Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Criticism: other

A few "citation needed" were added, a citation to Hindu Janajagruti Sumiti was removed (very POV) and an improperly written paragraph was replaced. I also removed a sentence in which it was said that "Mother Theresa´s supporters" admitted that she baptized the dying and where a reference to a letter to the NY review of books could be found. That sentence seemed to imply that her supporters generally admitted to this fact but provided no evidence to back this up. Rimfo 19:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is my unsolicited $.02 - The current critics section is not too long but the "Aroup Chatterjee " and "other" sections within Critics are not sourced and should be removed until they are properly sourced. I have no doubt that they are true, but so far the claims being made have not been sourced and therefore represent original research, original critical research at that. Mr Christopher 23:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What the heck happened to all the other controversies in the article? The current section put more emphasis on the critics themselves like there are only a few people whose opinions aren't necessarily valid. What was wrong with the previous controversies section? That was way more balanced and gave the article some much needed facts. 71.193.233.96 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous

I agree - acknowledging criticisms makes an article stronger, not weaker. Mother Teresa has a barrage of valid criticisms, from taking donations from Michael Milken (essentially of stolen money...) to reported lack of care in the unsupervised hospices... these used to be in the article, but have now been removed. There are many sources for these. 72.95.169.145 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the history and deletion of the “Criticism” section is a record of the hypocrisy, dishonesty, censorship, and revisionist history that the faithful use to perpetuate their faith. I think it also shows on what a fragile foundation that faith stands. Steve kap 14:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly revisionist to integrate criticism into the text of the article, as opposed to having a separate section. In fact, it is consistent with WP: criticism, which suggests an actual "criticism" section is discouraged. The WP guideline specifically states this, and encourages, instead, the integration of such material into the main article. It seems that having a "Criticism" section is really the revisionist approach...unless you're someone who just wants to read about critical commentaries, some documented others not, and want to be able to go to one Mother Teresa-bashing section. As an encyclopedia, it makes more sense to address counter-points/criticisms in the body of the article, where a specific topic is discussed (i.e. She raised a lot of money...but some say it wasn't distributed as intended; She created hospitals for the dying...but there are some studies that the conditions were poor, etc). If you think there is info missing, add it to the article. That doesn't require a separate section, and having a separate section makes the counter-points disjointed...isn't it better to have them right there in the relevant section of the article? That's probably one reason for the WP guidance on the issue.  :-) --Anietor 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anietor is correct. WP guidelines discourage a separate criticism section. The point-counterpoint approach is far more encyclopedic. Please feel free to contribute to the article as long as you cite facts. Majoreditor 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its my point wheither its in a seperate section. From below, I guess there might be some disagreement about what the pocily says or means, but I dont' want to join that debate. My objection is that the criisim as a whole simply isn't there. Well, not entirely , there is the one section re. the beadification. But, the rest of the article doesn't show the point/counter point that you ref to. It says, for example that "she ministered to the needs of the dying", but many would say that she did very little to meet those needs, she provided no pain medical pain relief, for example. In the Quotes, there is only praise and defence, no critism. In the small section that does have some critcism, it ends with an explanain "some believe this is a sign of contradiction" or some such. No suggestion that criticism might be factual. If you're going to integrate it, fine, do so. I looked at the edit that removed the "Criticsm" section, I didn't see it. I think a seperte section would make sence, because the criticism is incoguous with the generaly held vew, to put them side by side would seem awkward, jumpy, schizophrenia, really. But, thats not my main point,my point is that it should be there, or, rather, be more complete. Steve kap 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiia1-h-f88 - there is some good controversies here 69.236.176.3 02:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Summary? It seems strange that there is extremely limited reference to criticism without any real explanation. While this person has been declared a saint, there are claims that facilities she was responsible for amount to Death camps where basic health care was routinely denied. These accusations are quite serious, and are not at all common either among Saints or NGOs. -- M0llusk 03:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has been extensively reviewed and edited, especially in the past few weeks during review for GA status. The issue of criticism has also been discussed a great deal. The way this article deals with criticism is consistent with WP: criticism, which suggests an actual "criticism" section is discouraged. The WP guideline specifically states this, and encourages, instead, the integration of such material into the main article. That is what we have done. So it is not "strange" at all the way the article addresses criticism. As with most articles dealing with religious topics, there are always many people that want to go beyond the paramaters of an encyclopedia and insert criticism...unfortunately often rather bizarre things. This article does include reference to criticisms of Mother Teresa in an appropriate manner, giving it the appropriate weight (actually, I think it already is disproportionately more prominent than it should be already, but I have learned to compromise on the issue). Please don't throw in comments like Mother Teresa ran death camps...I'm not sure whether to call it silly or vandalism, but I think I'll compromise and just call it not appropriate. --Anietor 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am utterly amazed at how misinformed this article is. It might have been written by the Pope himself. This women has courted controversy all her life, she is seen by many as wicked, deceitful and undeserving of a first grade gold star never mind sainthood. It seems as if everyone is willing to sit back and accept the sanctimonious drivel in this article and it really does undermine the credibility of WP. Whether a separate section for criticism is needed is irrelevant. There isn't enough in the article to warrant a separate section! This article is at best misleading and at worst completely deceitful.

Agreed. I believe that the article is very misleading. This needs to be entirely rewritten from scratch with a completely neutral point of view. --9:27 PM, Aug 18th, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.77.79 (talk) 02:27:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Again

The semi-protection just expired and already the article has two vandal edits. We may need to request an extention for semi-protection. Majoreditor 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it and semi protect if necessary. But just two vandal edits (from the same ip) is not enough to warrant semi protection. Garion96 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was just vandalized again; see these two edits from an IP. I sincerely hope you're right and that we can use conventional methods to minimize vandalism. Unfortunately, there were frequent vandal attacks prior to semi-protection. The pattern may be resuming now that the article is no longer protected. Sadly, this article is a vandal magnet, attracting purile comments from grade school kids. Majoreditor 13:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit by an IP sure looks like (yet another) act of vandalism. This one removed a block of text, leaving a sentence fragment and incomplete paragraph. It appears that we're drifting back into the same old pattern. Majoreditor 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There's been another act of vandalism on the article by an anon IP, dated April 19. This marks six vandalizing edits by four editors in approximately four days. That's about the same rate experienced prior to semi-protecting the article earlier this year. Majoreditor 12:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another vandal edit [1] which needs to be reverted. Majoreditor 17:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Which was two days after the last vandal. Relax, if it gets bad it will get semi-protected. Garion96 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the vandals took off for an early weekend, because someone is back at it again with this, followed up by a page blank.

