Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 11

message: There are several request for citations to supports assertion made. I will remove these sentences in a few days, unless some references are found and it has been several weeks since these were requested. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations missing 

message: I'm just starting to gather information on this but it appears the wikipedia has 
a somewhat anti catholic or perhapse anti-christain slant to it.  ie there seems to be some violations of netural point of view
In about 10 minutes research I have noticed this by looking for the existance
of contraversy / critisim sections with in articls on persons.  here is what 
I have observed so far.
persons have a (critisism / contraversy's section).<BR>
Jessus of Nazerath<BR>
JPII ( some other popes although sort of random)<BR>
Mother Theresa<BR>
karl marx<BR>
absent critisim / contraversy sections are:<BR>
Mohammed<BR>
buddah<BR>
confucius  <BR>
Thomas more ( who wrote the work utopia the marks based part of his theory off of).
<BR>
martin Luther king <BR>
William J. Simmons ( founder of the klu klux klan)<BR>
all of the dalhi lamma ( these articles are pretty stubby though)<BR>
all of the U.S. presidents ( including George Bush the current president and Bill Clinton.)<BR>
didn't have time to check them all but almost no one under the 
Muhammad (disambiguation) section ( many of these are almost stub articles though).
<BR><BR>
Seriously are these sections just random based on editor bias or how do they manage to get there? 
<BR>
it does seem the criticism sections multiply for more modern people? is this because there is less care about past controversy and the accusations made by ones contemporaries or less understanding of them? 
<BR>
is there a wikipedia bias article ... it might be interesting to have one? <BR>
--chistofishman 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, and a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Criticism. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good Observation. Also article on Sachin Tendulkar has more points on criticism than achievementsDoctor Bruno 14:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fairness and wikipedia 

message: Can anybody indicate the pronunciation of her Albanian name, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu? --128.155.76.57 23:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of Her Albanian Name

message: OK, I am just back from the shrine of the Blessed Virgin up on the lake, where I have been thinking about this.  Here's what I think.
The criticism section strikes many people as POV, and part of that gets attributed to length.  But I think there is also a question about framing; about the assumptions made by the critique.  In two cases, both primarily tied to Hitchens, the criticism seems to imply that the motives and cosmology of Catholics are basically wrong and suspect.  I am talking about (1) the complaint that the donors were duped because MT spent money on missionary work, as well as (and perhaps more than) on  medical work, and (2) the complaint that dying people were duped by agreeing to a ritual ceremony.
In each case, we have a striking pattern.  The supposedly obnoxious behavior is, at least on face value, voluntary.  No one involved is raising a complaint, or--if they are--no such citation has been presented.  Hitchens and his backers, including some folks on this thread, obviously believe that the worldview of Catholics and other Christians who support MT is very wrong-headed.  That's great.  But they appear to be arguing that, if your beliefs suck, the burden of proof is on you to provide defensive sources against any unsourced critique.
For example, several people have pointed out that the phrase "Many of Teresa's donors were evidently under the impression that their money was being used to build hospitals" needs to be cited.  Just above in this discussion, an anonymous writer made a broader argument as to why such a claim might be wrong, and so should be cited.  This was immediately shot down.  It is hard to escape the implication that some of the contributors find Catholics guilty until proven innocent.
Me, I think we should cite the bejeezus out of everything.  Ethan Mitchell 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sticking with WP:V and WP:CITE, temoving unnecessary commentary and avoiding editorializing, is the way to achieve NPOV in these types of disputes. This applies to te criticism section as well as the rest of the article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Framing Problem 

