Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 10

Criticism
I am not sure why the criticism section here is given so much space. It borders on the downright offensive considering how little in it has footnotes. Further, there is nothing but criticism, without any perspective or cross-checking of the criticism. This is not the work of an encyclopedia.

I excised the section devoted to the Penn and Teller show. How in the hell did that get here? How is that constructive at all? If South Park did an episode on Mother Theresa, would you include that too?

An example of criticism of the criticism is this from the Catholic workers in Calcutta:

"Though Chatterjee's book has earned accolades in the West, his views do not go down well with the Catholic clergy in Kolkata associated with Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity.

Pointing out that while reviewing the book, journalist-writer Khushwant Singh had observed that it was 'hard on facts, but weak on judgement,' Fr C M Paul, Church spokesman for the celebration committee of Mother's beatification, says: 'I fully agree with [Singh's] views. Chatterjee does not seem to use his intelligence and common sense. He quotes facts out of context to arrive at weird judgements.'" This is from  http://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/94.html  I also wonder why so much of the criticism here is the same as on this page: http://experts.about.com/e/m/mo/Mother_Teresa.htm  Which came first--that page or Wikipedia?

While it is not necessarily the strongest argument and is admittedly an appeal to authority, I find it hard to believe that this little woman hoodwinked the Nobel Committee, the United Kingdom (which awarded her the Order of Merit), the United States government (several awards), and the Indian Government which gave her the only state funeral for a non-Indian in the state's history. Didn't they know that she was a fraud, a fundamentalist, and cruel?
 * I tend to agree. The undue weight granted to the criticism section is staggering. Mostly it carries claims by critics without details on the nature of the acccusations. As a fan of some of Hitchens' work accounting the Vietnam War and other non-religious things, I and many of my agnostic and atheist friends tend to frown on Hitchens' unhealthy obsession with Mother Teresa. His argumentation rests on several points: she was an egomaniac (pot meet kettle), she mismanaged orphanages and hospitals (while he avoids confronting the idea that a mismanaged service is better than none), and that she took money from bad people and complimented President Reagan (Hitchens later revised his view of presidents Reagan and Bush, although it seems he failed to modify his previous statements, all the more evidence of his obsession with proving Teresa a fraud. As for accepting money from bad sources, I can understand both sides of the issue. However there are two legitimate sides. Accepting the money had merit too as she used it to alleviate suffering in others). In essence, Hitchens tends to, in his fervor, assume a malignant intent inherent in Mother Teresa that he had no proof of or even reason to suspect. Further cherry-picking about her quotes on suffering are most dishonest. For instance, one could use any of Dr. Jack Kavorkian's insistances that death is a release for *some* patients and flip it in a similar manner to say that Dr. Kavorkian thought death is the purpose of existence.


 * What is needed is a section that addresses the criticism by some of the people who have debunked it such as the aforementioned Fr. Paul, Singh and various other people closer to the issues than Hitchens who have weighed in on the discussion. 98.114.235.100 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill
I have read the flaming controversy of the previous MT talk pages. I cannot discuss everything I have read but will offer my comments on the recent issues.

A point that Jossi has repeated over and over again, with some backup from Ethan Mitchell, is that a quarter of the article ought not present the POV of just four individuals.

I wonder if Jossi knows one of the pillars of free societies: John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty. Mill tried very hard to show there that the claim that “we should not represent the views of a small minority” is something extremely wrong. I would like to illustrate Mill’s point with the city in which I was born.

Five hundred years ago the Aztecs ruled the place known now as Mexico City. They were sanguinary theocrats that sacrificed little children to their gods. The Aztecs were just the last people in a sanguinary culture that developed in almost three thousand years. Though codices survived the Spanish conquest, no Indian, at least in writing, seems to have spoken out against child sacrifice. Why? Because they were a tiny minority; and tiny minorities are rarely heard in a totalitarian culture.

