Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

The intro mentions criticism, yet there is no section expanding on this?

If there was criticism and reliable sources to cite, and it is deemed significant to mention in the article's intro, then there should be a section expanding on the criticism.

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.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The possibility of MT being a "potential future catholic saint" doesn't require a criticism section, and it's mere speculation to say that many people may be researching this aspect. Why would that be the case in this article to any greater or lesser extent than with others? WP: Criticism sections and WP:Criticism sections and articles may be guidelines/essays, but they are still informative on the issue. Wikipedia considers criticism sections an "aberration", and warranted in certain limited, and usually temporary, situations. Those don't exist here. --anietor (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Why is a criticism section more noteworthy of someone who has won a Nobel Peace Prize, is a world famous humanitarian, and yes, a potential future saint? It's self-evident. All of those by their very definitions represent paragons of propriety. Criticism of Michael Bay having too many explosions in his movie is a side-note, criticism of someone like MT is a potential research topic. And yes, research topic, not speculation, as I specifically went to the article in order to research this and found it extremely unwieldy and counter-intuitive to do so.

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.

And it's obvious that the certain limited situations do in some extent "exist here" because I'm not the only one who has come to the discussion page asking why the criticism subject matter isn't easily accessible and the article numerous times in the past has had neutrality disputes. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, have you ever given thought to what those limited sections entail (which also explains why people would research criticism of MT more than other articles)? It's if the criticism can be seen as sufficiently notable in its own right, which frankly with the amount of sources and varied forms of criticism MT received, one could certainly make a compelling case for.

Not to mention your citing of guidelines explicitly to suit your own needs and ignoring the rest.

You: "Wikipedia considers criticism sections an "aberration" Yet, you completely ignore the other point of Wikipedia:Criticism sections and articles that criticism sections could be:

1)a fundamentally useful editorial convention on Wikipedia, based on the WP:NPOV, WP:SS, and WP:SPLIT policies.

So no, they're not immediately an "abberration"24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you go through the archive, you'll find that this has been discussed before. The consensus reached in those prior discussions by a range of editors including ones with varying views of MT and her organisation was that it is better to mix the critical material in with the section. So, the global assessment section includes mention of both oposition to her in India and of Western critics; that on the Missionaries of Charity includes criticism of conditions in some of their establishments etc. I feel that this is more effective in reporting the coverage of MT's life and work in reliable sources than keeping all of the negative stuff for just one section and thus adheres better to NPOV than the alternative does.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

←I concur with Anietor and Peter. The topic of criticim sections has been debated in detail both for this article and for many, many other articles including FA-class material like Barak Obama. Please see the FAQ section at the top of this article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of all the money and scandals she has been involved in TruthShallStand (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Birth city is Skopje

I don't understand why you just don't put the name Skopje as birth city. Noone has heard of the albanian name for skopje, nor is there a reason to put it in there, except to strike your albanian egos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.94.212.5 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Albanian name for the city is Shkupi. The version on the page is the Turkish which in turn reflects the English name for the city at the time she was born, because she was born in the Ottoman Empire. Even during the following years (from 1913 and during the interwar period), the English name for the city was Skoplje becuase that was its name in the Kingdom of Serbia, then of Yugoslavia. So Albanian interest is not reflected anywhere on the article. Evlekis (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hospice

The word "hospice" is misleading here. According to many sources, including the article hospice, a hospice is a place for palliative care; modern medicine to relieve the symptoms of the dying, to make them comfortable, usually through the use of heavy doses of powerful pain-killers; and also to cater to their emotional needs, mostly bringing in their loved ones and friends and allowing the dying to be listened to and heard. Specifically, the word is generally understood to be an institution in the "hospice movement" the way Cicely Saunders (who deserves the reputation that MT has) envisioned it and the way we English-speakers have come to know and understand it.

Mother Teresa's Homes for the Dying are not "hospices" because they do not try to distinguish the curable from the incurable, do not use strong pain killers, routinely keep loved ones away, and do not listen to the dying words. They don't do this because doing so will interfere with the glorious suffering, and suffering is good because it causes people to turn to Jesus and convert. This is not just in the critical sources in the references, but the words of MT herself.

The differences in these two types of care for the dying are stark, unmistakable, and unbridgeable. While I know which I prefer, you need not agree with me about that to agree that "hospices" does not describe her institutions. For one thing, MT, to her credit, didn't call them that; her words are "Homes for The Dying Destitute". If you dare to describe them, do so as places where the power of suffering is exploited in the hope that the victims will convert so they will submit to the will of God and enter heaven after they die. Chrisrus (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hospice and palliative care are two distinct concepts, although there is certainly some overlap. Your description of hospice care above, Chrisrus, in incomplete, and in a significant way. You mention the medicinal component, but omit the spiritual, which even Wikipedia's hospice article highlights in the first paragraph. Hospice care is a rather broad discipline, and various hospice centers will have different balances between physical, medical, emotion, and spiritual care. MT's facilities certainly placed a great deal of weight on spiritual care. Whether particular editors agree with the balance, or with any other specific details of the care provided, does not really matter for purposes of a NPOV article. As an aside, your suggestion that we refer to the facilities as "places where the power of suffering is exploited in the hope that the victims will convert so they will submit to the will of God and enter heaven after they die" would be an example of what would NOT make a NPOV article (I'll just assume you were going for sarcasm, since it's such a ridiculous suggestion otherwise) I do think your point about MT not naming her centers "hospices" is interesting. However, just because it wasn't called a hospice doesn't mean it wasn't providing care that would fall within a broad definition of hospice services. --anietor (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You tell me “Hospice and palliative care are two distinct concepts”. I agree, and am sorry if I didn’t seem to understand the difference in what I wrote above. I was trying to say that one of the functions of hospice is to provide palliative care, which is alleviating symptoms, as opposed to curative care.

You say my description of hospice care is incomplete in a significant way, focusing only on medical (palliative) care to the exclusion of all else. I thought I clearly said that the counterpart of palliative care is to care for the person’s emotional, psychological needs. No, I didn’t mention the person‘s “spiritual” needs, but as you may know, many, if not most, hospice cases take into account the person’s religious beliefs and help make arrangements for such things as priests visiting the person and performing religious ceremonies. This is done because that is what the person/families want and feel they need. I thought that this kind of “spiritual needs” would be covered when I referred to the patient’s “emotional needs”, but you are correct, I did not make this clear until now, though I did refer people to the articles hospice, and Cicely Saunders, which clarify this. (I should also have pointed any reader to Hospice care in the United States, which is a good article, and especially List of hospice programs, which, pardon while I wax emphatic, INCLUDES NO MOTHER TERESA INSTITUION!!!) Nevertheless, I take your point, I did not mention the person’s “spiritual needs” and how hospice does very much care about those needs.

Note that this is very different from MT’s concept of a person’s “spiritual needs”, which, as Mother Teresa would be quick to tell you, are that you should accept Christianity so that when you die you will get to go to heaven, which goes a very long way toward not only explaining her approach and but also distinguishing it for the hospice approach.

You say whether we agree with MT’s approach or not does not matter, what matters is that we have a NPOV article. You perhaps, would prefer the Sisters “spiritual care” to something which actually makes the list of true hospice organizations, but you would never let that fact affect the way the article is written. All that matters is that we use words which describe what her homes for the dying accurately. Therefore, you should agree with me that we call them homes for the dying and remove the word “hospice”, on the grounds that MT’s Homes for The Dying are JUST NOT hospice programs, but another approach to "care" for the dying.

No, I probably am not the best person to describe, in the article, the MT approach to “care” for the dying on the grounds that I am biased 100% pro hospice, hands down, no contest. In fact, despite my earlier statement that you might prefer the MT approach, I honestly don’t think that anyone, not even MT herself, wants to go that way, given the choice. That is precisely why it would be so difficult to describe in detail with just the cold hard knowable, citable facts on wikipedia: doing so would sound crazy point-of-view to the vast majority of people, because of the overwhelming power of her reputation stands in opposition to NPOV sources like The Lancet. So the wording of my description, as you correctly suspected, were not intended for the article.

Notice, however, that I said “not quite”. No where in this article does it actually describe her approach or the Homes for the Dying in any detail, other than using the word “hospice”, so we can probably avoid that issue. But if you were to describe them, what I said would be a fair summary of what a NPOV description of them would be.

At this point I offer “Homes for the Dying” for such a cursory, undetailed, factual mention of these places to replace the word "hospice". Chrisrus (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how MT's facilities don't qualify as hospices. You explain how it's not the type of hospice that you would want for yourself, but your personal preferences are of no relevance here. As for your argument that Wikipedia's List of hospice programs doesn't list any MT facilities... have you seen the list? It states quite clearly that it is an incomplete list, and unless there are really only 6 hospices in the United States and Canada and 1 in the entire country of India (and no others in all of Asia), I wouldn't rely on that for very much. You also suggest that "we call them Homes for the Dying and remove the word 'hospice'”. Have you read the article? They ARE called homes for the dying. In fact, the term appears at least 4 times throughout the article. --anietor (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You say I have not explained how MT’s facilities don’t qualify as hospices. They do not qualify as hospices because hospice refers to an institution that does certain things for the dying, such as applying good palliative care and caring for the person’s comfort, surroundings, and emotional needs. Mother Teresa’s approach, according to such sources as The Lancet, ashes strong painkillers and does not use trained nurses or proper medical care. They often keep family members and loved ones away. This is in direct contrast to the description of the “hospice” in the other Wikipedia articles and references. Read the articles I have linked to, and their references. They teach us that “hospice” means a certain thing, a part of something called “The Hospice Movement” in medical care, which was first described and put into practice by Cicely Saunders and has since spread throughout the world. Our readers are likely to be familiar with it and know what it’s about. They will think that this is what MT does if we use that word.

But Hospice has nothing in common with MT’s approach, other than both being approaches to caring for the dying. Mother Teresa never did hospice because she disagreed and preferred a pro-suffering approach. It‘s like the opposite of hospice. It’s just not true that her homes for the dying destitute were hospices. They weren’t hospices. Therefore, we cannot call her institutions or activities “hospice”.

It is my sincere hope that you no longer believe that I have not explained why MT’s facilities don’t qualify as hospices.Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right that List of hospice programs does say “This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.” Perhaps this is just an oversight. Strange oversight, though, don’t you think? MT’s homes for the dying are so much more famous than any of those institutions. Why do you think they have never been added? I myself would never add it because people use that list to find a hospice that practices hospice instead of an institution which is not a hospice because it does not believe in strong painkillers, having professionally trained nurses, and so on. I take it you disagree, and wonder why you don’t therefore add them to it, but I recommend you don’t as you might confuse a person that needs and wants hospice, and so adding an MT institution to that list would be wrong.

Finally, if you would just re-read what I said about my bias and your bias, which might be the opposite of mine. I was trying to say that regardless of our personal points of view, we agree that we have to state the facts, and therefore we could both agree not to call her institutions "hospice". Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I am sorry that I haven’t been as clear as I should have been as to exactly what I am proposing. I am referring to this quote from the article:

“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”.

My purpose in creating this section was to ask consensus to change this to read:

“…her “Homes for the Dying” and concerns…”

My hope is that this will be quickly agreed. Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is unlikely to be quickly agreed to. Among other things, your proposal is not appropriate because:

1) "Homes for the Dying" is not a recognized category/type of organization (like hospice, clinic, hospital, etc). So it is incorrect to present it as an "either or" situation;

2) The articles you link to are wikipedia articles. They don't qualify as legitimate sources;

3) The "List of hospice programs" you keep touting is an incomplete list. Putting aside the fact that lists are discouraged, it's a ridiculously incomplete list (I assure you there are more than 6 hospices in North America);

4) Your personal opinion that MT's hospices didn't have an appropriate balance of spiritual, medical, emotional services is not relevant;

5)Your assumption that readers "are likely to be familiar with [the concept of The Hospice Movement] and know what it’s about. They will think that this is what MT does if we use that word" is your personal opinion, OR, and unsupported;

6) Your view that MT had a "pro-suffering" approach to care is also OR, and a minority opinion, even if also held by other fringe detractors;

7)Your opinion that I have a specific bias, "but we could both agree not to call her institutions "'hospice'" is wrong...I assure you;

8) Even Wikipedia's article of hospice, which you refer to, defines it as care that focuses on the physical, emotional, spiritual or social symptoms of terminally ill patients. MT's facilities fall into that broad definition, even if the balance is not one that some editors approve of.