message: The identity section of the wikipedia recomends:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity
Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves.
Mother Teresa as a catholic would now refer to herself as blessed Mother Teresa if she were still alive.  This argues strongly for chaning here name throught the article to either Blessed Mother Teresa or Blessed Teresa.
I'm looking for futher opinions?
: But it's not the name she used for herself, it's not the name that everyone knows her by, and it's connected specifically to the Catholic view of her.--Prosfilaes 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, no Catholic can properly refer to themselves as "blessed" until they are dead.  And it is POV, as well as bizarre, to speak of people referring to themselves after they are dead.  By the same logic, we would have to continuously describe Abraham Lincoln as "the late ex-president Abraham Lincoln," since presumably that is how he refers to himself in his contemporary conversations with the blessed Mother Teresa?  My head hurts.  Ethan Mitchell 03:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, that all makes sense to me.  I think the article should certainly include any titles by which someone is known, just as it should include their full name, but the name generally used in the article itself to refer to the person should be one that is broadly used. Ethan Mitchell 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blessed Mother Teresa

message: Why not to attempt to salvage any new material from Chistofishman? Or better, why not to offer Chistofishman some help? Chistofishman: as e can see English is not your primary language and you have trouble editing, please post your suggested edits Talk:Mother Teresa/sandbox, so that your edit can be corrected for grammar, etc. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some feedback: The Analysis of criticism section needs to be attributed to a reputable source. As Wikipedia editors it is not our job to respond to criticism or to analize it. If there are sources that refer to such analysis, lets find these and describe them. Otherwise, the text you added in this section is mostly original research and will need to be removed. See WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: None of the problems I mentioned were fixed in the last changes. There is a box for edit comments that you aren't using, there's a checkbox for minor edits like spelling fixes that you aren't using when appropriate, and there's a button for previews that you apparently aren't using. The new changes are completely uncited.--Prosfilaes 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prosfilaes, please Wikipedia:Don't_bite_the_newbies, otherwise we may be losing potential good material, effort and good will. Let's help Chistofishman rather than penalize him/her. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have fixed the spelling and made some necessary edits and removals. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale deletion of poortly written material 

message: I find the recent edits to be, yet again, an effort of undue weight given to a rather small group of critics. I have attempted to remove this undue weight from the TOC, by using bolded text rather than subsections. I have also redordered the marterial so that thw two main critics have their voices in one place. As for the Pen and Teller show, I would argue that it is too much detail and not encyclopedic. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  Mother T's numerous critics deserve to be cited separately.  And how, pray tell (so to speak) can there be too much detail?  Encyclopedic?  I was simply giving a detailed synopsis of the show.  Just calling her corrupt and citing a source or two is not enough; I was proving it beyond doubt.  GeorgeC 06:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much detail? Of course it can be. See WP:NPOV and read the Undue weight section. Listing each critic and giving it a section of its own it is undue weight, in particular when some of these critic are only notable because of their criticism'. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A criticism section for 2 critics which is longer than the sections with neutral data (like political view and history) is undue weight, and therefore not NPOV. I'm putting a POV tag. And isn't it recommended that instead of critism sections, the criticisms be distributed througout the article?--Nino Gonzales 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GeorgeC, the usual solution is to create a new article. In this case, that would be an article on that episode of the show.--Nino Gonzales 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I have altered this phrase to "the Catholic Church" under heading "Spiritual Life" in the sentence "She believed in submission to God and Christ and the Catholic Church."  This is to reflect a more neutral point-of-view, since the claim is contested.
Aaronimo 17:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Church Christ founded" 

message: "Donors, he says, were told that the money went to aid and the construction of healthcare facilities in India and elsewhere. Evidence points to it instead being spent largely on missionary work and that Mother Teresa was actually the controller of some of the funds. No hospitals were ever built."
I think this passage is both POV and weasally ("Evidence points," but no citation).  The implication is that MT promised hospitals, and no hospitals were built.  But what the text actually says is that she promised "healthcare facilities," a phrase that includes hospices.  And she set up hospices out her eyeballs. Ethan Mitchell 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hospitals vs. Hospice

message: Does the intro really need to start out "Mother Teresa of Calcutta... was an Albanian Roman Catholic of Romanian origin nun"?  That seems needlessly awkward.  What does it even mean if she is an Albanian of Romanian origin?  -- Renesis (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obviously necessary a source to prove this statement. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल talk-फेन मा 07:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian Roman Catholic of Romanian origin nun? 

