Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 2

Adam's edits
Now, this is quite different. Thanks for the effort! In any case, I still am worried about relying on some sources of information just because they exist and giving them such a long space in a text which -supposedly- should just reflect what she has done/accomplished etc... without any special praise or criticism... I am not a historian but what level of reliability have the quoted books/journals? Money affairs, though important, are a quite complicated and never too clear issues: did Mother Teresa know that the money was illicitely earned? Was precisely that money? Etc... Personal testimonies are enlightening, but they have to be confronted: it is far too easy to say "this money was not well distributed" and it is way too complicated to prove the contrary. I guess that a fair writer of the article should ask him/herself: Would I include this and not include the Pope's homily? or parts of the biography at the vatican site (which is of free use)? As you can see, I vote for taking out all the "criticisms" section and just inserting a couple of paragraphs and giving the references. Pfortuny 14:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC).


 * Personally, I agree. I would remove all of the "criticism" sections to an article Criticisms of Mother Teresa. But I don't think we will ever get agreement on that. Adam 15:03, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * After checking Ghandi and Lenin, I think it is still unfair to add a criticism section. BUT I'd rather keep your (this) article adding other sources of information (Vatican site, for example? -sorry for the insistence, but it is my single idea today-) than starting another war. Pfortuny 15:33, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at the Vatican bio and it looks like Adam has covered most of the factual information it contains. The religious commentary, IMO, has not place in this article. What more from it would you suggest be included? The Pope's homily could best be referred to with an external link. BTW, if you look at the article Henry Kissinger, you will see another example of a "criticisms" section; it is certainly not an unusual feature.
 * Adam, I think you did a nice synthesis; the new version is very nicely written. Complements, er, compliments... -- Viajero 15:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. I have taken Pfortuny's advice and used some material from the Vatican website, and used a para from the Pope's homily, plus a link. I agree that the "criticism" section is awkward, but MT really is unique in how polarised opinions are about her, and I think the article has to reflect that. That is a different matter from any specific errors of fact in the criticism section - I have not rechecked all the sources. Adam 16:07, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * You are a fast one, Adam! I think those paragraphs are quite informative (things she did after just "moving to India") but I did not want to modify the article. Compliments! :) for your job and thanks. Pfortuny 16:12, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, great job! Harris7 17:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I think we can now get a majority agreement to remove the criticism section as it is not encyclopedic. Alexandros 01:29, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

List of topics to add?
Some points. Very good, though I would still like to see it better researched --this may simply take time and normal wiki process. Some more of her own words, and views, etc. Points:


 * Teresa as a celebrity -> Teresa as a World Celebrity.
 * Supported Ghandi's "suspension of democracy"?
 * How? Was she going to oppose her? What was the realistic political context under which she gave her support -- enthusiastic, reserved, forced, compliant --what kind?
 * "Inadequate provision of services" should be changed to "Care and Services" -- **no need to POV the topic of the charge. Same with the other titles... Misuse of dontated funds -- > Donations


 * Secret Baptisms could be changed to just "baptism"
 * Im not too eager to support prosletyzers --for this article, Im not sure that throwing a little water on someones forehead constitutes a crime, either. The patient can take it for what it is --a kindly gesture, or whatever. Regardless of the nun, the prayer, the service, the dogma, the religion --all religious death rituals serve the same purpose --to express face-to-face kindness to someone who is actually shoving off. Emails might not work. ;-)
 * Critics also charge... instead of..."Mother Teresa is also..."
 * The Abuse section should go under the "Care and services" section (4 of "=") Theres not enough of it to merit a separate subsection.
 * "Torture" -- this is just one, rather circumstantial account --to go to a death ward, especially one that no doubt doubles as a psych ward, is not going to be the most pleasant of circumstances. One has to establish the credibility of the complainer --in this case a nun, who may or may not have seen such things before.  "Tortured" street children, or "abused? --a hot knife? Scars? Just one nun? -- The details are worth mentioning as "in one incident.. " Does this admission mean that shes willing to admit it, so this is all there was or &mdash;if there was one, there must be many more...? Hm..

Sincerely, ~S~

I'm sure you know that Catholic baptim is not just "throwing a little water on someones forehead... a kindly gesture, or whatever." It constitutes a conversion to Christianity, and to baptise a person of another religion without their informed consent is contrary to Catholic law. You will recall the case of the Jewish boy in 19th century Italy (I forget the name) and appreciate how serious this issue can be. It cannot just be written off in the way you suggest. Adam 02:48, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw your Edgardo Mortara article. But that was a very long time ago &mdash;can we agree that the modern contexts are a bit removed? I wouldnt argue with the difference between 1740 and 1840 except to make note of the enlightenment's influence on religious matters (along with imperial-colonial events) &mdash;but in this case, there needs be some framing of Catholic/Christian - Hindu/Muslim tensions in India (as bad as Hindu-Muslim tensions?) It's got little to do with Catholic-Jewish issues, or even how much the Catholic Church thought of such silly matters as a little sprinkled water &mdash;and enforced laws based on them. Note also the difference between Italian police in Bologna taking orders from the Holy See, versus the Holy See trying to impose its silly ethnic standards in some isolated and (perhaps threatened) outpost India &mdash;very real differences.-&#25140;&#30505sv

Though personally I had rather take everything out I agree with Adam in keeping those criticisms but I am also with Steve (is it Steve?) in
 * a) Just one witness is never enough (even though it be a self-accusation)
 * b) Titles should be less opinionated

But Adam is right in saying that the controversy on Baptisms is (as a controversy) important, not just "dropping some water". Pfortuny 06:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Name / titles
Where does the name 'Blessed Teresa of Calcutta' come from? Is that the name she took, or what some people call her?2toise 03:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is the title by which she is now known having been beatified. The text explains that. Adam 03:41, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it still isn't really apparent to me from the text that that is the source of the title - parhaps that would bear a little more explanation in the text?2toise 22:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have used this revision to make my own revision which combines the criticism into the rest of the article. See User:TUF-KAT/Mother Teresa Tuf-Kat 09:16, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias
Take a look at the http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=405787 encyclopedia article if you want to know what an encyclopedia article should look like. This article is terribly POV. Including criticisms in a biographical article is not the norm. This criticisms section is obviously the work of a minority of people who would like to further their point of view concerning a Mother Teresa's "misuse of funds" which is a matter of the mission anyway. You really need to look at every single other encyclopedia article written about Mother Teresa, and rewite the article based on those. None of them have any mention of individuals such as Keating. Alexandros 15:16, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the URL to the EB article. I prefer ours.


