Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

NPOV

Wow..just wow. This page is not NPOV as per Wikipedia guidelines, the criticism page has been shrunken down to a mere list, as opposed to sentences. And it's been buried at the very bottom - it reads like a citation list. I believe this to be a deliberate means of hiding some of the arguments and criticisms alleged against her. At the very least some of the criticisms can be summed up in sentences, there's no need to just list links. JayAlto —Preceding comment was added at 08:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Can whoever added the references for BMJ and David Scott (sorry, I've lost track of who's contributed what) please complete the citations? Thanks, Majoreditor 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the BMJ reference (as I had already corrected the author for it) to contain volume, issue and page nos and publication date. The ISBN previously attached and now removed is that for the Hitchens book which could go in the references section or a further reading one. The ISBN should not be attached to the BMJ article citation. Given that Donal MacIntyre's name was misspelt, in another citation (which has now disappeared), and the BMJ reference was somehow meant to support a reference for Hitchens's evidence to the Vatican it might be worth having someone copyedit the whole lot checking for relevance as they go. --Peter cohen 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. There's one item that should be checked -- "Willaims" I think it is -- which is suspect. (Silly me, I should know, I think that's one of my citations.) Give me a few days to make it back over to the library to check on it unless I can find it online. Majoreditor 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you're saying sure to checking the citations. What about adding the Hitchens book to the references list?--Peter cohen 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting question. The Hitchens book isn't cited in the article -- I just see 2 references to Hitchens articles. Here's three potential solutions: (1) change the name of the "References" section to "References and further reading"; (2) create a new section for "Further reading"; (3) change the name of the links to criticism to links to criticsm and further reading. While creating a "Further Reading" section would be nice to do, we'd need to come up with some more books to include so it's not just a list of one. So, the other two solutions may work better in the short term. There may also be additional solutions to consider. Thoughts? Majoreditor 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to rename References to "Further Reading". All books seemed to be given full details in the citations. If we had Chicago Referencing, separation of References and Furtehr Reading might have been useful, but not with the method used here. My fall back is your option 1. --Peter cohen 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Majoreditor 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename imminent--Peter cohen 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've also alphebeticised the list. In the process I notice that there is more than one format used and that Brijal Dwiveli's book hasn't got full details. Can whoever inserted the book, plese supply the details and confirm whether I am right to have treated Dwiveli as a surname, please?--Peter cohen 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the David Scott citation is still incomplete. If someone can in particular provide the page number for the quotation, that would be helpful.--Peter cohen 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give this article a miss for a while - (as Peter cohen pointed out I reverted more than 3 times to keep up with sloppy rollbacks) - More criticism needs to be introduced as reported by Authors and the media, but let's see how it goes... Sfacets 02:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Including criticisms and how to do it

The thing that concerns me is not simply mentioning criticism for criticism sake, it needs to be placed into a larger framework. For an instance, what role did Mother Teresa's celebrity play? Did people get know the real Mother Teresa or simply the icon and the image the press put forward? What financial accountability was there? I myself have difficulty seeing this article reaching that point when everybody is worrying about reverts. -Nodekeeper 03:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Aargh my first draft got eaten as I tried to preview it.) I think the financial accountability question is different from the role of her celebrity. I think the process of reaction to her should be deal with as one big section. The Global Recognition and Awards section is the main source of material, but govern the broader coverage, award shoudl be removed form the section title, but might become a subsection title. The Influence in the World section also contains material (the last two paras) that should be in this section.

I think it would go :

• Malcolm Muggeridge brings her to Western public attention during his own quest for spirituality
• She gains attention in the broad mainstream press (examples)
• She receives honours in India (up to and including state funeral)
• She receives honours in the West (Nobel prize, US honorary citizenship, Order of Merit)
• She receives honours from the Catholic Church (beatificaiton)
• Through this she develops really positive public image, becomes figure of speech
• More dubious types leap on the band wagon (Maxwell and big US fraudster, some of the more dubious third world leaders)
• A reaction starts. This can be dealt with in the same sort of way (but will have less material). Hitchens is the equivalent anti-religious figure to Muggeridge, the left-wing and atheist press matching the Catholic Church, the criticisms in prestigious medical journals in some way matching the Western authorities honouring her etc.

What I think is a scope issue in my summary above and the article is that there is no real coverage of how the Indian press handle her. Whay did/do they think of her? When did they start covering her in relation to the Wetern coverage. The Chatterjee stuff online has some opinions, but she's obviouly committed to oen side of the argument.--Peter cohen 11:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the indian media. I was wondering that myself. I think the summary on the evolution of press coverage/popular perception is a good one too. She really did care about her image, to the point that she told the owners of the 'Mother Teresa bun' [1] to change its name. Which the owners did and they called it the 'nun bun'. But she evidently didn't mind enough to accept donations from the likes of Keating et al. Really, this needs some deep research at a university library. Something that I would not have time to do in the foreseeable future. -Nodekeeper 02:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll post at the talk pages of WP:India and WP:Bias to see if anyone knows the answer re reportage in India.--Peter cohen 09:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On Penn and Teller, it's not a programme I've seen, but many articles contain references to the subjects' portrayal in satirical coverage. A reference to a person being satirised is relevant to discussion of their public image. Taking a selection of the 200+ wikilinks to Spitting Image as an example, the following articles Neil Kinnock, Social Democratic Party (UK), Steve Davis and Norman Tebbit all refer to their portrayal in this satirical show ouside trivia sections.--Peter cohen 13:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that P&T and Channel 5 qualify for mention in this type of biography. Seems quite trivial given the stature of the subject. MT is much better known than Steve Davis and Norman Tebbit. You will strengthen your case if you can show similar references for high-profile international figures.

Conceptually, I agree with the framework you suggest. However, you'll want to take care in presenting it to avoid challenges of WP:SYN. That can be avoided by avoiding inferences of cause-and-effect, unless there is a reliable source who suggests as much. I'd suggest avoiding creating short subsections as the WP style mavens frown on that practice. Majoreditor 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the P&T routine, you should look at it to see why it was decided that it should not be included in the article. It violates WP:EL, WP:RS, and is really a rant of obscencities for shock value. I understand your point about it being noteworthy not for its content, but for the fact that MT is satarized. It's an interesting spin on the issue, but the material itself is still pretty hard-core and over the top. It's not really satire. It doesn't belong. Spitting Image is a satirical puppet show. P&T are an act of "illusion and comedy." Read the loooong section on this above. --Anietor 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My instinct now is to include it in the discussion of Hitchens saying he continues to campaign actively writing for X and Y, and making television appearances such as on Penn and Teller. That will lead naturally to the criticism of him and Chatterjee by the guy whose opinion piece contains the reference to the show.--Peter cohen 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree if Hitchens appeared in a documentary or in some forum that was, by its nature, more academic or at least "serious", or if he said something new with them. But his appearance on P&T is more appropriate for the Hitchens article itself, not the MT article. I don't think he says anything during their routine that he hasn't said elsewhere, so it's better to cite to him elsewhere, if at all. when you further balance in the WP:EL and WP:RS issues, it becomes even more apparent that the whole P&T issue, whether its citation or link, should be left out. --Anietor 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now finished my hack, comments and copy-editing welcome. Channel 5 is only mentioned obliquely (because Donal MacIntyre worked for them) and P&T is not named but is the "one particularly provocative programme" that is mentioned as the trigger for Bozell's comments on Hitchens and Chatterjee. --Peter cohen 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say that in reworking the awards proselist, I decided there were too many American awards listed in proportion to other nationalities, particularly India where she actually worked. I therefore picked one (the honorary citizenship) as the peak of her American honours (and have added another Indian one and an Albanian one to internationalise things more). Someone who is more familiar with the American honours system might be better able to decide whether I picked the right honour or whether a different one should be inserted instead. If someone wants to include more actual honours, then I suggest that spinning off an equivalent to List_of_awards_and_honours_bestowed_on_Nelson_Mandela is the way to go. What was in the MT article before was too ungainly.--Peter cohen 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Did we decide that Penn and Teller's show would be left out of the article or not? Because as of right now, someone added it in. Should it be removed? Stanselmdoc 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Thanks, Majoreditor. I didn't want to remove it if there had been consensus to place it in, and you contribute more to the article than I do (most of my time is spent reading the discussions on the talk page), so I didn't want to remove it and start some giant edit war. Stanselmdoc 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Stanselmdoc. As a standalone reference, it was really just trivia. I'd suggest keeping it out. To say that comedians poked fun of MT in episode ## doesn't really qualify. Majoreditor 13:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"did we decide" ? Who is we? Does some group claim ownership of this article? The removal of the P&T reference has nothing to do with trivia or comedy, it has everything to do with censorship. Perhaps the only way to resolve this is to create a separate wiki entry for criticism of Mother T...but no doubt you would try and delete that as well. Is your faith in this woman so fragile it can't take any criticism? MrMarmite 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't kept track of the long discussion on the P&T routine here and in other archived talk sections. WE refers to the wiki community and the idea of consensus. The opposition to the link comes down to relevance of a comedy routine to the article, and violation of WP:EL and WP:RS. This article is for relevant information (and relevant criticisms). It's not a source for every article and link on MT. Please review all of comments on this issue and ease up on the conspiracy nonsense. --Anietor 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

how could it break the WP:EL rule when it contained no external links. As for the WP:RS, that's entirely subjective. The fact is P&T is a nationally syndicated TV show which dedicate 1/3 of an episode discussing MT, including interviews with others mentioned on this page. I really can't be bothered to fight this "battle", but as you can see from the neutrality dispute template, this article is thought of as hopelessly biased. How else would you rationalise the redirect of the criticism page to this one. MrMarmite 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My universal "we" is inclusive of every editor contributing to this article, as Anietor stated. Please don't accuse me again of claiming ownership over anything. Stanselmdoc 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a quick thought

having not visited this article for a while. I'm very impressed with it's improvement. Someone has done some good work. Hope it stays that way.

When it comes to criticism I'd like to note a couple of things.

I checked both encyclopedia Britannica and MSN Encarta. Neither of these mention critics. I checked other wikipedia articles, of the ones I sampled, there was no critics mentioned for anyone else considered blessed by the catholic church.

Neither Mahatma Gandhi or Dahlia llama have any criticism listed. Not even pope Benedict XVI has much listed for citizen ( although there is some little mentions with links interspersed.

I have to ask exactly how credible the critics are, given no other encyclopedia even mentions them?

I have suspicion that the continued effort to include large amounts of critical material about MT in this article is more a function of anti-Christian bias then any legitimate need for balance.

I think for an article of this type what would be most consistent and useful would be a section named.

CRITICS

Although held in popular esteemed mother Theresa, as would be expected, was not with critics. These critics include:

Critic A < link to his article> -- one or two sentences of his/her major criticism <link to some sources where further research on said criticism can be found>

Critic B ... etc.

The section doesn't need to be very long. It should cover maybe the 3 or 4 most well known critics. Most people who read an article about MT are looking for information about her, not information about her critics. The fact they exist and where to find that information should be noted for those who want more details, but I don't see a need for more then that and it seems inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia.

An inside India is probably somewhat interesting, but MT worked and established communities in many more countries then India.

Wed - Sept 26 - 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.49.40.232 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Mohandas Gandhi article does contain a justified criticism section. You ask how credible the critics are; one might easily reverse the question to ask how credible the endorsers of figures like MT are, given their reluctance to properly address crticism. ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather disingenuous comparison to make, Legend. What "edorsers" do you refer to? Stating that MT won a Nobel Peace Prize, was featured in Time, was declared Blessed and is being considered for sainthood...those are not endorsements. They are factual statements. On the other hand, trying to insert into the article statements about MT not using money properly, or making a "controversial" speech or having lost her faith (all things that have been proposed) borders on POV, OR, etc. They require proper citations and sources, just like anything else. That is absolutely proper, and required for a wikipedia article. Facts that place someone in a positive light are not endorsements just because they are positive. Conversely, if MT had been convicted of a crime, it would be a fact that would go in the article, and would not be seen as MT-bashing just because it put her in an unfavorable light. I give some editors credit for the incredible lengths they go to in their attempts to insert negative material into the article. But unless it's relevant and sourced, keep it on your blog. --Anietor (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Utter disgrace

This article is absolutely appalling. I expect to read such words on the Vatican's own site, not an encyclopaedia. Pure sycophancy and hagiography, and nothing less. Brings shame to this resource. 86.17.211.191 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's even worse. Even the Vatican wanted to know what Christopher Hitchens had to say.

My father went to Fordham, and it's hard for me to understand how anyone who had a Catholic education could be so one-sided. In Catholic school, they teach you to think out one side of the argument, then the other side, and come to a conclusion. This article just feeds all criticism into the memory hole.