--anietor (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the bickering above, but I can "quickly agree" that we must use whatever the sources (in this case either "several medical journals" or the New Statesman article that is used as ref) use. If they don't use "hospices", I don't see why we should, and if they do, "hospices" is obviously fine and there's no reason to debate. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree...as with most things, it comes down to reliable sources. To that end, MT's facilities are described as hospices by, among others, The Nobel Foundation, the International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care, Hospital-Data.com, New World Encyclopedia (although this may be just a copy of Wikipedia's article), AIDS Education and Global Information System, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and several of her facilities self-identify as hospices, such as Mother Teresa Hospice in Pennsylvania, Mother Teresa Hospice in Las Vegas, Nevada, and others. There is more than sufficient support for describing MT's facilities as hospices. --anietor (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if several sources refer to the facilities as hospices. Are there reliable sources which specifically state that MT's facilities weren't hospices? Majoreditor (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lancet article (by Robin Fox) ends with "disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer." That would be the only source, I'd guess. (BTW, I'm now wondering if the "several medical journals" in the article is actually an exaggeration: AFAICT, there's only the article in the Lancet and the book review of Hitchens's book in the BMJ.) Shreevatsa (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what matters is this: Are the Homes for the Dying hospices or not? People can call themselves or call others whatever they want to; if something does not fit the commonly accepted definition, then it is not defined by that word.

Here is the definition from the first entry of the search I did just now at dictionary.com:

a. a health-care facility for the terminally ill that emphasizes pain control and emotional support for the patient and family, typically refraining from taking extraordinary measures to prolong life. b. a similar program of care and support for the terminally ill at home.

By this definition, they are not hospices. According to the sources, the sisters receive no medical training! Is this a health care facility? People understand health care worker to be implied in “health care facility“/"hospice". People who read this article and see MT’s homes for the dying called “hospices” and they might think the sisters are nurses or something, you know, like some nuns are. So it’s misleading to the reader. These nuns are the kind that are trained to just to pray with you, not to dress a wound.

Second, a hospice, by definition, emphasizes pain control. Yet Mother Teresa didn't. Few people know that she didn’t allow powerful analgesics, but it‘s right there is the sources. See the Lancet, but also “On Suffering And Death” in her book "No Greater Love", and elsewhere, her thoughts on the subject of suffering are no secret! How much does a person have to write and speak about the upside to suffering before she is understood? Her approach was not focused on pain management, as in the definition of "hospice".

Third, a hospice, by definition, offers emotional support to the families. At MT’s Home for the Dying, family members are not welcome, according to references. Which makes sense if what you’re trying to do is convert a Hindu before he dies; families have a way of getting in the way of that goal. This is not what a hospice is understood to do by modern English-speaking people! Everyone who knows what a hospice is knows that it’s a place that emphasizes the needs of both the patient and the family. It will be understood, if the word is not replaced, that she emphasized helping the families. Which is misleading.

It's important that you understand my point. My point is not that there isn’t some obscure or medieval definition of “hospice” that her homes for the dying couldn’t possibly fit. My point is the effect on the reader of this article. As I’ve been saying from the beginning, the use of the word “hospice” in this context, the way the article is written, is misleading; it’s confusing; it gives the wrong impression. People are likely to read it as written and walk away with the mistaken impression that Mother Teresa was doing at least basically the same thing that “hospice work” implies all over the modern English-speaking world. Now, I know you don‘t want us to do that. You don’t want to write a misleading sentence! So, c'mon, lemmie change it to the synonym.

Note that I’m not even asking to define or describe her homes for the dying in the article. I’m only asking that you simply agree to replacing the word “hospice” with a synonym used several times elsewhere in the article, so it‘s not as if it were unprecedented. So why not just call them what they’ve always been called, for Pete's sake, “homes for the dying”? It’s simple, direct, broad enough to cover completely what they are, focused enough on exactly what they actually are. It’s not even going to divert the reader of this article in the least from getting the full impact of her awesome reputation so resonant in this article!

And what’s more: It’s what she herself called them! I’d’ve thought that some of you would support me based on that fact alone; to respect her wishes as to what they be called. Mother Teresa herself would not object to what I’m proposing!

Finally, the hyperlink to hospice in the sentence describes the Cicely Saunders definition, which is not the definition used here, so either that hyperlink would have to be removed or that article would have to be re-written or some other solution would have to be found, like maybe a disambiguation page or whatever, and all of that just do you won’t have to use a perfectly good synonym. Be reasonable! This is a small thing to ask. Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So now you're referring to the terms as synonyms? If they are synonyms, then it's unclear how one is acceptable and the other so objectionable. But more importantly, the bottom line is that they are hospices. There are several solid sources that say as much. Your comments about "these nuns" not being trained to do anything but pray, your misunderstanding of MT's views on pain, your incorrect assumption that readers will be confused into thinking that the nuns are all nurses or that use of the term hospice will imply that everyone working there is a highly trained, licensed health care professional, are all your person opinion and unsupported. As pointed out above, the term "home for the dying" is used throughout the article. There is nothing confusing about the current, balanced use of that phrase and the word hospice. The facilities are both, and the article details how some people have criticized certain aspects of the facilities for various hygienic, medical, financial or other aspects. I don't want to incorrectly attribute any particular prejudices to you, but perhaps you are too focused on what would constitute an acceptable hospice today, in a developed country? Remember the environment in which MT began these facilities; 1950s, in the slums of Calcutta. I'm pretty sure that if you transported Kalighat Home for the Dying in 1952 and dropped it in the middle of 2009 London, New York or Tokyo, it would be shut down within a day. Let's keep a little perspective. Even with the difference in quality of care and balance of medical-spiritual-emotional care involved, MT's facilities still fit squarely within the definition of hospice. Clearly not what some people want for themselves, but within the definition according to the broad definition of what a hospice is, and recognized as such by the medical and hospice-care community. --anietor (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, choosing one synonym over another often can make a big difference, as you will notice if you think about it for a moment. “Rock” and “stone” are synonyms, but that doesn’t mean that there is never any important difference between them. To use a famous example, calling something “a rock wall” will cause someone to imagine a natural formation, but “stone wall” causes English speakers to imagine something made of stones by people. Another example I’ve heard is “a big football fan” vs. “a large football fan”.

There are connotative differences, too, as in calling someone a “psychiatrist” or a “head shrinker“, “a tribal person” or “a savage“, or “thrifty” vs. “stingy“. (or “anti-rationalist” vs. “mystic“). The point is that there are few true synonyms in all contexts, there is almost always some difference to be found in some context, and that difference can be very important, and as such cannot be brushed aside as universally unimportant. As proof, notice how you objected when I changed the synonym “anti-rationalist” to “mystic”, neither of which were used in the article we were talking about at that time.

Second, in this case, the relationship between “hospice” and “home for the dying” might be sometimes that of synonyms, but in other cases, the relationship is better described as “hyponym/hypernym”, meaning that a hospice, in most modern English contexts, is a particular type of home for the dying. To choose a rhetorical example, no one would claim that a big bare room where people are kept while they die a "hospice", even if they are given something which could be called "care" like shoving a tray under the door with a shout of "good luck", although they might call it a "home for the dying." So not every imaginable "home for the dying" is a hospice. Specifically, a hospice is a modern home for the dying, part of the hospice movement, a type of health care facility with a focus on medical pain care management and concern for the family as well as the patient, and other characteristics understood by modern English-speaking people to be implicit in the term “hospice”. Therefore, there is a danger of confusion using the word “hospice” to refer to her homes for the dying.

You are right to think that I am focused on what constitutes a hospice in the modern English speaking world, and what institutions would not rise to the level of a hospice in the modern sense of the term as it is used throughout the English-speaking world. Note, however, that I am not overly focused on whether they were good hospices or bad hospices. You could have a hospice where the workers weren’t doing a very good job of “hospicing”, if you will; where they get the medicines wrong, or talk to the families in an inappropriate way, or are incompetent or indifferent or blind drunk, or callus, or corrupt. You could have a bad hospice that is still a hospice. All you have to be to be a hospice in the commonly understood sense is an institution focused on giving certain types of medical care and counseling and such, even if they do it all wrong. I’m not accusing the Kalighat Home for the Dying of being a bad hospice. I’m saying that it isn’t even trying to be a hospice in the modern commonly understood sense, it is a place where the fact that people are suffering can be used to get them to accept Jesus and be saved. That’s what Mother Teresa said they are for. Yes, I know that is not what most of her admirers think they are, or what all her volunteers and such probably think they would be doing when they first get there.

So yes, the commonly held belief is that they were hospices, but when inspected by journalists and professionals it was reported that this was not what they were doing. And perhaps most importantly, Mother Teresa, to her credit, doesn’t claim that they are doing those things in these references. She says “I am not a Social worker, I’m a Christian”. What do you think she meant by that? She meant that she is all about conversion and baptism and getting people into heaven, not helping them just to help them suffer less here on Earth, as hospices do. She might as well have said “I am not a nurse; I’m a Missionary” or “I’m not a hospice worker; I’m not a Doctor, I’m not Cicely Saunders, I’m a soul-saver, I'm Mother Teresa.” That is not my synthesis, it’s clearly what she meant in context, as she was being asked to improve her standards of care and went on to talk about heaven and Jesus.

While you are speculating, It’s interesting that you say “I'm pretty sure that if you transported Kalighat Home for the Dying in 1952 and dropped it in the middle of 2009 London, New York or Tokyo, it would be shut down within a day.” Yet this, essentially, has been done! We in New York have one of her institutions that, by all reports, is run in the same way. Yet they are not shut down for some reason. Why do you think that is? My guess is that it has something to do with the enormous power of Mother Teresa’s saintly reputation. The medical community and the hospice community, the authorities, the police, everyone that might shut it down, these people I think have very pressing duties each day and are probably nice people who wouldn’t want to listen to anyone say bad things about Mother Teresa any more than your average person does; they just assume that she must be doing a good job and don’t bother checking. Or if they do know, others around them tell them not to shut it down, because this is Mother Teresa. So I would agree with you about what would happen if such a place were opened in New York IF it were done by anyone other than Mother Teresa.

So you are not right to say that the Hospice Community and the Medical community in general probably accept that what is done at the homes for the dying is hospice. But that’s only true of those parts of the those communities not tasked with actually inspecting and finding out what really goes on there with an objective eye. When they do, if the Lancet and British Medical Journal are representative, they become among the minority that knows that what most people believe is knowably false: that these are only “hospices” in the medieval, not modern, sense, or a sense which accepts any home for the dying as a hospice and doesn‘t assume that they are medical facilities and other assumptions inherent in the widespread modern understanding of “hospice“. Chrisrus (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so since you're acknowledging that "the Hospice Community and the Medical community in general probably accept that what is done at the homes for the dying is hospice", that pretty much ends this discussion. --anietor (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was taking about the ones who don't know. Most don't know anything about it, except probably being very aware of her reputation. Who cares what they think? Are you saying that we should give weight to the opinions of those who don't know anything about it? Or those of people who are in a postion to know, such as Mother Teresa or The Lancet? Chrisrus (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A source is reliable or not reliable. You seem to start with a faulty premise, Chrisrus...sources, experts, researchers, etc. who call the facilities "hospices" do so because they are wrong and disagree with people who, in your opinion, "know better". Conversely, only sources that are critical of MT should be relied on because they are someone "right" and, in your words, "in a position to know". This is what we call POV. You have every right to take sides and believe what you want. However, you are still in the minority. Fringe opinions may, under certain circumstances, have a place in an article (although more often than not they tend to be more prominent than warranted, but that is my personal opinion and I admit as much). It's bad enough when editors take a position that NPOV means an article should somehow be 50% positive and 50% critical, regardless of any other objective factors. But here, you are actually trying to take a fringe opinion and have it replace well-sourced, reliably cited, consensus-built material. Your suggestions belong on a blog, not in an encyclopedic article. This issue has already taken up more space in here than warranted, so I'll try and refrain from further comment unless you provide more than your personal opinion to support your "proposal". --anietor (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the position is fringe or not. Rather, we should let reliable sources speak for themselves. The source materials bear out several themes:

1. Many sources refer to the facilities as hospices.
2. Some of the facilities are also referred to as Homes for the Dying by reliable sources.
3. Few - if any - reliable sources even hint at the suggestion that the term "hospice" is inappropriately used to describe the facilities.
4. However, some sources clearly suggest that while the facilities are hospices that they weren't well-run and served religious ends to the detriment of the patient's needs.
5. Other sources take exception to these challenges, noting that the facilities provided much-needed services.