 * Alexander, with all due respect, I don't think you completely understand yet what Neutral point of view means here. It means presenting both sides of a controversy in a neutral way, not simply presenting non-controversial information. Clearly you disagree with MT's critics, but the only option open to you here is to ensure that there is no bias in the way the criticism is presented. If you consider the criticism of her unfounded or incorrect, you will have to supply contrasting evidence.


 * The Catholic Church is a powerful institution and MT was an extremely prominent individual within it; as such, both deserve our scrutiny.


 * -- Viajero 15:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I understand, but the Hitler article has less criticism than the Mother Teresa article.Alexandros 16:41, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The Hitler article opens blaming him for 6 million deaths and closes blaming him mostly for 40 million. That's probably the strongest critcism in the whole of the Wikipedia.JamesDay 07:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

One of the reasons print encyclopaedias don't mention the criticisms of MT is that they are shit-scared of the Catholic Church and its ability to affect sales. This is something WP doesn't have to worry about. If Catholics don'y like the criticisms of MT they should get about refuting them, not trying to prevent them being aired. (And by the way it was MT personally who accepted Keating's donation). Adam 15:57, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point. I, however, believe that it would be in the best interests of both the critics and the supporters of Mother Teresa, to have a separte article for criticisms(or cut the criticism to one paragraph or less, and move much of the criticism to Missionaries of Charities, in order to keep the article concentrated on the more tangible facts as opposed to the less tangible(but possibly valid) facts concerning criticisms.  This criticism section is larger and more harsh than the Hitler article. Also, the point should be made that even though Mother Teresa might have been working in less than perfect settings(even possibly because of her own doing), she believed that what she was doing was very good(and a lot of it was!  She devoted her life to helping others, and she inspired many others to join the church and do even more good.  I am going to see what the current feelings concerning the article are, by conducting another survey. Alexandros 16:22, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * PS. I think it needs to be noted in the article that many of these journalists are hypocrites as Mother Teresa, spent her whole live living in poverty, wheras these journalists who criticise her are not necessarily saints. Alexandros 16:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alexander, a couple of points:
 * 1) As has already been pointed out by someone here, Hitler is arguably less controversial than MT. In any case, I don't think it is fair to compare article lengths in WP, given that it created by volunteers working in an arbitrary, unstructured way.
 * 2) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Why can't you accept the fact that for some people it is debatable how much good she did and how much good the Catholic Church does?
 * 3) The characters of her critics is completely irrelevant. Either their assertions are valid or they are not.


 * -- Viajero 20:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If I may enter this debate, it is far easier to start a controversy than proving oneself innocent. The main problems with books "The real life of ...", "Not saint but ...", "All about ...", "My views of ..." is that they accuse people and these people do not have the time/will/etc... to rebut the accusations. The problem with wikipedia is that there is little (if any, and we have to be honest here) work done on checking the validity of the sources of information. It is far too easy to say that the Catholic Church is powerful and deserves scrutiny, but in the end we are falling in the fallacy of trusting MT's critics because there are many of them. As you know, the opinion of many does not build up truth. Of course it could make sense saying that "there are many critics of this person, etc..." but to what purpose?
 * Let us not forget that if the wikipedia is to survive, it needs not cover all kind of opinions but be a source of credible material. And credibility does not depend on the number of books saying something. Think of UFO...
 * How can one prove that MT's organization has not misused money? More than that: why should we believe those who claim it simply because the organization does not want to answer? Has there been any formal trial for it? Has there been any judgement (formal)? Has there been any formal prosecution? The USA have means to know whether their money has gone astray and to prosecute people who misuse other people's money? Has this happened? Why should I trust those who say so? Are they trustworthy? Have we asked ourselves these questions? On the other hand, nothing is said of the good use of other funds... ... ...
 * I am afraid that if we wikipedists do not reflect on it, then this project is going to be a bunch of diatribes... But then again, I am a Catholic, so I must be put under scrutiny (The Catholic Church is no more than the body of the Catholic people)? Then, do not trust me. But please, ask yourself those questions. Thanks,

Pfortuny 20:42, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As for Viajero's arguments: Sorry for re-editing. Really sorry :) Pfortuny 21:05, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 1) This is quite true.
 * 2) Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but AFAIK the -pedia does not know about intentions. Of course it is debatable whether MT did good or wrong, but the problem in a -pedia is whether facts are so or not. Unless one builds up an encyclopedia of opinions, of course.
 * 3) The characters of her critics are irrelevant, but not their credibility. You trust tacitus for some things and NOT for others. Any historian trusts the bible for some facts (i.e. the existence of Babilon till its discovery, the existence of Abraham...) but not for others (Noah's Ark, the precise number of soldiers in each battle, the number of Jews at some time in history...). This is important and one has to scrutiny one's sources IN BOTH SENSES. Are those people trustworthy in their other writings? Why is it that they are so intent in their criticisms?


 * Hi again, there is room in Wikipedia for both facts and opinions. Facts -- the date of a battle, the boiling of water -- can be objectively determined. Opinions are less concrete, but a collective opinion is also a rational entity. For example, when we talk about the history of slavery, we note that at a given moment, a substantial part of the population opposed it. This is part of the story. As for sources, I completely agree; they have to be credible, but credibility is partly an article of faith; I can't possibly verify individually everything the Guardian puts on its website. -- Viajero 22:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi, agreed on facts and opinions (anyway, opinions are another kind of facts), but only as regards to reliable opinions. Even though the Guardian, Mirror, Sun and "El Jueves" say something, I guess nobody (serious) would take it for true. I am not comparing the MT critical sources to them, though, I am saying that we may have not criticised the critics enough. I do not oppose to inserting criticisms (see my previous posts in all the talks), I oppose to taking the reliability of the sources of criticisms "for granted" just because they go against the main stream or because there are several of them. Credibility is an article of faith until you find out that someone (I am not referring to this case) has lied several times, or has used biased sources several times, or has only checked one side of the problem several times, or has manifested a direct oposition to the object of his writing (this makes him/her directly unreliable), etc... Then you have the obligation to doubt his/her credibility in those aspects.
 * Anyway, I am now quite "down" bc I have just run through the "Criticisms of MT" article. I am not voting below but sure, it is so so so unprofessional. Pfortuny 08:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Separate article for criticisms?
I really don't see why the criticism section should go in a separate article - we don't have a Criticism of G.W. Bush page, or a Criticism of Adolf Hitler page, it's ridiculous - the negative side of someones life (and everyone has one) belongs in their biography.2toise 22:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC) Plus, this page doesn't even link there.


