Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Macedonia

She was born in Skopje, her father was macedonian, and her mother albanian! Skopje never was part of Albania, but of the Ottoman Empire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.232.73 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

She was born in Skopje, Kosovo Viljaet during the Ottoman Empire today's Republic Of Macedonia. Please edit this article!

She was born in ALBANIA and her ethnicity is ALBANIAN so that makes her ALBANIAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

her father name was Nikolle, hardly Macedonian, but a Alb catholic name

Keep it Fake (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

They were a gypsy family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.56.118 (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

She was actually born in Skopje which is in Macedonia. Although she was of Albanian descent, Mother Teresa was indeed Macedonian. Bonzostar (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wasn't she Indian? == No she wasnt she was from Skopje,Macedonia

According to WP:MOSBIO, the concerned person's nationality should be mentioned and not ethnicity, unless it is relevant. I don't understand, how is her ethnicity important? Fact remains, she was Indian citizen and therefore an Indian and not Albanian. Please make the change and make it "Albania-born Indian Roman Catholic...". Thanks, --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the impression she was an Indian citizen? Hitchens says she was Albanian; another (Internet) source says, "Her passport was Albanian for much of her life, making that her nationality. But a little known fluke is that after her work became too much for the Communist government of Albania, they revoked her passport. That's when she was officially given citizenship by ....The Holy See. Its ruler at the time, Pope John Paul II, ordered the Secretary of State of the Holy See to issue her a diplomatic passport of the Holy See. That way she could travel anywhere in the world with the safety of diplomatic immunity." (I'm not sure that makes here a citizen, but... ) She stated that she "felt like" a citizen of Skopje. (Though I'm not sure her feelings are particularly relevant). Do you have a reference that makes her Indian? - Nunh-huh 08:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

She was awarded the Bharat Ratna and given a state funeral by India. Do I need to elaborate more? --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a citation which says she was actually an Indian citizen would be nice. - Nunh-huh 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See [1] [2] [3] [4]. Its really surprising that people who edit this page don't even know Mother Teresa was an Indian citizen! So you thought she lived in India for decades on tourist visa? Amazing. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good reference (much better than "Mellisa Anthony Jones thinks she was Indian"). I'm sure someone you haven't recently insulted will be by to help you straighten out her nationalities shortly. - Nunh-huh 08:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nothing personal here. I was just surprised that this entire topic of her being an Indian citizen came up. It's like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't American because he was born in Austria!! Lol. I wonder how American pundits would take that. And yeah, I would be waiting for more hilarious citation requests :D. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added the information on her Indian citizenship into the article. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro now states that MT was "an Albanian-born Indian Roman Catholic nun..." Isn't that a bit of a mouthful? I'm not arguing that it's not correct. My comment is just that it seems a little confusing. I know that sometimes accuracy and brevity often are in competition...any suggestions?--Anietor (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSBIO, the nationality should be stated and not ethnicity (can be stated only if it is relevant). Look at the intro para of the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger. It says, "Austrian-American..". We can change it to "Albanian-Indian.." or "Indian Roman Catholic nun of Albanian ethnicity". Any other suggestions? I would still prefer the current version though. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the two suggestions, "Indian Roman Catholic nun of Albanian ethnicity" is better. However, we may want to address her ethnicity in a separate sentence instead. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well she was Albanian because both of her parents were Albanian and she had an Albanian passport for her entire live and when she got the Nobel price she declared herself as an Albanian, so these three facts say that she is Albanian nationality and not just ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.48.85 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian saints

I acknowledge the good work that Mother Teresa has done, but to make as if she was the only person doing good work in Calcutta is absurd; I make this assumption on the basis that no other organisations or Hindu saints get mentioned for their work in Calcutta, there are good mother teresa is awsome people in India working to improve the situation, MT was only one of many, so ultimately the media should acknowledge the work of others there, Hindus and other Indians do care about Calcutta, it's time they got mentioned in the media as well! NamasteDomsta333 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's contents depend on what people are willing to write. If you can provide reliable sources, then produce articles on WP:Notable people. You may find people interested in working on this at WP:India and WP:Bias.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammachi, that's from wikipedia, I'll look for non-wiki info...Domsta333 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghosh publicity challenge

A recent addition, which I reverted, referred to Prabir Ghosh's challenge to the Missionaries of Charity to have the medallion (I assume the MT locket that was the basis for the miraculous claim) cure another person. If a person is cured, he promises to give them 2 million rupees, and shut down his organization (Science & Rationalists' Assoc. of India). This didn't really seem to add anything to the article, and sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything else. It's not like the criticism of Christopher Hitchens, who has written on the subject and was even contacted by the Vatican to address his views, and has quite specific criticisms of MT's work, fund-raising, philosophy, claims, etc. If criticisms need to be relevant, sourced etc., then Ghosh's "prove it to me" skepticism doesn't really appear to qualify, even if he, himself, has legitimate professional credentials. It's certainly no surprise that a "rationalist" would not believe in a miraculous healing...that's not really noteworthy. His unique "challenge" makes a good tabloid headline, but it doesn't make it encyclopedic,and provides no information to a reader. Just wanted to explain my revert beyond that little edit summary box, and provide a spot for others' comments! --Anietor (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced claim that the Missionaries of Charity have +1 million volunteers

I removed the following sentence from the article:

Today, over one million workers worldwide volunteer for the Missionaries of Charity.

The sentence was fact-tagged several weeks ago for lack of referencing. I have found no supporting material to validate the claim. Should anyone have a reliable source which shows otherwise, please feel free to re-insert the sentence along with a proper citation. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is completely slanted

I can't remember the last time I viewed an extensively-written article on a controversial topic, and found it to be so one-sided. Wikipedia generally does a good job of filtering out too much of one side, and indeed, I remember when reading this article a year or so ago, it presented pro and con views of MT in a balanced light, in keeping with the Undue Weight Policy. But I just looked at this article now, and as a WP user and administrator who prides himself on not letting his personal views bias his editing (I've often edited articles to remove material slanted in favor of ideas that I personally favor), I am appalled at the state of this article. The quality of the material critical of MT has been gutted so that it's little more than disorganized table scraps. Much information relevant to a critical examination of MT has been completely removed. This needs a rewrite, or more to the point, a reversion back to an edition from months or years ago. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is actually very well-balanced. The discussion page often gets entries from those who say they are "appalled", or express other such hyperbole. They are usually noted for their tendency to get the vapors after reading the article, without the ability to cite specific valid "criticisms" that have been left out. NPOV does not mean an article is divided into 50% positive, 50% critical material. Such dualism has no place here. The article is GA-status, and it has been reviewed multiple times over the past year, maintaining that status. It is a common comment here, and a rather hollow one, that there is "not enough" criticism in the article. Any material must be reliable, sourced and relevant. There are plenty of personal criticisms of MT out there. That's going to be the case with any article of a religious figure or group or idea, etc. But this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Specific, reliable and relevant criticisms, such as those of Hitchens, are in the article, integrated throughout, consistent with WP:criticism and other essays and policies that have been cited repeatedly in these discussions. --Anietor (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for adding a section on Controversies Surrounding MT

Reading this article gives the impression that that everyone agrees MT could do no wrong. Not everyone thinks so though. Some have pointed out, for instance, that MT left the Calcutta clinic as poor as she found it, while spending many millions in donations in projects to aggrandise her order. It is worth noting that when she herself fell ill, she averred from undergoing treatment at the Calcutta clinic, checking in instead in a well equipt facility in California. A fairer assessment of MTs legacy would credit her with polishing the image of the Roman Catholic church, while recognising that the value of her contribution to the poor are much more questionable. (A good place to gain a glimpse of the less flattering facets of MT is Christopher Hitchens' article at http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/#Her).

I do no propose to call into question the work that has gone into the article to date. Many people do, in fact, see MT as a paragon of virtue. I only wish to depart from the cult of uncritical admiration by pointing out that it is possible to pose serious challenges to this outlook; and I am humbly petitioning the 'writership' of this article to countenance my inserting a short summary of criticisms.

Why am I seeking advice rather than directly inserting my criticisms in the article? While I do value Wikipedia's Be Bold policy, I am also keen to take precautions to avoid edit wars. Besides that, it is evident that many people have laboured hard to bring this article to it's current status. My petition is thus a nod of respect to these authors efforts.

I realise that many people today feel a need for someone to look up to. Hence I expect and am ready for the anger that is the inevitable reaction from a warning that uncritical admiration is of little value. I hope that people for and against my proposal will share with me their outlook.