One of the phrases that struck me the most in On Liberty was Mill’s statement that there are exactly the same probabilities that a single individual may be right or wrong on a controversial issue than the rest of humanity. That’s why Mill fought for the outsider to be listened with due attention even if the society overwhelmingly outnumbers the lone outsider.

I don’t want to compare MT with the Aztecs. But like Mill I believe, above all, in the genius of certain individuals, and value the society that —unlike the Aztecs— makes their existence possible.

This is a plea for people like Hitchens to be heard in at least a quarter of the article. The tragedy with the Aztecs and the next totalitarian society that took over the city in which I live, the Spanish with their Inquisition, is that both of them wiped out, vanished and reduced to nothing all dissenting opinion.

This simply cannot happen today, much less in Wikipedia. Cesar Tort 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just one observation - you say, "This is a plea for people like Hitchens to be heard in at least a quarter of the article" - no probs. on that count, I'd support evan a full article on Hitchens, but definitely not MT's article. If I give one quarter to Hitchens and another to other critics, what is left to talk of facts of MT per se? Also, jossi was quoting from the NPOV policy - if you have a problem with that, pls. try to get the policy changed rather than cast aspersions such as "This simply cannot happen today, much less in Wikipedia" as it would be unproductive. --Gurubrahma 12:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK with not giving a quarter to every critic. But why not just leave the 25% to all critics, as the article stands now, and just improve the Controversy section by sourcing the “citation needed”? Cesar Tort 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Diseenting opinions need to be present in an article as diseenting opinions. Passing value judgements about this and that are not the domain of Wikipedia editors. Cesar, I would suggest you need read WP:NPOV to understand Wikipedia content policies work. You may also want to read WP:NOT to understand what this encyclopedia is not. And by the way, Christopher Hitchens, has his own article in which you can expand on his criticism on this and other individuals. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 14:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already read those tutorials.
 * “Dissenting opinions need to be present in an article as dissenting opinions”. This reminds me very strongly Alexis de Tocqueville’s  fears of the tyranny of democracy (i.e., the dictatorship of the masses).  The 25% space for critics precisely represents the balancing NPOV for this article. Cesar Tort 19:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you are saying that four critics deserve 25% on a biography? You may want to read WP:LIVING &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:LIVING refers to living personalities. MT is dead. Cesar Tort 19:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What does WP:LIVING have to do with this? Moreover, why don't we put what the Pope said on the Pope's page? Why must only the comments of critics go on their pages?--Prosfilaes 19:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood my point. Of course that criticism must be presented here. But if you want to expand and cover all aspects on the POV of an author, such as Hitchens, you can do so in his article rather than here. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a quotation from Wikipedia’s On Liberty:
 * “In Mill's view, tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of government because it is not limited to a political function. Where one can be protected from a tyrant, it is much harder to be protected 'against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling'. As such, people will be subject to what society thinks is suitable — and people will be fashioned as such. The prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society. As such there can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority.”
 * This makes me think about all those Gallup polls on MT and this very article. —Cesar Tort 02:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that these pages are not a discussion forum. These pages are provided to discuss edits to this article. Thank you for your consideration. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My point with all that Mill stuff and quotations was precisely to discuss your planned edits to this article: moving everything you dislike to the critics’ page. —Cesar Tort 03:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no such plans. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn’t you write: “After summarizing, we could move most of the content to these author’s respective articles” (on 9 March 2006, 18:40 UTC)? —Cesar Tort 05:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. And I still thing is the way to go for all the reasons presented, if there is consensus for that move, that is. I would suggest that you take sometime and learn how this project works. It will save you and everybody else a lot of time. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 15:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So we agree to disagree —Cesar Tort 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to take a look at Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 2. Since 2003 overzealous editors wanted to move all criticism to another articles.  But always failed to do so...  —Cesar Tort 16:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cesar- I'm a great fan of Mill. On LIberty is one of my favorite essays. I'm not a fricking Catholic apologist. I agree with Hitchens to a great degree. And no one is trying to remove all the criticism of Mother Teresa from this page.