Since many reliable sources explicitly refer to the facilities as hospices, and very few sources challenge that nomenclature, I'm inclined to agree with Anietor. Some sources praise MT's hospices, other criticize them. But very, very few suggest that they fail to qualify as hospices. Majoreditor (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources do refer to the facilities as “hospices“, you are right, we could continue calling them that. However, sources also refer to the facilities as “homes for the dying”. So we could call them that, too, so we have a choice to call them that if we feel it would improve the article. Which would most serve the readers?

There are factors which favor our choosing “homes for the dying” over "hospices". One reason lies in the fact that is the name Mother Teresa preferred. We might be safe to assume that she thought that name described them best, or she probably would have called them "hospices".

Another factor to consider is, as the Lancet points out, as can be seen from sources which actually describe the facilities first hand (see | for example), and as described by Mother Teresa in her own writings, there are important differences between the Mother Teresa approach and the common understanding likely to be assumed by readers of what "hospice" means.

People all over the English speaking world know a modern meaning of the word “hospice” which comes with it understandings about what a hospice is. These are well summarized in dictionaries, medical encyclopedias, and the Wiki article to which the word in question hyperlinks. Therefore, use of this term in the article entails the risk of misleading the reader. It is likely that readers will read the word "hospice" and understand that the institutions are health care facilities with trained health care workers; that they focus on pain and discomfort management; that they emphasize family counseling, and so on. According to Mother Teresa herself and other sources which describe these facilities first hand, this definition does not describe the facilities very well at all.

Therefore, another good reason to prefer "home for the dying" over "hospice" is that it presents the knowable facts with less danger of inaccuracy and therefore improves the article.

I hope I have made a good, coherent case in favor of preferring “homes for the dying” over “hospice”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the article uses both terms, along with details of the facilities (praise and criticism), so there's no risk of confusion, there's no need to choose, and it serves the readers to use both. And since the sources confirm that MT's facilities are hospices, there is no danger of inaccuracy. In fact, to remove it would lead to inaccuracy. You have not made a compelling case for your proposal, and there is no consensus to adopt it. --anietor (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal

That this passage...

“Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices …”

...be edited in such a way as to clarify this fact:

The criticism being referred to contrasts Mother Teresa's homes for the dying with hospices.</ref>

It is my hope that this proposal will be agreed in the abstract first, so that we can then move on to how it will be done. Chrisrus (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not say that, so neither should the article. It is not our job to further analyze sources, or explain WHY, in some editors' opinions, a critic said something. The source says what it says and speaks for itself. In addition, this MT article states "medical journals". So it would be inappropriate to not only try and analyze the collective criticism, but to do so based on one source, that doesn't even say what you argue it says. You yourself made the distinction earlier between "hospice" and "the hospice movement", and now you're conflating them. This is really going nowhere. You have made it clear that you personally do not believe that MT's facilities fall into your own definition of what a hospice should be. But the multiple sources make it pretty clear that the medical, hospice, media communities classify them as hospices. Please stop trying to change the article to comply with your POV and OR. --anietor (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Third Proposal

You say “The sources do not say that”, and by “say that” you seem to be mean “contrast her approach with hospices.”

You seem to be saying that, yes, The Lancet does distinguish her approach from that of the Hospice moment, but that is not the same as distinguishing them from hospices.

Very well, point well taken. I, therefore, retract both that proposal along with my first one and substitute instead this one:

That this passage...

“Medical journals also criticised the standard of medical care in her hospices …”

...be edited in such a way as to clarify this fact:

The criticism being referred to contrasts Mother Teresa's approach with that of the hospice movement in modern medicine, which is implied in the word "hospice".</ref>

Please note that, both in common usage and as a technical term, the word "hospice" refers to an institution of that movement in health care, and certain things that it implies. Therefore, the passage in my proposal might be misunderstood as saying not that her approach was distinct from the hospice movement, but rather a substandard part of it.

It is my hope that this change will make the proposal acceptable to all. Chrisrus (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the same problem... you want to insert an explanation/analysis of the criticism. Don't you agree that doing so is not NPOV? If there is relevant, sourced criticism, its inclusion in the article is appropriate. It doesn't need to be further analyzed. And are you saying that all of the medical journals refer to "the hospice movement in modern science"? Your proposal to say "the criticism being referred to" would imply that all of the medical journals that criticized MT's facilities did it on this specific basis. That's a pretty broad stroke.

I also find it inappropriate to take an even further leap by claiming that MT's facilities were seen as "a substandard part of [the hospice movement]". That is not the case at all. People that would want a greater emphasis placed on medical care and less on the spiritual criticize MT's facilities. Is that any more valid than if certain people of faith looked at some secular institutions and criticized them for not focusing more on the spiritual? No. Both groups would have every right to express their criticisms. In our case, MT's facilities are subject to valid criticism for their particular balance of the medical-emotional-spiritual components of their hospice work. If there were an article on "Hospice X", run by a board of atheists that wanted to provide care for people that were not as concerned with religious/faith-based approaches, it would certainly be appropriate to include criticism by experts who thought that spiritual care should always play some role in hospice care. That wouldn't make Hospice X "substandard" necessarily. Just, perhaps, outside the mainstream, with a particular mission. Your attempt to imply that criticism of MT's facilities makes them "substandard" is your POV. --anietor (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage in question states that the journals criticized the care at her hospices as sub-standard in terms of medical care. You have not objected to it as it stands, so I assume you don't disagree that this is what the journals do. Yet The Lancet article, at least, distinguishes her institutions from those of the hospice movement and places them in opposition to it, as Shreevatsa quoted in his post, above.

All I’m asking is that we clearly reflect this fact: The Lancet contrasts her institutions from those within the hospice movement. As written, it could be understood to say that The Lancet accepted them as within the hospice movement, while criticizing their standards. But it does not accept them as within the hospice movement.

I am considering withdrawing this third proposal as well, you might be happy to know, if you would agree to making this clear in the details of The Lancet criticism, further below in the article. That way, even though a reader might get the impression that The Lancet accepted them as hospices (according to the definition you will find in a medical textbook or in common understanding), if that reader just reads the intro. But a more determined reader who goes on to read the details of the criticism later on in the article, he or she will understand that The Lancet treats MT's institutions as separate from the hospice movement; as homes for the dying quite outside what the reader might understand a hospice to be. Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep referring to how the reader will misunderstand. What are you basing that on? There is no indication that anyone would be confused by the article as written. The article incorporates the criticism and cites the sources. If a reader needs such specific clarification as you want to offer (i.e. The Lancet's distinction between a hospice and the hospice movement), then the reader has access to the citation, and is free to look it up. That's one of the reasons for citations...to allow a reader to delve further into details or minutiae that doesn't go in the substantive article. There is no need to "clarify". The article as written is not misleading. A reader who wants to know the full breadth of The Lancet's criticism (or any other source) is free to go directly to the source and read it in its entirety. This is an article about MT, not an article about The Lancet's Detailed Criticisms of MT.

Your proposal, which began as an attempt to remove the word "hospice" from the article, has garnered limited comments, and no editors have expressed any support for your proposal, through the third manifestation. I'm pleased you are considering withdrawing the third proposal, but we really don't need a fourth version. --anietor (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from the beginning I've made that clear, I'm worried that people see the word "hospice" and assume this article to be saying that the word here means that which it usually means: a series of things quite different from MT's homes of the dying perhaps best summarized by "within the hospice movement". That's why I didn't want that word used before, but if that's refused then there might be another solution.

You want to know what I'm "basing that on". As I've been saying all along, my basis for this can be found just about anywhere the word "hospice" is defined, as for example in the definition I posted above, or in some place you could go look the word "hospice" up for yourself. There might be a few definitions for the word, but I'm not worried not worried about the fringe or archaic meanings, I'm talking about the one that I detailed above, about a place with trained medical staff, an emphasis on painkillers, the family counseling, the emotional needs I mentioned, etc., remember? You know, the Cicely Saunders-type thing that people are used to all over the English-speaking world and which you can find described in detail in a technical, medical dictionary, or briefly in any old dictionary. That is what the word "hospice" means to most people, and what it means to medical workers like doctors. But you insist that we call her homes for the dying "hospices", so I just want to clarify that The Lancet thinks MT's homes for the dying are different from the idea that most of us have about hospices, well outside what we in the English-speaking world normally expect hospices to be.

Articles summarize and contextualize the sources. The Lancet summarizes its article by saying that their experts found important differences between her homes for the dying and those within the hospice movement. We could go into detail about what exactly those are, but "Lancet contrasts her approach with the hospice movement" sums it up with no detail quite quickly and well. Apparently, Robin Fox and his editors thought so, as they themselves summarized it that way. So saying this IS summarizing it, not describing it in great detail. Chrisrus (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As it stands the word 'hospice' is used 8 times in the article to describe Teresa's homes for the dying. There has been some discussion about how various reputable references use the word 'hospice' and other reputable sources say that 'hospice' does not apply. Thus, Anietor is right that the usage of the word seems to express a particular POV. However, I think the point is really that the usage by references is irrelevant.

What is relevant is maintaining factual accuracy and neutrality. Chrisrus is correct that according to wikipedia's definition of a hospice Teresa's houses for the dying should not be termed hospices. Here is the quote "Hospice is a type of care and a philosophy of care which focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's symptoms." This means that to be a hospice the house must a) have patients that are terminally ill AND b) focus on palliation ("prevent and relieve suffering and to improve quality of life" from palliation page). While Teresa's homes fulfill the first part of definition they are ideologically opposed to the second part. From an objective standpoint they are simply not hospices.

As for neutrality, the term 'hospice' generally has a positive connotation, so when sources use it they are (likely unwittingly) giving her homes a positive bias. This is perfectly acceptable if they can be factually shown to be hospices. But again, it can be shown that the term hospice isn't exactly proper because Teresa's "Homes for the Dying" don't meet all of the necessary criteria; they are homes for the dying that focus on religious conversion and do not focus on alleviation of suffering. So using the terms is instituting a subtly positive POV by using a positive term that doesn't fit factually. If you don't want to discuss the differences between the philosophies of Saunders and Mother Teresa within the article, than at least expunge the term when relating it to the homes of the dying. The article won't lose anything and in my opinion will be the better for it. JaredAllred (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a hospice because it's what's on the tax forms. TruthShallStand (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Details of miracle controversy

Discussion of the alleged Besra miracle should include any relevant medical information. I've added New York Times-reported testimony from one doctor that the cancer never existed. If that's wrong it should be replaced with better information, but not simply excluded. Loxton (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agnesë vs. Anjezë

This article gives Mother Teresa's birth name as "Agnesë", but the Albanian-language article gives it as "Anjezë". Can anybody clear this up? Which form did she use herself, or is there conflicting evidence? Kenji Yamada (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Category

