Talk:Mother Teresa

Skopje became a part of Serbia in 1912

Why is the article locked for edit? Skopje was a part of Serbia in 1912, it was not a part of Ottoman Empire in 1912-1918 as stated in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.D.KingPhD (talk • contribs) 12:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Again: "Her birthplace of Skopje, now capital of the Republic of Macedonia, was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918, when it became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.[22][23]" is A FALSITY. Skopje was a part of Serbia from the First Balkan War in 1912.

Why is the article locked for edit, so this bullshit cannot be corrected?

Maybe if you made a polite edit request, with a reliable source to cite, such a thing could be accomplished. Scr★pIron^IV 18:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What kind of asshole attitude is that ScrapIronIV? What makes you the ruler of this article? If an inaccuracy is pointed out, it should be corrected if valid, but asking people to ask nicely or else warrants legal action and public flogging.

his nationality is with official document. She is not serbs, bulgar or other. Please correct this fail. Zeus tha Zoti (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

misc

<refhttp://nyut.am/?p=87427&l=en></ref>Mother Teresa… Very few know that this woman’s real name was Agnessa Boyajian. She was an Armenian. She told about it to Catholicos of All Armenians Vazgen I during her visit to Armenia in 1988 after the disastrous earthquake. Archbishop Pargev Martirosyan, primate of the Artsakh Diocese of the Armenian Church said, “Mother Teresa is an Armenian. Surname of her father who escaped from Western Armenia to Albania is Boyajian. Her mother is Albanian Christian.”Garotnt (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

She was Albanian ,no discussion Eltoniboy (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

Katsullivan (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."[121]

Above is not a credible source and false in nature. This is a ridiculous entry and extremely bias and prejudice.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Katsullivan: I'm the first to jump to Mother Teresa's defense, but it is a section on criticism, whether we like it or not. Saying "unreliable!" just because it's biased won't make it go away—it obviously has to be biased in order to be a criticism. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"She said that suffering was a gift from God". Where is the source? On the official site http://www.motherteresa.org/08_info/Quotesf.html a similar statement is listed as a false quote. It should read: Some critics claim that she said... or something like that.

You raise an interesting point. I found several quotes from reliable sources indicating that she felt that certain types of suffering under certain conditions are gifts from God; but I have yet to find a properly attributed source stating that she literally said that suffering was a gift from God. I've requested that someone add a proper citation. Majoreditor (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

Someone edited this sentence:

A controversial figure both during her life and after her death, much like Jesus and almost all the Christian saints, Mother Teresa was widely admired by many for her charitable works.

...removing the middle clause: "much like Jesus and almost all the Christian saints". I think this removal is a very good idea. The language is rather odd: since MT is (we're told) a saint, she ought to be expected to be at least somewhat "like Jesus and other saints". So it doesn't say very much. But what is the odd "almost all" qualification for?? Who knows. And crucially, it is quite unclear whether this clause is referring to the first clause of the sentence or the last. Was she controversial like the other people, or admired like them? So it is rather muddled. Removing it leaves a clear sentence, amply supported by evidence. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Given this justification, I can get behind the edit now. Thank you. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the removal. Majoreditor (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Kodak

Per the cameramen who were actually there, and who actually handled the film, and gave actual testimony, and where the actual evidence comes from... per each of these points, the neutral tone is that the cameramen "realized", not "thought"... they "realized" that the film clearness was due to the upgraded Kodak video they had. Because that's what happens when you use upgraded technology. Upgraded technology isn't a miracle, and the cameramen "realized" what had happened, and spoke on it. (youtu. be/65JxnUW7Wk4?t=2m12s) The camera men were there, not you or me, User:Afterwriting. Leave the camera technology to the cameramen using the technology. I didn't change anything about the mythological claims. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 06:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: Come here, before you undo it again. You've, now, made 3 reverts. Explain yourself, in detail. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is quite clear. It is your responsibility to seek consensus for a change. You don't get to revert to your preferred version first. If you can't then the article remains as it is. As to the "issue" at hand, I consider it complete nonsense to suggest that "realized" is somehow more neutral language. We don't know for an objective fact that the new film was the cause of the better light. All we know is that is what the camermen believed to be the reason. Afterwriting (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to agree with what Afterwriting said. And to mention that we are all allowed to assume the obvious: that the camera crew knew a lot more about film than MM did. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: There's no "consensus" needed for the edits I made, they were minuscule, relevant, and more clear.

And yes, we do know, as an objective fact, that the upgraded technology, which captured better light, is what was the cause of the better light.

Think about your statement, put like this: "We don't know for a fact that B comes after A, just because B always comes after A."