 * unverified reports from individuals who are not known to be trustworthy, does not belong in a biography. If mother teresa were tried in a crimminal court for the money matters, than it would be acceptable to note so.  These are just suppositions by people and are not regarded in any way as factually based.  This is all opinion.Alexandros 22:17, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that we should make the article into a list of slanders, but if there are legitimate questions about her activities in some areas then they should go in the main article, the same as anyone elses page.2toise 22:22, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * (if you have anything factual to put in an article, like arrests, audits, etc, thats fine with me. I just dont want Individual "witnesses" reports when they are not verified) Alexandros
 * There are many criticisms of other public figures which are not only in the form of arrests, audits etc. Why should MT be treated differently? Why should testimonies from people who witnessed activities first hand be excluded? They would not be in a court of law? If they are credible and relevant, why not include them?2toise 22:28, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The question is: are they really credible and relevant? Which is the basis for their credibility? Why do we not include all the testimonies from the present Sisters of Charity just because they have no time to write any books? Why do those criticisms deserve so much attention? Are they objective? ... If the answer is YES, ok, go on, but if it is only "the number of books", then I will be quite disappointed. There are quite a few books stating that Elijah was a martian... Pfortuny 15:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note for Alexandros
Alexander, if you unilaterally make another major deletion like you just did, someone may list you on Problem users; further such contraventions of Wikiqette may result in your being banned, which would be a pity. Based on your other contributions, you have lots to offer. Maybe you need to take a break from Mother Teresa for awhile. -- Viajero 22:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * 1) (took out "mother teresa is in some ways unsophisticated. Took out incorrect info concerning catholic's charity purpose. If you want to reinstate. give supporting evidence from a CATHOLIC site)
 * 2) (cur) (last) . . 14:22, 10 Nov 2003 . . Alexandros ("This suggests that mother teresa believed..." is POV.. took out that paragraph about one "volunteers" thoughts concerning the conditions of Missionaries. Not that relavent even to [[Missionaries of )

Alexandros - I would really ask you to stop deleting material and discuss these things on the talk page before we go ahead and do them. I am resisting undoing the large amount of deletion that you are undertaking right now, as it would only lead to an edit war, but am unhappy with you removing published fist hand reports, and claiming that only evidence from Catholic sites (whatever those are) should be used. Perhaps you can suggest a way forward on this on?2toise 14:28, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Page protected
Given Alexandros's insistence (>6x) this evening on making major unilateral deletions, I have protected this page. -- Viajero 22:33, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Im taking a break from this article(probably for good as i can see it is in terrible state). Thanks for locking it. Alexandros 22:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whatever about the logic and merits of protecting the page (BTW I also reverted one of Alexandros's edits) it is a gross abuse of sysop powers for someone who is a key participant in the debate on a page then to be the person who protects it. If the page needed protection, an independent third party should have been sought, or if no-one else was available, a temporary protection placed and explained as such here, with notes left of other sysops' pages asking someone else when they came on to impose a full protection and decide which version to revert to as part of the protection. But for a sysop themselves, having been a key debater on the issue with the supposed problem user, to impose a full protection and decide on the form to be protected is quite simply wrong. Sysops have had their powers removed temporarily for doing so else. FearÉIREANN 23:35, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have responded on Wikipedia talk:Protected page. -- Cyan 23:40, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice job on the improvement of the coverage here, compared to when it was in the earlier voting stage. JamesDay 07:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If Alexandros has really withdrawn from this page, can we dispense with his ridiculous quiz and get back to editting the article? It was nearly agreed on before he arrived. Adam 09:33, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Vote:

 * I believe that the article needs more text stressing the fact that mother Theresa devoted her life to helping others, and stress that the majority of the world regards her as the epitome of piety.

Yes:
 * 1) I do. Alexandros 16:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No:
 * 1) I do not, thoguh more describing accomplishments would be good.JamesDay 07:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Not stressed, but if actual helping has happened, it should be described accurately. Also an accurate characterization of her fame is of course needed. But stressed, no. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:27, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think this article(in its current revision) is detrimental to Wikipedia's credibility as a valid source for unbiased and accurate information.

Yes:
 * 1) I do. Alexandros 16:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No:
 * 1) I do not. The EB one is detrimental to theirs, IMO. JamesDay 07:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:30, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * The criticism section should be in a separate article.

Yes:

No:
 * 1) I do not. JamesDay 07:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not. That should be avoided at all costs. Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:36, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * 3) I do not. I think that only one sentence needs to mention criticism of Mother Teresa.  Most of these claims are NOT verified and should NOT be included. Alexandros 16:32, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS ABOVE THE VOTE

I've protected the article. I reverted to 2toise's last version before protecting - but there have been so many edits this morning I may have been too slow. Secretlondon 14:45, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Concerning, the catholic sites comment: I was only suggesting that you do not incorrectly quote Catholic doctrine. The way it was written is incorrect.  Published firsthand reports are not published as a verified source of information, and regardless, they should not be in an individual's biography with that much depth.  Alexandros 14:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, although I have my concerns, it is the large scale deletion of material from a controversial article that raise alarm bells - if it is not to degenerate into an edit war you need to gain concensus for that before going ahead.2toise 14:48, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Alexandros has put the following on my talk page: "Why did you protect Mother Teresa? User:2toise and I were in the middle of discussing and changing the article. Could you please unprotect it so we can finish editing? Alexandros 14:50, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)".

