Talk:Mother Teresa

For previous discussion, see

Hers relationships

I'd like to replace

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

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

With something like

Criticists pointed out Mother Teresa's relationship with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filtered info are not critical gbog

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of her motivations

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

Christopher Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

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

In Catholicism, the combination of charitable works and evangelism has played a central role in the actions of some religious orders. To their defenders, the actions of Mother Teresa and her followers fulfilled that tradition. Her critics, however, viewed Mother Teresa as being preoccupied with the furtherance of Catholicism and its causes, rather than with alleviating poverty or offering medical help to the poor she treated. They also claim that Teresa gave a false impression of the nature of her work.

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

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

with something like:

Christopher Hitchens and other critics described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. They viewed Mother Teresa as being preoccupied with the furtherance of Catholicism and its causes, rather than with alleviating poverty or offering medical help to the poor she treated. They claim that Teresa gave a false impression of the nature of her work. There is also an accusation that funds donated for relief work for the sick and poor were actually diverted to missionary work in non-Christian countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A little reminder

Grabbed in NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even if I didn't, I would have to argue for its inclusion, as it was one of the most often repeated criticisms, along with the insufficient medical care.—Eloquence 15:40, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

What I think is most humorous

Here is my favorite part:

> Her critics, however, viewed Mother Teresa as being preoccupied with the furtherance of Catholicism and its causes, rather than with alleviating poverty or offering medical help to the poor she treated.

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

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

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

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

NPOV dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what the standing of the expert is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfair reverts

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

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

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

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