I edited a few other things, other than fixing that word to be more clear. You reverted it all, anyway.

Sorry, not concerned with discussing it with you, any further. I tried to get you to talk before you kept reverting the edits. You can take it up with an administrator, if they ask for your opinion. ^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 07:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited that sentence because as it stood I found it too weak. Then I read here it was a source of contention. I hope I haven't caused any confusion with my edit. Peace. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Tomb

I think it's relevant for the "Declining Health And Death" section to mention where she's buried and perhaps even include a photo of her tomb if one's available. Most other articles about dead celebrities mention where their buried (if a gravesite exists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.5 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

Birth day for Mother teressa is on August 29, it is wrongly mentioned as August 26, please correct you may refer http://www.catholic.org/clife/teresa/ Jijutjohn (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done because your reference states 26 August, not 29 August - Arjayay (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dmol's reversion of my precisions on who's criticizing Mother Teresa

My statement that most of Mother Teresa's critics cited in the article are opposed to her anti-abortion views seems justified to those who are familiar with this charged issue. It does Wikipedia no good to give such focus to criticism of a Catholic saint which represents a miniscule part of her heritage. Wikipedia is losing ground with Catholics and other Christians because of its carelessness in showcasing sharp criticism of good people. It's one of the fallacies imbedded in Wikipedia that just because something is in a published book it is of encyclopedic value. Please explain why you feel you must revert these two accurate statements about the references criticizing Mother Teresa in the article. (talk) Thanks.Jzsj (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I made it very clear in my edit summary "POV edits. Commentary, and cause and effect not shown" as to why I was reverting. To further elaborate. you are making a rather ludicrous claim that she is only criticised for her anti-abortion stance when it gets very little mention in the MT article, and barely a sentence in the Criticism article. The claim is not in the reference attached to the sentence where you placed the info, which would lead to the false assumption that your claim is supported. Wikipedia is neutral, whether you like it or not. We don't pander to anyone or any religious group. --Dmol (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I hold to my statement that the references in the intro show a clear bias against abortion. Smoker mentions abortion nine times in his article and Hitchens who has two references there focuses on the issue of reproduction and abortion in his own critiques. The fourth reference in the intro bit is pay per view and perhaps you can tell me if it mentions abortion. But for those who know how much the anti-abortion thing raises hackles in some quarters, it is not ludicrous to suggest that the vitriolic language in Hitchens and the frequent references in Smoker make them poor references for this statement in the intro.(talkJzsj (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, what happened was this:

This article was spun off from the article Mother Teresa on the grounds that it was getting too large.

However, in that context, it balanced all the Praise for Mother Teresa. There's lots of that there, too, but the decision wasn't made to spin that off into its own article.

But here, isolated from the article Mother Teresa, by itself, apart from the P. for M.T., it seems biased. All it does is criticize her; that's really all this article is about: notable negative things about her said by notable people and published somewhere WP:RS.

I don't know what to do about it. Maybe we could emphasize notable responses to these criticisms by letting them respond.

The problem is, Mother Teresa and her supporters have not responded much.

Are you aware of any such defenders responding to any of these criticisms of MT?

If so, you might add their counterpoints or refutations to each C. of M.T. in this article.

I think you'll find many of these go unanswered, or consist of counter-criticism of the person making the C.ofM.T.

That makes it hard to make this article less biased. It is biased. It's about accusations against Mother Teresa.

So the best we can do, unless you guys can think of something else, is to seek out defenses against these specific allegations and summarize them well and add them appropriately to the article.

But that's not always going to be possible because sometimes the accusations are made and just ignored or superficially dismissed. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find why people don't take time to defend this recipient of so many awards: a miniscule part of her heritage is showcased by those who have little respect for her faith-perspective and who judge India by the standard of Western nations, "While WHO estimates about 7-12% HAI burden in hospitalized patients globally, the figures from India are alarming, with an incidence rate varying from 11% to 83% for different kinds of HAI."[1]. While Wiki condoles over its loss of readership since 2013, one obvious reason is how easily Wiki turns off people when it showcases those who would impose their own perspective rather than evaluating others from within the other's perspective.Jzsj (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't aware of any particular (out-of-the-ordinary for Catholics) anti-abortion stance, but I've long been aware of the criticism of her for taking money from dodgy - to say the least - sources, her apparent attitude that suffering was good for the soul (and therefore don't administer pain meds or cure curable diseases), appalling medical practices (re-use of needles, for example), and so on. Hitchens is criticising her anti-contraception stance. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

The criticism section provides a Western-centric bias that should be pointed out and balanced. For instance, critics have often disparaged the lack of pain care in Mother Teresa's facilities. However, this "oversight" from the Western perspective seems to have been a widespread medical practice in India at the time, due to tight governmental restrictions and popular attitudes about morphine addiction. For these reasons, the Western norms of proper pallative care are inappropriate grounds for critique of Mother Teresa's practices, as a number of medical practitioners have pointed out in the past. See Jeffery, D, O'Neill J, and G Burn. "Mother Teresa's care for the dying" The Lancet. 344(8929):1098.