message: I suggest to remove the following weblinks: Vatican biography, Nopelpeaceprize biography and Rotten.com biography. They are essentially repeating what's already covered in the article, thus obviously there is no point to add them as weblinks. Gugganij 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weblinks 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Mother Teresa]] 

message: I hadn’t followed the MT debate for six months.  Now that I have read the current article and all the exchanges since my last post I see with horror that MT defenders got their own way; the article is Catholic rubbish and the only sane part of it has been POV tagged.  
This is one of the articles that demonstrate beyond doubt the stupidity of the NPOV policy and why I wrote this to Jimbo:
: I don't believe in Wikipedia or any paper encyclopedia.  I believe in encyclopedias that debunk the lies and are written by society's dissidents.  But after Diderot's POV Encyclopédie, which changed the worldview of Europeans for the better two centuries ago, nothing similar has happened in the West [...].  Unless the silly NPOV policy is questioned and the spirit of Diderot implemented, like other encyclopedias Wikipedia will be replete of groupthink ideologues, status quo defenders and double plus good quack speakers. —Cesar Tort, 25 June 2006 
I will probably leave Wikipedia altogether in the future.  A fellow wikipedian who already left wrote this in my talk page:
:I was shocked to discover that an external article about Christian Abuse of Wikipedia is on the spam blacklist, so the only way I can direct you to it is to present the URL like this (remove the ***): www.double***blue.info
Take a look at that forbidden article in Wikiland: Christian Abuse of Wikipedia.  Like the former wikipedian I’m also shocked it’s on wiki’s spam blacklist.  Since status quo defenders are a majority, with the NPOV policy we will never achieve Diderot or John Stuart Mill’s ideal: Talk:Mother_Teresa/Archive 10#John_Stuart_Mill. 
This is my last post here. —Cesar Tort 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the spirit of Diderot 

message: Can someone find sources for the accusations that this woman's charity is the only one in India which refuses to file public accounts, that the money is held in The Vatican, and that is mostly spent on religious institituions such as Convents in which nuns are taught but no poor helped or sick treated. 86.17.209.251 20:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accounts 

message: "The question of precisely why she felt the marital unhappiness of less exalted people should not be eased in the same way was not raised." There is something I see few people in the media deal with, but that seems quite obvious to me. That being Mother Teresa was commenting on a marriage of an Anglican. A traditional Catholic like her would not see an Anglican marriage as indissovable the way she would a Catholic marriage. This may seem unfair too, but it is consistent with the mindset of a Catholic of her era. If Mother Teresa approved of a wealthy Catholic getting divorced, or opposed a poor Anglican getting divorced, this would be a double-standard based on wealth. However I haven't seen any stories of her doing that. Unfortunately I have no cite on this issue so I'll just state here rather than putting it in the article.--T. Anthony 10:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce issue 

message: The article in question is here.  I think he mentions it in the foreword of later editions of The Missionary Position as well, although I don't own a copy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I replaced "devils advocate" wording by Hitchens, with the verifiable fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the wording a little bit, however, just to provide context regarding the position being abolished.  Nothing against your edit, but it just seemed rather matter-of-fact. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitchens as Devil's Advocate 

message: Hey any one have anything 4 me 
4 my Re project I have to do a discussion on 
"People with vocations are workers for the kingdom of god" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.30.31.17 (talk • contribs).
:: ...? Homestarmy 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocations 

message: I've reintroduced this with a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens on her beatification and used some of the previous text about Dr Fox's criticism.  The page reads as a hagiography without it and there is enough dissent about her motives to justify referring to it.  
NBeddoe 11:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduced Controversy and critics section wth much reduced text. 