I accidentally came across Category:Bengali Nobel laureates and found Mother Teresa in it. I've removed the entry to that cat since she isn't Bengali, she lived in West Bengal (distinction). However, it's still in the higher level category of Indian Nobel laureates. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry about the undo. Chrisrus (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"her father fell ill after a political meeting which left Skopje out of Albania"

this seems alot like "great albania" propaganda material. Her poor father got sick after this bad political meeting which left (since cities are left out just like that) Skopje out of Albania (...), and eventually the poor man died because of this bad political decision to leave the capital of Republic of Macedonia out of Albania (...), dont you feel bad about this, the poor man, the fatehr of Mother Teresa died, DIED becouse today Skopje is not in the great Albania. There is the minor thing about indicating a citation or a quote from where this information came from, and while we are at this we should add that on the same political meeting besides Skopje, they have decided to leave out of Albania Washington DC too (we lack quotation of this also). Alex Makedon (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this post very persuasive. Chrisrus (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Besides being poorly sourced, the implication that there was a direct connection between the political meeting (more specifically the decision which "left Kopje out of Albania") and her father's death is rather tenuous (if not dubious). If there's a death certificate out there that has "shock brought on by political meeting" as the cause of death, then perhaps we can keep the language as is. Really, it's not a very encyclopedic entry, and may not even be relevant to this article. --anietor (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Some published reports indicate that he may have been poisoned. Not all sources agree upon his cause of death. Unfortunately the current text is mangled after as a result of well-meaning but unhelpful edits. We may want to look through the edit history to see if an earlier version is better written and better referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And this is where the information came from in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&action=historysubmit&diff=234816807&oldid=234816400 id' really like to see some evidence that Skopje had anything to do with the Albanian state before 1919.Alex Makedon (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a hack at the text in line with the points above. I also noticed some garbled text mentioning honorary Albanian citizenship and have pruned this as we already mentioned one award from there. Except for possibly India, her adopted homeland, I think we should only mention one award per country. I'm not convinced we need to mention the Australian award either. If national(ist)s of assorted countries keep on shoving in their homelands' own honouring of MT, things could get very ungainly. BTW, I've removed the smillie from the section header. When keeping one nationalism under control, we don't have to support point-making by another.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, the part about her father reads much better. I cut just a little more, including what appeared to be 1/2 sentence that perhaps Peter meant to cut with the rest of it. --anietor (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh I did mean to cut all of that. Not sure what happened,--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1989 not 1991

As I see in different places (e.g. http://www.socscistaff.bham.ac.uk/gezim.../Edited-excerpts-MT.pdf ) MT visited Albania in 1989, not in 1991 as asserted in the article. The visit was used by the communist authorities to show they were changing. --Hectoralos (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Street Work

I may just not be seeing it...but in the article is anything mentioned about her street work with the poor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rswimmerfreak94 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiritual life section is not sourced and is someone's interpretation of information that isn't presented

This portion of the article seems like the information presented is an interpretation of information rather than information itself. I would like to see some source that has quotes by her that conclusively state her continuing faith in the face of her doubts. The source used, an article on beliefnet.com, does not actually give any hard evidence to the claims being made. Debollweevil (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that Beliefnet.com isn't the best publisher. However, the article was writtem by the Associated Press, which isn't an unreliable source. I'd suggest that we find a more reliable publisher of the underlying article. Alternatively, we can find another reliable source. I'm not too familiar with the material in the Spiritual life section but I'm willing to look around at source material during the next feew weeks. Any suggestions on material, either pro or critical? Majoreditor (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Date

In the Early Life section - I believe the year should read 1937:

"She took her solemn vows on 14 May 11937" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bntlyb (talk • contribs) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the notice. Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens

Love the man but how credible would I really stake him? Not enough to take an article written by him as the only ref for believing the RC Church to have asked for his criticisms during MT's beatification process! Another source would be welcomed plz :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.152.70 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

religious beliefs

I don't think there is enough evidence to say that she is a closet atheist as the article note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.235.131 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello? What?

Why does it not state even once that Mother Teresa came out as an atheist? Do you wikipedians not want to accept that fact or something? She wrote about it herself it is no question it must be stated in this article!

Read Mother_Teresa#Spiritual_life.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because, as Peter Cohen's reference points out, she wasn't and therefore couldn't "come out." She wrote of her "dark night of the soul" experience. This is not at all uncommon in canonized mystics, one being Saint John of the Cross, writer of the book "Dark Night of the Soul." Caisson 06 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism on the criticisers that criticise the critics (who're critical of the criticising)

Under "Reception in the rest of the world", after the description of the criticism by Hitchens and Chatterjee, I've removed the sentence "Both Chatterjee and Hitchens have themselves been subject to criticism for their stance". While obviously both true and stating the obvious, it was unsubstantiated. The main issue however is that this easily leads to: "and those that criticised Hitchens and Chatterjee were in return criticised"... and so on and so forth (I see a Mandelbrot curve coming up!). This information can instead be substantiated and entered into the articles on Hitchens and Chatterjee. Wurdnurd (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anti-poverty advocates

Should this article really be in Category:Anti-poverty advocates? Even if you disagree with her critics' conclusions, isn't it well acknowledged that she felt that poverty was beneficial to those experiencing it? She acted to provide shelter and care to those in poverty, but did she really do any work to alleviate poverty? Powers ^T 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

mother teresa

mother teresas sari only cost 1 dollar!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.117.98 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, but me being her great grand daughter, it costed her 10000 rupees. before she became a nun, she cannoodelled with a pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.176.174 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

reference #89 debate over sainthood is incorrect

It references an article on the new cardinals appointed by JPII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.196.62 (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Agnesë but Anjezë

In Albania wiki for mother Teresa is write Anjezë. http://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%ABn%C3%AB_Tereza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvi Hyka (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is actually true. However per source we have Agnes, which is how she was probably baptized. I suggest no changes and respect to the source. Which might be wrong, but it's still more reliable than OR. Besides standard Albanian started to cristallize in 1954, way later than her birth date. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity is better than origin

Made this change: We should say ethnicity, because she was born Albanian, in an Albanian family and raised as Albanian. She took Indian citizenship in her thirties. We are saying Indian nun, which is fine, because that's what her citizenship was at the time when she was notable, but instead of saying "origin" we should say ethnicity. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indian nationality, Albanian origin/ethnicity/heritage/ancestry maybe? Arctic Night 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Albanian ethnicity. I already made the change [1]. Origin/heritage/ancestry are all controversial as they presuppose origin and are ambiguous. --Sulmues ^(talk) 15:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is presupposing origin controversial? Are you referring to the fact that although Mother Teresa's family was Albanian, they were living in the territory of the Ottoman Empire at the time of her birth? In that case, yes, "ethnicity" is the best word choice. --Meyer (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and depictions in popular culture

Mother Teresa Comic book written by Shalini Srinivasan and drawn by Atula Siriwardane, is published by Amar Chitra Katha, India to celebrate her 100th birth anniversary. It is based on her life from her childhood, highlighting her service. IsharaJee (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

original name

the original name in albanian is Agnesë, pronounced with a long and stressed e--Cradel (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Calcutta in 1998 and before

Mother Teresa died before 2001, the year that Calcutta was officially changed to Kolkata. Therefore, according to wikipedia policy, this page should use Calcutta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.72.157 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done —SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Aromanian

Wolf Oschlies wrote in his book Mother Teresa - Her Youth in Skopje (Oschlies, Wolf (2009). Mother Teresa - Her Youth in Skopje. Klagenfurt. Wieser. ISBN-13: 978-3851298284) that she was ethnic Aromanian; her father Nikola and mother Drona were ethnic Aromanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.144.127 (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

really nice article

the article reads very NPOV to me and I read Wiki articles quite often. it does not read like a fan page nor does it read as if the writers have an ax to grind. Very balanced and engaging article. Very informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Critizism

• new to wiki talk*

I dont know if this is normal but I think an entire section should be dedicated to her Critics since there are so many with supporting evidence and many TV programs as well as books that denonuce her 'saintness'. It shouldnt be hard to find the critical points of her in this artiicle and when I came here it was harder then needed. The Evidence I am talking about comes from the already cited sources but also as well the TV show with Penn and Teller 'Bullshit' has featured her as well. I think this shows it is not a commonly accepted fact that she was as good of a person that people think she was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desette (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Desette (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I really hope we don't go down this route. Mother Theresa has been criticised but not extensively. Desette seems to be precisely one of those narrow-minded people with a big axe to grind, not mention that he/she cannot spell which rather undermines his/her position of critic as it indicates a lack of basic education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatordei (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

wow I am stunned by that response. I came to this article specifically looking for criticisms and I find there are none. She was a controversial and immoral person to many many people and you have NOTHING in the article about it. There are many books written about her controversies, not just blog entries. Google her insane and immoral position on AIDS for starters. This is a sham. the miracle attributed her is a sham as well. This article is a sham even by Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See that's the problem. Too many people. The above is an opinion and this website is an encyclopedia not a collection of views. Am I right in assuming you are one of these aggressive atheists I've heard so much about? FYI, I'm not Catholic or anything to do with the church in anyway. Ryankonkolewski (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then, if it is too many people and this is an open public encyclopedia why denying the article a criticism section?. Why is this article locked in the first place? There are many who have criticized the Mother Theresa in serious form. It is a shame that some religious apologist claim to have the right to deny other users the access to edit this article. Richirare (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the abuse should be on here? Does that therefore mean that the opinions of a lot of financial experts' opinions about JPMorgan and HSBC that they are financial terrorists should also be put up? Of course not! What do you mean give users the right? You mean the atheists or any other sad people who are on the net 24/7 editing articles should put up a bunch of extremely poorly cited or sometimes non-cited sources, usually from forums or blogs!

It's locked because some people will edit articles at their free will and all we will see is some IP address which is very easy to change with a proxy. That's for the idea and opinion, but no.

Ryankonkolewski (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there might just be not enough evidence to supply the controversy that surrounds her. At least not enough to satisfy the requirements for the individual section of the article. And referring to atheists as being "sad people" is quite the comment of a true bigot.

The evidence is out there somewhere, you just have to find it. If it isn't there anywhere across the planes of the Earth, than it just means it might have been lost or non-existent.

With that said, I still admit bias in the fact that I also believe there should be a criticism section for Agnes. --Jaymaster007 (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

not born in Kosovo!

Skopje is in Macedonia, which was never part of Kosovo! The Kosovars are now trying to concur Kosovo, but that is another issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koen Van de moortel (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup! Turn back the clock ... it was 1910. Skopje was part of the then-named Kingdom of Serbia!! HOWEVER...Kosovo is not that wrong. It must not be confused with our "modern" Kosovo, what they mean is the historical Kosovo Vilayet from Ottoman times! -andy 217.50.51.134 (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sister, not Nun

Based on the Nun article, I think she must have technically been a religious sister and not a nun at all; she was clearly not cloistered. I'd log in and change the article, but as with the "temple" issue regarding the Parthenon, I suspect people would change it back and insist on using a technically incorrect word just because it's the one everyone recognizes and already uses. Sigh. -- 74.104.102.140 (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The prefered way to determine which term to use is to examine high quality sources and see what terminology they employ. Google Scholar seems to indicate that a number of quality references (Hitchens, Spink, Sebba, etc.) refer to her as a nun. It's also telling that Brian Kolodiejchuk, the postulator for her cause of canonization, refers to her at one point as "a Loreto nun". My guess is that she was a nun when she was with the Loreto order; I'm unsure of her status after that. Majoreditor (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary

I've reverted this edit for the second time now. It clearly doesn't belong in the article as it is clearly a POV and completely unsourced. —SpacemanSpiff 04:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making your revert easy to find and alerting others to it on the talk page. I will have to copy your technique if I ever do a revert.

The reverted material is definitely unsourced, and some of it violates POV, but, if true, some of it is not POV and is biographically interesting. It is not clear that all of the information (if true) doesn't belong in the article. I will let the editor who wrote it provide RS, since he knows where he got it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is a horrible mess, there is no Criticism section

Why? Well, since I was VERY keen on getting an overview of this person, both positive and negative but not both at the same time! That said, there is no Criticism section. What effects did she have in positive sense? What must she be criticized for? Everything is mingled in-between sections, that's why I'm going to state it's a horrible mess. -andy 217.50.51.134 (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Peace had an unsourced criticism section here[2], but User:Spaceman reverted it under POV and RS. I would have put in "citation needed" tags and tried to remove POV without removing the content.

I responded to your suggestion and added "criticism" sections for a couple of the topics. But User:Anietor reverted them as POV, without talk page discussion as to why. I will put my edits back in, and work with Anietor on the talk page, then come to consensus with Anietor.HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Anietor, I do not see a POV problem with my edits, in that I name the critics and their positions. I do not have a POV, but merely state positions of critics. Please help remove POV without removing content. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposition

I have proposition to include some of her teachings to reflect for what she's honored:

• A person is indiscreet, illogical, egocentric.
  • It does not matter - love the person.
• When you do good you will be blamed for egocentric intentions.
  • It does not matter - do good.
• Materializing your dreams you will find false friends and real enemies.
  • It does not matter - materialize them.
• The good that you do will be forgotten tomorrow.
  • It does not matter - do good.
• Honesty and sincerity will make you vulnerable.
  • It does not matter - be honest and sincere.
• Everything that you have built over the years may be ruined in seconds.
  • It does not matter - build.
• When you help people they reject you, reject that.
  • It does not matter - help them.
• Give away your best to the world and the world will hit you.
  • It does not matter - give away your best.

