Talk:Missionaries of Charity

message: I'm going to try to make it a bit less biased.  I'll lolm,llm  nnnknkjok in the hiqnqjkjoljjkjkrbnw
∞story for useful text that has been removed then, if there's nothing, I'll find some myself. Superm401 23:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's one-sided, but I think the solution is to add more positive information about the Missionaries of Charity, not rem ove all the criticisms.  I reverted some text that was copied from the article on Mother Theresa, because it wasn't really related to the Missionaries of Charity and I didn't see a need to duplicate it.  Pfalstad 18:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sidedness 

message: This seems to have been deleted in its entirety, perhaps without others noticing, so I've reverted it. I have no view about it but since this was a major part of this page just to delete it all seems unreasonable. If it's inaccurate or POV etc. it should be edited, not completely deleted. Ben Finn 12:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: I've updated the above section to try and make it more NPOV. There is another section which I feel is not NPOV specificially:
:Such criticisms as the auspiciously poor condition of health care may stem from cultural misunderstanding. Among some in India there is a conception of karma - the idea that people deserve their pain on the basis of the previous life, and there is no need to help them. The Misionaries of Charity on the other hand strive to help these "poorest of the poor" - people who otherwise die alone on the streets. The Sisters bring not only basic medical treatment, but much more importantly love and care. Opponents for critics of Theresa argue that such critics do so from the comfort of their Western opulence without serving the world's poor with nearly the selflessness that characterized her life.
I've brought this up on the India project board as follows... My understanding of the Indan conception of Karma and Indians in general suggest this is a very unfair characterisation to say that some Indians feel that people deserve their pain on the basis of their previous life so there is no need to help them. Perhaps there are a few Indians who think like this but my understanding is that generally speaking, if anything for most Indians who believe in karma this would mean they should help people in pain not ignore them. Nil Einne 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup to both observations of Nil Einne. --Gurubrahma 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone with no real knowledge on this subject, after reading this page I was left wondering where all the money had really gone and why the medical facilties at the Mission were so basic (bearing in mind the money donated). If these questions can be addressed in this section it would hopefully bring the article out of dispute.SOPHIA 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of criticism section 

message: I made these edits to make it NPOV. I beleive the neutrality tag should be removed. 
The article may seem one-sided, and the "criticisms" section most definitely does need editing for brevity. However, keep in mind that in some cases, an encyclopedic presentation of the facts will be one-sided because the facts are one sided. I beleive this is one of those cases. If the evidence suggests that money given for charity was instead sent to the Vatican, that should be what is presented. Doing so is not non-neutral, nor is it POV. I beleive the neutraity tag currently gives the (false) impression that what is within the article is false or politically motivated; I don't think that is the case. I am inclined to remove the "response to criticisms" section; it has a POV tint, is not very well written, and there is little to no actual material to work with (in other words, additional editing is unlikely to ever improve the arguments of the section).Lastly, the point has been made that the article includes very few positive things about the charity. We should consider whether there indeed exist additional positive aspects of the charity. --AK7 09:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOVing edits 

message: Facts are possible in every case.  Noting the criticisms and balancing them with description is enough.  Giving the criticism is not a definition of what this group is, nor is this page supposed to be about Mother Theresa herself.  The criticism section must be distilled into its essential ideas, which I think would only take a paragraph or two.  This is just a matter of structure.
"In one case of a patient who died of tuberculosis, Louden reported being told by an American doctor working at Kalighat that the patient might have lived if she had received some hospital treatment."
When I was working in Calcutta patients were always taken to a hospital when it was needed.  Usually when severely wounded and destitute patients were found they had to be taken to a hospital.  Unfortunately the state hospitals in India are nightmarish places, but volunteer doctors always checked on them, ensuring their safety and good care.
However that is my experience, not necessarily fact.  With over a hundred homes around the world there are going to be different experiences.  That is why this article must be restricted to fact.  It is a fact that these criticisms exist but is not for an encyclopedic entry to judge or take sides, only to note its existence. scazza 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts

message: The criticisms section of the Mother Theresa article is well organised but too long.  I suggest that a new, separate criticisms article is made, summarised in both of these articles with a reference to the main article. scazza 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate criticisms article

message: I'm not sure how to do it, but the section would do better if it explained the criticism of how the group operates rather than the arguement that they somehow launder money to the Catholic church or something.  This can be included, but its seriously misleading to bring criticisms without first explaining the basis of how the group operates. Lastly, the section seriously needs citations. 74.137.230.39 02:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid excuse to get rid of criticism. If you want to change it then integrate it yourself. Don't delete. I know it is hard to get around the myth of mother Theresa, but wikipedia is supposed to be objective.--77.248.90.202 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a stupid excuse it's the rules of the website. And calling it the "myth of Mother Teresa" only shows your bias. I believe it would be productive to have criticism within the article but the previous section was unnecessary, irrelevant and unsourced.74.137.230.39 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: The section lacks sources. Please re-add when sources are provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid excuse to get rid of criticism. If you want to change it then integrate it yourself. Don't delete. I know it is hard to get around the myth of mother Theresa, but wikipedia is supposed to be objective.--77.248.90.202 01:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a stupid excuse it's the rules of the website. And calling it the "myth of Mother Teresa" only shows your bias. I believe it would be productive to have criticism within the article but the previous section was unnecessary, irrelevant and unsourced.74.137.230.39 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: I really think there ought to be something about the Regina Mundi scandal in the late 90s. There were a lot of power plays going on in the background in order for Mother to make the decision to stop sending future superiors to college there after having done it for decades. (Maybe it should be in the controversies section?)
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read An Unquenchable Thirst--specifically the chapter entitled "Bullies" and a few before it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:779A:FC0:6088:D264:B3CE:9C11 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regina Mundi Scandal 

message: Please explain to me why tabloid sources are not acceptable even when they clearly document what they claim. Are you saying that the matter of Princess Diana's closeness to Mother Teresa is not worthy of note, when she testifies to the profound impact Mother Teresa had on her life? Jzsj (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tabloid sources are poor quality. Some (e.g. the Mail, the Sun) are deprecated and should not be used at all. It's pretty much axiomatic that if you can't find a non-tabloid source, the content is probably trivia. Guy (help!) 20:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we distinguish use of sources? 

message: Came across this page while reading about the FCRA updates in India in which the MoC have lost their license to accept foreign funds in India. This may be of interest to other readers and I request the admins to update the same. Should they deem fit. References below.
Thanks.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/foreign-funds-and-the-missionaries-of-charity/article38076953.ece Foreign funds and the Missionaries of Charity (The Hindu)
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/fcra-licence-of-mother-teresas-missionaries-of-charity-not-renewed/articleshow/88534014.cms FCRA licence of Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity not renewed following adverse inputs (Economic Times)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.149.85  (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Update- FCRA licence of Mother Teresa's missionaries of charity not renewed following adverse inputs