--Philopedia (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of creating a separate criticism section has been brought up before. While there were strong opinions on both sides, the ultimate consensus was to integrate any relevant, sourced critical material into the body of the article. The current approach is consistent with WP:criticism. If you have something specific that you think the article is lacking, how about inserting it into the most relevant section? I would encourage you to try that, since it would allow you to insert relevant material without having to pick out material already in the article to add to a new section. I'm not sure why you read the article as implying that "everyone agrees MT could do no wrong." The article does have critical material, including cites to Hitchens. The article is hardly "uncritical admiration". But if you have specific material that you believe is relevant, sourced, etc., you are certainly free to insert it. But that doesn't require a separate section. --Anietor (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see some activity from WPP:BIO. If this article is the current collaboration I would have liked to see some views from people who haven't taken a prior position or aren't turning up with one but just want to get this to FA. Unfortunately I can't see much sign of life.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article should be a lot more critical, but I understand that Wikipedia's policy of consensus (i.e., mediocrity) is opposed to that, and anyway I don't have the time or energy myself. But good luck to anyone who does want to work on it. --RenniePet (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just came to this page and was wondering why there is no "Criticism" or "Controversy" tab for me to click on at the top, I am aware her life is a source of controversy why can't I read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look up. There you will find your answer. Pop6 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Philodelphia, I have added your criticisim of MT "It is worth noting that when she herself fell ill, she averred from undergoing treatment at the Calcutta clinic, checking in instead in a well equipt facility in California." to the "death and decline" section - if you have any refrences for that criticism, i would be greatfull if you added them Superbun (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Her father Nicola

I know for sure that Nicola was an Albanian nationalist.Is that any importance for this article? Do you guys think we should mention it and that the Bojaxhius had a rough life.As her brother Lazar conveyed in 1979 when mother Teresa received the Nobel Prize for Peace to a few journalist, a darker picture of ther childhood.Nicola's ceaseless advocacy for an Albanian Kosovo,he said, earned him the enmity of the Yugoslavian authorities that shadows their lives.He even said that in his mind Nicola got poisoned.The Great War was over,Yugoslavia was a nation,and Nicola-by that time a member of the Skopje city council-and other Albanian nationalists in the new nation agitated for Kosovo to be incorporated into Albania. Just some thoughts....--Taulant23 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikola and Lazar? those are very Serb names for an Albanian...? can u some me some facts about her nationalist father?

Nikoll and Lazer are Albanian. Nicola is Italian. Don't all get all excited Serboi, you Serbs probably poisoned her dad.

Keep it Fake (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Aromanian?

http://www.albmuzika.com/nene_tereza.htm on this page you can find a copy of the letter that Mother Theresa send to the Albanian Preseident after her first visit in 1989... The letter presented cointains just the into and is in Albanian and she is writing her name in Albanian Teresa, maybe you can find someone that can translate for you but the whole letter contains the following: "Dearest Mr. President of my dearest country Albania, After long years of praying and wishing to visit my country; visiting different kind of places outside in the world; God gave me the beautiful present, to come and see my nation. My family has lived here for so many years and they died here and I had the opportunity to visit their graves. I hope that together we can do something beautiful for God and for my nation"

This letter was sent on the 8th of August 1989 to the President of Albania R.Alia and after he replied she send him another letter.

She also greeted the albanians in albanian when receiving The Nobel Price in Oslo and also her prayer on Albanian was broadcasted by the Voice of America on the 17th of June 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.30.31 (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[5] [6] and [7] say her father was Aromanian and her mother was Albanian. Should this be included somewhere in the article? BalkanFever 07:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's appropriate to mention that Aromanians consider her one of their own. I'd suggest handling the details of her ethnicity in the section on her early life and family rather than in the lead, per earlier talk page discussions. Be sure to cite reliable sources, preferably in English, for the English language Wikipedia article. Perhaps other editors have suggestions on how to incorporate this material into the article?Majoreditor (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but we can still search for his ethnicity. Are Aromanians related to Albanians? Do they consider themselves as Shqipëtar?

No, Aromanians are not related to Albanians, they are related to Romanians ...hence the name Adrianzax (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikola was born Mirdita city, Albania, spoke Albanian, and presented himself as Albanian businessman everywhere, and was very involved in the Albanian politics. One of his main goals was the independence of Kosovo. When mother Teresa got her Nobel Prize, her brother once said to the media, that his dad Nikola got poisoned from Serbs. (Creepy, poison made by Beograd,they put it on his coffee).

“Une jam shum tuj u lut per ju - qi dashnija e Zotit tu mbush zemrat e juaja dhe gjith boten". Mother Teresa praying in Albanian.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s.by the way Nikola,Kol,Koli,Kola are northern Albanian names,and his last name is Albanian too,it's a trade,translates -bojaxhiu-the paintguy.

I actually disagree that it matters what Aromanians think about Mother Teresa - because she was not Aromanian in the same way that the Aromanians that consider her one of their own are (I hope that makes sense). Her father died when she was about 8, so she lost all connection with Aromanians and was raised Albanian. She did not speak Aromanian either. I'm quite sure that when Aromanians hear "Mother Teresa was Aromanian" they assume she spoke the language and knew of her background - as I said, highly unlikely. The (if sourced) fact that her father was Aromanian would not make a difference to Mother Teresa herself - it's just an interesting fact. BalkanFever 10:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus." by Mother Theresa--Taulant23 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And? We all knew she said that. But she did not know her father or his blood. Why is it being viewed as so bad that her father was Aromanian? As I said, it doesn't make any difference - it's just some interesting information. By the way, Nikola is a very popular name in most Balkan countries, and I'm pretty sure it is ultimately from Greek. BalkanFever 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, OM (born Agnesa Gongea Boiagi ) was a Roman Catholic nun of Aromanian descent, who founded the Missionaries of Charity in India. Her work among the poverty-stricken of Kolkata (Calcutta) made her one of the world's most famous people, and she was beatified by Pope John Paul II in October 2003. Hence, she may be properly called Blessed Teresa by Catholics.

http://heros4u.com/mother_teresa.htm I think we should write this info somewhere in the article Adrianzax (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any catholic aromanians ? As far as I know all of them are orthodox, so how could MT or her father be aromianan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty. BalkanFever 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Her father Nikola was Albanian, not Aromanian. Can someone please edit this. There r no valid sources saying her father was Aromanian. His last name was Bojxhiu (painter in Albanian) and he was born in Albania. This is an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltoska (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No criticism allowed?

A thinly-disguised bit of criticism was added by User:Slashme on January 11, 2008, and managed to elude censorship until today. Now three different editors are saying no, no, no, to a critical fact published by a famous author. The fact is indisputable and the author and his book and opinions are notable.

So how should it be included in the article? In a special criticisms section? Will that make it acceptable? Or what? --RenniePet (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the section on global recognition, there is discussion on Western criticisms of MT in which Hitchens gets a mention. He also is mentioned in the beatification section. If there were evidence of his including the issue of MT's attitude to Diana's divorce in either his C4 programme, book or evidence to the Vatican, then that would provide a good point to link things in.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion on where and how to incorporate the material. Hitchens also briefly mentions this subject in one of his Vanity Fair articles; I can't remember the issue/date. Majoreditor (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit summary: "This is awkwardly placed. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the section."

Look, why doesn't someone just put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the whole article, and then let the Christians delete every single critical word, so MT shines like the God-like saint they want to believe she is.

Alternatively, let's create a "Criticism and controversies" section. We now have ample evidence that the concept of having criticism intermingled with the rest of the article doesn't work - the criticism just gets deleted on the grounds that it "doesn't fit in with the rest of the section."

Let's face it, this article is an extremely one-sided and uncritical view of a person who deserves very harsh criticism for her primitive and hypocritical beliefs.

And before you just dismiss me an atheist nut case, check my editing history for this article. I have actually tried to make some improvements at one point, doing a significant rewrite of the introduction to make it flow better, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=184072542&oldid=183750001 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=184358957&oldid=184180990. --RenniePet (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not an opinion piece. There was once a criticism section that took up nearly half of the entire article, which was a poorly-written hodge podge of various opinions. Having a separate criticism section is just poor style; criticisms should be grouped under the relevant heading. This is the current situation for this article. Look at the final paragraph in "Missionaries of Charity":

Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. While noting how little evidence Mother Teresa's critics were able to find against her, David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself. She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis.

At the end of "International Charity":

The spending of the charity money received has been criticized by some. Christopher Hitchens and the Stern have said that money that was donated with the intention of it being spent on the keeping of the poor was spent on other projects instead.

I could also give examples from other sections like "Reception in India" and "Reception in the rest of the world", but I think the above is illustrative enough. Hardly "one-sided and uncritical".

>>Look, why doesn't someone just put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the whole article, and then let the Christians delete every single critical word, so MT shines like the God-like saint they want to believe she is.

Please don't resort to ad hominem attacks on a whole group of editors, just to find an outlet to vent your frustration. It certainly doesn't lend your points credibility, however good they may be. The "us and them" mentality is incredibly unhelpful. Brisvegas 08:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to calm down, but MT and this article do have a bad effect on my blood pressure.

Note that I started this section on this talk page after reverting a deletion by User:NewCanada of a critical bit, after which both User:Balloonman and User:Anietor stomped on me, despite my explaining the relevance and notability of the item and adding an additional reference. In the above discussion two editors agree that this bit of criticism can be added at a specific place, but it has not been added. I.e., censorship prevailed.

