What I tried to achieve was a biographical article on MT that covered both her positive and negative image and reputations, with the massive detail added in by Eloquence put in a separate page called [[Criticisms of Mother Teresa]], it being replaced by a short summary in the main article, with a link to the other article. That would allow a balanced, fair article on MT and a detailed linked article that could be linked to other pages also. Eloquence simply deleted and reverted. Instead of a balanced readable article, he insisted on captioning photos with long long text lines to repeat claims already covered in the main article. For example, /Mother Teresa with Charles Keating, convicted of fraud in the Savings and Loan scandal and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Mother Teresa received over a million dollars in donations from him, which she did not return after the conviction. She did, however, send a plea for clemency to Keating's trial judge/ All this was already covered, but was repeated in a 5 line caption that could have been summarised in 10 words, any attempt to make standard short captions was met with revertions and cries of censorship. The scale of accuracy in the article on occasions was reflected by the statement: Her (MT's) view that abortion is immoral even in cases of rape and incest is rigid even by Catholic standards As anyone who knows anything about the teachings of various religions on abortion, or who has followed the abortion debates for longer than 5 minutes knows, the above view is the /standard/ RC view, not a right wing fringe view. The article needs major work in terms of - structure - layout - editing - factual accuracy - NPOV - encyclopædic standards. Yet attempts to do so have been met by Eloquence by reversions and by demands now that I be banned, all for trying to turn an embarrassing POV mess (the criticism section of the article covers 70% of the text, 90% of the headlines, most of the pictures and most of the reading list!) into a standard encyclopædic article that covers the positive and negative perspectives on MT, that avoids POV language (from the pro-MT 'revered' to the anti-MT editorialising about one of the book Eric based his 20K text on - "probably the most comprehensive critical analysis of Mother Teresa's life and work to date") and produces a standard encyclopædia article. The result has been Eric attacks on some people on the reading list, on Dante when he tried to act as mediator and on me for an imagined 'pro-catholic bias'. The irony was I only went to the page in the first place to add /in/ criticism of MT, because I presumed the article would be a one sided glorification of her. JT PS: Thank you, everyone, for the emails. I appreciate them. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail