Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 13

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-sectioning 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R#Mother Teresa|Good article review]]

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  [[cite web| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/wteresa224.xml| title= Mother Teresa's canonisation not at risk| source=Telegraph}} 
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)
replies: text: Looks good to me.--Peter cohen 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The NYT op-ed on the subject by James Martin sj, a well-known authority on sainthood, might be useful here, (), 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)
replies: text: Thanks for providing the link, Hornplease. The article is informative. Majoreditor 00:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What to say about the journals?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why edit wars need to stop

message: Can place_of_death in the infobox be replaced with death_place. We are updating the fields used in  so it can be simplified.:: maelgwn - talk 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Haemo 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boundary between ''Missionaries of Charity'' and ''International charity'' sections 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An honest question re: use of copyright material 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Atheist?

message: 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   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Гоце Делчев (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Satori Son removed the introductory sentence, 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)
replies: text: <slightly melodramatic request removed> -- Satori Son 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry mate, no offense intended :) Sfacets 22:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Satori Son 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text:  (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Influence in the world

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Exclude link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tumor? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The aromanian origins of Mother Teresa !!!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Blessed" title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of the word "controversially" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blatantly non-NPOV in part of one section