Charles Keating? Michele Duvalier? Gone. Nbauman 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of simply moaning, join in the discussion and the editing. The section immediately above has the words "including criticisms" in its title. One of you doesn't appear to have contributed anything before, the other was involved in previous discussions but not for a few months.--Peter cohen 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, Cohen, but it is rather weak a position to blame us for the lack of objectivity in this article because according to Wiki biography and objectivity rules it shouldn't be in this state in the first place!! Again, it brings shame to this resource - and its contributors. (And I have had experience in the past of contributing to the articles of so call "Wiki untouchables" - you don't get very far with the less than adulatory views. Just try even asking others why Gandhi's page makes no reference to his sleeping with naked, pre-pubescent girls and their administering of mutual enemas, plus his newspaper in South Africa in which he incited murder and violence on the indigenous population. Your comments will be instantly deleted, let alone any changes to the actual article - references or not, I can assure you.) -- 86.17.211.191 10:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

And now you know why universities increasingly are not allowing Wikipedia articles to be cited in course work. But if you visit the site regularly, then you should try to help out. Maybe eventually change policy so such facts can more readily included in articles without other editors censoring them. One can hope. -Nodekeeper 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually want to see the article improved rather than just enjoy feeling holier-than-thou, then now is the time while other people are trying to introduce changes to balance the article. There are enough people wanting to see changes and after the heat exchange earlier this week, some constructive discussion is happenning between the two sides. (The change-revert-discuss cycle is happening.) If you join in constructive exchanges to get the article somewhere decent and then watch the article, you can ensure that the article improves and stays improved.--Peter cohen 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I did put a bit of work into this article, but all my work was deleted. There's no gratification to spending a lot of work writing a well-sourced, reasonably objective section and having someone delete it or reduce it to an unrepresentative sentence, in violation of wp:npov and wp:censor because they disagree with it. It's impossible to write like that.

The weakness of Wikipedia is that a determined, uncooperative group of ideologues who ignore the rules can usually get their way, or at least disrupt it for everybody. We need some way of dealing with this.

The reason I keep this page on my watchlist is to keep an eye out for disputes where I can add my voice. Nbauman 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I said, there actually is a solid nucleus of people here at present wanting to incorporate the criticism. I think it has been agreed between the sides that, rather than a separate criticism section, material should be incorporated organically in the article. So I have put the specific content of BMJ/Lancet criticisms where MT's homes are discussed. Then the section on her global image can incorporate how she allowed the likes of Maxwell and the Duvaliers to associate themselves with her and how a critical literature has developed following on from Hitchens high profile coverage.

I would welcome your active involvement in this work. If you'd rather not heavily commit yourself again, could you please point us (particularly me as a new presence here) towards what you consider key sources. I think sufficient fuss has been kicked up about indiscriminate rollbacks and suspiciously new IP editors that reasonable coverage of criticisms of MT can be succesfully incorporated at this time provided appropriate referencing is included.--Peter cohen 16:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to add an NPOV tag to the Gandhi article as well but it is protected and ferociously controlled by a group of mods who refuse to allow any changes that they do not agree with - even if sources are provided - and as I said before, they heavily censor the discussion page too. Anyone willing to lend support over there? 86.17.211.191 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a small reference to the P&T show, and of course the MT fan club deleted it straight away. This article is absurdly one sided MrMarmite 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- I just stumbled upon this site doing some research on MT, and this article is terrible. It is pure propaganda, and really demonstrates some of the shortcomings of Wikipedia. MT did good work. Yes. She also did some very questionable things, like accept (stolen) money from Michael Milken and refuse to give it back, and run a closed operation very concerned about its image. None of the controversy is even acknowledged in the article. Terrible. anonymous 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.117.22 (talk)

This article has poor coverage of the controversies this woman was involved with. AmplifierRRU (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked

Right, I seem to recall two things on this talkpage recently:

• a claim that undue weight would be given to criticism if the views of critics were expanded upon
• a request for a perspective on MT from within the Indian media.

I think I can contribute to information on both simultaneously: Consider, for example the obit/cover in Frontline, India's most 'serious' newsmagazine: [2]; it covers the views of her critics in three separate paragraphs; the Hindu nationalists in India, Hitchens and Ali ("the ultra-left"), and those 'concerned' by her views on contraception and abortion. This receives considerable mention, noting that it formed the centerpiece of her Nobel lecture.

The Telegraph- Calcutta's largest paper, on the same occasion published a long column by the former editor of Calcutta's oldest paper, the Statesman: his words were widely quoted in the national and international press, including in the NYT and USA Today: ""Calcutta has little reason to be grateful," wrote Sunanda K. Datta-Ray. "It was she who owed a tremendous debt to Calcutta. No other city in the world would tamely offer up its poor and its dying to be stepping stones in a relentless ascent to sainthood." This is far from an uncommon view in Calcutta; most mentions of MT in the press do not go without a reference to the belief- shared, for example, by Amartya Sen - that she did not view poverty as something to be fixed. For example, in a recent op-ed on the poor state of public hospitals [3]: "...exactly what Calcutta is known for and why Mother Teresa has been globally canonized as the Saint of the Gutters and why Rome has been asked to investigate if she did anything to alleviate the condition of the poor or just took care of the sick and dying and needed them to further a sentimentally moral cause..." The author is a well-known actor and a former member of the legislative assembly.

Two other very common complaints were repeated in the Time obit[4] and elsewhere (I can dig up references from the Indian papers and the British papers if necessary). "There have been charges that her sisters not only give succor to the dying but also ask if they want 'tickets to heaven,' surreptitiously baptizing lifelong Hindus and Muslims for Jesus. The sisters deny these accusations; in India such conversions would be met with outrage, and the charge is widely disbelieved." [|Conversion] is, of course, a hot-button political issue in India.

Second, something that I personally remember causing a storm: "the order's Home for the Dying in Calcutta also attracted criticism. Unlike in modern hospices in the West, the dying at the mission home are not provided with pain-killing drugs. In November 1996 a German volunteer questioned one of Teresa's nuns. 'I have heard you don't give any medicines,' he said. The nun replied, 'This is not a treatment center. This is a place where the dying can die with dignity.'"

As far as I am concerned, I think most of these views are encyclopaedic; indeed, they go a great deal towards explaining who she was as a person and a Catholic and how she viewed her mission. Most of the obituaries do a wonderful job of integrating the views of critics into a larger picture, and I see no reason why that should not be done here as well. Hornplease 15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I think that the Frontline and Telegraph articles will help address what I think is a scope issue the GA reviewers should have noticed. Interesting to see how major Hindu organisations took different lines on her funeral. Also useful to see it emphasised that she got the Padma Shree before the West got in on the act.--Peter cohen 17:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now inserted two paragraphs on India at the top of the International Recognition and Awards section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 20:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Re-sectioning

I have begun work on the changes discussed above. I think a revision of the section borders may be appropriate. But first, does anyone know how we can tell if there are any wikilinks to specific sections of this article so that we don't leave any broken links. "What links here" shows the article as a whole.

Anyway, there are two areas where I think re-sectioning can be reconsidered.

I have moved the "Global recognition and awards" until after her death is discussed. In that way we can have most of the article discuss what she did during her life, followed by specific quotes praising or criticising a particular action. Then we can discuss her reception as a public figure as a whole in one chunk. The section name may not be the best name for the section when the rework finishes. Once we've finished with it, the section will include material about her as a public figure and both positive and negative material. How about something like "Public reception" or "International assessment", or a mix of the two? The section is currently quite large (seven paragraphs) and the tribute passage from the illness and death section may move in there. In fact I'm tempted to move the contents of that whole paragraph down and start the reception/assessment section with something like "Mother Teresa was granted a State Funeral in India. She had first received government recognition there as early as 1962 when she was awarded the Padma Shree..." and continue with the rest of what is there. We can make those first two paragraphs a subsection "Reception in India and Asia" (Musharaf's tribute goes in there.) Then we follow it by by "Reception in the rest of the World" with Pérez de Cuéllar's tribute fitted in there.

Second the three sections "Spiritual life", "Influence in the world" and "Miracle and beatification" have attracted my attention. They all seem to be about her as a Catholic and a Catholic figure. How about making them three subsections in something with a name like "Spiritual life and influence"? I'm struggling for a good name but, as I said the three sections seem related and the Ifluence in the World only talks about her impact on Catholics. --Peter cohen 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

Please comment. Sfacets 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If you mean should it be reviewed, it's been certified twice in the last month. Are you suggesting it go through the process again? --Anietor 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment for here is "Chutzpah". I have voted conditional keep.--Peter cohen 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is voting not to keep the article and it is likely to be speedily closed fairly soon. There are two points that should be taken out of the discussion. First, repeated nominations for delisting try the patience of the reviewers and another one in the near future will not achieve anything other than to goad them into an even speedier keep. Second, the reviewers are not saying the article is perfect (and haven't said so at previous reviews). They're saying keep on working to improve it and finishing including appropriate, balanced coverage of criticisms with suitable references is part of that improvement.--Peter cohen 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

If the editors who are contesting the neutrality of this article wish to be taken seriously, then violating WP:FORUMSHOP is not the way to go. This article has been reviewed in the past month and consensus of the GA/R was that it deserved to be POV GA. It survived a GA/R on August 7th. It was then nominated less than 2 weeks later for the same complaint. That nomination was closed because not enough time had passed since the first review. 3 days later, it was nominated a third time. Once again, that review has been closed as it had just been reviewed.Balloonman 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that in place of POV, Balloonman meant to say GA. Best regards, Lara♥Love 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lara, you are entirely correct.Balloonman 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I came on after the last review. It is clear that different editors (also new to the article) have come to the page, some of which have voiced the same concerns I have. Some have stuck around and others haven't. I know I'm short on time myself, and also recognize that this aritcle needs much more research. Regardless, just because it passed GA/R does not mean that mistakes were made in that judgement and that the article is seriously lacking. I agree that the article as written has serious POV issues, primarily in the area of criticisms.

Also, today we learn that quite a few of her letters have been released. Even before that I and other editors were wondering what role her public persona played in her life. Anyway, this is the kind of exposition that a couple of us have has tried to carry out, but have been thwarted by frequent reverts. Hence the NPOV tag. -Nodekeeper 05:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I had attempted earlier to introduce a section titled "doubts about faith". Some editors felt it was not neutral but it was based on the recent letters released Mother Teresa's crisis of faith. Muntuwandi 05:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If that information was cited by a reliable source, then by all means it should be in the article. If someone reverts that edit, then I would recommend bringing the case up through WP:3O first. A dispute of content alone does not disqualify an article for GA status, especially when no outside avenues have been taken to rectify the problem. I'm afraid that GA/R is just not a good venue for this discussion. Drewcifer3000 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be that there are certain number of articles that never will go above B-class. That may be the case here. If the couple of set-in-stone editors that patrol this page do not change their mind by the large number of people that stop by (e.g. the letter thing that was news and just got deleted), what makes you think that WP:3O would change their mind? -Nodekeeper 09:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I came to the article from the GA/R where I became active earlier this month before I arrived here. I think that it was unfortunate that our arrival was interpreted as part of the same phenomenon as the trolling comments, leading to indiscriminate rollbacks and my then taking this as evidence of the type of excessive WP:OWN that needed yelling at the administrators. However, the editors you refer to don't seem as set-in-stone as they were. WP:Revert and WP:BRD contain lessons for both sides.--Peter cohen 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good points. But I just learned of the new image deletion policy that has taken wind out of my sails. Wikipedia is going to be a barren place shortly. Nodekeeper 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, GA/R isn't designed or intended to be used as a place for content disputes. We will look at POV, but that isn't the only thing we will look at. As for WP:3O, I might skip that and go straight to an RFC. But I would suggest taking some time and trying to work it out here first. The problem that you are going to have now is the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The fact that you've taken the same concern to GA/R 3 times in less than a month might be noted by others. If you take some time to try to resolve the issue here, you'll have a better reception at a 3O or RFC.Balloonman 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the letters are important and should be incorporated into the article. However, I think we need to be careful about labels such as "doubt of faith." Just because a CBS byline uses the term doesn't mean it's true. The letters are quite interesting and reveal someone struggling with her personal relationship with God and her role in the world. But we need to be careful about concluding that they reveal that she questioned her faith or doubted the existence of God, or any such conclusion. That is speculation and OR. We should report what she wrote, without putting a spin on it, or trying to interpret a style of prose or contemplative writings. Leave that to CBS and other news venues that look for ratings and attention-grabbing headlines. --Anietor 06:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of the letters as representing a crisis of faith has appeared elsewhere. See [5]. (I wasn't even looking at the article for that. I was actually trying to find out more about the Albert Schweitzer prize as the awards paragraph is too listy and I'm trying to categorise and prioritise the awards.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 09:32, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

