Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Mother Teresa's origins

A recent article in the BBC indicated that it's unclear whether her father was Albanian[1].

I don't know if she took the last name of her father, but bojaxhiu is a straight Albanian translation of house painter. Her first name gonxhe translates to bulb (as in the flower thing). I doubt a serb, vlach or whatever would have an albanian name. Besides she considered herself Albanian so the entire issue is moot. Dori 04:12, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Boiagiu or Boiangiu (same pronounciation as Albanian bojaxhiu) are not only Albanian, but also Romanian/Vlachian names (see al:[2] vs ro:[3]), since in Romanian/Vlachian, they mean the same thing: house painter. According to my Romanian dictionary, this term is borrowed from Turkish "boyaci".

That is interesting and I admit that I did not know that. However, if you look at the spelling it is the Albanian one that is used for her name. The reason I mentioned the name origin was in response to the articles floating around saying that her father must have been a Vlach because her last name ended in -u. Which is a ridiculous thing to say since that suffix is among -a, -i, etc in Albanian that denotes that a name is in a definitive form, and in no way signifies that a name is not Albanian just because it ends in u. At most what this shows is that the origin is still unknown. --Dori 14:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, definitely Turkish origin, Bojad?ija would also be a painter in Serbian (from Turkish "boja" for color) although I would be more interested in hearing how come the Bojaxhiu was a Catholic family? From what I know, the Vlachs are by rule Orthodox. Did Bojaxhiu ever describe herself as an Albanian, I mean, did she speak Albanian or write it? --Igor 6:20, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, she considered herself Albanian. Here's a quote from her: "By blood and origin, I am all Albanian. My citizenship is Indian. I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the whole world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to Jesus." Google for it, here's a quick link [4], or in the book The Albanians : an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present by Edwin E Jacques (ISBN: 0899509320) --Dori 19:06, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I should mention that there are a few versions of the quote, but the quote was from sometime after she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 to a reporter [5]. --Dori 19:28, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am reading a couple of biographies of Mother Teresa by foreign authors (i.e. non-Albanian), and they both mention that the Bojaxhiu family was Albanian. They have interviewed Agnes' brother Lazar who interestingly talks about his mother being Albanian even though she may have been of Venetian descent. About the father, Nikolla or Kole they say that he was a successful business man and aided financially the movement for Albanian independence. Kole is said to have spoken Turkish, French, Italian, and Serbo-Croatian, besides his native language Albanian. Lazar says that they celebrated the Albanian independence in 1912. The family was originally from Prishtina. At this point, I am very sceptical of any claims that Mother Teresa was anything but Albanian. Is there any actualy evidence supporting Vlach descent of Kole at this point besides the name (which as I have mentioned is in Albanian form to begin with)? Even if the parents were not 100% Albanian, I do not see how Agnes could have been anything but Albanian, especially since she and her brother are quoted as saying that they were Albanian by origin. --Dori 04:16, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As Mother Teresa was born in 1910, she must have been born in the Ottoman Empire, not Turkey (which was founded only some years later). D.D. 15:54 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is BAD to have direct links to amazon.com. We are not their sales department, and they are even endangering projects like Wikipedia with their software patents policy. --zeno 01:27 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

In this article, 1/3 described her life and work, and 2/3 described detractor's claims. And this is for someone who won the Nobel Prize for Peace. Is this NPOV? --Kaihsu 16:35, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you think this article needs more biographical details, add them.—Eloquence 17:23, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

No; I think the part about detractors should be cut, with say, 1 long paragraph summarizing each major detractor's criticisms. I understand Wikipedians are not keen on deleting information, but Wikipedia is not a dump of simply more and yet more information either. --Kaihsu 18:57, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is not a place for apologetics either. In fact, I am planning to add more information on the controversies -- I have just received Chatterjee's book, which includes many criticisms not mentioned here. Mother Teresa is not exactly the figure she was portrayed as, and if the article will give this picture in the end, that is not because of a lack of neutrality, but because of reality.—Eloquence 19:00, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

"Mother Teresa is not exactly the figure she was portrayed as, and if the article will give this picture in the end, that is not because of a lack of neutrality, but because of reality." Just because there are more people willing to list controversies than good acts, does not make history a reality. Dori 19:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do you dispute any of the factual claims made by Bojaxhiu's critics?—Eloquence

No I dispute your claim as I quoted. I haven't even read the article because it's so damn long. Dori 21:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why is there such a long DIATRIBE against this person in an aricle which is supposed to have a neutral POV? The criticisms are written with such bias that even as a stand-alone article it currently violates NPOV.205.188.208.72 21:38, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to summarize the controversies here, and move the whole text to another article. This one has gotten way too long in my opinion. Dori 19:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hiding controversies on separate pages is not neutral. The correct procedure is to add to this article until the maximum size of about 32K is reached, and then individual sections can be summarized and split away (including those about non-controversial matters).—Eloquence 20:00, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Who said anything about hiding. Like most other people, I see an article that long (which looks more like a book report) and I shy away. I said summarize and link to the long article. If you want to write your PhD thesis here, then go ahead. Dori 21:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you think this is long, try Wikipedia:Longpages. If an article has a reasonable structure, length is completely irrelevant. What makes it relevant is the fact that some people have problems editing large files in their browser, which is why we limit articles at 32K. Other than that, with proper structure and good chapter summaries, an article could well be 320K -- Wikipedia is not paper.—Eloquence 21:48, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the controversies are not all we should be focussing on as they're dwarfing everything else. No one wanting just some quick facts is going to read the whole things. If you spin off the information, then those who do want to read it can still do so, and the rest (in my opinion the majority) will not be put off by the sheer length. I don't see the point of such long articles, and I think one of Wikipedia's biggest strengths is in the ability to link to articles at will and for an internal web. If you put everything in one place, it doesn't matter how well structured it is, people will not bother to read it and they might lose out. Dori 22:09, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Both very long and very short pages are difficult to manage for different reasons. 32K is a reasonable optimal length for an article, and until that length has been reached, there's no reason whatsoever to talk about splitting off sections.—Eloquence 23:34, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

This page needs to better reflect todays beatification by the Vatican. Also the block para Controversies concerning Agnes Bojaxhiu's activities deserves a page of it's own. One that's probably named Controversies concerning the activities of the Missionaries of Charity or something similar. Btw, I'd hate for this page to get caught up in an Edit War with supporter vs. critic references littering the entire page or worse, get pulled up for a NPOV Dispute, but judging by the comments I've read so far on this talk page, I'd say we're already on our merry way down 'that' road. Phil R 20:37, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There's no reason to separate the controversies from the article about Mother Teresa, that itself would be a violation of NPOV.—Eloquence 20:49, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Phil R: A saint or otherwise, Bojaxhiu is a controversial character, and these controversies should be presented here. If you disagree with any the way any of the points are raised, feel free to discuss it here. -- Viajero 21:13, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, it seems quite NPOV to shuffle off all the "bad" things about her into some side article and leave only the "good" stuff here on the main page. Bryan 21:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The text added was based on a TV show analysis. Using one such analysis in an article to the extent that it dominates the text is a clear violation of wikipedia policy, breaches NPOV policy and breaks the elementary rule of biographical entry rule construction, which is that one person's critique should dominate a biographical page. Putting it in a linked page allows the critique to be linked to other pages where it is relevant, eg, MT's missionary organisation, religious orders, etc. Eloquence shouldn't let his chip on his shoulder about Catholicism blind him to how to construct a standard wikipedia page. Detailed criticism of the sort put in is far too detailed and far too complex to be included in a page where it dominates everything else. It is an elementary rule of biographical writing in an encyclopædia. Detailed critiques are always linked to avoid turning a page into an issue page when it is meant to be a biographical page. That was something RK used to specialise in. I thought Eloquence had more sense than that. FearÉIREANN 21:48, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Criticism directed at Mother Teresa belongs in this article. But criticism of the Missionaries of Charity doesn't. It belongs to the article for the organization, not the person who founded it. Criticisms of Mother Teresa is inapproprate. Move anything that is not criticism of specifically her actions to whatever the criticism is directed at. The rest belongs in this article. --Jiang 21:50, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mother Theresa is the Missionaries of Charity. And, yes, the criticism is aimed, quite intentionally, at Theresa because it is her actions, attitude, practices, and complicity in aiding the practices of others that is being criticized. I frankly find it shameful that this sham of a person is being falsely propped up in the public mind by the media and by catholics (which is the sole reason she's famous, not because she's done anything positive), but just because she got a free ride for so long doesn't mean that history can't put things right. If only 1/3 of the article is positive, that's 1/3 too much. It should not be an encyclopedia's mission to continue to prop up phoney public figures just because their followers demand it. An encyclopedia should be concerned with objective truth, and let the relics fall where they may. Let's turn the tables on this Theresa debate: Prove she ever did anything worthwhile, something concrete, and show some documentation to prove it.