Taken out of www.banderivets.org.ua (in Ukrainian)

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request

This section has no references at all.It is someone's original research.It should be removed or someone sould add additional refs thank u.

"She has been praised by many individuals, governments and organizations; however, she has also faced a diverse range of criticism. These include objections by various individuals and groups, including Christopher Hitchens, Michael Parenti, Aroup Chatterjee, Vishva Hindu Parishad, against the proselytizing focus of her work including a strong stance against contraception and abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty and alleged baptisms of the dying. 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."59.92.114.165 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

edit request

I propose that her photograph taken by Yousuf Karsh in 1988 be added to the article as part of the section for her later years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mefirefox (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mission to Belfast, 1971-73

Her mission to Ballymurphy had been forgotten but has been examined in an April 2011 BBC documentary. While very popular locally, controversy persists over whether she left voluntarily or had to leave due to the attitude of the local priest and bishop. See also this and this - all mainstream sources.86.42.211.82 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

I was looking for information on criticism, and lot of it seems to be unsourced. Is that appropriate for an enclyclopedia? This specifically: "Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International , criticised the failure to give pain killers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could “hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is ‘the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ’.”"

The statement has a reference, but Mr. Edamaruku provides no source himself - he just makes bald assertions, and seems to have nothing to back them up. And is the "President of Rationalist International" actually some sort of expert? Why is he quoted, and why are his assertions given any credence? Carlo (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you taken the time to check the citations of this article? There are huge swathes of non-encyclopedic and NPOV citations made throughout. That said there are better sources for this information than Mr Edamaruku, such as those used in the Hitchens book Missionary Position.

That said, I won't make the changes myself, from my perspective this entire article suffers from NPOV issues and needs to be trimmed with a full criticisms section added. Otherwise this isn't an encylopedic entry at all but rather just a propaganda article. JamesR87 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"at the time of her death it was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counselling programs, orphanages, and schools." - This section seems to be in there twice? Once in the second paragraph and yet again (with the list of aided people in the same order) in the section relating to her declining health and death. Just thought it wasn't really necessary to have both. 91.107.153.25 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What I notice is the kind of fake balance that can turn even-handedness into unreliability. What I mean to say is this: It appears that any criticism any person can be sourced as voicing is given a couple of sentences, thereby giving over a shocking proportion of the total text to it. Hence, fopr example, once taking a donation from Charles Keating assumes a distorted importance vis-a-vis a lifetime of works, whatever the value of those works. Rentstrike (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Francouïghoure, 12 April 2011

I edited the Uyghur version of this article, so i would like to add Uyghur page : ug:تېرېسا ئانا Francouïghoure (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Ripchip Bot. — Bility (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal bias and uncomfirm facts ?

While I read this page on Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, there seems to be a lot of negativity and concentration of personal bias and unconfirmed non-factual statements on the "wrong doings" of the Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. Let us all remember on what Blessed Teresa of Calcutta has done for people all over the world, and not undermine all the help that she accomplished. I request that the negative parts of the article are taken out.

So you basically request a whitewashing of the article and for Wiki editors to ignore the sources? Dimadick (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He's requesting acknowledgment of vested interest. Tjpob (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother Theresa's Birthplace.

"Mother Teresa, whose original name was Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, was born on August 26, 1910 in what is now Skopje, Macedonia."

This is from another source. Which is right? 178.116.242.87 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Skopje, or Shkup which back then was one of major cities of Kosova Vilajet. yllbardh 11:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - order -M of Cs and Loreto Sisters? phrasing?

I think the acknowledgement of her time as a Loreto Sister in the info-box is probably not going to be an issue, but I don't know how to add Sisters of Loreto into there and not cause confusion. I was thinking putting the years of membership in brackets next to each order. Does any one have any ideas/opinion? Tjpob (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

done Tjpob (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Vested interest of Hitchens, VHP and others, (most of the others are stated already) should be stated for reader

imo, the vested interest of all points should be made clear, including those of Hitchens and the VHP. It'll clear up the issues of neutrality, POV etc (i.e. 'criticism', 'personal bias...' and 'This article needs...' sections) Here's a proposal for the 'criticism' paragraph in the intro i.e. 'Governments, charity organisations and prominent individuals have described the work of Mother Teresa as inspiring. On the other hand, prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, cultural critic Michael Parenti, Indian-English GP Aroup Chatterjee and the World Hindu Council (Vishva Hindu Parishad) are well-known for their criticisms/as critics.' Open to comments, additions, etc. clarity is important imo Tjpob (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The perspective of critics has a place, as long as vested interest is acknowledged, so people can judge the validity of the claims for themselves. There is a vested interest in every perspective. It's the role of encyclopedias and those who write them to make sure that their own vested interest is in representing the subject area accurately and assessing the sources that are useful (in representing a perspective - such as that of the VHP, or Hitchens in this case), for their reliability. A good encyclopedia will give the reader that information. Tjpob (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.177.230, 20 July 2011

Post-Nominal letters OM

46.246.177.230 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: If "OM" is included then the post nominals of all his other honours of comparable stature will also have to be included. There are too many, so per WP:POSTNOM it should not be done. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

uskub

first of all uskub and vilayet of kosovo are turkish names and it doesn't fit a katholic nun. you filth everything that she stood for, using a nun for nationalistic propaganda. it's offensive to ethnic macedonians as well as calling albania western periphery of the bulgar empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.86.194 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be made more neutral

Im not even catholic or anything but wtf does Christopher Hitchens have to do with Mother Teresa????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.216 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Tjpob (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wtf tjpob how is that a good point? Christopher Hitchens has a lot to do with Mother Theresa, it's one of the most important critics of Mother Theresa. The argument that the article needs to be more neutral is sound though, but not in the way that the author meant, there is little critique toward Mother Theresa in here, how is that neutral? There is a lot of critique, and there is quite a big bunch of people that has confessed to how mischievous she was. There should be a whole section of critique on her, like there is on many many other wikipedia articles.

"They accuse her of proselytizing", that is the best you can come up with? Come on, Hitchen accuses her of much more than that. He accuses her of downright torture of the sick and dying. He accuses her of glorifying pain, suffering and poverty. Mother Theresa was an extremist, believing that helping the poor and the suffering would get her a bigger reward in heaven and that she was doing the work of god. I think people are forgetting that religion has a tremendous vested interest in helping the sick, poor and the dying. I think people are forgetting that religion is not a force for good in the world, their interest lies first hand in the conversion of human beings. I admit not all churches would fit into that description, but the catholic churches fit more often than the protestant. DukeTwicep (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion far too often does harm and Roman Catholics are no exception, the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal is just one example, Mother Teresa's sadomasochistic relationship with those she claimed to love and help is another example. Far too often the Roman Catholics seek to whitewash whatever they do. Crimen Sollicitationis is one example of attempted whitewashing of child sex abuse, trials were held in secret and though the document says priests should be punished in practise too often errant priests were moved to new parishes where parents didn't know they needed to protect their children and the priests reoffended. Some of the comments on this talk page are examples of attempts to whitewash Mother Teresa.

Certainly religions do good as well as harm but we do good when we expose religiously motivated harm, that way we encourage religious people to put wrongs right and do less harm. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is rather pointless to broadly discuss religion in the context of a bio article of a real person. We could discuss her personal faith or, what we rather should do, her human behavior. There are plenty of examples of how perceived "good" persons have done horrible things without the public even wanting to know. Even more so if it's an important religious figure. Mother Teresa is usually in the scope of religious people, who might not be interested in her wrongdoings, even denying there were any. However, with the small number of critics, this has to be put in relation to the general perception of her. The public generally assumes she's one of the most positive figures of our time. This assumption shields most people from deeper, even darker insights. It is indeed **very** likely that much of the criticism stands on very solid ground. There are hard facts supporting the claims made. One of the most wealthy orders of our times apparently tries not to improve the situation of the poor and sick, it rather uses the suffering to promote a different cause, which is religion. We do know how to effectively help the poor. We do know how to treat sick and dying people. The order has received millions of dollars in donations. Still, it spread out thinly, not changing the concept. There are no doctors and hospitals. So, what did happen with all the money? What is with the political ties of MT? These are certainly painful thoughts for the devout, but think about it, she wouldn't be the first example of a human who is actually a terrible person despite the façade. We'll have to get accustomed to the thought that MT was actually not what we used to think of her. --84.130.152.178 (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bare URL's

Before I tag the article with

I was just wondering if it is common practice for an article to be promoted to good article status with bare URL's? Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See film and literature section

When marking the possetion of Christopher Hitchens it should be Hitchens' or Hitchens's, not Hitchen's ProfNax (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hell's Angel

Why is Hell's Angel not mentioned in the "Film and literature" section? --91.10.53.181 (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Although it's mentioned earlier in the article, it should be included in the Film and literature section. I have added it. Majoreditor (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the neutrality?

An encyclopaedic article is supposed to be neutral -- but is this what this entry claims to be which is also otherwise marked as a "good" one? There is no mention of criticism of Teresa except an apologetic link in "See Also". Why is this? Whether Teresa was indeed a "praiseworthy Christian" but basically a miserable fraud or not, all major points of view need to be at least mentioned! In its current state the article is no better than one expected in the Catholic Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.200.153 (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I was shocked to not find any subsection regarding the criticism, except a line or two at the top, to Mother Theresa. Hitchen cites several reliable sources, and there is nothing here that says anything about it. I, for one, do not believe that Mother Theresa was a good person. She glorified suffering of the poor and the denied them better healthcare. Hitchens mentions (p. 41) a filmed interview in which Mother Teresa says with a smile what she told a patient suffering unbearable pain from terminal cancer: "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." The patient's response: "Then please tell him to stop kissing me." This is the act of a fundamentalist religious person. In religious circles she can be revered as a saint, on shaky grounds at best. In a modern society? No, Mother Theresa was an "evil" person who lengthened and increased the suffering of the dying, sick and poor for her own benefit. Where there is religion, there is deception. DukeTwicep (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even Pope John Paul II's article has a criticism section. Indeed there is a whole article on criticism of PJP2. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Are we being serious here? The entire opening of the article is littered with criticism from four people when her legacy is not at all equated with the kind of stinging criticism that's on her Wikipedia page. "Some people are unsure if she did more good or more harm" is given a citation of only Christopher Hitchens. If anything, this is an article biased against Mother Teresa. Also Twicep, this is an encyclopedia; not your personal blog. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This article appears highly biased in favor of its subject. I just compared it to the the de version in the German project. The critique is sourced from several sides and quite deserves a own chapter. At the moment the en version appears to be much more of an PR stunt than anything else. --Nemissimo (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Arriving here from a link to a well-organized talkpage example, I'd like to point out that criticism, if you are going to put it in the lead, will need it's own section according to the manual of style lead section guidelines. The lead summarizes the rest of the article, it's not file for miscellaneous items that don't go anywhere else. The more good you do, the more outstanding or famous you are, the more idiots won't like you. Ghandi got shot, Jesus got crucified. Get over it guys.