How about incorporating the letters in the "Spiritual Life" section? I was trying to find some link to the letters, but no luck yet, just links to media reports, with the typical sensationalist headlines. It would be nice if we could get a link to something besides those...anybody see any, or is the diary only available commercially? It appears they are being published under the title Come Be My Light. Maybe someone bought it? --Anietor 06:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've totally made the "Controversy over beliefs" 100% neutral avoiding to use journalistic prose. Have a look at the NEWS! So please don't remove it again! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the letters are ultimately included in the article, and I believe they should be, it is important to include what even Time has mentioned about spiritual aridity. Spiritual aridity is found in the life of nearly all of the ecstatics. Most of them began to have ecstatic spiritual experiences early in life. It is reported that Teresa of Avila when asking God why she was going through such an aridity herself he responded thatis how he brings his friends closer to him. "If this is the way you treat your friends, it's no wonder you have so few!” she replied. I agree that titling the section "Doubts of Faith" would be incorrect.Timjim7 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is what is the relevant, factual material for the article? The letters and diary entries are relevant. FOX News' interpretations of the letters, or their attention-grabbing headlines, are not. How do you reach the conclusion that the letters reveal a "controversy over belief"? That is speculative and conclusory. Being bold is one thing...but it's a little too bold for Wikpedia to interpret MT's spiritual writings, days after their release, with all their aesthetic and symbolic language, personal prose style and self-reflections, and conclude that she was an atheist (as a recent edit indicated), or even come to a more benign conclusion about her personal faith. Let's stick to what she said. The other problem is that they could just as easily be interpreted as insightful, sincere reflections of a woman reaching out to God, etc., etc., but that wouldn't be appropriate here either. All that should be left to the theologians...and maybe the book reviewers. But it's not encyclopedic. --Anietor 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox? No, we document facts Anietor. There's no other way. I don't see your philosophical approach to this as relevant. Time, Independent, Daily Telegraph, etc... Hundred of thousands of wiki articles rely on these news outlets. I don't understand your analysis. We report what notable sources say, we don't make our own judgments. Readers are directed to these articles. There they can make their own judgments as you have been doing here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking to theses article is fine. You seem to be missing the distinction, however. You are doing more than linking to the articles. You are taking the headlines, and conclusions of the writers, and creating rather sensationalist topics in this article about MT losing faith, having a crisis of faith, etc. That is not appropriate. Those are not facts...unless you have uncovered an actual interview where MT told one of these new organizations as much. Otherwise, those statements are speculative and conclusory, and OR. The important material is what she wrote...not what the headlines said yesterday about what she wrote. --Anietor 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash)There certainly is a story here that should be covered in the article, but what I see happening is that several people are turning up and writing a quick paragraph without checking what others are doing. For example, your first edit to the Spiritual section (the one Anietor reverted) ignores that the paragraph immediately below contains information about the same piece of news. The information needs to be blended together. But that is not happening and we are getting a hotchpotch of edits which make things extremely messy. The "crisis of faith" phrase is one several newspapers have used, judging by the links people have put in. Before the specialists have read the book thoroughly, pondered it and written their considered analyses, I think it is acceptable to say that the press have described it as c of f. That is different from describing it as such ourselves. And once the expert analyses have been done we can use their interpretations, not the press's. Also, looking at the links you gave, there are "juicier" quotes that support the claim of a crisis than the ones we currently have. (Or at least had when I last looked, things are moving quickly on the article page.) Delaying a day or even a few hours to consider what the various papers say, what quotes they have from MT, who the "experts" are who have provided the press with quick comments, and after that thinking out what should be written will produce something far better than the off-the-cuff edits so far. Ah this edit clash has let me see the protection. It will allow this time to think.--Peter cohen 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't wait for book reviews to documents encyclopedic content sourced via notable media. We don't wait for BR to write wikipedia articles. When the BR comes to life we do the same. We document. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter cohen is not saying that we should wait until the book reports come out, Fayssalf. He is saying that we need to be deliberate, as opposed to the recent rush to be the first editor to throw in cites to articles reporting on the letters. I don't think there has been one editor to take the position that the letters should be left out of the article until there are book reviews. But look what has happened...some editors are using tabloid bylines and basically cutting and pasting them as new section titles for the MT article; "Crisis of Faith", etc. The boldest (in a bad way) move I've seen was the editor who decided that the article should state that MT was an atheist during part of her mission years. Reading the comments here, I think the real disagreement seems to be surrounding whether the press' interpretation of the letters is, itself, noteworthy and appropriate for this MT article. I'm not so sure, given the recency of the coverage. However, I do appreciate the distinction that editors like Peter cohen make between media interpretations and those of experts, which at least acknowledges the distiction. A practical issue is that the media will waste no time in cobbling together an interpretation, whereas "experts" will want time to more fully analyze the letters. This is a worthwhile discussion for us to have. But let's not create paper tigers...nobody seems to be arguing that the letters themselves should be left out. --Anietor 23:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Protection

This edit war needs to stop. I have asked for Full Protection. --statsone 16:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

protected 4 days

Ok, with over 150 edits in the past 3 days by multiple users involved in this dispute---along with the request for protection, I've protected it for 4 days. I strongly urge you guys to discuss this issue over the weekend and try to work it out.Balloonman 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman, I think this and your post higher up show that you're misunderstanding what is going on. There are two disputes/events involved.

The older one was about balance, this appears to be more or less resolved. If you look at the edits of two or three days ago (and at the history of our user talk pages) you can see that Anietor and I were very much on opposite sides. If you look at the reverts today, you will find that we have done very similar reverts and that Anietor's last rollback was to how I left the article at my last edit.

If you look at many of today's edits (ignore the ones to the international recognition section and its subsections - that's what has been more or less agreed from the old dispute) and all the reverts, you'll find that they are about a current news story. Parts of MT's correspondence has been released and a whole bunch of editors who had nothing to do with the old dispute have appeared and choved in the two penny's worth. A short protect might allow us collectively absorb what the papers have said and come up with a properly worked out summary of the new story rather than the what the too many cooks were generating. A four day protect is way too long. (Although it will let me get on with my real work.) Similarly the putative referral elsewhere mentioned above isn't forum shopping, because it will be a different bunch of people doing it.--Peter cohen 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and shortened it to two days---that gets us through most of the weekend when I anticipate the most edit warring---and the casual contributors to have left. As for the Forumshopping, it doesn't matter if it is a different group of people making the request, it will be perceived as forumshopping.Balloonman 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

PS if you guys work out the version that people can accept let me know, I'll be happy to lift the block completely once I know the war is over.Balloonman 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering the length of edit lock. I do take your point about perception.--Peter cohen 09:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Journals

Why was my section on her journals revealing that she doubted her religion removed?

Please note that I am not involved in this "edit war", I just caught the news strory and decided to add it here. James Luftan ^contribs 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the edit war. --statsone 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My answer would be that there are several people trying to write the same story in several different places in the article. We only need one of them. And one that several people have worked out together will be better than several each worked on by one person. Why don't you join in the discussion and become one of the several people contributing to an agreed version? A new thread (perhaps this one) may be the best way to carry on the discussion, as the current discussion doesn't have an obvious name and I expect more people may turn up.--Peter cohen 17:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter's suggestion to stick to this thread and deal with the current issue (MT's writings) as a group. My concern is that it is a new story, and editors are trying to rush things and insert anything they can, anywhere they want. It's a common problem in Wikipedia, where recentism often takes hold. Here are my concerns: I absolutely agree that her writings are relevant for the article. That seems like a no-brainer to me. However, we need to be careful about how we include them. That means being deliberate and professional about where it goes in the article, and more importantly, what goes in. Recent edits, in my opinion, have relied too heavily on attention-grabbing headlines with such claims as "doubt of faith", "she was an atheist the last few years of her life", etc. Such sensationalism is best kept for the tabloids (I was quite disappointed to see it on CBS, Time, CNN and FOX...ok, maybe not so surprised about FOX...hehe). But those are really speculative and conclusory, and most likely written to sell papers and grab attention. We should be careful about not legitimizing such claims. It's a dangerous thing to try and interpret anyone's writings, especially in the realm of spirituality and faith. I think we need to stop throwing in every website and article headline and stick to facts. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a source for strings of cites. --Anietor 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I had no idea this was what the edit war was about, that's why I asked. And Peter, I would love to help contribute to the agreed section. James Luftan ^contribs 19:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:My answer would be that there are several people trying to write the same story in several different places in the article.

I don't think this would be an issue if we had a criticism section. Sfacets 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Why would we put her writings in a criticism section? --Anietor 00:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-factored the above two comments because they have nothing to do with the subsection about what to say about the journals.--Peter cohen 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to User:Sfacets, I think if you look at the article now you will see paragraph-plus discussions of criticism of her in both the Indian and rest of the world parts of the recognition section and then there are more specific criticisms in other parts of the article next to where the actions being criticised are mentioned, e.g. medical criticism of her homes next to where the homes are mentioned.

Could you also think about your style of intervention here? (I'm not pretending that I've been a saint myself and haven't played my part in what has led to the lock. And please not I also am not asking you to withdraw from the page again, just to think about your approach.) I think your taking this to [[WP:GA/R] yet again is what, so to speak, caused [User:Statsone|statsone]] and User:Balloonman to cock the page lock guns in their hands. The chaos following the publication of the diaries is what caused them to fire it. A couple of days ago, I saw the indiscriminate use of rollbacks as evidence of excessive WP:OWN. Therefore when both you and User:Anietor broke WP:3RR, I took him(?) to the complaint page and gave you a friendly comment on your talk page. Now, I would take you to the complaint page too. WP:BRD is a thoughtful essay about how to work constructuvely in this situation, I would recommend reading it.--Peter cohen 09:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...Some people make it very hard to gather consensus... I actually agree with Peter cohen on the Journal issue (as I noted above), but you really need to stop being so bombastic in your comments. I agree with you also in your disapproval of Sfacets's approach here, but enough with the threats of reporting and referrals. I find it quite amazing that you continue to invoke your referrals of multiple editors (including me) for sock poppetry and 3RR violations, when they were ALL dismissed as unfounded ("not bona fide reports" in the words of an admin). I don't want to clog up this talk page with this nonsense, but I at least want to make sure that editors reading these discussions aren't cowed into following the herd (excuse my mixed metaphors) for fear of reprisals from aggressive editors with differing opinions. Especially in the talk pages, we need to allow people to express their opinions about the article....it's better than them going right to editing the article and causing edit wars. Calm down everyone, and slowly count backwards from 10 before writing in here, especially in light of the block placed on the article and what is likely to be heavier interest in the article. Let's leave the bad blood from last week behind and start fresh. Picking at old scabs accomplishes nothing. --Anietor 18:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am not an admin. I happened to find the page after reading the same news story and IIRC after a day. What I saw was a full blown edit war and WP:OWN. Even the talk page was getting excessive. --statsone 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is actually still open, although no action is the most likely conclusion given the delay. It was probably not acted on because I was considered to be WP:FORUMSHOPping and WP:Edit warring. I suspect that if I had raised User:Sfacets' 3RR violation together with yours, (i.e. one from each side of the edit war) the complaint would have been looked at differently. But I'm not an admin and haven't studied administrative behaviour long enough to really know how they would act. What I do know is that User:Statsone, in calling for the lock, and User:Balloonman in implementing it have been careful not to exonerate either (or any) side, and Statsone in his/her explanation has complained about both (or all) sides of the edit war. In other words, they want both you and I, not to mention several other people, to reconsider our behaviour.--Peter cohen 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What to say about the journals?

I don't think there is disagreement about where the comments are currently placed in the article, though I have previously commented on the sectioning around MTs relationship with Catholicism in general and the correspondence relates to beatification/sanctification. There are disagreements about what to include.

I think this paragraph:

Mother Teresa wrote numerous letters to her confessors and superiors over a 66-year period. These correspondences have been compiled in "Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light" (Doubleday). In one publicly released letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, she wrote, "Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

actually survived through this afternoon's deletions, so it is not particularly disputed andcan be used as a starting point.

The following points I think are worth including or at least discussing among ourselves:

• the Daily Telegraph article gives a different name (something like Mother Teresa's Secret) for the collection in Italy. We should give that Italian name and its English translation, because it might appear under that name in other parts of the English-speaking world.
• It is reported MT wanted the diaries destroyed.
• Some of the other quotes (we should include an example) have been used by the press to advance a view that MT has actually lost her belief
• The man in charge of her assessment for sainthood has spoken publicly about the letters. And he has had access to the letters for a long time and has therefore been able to form a considered view. We should include some quotes from him on how he says the correspondence helps her case. Although we should bear in mind that he comes from a particular position.
• We need to include a date because readers may wish to relate when the diaries were published to when she gets sanctified.

There are over three days left before we can edit the article again. So there's no need to produce a definitive text, but it would be good for peple to propose additions or subtractions from this list. I know the "crisis of faith point" is controversial and it may be worth spinning of a sub-heading in this section for us to thrash that out. But lets see some responses first.

I think it is also worth looking at the authors of the reports to see who they are. Are they ordinary journalists? Religious Correspondents? etc. And we should bear in mind that there will be book reviews published before long. And some of these will no doubt have been commissioned from theologians or people who have published books on her.

Oh and I want other people to do most of the work. I'm actually trying to start doing some of my real work now and don't want to commit hours to this task. The previous edit warring, discussions and my work on the recognition section earlier today has used up far too much of my time already.--Peter cohen 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not create a section simply enitiled "Faith"? I think it may solve the problem as to where to put it. James Luftan ^contribs 14:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to the "Spiritual life" section. A new name for it? A subsection? A supersection including this section and, say, the beatification one? --Peter cohen 21:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this, to get the ball rolling:

Many news outlets have referred to Mother Teresa's writings as an indication of a "crisis of faith." However, others have drawn comparisons to the 16th century mystic St. John of the Cross who coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. The Vatican has indicated that the letters would not effect her path to sainthood.

It is a NPOV approach that addresses the press' characterization of the letters, while giving an alternative interpretation that is also appearing in the media. I'm not crazy about the term "spiritual master", and only use it because it is the term I have found in a few articles. Any alternatives? --Anietor 14:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Peter cohen 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The NYT op-ed on the subject by James Martin sj, a well-known authority on sainthood, might be useful here, ([6]), particularly this quote, which summarises her response for us: "Mother Teresa concluded that these painful experiences could help her identify not only with the abandonment that Jesus Christ felt during the crucifixion, but also with the abandonment that the poor faced daily." Hornplease 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link, Hornplease. The article is informative. Majoreditor 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why edit wars need to stop

I had made a simple spelling correction, Il Messaggero, as it has been mispelled for a long time. While watching this article ( because of the news story) I was surprised to see what was going on. Simple case of WP:Edit war and WP:OWN. After my correction was removed, with noone noticing, I asked for a protection on the article so everyone can calm down.

From this page, it seems there are 3 major points ( and you may disagree and discuss):

• WP:NPOV
• how to deal with the news story
• should it be it's own section or just a part of another section.