It certainly didn't look like that but if 2toise also wants me to unprotect it I will do. Secretlondon 14:55, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I totally support a cooling off period, with suggestions for edits or deletions made on the talk pages - this page is so contentious, wading in and deleting large sections without concensus is just bound to produce an edit war.
 * Secretlondon - let's keep it protected for a while.
 * Alexandros - Can we discuss the specific edits - there may not even be any disagreement, but deleting them without discussion or explanation when this page has taken so much pain to get to this stage is probably a bad idea.2toise 14:58, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I understand. I am sorry about being so stubborn.  I just got caught up in the heat of the moment *again*, without realizing what I was doing. I do however, think we need to gain a consensus that individual unconmfirmed reports of "volunteers" for the missionaries of charity, should not be included in the Mother Teresa article.  They lack the credibility that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.  They make it sound like a tabloid.  Also, you reverted to a version with incorrect statement of the catholic docrine. I was removing this since it is false.  I would like to get the article unprotected again in order to fix that fallacy.  Alexandros 15:00, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I cannot look at the header "Secret Baptisms" without wondering how anyone could actually view the wikipedia as a valid encyclopedic institution. This article is absurd. The way it is written makes mother teresa, a little old lady who helped the poor and homeless, sound worse than Hitler. Anyone who deletes factually incorrect info from this article is labled as a problem and the page is reverted and then locked. Alexandros 15:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Alexandros, you are right, BUT take into account that if you want a little good from someone who does not, then you will have to begin by negociating. The problem with the present MT article is that it contains a bunch of malicious info from unreliable sources, but you will not get it straight if you simply state your opinion and give no proofs. I repeat: I am with you (see the history and my personal page) but this is an intellectual debate, only to be won in the long-run. Make people think, not discuss. I share your anger and pain, but "they" have the power ("they" being those who are ready to take those criticisms for granted).
 * BTW, the Vote following this comment is quite confusing: what is your opinion? "yes to include" or "yes not to include"? You should say "should be removed", or clarify the answers.
 * Sorry to insist, but when you cannot win straightaway, you have to negotiate.
 * Best, Pfortuny 15:21, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The reality of the Mother Teresa article

 * Mother Teresa is a good example of the abuse of sysop power. I think that taking out factually incorrect info which is obviously wrong starting "according to catholic doctrin..." should be allowed, and admins who use their power to do things like this, should be reprimanded.  It is unnaceptable to protect pages like Mother Teresa in instences such as this one.  Secretlondon, while doing so in good faith, only protected it because a lot of people are insistent on bashing Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church in general.  I am taking out inappropriate information for a biography and I am being labled as a problem, when the users who want to include hearsay, are the only problems.  I think it is terrible that someone has not stepped in to stop this.  This is not only POV, but is insulting to Catholics.  The opinions in the Mother Teresa article are no different from text found on a klu klux clan site, or a neo-nazi site.  You might disguise this as "trying to report everyones side" but I dont think an article about Bejamin bannicker, for example, needs to include all the publsihed reports indicating problems with black people, or include a prominent klu klux klan member's opinion of black people along with reports concerning crime rates among black populations and reports from individuals who have said that they were mugged by black people. Your only difference from any of the bigots who hate gays blacks or jews, is that there are more of you and you disguise your hatred as "reporting the acts.  You all should be ashamed of yourself. --Alexandros


 * Hey, man! Do not blame everybody and even though it may seem unreasonable, you must assume good faith, even from the devil -no offense to anyone, the quotation is from Thomas More and I am not applying it-, unless you have definitive proofs of the contrary. I am as angry as you about Mother Teresa's article and for the same reason, but this does not allow you to call anyone a bigot or a sectarian. You must ASK them to be fair, not tell them they ARE not. And if they do not answer as you hope, then you have to swallow the majority's opinion, even though it be a wrong for the wikipedia (as it is, by the way).
 * I repeat: I am as angry as you, but re-editing only helps the other group, bc you transmit the idea that "we" do not dialogue but impose. The only way to prevent blocking is trying to convince other people that they are wrong. And this is hard, even though truth is clear for you and me.
 * Sorry to seem so patronizing, but as an onlooker I may be a bit colder than you are now.
 * Again, best wishes and do not despair. Pfortuny 19:32, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah, calm down Alexandros and take a breath. No one's going to get away with "abusing sysop" power IF I CAN HELP IT! But slow down, please, and take a moment to outline precisely what "violation" you are claiming. There are only 2 things a sysop can do to MT that you can't: turn on/off the 'page protection' switch; and "edit the article while it's protected". Sysops have no more RIGHT to determine content than anyone else. --Uncle Ed 19:38, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Vote
Individual's firsthand reports published in magazines or other media with the caveat of being hearsay and factually incorrect should not be included.


 * Strongly disagree. Hearsay should be labelled as hearsay. Period. Like, "Diana's brother said that she voiced worries that her parents were plotting against her" (that's pretty clear that it's a he said she said kind of thing). --Uncle Ed 19:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * are you telling me that you dont care if wikipedia turns into the tabloids? What is it with everyone.  NONE OF THESE REPORTS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED.  YOU CANT PUT THIS KIND OF POV INTO AN ARTICLE.  ITS POV, AND NOT THE OPPOSITE AS YOU ARGUE. Somehow, you guys believe that if you say its NPOV, that means it is NPOV, when what you are doing is in reality just cluttering  a biographical summary with right winged bigottry.  You use the excuse that it is wikipedia policy to show everyones pov, but you forget that encyclopedia articles would never contain this garbage.  And  sysops, whether they say so or not, do have a POV on this issue.  I find it insulting that you assume that if the person wasn't atheist, they are no good.    Sysops are using the protect feature to protect POV when they should be doing the opposite.  Alexandros 20:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying the only way to PREVENT Wikipedia from turning into the tabloids is to LABEL every point of view as the POV of some source. I did not "argue that it is the opposite of POV" -- on the contrary, I am saying (1) that it is indeed someone's POV and (2) that there's nothing wrong with points of view being in the article.