It was therefore very galling to see User:NewCanada once again weilding his/her censorship scissors, and rather than once again trying to do a revert and getting stomped on I came here and vented my frustration.

Now, what about that bit that was deleted on 19 Feb.? --RenniePet (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't remember "stomping" on anyone. Looking back at the edits, what I did, along with other editors, was acknowledge that there have been some heated discussions on this subject, and that a concensus had been reached to incorporate any relevant, cited criticisms into the article. A reasonable position, consistent with various policies and guidelines. Your reaction, Rennie, was to accuse us of censorship and to criticize the concept of consensus as a policy of "mediocrity", and then saying you had better things to do. So now you're back I see. You're certainly welcome to come back and engage in discussions, but as pointed out by another editor, attacking other editors and taking an us vs. them mentality doesn't help anyone. You seem frustrated by not having your position adopted. We've all been there. I've been frustrated in this very article with what I have thought were inappropriate edits, but I count backwards from 10 and get over it. So please keep your comments objective and to the point. --Anietor (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm refering to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=192499375&oldid=192474627

The critical two sentences, originally added by another editor, had been removed. I reverted the removal, my restoring was reverted, I found a second source (should not have been necessary - a letter from a famous (semi-famous?) author to the New York Times should have been enough), restored it again, and it was again removed, and labeled as being "POV". Of course, as Tom Lehrer might have said, "when correctly viewed, everything is POV". --RenniePet (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You took the opinion of one person and wrote it as a factual statement - that is normally considered to be POV. It would be more properly written along the lines of Mother Teresa has been criticized for a lack of consistency between her public stand on some issues and her support for individuals taking the opposite path. In particular critics such as Christopher Hitchen have highlighted Mother Teresa's support for a prohibition against divorce in Northern Ireland with her support for Lady Diana's divorce. Our NPOV policy includes a requirement to give criticism due weight - not every anti-Teresa comment should be covered (nor every pro opinion). To be included this criticism should have support from several respected commentators. -- SiobhanHansa 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to my comment under #Whitewash below, and with regard to the statement "Having a separate criticism section is just poor style; criticisms should be grouped under the relevant heading," I am not sure I agree. Where there is a coherent critique, different aspects of which connect with each other, it makes sense to present the whole critique together in one place, rather than diffusing it across the article. The latter strategy may have the effect of marginalising and dismembering the critique.

At the moment the article is so dominated by tracing each historical step in the build-up of uncritical adulation of MT, that it comes over as seriously unbalanced - predominantly an uncritical hagiography itself. An identified criticism section would be appropriate, to give this aspect of the topic WP:DUE weight. Jheald (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

I went to this article to get some background on MT's life and also for her birth name. I found both easily enough, but there wasn't a pronunciation guide to the Albanian middle and last names. (For my speech that I researched it for, I approximated the pronunciation of her last name as "boyy-adz-hee-oo" after a visit to the Albanian language page and some educated guesses there.) I would add it to the MT article page, since I feel it is an important thing to add (after all, if I was looking for it, someone else might have been too), but a) I only worked out the pronunciation of her last name (as I left her middle name out of my speech), both should be added, b) it's only a guess from my piecings-together from the Albanian language page, and c) it really should be in IPA, which I'm still not good at adding. I'm wondering if someone can take this on? --Canuckguy (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try fix it with my limited knowledge of Albanian phonology. BalkanFever 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't knnow 'MT' actually stands for Mother Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.90.219 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

Will someone be so good and include sw:Mama Teresa into the interwiki? --78.52.183.125 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thrilltalk 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

html <black> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.204.195 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Validity

Really think Mother Terasa should be categorised within Christianity in India. I mean he work was beyond religious boundaries.

Saying its part of Christianity really does not do justice or convey the correct message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.41.69 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash

This article is an extraordinary example of charting the legend, while all but burying controversy about the reality of her work.

The claims made by her critics - particularly that her hospitals were unsanitary and even abusive, with little or nothing in the way of pain relief despite all the money donated; and that conversions were far more central to their mission than either healing or the relief of suffering - these claims are serious, and deserve a serious detailed assessment; rather than just being passed off without review as just the marginal views of a few minority Western detractors.

At the moment the article is as unbalanced as an article on Mugabe would be if it focussed primarily on his knighthood. It deserves an NPOV tag at the least. Jheald (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read above sections about putting a Criticism section in this article. Pop6 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So what happened to the hypocrisy about accepting Diana's divorce while supporting laws that would prevent others from divorcing?

One of the problems with putting all the criticism in a Criticism section is that MT's fans can come along and "trim" it to cut away the "undue weight" until there's nothing left. Of course they'll trim away the criticism wherever you put it. And that's what they've been doing. Nbauman (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The problem is that some people want to repackage OR, or other non-encyclopedic bashes against MT, and call it criticism. For instance, the editor who started this topic with the silly Mugabe "analogy". A balanced, neutral article doesnt mean you have 50% favorable, 50% critical material. Any criticism needs to be relevant, sourced, etc (this has all been said so often I hope it doesn't need detailed repeating). Deciding that a position of MT was hypocrisy is OR and POV. Including reference to a rationalist's challenge to "prove" a miracle in exchange for a cash prize is not relevant. The list goes one and on... There's plenty of anti-MT material floating around. We don't cram it into the article to somehow make it more "balanced" as if it were a see-saw that needs to lay even. --Anietor (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the analogy is so silly. An article which focusses in immense detail on the progress of her uncritical international adulation, completely overwhelming the questions about what she actually did, seems to me just like looking at Mugabe being given a knighthood, rather than what actually happened in Zimbabwe. A strange editorial choice of focus. Jheald (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat disingenuous; Mugabe has faced heated international criticism, from the PMs of UK and Australia to even Nelson Mandela, who cited a "failure of leadership in Zimbabwe". Mugabe's knighthood has also been revoked. No such events have happened with Mother Teresa, so any attempts to compare the two are inaccurate and misleading.

If you bother to read the article, you'll notice that most sections include relevant controversies (read the end of Missionaries of Charity, International charity, Reception in the rest of the world) including questions over the spending of money and the level of care provided. It is a much better article than the character assassination piece of a few years ago. Brisvegas 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet the article is overwhelmingly dominated by tracing the progress of her uncritical international adulation; whereas the controversies are presented as minor unconnected caveats which are immediately dismissed. Jheald (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's life. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism website, whose aim is to show the foolishness or otherwise of the "uncritical international adulation". Brisvegas 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If her "international adulation" is relevant, then it's not surprising it's included. And if MT is recognized because of this adulation, then it is also not surprising that it "dominates" the article. The flaw in your analysis, Jheald, is your position that these minor caveats should somehow be magnified as if they have to have some sort of equal billing for neutrality's sake. As attested to by the international recognition, MT is noteworthy because of what the overwhelming majority of people would recognize as positive, humanitarian acts. That's what really defines her. Are there legitimate criticisms as well? Sure. And if these criticisms are relevant and sourced, they belong in the article. But a few disgruntled editors can't distort facts or give legitimate criticisms undue weight. The idea that opposing views must have, for lack of a better term equal billing, regardless of their level of relevance and weight, is a peculiar one that often pops up in Wikipedia. --Anietor (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. One can examine the criticism more fully without going so far as to give it equal billing. And are you really saying that the most important thing about MT is that she was famous for being famous? Or that "print the legend" should be the slogan Wikipedia lives by? I think not. Jheald (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight: "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The fact you want to give a much smaller group of critics an even greater amount of attention notwithstanding the majority praise clearly violates the spirit and letter of this policy. Brisvegas 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That depends what you consider a reliable source when it comes to balancing the significance of these criticisms though, doesn't it? According to WP:RS, "reliable sources are those regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". That would seem to favour first hand reports in the British Medical Journal and The Lancet over uncritical adulation. Even if 99% of Americans believed the moon was made of green cheese, it would be WP's duty to foreground the evidence from space probes that had actually been there. Jheald (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but we already have this in the article: The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis. How much more can we expand on this without turning it into an unencyclopedic diatribe? Remember she was less notable for being a provider of medical care than as someone who worked with the Kolkata disadvantaged. Brisvegas 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what's being lost is that the various lines of criticisms actually reinforce each other, to make quite a coherent critique. The force of that is lost by dispersing them around the article. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's original research - Wikipedia is not the place to synthesise disparate criticisms into a critical narrative of a person. The general idea is that having a criticism section acts as a magnet for all sorts of factoids, some relevant and some not. When this article had a criticism section, it was a messy hodge-podge of criticisms and insults, e.g. the "ghoul of Calcutta". Consider the article of George W. Bush, who is a far more controversial and more widely detested figure. Yet even he has no "criticism" section; all analysis is integrated into relevant sections, as it should be. This article follows that approach. Brisvegas 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well (1) the synthesis has already been made in works like Hitchens and others; notably in associating the poor conditions in the hospitals, the prioritisation of conversions over reduction in suffering, and the diversion of funds to missionary activity (2) there are many articles which do have a criticism section, and where the editorial decision has been that it is valuable to readers; (3) the difference perhaps with George W. Bush is in the variety of factual material it covers; unlike this article, dominated by tracing the adulation of MT, there is no danger of the GWB article turning into an unbalanced hagiography. Jheald (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, but your earlier discussion suggested you wanted to say "Christopher Hitchens, Chatterjee and several medical journals criticised Mother Teresa so all the praise she got from others was "uncritical adulation" and wrong.