It's concerning when IP vandalism goes unaddressed for over two hours, like this recent one.

While I'd like to help bring this piece up to GA status, I'm going to step away for a while so I can focus on articles which aren't under vandal attack. Majoreditor 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

High profile articles like this unfortunately always have vandalism. If you really can't stand that, I would indeed advise you to work on a less high profile article. But the rate of vandalism on this article (so far) is not that high. It really is too bad that it took 2 hours to revert that edit though. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Phaedriel for semi-protecting the article. The vandalism has increased during the past two weeks and has degraded the article. Thanks also to Garion and others who have attempted to check the vandals.Majoreditor 13:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yesterday was really bad. Hope it gets normal again after the protection expires. Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To view the comments from Anne Ryder, the last person to interview Mother Teresa before her death, view her site at www.anneryder.com/speaking.htm. There are 5 - 30 second video clips about Anne's interview with her and some great insights on how we can all carry her torch, forever.

Semi Protecting an article really isn't a big deal. There is nothing wrong for Sping a high profile article. Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did she write anything in her life?

I like her words.

"Spread love everywhere you go: first of all in your own house. Give love to your children, to your wife or husband, to a next door neighbor... Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness; kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm greeting."

---

Mother Teresa

Anyother writing by her? Why she did not choose to be a writer?

--222.166.160.88 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Cheung Mei

She wrote relatively little, but did collaborate on a few books, such as Mother Teresa: In My Own Words (ISBN 0-517-20169-0) Majoreditor 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Integrating "criticism" material into the article without separate section

I think that Billtheking's reference to WP: criticism, and his insertion of the tag in the criticism section of the article, is helpful and instructive. As per WP policy, an actual "criticism" section is discouraged. The WP guideline specifically states this, and encourages, instead, the integration of such material into the main article. I will try to do that in the article later today. I know this section has been the source of some heated discussions and reverts, which is why I want to explain the edits that will be made. Please provide some feedback here, either before the changes are made or after. Hopefully this will ease some of the tension on this topic. --Anietor 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, per WP policy, a criticism section isn't discouraged, WP policy simply requires us to be neutral - WP:Criticism is only an essay. The Incredible Shrinking Criticism that this article has seen recently is a little troublesome, and I'm afraid that this may continue to accellerate the situtation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Badlydrawnjeff. That's one of the reasons I wanted to talk about it here, so it didn't appear that I was just eliminating all material from the criticism section. And in the interest of full disclosure, I have been responsible for cutting down that section a couple of times, since I thought it was disproportionately large for the article. But I have been transparent about it, and don't want to appear "sneaky" about the edits, since that would imply a certain lack of good faith. So I will try and distribute the section's material to appropriate sections, where I think it might actually be better, format-wise. --Anietor 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the section quoting the Lancet about the bad medical practices in her hospital?

This is important because Mother Teresa's major activity was treating the sick in her hospital, and she raised money for that purpose.

An editor from The Lancet, an irrefutably reliable source and one of the "top four" medical journals in the world, visited her hospital and found what he thought were shocking conditions, even by third-world standards. They were reusing hypodermic needles and syringes without sterilizing them, which, as we now know, meant that they were likely to be doing more harm than good, because as everyone now knows, that's one of the ways that AIDS and other infectious diseases were spread. This is not a political or ideological criticism; it's an objective medical assessment. They were equally critical of Romanian and other hospitals for the same unsanitary practice.

From a medical perspective, this is the most serious criticism and failing of Mother Teresa. It's factually well-established and unchallenged. In any honest account of Mother Teresa, you have to present the positives and negatives, and to delete this negative criticism is dishonest. Nbauman 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet is hardly an "irrefutably reliable source." In fact, based on just a few minutes of checking, it appears that there have been some rather recent controversies at that journal, ranging from a fabricated story last year on cancer research, to highly-disputed death-toll figures in Iraq, to conflicts of interest in other recent articles (even Wikipedia's article refers to these and other controversies). But I certainly don't want to debate that here. As for this article, at least you acknowledge, Nbauman, that the criticism you mention is important "from a medical perspective", which, given your background, is obviously important to you. Perhaps that material would be more appropriate in the Missionaries of Charity article? Regardless, if it is included anywhere, it should be because it is relevant and provides a complete and neutral perspective on the subject of the article. It's inclusion in The Lancet does little to sway me one way or the other. --Anietor 01:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't ready access to the article. When was the study conducted? If it didn't happen when she was head of the order then I'd suggets excluding it from this article. If the practice was widespread among third world hospitals then it may not merit mention in this article because it wasn't specific to MT or the SoC. That said, I'm not going to opine one way or the other until I see the article. Majoreditor 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If any publication in the world is a reliable source for WP standards, The Lancet is, because it's in every university library in the world, and doctors rely on it to treat their patients. Another reason why it's reliable is that their editor, who was a doctor, visited Mother Teresa's hospital himself.

As the citation shows, the Lancet article was published when Mother Teresa was running the hospital. Fox R., Mother Theresa's care for the dying. Lancet. 1994 Sep 17;344(8925):807-8. [PMID 7818649]

If you want to read the actual Lancet article, you'll have to go to a library, because The Lancet isn't available on the Internet that far back. You can also read the Hitchens book. But WP actually prefers secondary sources, and there are plenty of them on line. For example:

[2]Freethought Today, August 1996, The Illusory Vs. The Real Mother Teresa, By Michael Hakeem, Ph.D. Review of The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens

"It is not necessary to cite here all the reported negligence and malpractices, which range from repeatedly using the same injection needles without sterilizing them to a refusal to send to the hospital those in clear need of surgery."

