Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Contents

External link to peggynoonan.com

I considered simply removing it but am hoping other contributors will weigh in. Specifically, I'm not sure that the linked page contains "neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". I note that it is also a personal web page and that it hasn't been demonstrated that Noonan, though undoubtedly notable, is a "recognized authority" on Mother Teresa. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I also am unsure about the links to the opinion pieces by Parenti and Hitchens. At least they're not hosted at the writers' own web sites, and perhaps they balance out the Noonan piece somewhat. Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2013-09-07 Mother teresa

the link under footnote 84 MacIntyre, Donal flagged <dead link> can be replaced by: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/151370 Thanks Ph7five (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the request. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Mother Teresa was Albanian by nationality and Indian by citizenship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.147 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the infobox. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Improvement

I've added the relevant phrase from her lecture regarding the abortion; the reason is explained with Madre Teresa quote itself. Cyphersnap (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticized for/Accused of

I know that these criticisms lie at the very heart of the controversy, but my edit is not against the criticism but of the words that introduce it in the opening paragraph. To say that someone has been criticized for doing x, y, z implies that they most certainly did x, y, z. While I would maintain that Teresa did have a positive relationship with many people, including dictators, she also criticized world leaders. She clearly provided some medical care, though there could be a valid debate on her medical practices. And whether she misused charitable contributions is again open to discussion. By making two changes plus a grammatical change (moneys->money) I hope to improve the article without adding controversy. I believe that "accused of" is more neutral than "criticized for" and I removed the attempt to explain her reasoning for something that she may or may not have been wrong in doing and certainly did not do in blanket way "no medical care". She has many quotes where she acknowledges that suffering has meaning, but there is no source to back up the strict idea that she sadistically withheld medical care because she thought that suffering had meaning. As for that, I have video of her providing medical care. Did she not follow best practices while working in a slum to help people who otherwise would have had zero care? I think that the criticism of anyone who is not providing such care rings hollow. But my point is simply that if such weak criticism must have its place it should not be presumed that it was true.

--Qowieury (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, a subtle distinction but a vital one, superb contribution. On a separate note when people, eg Hitchens, criticise people like Teresa I ask how exactly THEY did it when they dedicated their lives to charitable service. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, not everyone can dedicate their lives to charitable service. We need Doctors, lawyers, journalists, scientists, teachers, and a thousand other careers. The fact that Hitchens didn't dedicate his life to a church does not invalidate his criticisms. We need journalists to expose corrupt "do-gooders" that are exploiting the public conscience for personal gain. Like Mother Teresa and like the hundreds of Catholic priests that have never been caught/punished for their human rights abuses. Have either of you read the books in question?

Additionally, having video of someone providing medical care one does not mean that they always did. Your evidence is anecdotal and you cite no evidence to refute Hitchens' claims, for which he actually has good evidence. Read it before you criticize it.

-- ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping the link to Christopher Hitchens as the source of the majority of these criticisms is necessary since it allows the astute reader to research the previous work and public statements of this individuals and make their own judgements as to whether or not the source is biased. 121.223.54.212 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Name

So the name of the article is based on one reference? Surely the name should reflect the more common and neutral "Mother Teresa" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names - I move that the article should be renamed per Wikipedia policy.

Zambelo (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? The article is named Mother Teresa. Do you perhaps mean the lede sentence, which reads "The Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, M.C.,[1] commonly known as Mother Teresa"? It is somewhat controversial whether to use an honorific in the lede sentence, however, "Teresa of Calcutta" is her official name of record for the Holy See and the name by which she will be liturgically venerated for the rest of history, so I personally don't see a problem with introducing the article this way. Elizium23 (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link

Reference 94 is a dead link. I believe this is the article it should point to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561247/Mother-Teresas-40-year-faith-crisis.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.80.200 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. This appears to be a slightly different article, but it has the same gist, so it's a worthwhile replacement. Thank you very much for pointing that out and doing the search. Elizium23 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism of Mother Teresa

Don't do it this way. Just list important criticisms of Mother Teresa as they are found in good WP:RSes. That is all. You are doing this wrong. This should be a collection of criticisms of Mother Teresa, that is all. Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As per criticism of Mohammad, perhaps. There is a main article Criticism of Muhammad, and a section in the article Mohammad which reads, in toto:

Criticism of Muhammad has existed since the 7th century. He has been attacked by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism, as well as for his multiple marriages, possession of slaves and military expeditions across the Middle East

Suggestion:- Criticism of Mother Teresa first began to circulate in certain quarters after the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.[in-line refs] She was attacked for her views on abortion and artificial contraception as well as by those who disputed, on diverse grounds, the reputation for sanctity widely accorded her during her life.[in-line refs] Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Do this. The current article is as biased as fuck and has original research in the citations.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2014

108.14.34.188 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC) she had cancer when she was five and she was a buttox doctor for 3 years

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Selimsagmanli (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)gonca is a persian word used in ottoman turkish and modern day turklsh hence in albanian Selimsagmanli (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Useful new source

Larivée S, Sénéchal C, Chénard G (2013). Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 42(3): 319-345. [1] Newspaper summary at [2] Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

Mother Teresa advocated the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP), also accepted by the Catholic Church, as a means of birth regulation, particularly in her own poverty-stricken country. In her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, she said,"We are doing another thing which is very beautiful—we are teaching our beggars, our leprosy patients, our slum dwellers, our people of the street, natural family planning. And in Calcutta alone in six years—it is all in Calcutta—we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would have had, but because they practice this natural way of abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, very simple, and our poor people understand.” http://nfpandmore.org/wordpress/?p=1293 She also taught NFP through the use of mucus readings to detect ovulation periods. Clesalex (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Albanian citizenship doutbful?