While the Lancet and Medical Journal are definitely reliable sources (and they have been used in the article), what makes Hitchens more authoritative than Malcolm Muggeridge? Nothing - it just happens that you personally agree with his viewpoint, so you'd like to give it bigger prominence in the article.

I respect that you feel this article is biased, but it doesn't ring true to me. Look at the criticisms at the moment:

From Missionaries of Charity:
Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. While noting how little evidence Mother Teresa's critics were able to find against her, David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself. She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis.

From International charity:
The spending of the charity money received has been criticized by some. Christopher Hitchens and the Stern have said that money that was donated with the intention of it being spent on the keeping of the poor was spent on other projects instead.

From Reception in India:
Indian views on Mother Teresa were not uniformly favourable. Her critic Aroup Chatterjee, who was born and bred in Calcutta but lived in London, reports that "she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime". Chatterjee blames Mother Teresa for promoting a negative image of his home city. Her presence and profile grated in parts of the Indian political world, as she often opposed the Hindu Right. The Bharatiya Janata Party clashed with her over the Christian Dalits, but praised her in death, sending a representative to her funeral. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, on the other hand, opposed the Government's decision to grant her a state funeral. Its secretary Giriraj Kishore said that "her first duty was to the Church and social service was incidental" and accused her of favouring Christians and conducting "secret baptisms" of the dying. But Parvathi Menon, writing the front page tribute for the Indian fortnightly Frontline, dismissed these charges as "patently false" and said that they had "made no impact on the public perception of her work, especially in Calcutta". Although praising her "selfless caring", energy and bravery, Menon was critical of Mother Teresa's public campaigning against abortion and that she claimed to be non-political when doing so.

From Reception in the rest of the world:
Towards the end of her life, Mother Teresa attracted some negative attention in the Western media. The journalist Christopher Hitchens has been one of her most active critics. He was commissioned to co-write and narrate the documentary Hell's Angel about her for the British Channel 4 after Aroup Chatterjee encouraged the making of such a program, although Chatterjee was unhappy with the "sensationalist approach" of the final product. Hitchens expanded his criticism in a 1995 book, The Missionary Position.

Chatterjee writes that while she was alive Mother Teresa and her official biographers refused to collaborate with his own investigations and that she failed to defend herself against critical coverage in the Western press. He gives as examples a report in The Guardian in Britain whose "stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages ... [include] charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse", and another documentary Mother Teresa: Time for Change? broadcast in several European countries. Both Chatterjee and Hitchens have themselves been subject to criticism for their stance.

The German magazine Stern published a hostile article on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. This concerned allegations regarding financial matters and the spending of donations. The medical press has also published criticism of her, arising from very different outlooks and priorities on patients' needs. Other critics include Tariq Ali, a member of the editorial committee of the New Left Review, and the Irish-born investigative journalist Donal MacIntyre.

From Miracle and beatification:
Christopher Hitchens, an author and journalist, was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process, as the Vatican had abolished the traditional "devil's advocate" role that fulfilled a similar purpose. Hitchens has written that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’"

In light of all these critical sections, do you seriously believe the article is hagiographic? If I noticed someone removing them, I would probably revert the censorship. It's great that the criticisms are integrated into the other sections, because each section in itself provides various perspectives, not just the positive ones. Think what would happen if you shoved all of the above into one "Criticism" section. The rest of the article would then be too positive. It is likely that as the Criticism section grew, it would be split into a separate "Criticism of Mother Teresa" (it's happened before), and there would be an even bigger problem with bias in this article. This is why there should be no criticism section, and the current approach works much better, IMHO. Are there any other criticisms that you feel have been left out of the article? Brisvegas 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to differ. As I said in my opening comment, the balance of material in the article is such that at the moment the reader gets the impression that the criticism is just the marginal views of a few minority Western detractors. It's not that I necessarily agree with them, or think that what they have to say is the most important thing about MT's work. But I do think that, in the context of the whole article, they are currently downplayed to a degree which is unbalanced. Placed together, as you've done, they make clear that there are serious issues to consider. But diffused across the article, they just come over as minor footnotes, each lost and overwhelmed to an extent which doesn't represent WP:DUE. -- Jheald (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to disagree. It was quite pleasant discussing this issue with you :) Brisvegas 11:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that undue weight is being giving to her praise, not the other way around. From reading the article, you'd get the impression that the only criticism was from a few, lone, fringe nutjobs. When the criticism of concrete facts, such as the condition of her hospitals, are given nothing more than one sentence and no real detail is added, you're missing out. Right now, 95%+ of the article is uncritical praise. Christopher Hitchens isn't some nobody--he's well known, especially in the UK. He's an established author/journalist, so he deserves more than a few brief sentences. He wrote a whole book on her, after all.

You shouldn't remove critical information simply because enough praise hasn't been added, yet. If you want to balance it more as per giving due weight, just add more praise as more criticism is added. As there is little in terms of any attempts to refute the criticism from Mother Teresa or her supporters, this would largely isolated the criticisms from the praise in terms of organization, although I don't think a strict "criticism" section is appropriate in this case.

What we're dealing with her is simply a minority viewpoint, but not a fringe point, mostly because most people are uneducated about the problems with Mother Teresa. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where I would like to see a mention of criticiism is in the introduction. It is a minority view, but enough sources (Lancet, BMJ, the BJP, VHP, Stern plus work of Hitchens, Ali, McIntyre, and Chatterjee and the likes of Menon and Scott trying to find positons that accept some but not all criticism) have commented against her to justify mentioning in the lead that although MT is generally viewed very fabourably her work has been criticised both in India and the West.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"most people are uneducated about the problems with Mother Teresa"? It's not for Wikipedia to educate the masses and abolish "false shibboleths" - we are looking to summarise the bulk of verifiable sources, and not to espouse a subjective "truth". The reason MT is notable enough to have an article is neither because critics like Hitchens criticised her work, nor because her clinics became notorious for their abysmal standard of medical care.

She's notable precisely because she has received such widespread praise and "uncritical adulation" for her religious charity work from such a diverse range of people, and trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to "set the record straight" is inappropriate. Wikipedia isn't the place to push minority viewpoints and give them the same credence as the views of the majority, even if the minority turns out to be right (unless of course the balance of verifiable sources changes, and it is then the old view that becomes untenable, e.g. Pluto being a planet). That said, I would support putting a brief summary of criticism in the lead, but it would have to be short, as these are the views of a minority. Maybe something of one or two sentences like this? This could be the final paragraph of the lead (depending on what everyone thinks):

Although she received praise for her work from many individuals, governments and organisations around the world, she also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various non-Christians, including the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee and the Hindu Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work; this included alleged baptisms of the dying, a strong pro-life stance on abortion and a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty. Several medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices, and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent. Despite these critiques, coverage of Mother Teresa has been mainly positive; she was listed in the 20th century Time 100 list of most influential people in the 20th century.

What does everyone think? I've tried to balance out the positive and the negative. We can't run away from the fact that most reviews of her life have been positive, and it would be wrong to elevate the critics above the majority positive coverage. Is the above paragraph balanced enough, or is there something more/less/different people would like to see? Brisvegas 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it established that the baptism of the dying actually happenned? Or are they just allegations?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think it was an allegation made by Hitchens in his book The Missionary Position. But you're right, I added alleged into the paragraph. Brisvegas 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought an "outsider's" view might be useful here (I've not previously been involved in editing this article). My feeling is that by Wikipedia's standards, lack of a summary of criticism in the lead is a significant omission, and although it is a minority standpoint, it should be mentioned. The suggested paragraph above is pretty good; I've added a slightly reworded version of it to the end of the lead. The comment about the Time 100 list is a little misleading - as that list is not intended to be a list of the "great and the good" - Hitler's on it, for example. I think that needs a little more discussion before ending up in the lead. SP-KP (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article isn't balanced at all, at least as far as headings go. Looking at the headings it is just The Legend Of Mother Teresa, it doesn't look like there is balance. JayKeaton (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But we've already covered why there should be no separate criticism section. And appearances of "balance" are subjective - if you read each section, you'll see that relevant detractors' views are included. Brisvegas 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not balanced, it whitewashes all criticism of her, and I'm disgusted. I have added POV tags.JJJ999 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews of Kolodiejchuk's Come Be My Light

Any thoughts on which reviews of Brian Kolodiejchuk's book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, are particularly well-written and insightful? They could make good sources for the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing

Her nationality! By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus." by Mother Theresa [8]. --Taulant23 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that most of the books I looked at refer to her as Albanian. Majoreditor (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I might even find a copy or a picture of the handwriting text in Albanian by Mother Teresa (A pray for her native people in her mother language Albanian) Unë gjithmonë e kam në zemër popullin tem shqiptar. Shumë lutem Zotit që Paqja e Tij të vijn’ në zemrat tona, në gjitha familjet tona, në gjith’ botën. Lutem shumë për fukarat e mij- dhe për mua dhe motrat e mija. Unë lutem për juve shqiptarë. N. Tereza Bojaxhiu --Taulant23 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that worries me is, do people know the relation with Albania besides her family? Skopje,was part of Albania which was at that time under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.After World War I leaders from the United States, Britain, France, and Italy met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and drafted the Treaty of Versailles. One of its points was that northwestern Albania (now part of Montenegro), northeastern Albania (now Kosovo), eastern Albania (including here Skopje) would be part of Yugoslavia (founded right after World War I).--Taulant23 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just rolled back some more Aromanian edits. However, I notice ehr nationality was described as Albanian from birth to 1948. Albania didn't declare independence until 1912 so do we need t emntion Ottoman Empire as initial nationality?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I'll ask the guys at WP Biography; maybe they know. Majoreditor (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Adding automatic script for Project Biography Request for Comment.)