This is literally medical malpractice. Anyone with any knowledge of medicine would be shocked; reusing unsterilized needles can and has infected hundreds of thousands of people with AIDS and other fatal diseases, many of them infants, most of whom died. If anyone claims that she was running a hospital to help people, the entry should acknowledge that her hospital was violating basic safe practices and infecting people with incurable fatal diseases. The Lancet article was asking, how can a woman run a hospital and allow these practices to go on? Nbauman 05:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nbauman here - currently the criticisms appear as a small end-paragraph on on a lengthy section and can easily be lost in the text for a reader. It may well be that there are substandard practices in many third-world health facilities, but the issue here is the level of (first world) funding that this one received and hte iconic status in which it is held. The Lancet is one ofthe world's foremost and most respected medical journals.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Cas Liber. Mother Teresa's hospital didn't even meet third-world standards. The rule in medicine is first, do no harm. Many third-world hospitals have created epidemics where there were none, and killed tens of thousands of people, by reusing unsterilized needles. Those hospitals caused more suffering than they alleviated. Nbauman 13:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can help by providing a cite for this sentence:

Hitchens has written that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions.

I have no doubt that it's factually correct -- but it needs proper referencing. If someone can point me to the correct work (is it "Missionary Position"?) then I'll try to track it down next time I'm at the library. Thanks, Majoreditor 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's called "The Missionary Position." It's a good read, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I tried twice to get it at the library, but it's always checked out. Popular book, it is. Majoreditor 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lancet essay needs to be added to this article, anybody has access to it?--BMF81 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean a brief summary of the Lancet essay -- right? We don't need to reproduce any original work here. Majoreditor 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Many editors agree to have it as a source of criticism, so you're nobody to impede it.--BMF81 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

BMF81, you have misinterpreted what I asked you. It would inappropriate to dump any essay wholesale into the article, which is what you seem to suggest. The proper approach is to add a summary of the Lancet essay.

Also, BMF81, you will need to be civil in your edits. Majoreditor 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the appropriate way of including the Lancet editor's views is to cite secondary sources. That way you will avoid WP:OR issues. Majoreditor 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide the reference for the Lancet article in which, "An editor from The Lancet, an irrefutably reliable source and one of the "top four" medical journals in the world, visited her hospital and found what he thought were shocking conditions, even by third-world standards. They were reusing hypodermic needles and syringes without sterilizing them,...", so that I can read it for myself and add content from it to the Mother Teresa article ?
I read the R. Fox article listed above (Fox R., "Mother Theresa's care for the dying". Lancet. 1994 Sep 17;344(8925):807-8. [3]) and it was mainly a positive review of the humanity, openness of the Home, while mildly critiquing the shortage of,

• doctors ("What sort of medical care do they get? It is haphazard. There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later, a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine."),
• systematic medical approaches ("systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Theresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. So the most important features of the regimen are cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and loving kindness."), and
• analgesics ("On a short visit I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics.").

One of the follow-up letters in the Oct. 15th issue pointed out that the analgesic shortage was common in Indian hospitals ("Even in 1994 most cancer patients who I saw did not have access to any analgesia, because of lack of suitable drugs, of knowledge about the use of the drugs by the doctors as well as in some instances no understanding about pain management, and compounded by a lack of resources. Mother Teresa is to be commended for at least providing loving kindness. If Fox were to visit the major institutions that are run by the medical profession in India he may only rarely see cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, or loving kindness. In addition, analgesia might not be available.". Burn, G, "Mother Teresa's care for the dying.", Lancet. 1994 Oct 15;344(8929):1098. [4] ).
I did not find any mention of syringes or shocking conditions compared to third-world standards etc. I therefore suspect that Nbauman is referring to some other Lancet article, and it would help if an exact reference is provided. Thanks. Abecedare 17:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nbauman mentioned the same Lancet article (Fox R., Mother Theresa's care for the dying. Lancet. 1994 Sep 17;344(8925):807-8. [PMID 7818649]) in his 05:10, 14 May 2007 comment on this talk page (see above.) It's the same article to which Abecedare quotes from. Nbauman also mentioned material from another article which reviewed one of Hitchen's books (Freethought Today, August 1996, The Illusory Vs. The Real Mother Teresa, By Michael Hakeem). Majoreditor 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Nbauman misattributed the content to the Lancet article. Abecedare 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A reproduction of the article is available here: http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/talk.atheism/msg05797.html 63.241.31.130 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this is a big red herring, in my opinion. The arguement is taken to be in what way critism should be expressed. And, there are some views of wiki policy saying this and that. But, the result (not by accident, I suspect), is that there is very little criticsm of the subject AT ALL. And not because none is available. I have found this to be a theme in my experience on wiki, religous people, sometimes small minorities, focus a lot of attention on certain articles, and make sure that they refect their religous views. This is not NPOV, and we shouldn't tolerate it. Steve kap 16:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't tolerate what? The article is well-balanced as is. This compulsion to cram in critical material from anywhere, some sourced, some rumor, is what should not, and thanks to vigilant editors has not, been tolerated. The MT article lists criticisms, mentions Hitchens, provides links to sources for further criticisms... that's appropriate and sufficient. An article doesn't have to be 1/2 negative material to make it NPOV. And to somehow assume that this article is guarded by "small minorities of religious people" is really quite silly (and like some of the MT criticisms, without foundation and out of context). There are undoubtedly editors interested in religious issues that edit here, just as I would expect listeners of classical music to edit related pages, doctors to frequent medical articles, etc. But the article is obviously open to editing by anyone, and it has been reviewed by random admins, including for GA status review. Ease up on the conspiracy theories. --Anietor 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that its at all well balanced. Not a word about her hospice offering no pain medication. Nothing about the lack of privat WC for the patients. Nothing about the rule restricting visits from family, or confining patents to their beds. All of these well documented by Hitchens and others.