Wiki box says her nationality was both Indian and Albanian between 1991 and 1997, this is not possible as India don't recognise dual citizenship. So please clarify and delete albanian citizenship as there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.146.240 (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


hello.i think i ought to say something here.i am a muslim,but i still think she is a good person.you have to have a little bit fantasy,be able to try to see other peoples view point.she clearly thought she was saving the eternal souls of those she converted,thus it is far more greater in magnitude than saving their mortal shelfs.it is all a question of good will.search good will in wipedia.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.159.235.42 (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Kosovo Albanian origin"?

That doesn't seem to be proved in the article. Ethnic Albanian? Yes. But the only piece of information regarding her place of origin that seems to be confirmed from the information provided in the article is that she was born in Skopje, now the capital of the Republic of Macedonia. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.157 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

All the myriads of sources show her of Albanian origin , and not of kosovo albanian , which seems to be a clear wp:synth . IJA i hope you will reflect , this was my last attempt in a civil and as per wiki rules discussion . You insist on putting a kosovo Albanian origin without a single source VS the myriads of sources showing her of Albanian ethnicity .Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: - All three of the sources I referenced show that her origin is in Kosovo (I'm aware she was born in/ near Skopje, but I'm not questioning where she was born). Yes her ethnicity is Albanian (no-one disputes that) but her family is associated with and come from Kosovo which makes her a "Kosovo Albanian". All of the sources clearly show that, why have you kept reverting this? IJA (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@IJA:Because the Kosovo Albanian term , is one label that you insist on putting . While all the bibliography and i mean ALL of it (including the one you brought as well ) , is using the term Albanian .... ! Thus you are wp synthing ... can it be more clear than this ? Otherwise i dare you to find a single source where the kosovo albanian term is used .

Kosovo is a newly created state , where 90 % of the population declare themselves as ALBANIANS . It was created after mother teresas death !!! In the section albanians the kosovo albanians are a part of it as well ... Remember wiki is all about facts and sources , and not subjective realities Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: - I'm not questioning her ethnicity, the sources say she was an Ethnic Albanian. All Albanians from Kosovo are ethnic Albanians. All I'm saying is that she is an ethnic Albanian was originates from Kosovo. What is wrong with saying that? It is a fact which I properly referenced. The term "Kosovo Albanian" had been used on this article for ages before you decided to remove it without a consensus. You removed this more specific information. Why are you so adamant that this precise information must be removed? A Kosovo Albanian is an ethnic Albanian with ancestry or descent in the region, regardless of whether they live in Kosovo. It seems that you have a problem with the term "Kosovo Albanian". I don't think this is the correct place to discuss the term, I suggest that you take that to Talk:Kosovo Albanians. The state of Kosovo has nothing to do with this as it was established over ten years after her death. IJA (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an entire article on "Kosovo Albanians", Mother Teresa happened to be a Kosovo Albanian. I assume that you'll reply to this, however I have to leave the world of wikipedia as I have other commitments in the real world. I'll get back to you tomorrow. Regards IJA (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@IJA:I have no problem whatsoever . The problem is that you refuse to admit that all the bibliography refers her as Albanian and not kosovo albanian which is a wp synth of yours . In fact you just stated that you are not questioning her Albanian ethnicity . Then why are you reverting precisely that ? And to conclude , as long as the sources show her of Albanian ethnicity ... thats how it should stay . Mother teresa is of Albanian origin and her family originates from Kosova . So no i did not remove any information , in fact i amplified it , by stating that her family originates from Kosovo and she is of Albanian ethnicity .

Have a great day then , and i willl be waiting for a reply . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 16:17, November 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: I have no problem what so ever saying Mother Teresa is of Albanian origin and her family originates from Kosovo as long as KosovO (no a) is spelt with an O as it is in the English language? Agree mate? IJA (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@IJA: That would be more than fine with me as well . I am glad that we managed to establish a consensus and thank you for the civil and constructive discussion that we had . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Simple change to improve flow and correct typo. Nothing contentious here.

Criticism section, current first two sentences:

"After the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1979, Mother Teresa's adherence to the Church's condemnation of abortion and contraception attracted some negative attention in the Western media. Teresa was criticised for using her celebrity status to promote the Church's moral teachings on abortion and contraception."

Let's just simplify to: "After the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1979, Mother Teresa's was criticized by the Western media for using her celebrity status to promote the Church's moral teachings on abortion and contraception."

These two mean different things. "Attracted some negative attention in the Western media" means that some media sources in the West gave her negative attention while others might not have. "Was criticised by the Western media" implies the Western media as a whole (or at least a majority) criticised her. What do the sources say? Also, please sign your comments. The date when you commented has an effect on how important it is in an ongoing discussion.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit

Why should the critism be from 'professed atheists' not more like 'outspoken' or 'well known'. Are there professed Muslims, Christians, etc. Can this be edited as it has a negative or religious or pertaining to a set of beliefs, when atheism is I single position on a single matter which holds no dogma and is not a belief system.