 * There's more to it than that, but I'd like to see you acknowledge what I just said, before I go on. I belive in you, Alexandros, and I want to see you succeed in your career here at Wikpedia. --Uncle Ed 14:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree - nearly everything that can be said about anything amounts to hearsay in the end - "Little is known of Teresa's early life except what she later chose to recall. She recounted that she felt a vocation to help the poor from the age of 12" this, for example, would have to go.2toise 20:44, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That is too easy an argument and misses the point completely. You could also say: almost everything Pfortuny says is invention (and in fact anything which is universal is always an invention, that is, a non-experimental mental construction). Hearsay is not "what people say", it is "what unreliable sources goosip about". Hearsay is to memories what urban legends are to anecdote.
 * One has to be careful with universal statements. Especially in a -pedia. Cheers Pfortuny 21:05, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Why should we assume that first hand accounts are 'unreliable gossip'? My worry is that people will want to definate reliable as 'supporting their opinions'. Reporting first hand accounts of people who worked in the environment in question, especially several independent people who agree in their conclusion seems not to be inherently an unreliable strategy.2toise 22:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I haven't said so. I haven't said that strategy is inherently unreliable. I have said that your statement "nearly everythign that can be said about anything amounts to hearsay in the end" is unfair in ANY sense. "Hearsay" is not the same as "first hand accounts", and you know it. I am against hearsay in a wikipedia, not against first hand accounts which are reliable. Do not say A and then "well I meant AA", please. Pfortuny 08:10, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) (Sorry for re-editing: "Hearsay" in WordNet is "rumour", as in Webster on line. THIS and not other thing is what I mean in this discussion.)
 * The quotes that Alexandros is objecting to are first hand accounts of what people who worked with MT saw and conclusions they drew. They are, for the most part, direct quotes. The accusation, as I understood it, was that this was unreliable rumour and hearsay. More importantly, how does one judge the reliability of sources? Who judges their reliability?2toise 16:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I know all the above. I was complaining at your asserting "everything is hearsay in the end". You judge the reliability by reading other accounts of the same facts and reading accounts of other facts by the same person and checking their truth.
 * In this case, as I have no proofs of their unreliability, I have not edited their comments. If I had (say, for example, that they had published three other books which are known to be rubbish and no more), then I would have edited it and said so in this page. I am assumming they are honest until I can provide enough evidence of their (for me) untrustfulness. It is like in real life: you trust the taxi when you take it because his mere "going on with the job" is proof enough that he is usually honest. You do not trust beggars, in general, because they have proved many times to be dishonest (this is an example and I am not trying to qualify anyone in particular). Pfortuny 18:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good Heavens! I had not read it for quite a while... this is going back to the rubbish of the beginning, only little by little! What a pity. Now I quite understand Alexander's anger (not praising his actions). Enjoy your criticisms as much as you like, people. Try to be happy and remember: don't drink and drive.

By the way, may I ask whether the sources of the criticisms are the books/papers/shows appearing in the text or are there any more? Again remember: don't drink and drive. And if anyone sells you a ticket to Mars, tell him to wait till the Bogons come. In any case, the answer is interesting for me.

Are you aware of the harm you are doing the WP with that text (cannot call it article)?

Remember: don't drink and drive and don't get sweets from strangers. Pfortuny 18:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My suggestion was that instead of complaining in general, you list specific changes that you would like to see and we could discuss their merits.2toise 23:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you are right. I simply was quite annoyed yesternight and wrote the above. Sorry for that.


 * What you say is what I intended to do. Thanks for the section. Pfortuny 08:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Specific proposed changes to the article
A list of proposed changes, with brief justifications: 1. Change the title "Secret baptisms" to "Controversial religious activities"2toise 20:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Secret Baptisms as a subheading, provided that nobody has raised a controversy over WHETHER OR NOT Theresa and her followers secretly baptized anybody. If someone complained about these baptisms, let's put that complaint in the article; it might be similar in tone to the complaints about Catholic prayers at Auschwitz. --Uncle Ed 14:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Oh, Teresa made it very clear in that quote that she baptized everybody, no matter what religion, and her statement shows that it wasn't done secretly.

Cimon avaro changed the subheading 'Secret baptisms' to 'Baptisms without clear will to convert'. I reverted it simply because the page was protected and I don't think it should have been edited whilst protected. Someone may or may not wish to remake this change once the protection is lifted. Angela 16:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2. Move''Criticism of Teresa in the United States grew sharper after it was revealed that Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, had donated $1.25 million to Mother Teresa's order. Teresa interceded on his behalf and wrote a letter to the court urging leniency. She also accepted money from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who stole UK£450 million from his employees' pension funds. to the section Misuse of donated funds and rename this section Controversial financial activity''.2toise 20:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * This should be removed. It is not verified by any mainstream media source.Alexandros 01:27, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The theft of the money by Keating is disputed, or the donation to the order by Keating or Maxwell?2toise 05:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keating: BBC, ABC News, Catholic Weekly, Australia
 * Maxwell: BBC, Guardian Unlimited, British mainstream newspaper, Hansard(column 504 at bottom of the page), the official transcript of the British House of Commons (effectively, Congress), giving the 450 million amount. JamesDay 17:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

3. Include Adam's version's section "Beatification of Mother Teresa". It disappeared during the last "war" and it contained statements by the Pope (there are none now) and some more interesting things. See, in the history page, the last edit by Adam Carr (i.e. the first appearance of his version). Everybody was OK with this section then and I think it is worthwhile. "Discussion" by Pfortuny and 2toise deleted because it makes now no sense Pfortuny 17:16, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just to be clear - is this the text you want to replace? Beatification of Mother Teresa

Following Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the first step towards possible canonisation, or sainthood. This process requires the documentation of a miracle. In 2002, the Vatican recognised as a miracle the healing of a tumour in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Teresa's picture.

This purported miracle attracted considerable controversy. Besra's husband reportedly said that the lump in his wife's adomen was not cured by divine intervention, but by hospital treatment. According to a report in Time magazine, records of her treatment were removed by a member of Mother Teresa's order. The Balurghat Hospital where Besra was treated reported coming under pressure from the missionaries to acknowledge that the healing process was the result of a miracle.

Teresa's was formally beatified by Pope John Paul II on October 19, 2003, with the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. A second authenticated miracle will be required if she is to proceed to canonisation.

The Pope delivered a homily on Mother Teresa on the occasion of her beatification. He said: "With particular emotion we remember today Mother Teresa, a great servant of the poor, of the Church and of the whole world. Her life is a testimony to the dignity and the privilege of humble service. She had chosen to be not just the least but to be the servant of the least. As a real mother to the poor, she bent down to those suffering various forms of poverty. Her greatness lies in her ability to give without counting the cost, to give "until it hurts". Her life was a radical living and a bold proclamation of the Gospel."

Thanks for the effort. Yes. It can be discussed later. Pfortuny 17:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Proof that Christopher Hitchens is not someone to include in Mother Teresa's article

 * http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=03/08/14/207235
 * http://slate.msn.com/id/2079860/
 * http://www.salon.com/letters/1998/07/16letters.html
 * http://slate.msn.com/id/2086499/
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13398000_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-9-11--THE-TEARS-OF-THE-CHILDREN--Why-I-think-Bin-Laden-is-deadand-has-been-for-at-least-a--name_page.html
 * http://www.americasfuture.org/viewBrainwash.cfm?pubid=210
 * http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/


 * ?? Some of these are articles critical of Hitchens, others are by him, some contain mixed reviews of his work, I'm not sure that they 'prove that he is not someone to include in MT's article' - can you explain a little?2toise 05:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This quote I think makes it obvious that Mother Teresa does not need a criticism section:


 * Indeed, despite his scorn for organized religion and hatred of Mother Teresa, there may be no leftist that conservatives like to like more than Christopher Hitchens. His scorn for lowest common denominator thinking, whether from the left or the right, is as entertaining as it is jarring. A transplanted Briton, he is the scourge of the monarchy. A strident proponent of war on the "theocratic terrorism," he has been a champion of oppressed peoples across the globe. An unabashed liberal, he was outraged by the vulgarity of the Clinton administration and gave up his column at The Nation over that magazine&#8217;s opposition to war in Iraq.