It doesn't matter whose edition is now active, or whose edit got reverted, or whose edit is right. Wikipedia is built on Consensus That means discuss here before reverting. If a consensus is not reached, then there are other ways to deal with the topic. Reverting is not one of them --statsone 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for posting this. I too have commented on WP:OWN. As for consensus, I've done my best to get a discussion of the new story going at #What to say about the journals? and with invitations to new arrivals to participate in it. I wish someone would actually reply to my opening remarks. --Peter cohen 09:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother lost faith in God

Pls. check out these links which says that how Mother lost her faith in God. In a new book on Mother Teresa, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, based on the many letters she wrote to her spiritual counselors and confessors have enlighted us with these facts.

• http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3521905&page=1
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/wteresa124.xml
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml
• http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2007/08/mother_teresas_spiritual_crisi_1.html

The stuff may be enterned into the article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You're clearly interested enough in this subject to search out several reports on it and show you want it covered properly here. I've tried to start a discussion on how to report it here at#What to say about the journals? and am waiting for others to respond and come up with ideas I may not have considered. Why don't you be the first?--Peter cohen 09:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

She didn't loose faith in God, she had doubts. Big difference. Read more here http://www.cinews.ie/article.php?artid=3869 86.42.205.210 14:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Tom

I agree. It is a very important distinction. Interestingly, some in the atheist camp point to the letters to show that works of charity and humanitarianism do not come only from faith, while those in the saint camp make comparisons between MT's letters and those of other aesthetics and saints whose struggle to understand God are held up as examples of piety and humbless. We should not take either "side". To interpret the letters either way is not encyclopedic, particulary given the recency of their release. It will be a challenge for us once there are more academic and "official" reviews of the book, but we'll deal with that when we have to. For now, we can't put our own spin on the letters, or adopt the spin of news and/or tabloid organizations which, frankly, are writing for a different reason than we are. --Anietor 14:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We said she [is said to have doubts] according to RS and NOTABLE MEDIA but that was removed 3 times. We've never said we were with her or inside her mind. We said that according to notable media outlets, Mother Teresa is said to have doubts about her beliefs. Where is the f***n' problem in that??? Nonsense Anietor. POV pushing is going on here. Read washingtonpost.com and try to think about the way you edit wikipedia. I did what i could but you did nothing. Wait for your book. Before that book would be published there would be others before it i may think. We won't wait for the book to document in wikipedia that the NOTABLE MEDIA has uncovered things about Mother Teresa beliefs based on a coming book. Go tell all Wikipedia to be rewritten again. It is not that Mother Teresa who got doubts but you having doubts about interpretations. You are an encyclopedian and not a researcher to give us your analysis. Do your job as a wikipedian. Don't fool the NPOV policy please. I am not going to be bold because i got many things i am busy w/. Good luck. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I didn't take sides and blamed EVERYONE for the edit wars.

The news is major and should be in a separate section by itself. This was shown by the news coverage, interest in this article, and the POV pushing that caused the edit war. To say otherwise is to push your POV.

With NPOV in mind, the following could be done in a new section:

*provide a reasonable title

*say MT wrote in her letters...

*provide a quote and references

*provide other revelant facts

*interprete the comments and what they mean ( she had her doubts)

* and lastly correct Il Messaggero link

Simply, and please keep it WP:CIVIL --statsone 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please read my answer at Peter's talk page. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

infobox update

{{editprotected}} Can place_of_death in the infobox be replaced with death_place. We are updating the fields used in {{Infobox Person}} so it can be simplified.:: maelgwn - talk 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Haemo 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Boundary between Missionaries of Charity and International charity sections

Do people think the transition between these sections is in the right place? There is international stuff in the MoC section and vice-versa. Was all MT's international work under the auspices of the MoC? Or was some independent. If the former, we can make the international stuff a subsection. If not, then I think we have to decide whether all the international stuff shoudl be kept together (probably sensible) and move the international stuff out of the MoC section.--Peter cohen 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some needed generalizations

• Following the guideline that this discussion be about editing the article and not about the merits of the subject and that this is an encyclopedia article, not a news flash site*:

1. A simile is not a documentable blue cross-reference item i.e. “death camps.” 2. While hagiography is to be avoided in biographical entries, the notion that “equal time” should be given to the opposing minority views is contrary to the basic idea of what an encyclopedia article is for: to preserve a brief record of what the subject has done that merits inclusion, not the case against having the subject in the encyclopedia at all nor having the subject “balanced” between fame as generally regarded and infamy as critics claim. 3. Newly published information, such as a collection of correspondence, ought to be listed in the bibliography and cited, but obviously this cannot happen until after someone has actually read it. I.e. citing CNN “previews” is not good practice.--204.158.150.87 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Terrance G. Shults

Thank you for your comment, Terence. Could you please clarify that this is a response to the debate on the talk page, not to the current contents of the article? I'm assuming this is the case, because, for example, there is no current mention of death camps in the article.

If you are criticising the article, I shall be interested in a few more details of what you are saying. I am the author of a fair amount of the criticism material currently in the article, but have tried to balance it. So that, for example, I have included the allegations of the prominent Hindu organisation the VHP, but have then reported that the major Indian journal Frontline dismissed most of them as patently untrue.--Peter cohen 16:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter,

For some reason, my first attempt to reply via edit didn’t take. Yes, I was addressing the talk page issues rather than the article itself. And it would be fair to say that I find the article better off as is than with the suggestions that have been made. You and some others are trying to address the question of how a Wikipedia article is different from a traditional encyclopedia article and I am not prepared to generalize about that without spending more time than I can spare perusing the Wikipedia. I haven’t counted words etc., but it seems to me that in the article as it stands criticism including criticism of the criticism bulks a little larger than it ought to. But what is too much or not enough? One-fifth “anti” is the Golden Mean? An irony here with so many wearing their hearts on their sleeves and their brains [phrase deleted by sender], is that anybody’s first ten guesses as to where I am religiously and why I care would be wrong and just when I was lamenting that there really is no forum for that, comes, by divine intervention [?], an e-mail from my sister including an invitation to discuss religious matters.

204.158.150.87 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Terrance G. Shults

Terence,

Thanks for the reply. I think I need to sit on it for a few days and then re-visit the article. What I think is a problem at the moment is that some things are said in more than one place. Allegations about the money come to mind as an example. Some of the Hitchens stuff appears under beatification because he gave evidence and then elsewhere in the article too. So I think a fair amount of bulk of criticism can be lost without actually losing any content. But it either needs a fresh pair of eyes to work out how to do this or a pair that have been away from the article for a while. You will have seen that I'm unsure about quite a bit of the structuring and sectioning of the article. I've succesfully (in my opinion) managed to restructure a smaller article David Langford so that it flows better, and that involved two resectioning exercises on my part from this [7] to this [8] in May and then another restructure this month. Mother Teresa is both a much larger article and one that has had a recent edit war with me as one of the participants which means I'm a lot more reluctant to dive in.--Peter cohen 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An honest question re: use of copyright material

I hesitate to bring this up, being able to see plainly for myself that someone has indeed invested a great deal of his/her own labor into the composition of this article. Respectfully, however, I would like to ask someone with more Wikipedia experience than myself -- preferably someone with some regulatory authority -- to make a judgment and offer an opinion regarding the reuse of lengthy phrases from copyright sources. I have noticed, for one example, that in a recent update under the section Spiritual life, we see the wording, “...the 16th century mystic St. John of the Cross who coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters.” Looking at the Time Magazine article recently released (and available for review at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415-3,00.html), one finds the words, “...the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters.” Although a citation is made to the Time article that is the source of these words, and I do understand that there are varying opinions regarding just how closely the wording of a source may be imitated, it is my amateur opinion that this much material -- this many words lifted verbatim from the source in the Time article, with a slight rearrangement of one phrase -- is probably too much, and needs at least to be paraphrased to a greater extent. (N.B. This is only one example of a larger pattern.) PLEASE TAKE CAREFUL NOTE, I am simply asking for an authoritative judgment so that we may all benefit from a common standard and so that Wikipedia will live up to its intended criteria for originality. Would someone who has some authority care to comment? Thanks in advance, DThrax 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair question. Frankly, I find issues of copyrights to be some of the most confusing in Wikipedia. However, in this case, I don't think we need to go there, at least for the sentence you mention (St. John of the Cross). The sentence specifically addresses how the media is characterizing the letters, not making any independent judgment or analysis of the letters. In other words, it is specifically what Time said (as an example of media commentaries) that is being commented on in the sentence, as opposed to characterizing the letters by using Time's language. So the nuance is that the MT article is specifically talking about what the news outlets are says...necessitating the use of the media's own language. Now, you mention that you found other sentences that concerned you. Can you point them out? We can edit them if they run afoul of any copyright regs. --Anietor 19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, the wording should be changed. Majoreditor 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean changed so it is not such a direct quote from Time, or make it verbatim with quotation marks? --Anietor 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Either would be acceptable from my POV. I have in my head that the typical academic plagiarism advice is to put anything longer than five duplicated words in quotes. --Peter cohen 22:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

According to her letters, recently published, she had strong doubts in the existance of god, and says several times she doesn't believe in God and/or has no faith, for at least a very long period of her life, if not the latter end of her life. This should be included in the article. Has anyone read these letters in full yet? Titanium Dragon 06:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I believe there is a discussion thread a few sections above this on that topic. Majoreditor 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN rather lightly mentioned "Existentialism" and despair, but, after the letters are read and dealt with meaningfully in the article, someone, possibly me, might cite the film "Winter Light" and Bergmann's published comments on the ending as "precedent." After an ugly argument with his mistress (!) in an empty church, the pastor wails that he has lost all faith, falls in a fit on the floor and gets to his feet, wipes his face, adjusts his glasses and says, "Well, I'd better get ready for the evening service." At a screening of this c. 1970 with an audience of mostly Southern Baptist ministers in Louisville, when that subtitle appeared there was the loudest and most prolonged and hysterical laughter I ever witnessed from any audience at any comedy. Men were literally falling out of their seats and rolling in the aisles. My thought at the time was this was because that was so "Un-Baptist" but, with the passing years, "Been there; done that" seems like a motivation at least for some. In his published comments, Bergmann said that the ending, deciding to have Communion in spite of a "reason" not to (a tiny congregation), was a decision his father, as a retired clergyman, once forced on a minister planning to omit Communion because he wasn't feeling well, during a service Bergmann attended with him!

I am also told, flatly and authoritatively, albeit without documentation, that people shocked and amazed at Mother Teresa "carrying on regardless" do not know much about women, or much about Albanians. It would be interesting if those ideas *could* be documented.

204.158.150.87 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Terrance G. Shults

BTW information online about the 2005 Scott book mentioned in the article reports tht Scott had access to the correspondence. So someof the stuff from them has already been absorbed in the literature.--Peter cohen 16:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  In the list of books may be added "The Mystery of Mother Teresa & Sainthood" by Prabir Ghosh.( Published by Dey's publishing,Bankim Chatterjee Street, Kolkata, India,) It contains a wonderful rational approach with due respect to Mother and her tremendous work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.40.9 (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 

The book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, is now out. I suggest that editors read it before writing another word. . . I'm now into chapter 2, and find it very informative for this discussion. --Ajschorschiii 05:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Mother Teresa

You have to laugh at the absurd lengths the MT police will go to to protect their chosen one. The article entitled Criticism of Mother Teresa redirects to this page, where they delete any criticism. Is their faith so fragile? MrMarmite 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Having spent both time and emotional energy last month adding discussion of criticism to the article, I would appreciate it if you read the article again in more detail. The last paragraphs of Missionaries of Charity, International charity, Reception in India and Asia and Reception in the rest of the world all cover criticism. In the latter case, it's the last three paragraphs and you'll also find criticism elsewhere about e.g. her associating with dodgy dictators and businessmen. And then there are the links at the end.