Oxford dictionary. 1Claim, often falsely, that one has (a quality or feeling): he had professed his love for her only to walk away [WITH INFINITIVE]: I don’t profess to be an expert [WITH COMPLEMENT]: (profess oneself) he professed himself amazed at the boy’s ability MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES SYNONYMS 1.1 archaic Have or claim knowledge or skill in (a subject or accomplishment): though knowing little of the arts I professed, he proved a natural adept 2Affirm one’s faith in or allegiance to (a religion or set of beliefs): a people professing Christianity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.64.202 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no compelling reason to use the adjective "professed" here. It's enough to note that they're atheists - professed, famous, outspoken or otherwise. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The word "professed" could be very important because it is the opposite of "alleged." For example, many professed Christians are in favour of teaching evolution in the schools. Other Christians are not, and they believe their opponents are Athiests. Basically a Christian in support of science education could be an alleged Athiest but a professed, practicing, devout, famous, or outspoken Christian.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This is inappropriate, but I can't resist doing another one just for funsies. Barack Obama is a professed Christian who worships at Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama is also an alleged Muslim, according to many illiterate bigots.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


TAMOUL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.134.152 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mother Teresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverts dec 19

I just reverted a few recent changes. Summary:

  • She is best known as Mother Teresa, as per guidelines
  • Rm extra "Albanian"; she was not simply "Albanian", as she ended up an Indian citizen. The following sentence describes her Albanian ethnicity
  • The Vatican "recognises" things, because it is (for the purpose at hand) the "authority". No-one with a working brain should think that this is binding on the real word. "Claim" would be the wrong word, because it implies that the Vatican is asking someone else (like the Randi foundation, for example) to recognise this as a miracle, and hand over the $1M.
  • Also removed repetition of sainthood thing in "In India" section

Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hitchens criticism wording

"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. 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.[66]

Christopher Hitchens accused her of hypocrisy for opting to receive this advanced treatment for her heart condition.[67][68]"

The way this is worded suggests that Hitchens objected to her receiving the exorcism. It's too late to ask Hitchens about this, but (from what I know of Hitechens' opinions on such things) I suspect that this is not a correct interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.142.162 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "this". No-one rational would imagine Hitchens referring to an "exorcism" as "advanced treatment", but then, this article is testament to the ability of some people to believe just about anything. Anyway, I hope this improves the slight grammatical implication. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In the end I removed this sentence entirely: it does not really belong in the account of her final illness and death, and the criticism is much more general. If appropriate, it should be included in the criticisms section or the separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Miracle and beatification

Contrary to this article, the position of Promoter of the Faith has not been abolished, and canonisation requires two miracles, not "a miracle." See the Wikipedia article Canonisation.97.91.254.54 (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity please change it to Mother Teresa founded Missionaries of Charity Hello everyone! (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done The current phrasing is the correct grammar. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mother Teresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Mother Teresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Name

I would call this article Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, with a redirect from "Mother Theresa", if only to avoid the PBUH and other honorifics debate. Zezen (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles states that the common name is used. --Dmol (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I know this policy, @Dmol, but then as per WP:PBUH,

"In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, [...] honorifics should generally be omitted from articles"

, terms such as "Mother", "Father", "Saintly", "Miraculous", "Dear Leader, who is a perfect incarnation of the appearance that a leader should have" should be used sparingly, especially in the article's title. Just stating my 3 cents, for the record, in view of the repeated challenges to the WP:PBUH and similar WP:NPOV policies. Zezen (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're proposing is at odds with Wikipedia practice. We use commonly used names for articles. Majoreditor (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me again about this policy. As I wrote, I do not plan to rename it (hence "I would" and not "will"), I just state my opinion (hence "for the record"), driven here from the PBUH debate, to draw your attention to the pattern. Please note in the current List_of_saints, there is only one Mother: Mother Maria, a redirect to the article titled Maria Skobtsova.

Here, this article contains only two Anjezë 's , one Sister Teresa versus as many as 236 Mother Teresa 's sprinkled with the formal title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. Zezen (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that the (main) infobox has the "Blessed" title, and I think this should be changed to agree with the title of the article. Then there's another infobox (is this normal?) for "Saints"; it seems quite reasonable that this should have her "saintly" name. (It including a line "titles=Virgin, Consecrated religious, nun". Well, this looks odd to me, but is it backed up by experts on sainthood?) Otherwise, since "Mother Teresa" is the name by which she was commonly known, it seems entirely appropriate for it to occur 236 times. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


I have also noticed that the common name Venerable Bede has been renamed as (uncommon) Bede here, ditto for the standard name St thomas aquinas (6 million google hits) to thomas aquinas. Just saying.

PS. So far Saint Nicholas has not been changed to Nicholas (RC Church) yet, but Saint Michael already has, q.v. ;) Zezen (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, Zezen. Aquinas is commonly referred to as "Thomas Aquinas". Relatively few reliable sources refer to Mother Teresa as "Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu". She stopped using that name decades ago, and scholars, journalists and almost all other people referred to her as "Teresa" or "Mother Teresa". A scan of academic literature, encyclopedic articles, websites, critical journalism and other reliable sources will most likely reveal that there's an overwhelming English language preference to refer to the individual as Mother Teresa ... not Saint Teresa and certainly not by her birthname.
The last time I did any serious secondary research on MT - a few years ago - I do not remember finding any books, articles or other reliable sources which referred to her birthname except in passing. Book and article titles almost universally referred to her as Mother Teresa. A hallmark of Wikipedia is that we let reliable sources guide our naming conventions. Sources as diverse as The New York Times, Christopher Hitchens and the Nobel committee have tended to use "Mother Teresa" as article/subject titles. Majoreditor (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mother Teresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Elizium23 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Titles in sainthood infobox