More proof of Hitchens dubiousness (Correction, Oct. 21, 2003: This piece originally claimed that in her Nobel Peace Prize lecture, Mother Teresa called abortion and contraception the greatest threats to world peace. In that speech Mother Teresa did call abortion "the greatest destroyer of peace." But she did not much discuss contraception, except to praise "natural" family planning.(Return to corrected sentence.)


 * Where are these quotes from?2toise

If, as this CBS News story says, the church considered his views, that's ample reason for mentioning his criticisms. Making someone a saint isn't a one-sided decision for the church, not even now the devil's Advocate position has been officially eliminated. JamesDay 08:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You must be aware that the first institution wanting counter-witnessess is the same Church: in all (I mean all, not just some cases) the beatification-canonization processes (but exceptionally some martyrs), both sides of the "person" are studied and taken into account. This is compulsory, be it called "devil's advocate" (when was it eliminated?) or "common sense". So the fact that the Church heard him does not mean believed him or gave any relevance to his statements. It is exactly as a witness in a trial: the fact that (s)he goes does not imply what (s)he sais is credible. Pfortuny 08:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way, another reason to take him off is his bold statement in that same article
 * I met her. My impression was that she was a woman of profound faith, at least in the sense that one can say of anyone, who is a completely narrow-focused single-minded fanatic, that they are a person of faith,
 * What I mean is: he is disabling himself to be taken seriously. You cannot insult one and then claim fair-play. Pfortuny 11:01, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For the abolition of the office of Devils Advocate see. Being a narrowly focussed single-minded fanatic isn't a negative attribute when it comes to sainthood. That's what it sometimes takes. If the church believes that suffering leads to heaven and suffering was caused, it's entirely possible to be complimentary about it on theological grounds while condeming it on humanitarian, in the same article. That is part of why this article is controversial - it has to find some sort of balance between veneration of a saint and the views of those not of the faith who will condemn suffering even if it leads to conversions to Catholicism and everlasting life in Heaven. Fortunately, saints don't have to be perfect, just good religious examples, so it is possible to reconcile the two requirements, difficult though the task is. JamesDay 12:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If you do not take "fanatic" as an isult it is ok for you, but I guess people understand it as an isult. Being killed for the Kingdom of Heaven is nice for the person but I guess other people see it as a crime... Sincerely Pfortuny 14:40, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a catholic newspaper:


 * "But Church sources have dismissed Hitchens' criticisms, and a spokesman for the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales said Mother Teresa was 'an extraordinary woman whose goodness, humility and depth of faith are legendary."

A quote from Teresa: "No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work," she said.

We all agree that neither the Catholic Church or MT herself believed Hitchens - that is hardly the point. I suggest that we focus on specific proposals for improving the article.2toise 14:31, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I was only suggesting that the claims but Hitchens are not to be trusted as he -without asking him to do so- insulted -I mean insulted- Mother Teresa gratuitously. And this in any sensbile human discussion makes the arguments of that individual concerning THAT SAME subject directly unreliable. You may not agree. Then I simply give up, and cheers (and thanks for all the fish, by the way). Pfortuny 14:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * 2toise-- You really miss the point. The point is that the people who are criticising Teresa are not trusted sources and should not be included in the teresa article.  If you insist on illogically arguing that Cristopher Hitchens, someone who is seen as awacko, should get to have his criticisms in the Teresa section, we really cannot have a constructive discussion.  The catholic church, and many other organizations have not responded, because they know that everyone regards people like hitchens as fanatical and illogical.  You cannot tell me that I will not discuss, when you dont do so either. Alexandros 15:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you think that:
 * former Missionary of Charity worker, Eva Kolodziej, has said: "You should visit the House in New York, then you'll understand what happens to donations. In the cellar of the homeless shelter there are valuable books, jewellery and gold. What happens to them? The sisters receive them with smiles, and keep them. Most of these lie around uselessly forever." This would suggest not so much deliberate misappropriation as financial incompetence and indifference to the ends to which donated funds are put.

belongs in an encyclopedia, I think it is impossible to have a constructive argument with you.

Hitchens mocks and disrespects mother teresa: One of his "article's" title was : Mommie Dearest - The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. Alexandros 15:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Alexandros: that you are right gives you no right to insult the other part. In any case I think this is relevant if you can give a reference of that article. Pfortuny 16:03, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you want to take the time, you can read several of Hitchens' articles here. If you still think his word deserves a place here, then I cannot discuss it. I am not attacking him, I am attacking what he says (constant gratuitous insults, biased interpretations, judging intentions of other people, generalizations without basis), not his person. And this is what historians (and anyone with common sense) take as basis for saying "this source is not reliable in this field". Pfortuny 16:39, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I will take a look, the page you reffer to contains a review excert from the Sunday Times of London (a relavtively respectable source) calls it "an elegantly writen, beautifully argued piece of polemic", while the New York Times says "Argued with consumate style" I'll take a look at the links, but it doesn't immediately look as though these sources indicate he is discredited by neutral sources.2toise 16:51, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I was obviously asking you to read his words, not others' about his. Pfortuny 16:56, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Regardless, his ability elegantly write beautiful prose is not the issue. Ben franklin said something like " The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned; but still - it's nonsense."  -

Alexandros 17:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cimon avaro changed the subheading 'Secret baptisms' to 'Baptisms without clear will to convert'. I reverted it simply because the page was protected and I don't think it should have been edited whilst protected. Someone may or may not wish to remake this change once the protection is lifted. Angela 16:41, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Ahem. My face is cerise right now. In fact, i think i will call it a night. Apologies all around. I understand if someone will not beleive me, but i honestly did not notice the Screaming Headline warning me not to edit the protected page. Why I didn't notice it, I will never know. But I present it as a fact. Apologies again. I did do the edit between cycles of my washing machine, but that is in no way an excuse. If I ever do so again to any protected page, please revert it, and castigate me in public; I will deserve it. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:05, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was surprise by that, especially after his exhortation on Village Pump the other day. But I understand how it can happen; it is easy to overlook the Protected page warning, especially if you use a small size screen font. I did it once myself on another page. -- Viajero 17:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Proposal for getting restarted
Hi all,

I would like to propose that when this page is unprotected that we begin with restoring the version that Adam Carr prepared and work from there. I haven't followed every change that it was subsequently subjected to, but my general impression is that was severely contorted.

