Talk:Mother Teresa/FAQ/Archive 1

''Warning, this FAQ primarily presents the perspective of one Wikipedia contributor on this article. Parts of it are still debated, and none of it should be viewed as absolute truth. See below for the detailed discussion.''

FAQ
Why an FAQ?

This FAQ was started by Eloquence to prevent having to discuss the same questions over and over again regarding NPOV controversies about this page. Please check first here if your argument has already been discussed. If you feel that an answer is inadequate, please comment below and we will try together to resolve it and come to a better understanding of the issue.

Is it NPOV to devote that much space to criticism?

The neutral point of view is primarily about the inclusion and attribution of separate points of view ("XYZ says .. But ABC responds .."). It is one of the non-negotiable Wikipedia policies -- every article has to comply with it. As such, we take all allegations of POV (the opposite of NPOV) very seriously.

The question of balance is always a tricky one, and there are few specific recommendations that are generally applicable. One very common one is that if you feel a view is overrepresented, try adding more information about the opposite view. Removing or shortening a point of view is very likely to lead to heated discussions, as the other side may have invested considerable work in researching and summarizing it in the first place.

There is no rule that criticism needs to have a 50/50 weight with positive claims. The absurdity of such a rule becomes apparent when you try to apply it to articles about persons who are almost universally regarded as criminals, for example. Then what should the balance be? In a biography, different people will have different opinions as to which aspect of a person's life was the most important.

That does not mean that all opinions are equally valid, of course -- if one were to write a long subsection about how Mother Teresa affected a single individual's life, that might be considered balanced by the individual in question, but it would be easy to argue that this particular impact is so specific that it does not deserve much space. Even in cases like this, it is often better to split away information rather than to remove it entirely.

Generally, however, it will be difficult to determine with certainty how much space particular events or opinions deserve. In the case of events, NPOV is not really very applicable -- instead, it is useful to watch out for the overall length of the article, and for keeping the level of detail fairly even, at least within a section. See also the question below on splitting up the page.

In the case of opinions, it depends a lot on whose opinions they are.

So whose view matters?

This question is addressed specifically in NPOV tutorial. The response to it bears repeating here:

Generally speaking, it is acceptable to include points of view of recognized experts on a subject. Who is or is not an expert is a matter of debate. Wikipedia tends to favor including almost all verifiable theories and opinions somewhere as long as there is some logic and reasoning behind them. Whether they may be included in the main article on a subject depends on a large number of criteria, including:
 * what the standing of the expert is
 * whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
 * whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
 * whether the expert's claims have been undeniably refuted (i.e. no other considers them to be true anymore)
 * whether the expert is part of a defined set of people whose points of view might be discussed in an entirely different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

The last example in the list is a good one for the case at hand. Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such, the article about it grants space primarily to scientific views on evolution published in peer reviewed journals. The article about creationism is an article about a subject that matters to both religious people and scientists. It gives space to the views of creationists and, where they challenge the dominating scientific paradigm, addresses the responses by scientists. A last example might be the article about Trinity, a purely religious concept. It gives no space whatsoever to secular views.

Where does Mother Teresa fall in this spectrum? Like all human beings, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was part of the physical world, the realm of scientists, researchers and analysts. Already beatified and on the way to becoming a Saint, she was clearly a religious figure to millions of persons. As such, the article should be considered "between the worlds", like creationism is. These articles are often the most controversial as religious and secular views collide directly.

There is no way around including the views from the secular community. Among this community, it is of course fair to discriminate between the experts who have written about Mother Teresa. The rhetoric of Christopher Hitchens needs not be given as much space as the sources he cites, such as the Editor of The Lancet or former employees of Mother Teresa's homes. A less polemical work like Aroup Chatterjee's may be considered more credible than a pamphlet like The Missionary Position.

Where are the rebuttals?

There are very few. Within the religious community, opinions by secular authors are often not given much weight. This is also related to the fact that the secular view has been given very little exposure in the media, Hitchens' Hell's Angel being a notable exception. It appears that the Catholic Church does not care much about refuting accusations which are not widely known, perhaps an understandable position.