Tehub (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Naming

I see great inconsistency in her naming in this article, e.g. "Saint Mother Teresa" vs "Saint Teresa" vs "Mother Saint Teresa". The first one makes sense, but is somewhat redundant; the second is her official canon name; and the third, although it is "correct" because "saint always precedes first name" (citation needed), does not make sense.

Because I cannot find evidence or a citation that "Mother Saint Teresa" is the proper name when referring to Mother Teresa as a saint, I will revert this in good faith. I ask you to not change it to "Mother Saint Teresa" unless you can refer to at least three sources that name her as such. Longbyte1 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that her official ecclesiastical name is Saint Teresa of Calcutta, which is a common form of disambiguation when there are multiple saints with the same first name, and that calling her Mother is simply common usage, like John Paul the Great, whose official name is Saint John Paul II. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Mother Teresa

All English sources point to the Albanian descent of Mother Teresa. At the same time, Romanian and Aromanian sources indicate that Mother Teresa was of mixed background. On her father side of the family, she was actually of Aromanian descent, while on her mother side she was Albanian... Aromanians are an ancient Christian population living all throughout the Balkans since time immemorial, and speak a romance language, very similar to Romanian. Many scholars classify the language as an old dialect of Romanian, but this is still debatable. At any rate, I thought of reestablishing a bit of the truth here as it relates to the roots of our Saint Mother Teresa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerg16 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:OR and WP:Fringe? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see below a couple of sources... unfortunately, they are all in Romanian... try a quick google translate and you may get the jest of it. The first source is "Romania Libera" newspaper, which is a mainstream, well established daily newspaper that circulates nationally. Same with the second source, "Libertatea". The 3rd source is a well established news agency also out of Romania. Finally, Mother Teresa's last name by birth "Boiagiu" is a typical Aromanian name... in fact, I have acquaintances with that last name in my home town of Constanta, Romania, where a large Aromanian population now lives. Evidently, the Albanian phonetics are different than Aromanian, but the pronunciation of the name is identical in the two languages.

http://www.romanialibera.ro/aldine/history/a-fost-maica-tereza-aromanca--213080

http://www.agerpres.ro/flux-documentare/2015/08/26/documentar-maica-tereza-un-creion-in-mainile-lui-dumnezeu-105-ani-de-la-nastere--07-30-53

http://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/reportaj/maica-tereza-avea-tata-roman-449566 Smerg16 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please offer us some academic work? Is there any scholar who supports what those Romanian unreliable and unscientific magazines say? In such cases, some magazines or newspapers do not help, only scholarship books do. You can ask other editors if you don't believe me. All the best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The last time I checked - about four years ago - few English-language academic sources addressed her origin in great detail. They typicaly refer to her as Albanian. A few non-academic sources go into greater detail. MT herself self-identified as Albanian by birth.

Over the years this talk page has hosted a fair amount of discussion on her ethnicity; it's helpful to review the archives for details. Adding a brief comment about Aromanian roots is certainly possible as long as it comes from high-quality reliable sources. I agree with Ktrimi991's comment that newspapers and magazines won't work in this case. find a well-researched biographical source and then let's discuss. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! As we know the world is imperfect and there will always be a "reliable" source written from an "impartial" person, proposing alternative theories. Coming to the point: She is Albanian, full stop. She has publicly accepted it, her family is still alive and they all accept being Albanians. No theory or research replaces direct and abundant evidence.

P.s.: You should watch a comedy titled "The big fat Greek wedding", emphasizing how every thing in the world is Greek. Sadly, Wikipedia is not too distant from such type of theories lacking substantial evidences (i.e. "here is a source backing my opinion"). 79.106.109.181 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, will do... I agree that the only reliable source is a scholarly research.. I only looked it up at a high-level, more like scratching the surface on the subject. And I have to agree with the comment above... interestingly, there seems to be very little research or attention paid to her background or ethnicity... surprisingly so, actually. But, as always, truth and reality will prevail, all supported by reliable evidence.. more to comeSmerg16 (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Money

I just read that she received millions and didn't help the sick. If she did receive it where is it now? Carol Openshaw--71.45.137.228 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a big "if". If there are no reliable sources attesting to any malfeasance, then there is no cause for alarm that the money is really missing. Dr. K. 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)