The second infobox lists her "titles"(?) as: Virgin, Consecrated religious, Nun. I just made the capitalisation consistent, but I wonder if there is a proper basis for these. Sure, she was a nun, and for all I know she was a virgin, but is "consecrated religious" a noun phrase with a clear and specific meaning? Are these three really parallel concepts? Hoping someone knows more about this than I do, not that that should be difficult. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You can be a male consecrated religious or you can be a female consecrated religious. It's actually debatable whether she was a nun for her whole life. The institute she founded does not consist of nuns, but sisters. Elizium23 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
English is weird (using an adjective as a noun) but I have heard the phrase before. I think it is valid. Sizeofint (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Imaginatorium, the phrase "Consecrated religious" does sound strange, but it's an actual term. The article Catholic religious orders probably describes how the Catholic Church uses the term "religious" as a noun to describe a certain monastic orders and their members. BTW, Elizium poses an interesting question about whether MT technically remained a nun once she founded the Sisters of Charity. I wish I knew; I suspect that she continued to be a nun unless she was released from her professed solemn vows. Majoreditor (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Recognition and Criticism

The section was a long dense block, so I broke it up under the relevant cross-headings. I also expanded the treatment of Keating (and propose attending to the Duvalier case in due course). The result, granted the existence of Criticism of Mother Teresa, is that the now section seems out of proportion within Mother Teresa - an effect (partly optical, I think) which I didn't foresee when introducing the cross-headings. The next step, then, would seem to be a radical pruning of the criticisms section in the main article and its reformation to give a general overview of criticisms rather than detailed discussion of a few choice topics. Does anyone object or have any comments? Ridiculus mus (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think if there is a link to the main Criticisms article then the criticisms in the actual biography should be reduced to just a summary rather than a detailed section. I would say definitely prune it. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I drafted a reduced version (cut down by 27%) which I have now posted in a sandbox. I would be very grateful if comments/ suggestions/ criticisms/ questions were posted by you and others on the sandbox discussion page. I am now working on Criticism of Mother Teresa and The Missionary Position, aiming at a coherent treatment across all three articles. Thanks Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Now see an alternative, and somewhat shorter, version of the sub-section at my v2 sandbox. Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Currently the styling here is distinct from Wikipedia norms. I would prefer either severe pruning, which will draw readers to the full article, or if it is to be a detailed subsection, then the individual categories of criticisms should use standard header styling. Syneil (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

When I introduced the sub-headings I deliberately avoided using standard sub-sections, because it would have created a huge disproportion in the contents box. It was, in any case, a temporary expedient and I have now pruned the section, removing the need for cross-headings. Once Criticism of Mother Teresa has been edited, further pruning may be possible and desirable in the instant article. Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


The entire piece is riddled with weasel words. When reference to a criticism is made, it is followed by a dismissal. e.g. "She was depicted as cunning, lacking in modesty and humility; they were either dupes or manipulators. Nor were these criticisms expressed in measured terms. Her critics frequently used vulgar, insulting and abusive language, and even grave allegations of personal impropriety were made against her, dependent on nothing but insinuations and suspicion, guilt by association, and adverse conclusions drawn from her silence. Throughout, Mother Teresa was silent in the face of abuse, and when pressed replied only that she forgave those who attacked her."
This is not how we do things on Wikipedia. Compare it to the criticism sections of other controversial figures. No one would come away from reading this piece well-informed about the body of criticism against Teresa.
I think it would be better that the criticism section reflect much of the evidence against her, with references, without suffixing every sentence with apologia or idolatry. Even the introduction has been skunked: it concludes "she has not lacked detractors, nor was she immune from personal abuse and insults whether in her life or after her death, all of which she bore calmly" Can you imagine the WP intro on Thaksin Shinawatra or George W Bush ending with ?
We need to move this piece so that it is closer to what an encyclopedia article ought to be. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Something really needs to be done about this. It's honestly the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia and it reads like a catholic opinion piece. Definitely see WP:Weasel Words and compare to the content of this article – specifically the criticism section as Ordinary Person mentioned. I honestly believe keeping this article the way it is hurts WP's overall credibility. Teresa is a controversial figure for good reason and this article has clearly been written on one side of the controversy. Even a little further up I'm the talk page one of the editors dismisses criticisms with an ad hominem on one of her critics. Ridiculous. 107.215.192.17 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree - the person who has re-edited the Criticism section has clearly decided Catholic sainthood means whitewashing. Despicable and anti-Wiki. As they clearly intend it to be. Shameless. TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Completely agreed with the above. The entire article reads like an apologetic tract. At this point I'd rather link people to the rationalwiki article on her. Merari01 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest seeing as there is a link to the separate article on the criticism I think a brief summary that some people have criticised her & her work would suffice in the biog. That way we avoid this issue entirely RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with RoyalBlueStuey. Criticism sections within articles are not encouraged precisely because they involve an implicit bias to negativity. See WP:CRIT

Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias

As for the inapposite reference to George W. Bush, I find the approach there (where there is no distinct "Criticism" section) not so different, in principle, from that adopted here. In the section "Image" we read (in-line refs omitted):-

Bush has been parodied by the media, comedians, and other politicians. Detractors tended to cite linguistic errors made by Bush during his public speeches . . . Some pundits labeled Bush "the worst president ever". In contrast to his father, who was perceived as having troubles with an overarching unifying theme, Bush embraced larger visions and was seen as a man of larger ideas and associated huge risks. Tony Blair wrote in 2010 that the caricature of Bush as being dumb is "ludicrous" and that Bush is "very smart".