As far as conspiracy theories, ofcourse its fine that religous people contribute to religous articles. Is NOT fine that they slant the articles to conform to their religous point of view. And its clear that this is whats happening on this page, and others. One needs to only look at the contibutions and the home pages to find very deep coorilations. Wikipedia is supposed to have NPOV, not the pov of the religon being talked about. This should not be tolerated.Steve kap 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Money

"asked that the $6,000 funds be given to the poor in Calcutta,", excuse me but according to Nobelprize.org, the amount given to her was 800,000 Swedish kronor which at today's exchange rate is about $116,905. So I put a FACT tag on that. Fanra 03:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I found this fact from SFGate.com, posted Thursday, March 22, 2007:

"In 1979, Mother Teresa used her Nobel Peace Prize cash award of $192,000 to help finance her charitable work helping India's poor."

I will revise the article accordingly. Majoreditor 04:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand (Penn and Teller site)

Berkley paper's conversation with Hitchens & Penn & Teller's Bullshit - Holier than Thou feature accusations by Christopher Hitchins of Mother Theresa endorsing corrupt leaders and financial irregularities. Apparently there's at least one book published on the subject. Are they credible? They're certainly notable, if made by a person considered noteworthy enough for coverage here. Is there a second such source? Expand? MrZaius^talk 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitchens is a solid critical source, whether one agrees with him or not. The Penn & Teller material really isn't encyclopedic; it's geared toward entertainment.

You'll find most of the best work on MT -- positive, negative and neutral -- is in books and magazine articles which aren't available through a Google search.

By all means, feel free to expand the article. Majoreditor 19:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Penn and Teller wasn't so much a source worth citing as a source of sources, with their interview of Hitchins and of an Indian fellow on related topics. I'll dig around and see what I can find for future expansion, but if anyone wants to beat me to the punch, I certainly wouldn't complain. MrZaius^talk 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Penn & Teller piece is silly puff entertainment...even if it contains material that would otherwise be relevant. Not to be a prude...but it also begins with a pretty hardcore string of obscenities that pretty much sets the tone for this not-too-serious "report." Try and find a reputable source, and let's leave the comic bits out of the article. It's not encyclpoedic. --Anietor 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the only reason I brought it up was to suggest that the sources it cites might be of use to anyone engaged in expanding the article. Never suggested the show itself met the citation guidelines. MrZaius^talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Penn and Teller, even if they happen to swear a lot in the particular show (although amusing, this is in part because it's a lot more difficult to sue for libel for being called an "asshole" than for being called a "fraud"). As well-known skeptics, they're a notable source. "Silly puff entertainment" indeed. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and in the dispute on MT I don't see them less "serious" than the Vatican.--BMF81 10:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry, my comments weren't directed at you, MrZaius. You may have only referred to it here in the talk page, but soon afterwards, the link was actually inserted into the article by someone else. I removed it, and inserted a comment here in case anyone wanted to address it further. Hopefully it needs no further discussion. A cite to Penn and Teller calling Mother Teresa an asshole, saying she is a fraud because Teresa isn't even her name, then ending with the 2 of them running around calling God a "pussy"...let's be serious here. It certainly has some entertainment value, but that is not appropriate for this article. If you can't find a better source than this, you're just not looking very hard. --Anietor 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Penn and Teller site has been added and deleted several times recently. Please discuss here and let's not have another edit war in this article. As I see it, the link has some comedic value, but adds nothing new to the article. It cites sources that are already cited in the article elsewhere. As far as offering another "perspective", as one editor put it, I suppose anyone that writes something has a unique perspective on an issue, but the only nuance to the Penn and Teller link is a sort of shock-value approach. As mentioned earlier, running around the set and calling God a p-ssy, saying MT is a liar because here birth name isn't Teresa, etc. seems to be a little beyond the parameters of an encyclopedia, don't you think? Does the average researcher, curious person, student or whomever really get any value out of that? Also, check out WP: profanity. It's gratuitous in this case, and is of no intrinsic value. Please don't confuse the ideals of free speech with what is appropriate and value-added material for an encyclopedia. --Anietor 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anietor is correct. The Penn and Teller site contributes little information on MT. This is an encyclopedia, not Trivial Pursuit. Majoreditor 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Penn and Teller site link also runs afoul of WP:EL policy. Editors are not supposed to junk up an article with links like this. Majoreditor 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a collection of all links on a subject. Fails WP:EL (and, for my money, WP:RS). Pastordavid 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints Collaboration

This article has been chosen as the current Collaboration for WikiProject Saints! Many thanks to Majoreditor for nominating it. Let's see about getting it up to GA standards! --Anietor 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of suggestions from my first glance at it. The external links seem a bit heavy, perhaps some trimming would be appropriate (per WP:EL - external links are included if they provide additional info about the subject that would not be contained in the article even if it were brought up to FA). The "see also" section should go - either the links are important enough to be linked to in the article (in which case the see also is just duplication) or they aren't important enough. Finally, the entire article should be edited to remove duplicate wikilinks. Pastordavid 17:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold

The article is mostly well-written and very well referenced. However, some of the references are not properly formatted, and some are just a url. Once the references are properly formatted, I'd be happy to pass it for GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the references have been cleaned up, I'm happy to pass. Well done - • The Giant Puffin • 08:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work

Thanks Pastordavid for getting this article sourced. It was about time someone did this... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Others provided the citations, I have merely filled them out so that we are using full (and correctly attributed!) citations throughout. I have gotten through most of the article (a couple near the end could still use a little touch-up). Thanks for your kind words Jossi. I think GA is in our sights ... Some more good work with citations and FA is not an impossibility. Pastordavid 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything I can help with? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The last half of the article could use some additional work. I will go by the library on Monday (when I'm back from vacation) and pick up some of the books I had been using when I was working on the article. They will be useful in filling in needed citations, expanding the biographical information and handling influence/legacy and criticism. Looking forward to working with all of you as we get this article to GA status. Majoreditor 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, one place to jump right in would be to help with the prose. It is pretty good, but could certainly be improved. Any work to help the article "read more better" would be greatly appreciated. ME, welcome back, hope you had a good vacation. Pastordavid 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of other thoughts, from looking over the peer review. We still need to see if we can expand the lead, and provide a fair use rationale on Image:Mother Teresa2.gif (standards are getting ever stricter on this). Pastordavid 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added {{Non-free media rationale}} to the image's page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Good work, and thanks, to everyone who helped push this article up to GA. Now to hunker down and see if we can reach FA. Once more into the breach dear friends. Pastordavid 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to Pastordavid for moving this article along and to Jossi for his many contributions.