As for Christopher Hitchens, he is a controversial writer and likes to use polemical language at times, but this does not mean he is unreliable. People may disagree with him, but no one has demolished a book of his on a scholarly basis. Hence, his point of view deserves coverage as does that of other established critics -- with balance of course.


 * -- Viajero 17:34, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The point is that he doesnt belong in the Mother Teresa article. You can link to the article about his book from the teresa article.  He IS unreliable though.  Many have demolished books of his on scholarly basies.

When would people like the page unprotected? Has everyone agreed to calm down?Secretlondon 17:35, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, although I'm not familiear with the details of the last edit you are reffering to - I'd like to suggest some ground rules, that we discuss major edits (deletions, additions) on the talk page before carrying them out.2toise 17:36, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to make a page called Groundrules linked to from this page - and I'd like all sides agreement before we unprotect. Secretlondon 17:41, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * DO NOT revert to adam carr's version. I added much non controversial information(dates of visits with Pope, etc.) and fixed incorrect things like dates of heart attacks etc.  It took a lot of work to get all that done and it should not be reverted to an older version. Alexandros 17:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

2toise: are you new here because you seemed to have just popped up. Alexandros 17:56, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Relatively, I have been around for a few months.2toise 22:12, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I do not think reverting all the changes Alexandros refers to is quite OK. I prefer just unprotecting it. If my suggestion to include the famous "two deleted sections" ends up in undoing a lot of changes, then I had rather let it be as it is and improve it.

The reason why controversial writers are not good sources of factual info and in the end (long run) are taken little into account is precisely that they seek controversy, not facts: all of us know that controversy sells much better than history. I am not trying simply to defend Mother Teresa (which I am, OBVIOUSLY) but to defend the reliability of the same WP. Up to you, obviously. Pfortuny 19:51, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You've now removed the original article and replaced it with a redirect. Secretlondon 18:27, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Profound apologies, something went wrong. Anyway, the original version of Adam's text, which I think would be a good starting point, is this one:


 * http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&oldid=1659002


 * All subsequent additions, like those of Alexandros, can easily be reinsterted after discussion here.


 * -- Viajero 18:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * No, that is NOT the original Adam's version, I am sorry to say, it is this one: the one which we all agreed was less POV and which became the real MT article on October 23. Do not mistake the discussion at Adam's page which gave rise to his version with the discussion here before that version was included, please. Please do correct this mistake because otherwise things are going to get pretty complicated ****self "censoring" after counting from 1 to 2^32-1***. The story was:


 * hot discussion here on POV
 * Adam starts a new version at his page
 * Me (and other people) discuss Adam's version at Adam's page, and it evolves THERE
 * Notice that all the discussion in this same talk page concerning me and Adam, etc... "section Adam's edit" are taken from this discussion and refer, therefore to an older version, which is not what is called "Adam's version".

That version is the one we all call "Adam's original version" (before that all the text was in his personal page, so it was not still a "version").
 * Adam's revised version (i.e. as finally evolved at his page) becomes the article after a long negotiation here, this took place in the reference above. Notice that the easiest way to recognize it is the two sections "Teresa as a Celebrity" and "Beatification of Mother Teresa", which before do not appear and then they do.

In any case as I said I am against such a reversion.

Thanks Pfortuny 10:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * There aren't only additions, but corrections of incorrect dates. There is not much different from adam carr's and the current revision other than the fixed dates unless people added more criticism since then. Alexandros 23:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cimon, I had a lot of trouble determing which was Adam's text, since the text he had in his namespace was replaced with a redirect (which caused me no end of grief). Is the above-mentioned the correct? -- Viajero 18:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pfortuny, I am sorry but I don't entirely follow you.


 * First, you have identified the first appearance of Adam Carr's version in the Page History. Good.


 * Now, are you in favor of restoring the article to this version and starting from there?


 * If not, what do you propose to get restarted?

Please try to keep your response as simple as possible so that we can understand what you are saying. Thanks. -- Viajero 13:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry:


 * Thanks.


 * Yes. I have changed my mind. Let us restart in that version.



Sorry for the mess. Thanks for the work. I think I am clear now (for once?) ;) Pfortuny 14:42, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What to do about this article
I have just re-read the whole of this page. It is quite evident that the only way to usefully restart editing on the article is to ban Alexandros from participation in it. We almost had an agreed text, at least for the biographical section (I agree there are problems with the "criticism" part), but that process was completely and deliberately derailed by Alexandros. He is not interested in creating a consensus text, only in imposing his Catholic dogmatic position on everyone by a process of exhaustion. I understand that there are personal reasons why he behaves the way he does, but that doesn't alter the fact that he cannot edit co-operatively, at least on this topic. I don't know if there is a procedure from banning a person from a particular article, but unless and until he is banned from this article, I won't be taking any further part in editing it. I suggest that others who are concerned about the quality of articles we create for this project should take the same position. Adam 13:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * You are right in stating the facts (I may or may not agree on the precise solution), but past tense is in my opinion better when dealing with past facts. I was not happy with his behaviour either. Pfortuny 14:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please let me know when the consensus is to unprotect it. Secretlondon 14:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi all,

I share Adam Carr's frustration, but I would like to offer a alternative solution. I propose that Alexandros voluntarily agree to refrain from further editing Mother Teresa and participating in the Talk page, that he and Pfortuny discuss together what changes they would like to see, and that Pfortuny, representing the two of them, propose the changes on this Talk page.

If Alexandros and Pfortuny both agree to this arrangement, I think it would make it possible to resume working on this article in a orderly fashion yet also ensure Alexandros's concerns are addressed.