I do agree that there's rather a large amount of quoted text here, which should be trimmed down and converted into summary. There's no need to duplicate that much here, just describe what the original source said and include a reference so that people can go look it up themselves if they need the text. Bryan

The first sentence is complete nonsense, as I have explained on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. No, detailed critiques are not "always linked" -- that would be in complete violation of our neutrality policy (giving extensive coverage to positive opinions and claims about one person, while moving all negative coverage to a separate page). What we can agree on is to summarize individual sections of this page and to link them as soon as they get too long to edit. This is standard Wikipedia policy. But this should be done regardless of the content of the sections, positive or negative.

The biographical standards you claim do not exist. A biography is supposed to describe the life and work of a person, dark sides and bright sides. I have big doubts that you would engage in an edit war over Sun Myung Moon, but of course with your proven pro-Catholic bias it seems obvious that you would want to defend the fiction that has been built around Mother Teresa, without any substantial arguments to support your edits. The controversy about Mel Gibson was about claims regarding Gibson's father -- these were shortened for good reasons, just like we wouldn't describe Prescott Bush's nazi connections in an article about George Bush. This article, however, is about the life and work of Mother Teresa, and as such, of course criticisms of that life and work have a place in it alongside the usual praise.—Eloquence 21:55, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, I agree that the page as it stands is rather awkward, but the way to fix this is not to split off all the awkward bits into their own article. These big chunks of quoted material need to be translated into ordinary Wikipedia article text. I won't work on that in the midst of an edit war, though. Bryan

I am not saying that alkward stuff should be split off. What I am saying is that a shortened summary of a paragraph or two should be included in the text here to counteract all the positive tone in the article, none of it by me. The detailed stuff, going into complicated allegations, should then be put in a link article. As to Eloquence's rant about my proven catholic bias, it is called 'academic standards', which is why I have been able to rewrite paragraphs properly in forms that kept both RK and EoT happy, that kept the Republic of Macedonia people and FYROM happy, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinians happy, Australian monarchists and Australian republicans happy. I have removed illplaced text and NPOVed stuff in articles on protestantism, catholicism, Islam, etc. And if someone put poorly written wrongly located stuff in Sun Myung Moon you can be damn sure I would remove it. Few of Eloquence's edits on Catholicism have been anything but Catholic bashing. I don't care whether it is catholic bashing, protestant bashing, jew bashing, muslim bashing, humanist bashing or any other sort of bashing, it has no place in an NPOV article and I will rewrite it and will not be intimidated out of it by RK, EoT, Eloquence or anyone else pushing their agenda, whether it is pro- or anti- catholic, pro- or anti- jewish, pro- or anti- palestinian, pro- or anti the British monarchy or any other topic. And if I was so pro-catholic biased, why did I write a detailed article on clerical sex abuse which all sides said was fair, balanced and objective and which covered cases from many countries, something previous attempts failed to do. Eloquence's attempts to agendise articles on Catholicism are getting as tiresome as RK's attempts to agendise articles touching jewishness was. FearÉIREANN 22:24, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here you have Jtdirl, the valiant defender of truth and neutrality who makes all people happy and contented. That explains why everyone is so happy and contented right now, I guess. I never recall saying that the Catholic sex abuse article was "fair, balanced and objective", in fact, there are quite a few neutrality deficits of the current version, but this is not the place to talk about them and I will fix them when I have the time. What is important to remember is that just because a person is being worshipped by thousands or even millions, that person is not beyond criticism, and that criticism, as long as it comes from reasonable sources, should be given equal weight to other claims about the person. You are trying to move it all to a separate article, in effect making this more of a hagiography than a biography. That is absolutely unacceptable.—Eloquence 22:30, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have never said the current article is OK in its current form. It isn't. It is far too pro-her (and by the way, just so you know, I have no time for her and got into trouble on a radio show for saying that she "was more concerned with practicing her faith than practising good medicine.") but as usual you blew it by allowing your agenda to get in the way of professional encyclopædic writing. Frankly I want to take this article to pieces and rewrite it in proper NPOV language. But the stuff you want in is the sort of detail that does not feature in professionally written NPOV articles unless you go into it in minute detail, quoting references and sources from differing perspectives. That you could have done but didn't. If I wanted to silence criticism of this woman I would simply have deleted your stuff as POV (and it does contain some hilarious clangers, but then actual knowledge of catholicism as opposed to opinion about catholicism has never been your strong point. But instead I transferred your stuff to a separate article where it can be linked to other relevant articles and not just this one. ANd before you started your traditional edit war farce (something you seem to enjoy when you don't get your way) I was starting to NPOV this article which needs a hell of a lot of NPOV work to make it balanced and remove the hagiography tone which it currently has. FearÉIREANN 22:43, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, I do not enjoy being forced into edit wars. But I also cannot allow you to violate NPOV in an attempt to downplay criticisms. You can play up your oh-so-critical "lapsed Catholic" attitude as much as you want, that does not change the fact that you are trying to stow away very substantial and very important criticisms of this soon-to-be "saint". If you try to make substantial edits to the Mother Teresa article while engaging in an edit war about a major structural issue, it is your own mistake if these edits get lost in the process.

Wikipedia is not paper. There is no limit to the level of detail allowed herein. If things get too long, we can of course split them away, but this should be done with equal priority given to positive and negative information. When such split-ups are to take place, it is usually a good idea to talk to the primary authors of the page in any case. In this case, you simply removed the text without even an edit comment and did not engage in any prior discussion whatsoever. Other Wikipedians here agree that this is not the way to make progress on this article. You are the one who started this edit war and you are the one perpetuating it. We can all discuss ways to make this article better like reasonable adults, in small steps, with proper attention to each other's sensibilities.—Eloquence 23:28, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