I think this material could do with tightening as part of a general editorial pass on the whole article looking at its overall structure, but there is plenty of coverage of criticism now. I would also want to revisit the issue of mentioning that not all views are favourable in the lede. But to claim that there is no mention of criticisms is ridiculous,--Peter cohen 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter on this one. Sure, there is always opportunity for improving the article. However, the article shouldn't become a dumping ground for every haliographic praise or, conversely, every critical work. Majoreditor 15:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be very small amounts of watered-down criticism on the page, but there's no way this article can be called balanced. Especially since the summary at the top of the page mentions no criticism and paints Mother Teresa in only a good light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.150.207 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times, having a balanced article doesn't mean you find 10 good things and 10 bad things and throw them together. Despite the best efforts of a few MT detractors, the article properly integrates certain documented and sourced criticisms within the body of the biography. The bottom line is that there is just more positive information about Mother Teresa than negative...not surprisingly. I notice that the article on Mussolini has more negative info...and the opening paragraph has nothing about how he made the trains run on time. Does that mean it's not neutral? Of course not. Excuse me for saying so, but in general terms: MT, generally good. Mussolini, generally bad. And that's ok to have reflected in the type of info in their respective articles. Nothing is being hidden from this article. But any "criticism" must be sourced, reliable, relevant, and in proportion. Such is the case here. --Anietor (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a subsection of criticism instead of neatly tucked inside the page! just my 2 cents PhiloWisdom (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)PhiloWisdom

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE An abuse of power. Burying MT's criticism section is unethical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.146.118 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of links

There seems to be a lot of adding and removing of links at present. Can people please explain any alterations from the version that has been semi-stable for a while apart from the vandalism? For example saying per WP:EL doesn't explain clearly what the fault is. It's fair enough to suggest that we need a pass through the links and explain clearly the criteria you are using. We can then discuss whether we agree or disagree with those criteria or check whether they really are enforcing WP's policies. --Peter cohen 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The link http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ was removed several time, with no valid reason given for removing it. I reverted it, and a few seconds later it was removed by Blnguyen. This went on, with the same user reverting again and again. Then Balloonman removed it again saying that it "non-reliable source". To these users, I would urge to read WP:EL and lookup the differences between sources and external links. The linked article provides a detailed critical account of MT's life. I will restore it unless a valid argument can be provided here on why it shouldn't be. Sfacets 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL wasn't the reason cited on those deletes. But the policy contains a lot of stuff, for example on keeping down the size of the list of links. If that were the reason for the delete I reverted, then it would have been better to come here and say "Hey, there are too many links. Let's prioritise them." --Peter cohen 12:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, have you taken a look at that link? It is not a reliable neutral source. The first indication is that the nature of the website is blocked from my work computer. The second indication is that the main page at rotten.com boast that it is "pure evil since 1996" and has a big quote about "the dead walking the earth." It is not a reliable source and pushes a point of view. Thus, it does not belong in an encyclopedia.Balloonman 14:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole criticism part of the links section is by definition POV.--Peter cohen 14:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, no valid reason was given. And yet it a comprehensive critical article on the life of MT and her organization. Sfacets 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are we seriously debating whether http://www.rotten.com is a reliable, relevant link for the MT article? It's a site with a collection of porn, "disturbing images" of "dog shit" and dismemberment, with a "F-ck of the Month" porn contest...need I go on? Give me a break. Of all the cites out there with critical information of MT, why would this one be included? Perhaps the proponents are investors in this website that tries to sell tshirts and coffee mugs, I don't know. But we don't list every web site that happens to mention MT. --Anietor 14:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Rotten.com before today, but the our page has been saying for over a year now that the library section is well-researched but POV. That doesn't fit well with its description as a "rubbish tabloid website" by Blnguyen or as a "non-reliable source" by Balloonman. My main issue is whether it adds anything new that we and the other links don't already provide.--Peter cohen 14:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because a site has porn or distrubing images doesn't mean it should not be included. The page linked to has a lot of information. But just linking to it would not be appropriate. It sounds more of an opinion piece with no references. Better would to place the information contained in the article in the body of the MT page. References from other sites must be found and could then be referenced and included in the article. --statsone 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Change of opinion. Looking at the linked sites and the rotten one, the page should be included in the Criticism section. --statsone 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps the proponents are investors in this website that tries to sell tshirts and coffee mugs" Or perhaps not ! Just about every other external site listed contains advertising of some description. Are the people who pasted these going to face ridiculous allegations of ulterior commercial motives or have accusations of "unconstructive editing", "vandalism" and "damaging the work of others" posted on their user page accompanied by threats? And there is NO porn, "disturbing images" of "dog shit" and dismemberment, with a "F-ck of the Month" porn contest on the page in question just a critical biography of Mother Teresa. Better would to place the information contained in the article in the body of the MT page only if you have the permission of the copyright owner ! 80.229.222.48 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see per WP:EL:

• Is it accessible to the reader? No, many work filters will censor this page as inappropriate. The fact that it hits up against these filters is a sign that if fails the next criteria:
• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? I see no citations or references. The article is poignantly biased and written in a very casual manner. It has very little if any credibility. The cite prides itself on being pure evil and to provide "a truly unpleasant experience." These statements indicate that it has a strong bias. Strong biases are not grounds for not including a cite, but the fact that cite as a whole does not adhere to verifiability and the article lacks verifiability, is grounds.
• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Should be avoided. This cite and this biography definately qualifies.Balloonman 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This one is a more difficult decision, isn't it? The site isn't the most reliable of sources. However, the Rotten article on MT is reasonably well composed even if it cites no sources. I don't have a strong opinion either way on keeping the link. I lean toward excluding it per Peter's question of "whether it adds anything new that we and the other links don't already provide". I'm not sure that it passes that test. The article has been shorn of numerous haliographic links; we should be just as choiceful with the critical links. Majoreditor 02:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that stikes me as interesting content that we don't have elsewhere is about MT supporting the Gandhi's sterilisation campaign while oposing abortion for war crime victims. It would be interesting if that could be sources. Anyone know where to find it in the mainstream Indian press?

On the more general issue, I think our links list is getting rather long and we need to decide what criteria to use to weed it. Do we really need links to two different Hitchens articles? Do we want a rule of including everything we cite? Is everything in some links alrady covered in the article? - the latter is definitely a point in WP:EL. I'm just flying that as a kite. I'm behind with my other work and don't want to be the one who goes through the list.--Peter cohen 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Balloonman:

• it is accessible to the reader. Work filters will stop many sites from being seen simply because they may waste time. There is no special software or fee required. Also, accessibility make no mention of work filters.
• Just because an article is not tasteful doesn't mean it should be excluded. The entire subject of the article is a criticism of MT
• I don't see any attempt to mislead the reader. The article is presenting a view that everyone else seems to miss or not talking about.

As it is just a link, I still feel it should be included - as a link only. But comments raised do give a valid reason to do further research and find other sources so as to be included in the article. --statsone 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately my primary concern isn't the content of the article... but the nature of the page hosting the link. Rotten.com is clearly in no way shape or form a reliable source, thus anything found on it is of dubious nature. Especially, when the bio in question has no citations and is written in a manner that gives commentary rather than the straight facts. If the criticism is valid and exists, then it exists in a place that is more reliable and objective. Not a source which is poignantly biased and lacks any sort of oversight. There is no peer review or editorial review of the article to ensure facts/interpretations are accurate. Therein is where my criticism arises---not because it may be distasteful. Links to outside sources do have a lower threshold for reliability than do citations---but this page doesn't come close to meeting any objective criteria for reliability.Balloonman 07:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman, please be aware that external links are not the same as sources, and serve different purposes. External links are designed to give the reader different viewpoints on the subject, and the neutrality that is imposed on Wikipedia articles doesn't apply to those websites. Sfacets 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but when the site in question provides "a truly unpleasant experience", I can hardly think that it could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic. It is utterly absurd that people are debating the inclusion of such a link; Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links. A dubious and not to mention superfluous one has no place in this article. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 11:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "truly unpleasant" since the link is to a certain page, and not to any other part of the site. Nor is it superfluous, it provides a concise history of MT. How is this mirroring, r how is including this link creating a "repository of links"? So far no valid reasons have been given against keeping the link. Sfacets 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledged that---external links do have a lower threshold for inclusion than do citations. But this cite fails, in any objective manner, to reach even that lower threshold. As for valid reasons, yes they have been given. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". This cite is so biased in premise, that any article found therein has to be questioned as to it factuality and verifiability. If the material is valid/accurate, then get it from a more reliable source.Balloonman 15:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "distasteful" or "unpleasant" about the article at http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ the objections to the inclusion of the link appear to be based on some peoples disapproval some of the other content an http://www.rotten.com but these objections are irrelevent because the link doesnt point to http://www.rotten.com it points to http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ If Playboy magazine were to carry an article about Mother Teresa would you also be objecting to its inclusion on Wikipedia on the grounds the content on OTHER PAGES of playboy might be percieved (by some people) as "distasteful" or "unpleasant" ? Come to think of it there are articles on Wikipedia itself which might be percieved (by some people) as "distasteful" or "unpleasant". In short any judgment about a page linked to from a wikipedia article must be made solely on the merits of the page itself. The contents of other pages on the same site is entirely irrelevent. As for verifiability, citation of sources or bias in the rotten article it is probably no better or worse in this regard than any of the other articles in the same section and Im not sure its even relevant anyway since as you acknowledge yourself externally linked articles have a lower threshold for inclusion than do citations and its rather ludicrous to expect an article listed under a "criticism" heading to be free of bias.

As for work filters Why should Wikipedia authors or editors pander to users accessing the site from their workplace when they can do so at home on their own time and bandwidth. Perhaps Wikipedia shouldnt include any material which might offend the governments of Cuba, Iran or China since these regiemes filter their citizens internet traffic  ? 80.229.222.48 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite your rhetoric, you are still missing the point. It has nothing to do with the other articles, but the other content of the cite is a strong indicator of the quality of source we are dealing with. Playboy has a strong reputation as a reliable source---heck, they may have a better reputation for fact checking than some of the more mainstream publications (they know that people are critical, thus work harder to prove themselves.) People may find it distasteful, but it does have an editorial review process and does fact check. Therein is the problem with this page. It is a tabloid which is presenting fact, but has no reliable review process and lacks sources. A better comparison than Playboy would be to the National Enquirer. An article can be well written and seem factual, but if it was published in the Enquirer, then the veracity of even the best article would be in doubt. Likewise, an article published in Playboy or the NY Times could be poorly written and poorly constructed, but it would have implied credibility because those sources have credibility. Rotten.com does not have credibility, thus this article does not stand on its own feet. Thus, you can look at other pages on a website to evaluate the quality/standards permitted on a given page. They do play a role in helping to determine the quality of source you are dealing with. Good companies/organizations make an effort to develop and protect a reputation for quality, integrity, and reliability.Balloonman 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that http://www.rotten.com/library/ (as distinct from http://www.rotten.com/) is an unreliable source or is it just a POV held by yourself (and a handful of other people) based mainly on prejudice arising from disapproval of material hosted on other parts of the rotten.com site ? Most of the rotten articles are well researched and written by individuals who are very knowledgable on the subjects they are covering . 80.229.222.48 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So you think that the library subsection is an oasis of reliability and NPOV in the rotten.com realm? Perhaps you haven't read any other articles in this "library". For instance, there is the article on the Church of Christ Scientist that descrbies it as "a bunch of gruesome, child-torturing, intellectually challenged shitheads". The article on Hinduism has this open-minded comment: "For some reason, displaying a Ganesh statue looks less stupid and superstitious that carrying a rabbit's foot". Interestingly, those are the first 2 random articles I opened in the library. I decided not to open more, lest I give the website counters reason to believe people are interested in their offensive material. I'm all for free speech, but that nonsense doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I think Balloonman's comments are correct...and he was being quite diplomatic in his comments, to his credit. Allow me to be more frank, since the issue has not been put to rest...the article is unreliable, unreferenced and POV. The website from which it comes is unreliable, unreferenced, offensive and POV. This is clear from looking at the rest of the website, including the "library" which contains other articles which are not "well researched" and not "written by individuals what are very knowledgable on the subjects they are covering." If there are kernels of truth in the article, then they should appear elsewhere. --Anietor 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. Also, the burden of proving that this site is reliable is on you. The presumption is not that all cites are reliable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic, but rather that there has to be reason for inclusion. But in order for that reason to be valid, the source has to meet some minimum standards for reliability and integrity.Balloonman 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rotten library isint NPOV it doesnt pretend to but you seem to have forgotten that we are discussing the merits or otherwise of its inclusion of a CRITICISM section. Criticism by its very nature is POV. So arguments about POV are completly irrelevent as is any argument about the content of rotten.com other than the rotten library. References to the offensivness are also irrelevent especially if they are (as I strongly suspect) taken from the standpoint of individuals who reflexively take offense at ANY criticism of their sacred cows -in this case Mother Teresa. 80.229.222.48 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have YET to make the argument that my concern is based upon POV. It is based upon whether or not the source in question has any fact checking/editorial criteria, or is it a dressed up blog where a person can write what he or she feels, in the guise of an article and have it published? Wikipedia has a lower threshold for external cites than it does for citations, but the external cite still has to be factual and reliable. Despite your rhetoric, I have yet to see any proof that this cite meets that criteria.Balloonman 18:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Something in a criticism section must still be relevant, reliable and referenced. I also don't agree that "criticism by its very nature is POV". For instance, there is criticism of the lack of hygiene in MT's facilities...but I wouldn't call that POV. There are neutral, medically-accepted practices on such issues. It would be POV to say that MT didn't care about hygiene, or didn't want to spend money for new needles, etc. (unless such things could be proven, of course). But that is a different level of criticism. Finally, it is absolutely appropriate to address the "offensiveness" of a source, or of a criticism. Offensive criticism is POV, since it is, by its nature, meant to attack on a more personal level. --Anietor 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is "offensive" about the Mother Teresa article in the Rotten library [9]? 80.229.222.48 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has labeled the MT article in the rotten.com library as offensive. You seem to be confusing comments about the article and comments about the web site in general. The criticism of the article has been that it is unreferenced and lacks reliable sources, review, etc. The only comments above using the "offensive" label were to the web site, and other articles on the web site (in the same library section) that have personal attacks against other religions. Read the comments above carefully and you will see the distinction between comments about the specific article, and comments about the web site where it appears. --Anietor 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You yourself referred to the "offensivness" of other articles in the Rotten library then you accuse ME of confusing the article (or comments on same) with the website in general ???

As for whether MT cared about hygiene or wanted to spend money for new needles all the available evidence suggests that she certainly didnt regard it as a priority given that the organisation she presided over appeared to invest hardly any of its considerable resources on such things.

