[Wikipedia-l] Re: MT and pro-Catholic bias

Tue Oct 21 19:01:35 UTC 2003

Gareth-
> Essentially, an enormous amount (the vast majority of the article) is highly
> critical, based on the criticisms of three people: Hitchens, Shields and
> Chatterjee

These three people in turn cite others who have been critical (sometimes  
published in primary sources), such as Mary Louden (published in The  
Guardian), Lancet editor Robin Fox, the Stern report by W. Wüllenweber  
(which in turn cites other witnesses), a priest cited by Chatterjee, and  
so forth. The above paragraph is therefore a gross oversimplification of  
the actual content of the page.

> and a great deal of guilt-by-association (rather honestly
> so-titled).

Actually, not such a great deal -- a single paragraph and two pictures.

> I believe the length of discussion -- particularly the extensive passages of
> quotation is unecessary.

Then summarize the quotations. If you don't lose any valuable information  
in the process, this is certainly fine with me.

> Certainly, the alleged abuses of the movement *must* be mentioned, and given
> some space, but there is really no need to bang on about it at such
> extraordinary and tedious length.

There is no size limit on Wikipedia. To remove useful information just  
because it is "tedious" would be disingenuous. Cutting down fluff and POV  
language which is inevitable when using direct quotes -- sure. Removing   
facts -- no way.

Regards,

Erik