A number of people, myself included, feel that the (currently) minority status of the criticism, coupled with its generally presumptive nature, coupled with the scarcity of prominent adherents, suggests that it violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy to elaborate the criticisms here on this page, since they are currently more associated with their authors than with their subject. That is what we are talking about. Ethan Mitchell 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Ethan, I appreciate them.


 * I have not only read the MT Archive Talks, but printed them and presently I am re-reading them in a special ring binder I bought for the occasion.


 * I am surprised to see that, from day one in 2003, MT’s fans have tried so hard to move criticism to other pages. It’s remarkable the flaming level around this issue in those Archives!  The last thing I want is to engage in that sort of uncivil discussions with other editors.


 * However, though I understand your opinion, I respectfully disagree. For instance, you like Mill’s On Liberty.  Great!  What can you tell me then about what I wrote in this talk page on 02:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)?  —Cesar Tort 22:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All right. As I understand it, you are saying that if we reduce the proportion of an article devoted to criticism to below X percent, then we are marginalizing and silencing the critics.  In my experience, though, this is not how people absorb information.  If I don't know anything about Abagail Frunk, and I'm reading along about what a great person she was, and then I run across a line that says "Several witnesses saw her kill and eat her neighbors and their lapdogs," then I am going to sit up and pay attention, even though it is only twelve words in a sea of words.


 * However, if I'm trying to learn how my refrigerator works, and a large portion of the text is devoted to Dr. Wonkum's theory that electrons have feelings, too, you know, I am apt to be irritated. Clearly, clearly, I can screen out the information I don't want.  But not if it begins to dwarf the information I'm looking for.  And if we establish as a precedent that any critique deserves to be discussed in great detail on the page corresponding to the object of criticism, we are moving in that direction.


 * Cesar, you have said you are happy to spend 25% of an article on X discussing four people's criticisms of X. I imagine that if eight authors were criticizing MT, you would not concede that 50% of the article should be criticism?  So the principle you seem to be suggesting is that if ANY prominent criticisms of X exist, we should spend 25% of the article discussing them.  This seems to me an impossible burden on wikipedia.


 * Consider a paragraph like this: "Several prominent critics of Mother Teresa, including health experts and some of her former volunteers, have argued that the widespread admiration for her is misplaced. They argue that Mother Teresa's ministries are focused primarily on converting people to Catholicism, and that such medical treatment as is provided is meager and incompetent, even by the low standards of Calcutta.  Further, these critics argue that Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church have misused funds donated for medical purposes, and callously pursued a campaign of deathbed conversion rather than providing competent medical and hospice care."


 * Three sentences. But what reader can get through it with all their innocent hagiolatry intact?  Those who want to learn more about Hitchens' criticisms can click on the link to his page, and those who don't, or are already aware of Hitchens' critiques but are trying to read a page about Mother Teresa, won't.  Ethan Mitchell 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, Ethan: claims that witnesses saw Frunk kill and eat her neighbors, or Wonkum’s theory that electrons have feelings, shouldn’t be mentioned in serious articles. But I trust you agree with me that these sort of lunatic claims are not in the same category of Hitchens’ accusations?


 * I wouldn’t concede 50% to eight MT critics. I am only asking 25% for all critics, whether they have published books or were just acquaintances of MT.


 * I do believe however (and that was my point above) that neither Aztecs nor New Spain scholars in Mexico spoke out respectively against Aztec child sacrifice or the New Spain Inquisition because in totalitarian, theocratic societies, dissidents are never heard: they are invisible. That’s why Mill is so important.  Even a minority of one —whether an Indian critic of child sacrifice or a New Spaniard critic of the Inquisition— would have been heard in an open society.  But there are no existing pre-Hispanic or novo-Hispanic pamphlets exposing any of those atrocious events...