I propose a criticism section for this article, which is to contain more criticism than the lead section, as per WP:LEAD and

• support it myself. Doh. it's the Manual of style. Penyulap _talk 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Lolz just kidding, you don't need a poll to comply with community standards. HA! Penyulap _talk 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

There is now a section for it, just cutting and pasting what was inserted in the lead and one other place and that section is now full. However, the lead still needs a summary of the entire article, with text roughly according to the proportions within the article. Penyulap _talk 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's much better. I have no objection to a criticism section, but it having such a prominent place in the lead didn't seem to merit "good article" status. Thanks for cleaning it up. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article (and others) has been systematically POV'd with the introduction of marginal and non-reliable sources like The New World Encyclopedia, which is a Wiki mirror (with added POV). Such sources should never be used on Wikipedia, much less given the undue weight they are given in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to make some proposals, I'd be happy to assist you. This article really needs a cleanup. Penyulap _talk 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As with all Wikipedia articles, the best starting place is high quality, reliable sources, which this article didn't have. Also, see WP:UNDUE; notable criticism and controversies, well sourced, should be incorporated, but that isn't what we had here previously. Also, separate criticism sections or articles are discouraged on Wikipedia-- notable criticism (not undue criticism sourced to marginal sources) should be integrated into the text. See WP:CRITICISM, which although only an essay, is all we've got, AFAIK. You seem to be misunderstanding or misinterpreting one sentence in WP:LEAD. Yes, notable criticism is mentioned in the lead, which doesn't imply we should have a separate Criticism section, and doesn't mean we should include non-reliably sourced criticisms, or give undue weight to fringe sources. We also don't water down text with weasel words like "allegedly" and the many others that had been added here; even if there are radical sources that disagree, that Mother Theresa was known for her humanitarian work with the poor is indisputably supported by reliable sources. Further, there has been a breach of WP:BRD here by one author; POV text was introduced, reverted, the next step is to discuss, not revert again to non-reliable sources. Further, cherry picking quotes to include one POV in the lead (or elsewhere) is not neutral or good editing practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the article was in far better shape 18 months ago, eg [3], with such criticism as there is presented in its appropriate places in the article. Perhaps it might be best just to revert to an older version such as that, and start again from there. Jheald (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do as you wish, just keep it all mostly in one section. I wasn't set off by one sentence in the lead, I was set off, (just look at the state immediately prior to my first edit), by a lead dominated by criticism in an article with no section of that name, and calls for it on this page. I've just collected most of the (stuff) cut and paste and put it in it's own section. I was surprised by how much, and it was clear someone had an axe to grind with this lady, and was spreading it thick and wide across the article in a sloppy manner. I'm not yet familiar with WP:UNDUE or WP:CRITICISM. I am very familiar with WP:LEAD, and yes I am being a little rough with explaining that policy in my own words. Jheald you've familiar with the article, and if you or SandyGeorgia or anyone would like to take the time to sift through what is there according to the policies SandyGeorgia mentions that would be cool, I'm not able to do that in the foreseeable future but am quite willing to act as a third op if you need one. I'll have a look and have a read of the policies and edits if you request me to, for example if a dispute arises. I hope this helps. (Now back to the overhauling of a big article (the toolserver will show you what I get up to). Penyulap _talk 03:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, Jheald, Penyulap - thanks for your constructive efforts to improve this article. As you point out, it's deteriorated considerably during the past several months. Certain editors added weasel words, poorly sourced POV and wretchedly crafted prose.

We should re-distribute the critical reception per WP:CRITICISM. It's not desirable to segregate the praise from criticism. I'll be hapy to attend tocthat shortly.

Perhaps the article could benefit from Peer Review. It may be useful to receive some additional feedback on how to present conflicting views of MT in this article. Majoreditor (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst WP:Criticism isn't policy, I have read it, and it allows what were up to here. Also, yes, it'd be nice to eliminate the section altogether, once it's contents have been assessed by any interested editor. I think this is a good example of integration. That is why I haven't segregated praise away from criticism.

In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, after the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Critics—including some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband—insisted that conventional medical treatment had eradicated the tumor.[99] Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, who told The New York Times he had treated Besra, said that the cyst was not cancer at all but a cyst caused by tuberculosis. He insisted, "It was not a miracle.... She took medicines for nine months to one year."[100] According to Besra’s husband, “My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle.”[101]

I've left properly integrated material where it is(this example is mostly crit, but well written), Including Christopher Hitchens. Which begs the question, who is this bloke ? if he is notable he should have his own section if not article. He's everywhere ! In and out of the criticism section. Why is this bloke taking over the article ? Is this article his book review ? I'm fine on having a balanced POV, and personally I'll declare where I stand, whilst I'd help her cross the street, same as any nice old lady, and I'd probably help her out a bit if I could with her good works, I don't think I'd ask her to tea every night. Sounds like the preaching would get a bit dull. I came to the article through a link to an example of a talkpage that has benefited from cleaning up. But you know, some old lady drops her shopping bag, and stuff rolls out everywhere, so you stop and help out. Whatever. Bad writing shouldn't be allowed to consume the article even if Hitchens does sell a few extra books as a result. Yes, the article could benefit from peer review, any article can. If it goes on causing trouble for readers, it'll be up for review of one kind or another. I'll see to it. This is not a good article as it stands. Penyulap _talk 22:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The sections for Missionaries of Charity and Criticism could both use summarizing, they both seem a bit big. Penyulap _talk 07:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Success as a missionary

If you read what she wrote, she valued missionary work most of all. She surely would have wanted us to at least mention how many souls she saved, or people she brought to Jesus, or whatever the proper wording would be. After all, she dedicated her entire life to this. She saw it as her life's work! How can this be so ignored? This glaring omission must be addressed, preferably using her own words as a source. Otherwise, this article cannot truly claim to describe her very well. Chrisrus (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that tells us how many souls she saved? And I must point out that turning someone from one religion to another may not necessarily be seen as a success by the remaining adherents of the former religion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well no, it's not like that, but the whole point of everything she did is missed if the article does not say that she was trying to convert people. That's a missionary's job, and she was good at it. She felt it was her life's work to secure a place in heaven for people by getting them to convert at least before death, but also she convinced many local woman to become nuns and many others to convert. I don't think it is controvertial that was the motivation behind everything she did. Readers need to understand this in order to understand her. For example, she said "I'm a missionary, not a social worker." I think that's an exact quote, but I'll check it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See if you can find interviews where she states that. It can be online, or in books, or in a documentary for example. If it says it in a book, see if you can find a preview of the book in google books for example. Then, pop it in the article or point it out here. Penyulap _talk 15:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"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." -Nobel Prize Site's bio "I am a missionary" - Mother Teresa "She left home at age 18 to join the Sisters of Loreto as a missionary."[17] - This article "The Missionaries of Charity" - What she called her institution. What it's still called. Chrisrus talk-(penyulap manually signing Chrisrus's text)[4]

It will probably help you to look at WP:Reliable source and WP:Referencing to see the kind of sourcing information Wikipedia needs, and how to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've checked for that text in the article, it seems mostly there except 'She knew she had to be a missionary to spread the love of Christ.' it would be better if you can find her saying that to someone, like an interview where she said it, or where she wrote it down. The other text is in the article, although the place of her birth is given differently because of later political changes to the area. Penyulap _talk 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there would be any doubt that a Catholic nun that decided to go be a missionary as girl and ends up the founder of the Missionaries of Charity and saying "I am missionary" in her autobiography was actually a missionary. Is there any source that says she was not a missionary? Chrisrus (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is actually arguing that she wasn't a missionary. We're just highlighting that such material in Wikipedia needs to be referenced to reliable sources. Have you looked at the links in my post above? (At 21:02, 24 September 2011) And, is your interest still in "how many souls she saved"? Finding such a figure may be quite challenging. And the wording would need to be in the form of "people converted to Christianity" rather than the unacceptably POV "saving of souls". HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you are correct, that kind of language ("saving souls" and "bringing people to Jesus") is just what she calls it, and clearly not the kind of thing we should call it in the article. But she also called it being a "missionary", and all I'm asking is that the fact that she was one and that she converted many people be added to the noun complements describing her. I'd like to keep my personal opinion of missionaries to myself, and you shouldn't care enough about it to ask as it does not matter. Mother Teresa was a missionary, agreed. Any citation for this fact that is acceptable to you all is fine with me. I think the best would be her own words, or the official words of her organizations. You could also use those of WP:RS critics that say the same thing, but from the opposite point of view about missionaries, if you think that's appropriate. But again, whatever you decide to use from all the choices is fine with me, so long as it says that she was, at least among other things, she was a missionary. Chrisrus (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just realised that to some extent we've been talking at cross purposes here. You do realise, I hope, that YOU can make the additions you seek. I suspect you have misinterpreted several of the responses above as criticism or obstructive, while they were actually given as advice as to how YOU would need to do it. (The referencing, etc.) Why don't you give it a go? HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I could, but for whatever who cares why reasons, it might be best if someone else would. Chrisrus (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can give it a go sometime if I come across her saying it somewhere(bit busy today). There is no problem popping it in. It's like when we use SMS texting we say things like l8r, and lol. Thats one language, and then there is speaking like the Queen of England. And then there is Yoda, is not this so ? Understand you now ? Anyhow, for wikipedia, they love everything to have a little pointer reference in it, or after it, so it points to where it came from. That's the style of writing wiki goes for. That's how come people ask for where something came from, otherwise people could possibly put anything in, not that they do, but they might. Personally I'd like it if someone who like the woman found it, sure I like her too, nice old lady, but for things like saving souls and all, it's nice if someone who studied her a bit found that, they'd know just the place to look for something lovely they read sometime. Like that. You would do a better job at choosing nice things to say than I would.

Do not be concerned about using words or phrases like ("saving souls" and "bringing people to Jesus") that language is just fine in the article, you just mention who said it, enough for us to google or find it. You are welcome to put it in anyhow, without any referencing, but if someone else deletes it, or some argument breaks out, it's harder for us to win the argument with no references... Penyulap _talk 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Mother Teresa?

Removing the Honorific title used in the entire article, Please see this This policy of WP, Though the other articles such as Jesus Christ or etc are follow this policy wo WP.--Omer123hussain (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the use of any other name besides Mother Teresa would render the subject unrecognizable. I support your proposal if you would like to use Mother Teresa rather than Agnes and Teresa. Penyulap _talk 07:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Is "mother" an honorific, or just a job title/assumed name? I completely agree that the bestowed "Blessed" should not be used in her description, but "Mother" indicates only her position (as opposed to bestowed honor) in the church, correct? If that's the case, and given that the overwhelming notability and recognition of that name, I don't see any reason to remove the "Mother". I mean, we call Bono by his stage name, etc. 204.65.34.246 (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Mother" is a title given to certain nuns in the Catholic church. It's not really an honorific. Reading the MoS guidelines, MT is a bit of an edge case in that her situation doesn't really fit perfectly with any of the examples. She's probably closest to, "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym". In other words, we should use "Mother Teresa" throughout. Besides, that's how she's known, globally; I don't think she's ever referred to as just "Teresa", so it would seem sensible for the article to reflect that. -- Hux (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Aromanian nationality

Mother Theresa was Aromanian nationality, not Albanian.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/List_of_Aromanians

http://ttf.ugd.edu.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38:vest&catid=1:2008-11-21-09-34-25&Itemid=13&lang=en

http://zomobo.net/Aromanians

http://www.printfection.com/BiteTheWaxTadpole/Mother-Theresa-Womens-Fitted-Baby-Rib-Tee/_p_3004542 77.105.53.52 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Her authorized biography lists her as Albanian. (Kathryn Spink's Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Biography) She desribes herself in her own words as Albanian; see this quoteon the Vatican website. There are plenty of other reliable sources which describe her as Albanian. Perhaps she was also Aromanian;could you produce a peer-reviewed article or similar source? Majoreditor (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Don't we need a section on criticism, rather than just providing a set of external links to the criticism?

Ordinary Person (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a splendid idea.--Nemissimo (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I should keep an occasional eye on this article. She seemed like a nice old lady. Can't let too many people put in the boot. Penyulap _talk 13:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, she does need a criticism section. There are plenty of articles about people in the same category as 'Mother' Teresa that are critiqued including the previous pope. Christopher Hitchens was a fierce critic of her and called her 'Hell's Angel' for some of her practices, this should not be side lined into external links. 94.193.54.193 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. "Hell's Angel" was the name of a documentary, a better quote from Christopher Hitchens describing Mother Teresa would be "A lying, thieving Albanian dwarf". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.38.16 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent changing consensus on a Criticism Section

---

These editors oppose or appear to oppose a section called 'Criticism' and may support the essay WP:Criticism, which is not wikipedia policy.