Ottoman Empire nationality??? Can you even say Ottoman nationality? Lol Not even close to Turkish nationality. She didn’t speak Turkish or neither Aromanian nor she regards these countries/people as her home land. As she said with her own words: By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus." by Mother Theresa [9].\ Mother Theresa was born 1910, in an Albanian family. Albania got her independence in 1912, from the occupying Ottoman Empire. She got her Indian citizenship on 1948 and Albanian was her mother tong. Please do not make up stories. Thank you,--Taulant23 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think we're moving toward consensus on MT as an Albanian national by birth. Does anyone else have other input? Majoreditor (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationality of Mother Teresa

I agree w/the contributor above: here's a vatican link: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20031019_madre-teresa_en.html “By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus. ”Small of stature, rocklike in faith, Mother Teresa of Calcutta was entrusted with the mission of proclaiming God’s thirsting love for humanity, especially for the poorest of the poor. “God still loves the world and He sends you and me to be His love and His compassion to the poor.” She was a soul filled with the light of Christ, on fire with love for Him and burning with one desire: “to quench His thirst for love and for souls.” raina_noor (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noorraina_noor (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did you come from, Mother T?

Albania? India? Well it seems to me

That what's needed here is rationality

To reach consensus re. your nationality.

Better, I'd submit, if it could be either

To list the both rather than neither

So employ a hyphen! It'll be okay

And Albanian-Indian she can stay.

Rhyme & Reason (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why use the now obsolete Turkish name for Skopje in the birth box ?

If you look at all the other articles with people born in the Ottoman Empire, they also give the current name and country of the city, so there should be in parenthesis next to Shkup, Ottoman Empire (today's Skopje, Republic of Macedonia). This will make much more sense to a contemporary encyclopedia reader who has no idea what or where Shkup is.

The disputes about the ethnicity are pretty much off-topic though, as she herself has said that ethnically (by blood) she is Albanian, and self-determination trumps everything else. Capricornis (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she was born in Üsküp. Shkup is the Albanian name. Fixed the rest. :) BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You were born on Earth. If Zeta-Reticuli took over the world and renamed it Zeta-Reticuli II you would still say you were born on Earth, would you not? Shawn Crapo 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec 1971 (talk • contribs)

That would depend entirely on whether I was speaking from the point of view of the dominant Reticulan culture of the day, or if I were trying to initiate historical revisionism and bring back the term "Earth" as a matter of political advocacy. The point here is self-evident. --76.202.220.247 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on Global recognition and reception section

The section entitled "Global recognition and reception" integrates both praise and criticism of MT, in keeping in the spirit of WP:CRIT. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to the Albanian wiki editors

I will assume that you are unacquainted with the Wikipedia norms so I will not hold it against you for changing the name of the place of birth in the box (this time). The wikipedia convention is to put the official name and country AT the time when the person was born (which is 1910 and there was no Albania then) and then to give the contemporary offiial name of the place and country which is Skopje, R.Macedonia. This is not to promote anyone's nationalist propaganda, but to make it clear and accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. However, if you continue to change the name despite this explanation, it will be considered vandalism. Capricornis (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Capricornis, will you please be good enough to cite where in The Wikipedia Manual of Style (biographies) or other MoS resource you refer to as official policy? Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While it might not be policy, that is what's done all over Wikipedia. Even so, there is absolutely no reason to have "Shkup" there, as I pointed out in a section above. BalkanFever 09:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a MoS rule, it is a convention that is adopted across Wikipedia. If all of these conventions were to be put in the MoS, it would be bigger than the Bible and nobody would bother reading it :) Capricornis (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So if I understand your argument, you are saying "Even though this is not a rule, I am going to arbitrarily demand that you follow it as if it were a rule, and I can offer no justification for this except that I Said So, and by the way I am not a privileged authority here." Thanks for that. --76.202.220.247 (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with Capricornis' statement, but I do have to criticize Majoreditor's response. Passive-Agressive attitudes are immature and unwanted amongst a community of adults who are disputing the facts of any wiki article. I would personally like to see this practice abandoned. Too many people here at Wikipedia seem to have this attitude. It is not only unprofessional, but counter-productive. Grow up. If you dispute something, then do so in a mature manner and stop with the sarcasm. Shawn Crapo 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec 1971 (talk • contribs)

Crisis of faith

Many newspapers had reported mother's diary in which she had expressed her doubts regarding existence of god. (telegraph) . I think this needs to be included in the bio.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Her crisis of faith is addressed in the article; please see the section entitled "Spiritual life". Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hiyyah this has someusefull stuff on it but its not what I need —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.87.36 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There is definitely a lot of disagreement over whether this article demonstrates a NPOV. I remember reading it months or years ago and it was much more balanced -- now, almost all criticism has been removed. One of the requirements to remove the POV tag is that the dispute has been resolved, which is clearly not the case. Greg Sheehan (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the amount of critical content has grown in recent months. For example, the lead now contains a summary of critical material. To quote from the article's lead:

Coverage of Mother Teresa around the world has been mainly positive, and she has been praised by many individuals, governments and organisations; however, in addition to this positive reaction, she has faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various non-Christians, including the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee and the Hindu Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work; this included alleged baptisms of the dying, a strong pro-life stance on abortion and a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty. Several medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices, and concerns were raised about the opaque nature in which donated money was spent.

Continuing down through the article, one can't but notice the criticism in the "Missionaries of Charity" section:

Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. While noting how little evidence Mother Teresa's critics were able to find against her, David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[33] She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[34] The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis.[35]

And there's also criticsm in the "international charity" section:

The spending of the charity money received has been criticized by some. Christopher Hitchens and the liberal Stern (magazine) have said that money that was donated with the intention of it being spent on the keeping of the poor was spent on other projects instead.[46]

Next, see the criticism located in the section entitled "Reception in India":

Indian views on Mother Teresa were not uniformly favourable. Her critic Aroup Chatterjee, who was born and bred in Calcutta but lived in London, reports that "she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime". Chatterjee blames Mother Teresa for promoting a negative image of his home city.[49] Her presence and profile grated in parts of the Indian political world, as she often opposed the Hindu Right. The Bharatiya Janata Party clashed with her over the Christian Dalits, but praised her in death, sending a representative to her funeral. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, on the other hand, opposed the Government's decision to grant her a state funeral. Its secretary Giriraj Kishore said that "her first duty was to the Church and social service was incidental" and accused her of favouring Christians and conducting "secret baptisms" of the dying. But, in its front page tribute, the Indian fortnightly Frontline dismissed these charges as "patently false" and said that they had "made no impact on the public perception of her work, especially in Calcutta". Although praising her "selfless caring", energy and bravery, the author of the tribute was critical of Mother Teresa's public campaigning against abortion and that she claimed to be non-political when doing so.[48] More recently, the Indian daily The Telegraph referred to her as "the Saint of the Gutters", also mentioning calls for "Rome to investigate whether she did anything to alleviate the condition of the poor or just took care of the sick and dying and needed them to further a sentimentally-moral cause".[50]

And there's multiple critical points in the "Reception in the rest of the world" section:

Her acceptance of this and another honour granted by the Haitian government proved controversial. Mother Teresa attracted criticism, particularly from the left, for implicitly giving support to the Duvaliers and to corrupt businessmen such as Charles Keating and Robert Maxwell. In Keating's case she wrote to the judge of his trial asking for clemency to be shown.[35][48]'

Towards the end of her life, Mother Teresa attracted some negative attention in the Western media. The journalist Christopher Hitchens has been one of her most active critics. He was commissioned to co-write and narrate the documentary Hell's Angel about her for the British Channel 4 after Aroup Chatterjee encouraged the making of such a program, although Chatterjee was unhappy with the "sensationalist approach" of the final product.[49] Hitchens expanded his criticism in a 1995 book, The Missionary Position.[69]

Chatterjee writes that while she was alive Mother Teresa and her official biographers refused to collaborate with his own investigations and that she failed to defend herself against critical coverage in the Western press. He gives as examples a report in The Guardian in Britain whose "stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages ... [include] charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse", and another documentary Mother Teresa: Time for Change? broadcast in several European countries.[49] Both Chatterjee and Hitchens have themselves been subject to criticism for their stance.