 * I believe many of the problems in Mexico today, an underdeveloped country with atrocious levels of poverty, have to do with its totalitarian past. A single individual may be right and the rest of the society wrong.  That’s what I learnt in Mill’s On Liberty and Orwell’s 1984.  Hitchens is no Wonkum.  All I am asking is some space for people like him in the MT article.  —Cesar Tort 01:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, more specifically, you are asking for up to 25% of each article to be devoted to a criticism of the article's subject. Yes?  This isn't about "some space;" everyone involved in this discussion for quite some time has agreed that Hitchens et al. should get "some space."  This is about the NPOV:UW policy.


 * I agree with you that Hitchens is not making "lunatic claims," but I think I would also agree with JSM that we are incomptent to decide who is and who is not a lunatic. So, as I see it, wikipedia only has three options on the table:


 * (#1)Every critic, including Wonkum, gets individually mentioned. The criticism section can take up a certain ammount (25%?) of the article, irrespective of how few critics are cited.
 * (#2)Criticisms are given an ammount of room on the subject's page proportional to how widely they are accepted; important but minority critiques are explicated further on their own pages.
 * (#3)Criticisms are given room on the subject's page proportional to how much wikipedians agree with them.


 * Now, the NPOV:UW policy is #2. Cesar and others are suggesting #1, but to do this consistently would entail a massive re-styling of wikipedia, and it seems unlikely to me that any of us are really looking for that.  So I cannot help but feel that what people are really pushing for is #3, and that is quite obviously an NPOV violation.


 * I would be game, incidentally, to apply a policy like #1 in some consistent fashion. But I don't hear any enthusiasm for doing so, and I doubt MT is the issue that will change people's minds.  We are, after all, talking mostly about a fairly cranky pundit arguing about the reputation of a dead woman, with few facts in dispute.  It isn't like anyone says MT was a brain surgeon.  Here on this talk page, we are all hopped up about her, but I don't see this as an issue that will compell people to rewrite an entire encyclopedia.


 * And, Cesar, as a total non-sequiter, I think there are some surviving novo-Hispanic sources critical of the Inquisition in Mexico. Let me get back to you on that.  Cheers, Ethan. Ethan Mitchell 12:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think #3 is obviously an NPOV violation. I think if there's a large number of people on Wikipedia that hold an opinion, it's an opinion that's not totally unrepresented in the larger world.  To describe the multiple proponents of the anti-Teresa group as "a (sic) cranky pundit" is unfair; I could get as sharp about the naive religionists who pushed a legend, but I don't think it would advance this article.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving criticism of a person away from their biographical article amounts to burying it in a POV fork. I'm fine with criticism of Hitchens (and there sure is a lot of it) residing in Hitchens' article, but his criticism of MT belongs here in MT's article. In short, I agree with Cesar Tort on this matter. Alienus 17:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ethan. Your explanation of Wikipedia’s disputed policies #1, #2 and #3 are most pertinent now that I’m having big trouble with some POV editors of the Biological psychiatry article.  Thanks for explaining them!


 * I haven’t read Hitchens’ book so I cannot ascertain whether or not he is a “cranky pundit” (though I have read some of his articles, including a MT article in Free Inquiry magazine). However, if MT diverted the funds to the Vatican that donors believed would be used for the poor, Hitchens’ accusation doesn’t sound crank to me.