And since you brought it up from the standpoint of someone who is presumably nonreligious and makes no distinction beteen religion and superstition the Ganesh statue/rabbit's foot comparison" sounds pretty spot on From the standpoint of any reasonable person (religious or not) "a bunch of gruesome, child-torturing, intellectually challenged shitheads" is a pretty apt description for a cult that regularly subjects children to (often painful) deaths from simple medical conditions by actively preventing these conditions from be treated. 80.229.222.48 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Right...I and others have commented on the rotten.com article, and we have commented on the rotten.com web site. Both are relevant in deciding whether to include the material in this MT article. I am sorry to see that you find comments mocking Hinduism and the Church of Christ to be "spot on". You certainly have a right to those beliefs. However, wikipedia is not a blog, and it's not a depository for links to all web sites. The standards are clear, and have been explained several times now above. --Anietor 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The site is clearly radical libertarian, probably with more of a left lean than a right. What they are about is challenging taboos, whether they are about what is displayed or about religion or other values some hold dear, often in rhetorical language which they don't mind if it offends some. What I have not seen any evidence of is that there research is of poor quality.--Peter cohen 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

But surely, Peter, you acknowledge that the cite lacks credibility? The article in question *IS* well written. But there are well written articles on MySpace, that does not mean that they are worthy of being included here. I find it incredulous, that we are even having this discussion.Balloonman 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think one has to inspect material on the site carefully and also be aware that the contents are likely to have a POV. But the page from the site is listed under criticisms of MT. I.e. we are already implying that the reporting may be biased. Whether, when we weed down the number of linked sites, this is the best site to keep, is another matter. (Oops forgot to put my signature on this comment earlier.)--Peter cohen 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One of Balloonman's points above was that there are no cites at all (well, I did notice a cite to Ladies Home Journal in there!). So it's true that there is no evidence that the research is of poor quality, but that's because there is no evidence of research at all. --Anietor 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It has already been explained is that the criteria for citation/verifiability for articles linked from Wikpedia is (of necessity) not as stringent as for text posted in Wikipedia itself but lets assume otherwise for a moment and (using the dubious assumption that the quality of an article is directly proportional to the number of other articles it cites as sources) compare the "Rotten library"with a few of the links which are included in the External links:Criticism section

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083 "Mommie Dearest" 1 citation (of an undated article in a periodical)

http://www.salon.com/sept97/news/news3.html "Saint to the rich" 1 citation (of an undated article in a periodical)http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/august96/hakeem.html A book review -no other citations

http://www.newstatesman.com/200508220019 ""The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa" At most 3 citations (an unnamed 1969 TV documentary -the authors own TV programme and a quote from the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens)

http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/ No citations (other than a couple of references to financial accounts which may or may not be in the public domain)

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html "Mother Teresa's House of Illusions" No citations

Of course all this is laegely moot anyway since there is nothing in the Rotten Library article on MT that is in breach of WP:EL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.222.48 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And Anietor I am sorry to see that you consider a religion that subjects many of the children of its followers to slow painful and easily preventable deaths to be unmockable just because it is a religion. 80.229.222.48 17:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is *ONE* of the criticism, but it is not *THE* criticism. THE criticism is that the page is not reliable. IF the article had citations, then I MIGHT be willing to overlook the problem of the PAGE. Slate.com, Salon, New Statesman, Secular Humanism are all reliable sources in and of themselves. Please demonstrate that Rotten.com has a reputation for fact checking and being taken as a legitimate source?Balloonman 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Define "reliable" ? Is the Washington Post "reliable" ? Is Fox News "reliable" ? is The Nation "reliable" ? is the Mother Teresa article on Wikipedia reliable ? If so how does one go about proving it ? Surely "reliability" is in the eye of the beholder ? Is there any evidence to prove that the rotten library is not reliable ? 80.229.222.48 17:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicted: Here is a challenge for you, I am more than willing to let this cite be included provided that you can show me ONE thing. You may not (and I may not) believe everything on those sources, but they do have a review process and are deemed as a whole to be reliable. Independent sources (even sources who hold contrary opinions) will cite Fox News and the Washington Post as sources. So here is the challenge, find a place where ROTTEN/Library.COM has be accepted as a source? A quotation in a major media outlet? A News Report citing "According to Rotten.com"? Or any other place where an independent source has deemed Rotten.Com a reliable enough and researched well enoguh that it is being cited elsewhere. One caveat, the source has to accept ROTTEN.COM as a reliable source. (Eg if it cites Rotten then down plays the reliability, it doesn't count.) IF you can do that, THEN you will have my support. Simple right? H.S. Papers, college Papers, etc are researched and well written, but links to them do not belong in an encyclopedia. Show me recognized independent sources citing Rotten and I'll back down.Balloonman 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory check revealed the most prestigious US papers citing Rotten.com as a source: The Wall Street Journal cites Rotten [10], as does the New York Times (Nicholas Wade, "Was Paper on Bomb a Parody?") in November 2001.[11] Quatloo 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So Rotten.com broke a single news story---the National Enquirer has broken more than that over the past 11 years. That doesn't mean that people recognize The National Enquirer as a reliable source of information. And, of course, I acknowledged that the possibility existed that there might be a story or two out there---bloggers have been credited with breaking many stories over the past few years. That doesn't make them reliable sources who have proven themselves to be reliable sources of information. Thus, I asked for multiple independent sources and I'll add, on different issues, citing Rotten.com. Breaking a news story is a little different than presenting a history.Balloonman 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "I am more than willing to let this cite be included provided that you can show me ONE thing." I have now shown you that one thing, an independent source -- the New York Times itself -- citing Rotten.com as a source. Now it looks like you are trying to weasel out of your promise. Quatloo 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please finish the rest of the quote "Show me recognized independent sources citing Rotten and I'll back down." I specifically made that PLURAL as to cover the possibility that a single story might have in and of itself made news. The article you cited, Rotten.com is part of the newstory! I'm looking for proof that Rotten has a positive reputation for fact checking and as a source.Balloonman 22:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I gave you two sources, the WSJ and the NYT, not one. That's plural. There are actually more, it is in Time Magazine as well, but I decided to stop at two. Secondly, it's clearly not part of the story -- the text from the NYT is very clearly, "According to Jason Scott, a reporter for a Web newsletter, rotten.com, the document was [...]" That is a simple citation. Now say you replace "rotten.com" with the name of a newspaper. Your claim is that a newspaper becomes part of a story merely by being the first to report it. That is patently ridiculous, and no way to weasel out of your promise. It is very clear that Rotten.com had no involvement in the story other than being first to report the facts. Quatloo 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lest you doubt me about the Enquirer, here are some of the more prominent subjects credited to the Enquirer:

1. Details about Monica Lewinsky Affair were Enquirer fodder
2. Jessy Jackson's illegitimate child was initially an Enquirer story
3. Coverage and investigative reporting on the OJ trail was among the best.

That's more than one single article that was picked up, this was a short lived pattern of credible journalism, that went for naught as the Enquirer is still regarded as a tabloid.Balloonman 07:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think the story for Rotten.com is a fascinating one. With it's rise to notability with Howard Stern using for shock value, the FBI and German investigations into it's history. Major media outlets calling it "There is absolutely nothing nice about Rotten.com; this site is simply foul." But the cite is clearly notable for it's stance against censorship---the article on Wikipedia needs to be improved! But just because it takes a stance against censorship and has a right to speak, does not mean that others should be compelled to carry it's links. Oh, lest anybody think my work computer is the exception to blocking this cite, apparently it is not. Rotten receives an "endless cease-and-desist letters that flood in from a long list of major corporations that object to the site."Balloonman 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PPS Digging even further into this site and it's reputation, I will NOW add that, if Wikipedia links to it, then it would comperable to linking to a hate speech websites. Rotten.com is out there for shock value and to challenge the status quo---it's reputation is not for accuracy or reliability, but rather to disturb. I'm fine with that, the KKK has the right to exist as well and even to have websites. But researching this site further, has solidified the fact that its reputation does not meet WP:EL's minimumal standards. (Again, I think it has a fascinating story and believe the Wikipedia article on it doesn't do the story justice.)Balloonman 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way is Rotten.com "comperable to" a hate speech website ? Their FAQ states (URL is http://www.rotten.com/FAQ/ but to save anyone being "offended" by the pictures there Ill paste the relevent section of text) "Q. Is Rotten a hate site? A. No, of course not. We love everyone! Especially you! There might be a bit of self loathing mixed in however. Our self esteem committee is working on that one." Granted some of the material on the site (particularly some of the WW2 propaganda posters) would be the sort of thing one would expect to encounter on a "hate site" but its pretty clear from the context in which the material is presented that its inclusion does not imply endorsment. But if you still believe otherwise perhaps you would be good enough to back up your "research" with examples or citations from relaible sources.80.229.222.48 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's not a hate site because it says it's not a hate site? Good grief. Anyways... it's amazing the amount of space in this discussion page that has been dedicated to talking about rotten.com. It seems there's nothing more to debate at this point, and that there is a general consensus that the rotten.com article is not appropriate for this wikipedia MT article. We're starting to spend more time talking about the rotten.com website in general, independent of the relevance of this debate to the wikipedia MT article. How many more times can we repeat the criteria required to include a source in a wiki article? I would respectfully suggest that we move on. I feel comfortable enough with this topic to stop feeding the fire, fairly confident that the rotten.com site will not be inserted (or at least will not stay on very long if someone inserts it). --Anietor 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there can still sometimes be reasons to link to hate sites. As an example, [12] appears on what many people classify as a hate site. While, I wouldn't trust David Irving when he comments on the Holocaust, his comments on the Daily Telegraph article on Winifred Wagner are interesting and I have no reason to doubt that he did carry out the mentioned interview with her or that he fairly reports Winifred W's expressed views on Hitler and I can see that he might ask her, as one fan of Hitler speaking to another, for tickets to the Bayreuth Festival. If as a member of WP:Wagner, I was revising the article on Winifred and looking for evidence of her unrepentant attitude in her later years, I might want to use this link, if I could find nothing better.--Peter cohen 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has put foward any evidence to support the assertion that the Rotten Library is either "unreliable" or a "hate site". Nobody has adequetly explained how http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ goes against WP:EL or any other Wikipedia policy and the POV of two or three people hardly amounts to a "general consensus". 80.229.222.48 09:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Before an edit war starts, can we take it that consensus has ben reached to add the link? --Statsone 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. I see no consensus to add the link. I see a few editors arguing a rather theoretical position that hate sites sometimes have a place in wiki articles. That really isn't the issue here. There have been valid reasons why this specific site, with the specific article in that site, should not be included. There has been no evidence that the link/site itself is reliable, referenced, researched, unavailable elsewhere, etc. --Anietor 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a message to the talk page at the time I edited the article but It seems to have disappeared/never appeared (maybe an error on my part ???) Anyway what I was going to say is that I was adding the rotten library link as I feel strongly that no convincing arguments have been put above foward against its inclusion. A lot of arguments have been thrown about in the discussion above RE: whether or not the article is reliable, referenced, researche etc etc Noether side have submitted much evidence to prove their argument either way (although in fairness it is something that is not easy to prove) but surely the reader should have enough intelligence to reach his/her own conclusions ? There are other Wikipedia articles linking to the rotten library without any problem. There has been no evidence supporting the (IMNSO bizzare) assertion that the rotten library is a hate site. Certainly it makes some very strongly worded criticisms of various (all ?) religions (again IMNSO many of them well justified) but there is a difference between strongly worded criticism and incitment to hatred.

RE: Avoiding an edit war I can see given the lack of consensus either way it becoming almost inevitable. Can anyone suggest a reasonable comprimise to avoid this ? I did include a "content warning" for the benefit of those who might having read the article take a look at tome of the other content on the site and take offence but this apparently isint deemed to be sufficent either ? 212.178.38.251 09:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above I have made some layout changes (which hopefully wont be as controversial) and reinstated the link (which doubtless will be) I have tried to find a suitable "dispute" tag for the section but have not managed to find one. 212.178.38.251 11:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A vote is currently taking place below to try and establish a consensus on including/not including the "rotten library link" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.38.251 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through all the links and removed some not too informative and move one to the See also section. I thinks this cleans up the links section. --Statsone 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your choice of links to remove, the critical links are too few too prune, especially those ones... Sfacets 04:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Could Majoreditor please explain why requesting sources [13] is "spurious"? Or is this another attempt at maintaining the incedibly fragile illusion that this is still (was it really ever?) a good Article? Sfacets 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tone down the rhetoric? I think the material is adequately cited. My problem with the whole section is that it's about MT influence Catholicism, not the world and lacks meat to stand on its own as a section. As I have suggested before, I would like to see it and the two surrounding sections recast as one big MT and the Catholic faith section (possibly with subsections). I think as part of this recasting the bit about her being honoured by the Pope and other Catholics should be moved down. The bit about the ten year mass should also be moved in, if it's worth keeping at all. (Another kite being flown as I'm busy and not really interested in this aspect of her.) This way we end up with MT as an important figure in India and the region, MT as an important figure in the Catholic faith and MT as an important figure in the secular rest of the world as sections or subsections of global recognition. And the memorials section looks rather small and unwanted. Can it be made a subsection somewhere?

And BTW, do we really need the POV tag still?--Peter cohen 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the sources link to a specific article supporting the content, but rather to the main pages of http://corpuschristimovement.com/ and http://www.mcpriests.com/ .

The POV tag definitely needs to stay, please see discussions above. Sfacets 12:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about pointing to the main page. But I still think that it substantiates the claims. What it does however do is further question whether the amterial is of sufficient significance to justify a section with that name.--Peter cohen 12:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It substantiates the claim. Honestly, trying to throw up tags willy-nilly in an attempt to de-list the article isn;t likely to work, Sfacets.

Peter, I agree that the section is too short. It should either be expanded or collapsed into another section. I could try to expand the section; there's no shortage of material. However, I won't be a position to start until next week.

