purchase medical equipment, food etc. Instead, the money is transferred to dubious accounts. There are no public records. That makes the criticism entirely valid, and raises the question whether MT knowingly cooperated with financial fraud -- an investigation is of course extremely unlikely. I don't care if you find these possibilities likely or not. It's not your job to decide whether they are. It's our job to report the facts. So please stick to doing so instead of trying to remove them.—Eloquence 10:31, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok, I understand that you don't really want to hear me, nor to let me try to improve the quality of the article. Instead, you prefer sticking to your ideas on MT and on what should be this article (an "educational" article, as you said somewhere, hear "an article that "educates" readers to shoot catholics nuns"). I don't think that any article in Wikipedia should be "educative" this way, and any other one. My goal is not to "educate" people for or against other people or ideas. I don't feel myself clever enough to be able to "educate" people that read this encyclopedia. I may have few info to share on subjects I like, and I thought that Wikipedia had "information" as main goal. Ok ok. gbog 11:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

BTW, you will answer that "MT didn't want to give back money she received" IS pure information. Yes my friend. And any other line in your book against her could be stated as "informational and on-topic". But any hagiographical book would give the same, or more. And, therefore, if you are consequent with yourself, you should write in the article a list of ALL pro-books, a list of ALL good persons she met, a list of ALL graves she visited, and, at first, a list of ALL person she helped in her life. All those are facts, informational, and, they may also be "educational", so you should like them... Ok ? gbog 11:21, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gbog, I said "eons ago" in this talk page that Mother Teresa would prefer peace to discussion (or something similar which I do not recall). I had an experience similar to the one you are having. I advise you against the dangers of getting burnout. None of my efforts to ask for an explanation about the reliability as sources of information of Keating and the others were satisfactorily answered and then I gave up (I felt as I was talking to the void and I also felt insulted). You will be told that Keating and the others are as fair as any other, but you know, someone stating "I am an atheist and I am agaist religion" (more or less) seems not too fair a source of info about religious topics. But again, I was told not to "mix up" comments and so on.

I am getting out of the subject. Try not to burn out. Read the whole history and you will see how your arguments were previously withdrawn as "you are POV and the vision in the present article is the best we have achieved", which for me is a way of saying "do NOT DELETE what I edited".

Eloquence is NOT the only voice in this article. I agree with your edits, so feel free to do what you please as long as you give reasons for it.

If anyone reverts your edits "claiming previous consensus" I shall try to help you. There is no consensus here as yet. Pfortuny 11:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great, now we go back to edit wars and insults. So I am "not a fair source of information" because I declare my bias upfront, while you do not even say on your user page that you're Catholic. This is silly and I don't have time for it. If you have meaningful changes to make, do so. Removals without reason will simply be reverted.—Eloquence

Didn't say you above, AFAIK. Please Erik notice that it is absolutely clear from the context, the history of this page and my words that I was referring to the writers of the books you use (I mistook Hitchens for Keating, sorry). I do not mind wether it is you or me or Jimbo or anyone using them, I criticise the reliability of those books and papers due to the actions and words of their writers. Do not feel insulted when no insult was intended, please. Do I need to state that I am a Catholic? I thought it was clear. I AM one. Yes, that's why I do not intend to delete any of the info you have written (even tough I insist nobody has shown that your sources of info are fair).

I do not know wether you are an atheist and are against religion. If that is what hurt you, those are Hitchen's words (or the other author en dispute months ago). I never intended to refer to you and if you thought so I do apologize but recall it has been a misunderstanding on your side.Pfortuny 12:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You're right, I thought you were referring to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hitchens is definitely not fair, but that doesn't matter much for his inclusion in his article. Wikipedia does not subscribe to ad hominem fallacies, and besides, most of Hitchens' research is based on that of Aroup Chatterjee, whose character does not seem to be called into question by anyone (and who has even submitted his criticisms to the official canonization commission).—Eloquence 12:39, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

And then? Will you allow me to make the changes I tried? Will you revert them or, worst, not revert but add more and more delayed Hitchen's assertions? gbog 12:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The changes you've suggested so far are not improvements, they would make the article less informative and less useful. As such, I disagree with them, so there's clearly no consensus to make these changes. Look at what you're doing: All you've talked about in the last couple of days is what material you want to remove from this article. Yet you call me intolerant. Please do not try to censor information critical of Mother Teresa.—Eloquence

Filtered info are not critical gbog

Wait a minute: censor? Where did (s)he talk about removing important information on unexplained grounds? Gbog is trying to improve (in whatever way (s)he thinks best) the article by summarizing, which is quite a good aim and just. Do not call that censorship. (S)he is not trying just to remove, but to improve. You do not agree that is an improvement, but you cannot bring the word censorship in the discussion: wow, I am really astounded!

Well, Gbog: please do not use nuclear weapons either. Just in case. Pfortuny 13:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I guess it's just a coincidence then that the only thing affected by these "summaries" are the negative aspects of Mother Teresa's life.—Eloquence

You confirm one thing i suspected: you don't read what I try to say to you. I already said I agree to filter also other parts.gbog

There's no reason to "filter" anything.—Eloquence

Criticism of her motivations

The same, because a course about Catholicism has no reason to be here, I'd like to replace:

Christopher 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."