I will stay involved and will add some more to the last half of the article shortly. Majoreditor 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce the name?

I think it might be a good idea to give a plain-language approximation of the pronunciation, for those of use who don't understand phoenetics. 72.8.104.11 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Inrerestingly, her middle Gonxha rhymes with ganja. Here last name Bojaxhiu is pronounced roughly boh-ya-jee-oo or boy-ajee-oo

I confess that the IPA symbols make no sense to me, either. Should it be replaced with a traditional pronunciation guide? Majoreditor 22:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is policy to use *only* IPA symbols, which, incidentally, makes all of Wikipedia's pronunciation help utterly useless to me. I've managed to learn to read the Greek and Russian alphabets solely from encountering them frequently alongside English transliterations on Wikipedia, but I've seen probably 10x as much of that IPA stuff as I have either of those examples, and it's still gibberish to me. Furthermore, I've only ever seen it here and in advanced language-learning guides or linguist-oriented material. Everything else just transliterates, and I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Wikipedia visitors encounter it here for the first--and possibly only--time in their lives. Fallingcow 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

I've listed this article for Good Article Review. The article is not stable (as the various protects show), and it reads like hagiography in places, with criticism either at a minimum or entirely absent, depending on what day it is. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the protects this year have been to protect against vandalism. Majoreditor 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The result of the GA/R was Keep. The article shall retain GA. On an additional note, page protection and vandalism is not a factor in article stability which refers to edit warring and the like. Regards, Lara♥Love 15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Laura. The results of the GA/R can be found here [5]. Majoreditor 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets and others, please note that GA/R confirmed GA status; don't delist/. Majoreditor 21:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate this for a Good Article Review. This no longer meets the guidelines, as the neutrality is disputed. 70.232.77.79 08:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The article was renominated for delisting by user:70.232.77.79 on 19 August. Consensus was to speedy keep. Nomination archived early per WP:SNOW. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Regards, Lara♥Love 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Laura, thanks - again - for the GAR work. All, the guys at Good Article Review have now recertified this article's GA status twice this month. Majoreditor 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Any thoughts on how to handle the quotes from MT? The quotes section has grown over time. I'm not sure that it needs to be included in a biographical article. I see four choices:

• Delete the quotes section
• Spin off the quotes section into a separate article
• Prune it
• Leave the section as it is

Your thoughts/suggestions? Majoreditor 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest working the quotes into the body, either way, they all need to be referenced. The third quote:

"People are often unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered; Forgive them anyway. If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; Be kind anyway. If you are successful you will win some false friends and true enemies; Succeed anyway. If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you; Be honest and frank anyway. What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight; Build anyway. If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous; Be happy anyway. The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow; Do good anyway. Give the world the best you have, and it may never be enough; Give the world the best you've got anyway. You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway."

This site claims that the quote is that of Kent Keith and that Mother Teresa was so moved by it that she hung a copy in her orphanage. Lara♥Love 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing negative?

I came to this article looking for verification of some rumors I'd heard a while ago, that Mother Teresa allowed substandard care for her patients for various reasons, and that some of her treatments kept them sick... while I don't know the truth of any of this, I was rather surprised to see a complete absence of any negative point-of-view in the article. Did no one truly have anything bad to say about Mother Teresa, or is there no verifiable source with anything negative to say about her? - Brian Kendig 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't where you should come to check out rumors. Wikipedia is for relevant, verified information. Putting unsubstantiated rumors in the article gives them credence, and they really have no place here. So your comment about not finding anything about them actually makes me feel pretty good about the article. On a more subtle point, you seem to take a position that articles must have negative points of view. Why is that? Do encyclopedias in general all have negative criticisms on every topic? Certainly not. If relevant, yes. But absent relevant substantiated criticism, there is no need to put in filler or rumor-based points just to have them. Besides, this article does note that there are critics of MT, including who the critics are, with a source. --Anietor 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is less than honest calling criticisms filler or rumor based when there are verifiable multiple sources saying the same thing. Take the reuse of syringes for example, at a time when there was supposedly 50 million USD in the bank. Or the fact that analgesics were not used. The reuse of the paper that prescriptions were written on (to save the money on the paper). Or that MT didn't allow elevators to be installed (they shuffled the sick up and down stairs). I think this link says it best [6] "It is the heroification of Mother Teresa that makes her virtually immune to criticism, and the small amount of criticism that she does get is hurriedly dismissed." The article concludes with "It is through this process of media distorting reality, defined as sentimentalization that causes us to not realize that the well-being of the poor is being jeopardized by our biased views of Mother Teresa."