 * And yes: it would be great if some people from the 16th-18th centuries spoke out against the Inquisition here in Mexico! Hitchens aside, let’s think a little about Arthur Koestler or George Orwell.  In their times most of the intellectuals were wrong about communist Russia and these two individual critics were right.  This example helps me to illustrate why I still believe that On Liberty is a milestone in our understanding of something that people has not grasped yet, not even wikipedians.  As I stated in my April 2 post, there are the same probabilities that a single individual may be right or wrong on a controversial issue than the rest of humanity.  If we don’t listen to them... just look what happened to the world under communist rule. —Cesar Tort 17:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it more briefly, the first person to discover a fact is always a minority. Alienus 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What this has to do with our discussion? Wikipedia is not the place to assert the POV of a minority, but to describe all POVs in proportion to their significance. You may need to re-read WP:NPOV as well as WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the opinions of four notable people are held by a large number of less notable people. Alienus 19:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An assertion that it is not Verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, whatever. I'm just explaining that the presence of four notable people does not mean that their beliefs are unique to them. Rather, they're the visible side of a larger group. If you want to play wikilawyering games, you can do it on your own time, but if you want to censor critics of MT, you're in for it. Alienus 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What? I am not censoring anything. But your position is incorrect and in total contradiction with Wikipedia content policies. Your assertion about the magnitude of support for the critical views of these four criticis is not verifiable, and not reported by reputable sources. What I mean to say is that whet you or I think is inconsequential, we have to report only what other sources say about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We are reporting only what other sources say about the subject.--Prosfilaes 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many Indian doctors and rationalists protested the beatification of Mother Teresa. This can be verified.  However, I don’t have time right now for Google searches.  I am supposed to be on vacation, for goodness sake! —Cesar Tort 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When you do you can add it. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again: no one is trying to eliminate pertinent criticisms from the MT page. The number of people who support a particular POV, although obviously irrelevant to its truth-value, is both germane to wikipedia's NPOV:UW policy and (may) be a claim in need of verification.


 * Prosafilaes, I did say "mostly," and this discussion has been mostly about Hitchens, who--as I have said before--I am largely in agreement with. But I am concerned that this entire line of criticism borders on being trivial (maybe the dead people didn't read the fine print before they agreed to some ritual they were probably unconscious during???), and it would be bad to establish a policy that even the most absurd criticisms are guaranteed coverage in a large portion of the subject page.  (This is Ethan, forgetting to sign in)

Ok this is my first time entering into a wiki discussion so I hope I'm doing this right. I see a problem with the argument being made about minority point of view. specifically it seem very unscientific. The scientific method is based on the idea that repeated observation of a reality by multiple observers increases the likelihood that the event in questions happens as observed. How does that relate to the current subject. It goes specifically to what the word verifiable means in relation to an encyclopedia. Something that is verifiable can be repeatedly observed to by true by multiple observers and you can tell me 'look at such and such or do such and such' and you will see for yourself that 'foo' is the case.

When it comes to expressing minority opinion the fact is that there are probably as many minority opinions about a given subject as there are human beings who have an opinion about the subject. So you can't include every minority opinion.

The fact someone is prominent does not have any more influence on weather or not what they say is factually/verifiably correct then weather or not they are a member of the majority or minority opinion does. So I think when choosing( as we must due to the number of minority opinions) which minority opinions to include in wikipedia there is an implied criteria that the opinion itself be verifiable in so much as it is a statement of fact.

If my understanding of this is wrong then there should be a section in the article about the earth that supports the opinion of the flat earthers.

That notwithstanding I don't know enough about the current opinion being discussed to make a judgment of it, but thought that this might help add a useful perspective to the consideration. --Chistofishman 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Chistofishman 5/4/2005 1:43

Just to clarify, I like the idea in the Mills SA as stated here. ( I haven't read the SA.) It is probably a very good thing to keep in mind if you are creating social policy or making laws. However I don't think it is particularly applicable to encyclopedia which is by definition an attempt to present verifiable facts. --chistofishman 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I have a question about wikipeidia's rules as they pretian to this debate. It seems more approprate to move the bulk of Hitchen's opinion's the the page that is devouted to him with a link to that page and a paragraph noting his opinion is there. If for no other reason then the infomration belongs there also and I don't see a reason to duplicate it.