The German magazine Stern published a hostile article on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. This concerned allegations regarding financial matters and the spending of donations. The medical press has also published criticism of her, arising from very different outlooks and priorities on patients' needs.[35] Other critics include Tariq Ali, a member of the editorial committee of the New Left Review, and the Irish-born investigative journalist Donal MacIntyre.[69]

Greg, can you furnish diffs which substantiate your claim that almost all criticism has been removed? Are there particular critical assertions which have been removed that you feel should be re-inserted?

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone can insist that this article is has been stripped of almost all criticism. On the contrary, the amount of critical material has expanded somewhat over the past few months. If anything, it's been the non-critical material that's tended to disappear recently; witness the attempt to remove the entire "Commemoration" section.

I really don't think the NPOV tag is merited. Editors like Jossi and Peter Cohen have worked hard to keep this article balanced. I'm inclined to remove the NPOV flag and instead focus on adding and refining content to this article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The critical material has not been deleted but interspersed with other material for a better NPOV presentation of the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

mother teresa

mother teresa ia good person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.84.215 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I noticed that there is already some discussion here about criticism of Mother Teresa, particularly in regards to Christopher Hitchens. Michael Parenti has also written critically about her. I suggest that we include a criticism section. After all, Wikipedia is neutral. To leave out criticism by two world-renowned scholars would be tantamount to bias. --N-k, 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I echo the disgust and concern of people here who find the lack of criticism of mother Teresa apalling. wikipedia has failed.JJJ999 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

hey it's your old friend swimmerfreak94...i thought wikipedia was NEUTRAL jjj999...and you wanted no BIAS. that sounds pretty biased to me...you hate mother teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.79.168 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Parenti and Hitchens are in the article. A criticism section hardly ensures neutrality. As jossi mentioned, the criticsm has been integrated into the article rather than segregated into one section. Feel free to contribute to the article if you feel that something is missing. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • There is no logical reason the criticism section shouldn't be separate, and every reason it should be. You have made no contribution to this argument, which the majority seem to be in agreement with me on. The criticism section is not to ensure neutrality, it is to make the article easier for readers to follow. Just like having headings for everything else in the article helps people sort through the information. There are headings on all manner of things, but not on the criticisms made of her. This is clearly an attempt to hide the criticisms. It makes it harder for both editors and readers, and there is no reason whatever to format it thusly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been moving away from criticism sections. As jossi said above, "The critical material has not been deleted but interspersed with other material for a better NPOV presentation of the subject." See discussions and FAQs on the Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Sarah Palin pages to see the concensus they've reached. To summarize: a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism, WP:CRIT. Plenty of other editors agree, if you look through the comments above from jossi, Anietor, Nbauman, Pop6, Brisvegas, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but your reply almost suggests you haven't even read this article. Firstly, I don't necessarily agree with that wikipedia trend (we may as well remove all sections, since any section can be read as a negative or positive, depending on your perspective), and it isn't really upheld by consensus here. But look at the article itself. No, it doesn't have a "praise" section, but it comes pretty darn close with one section titled "global recognition and reception", if that's neutral, I obviously have misunderstood English my whole life. Other sections are almost as problematic in their titling, including headings like "missionaries of charity", "international charity", "spiritual life", "miracle and beatification" and "commemoration". All these are titles designed to whitewash criticisms of her, highlighting prima facie positive things (charity gets 2 sections!). I don't understand why her commemoration gets a section, but criticism of her doesn't. Even more worryingly, the section on her "spiritual life" (an obvious euphamism for revelations that she felt she had lost her faith by the end of her life) contains almost no discussion of the significance of this (something which has gotten serious coverage in mainstream news). Instead, it is brushed aside with sentences like these: "Contrary to the mistaken belief by some that what she endured would be an impediment to canonization, just the opposite is true; it is very consistent with the experience of canonized mystics". Sentences like these are blatant falsehoods; "With reference to the above words, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, her postulator (the official responsible for gathering the evidence for her sanctification) indicated there was a risk that some might misinterpret her meaning, but her faith that God was working through her remained undiminished, and that while she pined for the lost sentiment of closeness with God, she did not question his existence". There is only one point of view provided on her loss of faith, and it's one which is frankly incorrect PR spin from Catholics. Even the moderate catholic press doesn't say such things. This account here is also troubling: "During the filming of the documentary, footage taken in poor lighting conditions, particularly the Home for the Dying, was thought unlikely to be of usable quality by the crew. After returning from India, however, the footage was found to be extremely well lit. Muggeridge claimed this was a miracle of "divine light" from Mother Teresa herself.[61] Others in the crew thought it was due to a new type of ultra-sensitive Kodak film.[62] Muggeridge later converted to Catholicism." It treats both claims as being equally plausible, and acts as though Muggeridges claims were treated as being credible. The wording of "others in the crew" also suggests some supported Muggeridges view, which is false. The whole thing is spin, and desperately needs to be edited, and given a criticism section.JJJ999 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "Spiritual life" title existed before the publication of the book that attracted all the press coverage about her losing her faith. I also think that in the bit you quote "Muggeridge later converted to Catholicism" weakens his claims. I read the whole quote as indicating that he was naive fool looking for something to grab hold of to meet his own emotional need.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. "Wikipedia has been moving away from criticism sections." "It's obvious that criticism just gets deleted 'because it doesn't mesh with the article.' Let's just create a criticism section." "The criticism has been dispersed throughout the article." I can only sit and laugh at Wikipedia's disintegrating integrity as a project. Orwellian deletionist conformism. Tyranny of the majority.

You talk about a criticism section destroying the neutrality of an article clearly biased in favor of the subject. If that's not doublethink I don't know what is. I maintain: Sigh. --96.42.42.75 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that the current titles are not nuetral is part of the reason an argument to remove a criticism section is stupid. There's nothing "double think" about my argument. The current titles are partisan, most titles would be because they are loaded phrases into which one can read answers according to the context. The reason I allude to the current titles is in response to your claim that a "criticism" section would not be nuetral, yet somehow the current titles would be. It's obviously not true. The rest you don't address, you're in the minority, and all your recent edits have helped ensure the nuetrality will not be resolved anytime soon, because you've continued to hamper attempts to provide the necessary criticism of her.JJJ999 (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

JJJ999, it's sad to see how many misstatements you've made. First off, my recent edits to this article have been to remove vandalism, not to remove criticism. Stop implying otherwise. Secondly, the section titles are quite neutral. Section titles such as "Missionaries of Charity", "Spiritual life", "Reception in India", and "Reception in the rest of the world" neither praise nor condemn; rather, they are straightforward descriptions. A well-composed encylopedic work doesn't balkanize sections into pro and con or utilize POV forks. Rather, it integrates criticism into the appropriate sections, just as jossi poined out above. Plenty of editors agree with that approach. That's why almost all of Wikipedia's best articles avoid criticism sections.

Some of your statements are curious. You claim that the paragraph on Muggeridge is unbalanced, when in fact it presents both interpretations (divine lighting vs. film), allowing readers to arrive at their own conclusion. This is in accord with one of Wikipedia's basic principles: present the facts from reliable sources and let the reader decide. As Peter Cohen pointed out, readers aren't going to necessarily agree with Muggeridge's interpretation. You also imply that the article is amlost devoid of criticism, which clearly isn't true.

Additionally, JJJ9999, it appears that you are editing this talk page using both your user account as well as an IP address (122.148.218.27). That's either very sloppy or very deceptive on your part; I suggest you stop immediately. Majoreditor (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side, this discussion is re-energizing my interest in this article. I've started to copy edit portions of it once again; next I'll tackle formatting issues wuth the footnotes and references. And I'd like to get around to adding reviews on Kolodiejchuk's book -- does anyone have any suggestions? I'm also interested in re-reading Alpion's boo, Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity?, which is one of the detailed critical works on her life -- it's not as interesting a read as Hitchens but it's very detailed and well-researched. Majoreditor (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made dozens of suggestions. Let's keep it to one at a time to avoid weasel room. What about the absurd POV pushing in her Spirituality section? It would take youtube and 5 minutes to find contrary views about what her diaries meant. It seems to me that only the extreme right in the catholic movement has been quoted (as I noted above), saying how "she didn't really mean it" in effect. Many disagree with that opinion. Hitchens among them, but as he points out both the text of the diaries and the more moderate catholic press. Why is this POV pushing allowed to continue?