• SandyGeorgia 'separate criticism sections or articles are discouraged on Wikipedia'
• Jheald 'Seems to me that the article was in far better shape ..with such criticism ..in..appropriate places'
• Majoreditor 'We should re-distribute'
  • 2009 anietor 'may be guidelines/essays, but they are still informative'

If you go through the archive, you'll find that this has been discussed before. The consensus reached in those prior discussions by a range of editors including ones with varying views of MT and her organisation was that it is better to mix the critical material in with the section. I feel that this is more effective in reporting the coverage of MT's life and work in reliable sources than keeping all of the negative stuff for just one section and thus adheres better to NPOV than the alternative does.--

— Peter cohen (talk), 19:13, 25 June 2009, archive

---

These editors support or appear to support a section called 'Criticism' in the article. They believe this particular article would benefit from such a section.

• Ordinary Person 'Even Pope John Paul II's article has a criticism section.'
• Nemissimo 'splendid idea'
• IP 94.193.54.193 'she does need a criticism section'
• Penyulap No section seems to be causing an uproar, so it's a failed experiment, lets see if a section works
• DukeTwicep 'shocked to not find any subsection regarding the criticism,'
• Amynewyork4248 'much better. I have no objection to a criticism section...Thanks for cleaning it up.' -is this support ?
  • 2010 Desette 'I think an entire section should be dedicated to her Critics'
  • 2010 andy (IP) 'Article is a horrible mess, there is no Criticism section'
  • 2010 24.190.34.219 'there should be a section'

User:Peace had an unsourced criticism section here[2], but User:Spaceman reverted it under POV and RS. I would have put in "citation needed" tags and tried to remove POV without removing the content. I responded to your suggestion and added "criticism" sections for a couple of the topics. But User:Anietor reverted them as POV, without talk page discussion as to why. I will put my edits back in, and work with Anietor on the talk page, then come to consensus with Anietor.HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

— HkFnsNGA, December 2010, archive

---

These editors appear neutral, or I'm not sure, or feel free to say something ?

• 2010 Richirare 'why denying the article a criticism section?'

---

Please let me know if you're in the wrong category here, I'm trying to keep track of the consensus, as that darn section is blinking in and out like a firefly at the moment. (For the fastest response, please hassle me on my english talkpage) Penyulap _talk 10:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent to de-list

Article was delisted

I'm preparing to delist this as a Good Article because it no longer meets the GA criteria. Among other problems, it no longer meets GA criterion 1-b because the lead paragraph does not adequately encapsulate the article. There are some other issues with the article, most of them minor; these include proper formatting for footnotes and quality of the prose in certain sections. De-listing the article is not a punative step. Rather, it acknowledges that the article needs some work so that it may once again meet GA standards. I will list this article at Peer Review prior to renominating for GA status so that other editors may provide constructive input. Comments about de-listing are welcome. Should you feel that this article currently meets GA criteria and should not be de-listed please discuss here on the talk page; I will then move the delisting process to Good Article community review. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC) True. Stability is woeful. Penyulap talk 07:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC) GA Reassessment This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mother Teresa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. I am de-listing this article as it no longer meets GA criterion 1-b for the lead. Specifically, the lead no longer adequately encapsulates the article. There may be other problems as well; rather than addressing each of them, I will de-list the article and work on improving it via Peer Review. The article will hopefully be re-nominated for GA status when it's up to par. Majoreditor (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Please, if you would, could you expand on this? What specific parts of the article need to be encapsulated into the lead to satisfy "Criterion 1-b"? Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Specifically, the lead would benefit by having additional material on her reception in India and the rest of the world as well as on her spiritual life. The lead is rather stubby and doesn't do justice to the influential role she's played in shaping humanitarian movements. Nor does it mention the criticism she's received from Hitchen and others. Rather than attempting to temporaily patch this issue ... as well as other potential GA problems ... I propose de-listing the article, working on it woth other editors, and then re-nominating it at GAN. If you feel that this article currently meets GA criteria then please let me know and I will close this individual GAR and open a community GAR. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC) No, I agree with you, it's not GA. I was just wondering what you were referring to, specifically. I also think that the fact that she was a missionary should be summarized in the lead from material already in the body, that criticism from WP:RS medical journals should be given more weight than those of famous authors, and maybe most importantly, there is nothing at all anywhere about the fact that "Mother Teresa" was not only a real person, but has long been a very commonly used metephor in the English Language for "selfless, altruistic person" in rhetoric and discourse. Very good points, Chrisrus. Majoreditor (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC) I can't see this article going GA again unless the title reflects Hitchen's contributions. It's down for the count. Penyulap talk 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC) You shouldn't think of them as Hitchens's. He was just passing them along, making them known to the English-speaking world. Fans of MT want the lead to imply that all criticism of MT originates from Hitchens. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC) No, what I'm saying, based on the multiple recent editing work, is that generally most editors want this article to be mostly about Hitchens, and less about MT. So hey, lets give them what they want. And of course dump GA status as is appropriate in such cases. A good fast cure is to simply rename the article "Hitchens commentary about MT" followed by a brief outline of who MT is, and blah blah blah Hitchens. Cool, job done. GA so totally doesn't belong on this article, Full support as proposed, full support on stability. Penyulap talk 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the comments. I am closing this discussion as a delist and will strike the article from GA status later today. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Proposal for new sub article. "Christopher Hitchens"

Proposal withdrawn

There seem to have been some problems with this article in relation to criticism, Christopher Hitchens seems to have quite significant and notable views, and I'd propose that rather than just deleting the excess material from this article because some people don't like it, that it be limited to about 500 words in this article (that's about 3 or 4 times larger than the articles current lead section) and the rest can go into a sub-article. So the proposal is for a minimum of say 400 and a maximum of say 500 words, total in all sections, which equates to a rather large summary of the sub-article. It's a weird sort of proposal I'm sure, but maybe it's worth a try. I'll be happy to start off the sub article if there is sufficient support. Penyulap talk 09:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC) (changed)Comment It addresses two birds with one stone, the UNDUE weight given to Hitchens commentary, plus rather than deleting it, it SPINs it off into a new article. Cool. Obvious. But I think 500 words is far too generous. It's about 3 or 4 times larger than the proposal here. That's too large a section, too large a summary. Penyulap talk 00:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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 [5] 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' [6] 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. [7] — 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 - [8] 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)

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)

Birth place

I think that birth place is not correct. For instance, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html and other sources claim birth place is Skopje, currently FYRM. br - ModriDirkac (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done added the ref, and a bunch more stuff, please let me know what you think, is it any clearer now ? Penyulap ☏ 15:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Great job. If I would be writer, I would add for instance "currently Skopje, Republic of Macedonia" to infobox facts. br 95.176.217.26 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I've updated that as well. Editing is easy, pick an article, any article, click edit at the top, it's probably not locked like this one, so you can just go for it without logging in. Then click preview at the bottom after you mess with the article, to see what you have done, if you like it, save it. Simple. Penyulap ☏

I see, thx for change. I am editing slovenian wiki, but not this article because of obvious reasons ;) ModriDirkac (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested change

Shouldn't her intro read SAINT Mother Teresa of Calcutta...? 76.91.0.141 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I had a quick look for "Saint Mother Teresa" and I can't find any halfway decent sources. Feel free to find some for us. I looked over the Vatican's website www.vatican.va and I couldn't see her referred to that way either, but I may be wrong. Certainly it is correct to call her a Saint, or "Saint Mother Teresa", but it doesn't seem the way the Pope, or most public figures refer to her just yet. No doubt that will change in time. You're welcome of course, to sign in and edit the article yourself, you are welcome to do so. Penyulap ☏ 08:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Well, I have no idea how these things work, but reading from the body of the article, and converting into approachable language, I have added the following to clarify. Hopefully, it won't upset too many Catholics, I'm sure I shouldn't be the one to be messing with this stuff, as my knowledge is so limited.

Mother Teresa is not yet a Catholic Saint, in late 2003, the leaders of the church completed the process of beatification, the third step toward possible sainthood. A second miracle credited to Mother Teresa is required before she can be recognized as a saint by the Catholic church.

Hopefully this might help. Penyulap ☏ 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism?

So even devoting one's whole life to helping others doesn't preclude criticism and terrible ingratitude? Only pathetic misogynists could have written that section! It's so exhaustive unlike the rest of the article. Apparently very few people will defend her, but there's plenty of schmucks who will cast a stone at her! Schmucks who haven't been selfless for one minute of their lives, who haven't done 1 millionth of what this woman had done, and who are not capable of even understanding what charity means! Had you an ounce of integrity or brains you wouldn't tarnish good person's name. Unlike you, she tried to do SOMETHING, to change SOMETHING, instead of spending days looking for faults in others or adding to the general grief. There was only one of her and millions of suffering - she couldn't comfort everyone, she couldn't save everyone, she never had means to provide luxury you dare to expect from her hospices!! But all her life she kept doing something. She taught HUMANITY (look it up in the dictionary, you obviously have no idea what it is.) Men always trash what they can't understand. Men feel good about themselves only insulting others - this is the reason there are wars, violence and 90% of all the grief in the world. Think about it. Women create - men destroy, women give birth - men kill. The feeling of inferiority pushes them to ruining good things and people around them. They feel they are incapable of such goodness and they can't handle it - so they abuse the weak ones: children, women, animals etc... Well, get your testosterone under control! And another thing. Don't you dare to identify women and men! Women don't have a certain organ to dictate their behaviour! Women have better things to do - raise children, protect them from you, create something beautiful, to make *your* lives less empty and restore things after you've messed them up. This very article proves the fact that only women are capable of true goodness. There never was such male person. Besides, look, it says 450 brothers and 5000 nuns! And you won't hear such horrible things about nuns like you hear about clergyMEN. Women see what you make with the world and no wonder they want to hide in some convent. I brought this up because this article and half of wikipedia articles reeks of misogyny. Naturally - most of them are written by men. You fight racial or religious discrimination, but it's gender discrimination that comes first! And men could never make up for the *unjust* and inhuman treatment of women!

Back to MT. You think you're better? - Go and improve what she has initiated. Share something good if you have any! Donald Trumps or some other rich bastards are admired, although they waste millions on self-indulgence and no one writes criticism sections about them. But Mother Teresa is called immoral because she took money from such bastard for good cause! That is because she knew that ALL MONEY IS DIRTY and his were as good as any as long as they were used for a good purpose. She supported him? - She probably didn't realize what she was supporting - she thought of all the good she could do with his money to alleviate the pain in the world. Wouldn't hurt you to think the same.

I registered on wikipedia with enthusiasm, the idea of doing something good and useful is appealing, but such things as I read here and the existence of many amoral articles written by some perverts (with all the disgusting illusrations), and what is worse, tolerated by those at the head of this organization, proves that that idea isn't as pure as it sounds... A good person (a soft-hearted female) will inevitably be persecuted by some creep, stalked or intimidated or at the very least patronized... And mean, but confident predators are welcome... This is very discouraging. And I don't want any children or young people to have access to *this* kind of knowledge.

I'm leaving, but I just had to say what I said. If you remove it, it will only prove how afraid you are of the truth.

Think of what you do, people. LIVE AND LET LIVE!

Li 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilange (talk • contribs)

I don't agree that 'Donald Trumps or some other rich bastards are admired', I don't admire him, and looking at his hair, nobody else can either. Look, I agree with a number of things that you say, but the best way to fix these glaring problems might be to get involved. I see that you certainly can express yourself about Mother Teresa, which is cool, because you can channel that energy into improving the article. Otherwise, you're just leaving all the editing to idiots like me, I started on this article because it looked like a bunch of skinheads were stomping all over an old lady. Then of course, I help to balance it properly, because critics get WAY too excited and forget that she did not nuke Hiroshima. At the end of the day, if something is broken, just fix it, if you don't, you're just leaving it up to everyone else. Penyulap ☏ 19:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This morning I feel how unwise I've been and I just have to say sorry for some things that were inappropriate and exaggerated. Wikipedia doesn't really reek of misogyny this much. :} Whatever may be the issues it's no use including them here... And no matter how overwhelmed I've been feeling lately, no matter how many good reasons I had to say what I said, it still was wrong to say some of them... But what's done can't really be undone...