I also note that hitchens's page lists him as a well known 'anit-cleric' which implies he suffers from a kind of bigotry. If the page pretaining to him corectly characterises his philosophy I am forced to ask why there isn't a larger section devoted to the opinion of white supremists on the Martin Luther king Jr. page --chistofishman 20:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This debate seems to have died down now, but I just had to point out a flaw in reasoning that bugged me:

Cesar: "One of the phrases that struck me the most in On Liberty was Mill’s statement that there are exactly the same probabilities that a single individual may be right or wrong on a controversial issue than the rest of humanity."

Where did this idea come from? On what basis is it assumed to be factual and/or true? It makes statements about probability but offers no proofs, and no explanation of its assumptions, making it completely non-operative in the context of this discussion.

If you assume that people pick their opinions totally randomly, then yes - if we flip a coin, immediately hide it, the slight majority of the world says it's landed heads and and I say it's landed tails then I do indeed have as good a chance as the majority view of being right.

However, this is clearly not the case as people (even cultures) don't pick their ideas randomly - they tend to stick with ones that work and ditch ones which don't. Even religiously-inspired beliefs tend to be restricted to the intangibles now - you can argue that "homosexuality is wrong" is a judgement call (define "wrong"!), but any religion preaching that the sky is pink or black is white is so clearly ridiculous that it will either have to modify its dogma or lose followers to the point it's irrelevant.

In addition, the mere phrase "the rest of humanity" pretty much rules out random opinion-selection. If people chose their opinions randomly then out of 6 billion people you'd expect about 3 billion to guess "heads" and 3 billion to guess "tails". If everyone in the world except me guesses "heads" then we're either not choosing opinions randomly or we're in the middle of the biggest statistical fluke ever. To imply this happens generally, for every decision ever made, is so improbable it's effectively statistically impossible.

So, people don't select their opinions randomly, but are generally at least guided by facts (even if not chained to them). Along these lines, when someone has a demonstrably "better" opinion than someone else, the "loser" will generally (eventually) modify their behaviour and beliefs along those new lines - this is progress (or, if you prefer, the evolution of ideas), and is why the majority of the world is capitalist, uses science and scientific advances (even while paying lip-service to other methods of thought) and is why there's such a marked correlation between education, democracy and quality-of-life.

I know it's heretical in our modern-day west, but some ideas are just better than others. More factual, more useful, or simply better considered, but "better" all the same.

Given people are constantly learning from each other and adopting new ideas that work better than their old ones, the consensus of a large group is statistically proveably more likely to be "right" than the consensus of a small group. The only times this does not hold true is when the small group is composed of cherry-picked individuals who are more knowledgeable than average - scientists, experts or whatever, or when a new idea has just come about, and only a few people have been exposed to it.

I doubt anyone here's a recognised expert on MT as she's not a recognised field of study, and apparently nothing new has been discovered in the last short period of time about MT, so this doesn't apply.

So, to sum up: It's not impossible that a small group of people could be more right than a large group, which is why we should always at least listen to minority views. However, to imply (let alone state) that when an (unspecified) small group of people is in conflict with a large group both have the same probability of being right is baseless and, outside of a few edge-cases which don't apply here, simply incorrect. --Shaper.pmp 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A ritual they were probably unconscious during?