In Christian belief, charity is a duty imposed on followers of Jesus Christ by scripture. Although many Protestant denominations believe salvation comes only through faith, with charitable works a duty of every Christian, Roman Catholicism places considerable emphasis on the performance of good works as a necessary (but not sole) condition of salvation.

In Catholicism, the combination of charitable works and evangelism has played a central role in the actions of some religious orders. To their defenders, the actions of Mother Teresa and her followers fulfilled that tradition. 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. They also claim that Teresa gave a false impression of the nature of her work.

There is an accusation that funds donated for relief work for the sick and poor were actually diverted to missionary work in non-Christian countries. Chatterjee alleged that many operations of the order engage in no charitable activity at all but instead use their funds for missionary work. He alleged, for example, that none of the eight facilities that the Missionaries of Charity run in Papua New Guinea have any residents in them, being purely for the purpose of converting local people to Catholicism.

Defenders of the order argue that missionary activity was the central part of Teresa's calling. She perceived evangelisation as her central goal, with her care of the poor a secondary one, involving the bringing of "Christ to the poor." Chatterjee and other critics counter that the public image of Mother Teresa as a "helper of the poor" was misleading, and that only a few hundred people are served by even the largest of the homes. Stern magazine alleged the (Protestant) Assembly of God charity serves 18,000 meals daily in Calcutta, many more than all the Mission of Charity homes together.

with something like:

Christopher Hitchens and other critics described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. They 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. They claim that Teresa gave a false impression of the nature of her work. There is also an accusation that funds donated for relief work for the sick and poor were actually diverted to missionary work in non-Christian countries.

Sigh, you're still focusing on cutting rather than making useful additions. In addition, you're trying to cut a section that is a carefully worked out compromise between critics and defenders -- the paragraphs about Catholicism were added by Jtdirl in order to improve NPOV, and I think they have a place in the article. By reducing the material to one paragraph (and leaving out some important facts in the process), you accomplish exactly what you say you want to avoid: You make this article focus on only one side of the issue, while ignoring the point of view of those who love and admire Mother Teresa.

Wikipedia is not paper. We have place to elaborate on these criticisms, and we should use it to explain them from both sides of the debate. Not doing so gives a murky and incomplete picture of what is going on. This is exactly the wrong way to achieve NPOV: You go by counting the number of characters which you feel are devoted to criticism (when in reality they are devoted by giving an NPOV discussion of it, which means both sides), and try as hard as you can to get that number of characters down. In the process you will lose both facts and neutrality.—Eloquence 17:05, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

(I wrote an answer and lost it, let's write it again) The reason why I don't like the current article is not exactly because of POV, but because of the feeling that there is two opposing POVs defended by some watchdogs that didn't manage (did they try?) to merge (and thus reduce, like in some mathematical operations) them in one NPOV. I am not a Catholic defender, and proselytism is something I really feel bad with. On the opposite, I don't like religious intolerance and unfair attacks against a nun who devoted her life to poors and sicks. So I hope I can try to stand somewhere "in the middle".

As you surely know, there is a Wikipedia fork (forgot its name) where, if I am not mistaking, instead of trying to reach (the mythical) NPOV, different POV can coexist on one page. May be the article in its current state have a better place there. gbog 17:30, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The project you are referring to is the Internet Encyclopedia, which is completely different from what you think it is. They use what is called a "sympathetic point of view", with one main article being positive, and additional critical supplement articles. This is in fact the opposite of NPOV. With NPOV, you have different points of view combined into a single article.

There is no such thing as "one NPOV". The whole point of NPOV is to attribute the different points of view and contrast them against one another. This can lead to sometimes extreme results, such as the argument trees in war on drugs. Of course there is a goal of resolution, that is, when a view is demonstrably false, we no longer need to give it much space, if any. But no such resolution has taken place here, and given that we are dealing with matters of faith as much as matters of reason, I'm not sure that is possible. (For example, why it may be undeniably true to write "Mother Teresa provided insufficient medical care to her patients", this would be labeled POV, not so much because of real arguments, but because it offends believers.)

Reducing the amount of facts or the level of detail is not going to help in achieving either resolution or NPOV. All it will accomplish is turn this page from an encyclopedia article into a bullet point list. As such, it would likely be more POV, because it would not give the different points of view the attention they deserve.