Ridiculus mus (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the topic should be avoided entirely because that again leads to apologetics and a rose-tinted article. "Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias" would indicate that the criticism has its place. Furthermore, the language as used in the article needs trimming. If one wishes to present a wholly positive image one should go to information as presented by the church, not a wikipedia article. The apologetic language needs removing and instead there should be a mere representation of facts in non-emotional tones. Phrases like "all of which he bore calmly" or attacks on the character of Hitchens really have no place.

Merari01 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is suggesting the topic be avoided altogether. There is a distinct article Criticism of Mother Teresa. Compare the treatment of criticism of Mohammad to which reference is made below. The reference to bearing attacks calmly has been deleted. Can we move the discussion along? Yesterday I proposed replacing the existing section along the lines suggested below (with a redirect to Criticism of Mother Teresa); the other possibility is deleting the dedicated sub-section and also deleting the article Criticism of Mother Teresa, reintegrating criticisms into the main article as per the guidelines in WP:CRIT. The implication that rebuttals of criticism should be omitted is not justified, however. Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Merari01. There's no point in shying away from the fact that some of these matters are controversial. I'll start by trimming the weasel words now and then we'll have a go at reforming the criticism section later.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got most of it. Ordinary Person (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

guys please refrain from critizing catholosism Nfaloo (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)nfaloo 9/24/14

I think perhaps someone ought to write an article "Praise of Mother Teresa". "Ridiculus Mus" (et al) you pretend to be an authority on all that is right and wrong in this world, yet you hide behind the complete anonymity that Wikipedia gives you. Who are you? What are your personal views? You cannot claim to stand as a figure of complete neutrality and remain entirely anonymous. Your attitude to me seems laced with left wing and atheist political ideology. Are you an atheist? If you are that is fine, but many atheists campaign against Roman Catholicism. Perhaps you are more biased than you would have others believe. Well, who are you? That is criticism of you. Are you happy with that? Will you angrily delete my criticism and denounce me as stupid or politically incorrect? Can you tolerate someone who does not share your views?

Rather than writing at length about Mother Teresa here, why do you not write a book on her. Then people can make a better judgment about you, the author and your political and ideological standpoints with respect to your subject.

Mother Teresa was - at least in her lifetime almost universally regarded as a figure of compassion and love. I do not recall her being widely regarded as 'controversial'. All practicing Roman Catholics are against abortion. Abortion is even today, not universally accepted as a human right.John2o2o2o (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

To respond to part of that, when you look at the beginning of the article you should see a tab at the top labelled "View history". Click on that and you will see the answer to "Who are you?" The article has been created by a large number of editors collaborating over many years. Some might be atheists. Chances are many are Catholics. You can edit too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
To respond to the rest, how people are generally regarded by severely biased, non-experts has nothing to do with how they should be depicted on wikipedia. I am sure that, even though Mother Teresa is thoroughly documented as thinking suffering was good and that the poor "should accept their lot," many Catholics love her. Most of these Catholics probably don't know that she thought the people she supposedly helped should suffer and die in poverty; that's where wikipedia comes in. Even including the obvious POV nature of this article, the article on criticisms of Mother Teresa is almost as long as the generally positive article on Mother Teresa. Why in the world should these be separate? This is a bit like having generally positive articles on people like Osama Bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini from a specific Muslim perspective and then separate articles about their criticisms. Think comparing Bin Laden and Teresa is rediculous? Bin Laden is famous for murdering around 3,000 people. Mother Teresa is famous for helping around 29,000 people (that's in only one of her "clinics") to die slowly in what she devoutly hoped was terrible pain. She had the money to help alleviate their pain, but she didn't use it for that. She believed in their pain, she thought it was good, and she was also proud that every single one of them was baptised regardless of their actual religious beliefs. You can find the sources for this on the criticisms page and literally everywhere else. Teresa was a true believer in suffering and a religious bigot; she didn't try to hide it. From the perspective of many uninformed Catholics and a minority of informed Catholics, this was good. From the perspective of everyone who hates suffering and tries to reduce it where possible (so, most people and most Catholics), she was a monster. Basically what we have in this article is Catholic sources deciding how Mother Teresa will be depicted and non-Catholic/compassionate Catholic sources being sent to some alternate page where they wont be noticed.Pwoodfor (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations have been made that she knowingly accepted donations from disreputable sources. It was said that in one notorious case she knew or ought to have known that the money was stolen; and that she accepted money from the autocratic and corrupt Duvalier family in Haiti, which she visited in early 1981. In neither case were these aspersions substantiated, although this did not stop her critics from repeating them"