As for the memorial section, I'd suggest keeping it as it branches to a separate article. If desired it can be expanded; however, it could quickly swamp the rest of the article.

Thoughts, anyone? Majoreditor 13:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you've got well sourced material, then go ahead when you can. But will it still be about the catholic church or wider influence?

My vision for how the article should be restructured before it goes for A class or FA is as follows:

• lede
• life before MofC as one of four biographical(ish) sections;
• MofC including permissions, setting up MofC and MofC work in India but not the half of MoC international work covered in this section;
• going international with charity work- Both MoC stuff and anything else. BTW it's not clear in the article whether her mission to Lebanon was under the MoC flag or not. I'm wanting the international MoC stuff in here because it balances the size of the two sections;
• illness and death;
• general relationship with the Indian and regional world: honours, criticism interaction with politics in India. (mainly positioned here in the sequence because of state funeral providing a good continuation link from biographical part of the article.)
• general relationship with the Catholic world: honours including progress towards sanctification, dark night and other faith material, (how these two are ordered will depend on which order makes the text flow better), organisations set up because of her;
• general relationship with wider secular world, honours, criticisms, entanglements with dodgy characters etc as at present;
• Link to the memorials page. Possible the ten year mass could be mentioned here, but my instinct is that it is a symptom of recentism and won't mean much in five or ten years' time.

Some of the sections are left more or less untouched in this proposal. Apart from time, one of the things holding me back is that I'm still not entirely sure how the criticisms of financial matters and of the level of care in the Indian homes are best dealt with. At present they are mentioned partly in the biographical sections and partly in the lower sections with some of Hitchens's thoughts also mentioned in the sanctification process. Currently it feels rather messy and clumsy to me and reads as if it is material added later to the biographical sections, as of course it was. Perhaps both criticisms and positive value judgments can be kept in the second half of the article under the appropriate headings, so that the biographical parts are purely factual without hagiographical or hostile comments?

More thoughts anyone? I really am interested in other perspectives on this, because I see something that doesn't satisfy me but cannot see a clear way to go about improving it.--Peter cohen 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I often feel that articles which are otherwise pretty decent sometimes read a little sloppily, because as a result of a lot of different editors working on it, they read like, well, a lot of different editors worked on it. While I won't say your reorg proposal is the only good way to proceed, I do feel that such proposals are good things, as a single editor can apply a single unified approach to the article. Your comments above about ordering and text flow make me think you sympathize with this idea.

What you might like to try is to create a userspace page to write a draft of this, copying in untouched sections and rewriting others, then asking for comments, although perhaps specifically those related to organization more so than content. Regardless of your logistical preferences for this type of editing, I support your efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm not going to work on this in the near future as I have real work and other wiki commitments. But maybe around Xmas I'll do it.--Peter cohen 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Majoreditor: It substantiates the claim. Honestly, trying to throw up tags willy-nilly in an attempt to de-list the article isn;t likely to work, Sfacets.

I'm not trying to de-list the article, please don't make assumptions abut my motives, what I am actually trying to do is insure that this is really a good article, and not a sham brought on by vote fixing by non-neutral authors. Kudos to the anonymous user who posted the "utter disgrace" section, he really hit the issue head-on. Sfacets 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tags?

I notice that there seems no significant issue with neutrality since the criticism consensus was reached a couple weeks ago. The only ongoing discussion seems one of sourcing, one on the face of it that seems somewhat absurd. So first, would anyone object to the removal of the {{NPOV}} tag? And of course, if so, why? Second, could someone give some real justification why the inline citations and the full references of the entire article fail to acceptably source the section with the tag requesting such? I should note I just replaced that tag as it used to claim the article was unsourced, but my question vis-à-vis that section remains. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the {{NPOV}} tag should now be removed. We seem to have come a long way since last month's heated debates and edit wars, and consensus has been reached on most issues. As with most articles covering religious issues and figures, there will always be disagreements on balance, criticisms, etc. Undoubtedly, some people will want to keep the tag permanently because their particular edits or views were not adopted. However, this article has reached a level of stability and consensus that warrants removal of the tag. --Anietor 14:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the tag. The article is reasonably balanced on POV, even though I feel it needs looking at as a whole as indicated in my comments in the above section.--Peter cohen 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I also support removal of the {{NPOV}} tag and have done so. There does not seem to be a current dispute.

I have also removed the {{unreferencedsection}} template, although I did remove an unsourced opinion from that section and add a {{fact}} tag for the last sentence. Hope this is acceptable. -- Satori Son 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I think Satori's changes were fine: rm sentence which was vaguely synthy, and a reasonable fact tag for a specific easily quantifiable claim. I'll comment on Pete's above... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The father of Mother Teresa wos ethnic Macedonian Slav named Nikola, Nikola is not an Albanian name but a Slav one. So she is not from Albanian family but from a Macedonian one. See this BBC link [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Гоце Делчев (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Influence in the world

Great that this was changed to remove the necessity of a template requesting sources, however now sources are still required to demostrate that the examples given actually did arise as a direct consequence of MT's work. Sfacets 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically what do you mean? That's a rather general statement. --Anietor 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Missionaries of Charity Brothers was founded in 1963, and a contemplative branch of the Sisters followed in 1976. Lay Catholics and non-Catholics were enrolled in the Co-Workers of Mother Teresa, the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers, and the Lay Missionaries of Charity. In answer to the requests of many priests, in 1981 Mother Teresa also began the Corpus Christi Movement for Priests,[64] and in 1984 founded with Fr. Joseph Langford the Missionaries of Charity Fathers[65] to combine the beauty of the vocation of the Missionaries of Charity with the resources of the ministerial priesthood. Today, over one million workers worldwide volunteer for the Missionaries of Charity.[citation needed]

I am referring to the fact that there is now nothing to show that these orgs arose directly inspired by MT. Sfacets 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, two were founded by her, and one was named after her. Not sure what you are looking for in those cases. The etymological similaries for the rest, while not a rigorous criterion, can easily be discertained. I suggest a far more fruitful effort would be to work towards a more global reorganization of the article as per PC's concerns. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If they were started by her, then they weren't influenced by her - Either the title needs to be changed, or an introductory sentence introduced. Sfacets 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding us, right? Well, if tortured logic is more your style, I'd respond that if they were started by her, they couldn't have been MORE influenced by her. --Anietor 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Satori Son removed the introductory sentence[15], thereby invalidating the rest of the passage. Influence in the world refers to the effect she had on others and their work, not her own work. All I requested was sources demonstrating that the orgs in question were in fact influenced by her, even if she did start them. Sfacets 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

<slightly melodramatic request removed> -- Satori Son 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, no offense intended :) Sfacets 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Satori Son 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Influence on one's own work is somewhat tautological. But influence in the world is not limited to only those options you give. When others are considered, the issue is moot. I repeat the suggestion I made earlier, in somewhat stronger terms: rather than request sources which would justify the supposedly imperfect wording of content, suggest a constructive change of wording as an improvement. Here's one: "Other accomplishments". There is no reasonable way that this suggestion can be viewed as tendacious. An implicit demand for others to justify with sources the imperfect wording itself could be. That is not meant as an accusation, but rather a suggestion, as other high quality editors here are exhausting their patience with your behaviour quicker than I. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, the wording of that section heading seems acceptable. "Influence" is the subject, not the verb. Not arguing against improving the wording though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording in the intro was changed from "ministered to" to "worked with". I think both are acceptable, although I would prefer the original "ministered to". I understand that worked with is a more neutral term, but ministering is not necessarily a loaded, or POV term. The dictionary defines the verb minister as "to give care or aid", which seems more accurate in this case. Worked with is still correct, but it seems a little too general. Perhaps the concern was that minister seemed like a loaded term? But I think it more accurately and specifically describes MT's work with the poor, sick, homeless, etc. For instance, someone who conducts a commercial transaction with a sick person works with them, but doesn't necessarily minister to them. It seems that the basic work MT conducted was ministry, in the strict sense of giving aid to them. Any thoughts? Peter cohen, your comments indicate it was a response to a concern of another editor. I'm not sure the change really addresses his concerns, but perhaps you can expand further on the change. Again, I don't think the new version is necessarily incorrect, so I'd rather talk it out here and see what others think. --Anietor 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I gather from PC's edit summary that he was concerned that "ministered" implied the needs were met, or that he worried Sfacets had that concern. I for one do not think that implication is true, and I agree that "ministered to" is both more specific and acceptably neutral (although respectfully understand some might question the latter). But I don't see this being a big deal either way. "worked with" has no unacceptable connotation in this context. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was a way of stopping the citation edit war. Perhaps you could have "ministered to the poor etc." and remove "needs" which I assume is what Sfacets is challenging.--Peter cohen 20:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Hearing no objections since yesterday, I'll make that change. --Anietor 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on link

There needs to be a consensus reached on the rotten.com link see above. Please either vote for inclusion or exclusion. Comments should be brief. I long, please start a new section in the contents. --Statsone 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Add link

• ADD LINK as valid information --Statsone 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Add link - the article needs balance, and the site provides a comprehensive negative summary of MT's and her Mission's going-ons. Sfacets 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• No objection to link in principle at least until a proper decision is made on how many links we need in the first place.--Peter cohen 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• ADD LINK it helps give POV balance to an article through a critcal analysis something which is something sadly lacking in the mainstream media. And a list of ten "critical" MT links is hardly excessive Especially considering there are TWELVE "pro" MT articles immediatey above ! 212.178.38.251 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment I think it is mistaken to compare numbers or automatically assume that all the others are necessarilly pro. Having looked at them briefly, I think they could do with weeding out just as much as the criticism ones. A lot would be better placed on the MoC page.--Peter cohen 20:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would probably fall into this camp... if I were to look closer at the links, I'd probably question a lot more than just this one (on both sides.)Balloonman 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

note:perhaps a Request for comment would be a better and more neutral way of obtaining concensus...Sfacets 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

comment My gut instinct is that if anyone replies to the RFC, they will say that we should examine the whole list of links in the light of Wikipedia's policy. And most of the 22 links should be scrapped.--Peter cohen 20:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

reply to comment My pointing out the number of articles was more a response to those who claimed that the inclusion of the rotten library link makes the list too long. Overall I dont agree with "scrapping most of the 22 links" unless better ones can be found to replace them. Im not suggesting that the number of "Pro MT" links should be exactly equal to the number of "Critical of MT" links. 212.178.38.251 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:LINKS

"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the External links template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."

I think 22 is rather a long list and among the what not to link list is:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

--Peter cohen 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... and I think this link is of dubious reliability. I am not opposed to the information contained within the link. I'm just opposed to THIS particular one. Think of it this way, we would not accept Howard Stern as the most authoritative source. (Heck, I wouldn't accept Paul Harvey as an authoritative source.) But we are being asked to accept ROTTEN.COM whose purpose is to present images and ideas that are too disturbing for mainstream media? It's the source, not the content that I am opposed to.Balloonman 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• ADD LINK I'd prefer some actual text in the Criticism section (not just links), but this list of links added a lot to the content in my opinion. The rotten.com link is just fine and doesn't need a disclaimer. 66.74.77.199 02:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You say it is source, not the content. But you descibe it as a site whose purpose is to present images and ideas that are too disturbing for mainstream media.

So it is the content then? --Statsone 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note this comment should have appeared further up in the page --Statsone 05:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. I have no problem with adding the criticism that is brought up on the page in Rotten.com---provided that it can be validated via a reliable source. I do have a problem with using this particular site---Rotten.com has a reputation for distorting facts to "present images and ideas that are disturbing for mainstream media."Balloonman 06:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the reliable stories/posts on Rotten.com:

• A not work friendly picture and story about a weightlifter posted on Rotten.com and the corresponding truth as discovered by Snopes.com
• How about these images [16] and [17]? Which are believed to be fakes.
• How about Rotten.com's choosing to go live with a picture they knew wasn't true: [We confirmed the source of the image within 12 hours, but because of the wide interest in the existence of any such image (real or not), we went live with it.
• How about Rotten.com publishes a picture and story about baby cannabalism. The picture is faked---again Snopes investigation.
• During 2000 and 2001, Rotten.com was strongly associated with several of the Slashdot trolling phenomena. Slashdot can generally be divided into four categories: disruptive, offensive, deceptive, and idiosyncratic.

Again, my objection is not the criticism of MT---but the credibility and reliability of anything associated with Rotten.com. IMHO, Rotten.com has zero credibility. It's purpose is to shock, not educate. I should note, that the above are not the only cases I found... I found others a few weeks ago.Balloonman 08:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the "examples" listed above are from rotten library articles. As for being "disturbing for mainstream media" as they state in the FAQ "We don't really show anything that the major television networks don't show you" As for the choosing to go live with a picture they knew wasn't true have you looked at the picture ? Its laughable that anyone would take it as seriously as you seem to and besides they state that At no time did we actually claim the photo was genuine RE: the "number of links" 12 "general" and 10 "critical" links are hardly excessive 80.229.222.48 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is laughable that anybody would take this site seriously as any level of a reliable source of information. The reliability of the articles are on par, and this is being generous, with those of college students. Rotten.com does NOT have a reputation for facts, it has a reputation for shock tactics. Facts are secondary. I don't care if this is from /library section of Rotten.com, we are not talking about a credible source.Balloonman 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.