Regarding the "middle ground": The moment you adopt a position on Mother Teresa, you are biased, and it is only by recognizing that bias that you can prevent it from influencing your work. It does not matter if that position is "did more harm than good", "don't believe, but think she did good work" or "love her like Jesus". There is such a thing as the "fallacy of the middle", that is, the notion that just because a certain belief is between two extremes, it is necessarily correct or "moderate".—Eloquence

Yes. Argumentum ad temperantiam, the logical fallacy of the middle ground (still a pathetic stub, by the way...) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:38, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

A little reminder

Grabbed in NPOV

Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

So, Eloquence, with full blessing from Jimmy Wales and your permission, I will reduce, and more than a little, the critical part of MT article, because we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. gbog 14:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If there are competing views on the facts of the matter, you are free to present them. Since there have not been any competing views about the facts presented, the proportion we have is the correct one. An unrefuted statement with solid research behind it, should stand as is. If you have a refutation by any quarter, you are free to add it. But not to remove something which has not even been seriously challenged. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:30, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Chatterjee et al. are experts on the subject just as Muggeridge and other MT hagiographers are, probably with objectively higher qualifications as well. And within the secular community, their view is not a minority view. You misunderstand NPOV completely -- we do not simply count heads. We have to compare the communities and examine the standing of the experts within that community. The religious community is distinct from the secular one. For example, the article about evolution accords almost no space to creationist views, because creationism is a position that is only held within the religious community, not within the secular one, and evolution is a scientific subject. Mother Teresa, being blessed and almost a Saint, falls into both communities, which means that we cannot simply ignore the blatant propaganda by the religious community and just report the facts. That's why we attribute even undeniably correct statements such as "Mother Teresa provided insufficient medical care". If MT was a person who only mattered within the secular community, she would not be granted this kind of special treatment. Similarly, in an article about a purely religious subject, such as Trinity, secular views are of almost no significance, and rightly segregated to separate pages.—Eloquence 14:56, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but there should be more about her life. There are many books written about her. I don't see why it isn't easy to double or even triple the length of the text concerning her accomplishments. I guess the current article has a poor ratio of criticisms to accomplishments as there were more accomplishements than criticisms, but the criticisms are probably valid and will be more appropriate once we have more biographical information. I guess we should keep the current criticisms but just keep adding factual information about her accomplishments, in order to at some point create a perfect balance. If enough facts are added, so that the criticism section in its current state is only a small minority of the text, the article will be more balanced. Greenmountainboy 15:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I don't think there's any requirement in NPOV to achieve a specific relationship between positive and negative information, I'm all for adding important facts to this article.—Eloquence 15:17, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree, because if the current critical part is kept unchanged, we (or at least I, but I think there are other people thinking like me) will have an article that stills smells pushy, according to this excellent advice taken in NPOV tutorial:

A good way to judge the neutrality of an article is to ask, "Would a reader suspect that this article was written by someone who was trying to push a particular agenda or point of view - either subtly or not-so-subtly?" The more an article appears to be written by a neutral writer, the more neutral it is.

Those photos showing MT with dictators are (not-so-subtly) pushing an agenda, like many those arguments claiming in details that MT visited, one day, the grave of someone, then claiming that she said "gnagnagna" about the poors and ther suffers, then again explaining that a real Catholic can't avoid proselytism, then furthermore details on how bad she was.

Btw, would someone be kind enough to archive half this page? I can't do it because browser and connection limits. gbog 15:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You have a very good point here. The way the acrticle is currently written, does seem to push a particular agenda/POV. After rereading some criticisms, I have agree with Gbog. The criticism section should be be rewritten. Greenmountainboy 15:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The reason it is easy to get that impression is that the information contained in this article was never conveyed in the mainstream media. That has nothing at all to do with the information not being written in an NPOV fashion, or being too detailed (we cut down most of the details in the early edits). It is simply because this article tells the reader a lot of things that he probably doesn't already know and that likely contradict what he thinks he already knows.—Eloquence 15:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Good point eloquence. Regardless, I think it might be more constructive use of time to add facts about her life, and worry less about the criticism being "too harsh". Greenmountainboy 15:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do think that the link to keating and his being convicted of fraud, however, just is a little hoakie. Greenmountainboy

How so? He's one of America's most famous financial fraudsters, and he donated a million dollars of stolen money to one of the world's most revered nuns. After he was convicted, MT sent a plea for clemency to the trial judge. In response, she was asked to return the money, but refused to do so. I think this bears mentioning.

Even if I didn't, I would have to argue for its inclusion, as it was one of the most often repeated criticisms, along with the insufficient medical

care.—Eloquence 15:40, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I understand, but Teresa didn't know that Charles Keating was going to be convicted of fraud, and she didn't know he was fraudulent, so how does that relate to her life? I guess you could keep that Keating part if you have strong feelings about keeping it. Greenmountainboy 21:53, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be noteworthy if 1) she had not written that letter after the conviction asking the judge for forgiveness, 2) she had given the money back, 3) this was the only case of its kind and little other information about it would exist. But under the circumstances, I think it raises legitimate questions, and should therefore be included. Also ask yourself: Why did Keating give Teresa the money? A convicted criminal giving money stolen from people's savings accounts to a Catholic nun just to quiet his conscience? The Vatican Bank has been involved in scandals ranging from drug trade to murder. Money laundering would certainly not be above them. And we know that Teresa did not use the majority of her money to aid the poor. Who better to use as a channel to wash stolen funds than Mother Teresa, who is held by many on the same spiritual sphere as Jesus? Put 2 and 2 together. Of course we can't add speculation to the article, but we should certainly have the facts that can be the basis for such speculation.—Eloquence

What I think is most humorous

Here is my favorite part:

> 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.