message: I think that this article is too negative of Mother Teresa, do you think that this woman who devoted her entire life to helping people needs to have this article so negative. Haveing the section on critisism such as she was a cult leader is not even properly verifiable. People who edit this article probably know nothing about what she went through, mostly because people who edit this article have enough money to have internet and computer, plus they are not nuns in india. Shame on this website, I joined thinking this would be a good website, but now it is run by liberals who want to critize saints yet practicly support liberal issues by saying you can't say anything bad about abortion. Shame on you. UTCQuaker24 03:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole point of the criticism is that the claim that she devoted her life to helping these people is somewhat mythical. What makes it worse is that the plain facts of the matter seem to be on the critics' side, and yet people deand that she be held immune to criticism because of supposedly wonderful acts which the facts say are false!  Her charity amassed millions of dollars that apparently simply vanished into thin air, even while the people in her clinics were having needles reused on them and he order was pleading poverty.  The woman worshiped suffering.Plunge 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You see, Quaker24, you yourself have compared that so-called "Mother" Teresa with Hitler, even I didn't do it! In fact comparisons between satanic people come quite automatically!
Maybe if you really looked at what your saying you might change your mind. Quaker24 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Quaker24, I can't see how you can expect me to change my mind when you have failed miserably to show any proof in favour of your so-called "Mother" Teresa. You took recourse to meaningless religious gibberish about suffering and expect me to change my mind? Ain't you being a bit naive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kazimostak (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unbelievable, just UNBELIEVABLE! I am furnishing all the proof in the world before these people and still they are chanting: godly, saintly....! How can you not open your eye and see instead of trying to see through closed eye? She was neither wonderful nor godly, she was a cheat, a CHEAT! Go to the reference I am citing and check for yourself. PLEASE!  http://website.lineone.net/~bajuu/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kazimostak (talk • contribs) 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear brother Quaker24, I have every respect for your religious feelings. I completely agree with you as far as Mother Teresa's religious stands are concerned. But I am also talking about her inhuman behaviour with dying people, receiving stolen money from world famous thieves, hobnobbing with dictators and thugs, and above all: relentless LYING and DECEIVING. I cannot agree with this and I am sure you also cannot agree with that. Let us keep religion in its place and other things in theirs. How on earth can you make a relentless liar a saint, for GOD'S sake? User:Kazimostak
I do not believe how terrible this article is, it seems to me Wikipedia is more interested in promoting itself then to giving a quality article about Mother Teresa, I like Wikipedia, but this article is a real shame, blaming this wonderful godly woman, I don't see why people are willing to trash this woman's reputation for the sake of Wikipedia! CamelHammel 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that these pages are to discuss the article and not the subject. Thank you for helping maintaining talk-page discipline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Mother Teresa 

message: moved from my talk page ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but if sources are not provided, these stand as unsourced and as OR. Readers need to be able to verify these statements. I would also appreciate it if you avoid making comments such as "spurious tags" in your edit summaries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources have been provided, and removed from the article. Please see Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 9 and the other relevant talkpage archives for details. I will restrain myself from reverting your tags, until there is clear agreement on the matter, that the sourcing will not be removed from the article if added there. I don't know what other term one might use rather than "spurious" for tags added on facts that have been previously sourced, but for which sourcing was removed by Mother Theresas apologists. With the highest respect. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 09:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be the problem in adding sources in footnotes? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all, naturally. And if you were genuinely unaware of the past history of the article, I will grant my phrasing was unduely harsh. But please be aware there is a considerable history to this article, as the numeraous talk page archives bear ample witness. I will further grant that the original sourcing of the statements was in the article at a time when we didn't yet have the current facility for providing citations in footnotes. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Cimon. If you point me in the right direction (read, which one of the archives), I am willing to help with this task. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources / OR 