 * Etan, the thing about the ritual is minor, but it's also one of the most minor criticisms. We're not setting policy here, and these aren't the most absurd criticisms.--Prosfilaes 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I could comment, the idea that she's baptizing people without informed consent isn't that minor. First of all, many find it deeply offensive in an of itself. Even Christians complain that baptism is a holy ritual, not something you trick people into, while non-Christians see this as being an example of how MT furthers the RCC goal of proselytizing as opposed to helping those in need. This last point is particularly relevant, because it offers a non-charitable explanation for her behavior. Alienus 06:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the big question is whether she was tricking people in a malicious, blasphemous manner which downplayed the importance of baptism, or whether people only wish that MT was tricking people, just so people could say that they've critizied someone famous. It's similar to how you'll encounter many people who only wish Christians are worshipping a blood thirsty tyrant of a God, yet we aren't. The distinction may be crucial, but unfortunently, I know of nothing that we could source which might elaborate on the issue that way :(. Homestarmy 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I regard that comment about a blood thirsty tyrant of a God as flamebait. What matters is whether she was tricking people, not whether she was malicious about it (which I find rather unlikely) or whether she was blasphemous about it (which baptism is, inherantly, from the perspective of many religions.)--Prosfilaes 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I speak from personal experience attempting to debate people in various atomospheres regarding Christianity, not from trying to invite even more debate, yeesh. And I was going on the assumption that Alienus was bringing up a point for the article..... Homestarmy 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So you see nothing wrong in making a comparison that you know will offend many of the people you're discussing with? What matters for the article is the deception more than any underlying motives. Blasphemy was not part of the criticism as given, and is horribly WP:POV; I'd never bring it up except as part of a direct quote.--Prosfilaes 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Offend whom exactly? If there are people out there who believe God is a blood thirsty tyrant, then thats their choice, but I reserve the right to label that belief incorrect as much as I please. My comparison was meant to illustrate how when it comes to Christian matters, many people take things horribly out of the real meaning to make criticisms, and it is possible that the controversy over MT is one of those cases. Or, conversly, it may not be one of those cases, for all I know, she really could of been scamming or whatever every single one of the people she was baptizing and horribly desecrating baptism in general, I don't know. And if it really is the deception that matters, then I don't even see the reason why this section of a talk page existed. Is the original information that this section was created to discuss still inside the article or not? Homestarmy 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're speaking from personal experience, then you know there are people who believe this. You have that right, but that doesn't mean that other people won't be offended, and anyone who's offended, or even disagrees, will not take away from your comparison what you wanted. To offend people in an off-hand comment, to which following up would be off-topic, is rude.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace
The first sentence says shes Macedonian-born. The country didn't exist then, even if the region did, so isn't there a better way to word this? --Grocer 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has defaced a picture included in the article and replaced "Mother Teresa" with "Easson" in the accompanying section of the article. Please fix.


 * Both issues have been addressed. Thanks. --Grocer 08:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

revert war
There seems to be a revert war going on, and neither version seems very good. Why don't we open the floor for discussion and try to solve this in a civilized manner?-- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like both versions seem to be deleting the other's content? If everything in this war is referenced, then I suppose its all supposed to be in there :/. Homestarmy 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't just add info because it's verifiable. You have to mind NPOV. Since everybody involved is refusing to discuss it here, I don't know what to do, because I don't know what's neutral, what's not, and what could be a compromise. If I change the article, my edit'll prob'ly be reverted.-- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 01:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and be bold ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I, for one, have not deleted anything. I don't see the point in deleting content that is the subject of a 'hot' revert war.  It will just be replaced.  I would like to come to some type of consensus here on the talk page, so that we can find text that is broadly acceptable on the main page and meets wikipedias policies.  And (for the, uuhh, like, fourteenth time) I am not trying to eliminate the criticisms of Mother Teresa (and not merely because I agree with them).  Ethan Mitchell 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * revert war even here? that is ironic. She dedicated all her life to help people, not inspire them to start wars. Leshkuq 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much heresay & unknowns in current article. Demand a Clean-up!
In the article "Mother Teresa", there is more information on the unproven and unreliable beliefs of conspiracy theorists, then there are information on Mother Teresa herself.

The following actions should be taken immediately:

1) Shorten the section full of the views of unknown and unrepresented conspiracy theorists. Generalize the conspiracy theories into a brief section. It should NOT be longer than the actual article.

2) Confirm the background on the conspiracy theorists referenced to in the article. Are these credible theorists? Or are they among the hundreds that are just itching to cause a stir?