Not that I'm much of a fan of either institute, but criticising a Catholic nun for being preoccupied with Catholicism is pretty funny; frankly, I don't think I ever made it past that in the article, because that is so humorous.

When said nun is portrayed in virtually every article about her as the noble helper of the "poorest of the poor", and when she actively promoted that impression, then it is only fair to examine how much her work really reflected that image, and how much she focused on activities we would indeed expect of a Catholic nun.—Eloquence

Essentially you want to use the article as a platform to combat the perception you believe (probably correctly) that many media portray. I don't see how such an article ("The *real* view of MT, an expose to reveal the shocking truth!") can cooexist in the same page with an encyclopedia article without looking like two things patched together, as it does now.

Now it is you who is making folks laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that the truth and an encyclopedia article cannot peacefully coexist? LOL -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:37, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Sorry to say that, but you are unfair, Eloquence. You say I don't understand NPOV, but I have a clear statement that allows me to edit and shorten the critics part. Where should that problem be solved? gbog 17:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think its screwed. I'm just guessing by looking at the talk, but if Eloquence insists on having many paragraphs of detailed criticism and newspaper allegations or whatever, and people struggle to try to prevent it from looking like a huge attack by inserting stuff like the course on Catholicism, including a summary of the difference between Protestant and Catholics soteriology, you have a mess, and cutting only the soteriology stuff won't make it look more reasonable, it will just reduce some of the clutter and make the unbalanced nature of the skeleton the more obvious. I suspect the only way it will ever look like an encylopedia article is by moving all the criticism into a huge article specifically about all criticism of her, and allegations, and motivational attacks, and suspicions etc, and then perhaps leaving behind an article just on her that resembles more an encyclopedia article. To put it more clearly, you have two articles ("The real MT; the shocking truth that the media denies!", and "MT: a brief bio") competing, and patched together poorly. -- anon

I think you have a limited understanding of what Wikipedia is trying to be. We're not trying to write articles that are identical to what you would find in Britannica or Encarta. Wiki is not paper -- we have no size constraints, and I'm very proud that this article provides many facts that you don't even find in Hitchens' books or articles. We also cover many subjects that not traditional encyclopedia would touch with a ten foot pole -- compare MKULTRA or felching. Our goal is to summarize the state of human knowledge on a subject, and to draw from all credible sources to do so. This includes websites, newspapers, magazines, TV interviews and 60 minutes style shows, books, scientific papers, and so forth.

Traditional encyclopedias don't do that. They provide merely an overview of a particular subject, intended to answer some of the most basic questions, and they only accept knowledge as such if it has spent several years (or decades) aging and seeped into all the literature. They are not very concerned with representing different points of view. For example, the Britannica article on circumcision cites all of its supposed advantages as fact, while giving no space to the genital integrity argument. Traditional encyclopedias are very dogmatic, almost biblical. Usually they don't even cite their sources -- they are the sources.

None of this would work for Wikipedia. We have to cite our sources because we're just regular persons writing articles in our spare time with no strictly enforced fact checking standards. We have to give space to differing points of view because collaboration would otherwise be impossible (and because it has many philosophical advantages -- we leave it to the reader to decide between different arguments). We have no space or time limits and are not limited by political concerns either. We have a detailed article about a major disaster the day it happens.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in that it gathers and summarizes human knowledge in a structured, readable form. But it is an encyclopedia built under an entirely new working model, with very broad standards of inclusion, and much more ambitious goals. I'm sure that Britannica has an adequate article about Mother Teresa. But if you want to get the real story of her life, Wikipedia will be the place to go.—Eloquence 17:51, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

It's nice that you are trying to improve this article, and I applaud that you are reading our policies. Your misunderstanding is in fact a common one and as I've already tried to explain several times, you can't address NPOV simply by counting the number of heads for a particular position and then pronouncing one of them "majority" and another "minority". I already gave you the evolution/creationism example. But it is really applicable to all articles that have a religious component. If we simply counted heads of believers and critics, someone like James Dobson would get a loving serenade. Similarly, in an article about a popular pseudoscientist like Uri Geller, we would have to virtually exclude the clear and obvious debunking by professional magicians like James Randi. After all, they're just a small minority.

But it's not that simple. NPOV is very complex. Whether a view can be included depends on many, many factors. Let me quote from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, "Whose view matters?":

Generally speaking, it is acceptable to include points of view of recognized experts on a subject. Who is or is not an expert is a matter of debate. Wikipedia tends to favor including almost all verifiable theories and opinions somewhere as long as there is some logic and reasoning behind them. Whether they may be included in the main article on a subject depends on a large number of criteria, including:

what the standing of the expert is

whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones

whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms

whether the expert's claims have been undeniably refuted (i.e. no other considers them to be true anymore)

whether the expert is part of a defined set of people whose points of view might be discussed in an entirely different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

We are dealing with biographies, and biographies are by definition firmly in the secular space. As such, secular standards apply, and theological arguments are of fairly limited importance. But Mother Teresa was also a religious figure revered by millions. As such, religious standards also apply. We should attribute statements that might be considered offensive, and we should devote some space to explaining her life and work in a religious context.