message: There is no dispute that a few individuals, namely Christopher Hitchens, Aroup Chatterjee, have leveled strong criticism, and their POV needs to be presented in the article, but adding all these sub sections is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight in the TOC. I have replaced the subsections with bolded text. I have also attributed the criticism to the named individuals as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With this said, is there a specific reason we continually see this section hidden?  I agree with how Jossi did it, but I don't think hiding it is appropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have tried that approach and it works really well IMO. In particular as there is text in the lead of that section that explain their viewpoint to be a minority one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.  This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.... None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. ... If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
I'm a little bit partial myself (although I really think I'm mainstream, hehehe), otherwise, I'd make the change myself.  I'm glad it's better than it used to be.  When I first saw this article here years two years ago, it was 1/2 criticism, with no POV warning!  After that, I quit reading wikipedia for any reason.  The wikimodel is rough, because just a few obsessive people can make an article worthless.
66.254.233.150 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The TOC 

message: Both are used in the text of the article, rendering it haphazard and unprofessional-looking.  Choose one (presumably "Teresa," as that's the title) and stick with it.  Moncrief 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teresa or Theresa? 

message: The current picture of her looks pixelated... could we use another one?  
Josh B. 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture? 

message: Hello. This article is tagged as needing attention. I am going to start working on cleanup. Please feel free to comment. Majoreditor 01:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup. 

message: This article suffers from frequent vandalism.  I'm not referring to criticism of Mother Teresa but rather crude, obscene edits.  By my count it's happening more than once daily.  Should the article be semi-protection to discourage vandals? Majoreditor 13:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now semi-protected to minimize vandalism. Majoreditor 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued vandalism to this article -- it may need semi-protection 

message: Was she 7 or 10? According to the source claiming she could have been 7, "Although most sources state that she was 10 when her father died, in an interview with her brother, it is said that she was in fact 7" - according to the source it is more likely that she was 10. Another source is needed. Sfacets 04:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's confusing.  An official Vatican site syays she was "about eight".  Majoreditor 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age when parents died

message: The section is Original Research backed (barely) by one weak source, and drawing POV parallels between MT and Francis... more sources need to be found, or the section should go... Sfacets 15:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Give me 24 hours to see if I can find a source; if not, the entire section should be deleted. Majoreditor 16:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is now properly sourced. However, one could argue that it's not significant enough to stand on its own and should be combined with other material in a different section.  Any thoughts on this? Majoreditor 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Franciscan connection

message: This article has progressed and may be approaching Good Article status.  I am going to request a peer review.  Please feel free to comment.  Majoreditor 21:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the top of this talk page and click on the link to participate in the peer review.  Majoreditor 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Good Article? 

message: moved this article to Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, and subsequently changed all instances of her name in the article (diff). I feel that such a large shift should be discussed first, so I've left a note here. Any thoughts? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, they're a new editor and they may not be familiar with naming conventions here. Let's assume good faith, eh? But I think you are right about the name, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I should - maybe I was being too hasty. But yes, the name 'Blessed Teresa of Calcutta' does not comply with naming conventions - I also requested a reference that "blessed Teresa" is her "official" title - and by which authority it was bestowed... Sfacets 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, naming conventions are clear on the matter. The article should remain "Mother Teresa" . Majoreditor 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That said -- ChrisLamb is correct that her official designation by the Catholic Church is Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.  I have changed the introduction to reflect that and to mention her beatification.  I have also cited sources. Majoreditor 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice job with the citations. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move and name change 

message: Responding to suggestions in the peer review, I have started to improve the section on her early life.  I've added much material; any thoughts? Majoreditor 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Life

message: The section on Commemorations of Mother Teresa is getting lengthy and is list-like in nature.  I am inclined to move it into an article of its own, link it back to the main article so it's easy to find, and keep a short Commemoration section in the main article. Thoughts? Majoreditor 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commemoration section should be its own article