Aptly said, and applies equally well to Wikipedia, which as a supposed online encyclopedia should be a higher grade than incidental newsprint. The article as it stands, because it does not paint a complete picture, does a great disservice to readers. Both Catholics and others alike. -Nodekeeper 15:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but wasn't there criticism in this article at one point? What happened to it? There are critical external links, but that's about it... I think a criticism section needs to be created to address the reported crticism of Teresa and her organisation. Sfacets 15:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Should you want to add criticism, consider starting with Hitchens and similar reliable sources. Unfortunately, some of the critical sources which were previously included weren't WP:RS. You may also want to consider spinning off criticism into its own article. There's several ways to approach criticism which will work. Thoughts? Majoreditor 00:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have since noticed there is a paper discussing these things (I have not read it, purchase is *hard*). The problem I have with Hitchens is that even though he makes valid points, it comes from a heavily POV source. Good for selling books, not so good for an encyclopediac article. -Nodekeeper 01:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns about Hitchens. He is a well-recognized journalist, but he is also a well-recognized atheist and, more importantly, antitheist. There is certainly nothing intrinsically problematic with that, and all views should be expressed. However, he does have a partical POV agenda. The MT article lists him, mentions his critical views, and links to his article. I think that provides a reader with the ability to obtain further critical commentaries on MT if that's being sought. As has been mentioned countless times in this discussion page, a criticisms section is not necessary or recommended. Please read the history of this topic, here and in the archives. --Anietor 04:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article gives glowing, rosy views and the possible negatives are sort of thrown in as an afterthought. The entire article needs to be rewritten with a neutral POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.77.79 (talk) 08:02:22, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What's there now is not adequate, and the purpose is not soley to provide a single link to the Hitchen's article. But rather provide a complete, accurate picture. From the posts I have been reading on this current talk page, I think most others would agree with me. This may have been discussed in the past and changes made, but they evidently did not stick. Me rifling through the archive does not do much to affect the current state the article is in. -Nodekeeper 11:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is the incorrect belief that NPOV somehow means an article must have 50% positive, 50% negative material. That's not the case, and is a simplistic, relativist and somewhat lazy approach. Call me crazy...but an article about Mother Teresa that has more positive material than negative is ok. Same for MLK, Jr., Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, etc. Are there valid criticisms of these people? Well, of course. They're still human, and certainly did things of which to be critical. It should go in the articles, as well. Similarly, articles on Hitler, Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, can be NPOV if most of the material is negative. That's ok! The articles can also include some mitigating material, but they don't become POV because the positive material makes up a small section. This article reads well, is well-balanced, and has been reviewed more than once recently for GA status.--Anietor 15:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The article includes notable critics' viewpoints already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When researching Mother Teresa at the university library earlier this year I found relatively few works which would be described as negative. Certainly the article should include notable critics; however, the vast majority of biographical and academic literature on Mother Teresa aren't negative in tone. Majoreditor 18:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that they're integrated in as almost a sidenote, something barely worth mentioning, plus the entire tone of it is rosy and rose-tinted, without properly mentioning the critics until the end. If the conditions were poor, it should be mentioned where it is mentioned that she took care of the poor, lest one get the wrong idea. (Just an example). The entire article needs a rewrite, IMO. 70.232.77.79 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This article represents the collective effort of a large number of editors over a long time. You can visit the archives to read the arguments that have been made, which include the ones you are trying to make, and the response to these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of where money was spent, where it mentions what she's spending money on seems fair enough. I did away with the hypodermic needles and beds comment, as that can be read up in the reference. Now, as for the synopsis mentioning the criticism, I think that's fair enough, considering that she has received no small amount of criticism, and the claims are rather extreme, and have been verified by ex-nuns, etc. If I go back and just re-add the clarification of where the money was spent where it mentions what she spends money on? At least that clarification is need, IMO. 70.232.77.79 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is there interspersed in the article, please read the article. There is no need to give undue weight to criticism. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll let it drop. I'm not too horribly fond of some of the wording, but, oh well. The problem that I have with the criticism is that it's pretty much in one spot, and had might as well be a seperate section, for all its use. The only criticism that I can find is this and the bit about her beautification:

Critics of Mother Teresa, most notably Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ali and Aroup Chatterjee, have argued that her organization provided substandard care, was primarily interested in converting the dying to Catholicism, and used donations for missionary activities elsewhere, rather than being spent on improving the standard of health care.[26] The Catholic Church has dismissed most of these criticisms.[27]

As such, I think that the 'criticism' [verifiable content] should be integrated into what is there. For example: mention spending. You should mention that not all of it was spent on hospices, etc. Mention hospices, you should mention the conditions they were in, etc. etc. 70.232.77.79 22:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

<<< No, it is in several spots. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Critics of Mother Teresa, most notably Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ali and Aroup Chatterjee, have argued that her organization provided substandard care, was primarily interested in converting the dying to Catholicism, and used donations for missionary activities elsewhere, rather than being spent on improving the standard of health care

and , a British-born American author, journalist and literary critic, was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process, as the Vatican had abolished the traditional "devil's advocate" role that filled a similar purpose.[52][53] Hitchens has written that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’"[54] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 22:40:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

No, by my count it is in two spots on the page. I would much rather see one spot (like the first mention) enlarged to it's own section. And the second spot pared down to a one sentence mention that he gave evidence against beatification. Also, I would like to include what other academic sources have to say, rather than being Hitchens centric, because everybody feels entitled to deleting what he has to say (whether it is valid or not). Also, there will not be the excuse that it is the rantings of a single person, like the tone of the current phrasing. -Nodekeeper 01:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I second putting criticism into its own section. WP:Criticism is just an essay, not a guideline. The article cannot be repaired easily, without rewriting the entire content, so I vote to have the Criticism moved to its own section for visibility. As it is, it is extremely easy to overlook. For accuracy's sake, we should have it in its own section. Necronomikron 06:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to have a section on criticism. The criticism of these crtiics can be kept interspersed on the article for better NPOV and balance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's assertion is supported by the Manual of Style. WP:MoS says this about article structure and criticism:

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". (WP MoS)

Thoughts? Majoreditor 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any criticism section should be renamed pertaining to the issues of which there are a couple. Hence Human rights abuses would be one and something about her political alliances and agendas, both of which could be ample sections.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Given her stature I reckon a good split between straightforward bio and controversy would be about 75/25 with a one liner about concerns in the lead. Almost all leaders are controversial and need some controversy/opposing points of view in them and MT is no exception.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will disagree with that ratio:

• It's arbitrary
• The ratio isn't supported by a review of academic, hard biographical or other literature on the subject.
• Per Anietor's very sensible point, articles on some figure such as Adolph Hitler will tend to include more controversy/criticism than an article on, say, Albert Schweitzer -- as is reflected in reliable sources.
• Look at other benchmarks, such as Enclyclopedia Britannica's article on Mother Teresa. They are nowhere near 25% criticism/controversy.