If you bothered to check the edits I was making, you would have seen that I was in the process of removing POV language (eg, 'revered') from the article, had a mention of the allegations against her in the opening paragraph and trying to write an executive summary of the allegations for use here to allow for the detail, in as much detail as you want, to be discussed elsewhere. (A 'holding' few lined had been added in, a larger section was in preparation.) That is how professional encyclopædic biography articles are constructed. People on this page had already complained about the detail being here, saying that its sheer length was intimidating. What I was doing was making sure a clear summation of the allegations was here, allowing those who want to read the full detail to get a direct link to it, something which is done regularly on wikipedia. Contrary to your usual wild allegations, I was not censoring the allegations; it would have been rather bizarre censorship to have put a mention in the very opening line, an executive summary in the centre and a link to a detailed article. If I was censoring the information, I would simply have deleted it. As usual on an article on anything touching religion, your response was paranoid screams of censorship and instant reversions of the sort that RK practiced and intimidated people with. The article I was working on was going to be much less revertial of MT, much more critical and linked to an article that could go into the sort of detail that previous users here found too much but which will work in a separate context where it is linked also to other articles with similar themes and relevancies. But as with other religion articles you decided that it wasn't following your agenda and therefore was unacceptable, even if more encyclopædic and NPOV. FearÉIREANN 23:54, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See, this is what you usually do to get your way: Engage in an edit war and then complain that your great changes have been lost in the process and that the other party is responsible for that. You and I both know that this is not the way to write an article on Wikipedia. You can't make a major change like splitting away about 20,000 characters of text and then complain that the changes you pile on top of that are reverted together with it. This is simply bullying of other users to accept your prefererd structure of this article by claiming that they are destroying your work. I could engage in the same tactic easily -- by rewriting the criticism section and then complaining that you are reverting my changes -- but I do not. How about stopping this silly tactic yourself, and resolving the major structural issue first, before discussing further changes to the content of this article? It would be helpful if you would stop considering other people trying to work with you enemies against whom to employ some kind of strategy (in this case: personal attacks ["Eloquence knows little about Catholicism"], false claims ["based on a single TV show"], piling up of changes in an edit war, claiming that many users support your stance [you do this every time], and so forth).

Everyone can see through this and it's really time for it to stop. And before you add the next personal attack (something along the line of "paranoid rant"), think about what I'm trying to say here. I am willing to cooperate. I don't want to engage in a rhetorical war with you. Once you drop this perception of discussions as some kind of contest which you have to win, I predict that we can get along much more easily. I am not your enemy and you don't need to treat me as if I was.

There is a certain "optimal length" for an article. That length is generally considered to be in the area of 32,000 characters -- above that length the likelihood of edit conflicts becomes too high, some browsers have problems etc. Users being "intimidated" by the amount of factual arguments on a page, however, is certainly not a reason to split away parts of it (and especially not the parts of it which are critical, while retaining the ones which are not). If I would do the same on Irish potato famine you would be screaming bloody murder about how I was trying to dumb down Wikipedia.

When the optimal length is exceeded, the right thing to do is to summarize individual sections. A good example for this is the Scientology page. No preference is given to any particular topic. Similarly, the country pages provide brief abstracts of demographics, politics, history etc. without preferential treatment for any of these. It is completely unacceptable to split away 20,000 characters of text which are critical without doing a general overhaul of the text -- which is not necessary at this point because we have not reached the critical length yet, and we will not for some time if we summarize some of the longer quotes in the article. So it should be quite obvious that it is completely unnecessary to split away the criticism section.—Eloquence 00:15, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between writing an essay on a topic and a biography of a person? An encyclopædic entry on a person reads differently, is constructed differently, uses different grammatical constructions. It may be written chronologically or it may be written thematically. If constructed thematically (and this article by necessity is; only public figures can be written chronologically to cover what they did in year x or y, when Minister for this and Minister for that, or acting in x film and y film, etc) then it has be constructed in a manner that works as a unit; no-one section can be excessively large because it dominates the text leaving the impression with the reader that that is the crucial section, which is by definition POV because by size you are drawing attention to this as being the most important section. In a thematic structure, where something because of information available, academic analysis or whatever is disproportionally large in relation to other segments, unless it is central and NPOV (Lincoln and the civil war, Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon and Watergate, etc) an executive summary is used, with a see . . . link in the text to a specially created article that can go into detail without unbalancing the thematic structure or the main biography. That is elementary biography writing in encyclopædias. You criticism section is interpretative and so requires knowledge and exploration of a sort that would if done properly drown the rest of the article. As a result it would end up culled by the editor from every encyclopædia on the planet and moved elsewhere. I presumed you knew a lot more about encyclopædic biography writing than you clearly do. It is amazing that you can make such a big row, and make wild accusations of censorship, when you clearly don't have even an elementary grasp of encyclopædic biography writing. If you did, you would know that what I was doing was standard encyclopædic practice, something I have done for a living with other encyclopædias.

If you could manage to be unbiased for a moment you would realise that your determination to preserve your text has nothing to do with objective analysis of the woman in question and all to do with your desire to 'expose her for what she was'. Frankly I don't care whether she was the greatest ever human being or the biggest bitch since Alexis Colby. All I want to see is a professionally written encyclopædia article, which means culling the excessive POV glorification language from one side, and the excessively large criticism segment on the other, both of which POV by nature of their content, layout and usage and both of which, if dealt with professionally, can be refactored, though NPOV language on the one hand, and executive summary + link on the other, to produce a properly structures NPOV article. FearÉIREANN 00:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

90% of the "criticism" section of this article is straight quotation of other sources, and IMO that shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. It should be condensed down into a description and summary of the criticisms instead. And that summary, IMO, should remain right here in the main Mother Teresa article. It's just as important and central to an article about the woman as the other stuff that's here. This is why I keep reverting your attempts to split it off. Bryan 22:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

While I agree that the current version is too quote-centric (mostly for lack of time to summarize everything), I see no fundamental problem with having quotes in Wikipedia. I would say that the more indirect accounts about her (e.g. Chatterjee) should be summarized, whereas in cases of direct witnesses like former Missionaries of Charity, having a quotation may often be preferable.

As for moving discussion of the Missionaries of Charity to a separate article about that organization, that is certainly possible (provided there is a prominent link in this article), but up to this time, there exists no article about them. In any case, insofar as Mother Teresa had a direct role in determining the rules and operation of the MoC, that seems to be of relevance to this article as well.—Eloquence 22:41, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mean to eliminate all quotations, just the stuff that is quotation of someone else's work about Teresa (sort of like quoting sections of another encyclopedia) I've finally managed to slip a bit of what I intended into the article, despite the constant edit conflicts. Bryan

...and of course, that edit has now been lost and locked away for now in the course of these reversions. I'll dig it back out of the history to reinsert later, once the page is live again. Bryan 23:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Beatification and the Nobel Prize

Is Mother Teresa the first Nobel laureate to be beatified? If not, who came before her, and would he or she have been canonized since? Rickyrab 21:58, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Give it a rest with the edit war, guys. There's no rush to get this issue settled - which state the pages are in for a day or two doesn't matter. Talk about it a while, and come to an understanding. This revert war is pointless. Evercat 22:53, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree and have protected the page in its pre-edit war state. Angela 22:58, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection to unprotecting the page as long as James pledges to discuss major changes to the structure and content here first and to seek consensus on them before proceeding. I have expressed many times my desire to seek a solution for these differences in the perception of an important historical person, but this needs to be done without personal attacks and in the spirit of neutrality and consensus. Mother Teresa, no matter what you think of her, should be treated like any other person on Wikipedia.—Eloquence 23:52, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

That is a bit ironic, given that others complained about your overloading the article with stuff but you bulldozed ahead anyway. So you bulldoze you way through against the wishes of people on the page at the time, but I have to discuss NPOV changes with you? Sorry, I thought this was wikipedia, not ericpedia. Anyway, our policy is to be bold with edits, isn't it, or is it just edits that Eloquence approves of? FearÉIREANN 23:57, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It isn't just Eloquence who was objecting to your actions, bear in mind. Bryan