3) Amend the article to erase the overbearing BIAS from the article. The article was obviously mainly written by a person with enormously negative views towards Mother Teresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.72.224 (talk • contribs)


 * You should discuss specific concerns here before simply removing material you don't agree with. - Nunh-huh 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So basically because you don't like it, it's unproven, unreliable, and a consiparacy theory. We don't need to confirm the background on most of these people; several of them have wikipedia articles. The controversies are nowhere near the length of the rest of the article, which is filled with the words of Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. --Prosfilaes 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous user placed a request for page protection (after deleting the Controversy section), which I have removed. I informed the user that removal of text of this sort constitutes vandalism. ProhibitOnions 14:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I included this text in two discussions as that seems apropriate and applicable to both.

I also note that hitchens's page lists him as a well known 'anit-cleric' which implies he suffers from a kind of bigotry. If the page pretaining to him corectly characterises his philosophy I am forced to ask why there isn't a larger section devoted to the opinion of white supremists on the Martin Luther king Jr. page

I think the critisizm section in general needs to be cleaned up. 3 reasons:

1)It seems more approprate to move the bulk of Hitchen's opinion's the the page that is devouted to him with a link to that page and section and a parapraph summarizing it and saying for expanded details check here. If for no other reason then the infomration belongs there also and I don't see a reason to duplicate it.

2) I have a hard time telling what part of it come from hitchen's and what is said by other people. I assume other people will have the problem. I needed to read it 3 times to figure that out.

3) There are several statments that do not seem to be easily verifiable or seem to be in conflict with simple logic. These statments should be expanded, clarified, verified or deleted. here are some specific examples:

"Many of Teresa's donors were evidently under the impression that their money was being used to build hospitals[citation needed]" this needs to be cited or deleted. If it is part of someones opinion they should be cited. Was it the opinion of the doctor mentioned below perhapse?

My personal expiernce having known many contributors to mother theresa's order is that they are supporting generically the 'sisters' in their 'mission' includding but not limited helping the sick and dieing. I'd expect documentation before many I would be easily convinced people didn't understand that.


 * Really? Millions of Protestants donated to her order believing it was a missionary group for Catholics? Why?--Prosfilaes 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Christianity doesn't get bogged down in political affiliations and denominational strife generally in cases of ministry to the poor. Such pettiness is not characteristic of the faith. I donate to Catholic causes. I know Catholic friends who donate to protestant-run causes. This myth of a barely-contained political hatred denominations have for one another is merely another snide, smug smear-attempt by Atheists trying to paint Christians as bombastic, combative, and generally unhelpful. This is typically coupled with vague references to the Troubles in Ireland as a religious war (although it was mostly ethnic: British who were largely Protestants vs. Irish who were largely Catholic) and to the reformation and schism. This might seem like an earful for a sarcastic and assumptive remark, however the underlying ignorance needs address. 98.114.235.100 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also it seems like the section on: "Quality of medical care" should probably innclude the note that the people being cared for were being picked up off the street, were homeless, pennyless and if they recieved any care at all thier condition was greatly improved over the situation they were removed from. Mother theresas mission statment was to help those who are abondoned by the world not to provide medical care.

I'd combining section 1 and 2 and subdividing it with topics Hitchens and Dr. Aroup Chatterjee, after paragraph 2. In the current format the article is repetative and confusing because it nessary to state who's opinion is being quoted on each parapgraph.

Much of the information in #2 unverifiable. It might be good to mention some of the known numbers from britian as citied in the Sisters of charity ariticle for support.

has anyone verfied what actually happens to funds in the vatican bank? Or is what the money goes to also hitchensens opinion?


 * No, no one has verified what happens to the funds. That's part of what is being complained about, the fact that for a charitable group, they're mighty opaque about where the money goes.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The section on baptism is intresting. Should probably contain a link to the catholic cathisms section on baptism or at least a link the wikipedia article explining the catholic concept of batism.

What it implies and what is proven may not be completely the same. I'll think about wording for a while though before I make any real recomendations currently I'd leave this section.