This has the unfortunate side effect of overrepresenting the secular point of view. However, Wikipedia has no obligation to invent rebuttals, nor can we presume that they exist if the concerned institution or person does not defend itself. There are many historical controversies about persons who are long dead, such as Thomas Jefferson. We do not fail to report these controversies if they have a reasonable degree of logical consistency, plausibility and verifiability, only because no rebuttals exist. The same logic is applicable to Mother Teresa.

Why not split away the controversy section?

Such a split might indeed reduce the amount of heated discussion. The same would be the case if we created a separate page Religious views about Mother Teresa. The different communities -- secular and religious -- would work on their respective pages, and not get much in each other's way.

It is however highly problematic in NPOV terms to split articles according to the emotional impact of the information contained therein, or according to the communitiies which are primarily interested in that information. It reduces the likelihood even more that rebuttals to the criticisms of Mother Teresa's work will be found. It increases the likelihood that either one of the pages will read like a hagiography. And it would likely be done in such a way that the main article Mother Teresa would focus on one side of the issue and ignore the other, giving increased exposure to a single perspective or standard of reasoning.

This is not so much about proselytizing or shoving secular (or religious) views down people's throats. It is about being fair to both sides of the issue.

That does not mean that a split up is completely out of the question. The general rule of splitting articles is that it is acceptable to do so once the page has reached a certain size (often taken to be 32K, the limit at which some browsers have problems editing a page). However, such a split should never occur according to the emotional impact of the information or according to which community (secular, religious) is affected by it. Instead, all sections should be treated equally and content should be split to separate pages by subject.

That means that a separate "Controversies" page would probably be a bad idea in any case, but Mother Teresa's life, Mother Teresa and abortion, Mother Teresa and donations, Mother Teresa's concept of care and similar split ups according to clearly defined subject lines may be acceptable once a certain size is reached. In any case, a summary -- usually taken to be a paragraph long or so -- and a link to the main article about each subject should be left in place. See country pages like Germany for an example.

'''Should we include views of people who are not trustworthy? Is it proper to cite newspapers and TV shows as sources in an encyclopedia?'''

Some have argued that a person like Christopher Hitchens does not deserve to have their view represented for various reasons. Generally Wikipedia does not pass judgment on the views of the experts it cites, but instead it makes use of the judgment which other people have made. So if someone is virtually universally considered untrustworthy in the secular and religious community, their views may deserve little or no exposure outside their respective articles. But take someone like Duane Gish or James Dobson as counter examples -- these are individuals disdained by the secular community but highly respected by some religious groups. Spanking being an issue relevant to both groups, someone like Dobson deserves representation in the article even though most scientists find his views utterly implausible (and as such might find him completely untrustworthy on the matter).

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

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

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in that it gathers and summarizes human knowledge in a structured, readable form. But it is an encyclopedia built under an entirely new working model, with very broad standards of inclusion, and highly ambitious goals.

'''Why is the level of flaming so high in these discussions? Isn't the fact that such an FAQ is needed a sign that something is very wrong?'''

As explained earlier, when secular and religious communities collide, things often become very unpleasant. Persecution of scientists during the Renaissance is well known, communists punished the free exercise of religion. When the two groups clash, even murder can be the result. It is remarkable that it is even possible for members of both groups to try to work together on an encyclopedia article about a person who was revered by millions, often cited in the same breath as Jesus Christ.

For many people who participate in this discussion, their emotional reaction may be their initial motivation to do so, and hence they begin searching for arguments to justify that reaction. That is completely normal and entirely acceptable. However, with such a regular "violent entry" of new contributors, the same concerns are likely to be raised over and over again. This FAQ is an attempt to consolidate some common answers and as such, will hopefully contribute to a more pleasant discussion atmosphere.

FAQ suggestions
Add new questions and comments about the FAQ here.'

Eloquence: you said:
 * Such a split would certainly reduce the amount of heated discussion. The same would be the case if we created a separate page Religious views about Mother Teresa.