This would already be sufficient to argue for the inclusion of the criticism section, but there is another important component still. Many of the criticisms are not controversial at all. That she radically opposed abortion and artificial contraception, that she dealt with questionable figures -- these are all generally accepted facts of her life. This is not even a question of "Whose view matters", like all relevant biographical facts, they should be included. (And don't give me a "She kissed a child on Dec. 21 1984" counter example -- I said "relevant".) We can split away sections if they get too detailed (regardless of whether they are positive or negative), but this is not currently the case.

I find your behavior right now very aggressive and unhelpful. Please continue trying to work with me and let's try to get the anger out of this discussion. I would be very interested in seeing more facts about Mother Teresa's life included in this article. In fact, if you want to get the criticism section summarized and split away eventually, the best way to do so is to include more details in all sections, then an NPOV reorganization over several articles would be justifiable (with summaries left in place here).—Eloquence 17:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Example clear as water: I remove this : She frequently spoke against both in meetings with high level government officials. which is clearly POV ("frequently"? which "high level gov off"?) and, faster than the storm, you revert my edit, showing how much respectful you are to others work. Very fair. Thanks. gbog 17:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can I help you a little bit Gbog? When you have doubt about something like this being inacccurate, it is often a good idea to ask if someone has more detailed information on those points. That way it is the other sides responsibility to provide information here on the talk page. The fact that some "summarised" information is not fully cited is a poor justification for something being "POV". Particularly so as most of MTs apologists have been doing their best to remove the specifics of the allegations. If one first tries to "summarise" them to nonspecific allegations, it is very poor form to simply remove "summarised" allegations which in the summarising have lost detailed citations. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:57, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I can gladly add more detail if you think that the level of detail provided in this paragraph is insufficient.

Please do so. As you are apparently never taking any care of others work or persons, just do exactly what you want, that is fine. gbog 17:59, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to comply with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I would much appreciate it if you would do the same.—Eloquence

I agree it's a little too short to get a fair impression of what she did, but I was afraid you might argue that having too much information about her lobbyism would be POV. I'm trying very hard not to tread on people's toes, so I'm avoiding significant additions until we have sorted out the current crisis.—Eloquence 17:35, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Unfair reverts

So, let's explain what I did: I have proposed two changes to some parts of the article. Nobody disagreed except Eloquence, who didn't try to adapt my changes but only claimed I don't understand NPOV. After a while, I showed him a part of an important article about NPOV that clearly authorises me to do the changes I proposed, as only three self-declared "experts" on Mother Teresa cannot be regarded as the ones handling the "most common view on experts" on a subject like that. So I boldly made them, and he reverted both in a flash, in full opposition to even simple politness.

In his first revert, Eloquence didn't give any reasons for that, except (rv - you completely misunderstand NPOV, Gbog), as if I were a vandal. That's not fair.

Sorry, wrong. You had discussed the matter here on the talk page, and he had fully explained why your view of NPOV is inaccurate. "Only three self-declared experts" is 100% of the common view of experts, if there are 0 experts of any color disputing these views, other than through bald assertion, as has been the case here. He has been very polite to try to explain your error regarding the nature of NPOV. You really should try to take it on board. He is quite correct in saying that basing your edits on such a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV will not stand. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 18:08, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Well said. So, if I write a book on you, as I will probably be the only one, and if I also declare myself expert on this topic, because nobody will dispute my views I can say anything bad or wrong and it will be agreed as "common view of experts suitable for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia" ? Nice. I do really discover nice things on Wikipedia every minute I spend here. gbog 18:38, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I thought you really understood that what you just wrote above is exactly correct (ceteris paribus), I would be very pleased. When I do win my Nobel prize for literature, and someone writes a hatchet job on me (as arguably Christopher Hitchens did on MT), and no-one (including me) can provide any refutation, there is little I can do, except grin and bear it. I deserve the truth be told about me, no matter how painful. And if it is not the truth, it is incumbent on me and my apologists to then try and refute the untruths. If I and they cannot do so, no-one would fault you for reporting the fact that those statements stood unrefuted. If you stated outright that they were facts, you would be in the wrong, but not in reporting the fact that such allegations had been made, and staying silent about refutations (which did not exist). -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 19:04, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

And just for the record, since I am a somewhat notable person in a very small countrys very limited subculture, there actually has been quite a bit of scurrilous prose written about me (albeit with a very limited circulation). So I do know what it feels like, in cases where the allegations have (unfortunately) been true, in cases where the allegations have been provably false (that is always a joy), and the nastiest case too, when they have been false, with no way to refute it, but to trust that those who know me will think twice before buying into it. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:36, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