The conclusion of this paragraph is superfluous and self-evidently a breach of Wiki's NPOV injunction. The same is true. of the word "aspersions" Accordingly, I have removed the former and amended the latter to "allegations". Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 09:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For a section entitled "Criticisms" it seems to devote as much time to a defence of Mother Theresa as to criticism. I feel that such apologism should be in a different section or this section renamed "Controversies". Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 09:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"particularly from atheists who were dismayed at what they considered to be people's gullibility" - Where's the substantiation for this claim? The citation of for a comment made by a single atheist, Christopher Hitchens (which links to another Hitchens reference in this same list in this same article on this same page, that reference in turn linking to the Christopher Hitchens Wikipedia article), and cannot be used to back the assertion that criticism was "particularly from atheists". This being the case, rather than delete the sentence entirely I have amended it so as to remove the unfounded claim. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This problem still exists. The Criticism section contains almost no criticisms, but is almost wholly apologetics for Teresa that describes the criticisms in the voice of a supporter, often followed by quotes from someone saying something nice about her. While Criticism sections are generally frowned upon by wikipedia style guides, this section is a joke. This is often a problem with articles on controversial topics related to the Roman Catholic Church. Ashmoo (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


The criticisms of this quack can't be thorough enough. She duped the entire planet into perceiving her in a saintly light that was entirely inappropriate. As for receiving a Peace Nobel? what for?184.145.94.21 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello User:John2o2o2o,
I agree. The previous wording that Mother Theresa was "widely criticized for opposing abortion" was problematic. The implication is that her position was criticized by everyone, and supported by nobody. I have adapted this article to include that her position was supported by pro-life advocates, while opposed by pro-choice groups. This is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section

Hi. I raised the criticism section to a primary heading for two reasons. I did so with full knowledge of the discussion on the subject on this page, with which I am in full agreement, in terms of it having been trimmed down to the essential, given that there is a dedicated detailed article on it. Reasons for change in level:

  • 1. It is counter intuitive to have "criticism" as a sub-section of praise (which is what "Recognition and reception" is basically about)
  • 2. The fact that there is a full article on criticism tells us that it is an important question, and as such, though in a reduced form, it should be accorded a commensurate level of prominence.

I trust that this meets with the approval of those who have dedicated time to analyses the issue and who have spent time on this and related articles. Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, should definitely be a primary heading. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly either way, but I must point out that your argument (point 1) is simply false: "Reception" means how people responded to (whatever), whether positively or negatively. So it is perfectly consistent to have "Criticism" within the "Reception" section. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The section is currently called 'Recognition and reception' though. Gap9551 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception Section

I agree with User:Imaginatorium. The reception section should include both criticism and praise. There are many issues for which Mother Teresa was both criticizes AND praised. Currently, these is an alarming bias in the current criticism section, which states that Mother Teresa was criticized for her pro-life views (no sources were given). While this is true, she was also praised for her pro-life views. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to include this content in a "criticism" section, just as it would be equally inappropriate to include this content is a "praise" section. Reception is a neutral title, and should therefore be considered. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

misc

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

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

Non-neutral language

Someone edited this sentence:

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

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

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

Tomb

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016


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

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

Kodak

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

@Afterwriting: Come here, before you undo it again. You've, now, made 3 reverts. Explain yourself, in detail. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:STATUSQUO is quite clear. It is your responsibility to seek consensus for a change. You don't get to revert to your preferred version first. If you can't then the article remains as it is. As to the "issue" at hand, I consider it complete nonsense to suggest that "realized" is somehow more neutral language. We don't know for an objective fact that the new film was the cause of the better light. All we know is that is what the camermen believed to be the reason. Afterwriting (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to agree with what Afterwriting said. And to mention that we are all allowed to assume the obvious: that the camera crew knew a lot more about film than MM did. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Afterwriting: There's no "consensus" needed for the edits I made, they were minuscule, relevant, and more clear.
And yes, we do know, as an objective fact, that the upgraded technology, which captured better light, is what was the cause of the better light.
Think about your statement, put like this: "We don't know for a fact that B comes after A, just because B always comes after A."
I edited a few other things, other than fixing that word to be more clear. You reverted it all, anyway.
Sorry, not concerned with discussing it with you, any further. I tried to get you to talk before you kept reverting the edits. You can take it up with an administrator, if they ask for your opinion. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 07:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

I made it very clear in my edit summary "POV edits. Commentary, and cause and effect not shown" as to why I was reverting. To further elaborate. you are making a rather ludicrous claim that she is only criticised for her anti-abortion stance when it gets very little mention in the MT article, and barely a sentence in the Criticism article. The claim is not in the reference attached to the sentence where you placed the info, which would lead to the false assumption that your claim is supported. Wikipedia is neutral, whether you like it or not. We don't pander to anyone or any religious group. --Dmol (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I hold to my statement that the references in the intro show a clear bias against abortion. Smoker mentions abortion nine times in his article and Hitchens who has two references there focuses on the issue of reproduction and abortion in his own critiques. The fourth reference in the intro bit is pay per view and perhaps you can tell me if it mentions abortion. But for those who know how much the anti-abortion thing raises hackles in some quarters, it is not ludicrous to suggest that the vitriolic language in Hitchens and the frequent references in Smoker make them poor references for this statement in the intro.(talkJzsj (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, what happened was this:
This article was spun off from the article Mother Teresa on the grounds that it was getting too large.
However, in that context, it balanced all the Praise for Mother Teresa. There's lots of that there, too, but the decision wasn't made to spin that off into its own article.
But here, isolated from the article Mother Teresa, by itself, apart from the P. for M.T., it seems biased. All it does is criticize her; that's really all this article is about: notable negative things about her said by notable people and published somewhere WP:RS.
I don't know what to do about it. Maybe we could emphasize notable responses to these criticisms by letting them respond.
The problem is, Mother Teresa and her supporters have not responded much.
Are you aware of any such defenders responding to any of these criticisms of MT?
If so, you might add their counterpoints or refutations to each C. of M.T. in this article.
I think you'll find many of these go unanswered, or consist of counter-criticism of the person making the C.ofM.T.
That makes it hard to make this article less biased. It is biased. It's about accusations against Mother Teresa.
So the best we can do, unless you guys can think of something else, is to seek out defenses against these specific allegations and summarize them well and add them appropriately to the article.
But that's not always going to be possible because sometimes the accusations are made and just ignored or superficially dismissed. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not difficult to find why people don't take time to defend this recipient of so many awards: a miniscule part of her heritage is showcased by those who have little respect for her faith-perspective and who judge India by the standard of Western nations, "While WHO estimates about 7-12% HAI burden in hospitalized patients globally, the figures from India are alarming, with an incidence rate varying from 11% to 83% for different kinds of HAI."[3]. While Wiki condoles over its loss of readership since 2013, one obvious reason is how easily Wiki turns off people when it showcases those who would impose their own perspective rather than evaluating others from within the other's perspective.Jzsj (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Skopje became a part of Serbia in 1912