I read this article 2 days ago and was appaled at the fact that even a woman with impeccable reputation can be condemned. And condemned by people who never thought of just following her good example... No matter how much you do, there will always be shameless and ungrateful people who will say "I want more" or "It's not good enough". That's "human nature". Animals have more gratitude... I also felt that criticism of her must have something to do with her being a woman. Nobody likes a strong and smart woman capable of such labours... Now this woman quietly went on, doing something that she could not NOT do, she didn't want attention to herself, she didn't need awards and titles NOR beatification! What made her great is her humility. All great people are humble. And instead of learning from great people, lots of time and money are wasted on "investigating" and "researches" and discussions about whether those great people had any merit at all... People made her a celebrity because that was a way to make money selling their garbage and it added to their self-importance being able to judge or praise someone like her, but few actually care(d)...

Thank you for agreeing with something, Penyulap. I'm sure you're not an idiot :O) And just because I feel strongly about a good person doesn't make me a good editor, you know... Li 07:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilange (talk • contribs)

Ok, well maybe I'm not a complete idiot, there is still room for improvement in that area :) but you didn't aim your fury at anyone so there is no harm done, and if you wanted I can ask for the text to be vanished away for you. You don't have to apologize for being human, it's a good thing, and you do make many valid points, even though it's understandably shaded by real life issues.

For example, the article is very poorly written at the moment in regards to the messy way Hitchins has been woven through, a lot of it is simply bullshit, it said he was the only witness called to testify at the Vatican, and I was thinking that doesn't sound as thorough as the Vatican is when they are working out if someone should be a saint, so I looked closely, and it was just Hitchins saying he was the only one, so I prefixed it with 'as far as he knew' and then after that noticed the only place to make such a claim was his book that he wrote himself, I commented it out. He's notable, but I'm not sure if his ignorance is notable too. (although on second thought maybe it is) either way, the article is supposed to be about a little old lady, not a loud mouth ignoramus, (cough) I mean just one critic, there should be more criticism, but notable and well written, not ruining the article with sloppy presentation and imbalance.

I think it would be a good idea to include what some notable people think of Mother Teresa and her critics criticism. I can't possibly accept that there aren't other people in the world who feel as you do, and I can't accept that all of those people are less than noteworthy, we should test out this theory with some research. I've got a lot to do and it would take me ages, so I do invite you to have a Google for 'responding to criticism' or 'about her critics' or 'defending mother Teresa' or 'in mother Teresas defense', support, and so on, see if you find any big names weighing in on this sort of thing. It may well improve the article. but that's only if you have time, and do take your time. Real life is much more important than wasting it in front of a computer, and the wik will still be here when you get back. So let me know what you find. Penyulap ☏ 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

^^^My fave bit is the bit where she hates all men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.58.197 (talk) 20:52, 20 April 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)

 Done You are quite right, I've just done some editing for you. You'll now find if you have another look, a section named "criticism", PLUS a whole sub-article called Criticism of Mother Teresa enjoy ! Penyulap ☏ 08:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done Penyulap. But there should be much more criticism.81.178.148.249 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is, not only is there a large criticism section in this article, it's as large as the other largest sections, but as well as that, there is an entire article called Criticism of Mother Teresa as well, to go into really great detail on that subject by itself. Of course, this article is teetering a bit too close to being an article about some old lady who spent her whole life being criticized and nothing else besides. I think the article should mention she did something else as well, you know, so it's a bit better balanced. I made some improvements to the Criticism of Mother Teresa article a few days ago, so do take a look, see if it meets with your approval. Penyulap ☏ 15:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section should be taken out. It's terrible! It's embarrassing to anyone who has anything to do with Wikipedia. I mean, it's a shallow attempt at ax grinding and we should not give it cover by pretending that it's some kind of objective exercise. We do not have a "Criticisms of Abraham Lincoln" section, nor a "Criticisms or St. Francis," nor a "Criticisms of Ravi Shankar." Nor should we. It's not encyclopedic, it's not professional, it's not objective. It's petty. Back in 2008, Wikipedia's article about Sara Palin had a section called "Criticisms of Sara Palin." I mean, it's plain to see what's going on here. And it's not ennobling at all.63.124.22.40 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer review reminder

Not sure if anyone noticed but there is a completed peer review in the collapsed article status/milestone box that no one has attended to yet. Many of those issues still exist and may assist you in restoring this article to its former Good Article status. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 03:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, there's an idea ! I just took a crack at it. Can't say I'm much good at editing, but meh, I tell you what, that list of honors she got, WOW, and she's just like "talk to the hand" about the lot. yeah, emotional stuff. Penyulap ☏ 09:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuns, or sisters?

Teresa is several times quoted in the article describing herself as a "nun". However, her first congregation, the Sisters of Loreto, as well as the congregation she founded, the Missionaries of Charity are both groups of religious sisters, not nuns. There is a difference. I propose to change all occurrences of "nun", except in quotes, to "sister" for consistency with reality. Elizium23 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not controversial and doesn't need a fantastic ref, but can we find something along those lines to use ? on the other hand, we can put it into a note, and tag a few of the words in strategic places so people follow it down to the note section where it is explained, just a thought, and I have no opposition to anything you do, but I'd support it in this manner. Penyulap ☏ 18:17, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources which refer to her as a nun. If you want to remove references to her as a nun I'd suggest offering a reliable reference which says that MT was technically a sister rather than a nun. I think that means that she would have never professed solemn vows ... which I'm not sure about. Majoreditor (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, my original proposal was over the top. While it seems true that Teresa was a nun herself, the Missionaries of Charity are sisters, and many times in the article they are referred to as nuns. At least in reference #83, http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/77/510036/98314432/KERA_98314432.mp3 it seems they are referred to as sisters. The other references that appeared nearby aren't online. Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Your revised suggestion sounds correct: MT was technically a nun, but the Missionaries of Charity are a society of active religious sisters and aren't technically nuns. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

OK it is petty, but the text under the image of her on a stamp reads "...It is us who ...". Sorry, s/b "it is we who" It is correct in the german WIR : WE

Done Elizium23 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

Incorrect apostrophe in section 8.2. Currently: "Hitchen's 1994 documentary about her, Hell's Angel, claims" Should be: "Hitchens' 1994 documentary about her, Hell's Angel, claims" Robbill99 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Medical background of the supposed miracle

""It is much ado about nothing," ... "My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle." ...He concedes that the locket is part of the story of Monica's ordeal but says no one should suppose there was a cause-and-effect relationship between it and the cure. "My wife did feel less pain one night when she used the locket, but her pain had been coming and going. Then she went to the doctors, and they cured her." Monica still believes in the miracle but admits that she did go to see doctors at the state-run Balurghat Hospital. "I took the medicines they gave me, but," she insists, "the locket gave me complete relief from the pain." "

• What's Mother Teresa Got to Do with It? time.com. Nemissimo (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Mother teresa

her bio says her nationality is Indian. She is not Indian, she is Albanian. She was born in Mecadonia. Please check it out. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.164.195 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unformatted references

The way the references in this article are done is a disgrace for such an important article. Some are just bare urls, others are jost mock up of the templates. They need to be fixed! Firstly so the details can be checked, secondly because unformatted references are sloppy and that sloppiness rubs off on the rest of the article's reliability and content. 86.145.6.56 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Heavy reptition

Not so good at this, so here goes: scattered throughout the article, there are several counts of her congregations, the number of sisters in those congregations, and the number of countries touched by her outreach efforts. I hope I'm not taking up too much space by doing this, but I will quote the parts of the wiki article I am talking about to demonstrate why I feel they are repetitive and possibly confusing:

• Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give "Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor". The Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death had 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counselling programmes, orphanages and schools.

• At the time of her death, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity had over 4,000 sisters, and an associated brotherhood of 300 members, operating 610 missions in 123 countries.[59] These included hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counseling programs, personal helpers, orphanages, and schools. The Missionaries of Charity were also aided by Co-Workers, who numbered over 1 million by the 1990s.[60]

• By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered approximately 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.[46]

• It began as a small order with 13 members in Calcutta; by 1997 it had grown to more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.[36]

• By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries.[54] Over the years, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity grew from twelve to thousands serving the "poorest of the poor" in 450 centers around the world. The first Missionaries of Charity home in the United States was established in the South Bronx, New York; by 1984 the order operated 19 establishments throughout the country.[55]

I believe consolidating this "timeline" (as I said, scattered throughout the article and not quite in consecutive order either) would help make the article a little more clear. I'm also at a loss of what to do with repetitive lists of good deeds associated with the Missionaries of Charity. I have never made a major edit on Wikipedia before but I'll be willing to help out if anybody decides if and what must happen to the sections above and those like them. Wieldthespade (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources, or sources that don't indicate what they're supposed to?

Under the Criticism section there are several issues:

1st - Footnote 77 points not to a medical journal article, but to a book review on Christopher Hitchen's book 'The Missionary Position' that appeared in the British Medical Journal. The wikipedia article is written in a way that makes it sound like several claims were reported by the British Medical Journal and that these findings had been reported in a peer reviewed medical journal article. The fact that claims in this wikipedia article were not in fact reported by the prestigious medical journal is obviously problematic, and any claims made on that basis ought to be removed immediately.

2nd - Footnote 88 links to an article on a website called mukto-mono.net. The article with a 'freethinkers' label at the top and claiming to be written by the president of something called "Rationalist International" offers nothing to back up the claims that it makes in the article which reads like a list of assertions by a biased author.

3rd - Footnote 89 links to a piece by Robin Fox of the Lancet, but the line "He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment" is not supported by the very short piece. Also, while it is true that Fox referred to the treatment received there as 'haphazard' he also mentioned that the people there could not find admission anywhere else, including any hospice with which he would compare the home to. That is all just to say that the very short article by Robin Fox is presented in this wikipedia article in a biased fashion. Fox also wrote that two-thirds of those who entered the home actually left again on their feet, and indicated that both himself and his wife volunteered at the home during their stay.

4th - While footnote 90 is a link to a podcast wherein a former Missionary of Charity sister shares her experience I'm not sure that it is the kind of unbiased source that is appropriate. The Wikipedia article describes the woman in the podcast being 'infantilized' by her being forbidden to read secular writing and having to be obedient. This may be the case, but these things are just par for the course for Catholic religious orders and refraining from magazines etc that emphasize worldly attachments, and swearing obedience to your superiors is just what being a sister in a religious order, or a brother in a religious order, is about. It is clear that the woman being interviewed left because she no longer felt that she was cut out for that life, which was appropriate, but using her description of her experience with the Missionary Sisters of Charity to add emphasis to the criticisms in this article is inappropriate.

I think these should be addressed by anyone with the power to address them. Clearly, we are dealing with the memory of someone who is deceased and therefore any negative claims that are made ought to have clear and objective sources to back them up.

Thanks

Yoremo

Yoremo (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

she was a good woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.78.137 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style and ethnicity in the opening

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies:

• "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

Her Albanian ethnicity was not relevant to her notabilty so I propose to move it from the first sentence to Early life section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Her biographers considered it important enough to mention it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

the Lancet article: a response

Regarding Lancet's criticism it would be useful to quote this by David Jeffrey (Macmillan Lead Palliative Care Consultant, 3 Counties Cancer Centre, Cheltenham General Hospital and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Palliative Medicine at the University of Bristol): "Recently, criticism has been levelled at Mother Theresa for not attaining the standards of care in Calcutta that might be expected in a UK hospice. Such criticism is destructive and fails to appreciate the difficulties and frustrations faced by individuals striving to provide some basic compassionate care with little or no resources" (D Jeffrey, 'For whom the bell tolls--palliative care in the Third World', Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 07/1995; 88(6):307-10. [9]. --2.40.177.216 (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a useful addition to the article. Perhaps someone would like to incorporate it? Majoreditor (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The price of success

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Find time to work, it is the price of success." These are the words nun and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mother Teresa, who worked entire life with the poor.93.137.59.40 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Error in Bharat Ratna Details

The article states that Mother Teresa received Bharat Ratna twice, in 1972 and 1980. But she won only once in 1980. The article that is given as reference also does not mention that she won Bharat Ratna twice. Kindly rectify this detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.68.113 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. --Jayarathina (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013 Mother teresa

the link under extermal links for: Peggy Noonan, "Still, Small Voice," Crisis, 1 February 1998 (account of the National Prayer Breakfast speech) goes to her web page and not to the article page. The article link to the specific article is : http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=31

a google search for "peggy noonan small voices" brought up the direct link to the article from Noonan. Thanks 174.55.90.191 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. However, I am not confident that this link meets the guideline. Please see next section. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)