I think it might be better to say that it might reduce the amount of heated discussion. Greenmountainboy 16:19, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Done.&mdash;Eloquence

Many points where I don't agree at all. Is it allowed to edit your FAQ or will I be reverted again? gbog 14:47, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Please just comment here and then we'll try to resolve whatever you want to change.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Ok, master. My adds are bolded. What i want to be removed is in italic. gbog 17:15, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You refer to her as "[a]lready canonized and on the way to becoming a Saint." Someone who's canonized is a saint (in the eyes of the Church, anyway). Do you mean "already beatified and on the way" etc.? JamesMLane 12:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why a FAQ?
This FAQ was started by Eloquence to prevent having to discuss the same questions over and over again about the POV issue on the article on Mother Teresa. Please check first here if your argument has already been addressed discussed. If you feel that an answer is inadequate, please comment below and we (who?) will try together to resolve it and come to a better understanding of the issue.


 * We=the parties who disagree. Why remove the rest of the sentence?&mdash;Eloquence

'''NPOV issues are discussed here according to NPOV and NPOV_tutorial. Don't forget that "NPOV is absolute and non-negociable", and that a good way to judge the neutrality of an article is to ask, "Would a reader suspect that this article was written by someone who was trying to push a particular agenda or point of view - either subtly or not-so-subtly?" The more an article appears to be written by a neutral writer, the more neutral it is.'''


 * This is an FAQ, not a soapbox. Why include that particular piece of advice when I've already explained to you that given the disparity between the public image of MT and the facts contained in this article, litmus tests like this are too simplistic? That seems merely an attempt on your end to promote your agenda.&mdash;Eloquence


 * No. This statement is very clear and very important. I can't understand why you don't want it to be here. May be you think that your position is not so fine, regarding to it?gbog 18:26, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to have a rational discussion if you just repeat what you said already instead of addressing the other side's arguments.&mdash;Eloquence


 * I wouldn't call your answers "arguments". You just say that this FAQ is not my soapbox (sure, it's your's! and one can see again how you you hang on your "possession") and that the text is too simplistic. As you have already said in your nice comments on me, I am a little bit stupid. So I do need this "simplistic" sentence. I do also need a reminder that "NPOV absolute and non-negotiable". Sorry to be so limited. It is not easy to be as clever and as fair and as sincere (and as respectful for orthers work!) as you are.gbog 02:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * No, I used the soapbox argument (implying that your statements are completely unrelated to the FAQ) below.


 * False. Look better. Rewind 4 paragraphs. Your answer was "This is an FAQ, not a soapbox." If you continue saying false things, I will be allowed to call you liar. gbog


 * Ah, you're right. Apologies.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Here I referred to the fact that this specific recommendation in the NPOV doctrine is problematic for articles where there is a large disparity between public knowledge and published information. Take as another example someone who has been portrayed in the media as a child molester, but who has been conclusively proven innocent (there have been quite a few such cases in the 1980s). If you applied the above test to an article that included all the information, many of the people who still believe that the person is a criminal will feel that Wikipedia was trying to push the agenda the person is innocent.


 * Similarly, millions of people believe that MT was responsible for a miracle. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show this was clearly not the case. But in doing so, we inevitably risk to offend true believers, who will also feel that this is "POV". As such I recommend against adding this specific test -- it is a good rule of thumb, but hardly applicable everywhere. While NPOV itself is non-negotiable (and I can agree with you to include that rule in the FAQ, although it adds very little), the interpretations of it are not.&mdash;Eloquence 08:11, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * (Inserted comment) I do little else EXCEPT Rocket science articles all day long, and a 'Miracle' is defined by it's inability to be proved or disproved. If you believe proof is applicable to a 'miracle' it simply puts you into one of two categories, believer or disbeliever. I can't see it as the role of an encyclopedia to pull people into one group or the other. Using the encyclopedia to prove or disprove a 'miracle' defines point of view pushing. Penyulap   talk 11:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your analogy doesn't prove anything, except that you really think MT was a uncovered criminal. If this specific recommendation in the NPOV doctrine is problematic for (some) articles, please go to NPOV_tutorial talk page and discuss the case. Here is not the right place for explaining your disagreements with consensually decided NPOV policies and to try to negociate your own interpretation. So please add my quotation. If it is consensually removed from NPOV tutorial, I will fully agree to remove it from the MT FAQ. gbog 08:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * You're right again. I will change the NPOV tutorial immediately to reflect the results of this discussion. I really should not blame you for what is indeed an inadequate explanation.&mdash;Eloquence