 * -- Viajero 17:11, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * As anyone else, I'd like the page unprotected asap. I may agree with Viajero's proposal but I cannot give an answer now. May I ask for 24 hours' time counted from now? If I do not answer by then it means I cannot agree to it and the solution might need to be different. Pfortuny 17:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Look at my User contributions. I am not a problem . Adam who proposed banning me is one however, and now has so many complaints that he needs his own problem users page.  One accidental edit war certainly does not mean that I should be banned.  Tim Starling's first edits were an edit war and he became a sysop. With that said, I have never engaged in an edit war on any article, excluding the accidental one on this page caused by confusion with edit conflicts.  adam said . "He is not interested in creating a consensus text, only in imposing his Catholic dogmatic position" which i disagree with.  I never even said that I was catholic.  If you had read my talk page, you would have realised that i had stated yesterday, prior to adam carrs comment, that i was going to give up on this page anyway.  I only heard that yuo were talking about me from pofourny who informed me on my talk page.   Alexandros 19:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alexander, the evidence speaks for itself: as one can see from the history page:


 * http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&action=history&limit=250&offset=0

three times you've gotten into edit wars over this article: on 29 October, 9 November, and 10 November; all three times it had to be protected. I would call this a problem. -- Viajero 19:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * You made a mistake. Only two "edit wars".  It had to be protected twice.  Regardless, It is not as if I protected a page that I am involved with.   Alexandros 21:04, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think telling anyone that they cannot edit an article, when they are not a banned user, runs so contrary to everything that wikipedia stands for that it is mindboggling. But then wikipedia policies on NPOV, on factual accuracy, on use of sysop powers, etc have been torn up regularly here so what's another ripping up of another rule. FearÉIREANN 22:52, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would you two like some help mediating this dispute? --Uncle Ed 21:07, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about Mary Robinson? (Opps. She's a catholic who shook hands with Mother Teresa so she obviously would be biased too!) :-) Should we call in the United Nations, or would it opt, if given a choice of taking on Iraq rather than Wikipedia's Mother Teresa war. FearÉIREANN 22:47, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone at my side, puf.... Thanks. Pfortuny 23:10, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to FearÉIREANN's point: I don't know how Alexandros behaves in regard to other articles, he may be a model of co-operativeness for all I know, so I am not proposing that he be banned. My point is that in regard to this article his Catholic loyalties are so engaged that he cannot be objective and cannot edit co-operatively. That is why the editing process has been totally derailed since he began to be involved. That being said, if Pfortuny can persuade Alexandros to accept his proposal for mediation, then I have no problem with that. But Alexandros must agree not to make unilateral edits before the article can be unlocked and editing resume. Adam 23:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I presume you also agree then that others with other agenda-based "loyalties are so engaged that he cannot be objective and cannot edit co-operatively" will also be told not to edit. FearÉIREANN 23:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If they are as destructive to the editing process as Alexandros has been, certainly. I am not aware of any such at present. Adam 23:56, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Pfortuny on Pfortuny's mediation
Apologies for the delay and for the following text which is far too long and I think out of place, but the discussion has led us here. By no means I intend my opinion to be regarded as more important than any other's, but for obvious reasons some people are expecting it. Here it goes. The history of this text is in User:Pfortuny/private1 which I shall clear this evening. The text ends at "EOT" below. Pfortuny 15:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After reviewing the history and talking to Alex, I have got the following vision of the facts (which is the basis for my opinion expressed below):
 * Alex's editions on the 29 were done without discussion on the talk page. This was clearly a serious mistake which led to the first catastrophe, but I think we may assume good faith here, at least ingnorance, not malice, especially if one follows the summaries, diffs, etc...
 * Alex's editions on the 9 and 10 November were done using the talk page but he made edits before discussing them and, given the complete history of the article, the edits were too bold to be accepted without previous discussion; this led to their being systematically reverted (which is common use in the WP for that behaviour) and in the end to the blocking of the page. This behaviour was clearly a mistake of Alex's, and I put it to his not having read the complete history. While I am not excusing him, I do believe that most of the problems were a result of confusion caused by his Asperger's Syndrome.
 * Nobody can agree "not to make unilateral edits" (Adam's expression) in whatever page for whatever reason, this is a bit too generic and has no deadline.
 * He is aware of the damages he may incur in (damages for himself) if he repeats the above behaviour.
 * Before Viajero's suggestion, Alex had told me he was going to "try to stay out of Mother Teresa's page for a while". He has privately told me he is not going to touch the criticism section al least for a fortnight.
 * It sounds nice to be a mediator, but on the other hand it is a responsibility I cannot (I mean cannot, not do not want to or do not like to) take up for the moment.
 * If Alex behaves like he did on the 9/10 November, I will also agree to any rational punishment. I want to stress that I was in disagreement with most of his edits.
 * I do not think that Alex will cause any further problems.

Before stating my opinion, I would like everybody to know that Viajero's suggestion on my mediation was done without either mine or Alex's prior consent. He later expressed his concern about this to me. I feel it is only fair to mention it here.

Hence, my opinion is:
 * Unblock the page. If Alex behaves in a non cooperative way, then the resources of Wikipedia to prevent this non cooperative behaviour will be used, as with any other user.

But I mean as with any other user. If he were going to appear in the problem page, he has to be told in his talk page in advance; if he were going to be banned, then he has to be told explicitly in his own page and by a sysop, or whatever the standard procedure is. Pfortuny 12:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have read the above and agree with Pfortuny. Alexandros 13:14, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Last sentence was inserted by Alex after reviewing the text in my subpage. Pfortuny 15:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

EOT Pfortuny 15:09, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moving the page
Errm. We've all agreed that all changes should be discussed on the talk page - and User:Ed Poor changes the name of the article and starts editing without telling anybody ... Secretlondon 15:51, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think the move was such a great idea. The old title was much more used and this move will mess up a lot of links. Dori 15:54, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, S.L. -- there was so much unproductive talk that I pretty much ignored it. If somewhere in the above 67 KB there is an agreement about how to proceed, I must have missed it among all the bickering.


 * You want me to revert my changes? --Uncle Ed 15:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks like the page got moved back to Mother Teresa. Okay now? --Uncle Ed 19:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Uncle Ed needs a reprimand :) I do not object to minor changes, but the name of the article is a bit bold to be changed so swiftly. I think the title is not relevant as long as a redirect from Mother Teresa exists for the sake of the readers (they will search for it, not Teresa of Calcutta). Pfortuny 15:57, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Ed, you are way out of line. You dismiss the previous discussions as "unproductive talk" and "bickering" and simply ignore them, and walz in here and make a major change without discussion, setting a very bad precedent. We were making slow but gradual progress without you. Go away, you are not needed here. I think that Secretlondon should immediately revert this change, and any other change made to this article without prior agreement. -- Viajero 17:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)