I have always defended my edits on the discussion page and have always been willing to approach compromise solutions. There has never been an edit war about my additions here up to now. Again, you are using your standard strategy of "Look at what the other people have been saying, they all agree with my stance" while ignoring the ones who do not. See my comment above; these kind of strategic games will do nothing to cool down conflicts. Please stop trying to win a game, and start trying to seek consensus. I am willing to look beyond our disagreements and to focus only on the issue at hand. Are you, too?—Eloquence

I was specifically addressing your accusation that Eloquence was trying to enforce a policy of "just edits that Eloquence approves of." That's clearly not the case, since at least one other person agrees with him on this matter (note that I'm not saying everyone agrees, BTW). As for seeking consensus, that's what I've been trying to do here - it was you that unilaterally cut all that text from the article without discussing it first. You can't cut first and seek consensus later, that's what leads to edit wars like this. Bryan 00:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Reply confusion -- the above paragraph was a reply be me to Jtdirl, not by Jtdirl to you. I've added a sig to make this clearer.—Eloquence

Oops, sorry. Bryan 02:14, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Splitting away the text that is critical of Mother Teresa is not a compromise solution, and will harm NPOV in many ways. You should be bold in editing pages -- by making additions, rephrasing sections and so forth. But when major structural changes or deletions are concerned, it is almost always a good idea to discuss them first.—Eloquence 00:28, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Which was what I was about to do when you began reverting. See above on how to write biographical entries. FearÉIREANN 00:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See my response above for the proper sequence of making changes. So, do you still want to move 20K of text away, in spite of it being clear that there is no consensus for this solution? If not, we can talk about ways of improving these and other segments of the article.—Eloquence 01:35, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

She "was a revered Christian nun, missionary, peace advocate and anti-abortion activist." Surely "revered" is a value judgement? One could just as truthfully say "reviled." Some revered her, some reviled her. Neither belongs in the opening sentence. And exactly what "peace advocacy" did she do? Adam 02:30, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about saying she "was a controversial Christian nun, missionary, peace advocate and anti-abortion activist." Or just delete both "revered" and "controversial." I've got a better, truer statement: "She was a public relations hoax perpetrated by the catholic church as a front to create an unprecedented fund-raising bonanza of hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of undocumented money which benefitted no poor person, all fueled by hysterical, gullible masses who needed someone to worship and take away their guilt." Okay, maybe it's true, but it's too much for an encyclopedia.

On a more serious note, history will not be kind to this phoney, and, as we are writing history, we should NOT allow her worshippers to write history. Her history should tell the whole story, separate the hype from the facts, and let the chips fall where they may. If she was merely a phoney who temporarily fooled everyone and created a false legacy for herself, the record should reflect this. And, to quote Woody Allen, I say this with all due respect. Paul Klenk 23:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The contents of the page may be somewhat true,but it is certainly not presenting the whole picture! Christian Next, but a Human First. The Doctors and Writers if the had the will, would have done good in the first place and then commented. What did the doctors and the writers do to the poor? Where was their will, if what they saw spun them, then why did they not do any action? Why just writing a book which very few read.. and which did not help even a person. senthil@dellmail.com

Wait a second, where has the other side of this debate gone? There isn't even a link to it.212.112.98.68 10:21, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The reality is that no truly encyclopedic article on this woman can afford to ignore the serious doubts that many people have as to the nature of her work and that of her order. The article as it was pre the addition of the criticisms is little more than a eulogy. With the additions, it may be a bit overly slanted in a negative direction. Either the two strands have to be integrated into a coherent whole (and by the way I failed to find the additions convoluted or hard to read), or the whole thing should be scrapped and just have a simple entry giving her real name, dates of birth and death, and something like 'Catholic nun beatified in 2003 for her missionary work.'. Another by the way: I too am a lapsed (very) Irish Catholic. bmills

About the Critic

The critisism of Mother Theresa comes from Christopher Hitchens. To cite him for the bulk of the entry would be like citing the KKK on an entry on African-Americans. By his own admission Hitchens is not neutral. "I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself." - Christopher Hitchens http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

Maybe the criticism would be better moved to Christopher Hitchens (since it is mainly by him), while still leaving part about it on the page. Evil saltine 10:36, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense to me. The stuff in this article is mostly material by other people that Hitchens has simply collected together into his book. The quotes here actually come from Dr. Robin Fox, Mary Louden, Susan Shields, Tracey Leonard, Elgy Gillespie, Stern magazine, Aroup Chatterjee, Debi Charan Haldar, Sister Nirmala, and the London Telegraph as the primary sources. I didn't find very much at all that Hitchens himself said here. Bryan 15:02, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In addition, Chatterjee has published his own book, which is far more comprehensive than Hitchens'.—Eloquence 15:09, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

For half the article, hardly a paragraph goes by without mention of Hitchens. Should we have the KKK "simply collect together" material on African-Americans? Hitchens uses Chatterjee in "Hell's Angel" but Chatterjee says "Ever since the film, Mr Hitchens has extracted from the saga the last drop of publicity that he could manage. I thoroughly disapprove of his pathetic broadsides, such as calling Mother Teresa a "presumed virgin"." Even the critics are critical of Hitchens yet he is being used as the source for most of the article!

So a secular humanist is now on the same level as the KKK? I didn't realize that. Hitchens is cited here when he cites other sources. That is proper to do in academia. Where Hitchens himself relies on primary sources that can be located, these should be substituted. If you have any substantial criticism beyond "I don't like Christopher Hitchens" (who is hardly the only source used here), please state them.—Eloquence 20:46, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl's behavior

I'm frankly disgusted by James' behavior on this page. Where I try to reach compromises on small matters like the proper description of Chatterjee's book, he simply reverts to his preferred POV version (to describe Chatterjee's book as "along the same theme" as Hitchens' is a POV accusation; Hitchens' book is a 100 page polemic without foonotes, Chatterjee's a reasonably scholarly analysis, there is nothing POV about describing these differences in terms like "comprehensive" and "arguably more scholarly"). Meanwhile, he piles changes upon changes, provoking edit conflicts in the process, and even removes crucial parts like the non-separation of curables and incurables in Teresa's homes. He attributes opinions to anonymous critics whom he never cites. There is no commitment to neutrality, no commitment to consensus, and no commitment to Wikiquette on James' part. He discusses nothing and just tries to push his way through.

I don't have time for this. I will stop editing the page for now. If others want to deal with James' bully-like behavior, they are welcome to do so. I for one will try to restore some sanity here once he has left the building. I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the question for me.—Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is turn this mish-mash of POV language, both pro- and anti- MT, into something that is at least passably NPOV, which means removing POV terms like 'revered', 'comprehensive', 'scholarly' etc, all of which are POV judgments which have no place in an encyclopædic article and are not used in encyclopædic articles unless there is unanimous opinion on the issue (eg, Frank Pakenham's Peace by Ordeal, Roy Jenkins' Disraeli, etc). Eric however seems to want to force his POV language in, in the hope that no-one will notice, something he has tried in the past. I am glad to see he has finally admitted what just about everyone, whatever their views on MT, agree on, that Hitchens' book is a polemic. Polemics should not be used as the primary source in any article, merely get a passing mention. But such is Eric's typical determination to POV this article from his 'bash religion' agenda that he was willing to include what he himself admits is a polemic, which if it gets a mention at all (and Brittanica, for example, never ever even refer to polemics, threating them as unreliable rubblish) should get a minimum one, with more credible sources relied on. And you don't write references to a book that is a couple of years old and not the author's current publication in the present tense, and most certainly not when the topic of the book is themselves dead a couple of years and the rest of the article in the past tense. You write it in the past tense to match the age of the book, its print status, the status of the person it is written about and the tense used in the article. But Eric won't even accept that elementary fact, trying to put references in one section of the article, his section, in the present tense, ignoring the fact that switching tenses is not something you do in encyclopædic articles, because it creates POV concerns over how a text is read and treated by a reader. But Eric's arrogant determination to force his agenda is such that if he can't get his way with POVing stuff through polemics, through grammatical construction, though subtle use of language he is determined to force his POV though the use of a different present tense for the stuff he wants to promote.