message: Walter Wuellenweber in Germany's Stern magazine on 10 September 1998 wrote a stunning account of what has happened to the millions of Dollars collected by Mother Teresa. The poor has not seen those, but most of these most possibly ended up in the Vatican.
In Calcutta there are about 200 charitable organisations helping the poor. Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity are not amongst the biggest helpers: that contradicts the image of the organisation. The name "Mother Teresa" was and is tied to the city of Calcutta. All over the world admirers and supporters of the Nobel Prize winner believe that it must be there that her organisation is particularly active in the fight against poverty. "All lies," says Aroup Chatterjee . The doctor who lives in London was born and brought up in Calcutta. 
Chatterjee who has been working for years on a book on the myth of Mother Teresa, speaks to the poor in the slums of Calcutta, or combs through the speeches of the Nobel Prize winner. "No matter where I search, I only find lies. For example the lies about schools. Mother T has often stated that she runs a school in Calcutta for more than 5000 children. 5000 children! -- that would have to be a huge school, one of the biggest in all of India. But where is this school? I have never found it, nor do I know anybody who has seen it!" says Chatterjee. 
Indian law requires charitable organisations to publish their accounts. Mother Teresa's organisation ignores this prescription! It is not known if the Finance Ministry in Delhi who would be responsible for charities' accounts, have the actual figures. The Ministry informed The Stern magazine that this particular query was listed as "classified information". 
The organisation has 6 branches in Germany. Here too financial matters are a strict secret. "It's nobody's business how much money we have, I mean to say how little we have," says Sr Pauline, head of the German operations. Maria Tingelhoff had had handled the organisation's book-keeping on a voluntary basis until 1981. "We did see 3 million a year," she remembers. But Mother Teresa never quite trusted the worldly helpers completely. So the sisters took over the financial management themselves in 1981. "Of course I don't know how much money went in, in the years after that, but it must be many multiples of 3 million," estimates Mrs Tingelhoff. "Mother was always very pleased with the Germans." 
Perhaps the most lucrative branch of the organisation is the "Holy Ghost" House in New York's Bronx. Susan Shields served the order there for a total of nine and a half years as Sister Virgin. "We spent a large part of each day writing thank you letters and processing cheques," she says. "Every night around 25 sisters had to spend many hours preparing receipts for donations. It was a conveyor belt process: some sisters typed, others made lists of the amounts, stuffed letters into envelopes, or sorted the cheques. Values were between $5 and $100.000. Donors often dropped their envelopes filled with money at the door. Before Christmas the flow of donations was often totally out of control. The postman brought sackfuls of letters -- cheques for $50000 were no rarity." Sister Virgin remebers that one year there was about $50 million in a New York bank account. $50 million in one year! -- in a predominantly non-Catholic country. How much then, were they collecting in Europe or the world? It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year -- and that has been going on for many many years. 
While the income is utter secret, the expenditures are equally mysterious. The order is hardly able to spend large amounts. The establishments supported by the nuns are so tiny (inconspicuous) that even the locals have difficulty tracing them. Often "Mother Teresa's Home" means just a living accomodation for the sisters, with no charitable funstion. Conspicuous or useful assistance cannot be provided there. The order often receives huge donations in kind, in addition to the monetary munificence. Boxes of medicines land at Indian airports. Donated foograins and powdered milk arrive in containers at Calcutta port. Clothing donations from Europe and the US arrive in unimaginable quantities. On Calcutta's pavement stalls, traders can be seen sellin used western labels for 25 rupees (DM1) apiece. Numerous traders call out, "Shirts from Mother, trousers from Mother." 
Unlike with other charities, the Missionaries of Charity spend very little on their own management, since the organisation is run at practically no cost. The approximately 4000 sisters in 150 countries form the most treasured workforce of all global multi-million dollar operations. Having taken vows of poverty and obedience, they work for no pay, supported by 300,000 good citizen helpers. 