The article is well written and adds to the article as a whole. The site it appears on may not be the best, in ones view, but the article itself is worthwhile having. Please keep in mind it is not being quoted in the article, it is not being used as a source, but just adds to the information presented.--Statsone 05:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclude link

• Don't add link is not objective and comes from a VERY biased source whose credibility is in question. (It is not difficult to find cases where pictures posted on the cite as news stories have been discredited.) The source is about as reliable as a Blog or college paper that gets printed on a persons website.Balloonman 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Don't add The link, as with the entire web site, is an over-the-top collection of unsourced, unreferenced articles with no recognized degeree of credibility. It is, as noted above, similar to a blog...but worse, since we know even less about the sources here. There really is no reason why this website should be linked. The MT article in wikipedia is not a list of every link on the subject matter, and why anyone thinks this link should rise above others is frankly quite baffling. --Anietor 02:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose to adding the link. It's not the most credible of sources. Majoreditor 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• STrong oppose link is from an unprofessional organistaion and lowers the professionalism of the article. If the allegations are noteable they will have been presented in a more credible forum and we can use that. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not a good way to obtain a real consensus, since historically it has been show that this article is being patrolled by biased editors. The only way to get a real consensus (ie unbiased NPOV) is by getting outside commentary. The article has been called an "Utter disgrace" and I would tend to agree - it is a real struggle to introduce critical material to the article, since it is be patrolled by pro-Teresa editors who do all they can to remove said critical material as soon as it is entered. The article is extremely POV, and yet it is a "GA" because of the number of biased editors editing this article. Let's make it a real Good Article by introducing criticism and thereby balance. Sfacets 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note, *I* only started paying attention to this article as a result of the GA/R's... and the ONLY discussion that I have partaken in or edit that I have made (beyond the GA/R's) is to remove this link. So, you can hardly say that I am patrolling this page as an"biased editor". IF what this page says is true, then there should be better sources out there that substantiate the criticisms. I have no problem including the criticisms if a better source can be found. The problem is that Rotten.com does not have a reputation for credibility. In fact, it has a reputation for shock tactics. It would rather challenge the status quo than accurately present the facts.Balloonman 14:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

---Vinit ---- Among the Critics of Mother Teresa, Osho name is not mentioned at all. Osho has severely criticized Mother Teresa and gave some sound arguments on that. Please include that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.61.1 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Tumor?

Following Mother Teresa's death in 1997, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the second step towards possible canonization. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa. In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Mother Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Some of Besra's medical staff and, initially, Besra's husband insist that conventional medical treatment eradicated the tumor.[65] Unless dispensed by the Pope, a second miracle is required for her to proceed to canonization.

In this artical by Christopher Hitchens http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=hitchens_24_2 he states that;

"The girl's physician stated plainly that she had not had a cancer. She had had a cyst. And the cyst had not responded to prayer. It had responded to a prescribed course of medicine" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight

I was reading this article about Mother Teresa elsewhere that criticized her and was curious, thought I would come here and see what info had been gathered about this. Lo, and behold, what should I find but...... nothing indicating that anyone has criticized her, which is NOT accurate. Clear case of WP:Undue weight.

Indications (from this Talk Page) are that people try to add sourced material and it is simply deleted if it is not positive towards Mother Teresa. So we have an unknown number of people who have decided that they will edit the record of history to their liking. If this is so, I guess I should not be surprised. Things don't change; history really is written by the victors.

This is why I do not edit articles of import anymore. It is obvious that people more concerned with public relations are doing a lot of the editing these days, and there are simply not enough good moderators around. Perhaps Wikipedia is lost.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. The article contains criticism. Your statement "nothing indicating that anyone has criticized her, which is NOT accurate" implies that you haven't read the article. Majoreditor 18:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Granted, the article *contains* criticism but it is buried, while precedent on Wikipedia is that such content gets it's own section.

As it is, the format of this article slants the presentation of the material. Hence, NPOV violation. Your dismissal of this indicates to me that you might not be familiar with WP:Undue weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the previous conversations on this talk page on how we've chosen to integrate criticism. Most regular contributors to this page are familiar with WP:Undue weight. You may want to dive into the scholarly research on this topic. Cheers, Majoreditor 20:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

POV-check

I am tagging this page for a POV Check, due to suspicion of WP:Undue weight. Reasons stated just above in the main body of 25#: WP:Undue weight.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reasons for the tag don't really make sense. Saying that there's "nothing indicating that anyone has criticized her" in the article is not correct. Did you read it? There is criticism incorporated in the text. Just because there isn't a criticism section doesn't mean that the article is unbalanced...it's actually in comformity with WP policy. I suggest you actually read the article, and you will see that you are wrong that it doesn't contain any criticisms. If you mean it doesn't have enough criticism, then you will need to be specific about what RELEVANT information is not included. Saying you read an article about MT "elsewhere" that had things that the WP article doesn't is not going to cut it. --Anietor 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "it doesn't have enough criticism". I would have been more specific if so. But thank you and MajorEditor for pointing out that there is criticism content present. Still, as I said above in reply to MajorEditor, precedent on Wikipedia is that such content gets it's own section.

The format of this article slants the presentation of the material. Hence, NPOV violation. Your dismissal of this indicates to me that you might not be familiar with WP:Undue weight: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And so, I am tagging the article again.

Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:MoS says this about article structure and criticism:

"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

"Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other."

Note that this is not from an essay; this is from the policy manual. Cheers, Majoreditor 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my support for the way various POVs are integrated here. It is really nicely done and allows the reader to see various alternative points of view in context rather than reading about Mother Teresa as though she were beyond reproach and then reading a criticism section that made her look like the devil. It's good to see an article that tries to present nuanced instead of pandering to extremes. If there are issues about there being significant points of view that aren't fairly presented that would be one thing - but I'm happy to support a strong stance against the desire to make the article structure worse. -- SiobhanHansa 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made no secret that I think the structuring of the article could be improved but hyperbole such as "nothing indicating that anyone has criticized her, which is NOT accurate" does irritate me after the amount of effort I've put in to include criticism and the time and emotional energy that has been expended by a number of editors creeping into double figiyres to find a satisfactory balance. If you feel things can be better presented come up with a proposal on a sandbox page but please don't come in with comments that totally deprecate the sfforts of others in the way that the comment I have quoted does.--Peter cohen 11:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

“Heaven means nothing.” -Mother Teresa

This page, the article on Mother Teresa is a shame. I just read the whole talk page here, and I can see that I'm not the only one to feel that much more critism on Mother Teresa should be included within the body of the article itself, and not only (mostly) as a few links provided at the end of the page.

How did I get here? I just read "Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such center." [18] Of course, that's nothing new, but as more and more people learn about this, then come here and check MT's page on Wikipedia, the general idea many people will get is that it's biased, wrong, weak, distorded by "somebody", and that's just too bad for Wikipedia and its great goals.

I would jump in, and edit the page myself, but as you've probably noticed my English isn't exactly good, not good enough anyway, which is why I never contribute to articles. But I use Wikipedia every day, and I thought I should add my voice to that of those who wrote before me about this. Reading is dangerous 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think you will find thta issues such as MT's association with Keating, the Duvalliers and Reagan, her campaigns for abortion, the questioning of her faith in her diaries, her failure or refusal to tackle poverty itself, issues on the spending of money etc. are mentioned in the article. You should, however, be wary of everything your source says. Malcolm Muggeridge was a media personality not a media tycoon, as it claims. I certainly would not want to use it as a reference.--Peter cohen 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Care should be taken when examining sources. There's an entire cottage industry built around glorifying Mother Teresa, and another built around vilifying her. Frankly, I've found several web sites on either side which contain distorted or untrue information.

While I'm not sure how many sites she claimed to operate in Calcutta, Murthy (1983; ISBN 0-941910-00-2)) said that as of the mid-80s her order operated about 100 centers in India. Majoreditor 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter Cohen. I've read the article again, and I find better than I said. Maybe a few words could be added or moved to the header... maybe something like //Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism// @Majoreditor, //Care should be taken when examining sources.// it's an endless task! If I had enough time and money I'd go to Calcutta myself, and check it out, but that doesn't mean I would really know better the truth (about it all...) :-) And with these words, I will return to my usual silent self... Reading is dangerous 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering your position. I actually agree with you on mentioning criticism in the header. In fact at 48K, (okay including pictures, references etc.,) I think the article could afford a third paragraph in the lead which could allow not just a mention of criticism, but coverage of other additional material. Appropriate choice of material, might prevent further people not noticing that we cover how she examined her faith in her private correspondence and journals.--Peter cohen 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(<-)The lead would be better if expanded. How about the following:

• Keep the first paragraph
• Add a new second paragraph focusing on what she did and what she believed.
• The existing second paragraph, which focuses on her reception in the world, would become the third paragraph. It could be expanded to include a sentence or two on criticism.

Thoughts? Majoreditor 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. As far as reception in the world is concerned, things that I would look at including are that she was widely honoured in India, by the Catholic Church and in the rest of the world (the state funeral, beatification and Nobel Peace Prize leap out to me as the most prestigious examples in each category to mention), that she remains a popular figure ten years after her deaht, that various catholic organisations have been set up in her honour, and that criticism has come in India from Hindu nationalists and from secularists, and that feminists and those on the left-wing critics of her approach to abortion and poverty and that medical criticism has looked at the approach underlying her care.

On her beliefs, I think the importance she attached to abortion should be included. The "dark night of the soul" material should have sufficient mention to reduce the chance of people not noticing we cover it in future.--Peter cohen 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The aromanian origins of Mother Teresa !!!

The father of Mother Theresa was aromanian. It is mentioned also in an albanian source (see here). Of course, she was albanian (she considered herself to be albanian), but she also had aromanian origins! I think it should be mentioned in the article.

The text says that the Bojaxhi family is aromanian. Descendants of this family were also the habsburg writer Mihail G. Bojaxhiu. Aromanian families lived mostly in balkan cities, including Skopje, that were a city with many ethnic groups during the ottoman period. Voskopoja was the most important aromanian city, but later, they spreaded over many balkan cities, including Skopje, Prizren etc.

Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was born in 1910 in Macedonia. Her father, Nikolle Bojaxhiu, died when she was only 10 years old. With his dead, she has no contact anymore with the aromanian origins and family of her father. Her mother came from Gjakove (Kosovo). Mother Theresa went to the catholic church in the town, she sang in the choir and finaly she decided to become a nun.

Dimo Dimchev, the president of the Aromanian Cultural Union in Macedonia quotes Stojan Trencevskit, who said: Mutter Teresa, Gondje Boiagi, ist von ihrem Vater Nikola Boiagi her wlachischer Abstammung; wir berufen uns auf das von dem Autor Stojan Trencevski entdeckte Dokument, das belegt, dass Nikola Boiagi in den Fuhrungsorganen der wlachischen Gemeinschaft in Skopje tatig gewesen war. --80.142.241.91 (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See also this: http://heros4u.com/mother_teresa.htm --80.142.241.91 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Next time I am at the library (which may be some time) I will see if I can find other sources which mention aromanian origins. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Blessed" title

The qualifier "Blessed" has been added and deleted from the opening paragraph a couple of times. Garion96 cites to Naming Convention to argue that it should not be included. I think he makes a valid point. However, I read the naming convention to refer to the title of an article, which nobody is advocating changing. Since MT does have the title "Blessed", it seemed appropriate to include in the same way you would say "Saint" X. It seemed odd not to have this title anywhere in the article. In the meantime, I did add it to the section on beatification. --Anietor (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, upon reading that MOS again it does refer to article naming only. I have seen it often removed from articles though. Just one example I checked is Pope John XXIII. The "blessed" is mentioned in the lead, but it is not the first word of the article. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. The Pope John XXIII article has it in the first sentence in a "known as" format. Seems a little wordy, but I guess your point is that MT is known more as Mother Teresa than as Blessed Mother Teresa, which is probably true. What format would you suggest (or maybe you would still prefer to not have it in the opening?). Anyone else with some input? --Anietor (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest keeping with the convention used throughout Project Saints. If we follow that convention, the title "Blessed" should be noted in the lead but not used as the article's first word. Just a suggestion. Majoreditor (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition of the word "controversially"

When the article mentions MT's views on abortion included in her Nobel Prize sppech, it states that she blames abortion for some problems in life. Due to the brief media storm that occured after this speech on her stance, I have decedied to include the word @Controversially@ to precede this statement. You may argue that abortion is immoral, but that's not the point - the point is, that the speech generated controversy in the media, and as such, that statment should be more highlighted to reflect the media storm around that stance. Microphotographer 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That word doesn't add anything to the article. When you're talking about abortion, I doubt there is anything one can say that is not controversial to one side or the other, given the emotion of the subject matter. The comment didn't "generate controversy in the media." It did generate coverage, but the statement was in line with well-known Catholic doctrine (and the position of other groups). It was certainly not welcome by pro-choice groups, but that hardly needs the "controversy" label in the article. --Anietor 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The one remaining aspect is whether Nobel Prize-winning speeches are traditionally meant to be bland - I don't know whether they are - in which case the use of the speech for a controversial topic might itself be controversial. --Peter cohen 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly non-NPOV in part of one section

Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. While noting how little evidence Mother Teresa's critics were able to find against her, David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[27]"

    In the first two sentences of any criticism, no criticism is given, but a rebuttal follows after the first sentence we see here.

And for the record, I don't understand why there is not a separate criticism section as there was some months back. Why must a reader search well through the article to find criticisms, when most other biographies have a solid section for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, why is there no mention of criticism in the introductory section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How much money did she receive and how was it spent?

How much money did she receive and how was it spent? <- Very important to have BOTH of these in the article..