Is it NPOV to devote that much space to criticism?
NPOV is primarily about the inclusion and attribution of separate points of view ("XYZ says .. But ABC responds .."). The question of balance is always a tricky one, and there are few specific recommendations that are generally applicable. One very common one is that if you feel a view is overrepresented, try adding more information about the opposite view. Removing or shortening a point of view is very likely to lead to heated discussions, as the other side may have invested considerable work in researching and summarizing it in the first place. (I don't understand this statement. It forgets two of the most important advices in Wikipedia : 1) Be bold in editing pages, 2) said absolute and non-negotiable NPOV is "not a point of view at all", so those sentences speaking about "point of views" that should stay here have to be heavily "wikified" imho)


 * Please read the pages you are referring to, particularly the entire "Important caveat" section of be bold which refers specifically to controversial articles like this one. I do not understand 2), please elaborate in English.&mdash;Eloquence

There is no rule that criticism needs to have a 50/50 weight with positive claims. The absurdity of such a rule becomes apparent when you try to apply it to articles about persons who are almost universally regarded as criminals, for example. Then what should the balance be? In a biography, different people will have different opinions as to which aspect of a person's life was the most important.

'''An important qualification stated in [NPOV] says, however, that "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" and that "if we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."


 * This is already addressed in more detail in the "Whose view matters" quote from the NPOV tutorial.&mdash;Eloquence


 * No, the text is different, because here no needs for "experts" in this discussion.gbog 18:29, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Again in English please.&mdash;Eloquence

That does not mean that all opinions are equally valid, of course -- if one were to write a long subsection about how Mother Teresa affected a single individual's life, that might be considered balanced by the individual in question, but it would be easy to argue that this particular impact is so specific that it does not deserve much space. Even in cases like this, it is often better to split away information rather than to remove it entirely.

Generally, however, it will be difficult to determine with certainty how much space particular events or opinions deserve. In the case of events, NPOV is not really very applicable -- instead, it is useful to watch out for the overall length of the article, and for keeping the level of detail fairly even, at least within a section. See also the question below on splitting up the page.

In the case of opinions, it depends a lot on whose opinions they are.

(I don't understand what those three paragraph want to say exactly, I would remove them)


 * Well, I'm afraid if you removed everything you don't understand, there wouldn't be much left. How about asking first?&mdash;Eloquence


 * Attack ad hominem. Nice, so nice of you. But I am sure that you are aware that it should be removed quickly gbog 18:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm merely pointing out that removing everything you don't understand is not a solution, as you yourself explain on your user page that English is not your first language. That's OK, but it is a matter of courtesy to ask instead of simply removing what you do not understand.&mdash;Eloquence

So whose view matters?
This question is addressed specifically in Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. The response to it bears repeating here:

(...)

The last example in the list is a good one for the case at hand. Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such, the article about it grants space primarily to scientific views on evolution published in peer reviewed journals. The article about creationism is an article about a subject that matters to both religious people and scientists. It gives space to the views of creationists and, where they challenge the dominating scientific paradigm, addresses the responses by scientists. A last example might be the article about Trinity, a purely religious concept. It gives no space whatsoever to secular views.

Where does Mother Teresa fall in this spectrum? Like all human beings, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was part of the physical world, the realm of scientists, researchers and analysts. Already canonized and on the way to becoming a Saint, she was clearly a religious figure to millions of persons. As such, the article should be considered "between the worlds", like creationism is. These articles are often the most controversial as religious and secular views collide directly. (Here Eloquence is subtly suggesting that pro-MT view is the religious one, and that anti-MT is the secular one. I cannot agree with that, as I and many other people with no religious feelings at all would defend this nun and her work against the critics from Hitchen and the other two journalists. That why this comparison with creationism is awfully biaised and should be removed.)