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

Again: "Her birthplace of Skopje, now capital of the Republic of Macedonia, was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1918, when it became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.[22][23]" is A FALSITY. Skopje was a part of Serbia from the First Balkan War in 1912.
Why is the article locked for edit, so this bullshit cannot be corrected?
Maybe if you made a polite edit request, with a reliable source to cite, such a thing could be accomplished. ScrpIronIV 18:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

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


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

Smerg16 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). == Naming ==

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

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

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

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). == origin of Mother Teresa ==

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/reportaj/maica-tereza-avea-tata-roman-449566

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 02:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Money

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

That's a big "if". If there are no reliable sources attesting to any malfeasance, then there is no cause for alarm that the money is really missing. Dr. K. 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Carol. Wikipedia has an entire article called Criticism of Mother Teresa which might interest you. I concur with Dr. K. We are pretty safe in assuming that Teresa deserved sainthood. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we change the article to Saint Teresa?

She was made into a saint in 2016.2605:6001:E790:5800:C58E:DBDC:FB86:8A5D (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. No I don't think so. We have a List of saints named Teresa and if you look at their articles they don't say Saint in the title. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Theresa of Calcutta is now appropriate. 107.77.203.132 (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The form currently employed at the DAB page is Saint "Mother" Teresa of Calcutta. Would that be better? Or less consistent? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Mother Teresa is still the WP:COMMONNAME. Bahooka (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, Mother Teresa is and will likely stay the common name, but someone can give it the ole college try at WP:RM. Please note, as SusanLesch mentioned above, that other Saint Teresa's don't have "Saint" in their Wikipedia page title. Randy Kryn 14:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Mother Theresa is the common name in English, now and before. She was known as the equivalent of "Theresa of Calcutta" in many Latin-speaking countries long before canonisation, but generally not in English. Only if there is a significant and marked shift in reference to her should the title be changed. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hitchens criticism

A sentence in the lead says that "She was also criticised for the poor conditions in the houses for the dying she ran." But all of the sources lead to Hitchens, I think it's important to mention that it was Hitchens rather than a general sentence which implying as though it is a common criticism. Ign christian (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized there are other sources in the criticism section. Perhaps those sources in the lead should be removed since there are various sources in that section. Ign christian (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Belated hi, User:Ign christian. Sorry I didn't read your notes here until now. Earlier today I removed the sources in the lead (both for criticism of Teresa's homes for the dying and for pro- and con- abortion views). I find the lead much easier to read now. Do you agree? The article Criticism of Mother Teresa might have an additional critic. A Dr. Robin Fox was vocal on the homes for the dying (more in the article on Missionaries of Charity). But I think foremost was Aroup Chatterjee, who wrote a book about Teresa and was the person who inspired Hitchens to write his criticism. Chatterjee is mentioned briefly in this article and he is primarily in the section Recognition and reception. (edited reply)-SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi.. I think it's better, readers will find the details and the sources at related sections for clarification. It's sad to see this article has many critics scattered in several sections, and I think all criticsm should be group together under the "Criticsm" section. By the way, I don't intend to read all critics, just to make sure that those are written as it is, based on the verifiable sources, to minimalize any possible attempts to discredit a subject. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Origin of Mother Teresa

Smerg16 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/reportaj/maica-tereza-avea-tata-roman-449566

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Can you please offer us some academic work? Is there any scholar who supports what those Romanian unreliable and unscientific magazines say? In such cases, some magazines or newspapers do not help, only scholarship books do. You can ask other editors if you don't believe me. All the best. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The last time I checked - about four years ago - few English-language academic sources addressed her origin in great detail. They typicaly refer to her as Albanian. A few non-academic sources go into greater detail. MT herself self-identified as Albanian by birth.
Over the years this talk page has hosted a fair amount of discussion on her ethnicity; it's helpful to review the archives for details. Adding a brief comment about Aromanian roots is certainly possible as long as it comes from high-quality reliable sources. I agree with Ktrimi991's comment that newspapers and magazines won't work in this case. find a well-researched biographical source and then let's discuss. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree! As we know the world is imperfect and there will always be a "reliable" source written from an "impartial" person, proposing alternative theories. Coming to the point: She is Albanian, full stop. She has publicly accepted it, her family is still alive and they all accept being Albanians. No theory or research replaces direct and abundant evidence.