Frankly Eric's behaviour at this stage in pulling this 'I'm gonna POV this article to push by anti-religion agenda' is borderline vandalism, and his behaviour in unprotecting a page that was protected due to an edit was he was in, is an outrageous abuse of sysop powers, as his threats to ban people if he doesn't get his own way. Eric would do well to read what his behavour is supposed to be as a sysop, to learn how to NPOV text and to stop acting like a mini-RK or mini-EoT in POVing articles to suit his hatred of religion. FearÉIREANN 22:33, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are so many inaccuaracies and lies in this response that it is not even worth responding to in full. Of course I never tried to "force" anyone to accept the use of the past or present tense (I don't care at all and have not reverted a single change because of that). I have never said that Hitchens' book was anything but a polemic, but of course to you this is somehow an admission of guilt or weakness. Chatterjee's book is a much more credible source, but where Hitchens or Chatterjee quote the same primary source, it makes no difference whom we cite. Again, you prefer personal attacks to cooperation. I am sick of that, and if that should become necessary, I will compile a catalog of your bullying tactics, which will then become the basis for a temporary ban.—Eloquence 22:50, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Erik, I agree with you. But please do me 2 favors:

Let another sysop or developer decide on the ban.
Stop thinking there's anything so urgent :-)

I'll change my mind on abortion, if you'll agree to this, okay? ^_^ --Uncle Ed 22:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have never said that I would make the ban decision myself. That would be preposterous. And I don't think it is urgent to ban Jtdirl. So there's no need for you to change your mind on anything since that was already my position. But if he carries on with his present behavior, a temporary ban is the only answer. Wikipedia is built on the principles of consensus and WikiLove, and anyone who takes a look at the history at this page will note that Jtdirl is trampling on these principles as we speak. Given that he is editing a page about a person that is supposedly all about love, he carries a great deal of hate inside him.—Eloquence

Then you and I should rise above all that. Let's leave an 'audit trail' of turn the other cheek as some Jewish guy once said. --Uncle Ed 23:13, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe I have even begun to attack Jtdirl on the same level as he has attacked me, so there should be a clean audit trail. The sad truth is that hardly anybody will read his hate-filled rants and know the situation well enough to realize that they are full of grotesque lies and inaccuracies. He has done that before in mailing list posts and when he is called on it, he usually ignores it. He believes the more outrageous his claims are, the more bizarre his attacks, the more likely it is that people believe he has legitimate grounds for grievance (or at least that this is a complicated controversy which nobody can really see through). I find it deeply saddening and disturbing to watch as a previously valued contributor continues to dig deeper and deeper into his own grave, just like RK did when he made his final "Nazipedia" remarks. There is a certain inevitability to it that is downright scary.—Eloquence

"Blessed" is the first word of this article? Holy cow. Talk about NPOV. Why don't we start out with her birthname, please, and then move on to the aliases, and be happy there's not a mugshot of her to post. Paul Klenk 23:33, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Blessed is more like a title, since she has been beatified by the Church. I can only think of one other person who is normally called "Blessed," that being "Blessed Kateri"...perhaps in the future people will refer to her as Blessed Teresa rather than Mother Teresa, unless she is very quickly canonized. Her real name is Agnes Bojaxhiu or something, isn't that in there? Adam Bishop 23:34, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Call her Agnes then, followed by her aliases. Blessed is a self-serving, non-biographical label. Paul Klenk 23:37, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Problem users

Eloquence

User:Eloquence is abusing his sysop powers and issuing threats if he isn't allowed to POV an article. Mother Teresa was protected by User:Angela following an edit war which involved Eloquence and myself. He then used his sysop power to unprotect the page and returned to editing it. He is now issuing threats to impose temporary bans, stating 'I will compile a catalog of your bullying tactics, which will then become the basis for a temporary ban.—Eloquence 22:50, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)'

This is not the first time that Eloquence has tried to POV articles on religious topics. In this case he turned an article on Mother Teresa, which was POV in her favour, into an article where 70% of the text was based on what he openly admits was a polemic by a controversial British author (regarded even by humanists in his native UK as a nutcase) who shares his opinions. Any attempt to NPOV the text, move the 70% polemic into a special linked article, with a shorter summary left on the main article, was met with threats and reversions. He has abused his sysop powers once in unprotecting a protected page and is threatening to do so again so that he can push his POV in an article sorely in need of proper NPOVing to tone down both the 'Mother Teresa is a hero' tone of her supporters and his own 'Mother Teresa was a bitch' add-ins. FearÉIREANN 23:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong and wrong. See Talk:Mother Teresa and this mailing list post. In short, Jtdirl is once again bullying users to accept his POV line of editing (there's a reason he's already listed on this page).—Eloquence

From Village Pump

Is this as good as it gets?

I just came from reading the talk page on Mother_Teresa and I can't help but notice that we need a "proper" forum where we can (1) post our comments (and maybe (2) set up a vote question with our comment, using wiki markup to set up any number of vote options/choices and a press button so others can register their vote along with their comment). Sortta like the edit-box set up for a new section of this talk-page, perhaps. Additionally, we could also have (3) a system to vote on comments as well, where we can rate "flame comments" down and "relevant comments" up. It would really encourage newbies to know what is the norm and what is considered argumentative trolling, making the talk page more clearer. One last request regarding votes is that if we had (4) a vote for "article relevancy", wikipedian users would be able to decide by consensus what should be considered a "Minor Edit". 'Cause "complex server scripts" and "multiple user names" seem to be seem to be the only results of the "Minor Edit" feature in it's current form. Besides, with a vote, it ought also to give a more accurate indication of reader satisfaction of the page.

I realise that the above four points may've already been discussed before, but I have not been able to find it so far. So kindly point me in the general direction where I could read up on this some more. If by chance this has not been thought of before, could somebody please pass the above comments to the people concerned? Also, could you kindly point me to some examples of how edit wars were resolved in the past here at Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance -- Phil R 19:41, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC) P.S : I may have been temporararily disconnected earlier, 'cause I somehow posted my comment twice. I deleted the previous copy of my comment.

Resolving major NPOV disputes is indeed one of the biggest problems at Wikipedia. When there is an edit war, the usual process is for a sysop to step in and protect the last version of the page before the edit war started. The participants are then encouraged to debate the matter on the discussion page until a consensus can be found. Look at the Wikipedia:Protected page history to see some previous disputes. A different case is the medical analysis of circumcision article, where User:MyRedDice prefaced all disputed sections with "this section is disputed". Whether this is a wiser course of action remains to be seen -- to this date, not all of the disputes on that article have been resolved.

