Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bfinn (talk | contribs) at 12:38, 4 August 2005 (→Criticisms section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

None of the claims in this part of the article are actually backed up with anything but heresay. They don't belong in an encyclopedia.

The following has been added: Note: Former sections headed Criticism and Misuse of funds have been suppressed. Is there any doubt as to the accuracy of this prefatory note? Any complaint about the accuracy of 'suppressed' in this instance? Wetman 00:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How can it be called "suppressed", when, according to the edit history, the text in question was added then later deleted (presumably because it is currently back in the Mother Teresa article) by the same person (Alexandros, aka Aplank)? Harris7 03:50, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wetman: Even if it was legitimate information that was removed and not placed elsewhere, you should not have put the notice in the article. Such a notice would be appropriate on the talk page. Even if someone were to remove the death counts from the Holocaust article, it would not be right to put a notice:

"Note: Former information in this article has been suppressed".

Instead, you should replace them with the original text, found in the history. Then, you can perhaps put a watch on the article and protect from further vandalism. If you are not sure that you should put the sections back, you don't have to. What you should do, however, is keep the professional portrait of Misplaced Pages intact. Such a notice appears to show that Wikipedians have no control over its contact, which is ironic, given you have the complete right to modify all of it. Superm401 00:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nearly only negatives claims in this article. Should be titled "Criticism against blabla". But has a pure criticist article a place in Misplaced Pages? gbog 14:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Appalling

I can't believe this article, which seems to consist mostly of unattributed and unproven claims, most of which are incredible and beyond belief.

Claims are made that the Missionaries of Charity were observed (and supposedly audited) doing things that amount it is claimed to fraud, ten years ago in the USA and United Kingdom. So where are the charges from the appropriate authorities? Where is the official investigation which should have ensued? The lack of both seems a clear indication that these charges are malicious and bogus.

The allegations headlined "torture" lower down, are even more incredible and seem to me to be libelous, and based on the sole "testimony" and guesswork of one supposed (hindu) priest ten years ago. Why is this given any room at all? Once again if this "charge " was known to the Indian authorities ten years ago, where is the action, where the prosecutions? How come Mother Teresa was given a State funeral with thousands lining the streets to mourn the passing of this "torturer"? Quite obviously this is just another malicious slur.

That the MoC diverted donations to the Vatican bank is well-documented and backed up by many reputable sources, including the Stern research. I have, however, removed the sentence "Under the laws regulating charities in most countries, this would amount to fraud and/or theft." I would like to see a specific citation here - which laws are being violated?

As for the torture, the single case of severe abuse that has been acknowledged by the Homes does not merit inclusion at this point, but should be included if other cases surface. For future reference, this is the revision which includes the information.--Eloquence*

This article is unbalanced and one-sided. silsor 04:23, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, both unbalanced and one-sided ;-). Of course it is. This article was basically created out of the Mother Teresa page and used to deposit some of the criticisms that are not directly addressed at MT. In order to make it more balanced, more information should be added about the organization itself.--Eloquence*

One-sidedness

I'm going to try to make it a bit less biased. I'll look in the history for useful text that has been removed then, if there's nothing, I'll find some myself. Superm401 23:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's one-sided, but I think the solution is to add more positive information about the Missionaries of Charity, not remove all the criticisms. I reverted some text that was copied from the article on Mother Theresa, because it wasn't really related to the Missionaries of Charity and I didn't see a need to duplicate it. Pfalstad 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Purpose

The purpose of an Encyclopedia is to present facts, not speculation, opinion or "spin", either positive or negative. gangic 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms section

This seems to have been deleted in its entirety, perhaps without others noticing, so I've reverted it. I have no view about it but since this was a major part of this page just to delete it all seems unreasonable. If it's inaccurate or POV etc. it should be edited, not completely deleted. Ben Finn 12:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)