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

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

You would need really good peer reviewed sources for that. It was Aurel Plasari in Albania who first made the claim by misreading a primary source. He was refuted by a whole bunch of Albanian historians who showed that the Boiadzhiev mentioned in late Ottoman period documents relating to Skopje was not the same one as Mother Teresa's father. The theory of Vlach descent has been mentioned over and again by non-Albanian right wing circles in Macedonia to denationalize her ethnic identity. In the end and she is also on record, she saw herself and identified as an Albanian. Your sources will need to satisfy the following wp:reliable and wp:secondary criteria before any big changes are made. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

i say india. because it was where she was famous.... Ayush.neupanex (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from. Though she became a citizen of India and considered herself a Indian in so many ways (and no one is contesting that), she still viewed her ethnic heritage (that of birth and early life) as being Albanian. It is this part that some editors have commented on as not being fully and or partially the case. As i commented before and other editors too, those editors advocating for additions and change of that nature will need good peer reviewed material that is wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016

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

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

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

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


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

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

You raise an interesting point. I found several quotes from reliable sources indicating that she felt that certain types of suffering under certain conditions are gifts from God; but I have yet to find a properly attributed source stating that she literally said that suffering was a gift from God. I've requested that someone add a proper citation. Majoreditor (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
How about these quotes, The following passages are quotations of Mother Teresa from the book "Love: A Fruit always in Season" edited by Dorothy S. Hunt.

1. FOURTH SUNDAY OF LENT---Accepting the “gift” of suffering Pain and suffering have to come into your life but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus--—signs that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you. Accept them as a gift--—all for Jesus. You are really reliving the Passion of Christ so accept Jesus as He comes into your life--— bruised, divided, full of pains and wounds. (Life in the Spirit, 62)

Or

    The following passages are quotations of Mother Teresa from the book "The Best Gift is Love" edited by Sean-Patrick Lovett.

Today the passion of Christ is being relived in the lives of those who suffer. To accept that suffering is a gift of God.

I'm surprised there is doubt that she said these things. I found these quite easily on the following page where the author has transcribed the biographies of MT located here: http://www.jameslau88.com/mother_teresa_on_suffering_and_death.html Hope that helps the discussion Mramoeba (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mother Teresa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Owenhooper123456 (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: The request is empty. Please describe the changes in a "Change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Mother Teresa declared 'Saint' by the Roman Catholic Church? No mention in Wiki?

Mother Teresa was declared a 'Saint' by the Roman Catholic Church, why has this information not been added? Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/sep/04/mother-teresa-declared-saint-by-pope-francis http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/04/europe/mother-teresa-canonization/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.60.2 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The article's first sentence mentions her sainthood, and there is an entire section on her canonisation. Majoreditor (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

Wolfchode (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 05:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Radio Tirana

Radio Tirana reporting on Mother Theresa's visit to Albania in 1989. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW4S4bdAZUU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.85.220.165 (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Title of page is now incoherent.

I would suggest that the title of this page is wrong and should be changed to "Teresa of Calcutta", as she is universally known both in the Roman Catholic church and in the secular media. The word "Mother" in "Mother Teresa" is an honorific in the RC church, granted to female consecrated religious with some governing authority. However, when an individual is canonised the honorific of "Saint" supplants and replaces all other such honorifics such as "Father", "Mother" "Monsignor". Since the RC church grants the honorific, it also has the right to define its use. The exception is "Pope", and this is because popes of the same name are distinguished by regnal numbers and obviously not all of the same name need be saints. Hence, "Pope St John Paul II (as distinct from Pope John Paul I), but St Teresa of Calcutta and not "Mother" Teresa of Calcutta. Basilwatkinsosb (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, the common name applies. The policy wording is - Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). --Dmol (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Mother Theresa MC

Just out of curiosity, why is Mother Theresa labeled as Mother Theresa, Can also go by "Saint of the Gutters" Is this something that should be fixed or is there a reason for this?Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

she is dead BUT we should have respect for her — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:9BDB:900:60A8:30D1:7612:53E4 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I dont think Mother Teresa should be linked with any religion in the rendition of her service. She was driven by Christ and that is beyond doubt. Her approach to humanitarianism was inclusive of all faiths. Hence naming this page by any denomination of belief would be inappropriate. God give her order more strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.138 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with anon's logic. Mother Teresa made it clear that she was quite Catholic in her beliefs. It's analogous to saying that Abraham Lincoln shouldn't be classified as an American president because his approach to politics transcended national boundaries. And interestingly enough, most of MT's greatest fans and her harshest critics point out how profoundly Catholic she was.
That said, Wikiman asks a valid question: whether the initial mention of MT should include "MC". I'm not sure that this issue has ever come up before. Does anyone know? I suspect it would be cleaner to omit "MC" and any other designations; the general Wikipedia guidance is to use the most commonly accepted name, which - I strongly suspect - is simply "Mother Teresa".
Yes i concur, it seems strange MC is there. Its much cleaner to use "Mother Teresa" as most people refer to her as simply that. Unless there's a valid reason that is there I would say remove it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2017

The contrived post-nominal letters "BR" and "PMOF" should be removed from the infobox as I can find no reliable source suggesting that the honours in question accord post-nominal letters. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

The 'The young Teresa at age 18.' photo is widely circulated but is false. See: http://www.snopes.com/mother-teresa-age-18/

This photo appears to be the real deal: https://au.pinterest.com/pin/414331234438824842 175.45.116.90 (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I just removed the image; the image you provided doesn't appear to have a file on Wikimedia Commons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)