 * You are not a quotable expert on Mother Teresa as far as I know. Within the published world, the published opinions are rather sharply and neatly divided in the secular and religious speheres.&mdash;Eloquence


 * I think that might be wrong. (unless you have already researched it; i havent). I would think that there would be quite a few secular writers who write biographies without the criticisms.  I might be wrong however. Greenmountainboy 17:56, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * It's really as much about the target audience as it is about the writers themselves. Works with titles like "No Greater Love", "The Joy in Loving", "The Best Gift is Love", "Mother Teresa's Lessons of Love", "Everything Starts from Prayer", "Her Journey to Your Heart", "Heart of Joy", "Thirsting for God", Works of Love are Works of Peace", "The Blessings of Love" (it goes on like that) cannot really be counted as meeting secular biographical standards, and they are targeted at Catholic housewives and other people who enjoy reading emotional platitudes laced with spiritual authority.


 * Sure that a book called "The Missionary Position" is much better...gbog


 * It's certainly a useful secular counterbalance. The facts and sources cited in the book stand without it and are undisputed.&mdash;Eloquence


 * That's exactly the line of division between the secular and the religious spheres. You don't need to satisfy biographical standards (which require the inclusion of critical information) when writing for audiences who want feelgood literature. There are only a handful of works that are in between the two extremes.&mdash;Eloquence

There is no way around including the views from the secular community (same thing as above). Among this community, it is of course fair to discriminate between the experts who have written about Mother Teresa. The rhetoric of Christopher Hitchens needs not be given as much space as the sources he cites, such as the Editor of The Lancet or former employees of Mother Teresa's homes. A less polemical work like Aroup Chatterjee's may be considered more credible than a pamphlet like The Missionary Position.

Where are the rebuttals?
There are very few. Within the religious community, opinions by secular authors are often not given much weight. This is also related to the fact that the secular view (again, the critics is supposed to be the secular one, as opposed to "religious". Unacceptable biais.) has been given very little exposure in the media, Hitchens' Hell's Angel being a notable exception. It appears that the Catholic Church does not care much about refuting accusations which are not widely known, perhaps an understandable position.

This has the unfortunate side effect of overrepresenting the secular point of view. However, Wikipedia has no obligation to invent rebuttals, nor can we presume that they exist if the concerned institution or person does not defend itself. '''But we have to consider that rebuttals are not only arguments stated in sentences written on paper. Action can be the best rebuttal to critics.''' There are many historical controversies about persons who are long dead, such as Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan. We do not fail to report these controversies if they have a reasonable degree of logical consistency, plausibility and verifiability, only because no rebuttals exist. The same logic is applicable to Mother Teresa.


 * Action can be the best rebuttal? This is not your soapbox.


 * Yeah, it is yours, as one can see.gbog


 * Stop trying to insert your POV into a what is supposed to be a useful FAQ. Do you have any more platitudes? How about "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye"? That one is very popular.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Ironical? Nice, always so nice with other people...

Why not split away the controversy section?

Such a split would certainly probably reduce the amount of heated discussion. The same would be the case if we created a separate page Religious views about Mother Teresa. The different communities -- secular and religious -- (again and again split the world in two opposite parts...) would work on their respective pages, and not get much in each other's way.

It is however highly problematic in NPOV terms to split articles according to the emotional impact of the information contained therein, or according to the communitiies which are primarily interested in that information. (That's rigth for once, so I stop here my comments for now)

("FAQ" written by Eloquence, annotated by gbog.)


 * Unfortunately, you've done little to bring this discussion forward. Instead you continue to insist on a very limited understanding of NPOV which has already been refuted several times by different users.


 * I'm beginning to think you're not really interested in improving this article.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Different users means you and another one. That's not enough.gbog


 * Certainly millions of people who love Mother Teresa would agree with you that this article is POV and the criticism section should be removed entirely.&mdash;Eloquence

There are many historical controversies about persons who are long dead, such as Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan.


 * Um, Ronald Reagan isn't dead. Certainly not "long dead".&mdash;JTL


 * That depends on your definition ..&mdash;Eloquence