Could anybody find the "Guardian of London" (?) article of Oct 14th, 1996 cited by Mr. Aroup Chatterjee? I spent a good couple of hours googling, but without results. --Ab1 (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

MT's activities in the 1960s through the 1980s

This article pays scant attention to MT's activities during the 1960s, when she expanded her order throughout India. Ditto on her international efforts. Additional contributions from reliable sources are appreciated. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Contributions"... why do I feel the onset of more bias?JJJ999 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

- If anyone says that MT's work was sometimes abusive and that she didn't properly take care of patients...why don't you just ask all the people she helped instead of unjustly accusing her?! You shouldn't try to figure it out yourself. The only people that truly know are all the people she helped, her, and God. For proof, read Faith and Compassion by Raghu Rai and Navin Chawla, esp. pgs. 66-67. People LINED UP to see her. Those are the people experiencing what she actually did. No outsider can experience that. Her home for lepers was called the "Gandhiji Prem Niwas" after Mahatma Gandhi- "THE ABODE OF LOVE"! How can you dispute that?!?! - p.s. I'm only a 13 year old girl who got on this site for research for a school paper!! I not even an expert and I have more sense than you biased adults I'm not saying Mother Teresa was without faults, she was human like all of us and did make mistakes, but not as major as some people make them out to be. (and she made up for them immediately, she went to confession every day!!) The media, (including the Internet) has allowed anyone to say their opinions which can make for many people beginning misconceptions. The media has indoctrinated many people and made them believe many wrongs are right. I thank God I'm not one of those people. p.s.s. I'm not pointing to anyone in particular, but those people who did make comments without looking into the facts should know that I'm talking about them. (and I apologize ahead of time if I misunderstood any comments)--Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• • You are 13? I would never have guessed. Go away if you can't contribute meaningfully.JJJ999 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Just because I'm 13 means that I can't contribute meaningfully? What kind of baloney is THAT? And I won't go away that easily. At least not until you can give me a real, sensible, logical argument against what I said. Who's to say contributions are any better?

What I meant to say was, "Who's to say your contributions are any better?"

p.s. the only reason I'm being at least MODERATELY respectful (even though I don't feel like it in the LEAST) is because I don't know how old YOU are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.79.168 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • JJJ999's comments above are impolite, represent a personal attack, and are unwelcoming. They are also unclear, since sarcasm is difficult to convey in this medium. Kieron (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes section (Formatting, Edits needed)

Some of the footnotes need to be properly formatted. I'll try to get started in the next few weeks. Is anyone else able to help out? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit footnotes, or I would (maybe someone can help me learn?)...anyway, footnote #5 has a link to a "page not found" on CNN. Kieron (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Hell if I know

Unfortunately we have not discovered her parents but we do know that god mostly brought her into this big big big world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.196.11 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she was created out of whole cloth by god? That would be twice as miraculous as that J guy, perhaps it could be the miracle her fans are desperately looking for to justify beatification? 58.96.94.12 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply : She was Albanian, and it's a shame to say that she was born under "Ottoman Empire", wich was an occupier of Albania!!! Shkup (Skopje) was an Albanian city until January 1, 1918 (time when Shkup (Skopje) was done to the Macedonia), occupied by Turkey until 1912. So please, AUTHOR OF THIS PAGE, delete that Mother Teresa was born in the Ottoman Empire. It's the same that I say that all people born until German occupation are German. It's stupid.

"By blood I am Albanian. Everytime I have in heart my Albanian People." Mother Theresa (Gonxhe Bojaxhiu) 1910-1997.

Rename article

In the style of other articles where the person has been beatified or canonized, shouldn't the name be changed to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta? An example would be that Giuseppe Maria Desa's article is called "Saint Joseph of Cupertino". Anybody agree/disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishjpm153 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tentatively I would disagree. People are hugely more likely to search for 'Mother Teresa' than anything else, and titling the page Blessed Mother Teresa would just be waving a red flag in front of the Hitchensians. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking about Google ratings or facutal titles? Sorry, I just happened to be passing my this page :) Filastin (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that we do not move the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

Is the neutrality dispute banner really necessary, every time somebody complains about the neutrality of the article or lack of criticism, evidence has been presented to convince them that there is enough criticism, and the numerous requests for a 'controversy' section have been denied as the information is included elsewhere.

so with all the neutrality disputes deciding that the article is neutral, and controversy section requests deciding that the information is included elsewhere, is there really a neutrality dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbun (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to ask the same question as above: I don't think the neutrality of this article is disputed; the tag ought to be removed. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Superbun and Shreevatsa. Majoreditor (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article seems absurdly positive of this sadistic fraudster, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.162.182 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No criticism section guys? come one! I thought this was wikipedia! Alessio.aguirre (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Presentation paragraphs change and protection

I wanted to make a minor, though imho important, change in the following line: "this included baptisms of the dying, a strong anti-abortion stance, and a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty.". I think that this would be much more clarifying if changed in "this included baptisms of the dying, a strong anti-abortion stance, and a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty adn, above all, of suffering". It is important to make an early reference to the so called "theology of suffering" and the criticism it brought to MT. I nevertheless cannot make any change, because the page is semi-protected (though I don't actually understand why, being a registered user) Spree85 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Spree85

Saint of the Gutters

There was the following in the article:

More recently, the Indian daily The Telegraph referred to her as "the Saint of the Gutters", also mentioning...

I removed the "Saint of the Gutters" part, both because it's not criticism (I've heard it mentioned with praise of her) and because it's a much older name, predating the 2002 Telegraph article. Unfortunately I don't know where/when it's from, and the article no longer mentions "Saint of the Gutters" at all. Could someone dig up its source or add it to the article in some other way? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

There is no section on criticisms of Mother Teresa, some of which are fairly substantial. This article is too Pro-Teresa 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.22.140 (talk)

Good articles don't have criticism sections; see Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Any criticism (or praise) should be integrated into the article proper, and there's criticism of Teresa throughout the article. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

criticisms are not necessary; as Shreevatsa said, good articles don't have sections devoted to criticisms...why not a section devoted to praise? You see why it's not necessary? and there IS proper ciritcism throughout the article Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about a criticism section not being necessary. The topic of the article is about a famous humanitarian and potential future catholic saint. As such, citable criticism over her work instantly becomes more notable (it has enough sources to even potentially be notable enough for its own article, however I am against separating the info like this). Additionally, many people may specifically be researching this aspect which becomes both confusing and unwieldy if one has to search the entire article for individual tidbits. Wikipedia:Criticism sections is a guideline, not a rule. In this matter I feel a section is necessary. And why not a praise section, well as I said the article is about a famous humanitarian, praise of her good deeds is expected and common, whereas criticism of a humanitarian is the odd man out.

I think the main problem is that criticism is a loaded word. People immediately jump to well why not a praise section. Controversy on the other hand might be a better word. So whereas a Criticism Section is not needed a Controversy Section might be.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

how about a "widely believed factual inaccuracies" section? such a section would be well suited for mother theresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to what the real issue is here. There were PLENTY of Controversies regarding Mother Teresa, and I fail to understand the hesitation to adding them. People use wikipedia for research, both good and bad. If "Criticism" is too loaded a word, then why not take a nod from Michael Jackson's page where it clearly (and fairly) represents the allegations against him. There are plenty of allegations to pick from when it comes to Mother Teresa.. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether criticism of MT should be included in the article. The issue is whether there should be a separate criticism section. No editor has suggested that the article should be free from any criticism. If it's relevant and properly cited, then it should be added. For the reasons stated many times above (and in archived discussions), good articles don't have sections devoted to criticism. Interestingly, Dphilp75, your reference to Michael Jackson's article supports NOT having a separate criticism section, since that article includes relevant and cited criticisms throughout the article, not bunched all together in one section. --anietor (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I wrote that, if there should or should NOT be an area for criticism was EXACTLY the discussion, hence Swimmerfreak94's and the next uncredited statements. I firmly think that a Criticisms would be appropriate such as MJ's page. That is to say, if they are intro'd in to the article itself, I have no objections, but the page (at that time)contained little to no real criticisms. Dphilp75 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would argue a criticism section would be extremely important. Until today, I had never heard anyone say anything critical about Mother Teresa, ever. I have read a lot, and never read any criticism. I just read through this article, and saw nothing. But I learned today that she supposedly refused basic treatment to the dying, including pain killers for those in agony, not because they were low on supplies but because she believed the suffering of others was good. She supposedly sat on billions in funding while forcing her followers to beg for food and provided sub-standard treatment and amenities. And now it seems her spiritual adviser was a notorious child predator and it is unlikely she was unaware of that.

Maybe everything I read is biased and completely false. All the more reason it should be addressed in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintigh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's all the more reason NOT to address it in the wiki. If you're saying "maybe everything I read is biased and completely false", then it is not verified and not reliable. We don't include things that are "maybe....completely false." Also, it's not clear what your point is. You say that you "saw nothing" about criticism in the article. That's odd, since the opening section discusses criticisms of MT, including criticism of sub-standard medical treatment. --anietor (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

She seemed like a bit of a twat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.243.109 (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I found some criticism in this very wiki site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa - 24.86.3.114 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems curious that the scores of controversies that accompanied this woman through her life are largely absent from this page. Is this another example of wiki manufacturing 'troof' by consensus? A very biased and disappointing example of a wiki article.--78.143.215.113 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is censorship at work. Her crticisms are valid and deserve their own section. ([[USER TALK:talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthShallStand (talk • contribs) 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to include a Controversies section then? A lot of articles include those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.37.255.5 (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Relatively few of Wikipedia's better articles contain "Controversies" or "Criticism of..." sections. For example, see the FA-class article on Barak Obama. It's vital for articles to discuss controversies and criticisms, but it's best to work criticisms/controversies/praises into the existing prose of the article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you include a section on criticism is essentially a summary of the criticism present in the article anyhow. Wikipedia promotes a neutral point of view where all aspects of an article should be discussed, including comments that question certain aspects of the subject. A criticism section is a partial view because it creates a special place in the article for some comments, not others, which biases the article by structure rather than content.Politik999 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

With reference to criticism may I suggest to put a footnote next to the film titel in order to reference to Hitchen's film Hell's Angels . The film is available e. g. from: Hell Angel's film-link
concerning criticism: if people also read the headings than it should be clear that "reception in India/rest of the world" may include positive AND negative criticism. Xocophil (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add ther reference. And thanks for the observation on the reception section.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The expression "pro-life" in the lead

It looks as though a revert war may be starting on the term "pro-life" in the lead section. I object to its use for the following reasons

• The lead section should be a summary of the article. Nowhere in the article does it mention activity in any other "pro-life" area than abortion.
• The mention in the lead is in the context of criticism of her prosletysing. There is no evidence in the article that critics objected to any activity she may have carried out against euthanasia or capital punishment.
• "Pro-life" is a loaded rhetorical expression and not to be taken literally. Because of WP:NPOV, we should be careful about using it without qualification or explanation. In MT's case the evidence is that she rejected an emphasis on medical treatment in her hospices. Thus being literally "pro-life" was not her highest priority. What the editor seems to be suggesting is that she was against the taking of human life (and even there, I don't know if she was pacifist or not).--Peter cohen (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Pro-life" is not a "loaded rhetorical expression", and I think many adherents to that principle do take it quite literally. But that's really a side issue here. The question is which term, pro-life or anti-abortion, is the more appropriate one for the lead section. I think the dispute should not be whether MT was pro-life or anti-abortion (or both). The question is really which term is relevant to the issue of the "range of criticism" she was subject to. I tend to agree with Peter cohen on this one. I believe the original point was that her strong opposition to abortion was a source of controversy. If that is the case, then "anti-abortion" is the appropriate term, since it was her opposition to abortion, not a general pro-life position (which would include opposition to euthanasia and capital punishment) that caused consternation and criticism from some quarters. Of course, this is assuming that the citations support the statement that her opposition to abortion was the source of criticism. If they do support this, then anti-abortion would seem to be the more appropriate term for that spot in the article. --anietor (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To me the question is less political and more semantic. "Pro-life" is a less descriptive term than anti-abortion. If you didn't already know what political position the phrase referred to, "pro-life" would be essentially meaningless. "Anti-abortion" and "anti-contraception" together provide a vastly more accurate view of Mother Theresa's position. Just as political adherents to "pro-life" stance have attempted to characterize their opposition as "pro-abortion" (also rather profoundly misleading), they have selected their own title in an attempt to change the terms of the debate. Perhaps not coincidentally, a political camp rather closely allied with the "pro-life" position not long ago tried to replace the popular phrase "suicide bomber" with the semantically deadening "homicide bomber." I was staunchly pro-settlement when I heard this expression and still found it manipulative and reprehensible; the same is true of "pro-life." It's a shame that's it's become a popular expression, because it expresses so very little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of her included her opposition to sterilization, contraception and euthanasia, which are all included under the prolife banner. Moreover, she was not merely opposed to abortion, but also, in addition to the above, to the death penalty, to infanticide, to the arms race in the third world (which she viewed as theft from the poor), to vast national inequities in wealth and to imperialism. I've edited the intro and provided a reliable source which supports all of the above. Mamalujo (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Mamalujo, that MT was opposed to euthanasia, the arms race and many other things. But was she criticized for ALL of these positions? Reading the source, it certainly does mention her position on many of these issues. But the lead in the article is pointing out positions for which she was criticized. I don't believe the citation says she was criticized for her opposition to the arms race the same way she was criticized for her opposition to abortion. Perhaps I'm missing it, though. I'm looking mainly at the material on and around page 98. Can you point to someplace in that book that supports a broader range of issues that she was criticized for? Again, be careful not to mix up her positions on various issues (which would be lengthy) with positions that were the subject of significant criticism. --anietor (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Before adding material to the lead you need to add it in the main article. If she campaigned against capital punishment and the arms trade that needs to go somewhere. (Perhaps there could be a subsection on political activity?) Once it is discussed in the body of the article, then it can be looked at elsewhere. Remember the is a good article which some people want to progress furtehr and it therefore has to meet the requirements of WP:Lede--Peter cohen (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

She was not merely criticized for her opposition to abortion, but that she was merely putting a bandaid on poverty rather than attacking its roots, which many saw as the undue protection of life and procreation. Hitchens, for example does not only attack her for her beliefs on abortion but because "she inveighed against abortion, against contraception and against the idea that their should be any limit whatsoever to the growth of world population." [Emphasis added] Missionary Position p. 56. (As a side note, Mr. Hitchens should know that demographers observe that the world population as a whole will begin shrinking in about 2045, as it has in Europe and other parts of the developed world for some time - a problem which is causing and will cause problems of its own.) The point is she was criticised not just for abortion but for her prolife position, and it also mischaracterizes her to say she is merely anti-abortion. I do however agree that the intro should be a summary of the body of the article and that these points should be incorporated in the body and reflected in the intro. If someone else does not get to it first, I will do so. Mamalujo (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead. You seem to have a number of reference books to hand. The key thing is that the lede should reflect the balance of the article which in turn should dedicate space to subjects in a manner that reflects the balance of the literature in WP:Reliable sources. As far as "pro-life" is concerned, our article on the subject refelects that the term is criticised for its rhetorical basis and that also that it has multiple meanings where anti-militarism and other ideas are not always assumed. From what you say, her beliefs fell under the heading of Consistent life ethic, a term which is less ambiguous and less begging of the question. Of course there's always the problem that someone will claim that using that term is WP:OR, but there are a couple of google results for the term plus MT's name where advocates of CLE use her name on pages that discuss their viewpoint.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I also object to the term "pro-life" on WP:ENGVAR grounds; it's an extremely unfamiliar phrase in India. If several meanings of "pro-life" are intended, the sentence can be expanded to include all of them; using "pro-life" seems absurd to readers unfamiliar with its specialised meaning in the US. (Who is pro-death, really?) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual Life Section

The "Spiritual Life" section reads like a game of rhetorical ping-pong, with each side paddling away at its point of view, but offering very little in the way of reasoned facts. I come away from the text without a very clear sense of the depth and duration of this woman's crisis of faith, but a very clear sense that the Catholics want me to believe one thing and the atheists would like me to believe another. For example, "Contrary to the mistaken belief by some that the doubts she expressed would be an impediment to canonization, just the opposite is true; it is very consistent with the experience of canonized mystics." Who has this belief? This is certainly the first I've ever heard of it. In this section, the article appears to be reflexively responding to a dispute between wikipedians, rather than to the needs of its readers. Some specific questions I'd like answered:

1.) Are her letters a more-or-less uninterrupted chronicle of her doubt in God? 2.) Either way, is there any indication how she privately practiced her faith? 3.) How specifically do her letters agree or disagree with her public statements concerning this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "side." I'm no wikipedian, but from what I know from my studies is that this is quite common, not just among Saints, but among religious and nonreligious people alike (doubts about what they believe or do not belief about whatever topic, I mean). Not sure why Christopher Hitchens is mentioned though, he's more or less critical of any Christian, Jew, or Muslim... or anyone else who holds some religious belief for that matter. Not to mention he's no expert in religious studies. Anyways, many call it a Crisis of Faith, a period in which one questions his or her own idea of truth in whatever they hold as a belief (religious or not). As far as we know, she remained a devout Roman Catholic, despite this. As for Saints having doubts - it actually is quite common. I'd give references, but there would be quite a bit. So here goes. We'll never know, however. Not much. As Mother Teresa even put it, it was just a time period where she had some doubts, not skepticism, about parts of her faith. To be honest, I think the "arguement" is kind of... weird and the controversy isn't all that large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious Views

I've heard all sorts of hard to attribute quotes about Mother Theresa. One is that she was a non-believer. This seems to be fairly covered in what seems a balanced article. The second is that she said that abortion was the single greatest threat to world peace. This view would go down well in the Vatican. However, and it's a big however, I understood that she was in favour of contraception. Is this true and can it be substantiated? If so, it might cause delays in the canonisation process, while the Vatican spin doctors sort it out. Ausseagull (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any references by me now ( I will need to look them up) she was not pro-contraception. She was pro-NFP (natural family plannig)- abstaining through a woman's fertile period and natural way of spacing or delaying conception while still leaving it open for GOd to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.210.160 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)