England is one of the few countries where the sisters allow the authorities at least a quick glance at their accounts. Here the order took in DM5.3 million in 1991. And expenses (including charitable expenses)? -- around DM360,000 or less than 7%. Whatever happened to the rest of the money? Sister Teresina, the head for England, defensively states, "Sorry we can't tell you that." Every year, according to the returns filed with the British authorities, a portion of the fortune is sent to accounts of the order in other countries. How much to which countries is not declared. One of the recipients is however, always Rome. The fortune of this famous charitable organistaion is controlled from Rome, -- from an account at the Vatican bank. And what happens with monies at the Vatican Bank is so secret that even God is not allowed to know about it. One thing is sure however -- Mother's outlets in poor countries do not benefit from largesse of the rich countries. The official biographer of Mother Teresa, Kathryn Spink, writes, "As soon as the sisters became established in a certain country, Mother normally withdrew all financial support." Branches in very needy countries therefore only receive start-up assistance. Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank. 
STERN asked the Missionaries of Charity numerous times for information about location of the donations, both in writing as well in person during a visit to Mother Teresa's house in Calcutta. The order has never answered. 
The millions that are donated to the order have a similar fate. Susan Shields (formerly Sr Virgin) says, "The money was not misused, but the largest part of it wasn't used at all. When there was a famine in Ethiopia, many cheques arrived marked 'for the hungry in Ethiopia'. Once I asked the sister who was in charge of accounts if I should add up all those very many cheques and send the total to Ethiopia. The sister answered, 'No, we don't send money to Africa.' But I continued to make receipts to the donors, 'For Ethiopia'." 
By the accounts of former sisters, the finances are a one way street. "We were always told, the fact that we receive more than other orders, shows that God loves Mother Teresa more. ," says Susan Shields. Donations and hefty bank balances are a measure of God's love. Taking is holier than giving. 
The head, Carla Wiedeking, a personal friend of Mother Teresa's, wrote a letter to Donors, Supporters and Friends which ran: 
"On my September vist I had to witness 2 or 3 children lying in the same cot, in totally overcrowded rooms with not a square inch of playing space. The behavioural problems arising as a result cannot be overlooked." Mrs Wiedeking appeals to the generosity of supporters in view of her powerlessness in the face of the children's great needs. Powerlessness?! In an organisation with a billion-fortune, which has 3 times as much money available to it as UNICEF is able to spend in all of India? The Missionaries of Charity has have the means to buy cots and build orphanages, -- with playgrounds. And they have enoungh money not only for a handful orphans in Delhi but for many thousand orphans who struggle for survival in the streets of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta. 
For book-keeping the sisters use school notebooks, in which they write in cramped pencilled figures. Until they are full. Then everything is erased and the notebook used again. All in order to save. While the Missionaries of Charity have already witheld help from the starving in Ethiopia or the orphans in India -- despite having received donations in their names -- there are others who are being actively harmed by the organisation's ideology of disorganisation. 
Prof.D.Bose
(DBose2 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another view on Mother Teresa: What has happened to all the donations 

message: I think that the reference to her ranking in Gallup's List of Widely Admired People be moved elsewhere in the article since the sentence in question refers to events after her death and the Gallup ranking was for 1999, prior to her death.  Also, can someone please provide a cite?  Thanks!  Majoreditor 17:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stuck it there as it was after her death in '97 along with her beatification as examples of her after-death influence. Given the length of the article it should have  a 2 (0r porbably 3) para lead summarising the key points in the article. Was just passing and thought I'd have a go..(will have another look) cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 20:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallup Ranking

message: A quick scan of books published on Mother Teresa shows that her birth name tends to be spelled Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. See Spink (1997), Williams (2002, Sebba (1997), just to name a few.  Anyone wanting to change the spelling as it appears in the article should be prepared to discuss it first on this page and be prepared to cite authoritative English-language sources. Sorry if I sound picky on this, but the article remains very unstable because people are adding unsourced material which is sometimes wrong, sometimes POV and other times original research. Majoreditor 21:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Mother Teresa's given name