Ok, I've done that. Let's see if I miss anything:

1. It says three academics didn't like how she didn't build hospitals. Instead building large places where more people could be cared for as they died. I can see both arguments there: help fewer people better and maybe cure more vs. provide a safe place where more people can be brought off the streets in dignity. 1980's Kolkata is a wild place. I think this is better placed as a disagreement than proof she was a bad person. How the hell (heh) is a nun going to build/operate a hospital anyway?
2. Chris again. 'Buy my book! It's great!'
3. Some other guy on the poor house vs hospital argument, only this time more on her side.
4. Some priest in Ireland says she was picked up pieces of broken society but she got a Nobel Prize. I don't really see what the point there is. Is this a criticism?
5. She defended a priest who was later convicted of molesting kids. Not great optics, true. Hardly proof she's evil, though.
6. Some abortion rights groups didn't like that she held to the Catholic Church's view on abortion. I mean... she was a nun. What did they expect?

I can't believe I wrote all that. I've gone from being 'eh' on this argument to starting to think it's similar to that dude who set out to show up Mr. Rogers as being undeserving of his reputation.