In his second revert, he claimed something else: (another bad edit - which did she call the "greatest destroyer of peace"? why remove the fact that she met with government officials?), I explained already that thing about gov officials, and the question about "which did she call blabla", if grammatically unclear, should have been corrected instead of removed. For those readers interested (very few I guess), here is my sentence: Many advocates of the family planning and pro-choice movements were critical of her views and influence because she was opposed to artificial contraception and abortion what she called the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Aceptance Speech. (I probably missed a comma after "abortion")

Then, last edit from Eloquence, showing clearly how fast he reverted me, he "accepted" one of my littlest change, an "also" I wrote somewhere. May be he was a little bit guilty? But, by the way, those are not correct conditions to work fairly with people. Wikipedia is a great project, if (and only if) its possible to discuss and edit pages, here it's not the case at all... gbog 17:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We've been discussing for the last couple of days. All the changes you made you announced here, which is good. I explained why I didn't want these changes to be made. You ignored my arguments and made your edits anyway. That was very rude of you, and it was completely justified to revert your edits. Now you say that I'm the only one who disagrees with you. That is evidently untrue. Cimon Avaro is trying to explain to you why these facts should not be removed, Greenmountainboy has suggested that more positive facts should be added instead of removing information. You ignored these opinions, too.

Now you are dragging the discussion to the personal level. I know you're better than this. Let's please focus on the actual arguments. I have given you a detailed explanation (twice!) why I feel that you misunderstand NPOV. Please refute my explanation before ignoring it. Otherwise this talk page will again become a mess of accusations and counter accusations. There is a very clear procedure for working on articles, and that procedure requires serious attempts to reach consensus -- implicit or explicit. I love to see a good rebuttal of an argument I make. It makes me question my own understanding of a subject, and may open new perspectives. So please address the explanations I have given to you.—Eloquence

Another important quotation, taken in Wikipedia:Revert : In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

That show well enough how much you care about doing something that is "strongly recommended against" in Wikipedia. gbog 18:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The revert would not have been necessary if you had followed normal procedure

I had gbog

As I explained above, that is incorrect.—Eloquence

and finished the discussion first.

Discussions with you are endless gbog

If you think that I am deliberately prolonging the discussion, please point out where I did so. I believe you have not properly addressed my rebuttals to your arguments. This is really basic logic -- I expect a logical refutation and if you can provide one, I will change my mind.—Eloquence

Believe me, I don't like to revert other people's work.

So don't do it, except with vandals.

It hurts me as much as it hurts you. But you left me no other choice.—Eloquence

You had the choice to edit my edit. gbog

Please Gbog. You will get Eloquences assent to your edits with great willingness, if you just successfully argue the case here first. Believe me. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 18:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

And I did, I restored the part of your edit which I found acceptable (I overlooked it initially).—Eloquence

How NICE of you to allow me to add "also" somewhere in a sentence after only 50kb discussions. Really great! You are so lovely! gbog

Don't belittle your own efforts so much. A word here and there can make a big difference. I can go into more detail as to why I think that particular "also" was a useful addition, if you would like me to.—Eloquence

No thanks. A full discussion on the use of a "particular" "also" is not my cup of tea. But if you wish to consider editing (instead of reverting) my proposed changes, and to agree that your three self-declared experts on MT don't have the "experts common view" on this subject (because such a thing simply don't exist)... gbog

I absolutely agree that the experts cited in the article do not represent a "common view". There are many views on Mother Teresa, and the dominating ones in the different fields of knowledge (secular and religious) should be included. I considered editing your changes and rejected that option, because I had already explained to you why I could not accept those particular cuts. I would like to encourage you one more time to read through this article and try to see which pieces of the puzzle are still missing, so we can make this the best possible article about Mother Teresa, a woman who truly left a mark in the world.—Eloquence

No pieces are missing. MT article is not the right place for the full debate. "Many people feel the page is POV and the criticisms section need to be worked on, but Eloquence feels very strongly that this section must stay in the article, and that the photographs are NPOV", as Angela said on my talk page. Work on critics part. Remove photos. That's all. CU gbog 19:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some people disagree with me, some agree with me. Arguments matter, not opinions. As I've explained many times, the POV impression people get is primarily the result of the cognitive dissonance caused by the contradiction between people's perception and the information presented in the article.

NO. I already knew most of the info here. So many people smell POV here simply because it smells POV.

If you are so disinterested in MT, how come you were already familiar with what you describe as obscure minority views on her? In any case, if it was so obviously POV, certainly it should be easy to logically explain why that is the case. You have failed to do so -- merely asserting a thing repeatedly does not make it so.—Eloquence

I hope to work with you again on other articles in the future.—Eloquence

What a gentle invitation to go away. Still very fair of you.gbog 03:10, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was only trying to express my respect for your decision not to work on this article anymore. You're free to make suggestions for improvements any time you want.—Eloquence

Also, I was under the impression that wikipedia's philosophy was to include the full debate. Ggog: Why dont you just add more things to the non criticism section if you want to make the article less POV? If the criticism section is accurate, whats wrong with keeping it? Greenmountainboy 22:00, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You know the answer. Adding more and more pros and cons in this way go to an article will not change even an iota to this: Would a reader suspect that this article was written by someone who was trying to push a particular agenda or point of view - either subtly or not-so-subtly?, cf Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. The only thing to do is to work on critic part and remove photos. Adding more photos or infos is an expedient to try to delay the said POV feeling.gbog

I have got a lot of pseudo-scientific slang here, Gbog, but no reasons to explain why people who call themselves anti-something are a good source of information on that something (and I am referring to the authors of books).