Majoreditor 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and Majoreditor. Also, a criticism section becomes a magnet for random, disjointed laundry lists. Integrating relevant criticisms into the article keeps the criticisms focused on important, relevant and sourced points. This position is supported by WP guidelines and articles such as WP:MoS and WP:Criticism. This issue has really been debated to death. The article has now passed multiple GA-reviews within the past few weeks, despite the Criticism section-proponents' sour grapes attempts to delist it. I'm all for listening to all sides, and letting minorities have their say...but when there's a consensus (obviously there will never be 100% consensus on this), it's time to stop the edit wars. --Anietor 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:Criticism that you cite. First, as others have mentioned, it's not a hard and fast rule that you make it out to be. Secondly, the alternative that this essay mentions is that the criticism be incorporated into the narrative. That would, as another editor mentioned, require a whole article rewrite. And, quite frankly, I do not think that any of us wants to hack through that experience. That would be the epitomy of tortured writing. Third, and I plan to take this up with WP:Criticism, sticking the criticism back where it was essentially was a method to evade criticism. The previous version was not incorporating it into the narrative by any extent of the imagination. Fifth, so much as the section being a troll magnet, it it is a verifiable, citable source, I would not call it a troll. Besides that, half of Wikipedia could be considered a 'troll magnet'. Sixth, the WP:Criticism does mention specific instances that a criticism section should exist, which this would certainly fall under. -Nodekeeper 00:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried inserting a mention in the lede as you suggested, but it has already mean removed.--Peter cohen 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I mention the lead as generally for bigger articles the lead is a good 2-3 meaty paragraphs, in which case a one-line mention is pretty minor. Currently the lead is small, hence it would take up a disproportionately large portion as is. You're right, I was being very arbitrary - I meant to flag some small proportion bigger than none and less than half.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway - time I took this article off my watchlist - good luck guys as I can't give it proper attention...can only b involved in one dipsuted article at a time...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would advise editors to read the numerous archives on the subject. I do not believe that any of the arguments presented above have not et been argued already... This is an encyclopedic article about a person, who like any other notable person, have some critics/detractors. These are described in the article in the appropriate manner and in the required proportion as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nodekeeper, your post doesn't address the issue I brought up. I cited the Manual of Style, not WP:Criticism. Unlike WP:Criticism, which is an essay, MoS is policy. It says: "Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". Please let us know what exactly you object to in in the Manual of Style. Majoreditor 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to nothing in the WP:MoS. But you seem to be very selective about what guidelines you want to follow. The single quote that you mention;

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".

Comes from Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure which follows with the sentence

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

I do not think that having the couple sentences of criticism at the end of a lengthy section is 'folding' it into the narrative, but rather a method to avoid it from being in the narrative as Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure suggests by continuing and quoting WP:NPOV with this;

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do here. WP:NPOV continues with

We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.

I would not call the facts that are cited in the criticism section an extreme minority view. The two days that I have been here there have been a half dozen different editors all asking the same questions I am. The WP:Criticism does not exclude the use of a criticism section, and the instances that it mentions this article certainly falls under.

Another editor tried to start folding the criticisms into the narrative today as suggested by WP:Criticism, and you deleted his efforts. This edit shows me that maybe you are not trying to improve the narrative, but minimize the relevant criticism. What did the wise person say? Every man has two reasons for doing something. A good reason and then the real reason. If you are going to cite WP:MoS, do not pick and choose only those sentences here and there that help you accomplish your editing goals.

-Nodekeeper 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial topics" do not equal "criticism". I think the edits of the last few hours have improved that section, even if I say so myself. Saying "these sort of people and media have criticised her" matches "these sorts of organisations have heaped honours on her". Perhaps some of the criticisms can also be placed in sections about the missions. --Peter cohen 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism is a subset of controversy. Why not just be done with the criticsm section and intersert the criticism throughout the article, per Jossi and Anietor? Majoreditor 01:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The trolling has already begun. The recent additions have certainly not improved the section. Including Penn & Teller routines is not an improvement. This very issue, and routine, has been addressed in the not-too-distant past. The criticism section is poorly written, violates previously cited policies and essays, and basically should go. The relevant info can be integrated...in fact, it HAS been integrated. It's not a question of criticism in its own section or nowhere. That's the red herring of the day. --Anietor 01:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The most blatant guideline being broken here is [WP:OWN]. This is demonstrated by the "it's all been done before" attitude of certain editors and their headlong rush to revert edits without even seeign if they fix typos, address cite tags etc. And they have the cheek to call what I'm doing trolling.--Peter cohen 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you made many edits today without discussing them first. Did it occur to you that's tossing petrol on the fire? Did it occur to you that Jossi, who's one of the most experienced and respected editors on WP, may have a point when he advices others to read the prior discussion and archives before blasting away? I think you have some valuable insights to contribute, but I suggest trying to build consensus first

I suggest some cool-off time for all. Take a break from editing the article and discuss issues and path to progress on the discussion page. It will be a far more constructive use of our time. Peter, perhaps you can share with us your thoughts on which critical sources you think are most useful to include in the article.Majoreditor

I suggest that it is you who should consider taking a break from this article. You have obviously got too emotionally close to it. Look at your mass revert edit [7] and count the number of typos you added back and the citation tag which you reinserted that had been addressed by the edits you removed without reading. Look at the title of your next edit to the article[8] and see how it doesn't mention that you are actually reverting parts of other editors' work and removing text. And haven't you heard of WP:Be Bold? --Peter cohen 02:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, Peter, ad hominem attacks aren't going to further your case. Dumping in trivia like Penn and Teller does nothing to advance the article. Once again, I'll ask you a very simple question: what critical sources you think are most useful to include in the article? Majoreditor 12:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant propaganda

This reads almost as if it was penned by the Catholic church itself. It gives glowing praise and skips over the criticism and examples of negative and bad behaviours. There is an obvious political agenda here to hide or quash anything that makes the "saint" look bad using wikipolitics and wikilegalese. The truth of her manipulative ways, the shams she perpetrated, the criticism from those who worked with her and death camp "hospitals" should be integrated into the article. As it is the whole thing is written as if she was all but the messiah herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.48.34 (talk • contribs)

I second that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.190.18 (talk • contribs)

We've been done this road before

Pater, we've beend down this road before. Adding Penn and Teller-related material violates WP:RS. Majoreditor 01:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF was your last edit to the article about. Most of my edits shich you indiscriminately removed addressed a citation tag which you kindly re-instated.