In the case of the Mother Teresa article, the involved users are sysops, which complicates the matter somewhat. Nevertheless, protecting the page seems to have cooled down the edit war. I hope that Jtdirl will work with me on improving the article little by little.—Eloquence 21:33, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

As a newcomer to Wikiland, I am amazed that people are even able to write anything of substance about someone as controverial as Teresa. What a challenge! I doubt that any current contributors have no personal bias or POV. Perhaps we should look for writers who are completely detached from both the catholic/worship angle and the sense of indignation at her Blessed Phoniness, and ask them to submit drafts that are purely based in fact, with no agenda. If we don't, people will soon be asking whether she floats on water, and concluding that she's a duck, or a witch, or worse. Paul Klenk 00:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And Phil, to answer your question, this may well be as good as it gets, and perhaps we should be satisfied with that. After all, we're asking basically anonymous people from all views and walks of life to work as a committee on creating profiles of controversial people. There is one ray of hope here: At least the end users have access not only to the encyclopedic article, but to the committee's comments and arguments along the way. Paul Klenk 00:19, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You can have bias and still be able to produce an NPOV work. All you have to do is present all sides in an equal manner with a neutral tone of voice. Since I am Albanian, I have recused myself from doing any editing that does not relate to her origins. All I am willing to say is that the article leans far too much towards the negative aspects. She must have done some good, because I don't see how the entire world could be deceived. As I see it, she helped people, but she was in a position to help them even more. Would the people who came into contact with her have been better off or worse off if she had not existed. As I see it, they are better off. You also have to consider the millions of people that her persona (that some consider a false and negative one) affected toward doing good things. I see her as having committed more good than bad in this world. I am also an atheist, and I believe that religion is not necessary in order to do good. On the other hand, religion may hurt people because they come to rely on it far too much and for no good reason (not meant to start any flames, just my opinion). But that's another debate. I will watch on the sidelines as the debate continues and hope for the best resolution. Dori 00:25, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, Jtdril, please stop. Neither of you is accomplishing anything useful. Forthwith, I am going to revert the article to a recent change prior to the present unpleasantness; also, I shall relocate the recent addition to Wikipedia:Problem users. Please leave it that way until another day. And please discontinue your posts to the mailing list.

If you both agree, perhaps it would be wisest to leave the article alone, imperfect though it may be. Time, perhaps a day or two, will open up enough space to work this through. I will help if you wish, or stay out of the way if that is what you want. I have no opinion on the subject matter at hand.

Both of you are respected Wikipedians with much to contribute. May I suggest that you refrain from burning out over a single article; there are articles here that are far more needful of attention than this one.

Respectfully, Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, as I have written above I have stopped editing the article given Jtdirl's persistent bully-like behavior and his utter refusal to work for compromises and consensus. This does, however, not address the question whether it is acceptable for him to behave in this fashion, and I consider that matter far from settled. If Jtdirl apologizes for his behavior here and pledges to be more cooperative in the future, I am willing to drop the matter, but he has thrown too many accusations and lies at me to simply ignore at this point.—Eloquence 23:54, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, please stop. I understand your concern and frustration and realize that you see this as a matter of civility as well as a dispute over the article contents. I suggest that you may find this easier to solve tomorrow than today. I am not asking you to set aside your concerns, just to wait for a short time. I think it will help. Ok? Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:03, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stop what? I'm not doing anything. I will leave the article in the state that Jtdirl left it in until I can do some work on it without him doing constant reversions without any reasoning or discussions. Whether it will be necessary to ban him before that can be accomplished remains to be seen.—Eloquence 00:06, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, I already reverted the article to a much earlier version. I'm trying to help. Please quit suggesting a ban, please don't fan the flames by making public statements about Jtdirl and listing your own wishes for apologies and so forth.

I can be reached at lazolla@hotmail.com if either of you have any comments to share that you do not wish to make public. I may not answer until the morrow. Again, I'm trying to help, and if either of you want me to just stay out of the way so that you can continue the course you've already charted, just say so and I'll leave. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:17, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was going to make some positive comment and try to heal fences with Eric, but with him throwing around ban threats if he doesn't get his way, what is the use? FearÉIREANN 00:20, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

James, you have attacked me personally for the last 24 hours in a very rude and systematic manner, and if you read your own comments without bias, you would notice that they contain quite a few inaccuracies (I will refrain from using the term "lies" for now). I am a very agreeable person, and if you pledge to discuss your changes in consensus instead of always doing the revert thing without any edit comment whatsoever, it will be possible to make some progress on this article. But you should know that all Wikipedians, myself included, are expected to follow some standards of civility, respect and professionality. You cannot tell me in all honesty that you believe the way to work on this page is to simply make an edit, ignore the reason someone gives for changing things in a certain fashion, ignore the compromise that person suggests, and then again revert to your preferred form. That is rude and unacceptable.

You know very well that you have a history of rude behavior and this has been tolerated because of the usual excellence of your contributions, the depth of your research, the amount of time you spend on Wikipedia and so forth. I grimly acknowledge that you have often apologized for this behavior hours later. But I do not understand why you do it in the first place. The last time we had a conflict, I asked you to discuss major changes on the talk page first. Just a few weeks later, you edit Mother Teresa and move 20K of text to a separate page, without prior discussion, without even an edit comment. In the resulting edit war you threw accusations at me of incredible proportions which you probably fully realize are often gross distortions of the truth. I feel like I am talking to a wall. Why are you doing this? I honestly don't see the reason. Behave like any other Wikipedian and make an effort to seek consensus, without personal attacks and in the spirit of Wikiquette and WikiLove and we shall get along fine. But your current course of action is a path of self-destruction.—Eloquence 00:41, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Something we can all agree on

In light of the controversy surrounding Teresa, perhaps we can all agree on this: That if she had done in the United States what she did in Calcutta, she would have been locked up for fraud, larceny and inhuman treatment of patients. Anyone want to dispute that? Paul Klenk 00:25, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Paul, what do you hope to accomplish by saying this? Please stop, and be respectful of the views of others, even if you consider them unfounded in fact. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:28, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

With respect, I am trying to put her life into perspective and give everyone a reality check. Take a good look at my statement and ask yourself whether it is true. If it is, why we are allowing the cult-like adorers of a mere phenomenon like Teresa to write history, merely because people were blinded for a period of time to the factual, historical nature of her life, and were fed a myth instead. I respect people, but I don't always respect their views. I certainly don't respect myth as history. Again, I say this with the utmost reverence. If people want to claim she did good, fine. But it is up to them to substantiate that claim, not rehash a self-perpetuating myth. My challenge stands. Paul Klenk 00:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As you wish; I have no opinion. However, I would share the Rotary 4-way Test, though I myself am not a Rotarian:

Is it the truth?
Is it fairto all concerned?
Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
Will it be beneficial to all concerned?"

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We have something in common -- I, too, am not a Rotarian. My response is, I place article 1 above article 3. If the two are in conflict, I lean towards article 1.

