Talk:Anthony de Mello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Teachings[edit]

It seems like it would be nice to have more of his teachings listed here. I will hopefully contribute to this article in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flemingrjf (talkcontribs) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

This article contains bias. The mentioning of De Mello's work as being heretical, without any discussion of opposing opinions is biased. (not signed)

The article doesn't say that his writings are heretical (which is arguably an NPOV), it also doesn't say that he was wrong (which would be POV), it says that they were condemned, which is an objective verifiable fact.--Samuel J. Howard 19:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Error in story[edit]

There is a factual error in the item about deMello. The "Notification" by the Vatican occurred in 1998 NOT 1988.

You are right. I have fixed it. Feel free to change things yourself in future. --Peacenik 14:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Another Anthony de Mello[edit]

We need to create a disambiguation page (which I don't know how to do) as there is another Anthony de Mello, founder of the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

Vatican Notification[edit]

I do not agree that this recent change to insert the entire vatican notification is appropriate. I think it would be more appropriate to provide a link to the notification on the VAtican website.

If there is no discussion within one week, I will revert to the previous version. --Peacenik 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have removed the detail regarding the Vatican Notification. There is a link in the external links.--Peacenik 02:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Link to Tony's brother's biography[edit]

Why did someone remove the link to the biography by Tony de Mello's brother? It seems very relevant. I will add it back unless someone has a good reason not to.

[1] --Peacenik 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

excommunicated?[edit]

So, is he excommunicated or not? He is listed on the List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Seems like that would be a pertinent fact to add to his article if true... --PaddyM 19:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He shouldn't be as his writings were condemned posthumously. You cannot be excommunicated posthumously. Str1977 (smile back) 09:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace[edit]

In the German Wiki the birthplace of de Mello is Santa Cruz, Bombay. This is in contradiction to the English Wiki, which speaks of Goa. Do someone know more about this issue?

On the Homepage of de Mello's brother [2] the biography says that de Mello was born in Santa Cruz near Mumbai/Bombay and not in Goa. There are two Santa Cruzes...

Current Version[edit]

This article states that the de Mello's writings were "banned" but the Catholic Church hasn't banned writings in many years.

Unless folks object I plan to revise this article.Samuel J. Howard 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger[edit]

The quotation says, in part, "above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith" but does not mention what those positions might be. I think the quotation as it stands is virtually useless and my inclination is to remove everything after "published after his death" to the Bibliography. It isn't sourced and, as others have noted, there's a strong whiff of bias here. PatriciaT (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I carried Anthony’s Book 'The Way to Love' for 12 years before I understood it. I had a spiritual awakening because of his wrightings. I am now awake and have the big picture. Love and freedom is Jesus but for those who are not awake all they can see is the literal meaning. I compared Anthony’s righting with an old Bible early 1900,s. It says exactly what he wrote. I have been able to free the minds of many to see the truth. I am a Christian and now I know that the kingdom of God is inside us and all around us. While the world searches outside of them selves, some of us because of Anthony found the truth of who we are from within. I will be forever grateful for such a beautiful gift of Love and freedom. But I will also ask how many more of Gods messengers will we nail to a cross. When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees they asked him why have you come? He said so that the blind may see and those who can see would be blind. In their arrogance they said “ Well we can see” and than Jesus said That is why you are blind. God forgive them for they know not what they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.91.91 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. Not everyone finds readings that are so helpful. But while you're here on Earth, help us clean up Wikipedia pages.Greenshinobi (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Work[edit]