And as for your RS claim, it is irrelevant. The sentence gives examples of the sort of people who have criticised MT. If I cited Penn and Teller as evidence for MT being a Martian, then they would not be RS. --Peter cohen 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. This is why a criticism section is a bad idea. You're dumping trivia into it. We could expand this to an unmanageable size article if we include every little positive and negative fact in here. Penn and Teller just simply doesn't make the cut. Majoreditor 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the Penn And Teller story, since it is a valid story reported by both the P&T show as well as major third party News outlets. This was actually not a "little" negative fact, but a rather big one since the show is hugely populr and has even received Emmy awards (well some would say that this is a mark of popularity anyway.) Sfacets 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article, fixed some leftover editing mistakes and put the counterpoints where they should be. As it is, if one reads through the entire article, they will get the classic "Point : Counterpoint" method that is so highly lofted here. I don't fully agree with this, and I still feel that the article could use some heavy revision, but, I lack the time and patience to do so. Necronomikron 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Penn and Teller reference. As mentioned in the long discussion above from months ago, it is not an appropriate cite. Even less relevant is the fact that Showtime aired it, and it is spesculative to say that Showtime gave unfavorable coverage to MT because they aired a comedy routine. Including such references lowers the quality of this article. --Anietor 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's like if South Park ran an episode critical of Hillary Clinton. The episode could merit attention in the South Park article(s) but doesn't make the cut for the Hillary Clinton article. Majoreditor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with that edit. First, it violates WP:3RR. This has been duly reported. Second, it almost certainly makes the sentence false. I am pretty sure that it is not Donal MacIntyre but Penn and Teller who used the various phrases quoted in the remaining text. But at least it is only reverting one person's changes this time. Please can people stop making slapdash edits. If you want this to remain a WP:GA you need to edit properly. At least it only reverted one person's edit this time and not several.--Peter cohen 19:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Slapdash editing

The last few edits have included several examples of poor editing.

• People have been rolling back several edits at a time without paying attention to the contents of the individual edits reverted. This has meant that spelling corrections and edit copyedits have been lost due to the thoughtlessness of the person performing the rollback.

• People have been removing paragraphs and sentences complete with their reference links without checking whether any of the citations are named. As a result of this thoughtlessness, there are now two blank entries in the reference lists. Can editors who have made recent deletes, please check whether they removed named links and go back and fix the damage if they did so?

• Misleadingly named edits. There are several recent edits that did not do what they said on the tin, or rather have done several other things too.

--Peter cohen 04:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the things that peeves me the most is the dishonest edit summaries. And not caring about the edits to preserve the citations speaks for itself -Nodekeeper 06:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have restored the Channel 5 and Showtime references, these are valid references. Please discuss before removing them (and rolling back other user's edits.) Sfacets 05:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be Anietor Anietor's edits :

(Rv to last version by 72.220.146.66 and POV tag removed, just passed GA status again)

This was 8 edits made by three different editors! The rvt before that (04:01, 21 August 2007) also reverted the work of three editors. Anietor, please stop your unconstructive edits and discuss before rolling back edits.

The NPOV template stays until issues (see huge ongoing discussion above) are settled. Sfacets 06:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are still items with the wrong reference linked, and some missing the reference entirely. If no one has corrected these by the time I get home, I will see about fixing it. Necronomikron 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Necronomikron, I have tracked down the details the blank reference line (ref name=MacIntyre) and reinserted the details. (I should have left it for you to do as you were the culprit who removed the details in the first place.) The one remaining instance of this link isn't necessary as there are other sources for the Hitchens book's existence. However, he is the only link we have to the Five coverage. So, the ref should remain there until such a time as it is clear no one will reinsert the Five paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 22:43, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Some progress?

It may be painful, but we're starting to see some consensus on the general structure of the article. Thanks, Necronomikron. Majoreditor 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than the currently missing references on a couple of items that I will go through when I get home, I'm much more satisfied, all said and done: the opposition is no longer in just two small sections, and is interspersed throughout the document, in relevant locations: eg., talk about charities ends with a short criticism to the spending, etc. Necronomikron 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Please be aware of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Anietor and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Majoreditor. I believe that User:72.220.146.66 is a sock puppet created by one or other of these editors after there three reverts for the last 24 hours had been used up. Third parties on either side of the argument may wish to comment.--Peter cohen 14:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about sour grapes! Just because editors, even anonymous IPs, have common views, doesn't mean they're sock puppets. Majoreditor and I, along with several other editors, have been working on this article, got it to GA status, and continue to monitor it for appropriate edits. I encourage editors of this article to not be intimidated by the threat of false accusations and continue to check this small but aggressive group of editors that are trying to downgrade this article (they failed delisting attempts twice) and now want to throw in sourced and unsourced criticisms into the article in ways that go against wiki policies and articles (see above discussions). This article is still a good one, let's make sure it stays that way! We'll deal with the sock puppet silliness on that page, let's not clog up this talk page with it. But keep watching this article for the incremental attempts to downgrade it and make inappropriate edits. --Anietor 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I never use sockpuppets and I never use meatpuppets. Majoreditor 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(Uninvolved but lurking:) WTF? In reading this talkpage and noting the edits by any anons, they are nearly unanimously opposed in POV to these two editors. And the concern is what? Looks like here's a page I need to watch, per Anietor. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the posters in #Blatant propaganda expected to achieve, but they did not post to the article page. The new IP poster reverting edits to the article is what really attracted my attention. (I haven't reported any socks before.) My post at the top of this section was actually intended to invite views from people who observed the edits and wanted to comment for or against at the actual sockpuppet pages, not to start comments on those cases here. But yes if people want to consider other socks here and exchange views before adding afew more reports, go ahead.--Peter cohen 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I question the lack of participation by User_talk:72.220.146.66 on the talk page, and instead his first edit is to revert someone. -Nodekeeper 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)