Paul, all of us need to try to edit this article in a professional manner. Personal value judgments like the above do not help in reaching a mutually acceptable solution. If that judgment is made by an authority, it can of course be attributed as per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. I believe that I have made reasonable efforts to include views that are critical of Mother Teresa. Some people object to the length and breadth of this presentation. The one thing I am asking for is that the people of different viewpoints try to work together on reaching solutions, instead of working alone and accusing each other of not knowing what they are talking about.—Eloquence 00:41, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I understand your concern -- we should be interested in the end result, which is a NPOV article. I'll do my best to work toward that end. Having said that, we may end up with half-myth, half-history, the value of which is debatable. (But I'm still waiting for someone to refute my original statement.) Paul Klenk 00:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article will never improve while people insist on stuffing it, and particularly the opening parapgraph, full of opinion-statements. The first section should be a purely factual biography. THEN there should be a section, rather shorter than the present one, on what people said about her, for and against. Adam 00:45, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That is a fair point, Adam, and very constructive. I think the opening paragraph does however need to be in effect a self-contained body of work that if the rest was lost would still be fair summary. So you have to say that some people have positive views on her, some negative, and that specific allegations are made, particularly when the allegations are so controversial. Don't make them, and people like Paul above will accuse you of censorship. That is why I constructed the opening paragraph the way it is, to make clear this article isn't about glorification or demonisation, but about the complexity that was MT, and not the characture, whether it is the crude catholic characture of a 100% hero or the clichéd cardboard cut out one Paul constructed above, which is so simplistic as to be laughable. FearÉIREANN 00:58, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your goal is a worthy one, and if I can do anything to help you, I will; if not, I will stay out of the way. I am the first to recognize that my POV on Teresa is rather strong, which is why I won't touch the actual article. I prefer to work behind the scenes, spurring discussion and debate, so if I ever did have a suggestion, I would post it and let others decide whether they want to use it. I respect your right to call our points of view a caricature, but its disappointing, as I wish for a more worthy opponent. It's a lot easier to call my view a caricature than to answer the charges point by point. Further, step back for a moment and ask yourself: Not counting others' views of Teresa, what was so complex about her? She did her routine with the poor, then she franchised it, and took in perhaps billions doing so, all the while allowing people to suffer. No one really knows where the money went. The only thing complex about Teresa is others' view of and response to her -- the 'Teresa Phenomenon.' Perhaps we need an article devoted to that. Paul Klenk 01:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To Paul: "That if she had done in the United States what she did in Calcutta, she would have been locked up for fraud, larceny and inhuman treatment of patients." First, there are plenty of people in the US that deserve to be locked up and are not, and there are plenty who should not be but are, therefore your statement is without meaning. Second, she was not in the US so the laws of the US do not apply. Third, this whole debate isn't even about whether she committed any illegal, immoral, etc acts. Your comments are not well thought out, but purely inflamatory and add nothing to the debate. Lastly, my comments could well be considered inflamatory towards you, but you seem to require a response. Dori 00:59, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dori, I truly thank you for your response. I will allow it to speak for itself, as it speaks more eloquently to my point than I could possibly have done. Paul Klenk 01:06, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually I think Paul is correct to say that the debate about MT has become a subject in its own right, and should become a seperate article Criticism of the work of Mother Teresa. This is a rare case of a person who was generally held to be "very good", but who a substantial body of respectable opinion is now trying to completely re-assess as "very bad." That is a story in its own right. Adam

The objection I have to such a separation is that it will reduce the exposure people will get to these views, and therefore be in violation of neutrality. In an article about Pol Pot, would you write a large section about how much the guy loved to play cards, and then move everything about his mass murders to a separate article? Of course not. I'm not comparing the two -- but the problem becomes more blatant when you use an undeniably "evil" person. The same rules of NPOV apply regardless of the kind of person, however. If the article itself becomes too long we can split away individual sections regardless of content. But to do so only with the parts about her which are not so likable would set a dangerous precedent.—Eloquence 01:43, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, you're pretty brave to call Teresa an undeniably "evil" person; I only went so far as to call her a sham and a phony who raised undocumented millions. But getting to the point of your post, we could compromise: The article could contain a small section about the controversy, detailing both views of Teresa, the Favorable View and the Unfavorable View, if you will. In addition, a larger article could expand that subject. That way, NPOV would not be compromised, but the article would not be dominated by the controversy. How's about it? Paul Klenk 01:54, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I referred to Pol Pot as undeniably "evil", not to MT. No, I do not think reducing the controversy to a small section would be NPOV unless the positive claims would be reduced to a small section as well. Both is only necessary if the main article gets too long.—Eloquence 01:56, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

No-one except loony Maoists ever held Pol Pot to be anything but evil - here we have a different situation of a large number of reasonable people who think MT was, literally, a saint, and another large body of equally reasonable people who think she was a fraud. I can't think of a parallel to that, and I think that is a story in its own right. Even if the article is not split, it needs to fall into two distinct sections. Adam

Not to pick nits, but please don't use literally to mean figuratively. I would imagine that very few people consider her literally a saint, and that those people are probably just confused. --Dante Alighieri 04:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think Napoleon would be a reasonable comparison. He is still revered by many, especially in France, and yet loathed by many others as a ruthless dictator. In that case, too, we would not split away either of these views, because that would give undue preference to one of them.—Eloquence

I have both enjoyed and loathed watching this page/article. However, I don't get the statement on Napoleon. They were all ruthless dictators, no exceptions. That was the only way they could survive. (Sound familiar, even today!) P.S. Does this Jtdirl forget to take his medicine once in a while? NightCrawler 02:20, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

NightCrawler, please refrain from personal insults; I consider Jtdirl one of the few Wikipedians who consistently achieves the NPOV ideal. Harris7 03:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the question of how she would have been percieved had she behaved the same way in the States is an interesting one, it throws light on several areas:

1. She was not in the States, and her actions were a product of a very different environment, both in terms of financial regulatory environment, norms of healthcare for the poor, standards in humanitarian and charitable actions.

2. We seem to be judging her from the perspective of western charitable organisations, which have very strict legal and ethical guidelines in terms of how they should behave in these kinds of situation. She clearly rejected these, and saw herself as having a different role.

It's all about perspective, from the POV of a Catholic missionary, she was a saint, from the POV of a proffessional development worker, she was misguided and potentially negative in her impact. The question is, how do we get this across in the article?2toise 03:27, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How do we get this across? You've made a pretty good start of it right here. Ark30inf 03:40, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2toise asks, "How do we get this across in the article?" In other words, how do you solve a problem like Teresa? I say, let's not try. I offer a solution in this article, The two opposing views of Mother Teresa. The thinking behind this article is described in the article's Talk page. Paul Klenk 03:36, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I really think we shouldn't do this - other contentious subjects keep both views on the same page, there shouldn't be any reason why not with her.2toise 03:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the point that is being missed here is that MT was not operating by the standards of western models of the purpose of social welfare. As a Catholic (and a rather unsophisticated one at that), she believed that what was important was saving souls, not improving people's material wellbeing. Now we may reject that perspective (and as an atheist I do reject it), but I think fairness requires that we acknowledge it. What was important to her was not that the poor and dying stopped being poor or stopped dying, but that they made good Christian deaths and went to Heaven. That does not excuse fraud or misappropriation of funds (if that can be proved), but it does go to some of the criticisms of they way she ran her homes. Adam 03:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree - we just need to be up front about the two major points of view, and what informs their judgement of her - we do that in many other articles.2toise 03:57, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

These are all details we can talk about. The primary controversy about this article in the last couple of days has been about whether the whole section that is critical about her should be split away and replaced with a short summary and a link. I am and remain strongly opposed to that, as are several other users. The secondary controversy was about reaching consensus on minor matters -- check the article history and you'll get an idea. My main complaint is that Jtdirl just reverted what he did not like instead of seeking consensus. This makes it very difficult to avoid the degradation into a flamefest.

For example, I think it is entirely NPOV to describe a 425 page book as more comprehensive than a 100 page book. I have said so and Jtdirl just reverted my changes. Similarly, I have asked Jtdirl to provide sources for his claims about what critics say about Chatterjee's book. If he cannot provide these sources, he should not attribute opinions to anonymous critics. He has not done so and just reverted to his version without comment. How am I supposed to work under such conditions? Until we can work on a basis of mutual respect, it makes no sense to discuss further changes.—Eloquence 04:03, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Erik, just some advice: be careful with your language. A 425 page book is not, perforce, more comprehensive than a 100 page book. To make such a claim may, in fact, be NPOV, but it would be prudent to offer up a bit of evidence to support said claim. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that it's not quite that cut and dry. In addition, I think that there must be some sort of balance between the current lengthy diatribe against MT (yeah, yeah, hyperbole) and a total elimination with a link to another article. Perhaps a paragraph or two describing the broad strokes and then a link? I see no reason that we can't have an article on Criticisms of Catholic Missionaries in general that could have a specific section on MT and her work? Surely there must be other missionaries (perhaps it should even be Criticisms of Missionaries so as to include non-Catholics) that are looked upon unfavorably by some.