Note to User:Ronz Have included some basic information about this writer, including the information about the institution he help form. These are written in a manner with no interest of promoting the institutions. So, there is no reason for you to delete it. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please start over from a reliable and independant source so it doesn't look like we're promoting his works and the organizations. Simply adding a source at the end that doesn't actually verify the information isn't a solution. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about a person's biography and that includes his work. The organization the he set up does require adequate coverage. I have no interest in promoting his organization, other making it available as part of the person's biography . I have just made available what is available, including the independent link.
I will need to undo your deletion. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If we cant find independent and reliable sources, it may not be worth mention.
Please stop taking this personally. It's not about you. It's about what sources we have, what information we're trying to present, and the relevant policies/guidelines.
Take your time. There's no rush. Find sources that actually verify what you think should be added to the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
@Ronz, please refer relevant policy WP:SELFSOURCE allows use materials that have been published by the organisation founded by Fr.de Mello. So, do not understand basis for your argument.
Also, after your initially raised your concerns had also included an independent and reliable source http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Christianity/At_the_cutting_edge_of_Christian_Spirituality72004.asp . Request you to check this again, as it may be that you did not notice it.
We do need to include some information about the organisation "Sadhana" that Fr.De Mello founded and led till his death. Your notes that mention of the organisation is is a tangent topic is not reasonable. It would be like saying that any mention about Microsoft in Bill Gates articles would be a tangent topic :-)
Let me know your thoughts. cheers Prodigyhk (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
To repeat: "If we cant find independent and reliable sources, it may not be worth mention." Is this unclear? I can try to reword, or perhaps quote from WP:NPOV.
Again, "Find sources that actually verify what you think should be added to the article." Is this unclear?
The source doesn't verify the information.
Microsoft is unquestionably notable. The organizations mentioned are not. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Ronz, Let me repeat again This "independent and reliable source" link provide the required information about the organisation this person helped setup.
http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/Christianity/At_the_cutting_edge_of_Christian_Spirituality72004.asp -> ""Sadhana Institute was founded in Pune by Tony de Mello in 1973 (later relocated to Lonavla) as a centre for spirituality for the training of spiritual guides and retreat masters. ..... And there was also an emphasis on the integration of Christian spirituality with the Indian heritage. "" Prodigyhk (talk) 06:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, "The source doesn't verify the information." If you want to use that source to expand what is presented a bit more, that would probably be fine. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral phrasing[edit]

Recent edits have been phrased in a manner which is not adequately neutral. To say that things were "noted" or "stated" in the way that they have been can too easily be read as an assertion of fact and not as an opinion. More appropriate phrasing is required. Afterwriting (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. We need to distinguish between fact and opinion. That the Vatican stated X is a fact. Whether X is true is opinion. There is no need to follow "noted" or "stated" every time with "their view" since every statement is a "view"; the reader knows that. By adding "their view" we are not being neutral but implying that there is doubt about the statement by emphasizing the obvious; and that needs justifying with suitable references. May I ask whether you have made these changes because you have evidence that they are false or because you do not believe statements by the Vatican are generally credible? --Bermicourt (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you have continued to edit war on these matters despite requesting discussion I have now restored the article back to how it was previous to the edit war as it was principally your responsiblity, not mine, to begin any discussion since your edits were the first to be reverted. The way you have edited the article is not acceptably neutral in tone in my view so the previous version should be restored and retained until there is discussion and agreement to change it. This is how Wikipedia is meant to work. You cannot insist on your wording if another editor objects to it. I do not agree that adding "their view" implies doubt and I do think that the way you have worded things seems to assert that such views are true ~ which you have already indicated in an edit summary that you believe they are. Giving undue weight to these statements is not being neutral, it is being biased. Afterwriting (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I take a different view. Having expanded the article, I reverted your bold edit and under WP:BRD we should have entered into discussion. Instead you double-reverted (if that's a real term!) and then reverted again when another editor changed it back to my version. As you say "you cannot insist on your wording if another editor objects to it," but two editors objected to your wording and you continued to revert them. But thank you for at least returning the article to the start point.
Turning to the issue. Adding "their view" in this instance is akin to using the word "alleged"; it implies significant doubt about the truth of the statement. You need to cite evidence for that.
Let's also talk about veracity as you raise it. We may doubt the Vatican's authority to speak on many things, but they must surely be the leading authority on their own doctrine! They are also very unlikely to claim that someone's writing is not in line with their doctrine if it is. The full notification cites de Mello's books - feel free to include those references. Nowhere in the article is there a counter-claim; even the journalistic article focusses on the suggestion that it was somehow an attempt to undermine Asian clergy - no suggestion that they were wrong about de Mello. Finally, if you read de Mello's books, it becomes rapidly apparent that he does indeed embrace a form of universal spiritualism in which the Catholic church is just one player. And BTW I am not a Catholic; but my conclusion is that evidence and reason suggest their statement is fair.
So I think my initial edit was entirely reasonable and that you may be stretching the term "neutral" to cover a non-neutral viewpoint that whatever the Vatican says must be suspect, even when it is ruling on its own doctrine and even though there are no sources, let alone reliable ones, disagreeing.
But as a good Wikipedian, I can live with consensus; so what do others think? --Bermicourt (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony de Mello. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)