Some people agree with me, some do not, facts matter, not opinions. As I have never explained, the POV perception is due to giving more importance to facts which are less important than others. Not to the cognitive dissonance, even though this may look quite scientific because it may have a nice name. But of course, the importance of facts depends on the subjective cognitive values. And this is why I am not deleting anything on the criticism until further notice. (added later: but of course you must feel free to act on good faith). Pfortuny 22:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

One might note that at least one of the authors you seem to be referring to was considered to have a viewpoint worth listening to, by the very people who evaluated whether MT should be beatified or not. If they thought those views worth weighing, why should we not let wikipedias readers weigh those same views. The readers are quite smart you know. If the article really is not credible, the readers will pick up on it quite well, and come to their own conclusions. We do not have to consider sources of information to be good, just to present their beliefs neutrally. There are plenty of unreliable sources of information whose views are validly recounted in Wikipedia. In the final analysis, we only present the views, we don't (or should not) judge them (except when there really is no argument to speak of). -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 22:53, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Using a witness in a trial is in no way assuming his/her reliability, as you are well aware of.

On the other hand, obviously one of the reasons I do not bother to edit more than I do in this case is my confidence on the readers' intelligence. Not considering the reliability of the sources seems quite funny to me but as with anything, this is a matter of perception, isn't it? But nobody quotes Albertus Magnus of Physics, and he wrote quite a lot. Maybe because he is not reliable any more in that subject? I guess so...Pfortuny 23:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it would be quite valid for you to request that any reasonable qualifications on the reliability of the respective "witnesses" in this case be fully disclosed, but not to strike the testimony entirely, unless you have cast iron reason for such disqualification.

As for bringing in Albertus Magnus, well what exactly was the Papal view on abortion in Albertus Magnus's time? Pray tell. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 02:16, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging the difficulty in judging which facts are "important" and which aren't. Such judgments will always be one of the trickier aspects of writing good Wikipedia articles. I hope as this article matures and Mother Teresa's biography grows, admirers of Teresa will find more information that is in line with their beliefs and values and thus will have less reason to question the inclusion of different points of view.—Eloquence

Yes. I don't have any Teresa biographies, but I am sure that someone does, and that person can add information that might be positive, and some that might even be negative. Other people will add information they happen to have. The article will grow and grow, and hopefully, it will reach ultimate NPOV. Greenmountainboy 23:02, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Such is the way of the wiki :-). This is really how articles should grow -- organically, with information added from all sides, instead of both sides constantly fighting with each other about removing each other's points of view. If this controversy keeps brewing, maybe I'll create an FAQ to address some of the most common arguments.—Eloquence

The Gospel according to Eloquence

Millions of people who are critical of Mother Teresa but who know how to write balanced NPOV articles as opposed to lynch mob diatribes they also see the article as POV. No-one has argued that the criticism section be removed. No-one has demanded a glorification article of MT, not least because IMHO she does not deserve one. Even Jesus Christ doesn't, so this right wing Albanian nun with IMHO misguided and ignorant views on human sexuality certainly doesn't. All people are arguing for is tone and context. The tone must be neutral, not fawning and not accusatory. And the context must be relevant to MT and the article. There is no reason on earth why an in-depth study of the in-depth detail of allegations cannot be put in a daughter article linked to here, with only those things specifically relevant to MT and in content in the article being included in, for want of a better term (and no pun intended) the mother article. It is done all over wikipedia. But this article isn't about Mother Teresa. It is about Eloquence's opinions on Mother Teresa. And for someone who likes to attack the black and white "certainties" (ie., opinions) of religion, Eloquence likes to adopt the same arrogant 'I know what I am talking about. You don't" tone he decries in organised religion.

As for the suggestion that this is about a secular versus religious viewpoint, that is such simplistic nonsense that it is frankly to intellectual discourse what Basil Fawlty is to hotel management. It is often said that today's liberals are every bit as arrogant, as intolerant and as bigoted as the extremes of religion they seek to attack. It is the supreme irony that they haven't learned the lessons of history and make all the same self righteous mistakes and adopt all the same imperial infallible pomposity as the extremists they seek to attack, and see those who aren't blinded by the same prejudice as themselves as inferior and not able to grasp the truth. Those of us who has spent a lifetime fighting pompous self righteousness in organised religion sure as hell aren't going to swap one group of morally self righteous 'we know best' dictators for another. And if aren't willing to kowtow to self righteous encyclicals from guys wearing white dresses, we sure as hell aren't going to kowtow to self-righteous 'FAQs' and 'J'Accuse' garbage from anyone else, religious or secular. The days when anyone, in the name of God or secularism, decree their own intellectual and moral superiority, are long gone. And Eloquence, like popes, prelates and pastors, better get used to it. FearÉIREANN 03:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's funny, somehow I suspected that you would not bother to defend what you wrote against Gbog's arguments. Well, don't worry, I will take good care of your additions.—Eloquence

I am beginning to think that you are not really interested in letting me comment or improve this FAQ. Let's not speak again on your proven unfair reverts, showing clearly that you don't want me to edit "your" article. You have a strong sense of possesion on it, and that is a Bad Thing, you know?gbog

Saying Eloquence has a "strong sense of possession of" this article is putting it mildly. You are simply experiencing what others have experienced, a 'you don't know what you are talking about. I do and I will shout you down' tone that makes him sound like some mediaeval pope! FearÉIREANN 03:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you are not really interested in letting me comment or improve this FAQ. Let's not speak again on your proven unfair reverts, showing clearly that you don't want me to edit "your" article. You have a strong sense of possesion on it, and that is a Bad Thing, you know?gbog

It would be a bad thing if it was true.

And it is true, imo. Clear enough was your proven unfair revert. More, not only saying that I don't understand anything, what is a typical ad hominem attack against me, you write your personnal FAQ on the topic and don't want to agree the proposed changes or additions.gbog

The problem is that you don't respond to logic. I have explained why the revert was not unfair. I have explained why your changes are a bad idea. You don't engage in logical discussions, instead you simply repeat what you already said and seem to expect that simply because you persist, the other side should make concessions. This is not how arguments work.—Eloquence

This is the diff of the article from the time I added the criticism section to the current revision. The large majority of restructuring and rephrasing efforts was done by others, especially Adam Carr.—Eloquence

So what?

Eloquence, will you agree (at least some of) the proposed changes on the FAQ, or not?

I don't care if you don't want, but you will have to fairly say in the FAQ that it is yours, not a collaborative one. I may add my own FAQ also (or, maybe, you will explain why you have more rights than me to write a FAQ here...) Best regards. gbog 19:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice it, but I already made some changes you and Gmb suggested.

I did notice that you have changed one or two words here and there. Very kinds of you. I'd like you to add the very powerful and fully on-topic advices I cut-and-pasted from NPOV and NPOV_tutorial. If you don't, without any good reason, it means that you don't want me to collaborate to the FAQ, nor to edit the article, and so that you may go to your personnal web-site so you can do what you want without this annoying collabortion concept, ok? gbog 03:18, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can repeat what you want as much as you enjoy it, without arguments to back that up, I'm afraid it makes little sense to comply. I did add the "non-negotiable" bit you requested.—Eloquence

As I said above, I can't relieve you from the logic requirement, sorry. No major changes without justification.—Eloquence

I don't know what you call "logic". What I have nearly always found here is "psychological logic" (i.e.: "this is MINE, don't touch"; or "you are stupid! now YOU are stupid!"). If you have given somewhere a real logical argument, please show me where.

BTW I will make clear for you one of the rational arguments I can find against "your" FAQ: You don't want to add "if we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." and you prefer another text that is more emphasizing the need for experts. My rationale here is that no expertize is possible in most of the issues on MT. Maybe an expert on India could help on things like "What's the Indian's opinion on MT" but there is no kind of "expert" that could decide if it is OK or not to try to convert the dying people. There are expert on many things, but not in ethics. So, I claim that your quotation on experts is off topic and useless in the FAQ.

As I understand you, you are referring to the second part of the sentence ("or among the concerned parties") and wish to emphasize that you feel that there are no experts on Mother Teresa because there are no experts on ethics.

Even if we accept that notion (and I will explain why we should not), the "concerned parties" are not just MT and her followers. They are MT and her followers and admirers on the one hand, and her critics and detractors on the other. As such, we can use this sentence as a guideline as to which critics we want to include over others, but not as a guideline to, as you suggest, virtually eliminate one of the parties to the dispute.

Now, let's look at the "no expert in ethics" argument. This is actually a very good point and reminds us that we should not make moral statements without attribution (and even then, it's usually preferable to focus on facts). This does not however refer to statements of fact. When statements of fact are disputed by another party, they are treated as "opinions", and as such, the usual NPOV advice of attribution of opinions to experts applies. This is not an issue of ethics, it's a question of what happened.

But that she did secretly baptize people is not a disputed claim -- it was even admitted by Mother Teresa herself. So this is a fact, not an opinion, and not concerned by these NPOV guidelines. It is concerned by the general recommendations on balance -- so we would not want to go into much detail how she secretly baptized her patients -- but as a relevant fact to MT's life, it is clearly worthy of inclusion. Whether the moral condemnations of that practice are worthy of inclusion is another question. Given that the secret baptism condemnation is one of the most wide-spread one among critics -- one of the "concerned parties" -- it seems clearly relevant to include it.

Maybe this entire discussion can be digested into the FAQ.—Eloquence 08:47, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

No major changes regardless. Greenmountainboy 22:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

???—Eloquence

I meant no major changes of Mother Teresa were to be permitted. Sorry about the confusion. Greenmountainboy 23:18, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)