Or Criticisms of People Around The World to make it even more inclusive. Paul Klenk 04:36, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, why not Criticisms of Anything by Anyone to really round it out. :) --Dante Alighieri 04:41, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In any event, I think it would benefit both you and JT to take a step back and reflect on the issue at hand. You are both intelligent and well-meaning enough to realize (I trust) that very little can be accomplished by a back-and-forth he-said-she-said (ignore the gender mismatch) type of dispute. Let's all agree that what we have here is two people who both care SO much about making Wikipedia a better place that they have allowed themselves to breach the bounds of good taste in the pursuit of said betterment. I hope that this issue can be resolved without further unpleasantness. --Dante Alighieri 04:32, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I read through the text above, and honestly, it is kind of difficult to pick out what the remaining points of contention are. Would it be too much to ask to archive this page, and begin a new one with a short bullet list of issues to be resolved? There are some new people at this table, so there might be another chance to resolve some of it.2toise 04:34, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC) I will do this if no-one objects - also, perhaps we can cut some of the quotes from the article, they are long, and can be summarised, with links to source material if necessary.2toise 04:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

/archive1

Dante, much as I would like to conclude with a "yeah, we both overstepped the line", I simply do not agree with that assessment and I do not find it particularly helpful for people who have not followed this dispute to offer an opinion. There is the simplistic assumption that whenever an edit war occurs, both users have behaved in an unacceptable fashion. That assumption is just silly and does nothing to resolve disputes.

	:::To do so in an informed manner requires careful study of the edit history of this page, something you cannot do in a few minutes of looking at a discussion. I have always offered reconciliation, but I expect Jtdirl to be reasonably cooperative when editing this page. As I have stated before, there are clear rules when users violate Wikiquette repeatedly, and if necessary, I will call for the application of these rules. I do not expect you to form an informed judgment on this, but if you do not want to inform yourself about what has been going on here in the last 48 hours, then please keep your opinion to yourself. I am really sick of being called "abusive", being personally attacked as ignorant of Catholicism, having my edits reverted without explanation and then hearing people tell me "Oh, look, there are two people who reaaally care about Wikipedia here". Yeah, right. Jtdirl has enjoyed a kind of saintly immunity in spite of his aggressive behavior on Wikipedia, and I do not see a reason for that immunity to continue. RK has enjoyed the same status for a long time and it ended rather abruptly.

As for the claim regarding the book, well, the entire book is available online here, it has plenty of documentation for every page, whereas Hitchens' book is a polemic that does not even include footnotes or a bibliography. Hitchens' book is in fact in large part based on the work of Chatterjee without citing it. In addition to that, Jtdirl agrees with me that Hitchens' book is a polemic. So what is the problem with calling Aroup Chatterjee's book "more comprehensive" and "arguably more scholarly"? To call this an NPOV issue is ridiculous. Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting it is OK to just revert changes without discussing them? I have always offered reasons for what I did. Jtdirl has not. It is very nice of you to seek arguments to support Jtdirl's actions, but he should offer these arguments himself instead of blindly reverting other people's work.

I am willing to forgive and forget. But certain behavior has to change.—Eloquence 04:59, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Much as I would like to conclude with a "yeah, we both overstepped the line", I simply do not agree with that assessment and I do not find it particularly helpful for people who have not followed this dispute to offer an opinion. There is the simplistic assumption that whenever an edit war occurs, both users have behaved in an unacceptable fashion. That assumption is just silly and does nothing to resolve disputes.

Well, I'm terribly sorry that I'm not being particularly helpful. As for simplistic assumptions, they are bad. I suppose it's a good thing that no one here is making them.

You are making them by assuming that I have behaved inappropriately. I may have made some snide remarks here and there (and I would like to see the Wikipedian who wouldn't after a string of personal attacks), but my behavior was, for the most part, completely in line with our policy, while Jtdirl simply ignored established rules.—Eloquence

To do so in an informed manner requires careful study of the edit history of this page, something you cannot do in a few minutes of looking at a discussion. I have always offered reconciliation, but I expect Jtdirl to be reasonably cooperative when editing this page. As I have stated before, there are clear rules when users violate Wikiquette repeatedly, and if necessary, I will call for the application of these rules. I do not expect you to form an informed judgment on this, but if you do not want to inform yourself about what has been going on here in the last 48 hours, then please keep your opinion to yourself. I am really sick of being called "abusive", being personally attacked as ignorant of Catholicism, having my edits reverted without explanation and then hearing people tell me "Oh, look, there are two people who reaaally care about Wikipedia here". Yeah, right. Jtdirl has enjoyed a kind of saintly immunity in spite of his aggressive behavior on Wikipedia, and I do not see a reason for that immunity to continue. RK has enjoyed the same status for a long time and it ended rather abruptly.

It seems to me that some of the information in the above paragraph is being treated by you as more than simple assumption, when it seems to me to be just that. That's all I have to say about the above at this time.

As for the claim regarding the book, well, the entire book is available online here, it has plenty of documentation for every page, whereas Hitchens' book is a polemic that does not even include footnotes or a bibliography. Hitchens' book is in fact in large part based on the work of Chatterjee without citing it. In addition to that, Jtdirl agrees with me that Hitchens' book is a polemic. So what is the problem with calling Aroup Chatterjee's book "more comprehensive" and "arguably more scholarly"? To call this an NPOV issue is ridiculous. Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting it is OK to just revert changes without discussing them? I have always offered reasons for what I did. Jtdirl has not.

If you reread what I wrote above, you'll see that I am not disagreeing with your qualification of the texts (since I have not read them and trust that you have). I simply noted that your statement was a bit simplistic and bore elaboration... which you have kindly done. I didn't say it was a problem to call it more comprehensive, I said that calling it more comprehensive based on its greater number of pages was problematic. I never made it an NPOV issue, you did; I was using your words. Frankly, I don't much care about that issue, I just thought that you might want it brought to your attention that you (normally very careful with your language) seemed to me to be less than careful in this instance. I'm sorry if you took offense, I was trying to be helpful. No, I'm not suggesting that it's OK to revert without comment, seriously or otherwise. Where, exactly, did you think I said anything remotely of that nature?

There is only so much information that fits into an edit comment. If Jtdirl wanted an explanation, he just needed to ask for it and I would have gladly responded in reasonable tone. He did not. He just reverted. If you don't see that this is offensive and rude, I can gladly demonstrate it with some of your edits.—Eloquence 05:23, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I am willing to forgive and forget. But certain behavior has to change.—Eloquence 04:59, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a bit offended by your behavior towards me just now. I sense a lot of vitriol in your words to me above and I can't fathom why. I continue to have quit a high opinion of you and will chalk it up to nerves or what have you, but please reflect that I did nothing to provoke you and you weren't exactly cordial in return. --Dante Alighieri 05:15, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I realize you are trying to help. Next time you try to do that, please check the history of the dispute you are getting into. Mediation is a very complex business. To step into a dispute and say "Look, guys, you have both behaved badly, now let's get back to the issues at hand" may sound like a good idea, but it often isn't.

Try to put yourself in my shoes: If everything I say is true, how would you react to a comment like yours above ("be careful with your language" .. "breach of the bounds of good taste")? Would you consider it helpful?—Eloquence 05:23, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about archiving your conversation in progress- I'm on a slow connection here and didn't see it. Can one of you move this when we're done with the current thread, and, if you don't object, restore the header for the blank page I put up? Thanks, Sorry!2toise

Address of MOC

Missionaries of Charity 54A, A.J.C. Bose Road Kolkata 700 016 Phone: 033- 245 2277, 249 7115

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mother Teresa/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) They're now better and we will improve them further. Majoreditor 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)