No Steve. Though the current article has been roundly criticised as POV by most people who have commented, including people who make clear they have little time for Mother Teresa but still find the article blatently flawed and unfair, but one user, Erik, is determined to ignore everyone else and defend his POV text come what may. I called the vote so that people can clearly and unambiguously express their opinion on the text, what should be in and what should be out. Though even doing that was a nightmare as Erik tried to move the vote, change the vote, add in 'disputed' to questions he doesn't approve of, etc. Though as the debate showed, notwithstanding Erik's endless lectures to everyone, the vote is going as expected, with voters stating that the current text is POV, the picture selection is POV, the caption use is POV, and that the article needs NPOVing. Maybe /this/ time Erik might get the message that there is a problem, as he has consistently ignored everyone's comments, people's attempts to fix the problem and delivered increasingly bizarre interpretations, most recently using Pol Pot (!) as an example of something or other. Even MT detesters like the author Christopher Hitchens would not attempt to prove a point about Mother Teresa by referring to a mass murderer like Pol Pot. But Erik did so! And you wonder why there is a problem trying to NPOV Erik's edits, and why so many people are so despairing of salvaging the article at this stage from Erik's agenda! I know Erik has strong views against religion (and is entitled to), but his verbage at this stage is perverse. As Daniel Quinlan wrote, in an attempt to bring some sense to the article, "Just because the critics aren't getting to add all 45 pages of criticism and it's just half the article, does not make it okay. Only here on Wikipedia can Mother Teresa get more criticism than Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, or Moammar Al Qadhafi. Check those articles." As Delirium observed, "* I personally think Mother Theresa's reputation is overblown, but the article as currently written is entirely unacceptable. It reads as an anti-Mother Theresa piece, and is clearly written by someone with an agenda." Or in Andrewa's words, "I don't think I have an axe to grind either way, but my personal impression of the current article is that it is POV and anti Mother Teresa. . . . They are documents of fact, yes, but they aren't important to this article. I've probably been photographed with criminals too... actually I certainly have, I'm involved in a prison ministry! They are trivial in an article on her life. They are very important to an essay questioning the significance of her life or the validity of her likely sainthood, and they might even belong in an article reporting this debate, but they don't IMO deserve inclusion in the main article. The fact they are there is a symptom of its being used to promote a POV." Maybe the vote will /finally/ get Erik to listen to someone other than himself and Christopher Hitchens for once. But after the last week, that is more of a hope than an expectation. JT _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail