Talk:Mother Teresa

propose dumping the FAQ

(Inserted text) The FAQ has been dumped on currency as it did not reflect the changed consensus on a criticism section on the talkpage, please feel free to add support or opposition votes as the poll hasn't been open for very long. Penyulap _talk 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC) (original text) It's dated, and quotes essays rather than policy, either one is good for me to dump it, comments ? Penyulap _talk 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, stated reasons Chrisrus

Oppose. It provides useful answers to frequently asked questions which drive-by editors have about criticism, praise and nationality. FAQ sections like this are quite common and useful for GA-class and FA-class articles. I suspect that we'll get some additional feedback about the FAQ section during Peer Review and during the GAN process. Majoreditor (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support as proposer Penyulap _talk 09:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I think it's probably cool if someone really wants to add a NEW FAQ, however it would be good to work out first if there are modern problems that require addressing via a FAQ, as they may well be able to be addressed in other more usual ways, such as improving the article and so forth. Penyulap _talk 02:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Writings

I expected to find a section listing Mother Teresa's writings in this article, and was surprised there wasn't one. Anyone? thanks so much. -- Camomiletea (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If she is not known for her writings they don't carry any due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If she wrote something and got widespread attention for it by all means mention what it is. I'll see if it can be put in. What did she write ? The due weight is mostly where there is competing stuff, or maybe space problems. ..or when the whole article seems to be about someone called Christopher for example. Penyulap _talk 02:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 November 2011

Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje*, Macedonia, on August 26**, 1910. Her family was of Albanian descent. At the age of twelve, she felt strongly the call of God. She knew she had to be a missionary to spread the love of Christ. At the age of eighteen she left her parental home in Skopje and joined the Sisters of Loreto, an Irish community of nuns with missions in India. After a few months' training in Dublin she was sent to India, where on May 24, 1931, she took her initial vows as a nun. From 1931 to 1948 Mother Teresa taught at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta, but the suffering and poverty she glimpsed outside the convent walls made such a deep impression on her that in 1948 she received permission from her superiors to leave the convent school and devote herself to working among the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta. Although she had no funds, she depended on Divine Providence, and started an open-air school for slum children. Soon she was joined by voluntary helpers, and financial support was also forthcoming. This made it possible for her to extend the scope of her work. Renjumemuriyil (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and why does it say "Üsküb" instead of Skopje in the infobox? Seems like double standards to me. The city is called Skopje in English and that's it. Üsküb is just a historical name (when the Turks were around). 78.157.4.114 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done:This is a blatant copyright violation and furthermore, is also unsourced. nprice (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

what is the copyright violation you refer to, I'm a bit lost here.. Penyulap _talk 09:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually on re-reading that, it's a complete contradiction, because nothing that qualifies as a copyright violation could possibly be unsourced. Penyulap _talk 09:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new sub article. "Christopher Hitchens"

---

I'm withdrawing the proposal, as it's not a decent solution. I'll leave the text however, as there is good commentary below. Penyulap _talk 11:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Commentary

Your suggestion has merit. Hitchens' views on MT are notable, quotable, and significant. While there's already an article on his book The Missionary Position, it's viable to have an article entitled Christopher Hitchens and Mother Theresa" which covers all of his material on and actions regarding MT, as well as reception to his articles, book, show, etc. Per WP guidelines (see WP:POVFORK and WP:SPLIT) the article should not be a POV fork. I recomment using neutral wording for the article's title such as "Christopher Hitchens and Mother Theresa" rather than Christopher Hitchens' Criticism of Mother Theresa". The article should critical reception/reaction to Hitchens' writings and views on MT, both positive and negative. Once created, the new article can be summarized in this article; one to two tightly-crafted paragraphs should be sufficient. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While interesting and significant, Hitchens book does nothing more than collect already existing criticisms of MT and present them to the general public who might not have been aware of them. Fans of MT would like to portray all Criticism of MT as originating from Hitchens, but this is not true. I think it would be much better to go beyond Hitchens to the sources that he cites, especially peer-reviewed medical journals first, as they should have the more weight than the statements of famous authors. Next in importance should be those of ex-members and those who've actually visited the facilities. Generally, wherever Hitches can be bypassed to go directly to the sources he used or others that are just as good or better, it should be done. The part about Hitches doesn't have to say anything more than he brought these accusations, already known elsewhere, to the English-speakking public. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE weight on Hitchens, just because he was famous and popular doesn't make him the source of all negative press on MT. Chrisrus (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An article on Hitchens' writings on MT would be fine as long as it the topic is noteworthy and properly sourced. WP:UNDUE would apply only if a new article was created covering all criticism of MT and it covered only Hitchens. Creating a "Criticism of MT" article would could create POV fork concerns; to minimize forking problems, you'd want to include material on how MT criticism has been received - both positive and negative. I'm not necessarily opposed to such an approach, but we should solicit comments from a broader set of editors before proceeding. Majoreditor (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For more detail see Wikipedia:Summary style Shortcut WP:SPINOFF
Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.
Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

Wiki policy-Wikipedia:Content forking#Acceptable types of forking

This is pretty much addressing two issues, one, is the undue amount of Hitchens material in this article, and instead of simply deleting it which is proper policy, were spinning it off into a sub article, seems better than just deleting the superfluous stuff, but I guess it can simply be deleted, I don't much care, I guess someone can stick it into Christopher hitchen's own article as a paragraph called "Commentary on Mother Teresa" or something. Penyulap _talk 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

California hospital

This source, which is vehemently anti-Catholic [1] is not a credible source for use in the article (as it currently is). The WP page reads

'In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She had heart surgery but it was clear that her health was declining. She was treated at a California hospital, too, and this has led to some criticism.[50] The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalised with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[51]'

While the source says: 'Yet when she herself fell ill she was quick to hop on a private jet to the most expensive private clinics in America.'.

The text of the Wikipedia page is clearly completely false. This CNN article, headed 'Calcutta, India' [2] notes that she was treated in the B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, which is clearly in Calcutta.

She was treated in California in 1991, but not for heart surgery, but rather pneumonia, having developed pneumonia in Tijuana, the 30 miles to La Jolla would not exactly require a private jet. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.61.86 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant find. That first source you found so had to die, not because it's anti-catholic, but because it's an epic fail as a source. I took out the text about where she was treated, as yes, it is in conflict with a better source. If there are changes that uncontroversial, please feel free to hassle me on my talkpage if you're in a hurry. We should see what we can do about improving this article so it no longer requires protection. Penyulap _talk 11:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Donald McGuire

FYI - [4] Parrot of Doom 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual life section

The Spiritual life section is weird. It reads almost like a sort of analysis of her personal faith and an apology to her canonization. Shouldn't encyclopedia articles simply document facts, not analyze them? Just list the facts and let the reader make sense of it. Fact 1: MT claimed to have doubts. Fact 2: Some guy (her "postulator") says that regardless of what she said, she still believed in god. Fact 3: Christopher Hitchens said whatever. Sentences like "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," are confusing. Is this something someone said and the article author is paraphrasing? Is this original research by the author? Why does this statement need to be included at all? Isn't it enough to make a simple statement about whatever that guy said about MT and then leave the reader to look up the reference to get detail? How about the sentence, "In fact, the book is edited by the Rev. Kolodiejchuk, her postulator?" This is not encyclopedia article wording. It's more like newspaper editorial wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help out fixing it, if you'd like to just write out a new section here, I will cut'n'paste it for you no problems. If you're in a hurry hassle me on my talkpage. The sooner it is encyclopedic and a decent article the sooner it can be unlocked and not suffer vandalism. Penyulap _talk 10:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does this read as a hagiography?

I am a catholic myself, though that shouldn't have anything to do with my opinion about this article...

But why exactly does the whole article read like a hagiography, rather than a serious encyclopedia entry on a notable person? Besides numerous examples of subjective opinion, there is only one line referencing that MT had critics. Why isn't there even a short section headlined "criticisms of mother Theresa"

I'm sorry to say this, but this article really needs an objective rewrite by someone who isn't personally invested in the subject.

I am not currently a Wikipedia member or editor, but wouldn't mind getting involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.143.162 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Saint Teresa of Kolkata

Beatified by the people,Beatified by the Khalsa..:-))) dada...st.paul's cathedral..bring mitre..i bring peace ;-)..evensong..do one good thing before going ya....what say..hai kya?? Grewal

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.108.174 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)