Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 10

message: I am not sure why the criticism section here is given so much space.  It borders on the downright offensive considering how little in it has footnotes.  Further, there is nothing but criticism, without any perspective or cross-checking of the criticism.  This is not the work of an encyclopedia.
I excised the section devoted to the Penn and Teller show.  How in the hell did that get here?  How is that constructive at all?  If South Park did an episode on Mother Theresa, would you include that too?
An example of criticism of the criticism is this from the Catholic workers in Calcutta: 
"Though Chatterjee's book has earned accolades in the West, his views do not go down well with the Catholic clergy in Kolkata associated with Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity. 
Pointing out that while reviewing the book, journalist-writer Khushwant Singh had observed that it was 'hard on facts, but weak on judgement,' Fr C M Paul, Church spokesman for the celebration committee of Mother's beatification, says: 'I fully agree with [Singh's] views. Chatterjee does not seem to use his intelligence and common sense. He quotes facts out of context to arrive at weird judgements.'"  This is from  http://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/94.html  I also wonder why so much of the criticism here is the same as on this page: http://experts.about.com/e/m/mo/Mother_Teresa.htm  Which came first--that page or Wikipedia? 
While it is not necessarily the strongest argument and is admittedly an appeal to authority, I find it hard to believe that this little woman hoodwinked the Nobel Committee, the United Kingdom (which awarded her the Order of Merit), the United States government (several awards), and the Indian Government which gave her the only state funeral for a non-Indian in the state's history.  Didn't they know that she was a fraud, a fundamentalist, and cruel?
: I tend to agree. The undue weight granted to the criticism section is staggering. Mostly it carries claims by critics without details on the nature of the acccusations. As a fan of some of Hitchens' work accounting the Vietnam War and other non-religious things, I and many of my agnostic and atheist friends tend to frown on Hitchens' unhealthy obsession with Mother Teresa. His argumentation rests on several points: she was an egomaniac (pot meet kettle), she mismanaged orphanages and hospitals (while he avoids confronting the idea that a mismanaged service is better than none), and that she took money from bad people and complimented President Reagan (Hitchens later revised his view of presidents Reagan and Bush, although it seems he failed to modify his previous statements, all the more evidence of his obsession with proving Teresa a fraud. As for accepting money from bad sources, I can understand both sides of the issue. However there are two legitimate sides. Accepting the money had merit too as she used it to alleviate suffering in others). In essence, Hitchens tends to, in his fervor, assume a malignant intent inherent in Mother Teresa that he had no proof of or even reason to suspect. Further cherry-picking about her quotes on suffering are most dishonest. For instance, one could use any of Dr. Jack Kavorkian's insistances that death is a release for *some* patients and flip it in a similar manner to say that Dr. Kavorkian thought death is the purpose of existence.
: What is needed is a section that addresses the criticism by some of the people who have debunked it such as the aforementioned Fr. Paul, Singh and various other people closer to the issues than Hitchens who have weighed in on the discussion. 98.114.235.100 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: : Etan, the thing about the ritual is minor, but it's also one of the most minor criticisms. We're not setting policy here, and these aren't the most absurd criticisms.--Prosfilaes 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the big question is whether she was tricking people in a malicious, blasphemous manner which downplayed the importance of baptism, or whether people only wish that MT was tricking people, just so people could say that they've critizied someone famous. It's similar to how you'll encounter many people who only wish Christians are worshipping a blood thirsty tyrant of a God, yet we aren't. The distinction may be crucial, but unfortunently, I know of nothing that we could source which might elaborate on the issue that way :(. Homestarmy 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I regard that comment about a blood thirsty tyrant of a God as flamebait. What matters is whether she was tricking people, not whether she was malicious about it (which I find rather unlikely) or whether she was blasphemous about it (which baptism is, inherantly, from the perspective of many religions.)--Prosfilaes 17:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak from personal experience attempting to debate people in various atomospheres regarding Christianity, not from trying to invite even more debate, yeesh. And I was going on the assumption that Alienus was bringing up a point for the article..... Homestarmy 17:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you see nothing wrong in making a comparison that you know will offend many of the people you're discussing with? What matters for the article is the deception more than any underlying motives. Blasphemy was not part of the criticism as given, and is horribly WP:POV; I'd never bring it up except as part of a direct quote.--Prosfilaes 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Offend whom exactly? If there are people out there who believe God is a blood thirsty tyrant, then thats their choice, but I reserve the right to label that belief incorrect as much as I please. My comparison was meant to illustrate how when it comes to Christian matters, many people take things horribly out of the real meaning to make criticisms, and it is possible that the controversy over MT is one of those cases. Or, conversly, it may not be one of those cases, for all I know, she really could of been scamming or whatever every single one of the people she was baptizing and horribly desecrating baptism in general, I don't know. And if it really is the deception that matters, then I don't even see the reason why this section of a talk page existed. Is the original information that this section was created to discuss still inside the article or not? Homestarmy 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're speaking from personal experience, then you know there are people who believe this. You have that right, but that doesn't mean that other people won't be offended, and anyone who's offended, or even disagrees, will not take away from your comparison what you wanted. To offend people in an off-hand comment, to which following up would be off-topic, is rude.--Prosfilaes 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A ritual they were probably unconscious during?

message: The first sentence says shes Macedonian-born. The country didn't exist then, even if the region did, so isn't there a better way to word this? --Grocer 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both issues have been addressed. Thanks. --Grocer 08:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: There seems to be a revert war going on, and neither version seems very good. Why don't we open the floor for discussion and try to solve this in a civilized manner?--The ikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve) 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like both versions seem to be deleting the other's content? If everything in this war is referenced, then I suppose its all supposed to be in there :/. Homestarmy 00:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead and be bold ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, have not deleted anything.  I don't see the point in deleting content that is the subject of a 'hot' revert war.  It will just be replaced.  I would like to come to some type of consensus here on the talk page, so that we can find text that is broadly acceptable on the main page and meets wikipedias policies.  And (for the, uuhh, like, fourteenth time) I am not trying to eliminate the criticisms of Mother Teresa (and not merely because I agree with them).  Ethan Mitchell 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: revert war even here? that is ironic. She dedicated all her life to help people, not inspire them to start wars. Leshkuq 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert war 

message: In the article "Mother Teresa", there is more information on the unproven and unreliable beliefs of conspiracy theorists, then there are information on Mother Teresa herself.
The following actions should be taken immediately:
1) Shorten the section full of the views of unknown and unrepresented conspiracy theorists. Generalize the conspiracy theories into a brief section. It should NOT be longer than the actual article.
2) Confirm the background on the conspiracy theorists referenced to in the article. Are these credible theorists? Or are they among the hundreds that are just itching to cause a stir?
3) Amend the article to erase the overbearing BIAS from the article. The article was obviously mainly written by a person with enormously negative views towards Mother Teresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.72.224 (talk • contribs) 
:You should discuss specific concerns here before simply removing material you don't agree with. - Nunh-huh 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically because you don't like it, it's unproven, unreliable, and a consiparacy theory. We don't need to confirm the background on most of these people; several of them have wikipedia articles. The controversies are nowhere near the length of the rest of the article, which is filled with the words of Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II. --Prosfilaes 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Really? Millions of Protestants donated to her order believing it was a missionary group for Catholics? Why?--Prosfilaes 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Christianity doesn't get bogged down in political affiliations and denominational strife generally in cases of ministry to the poor. Such pettiness is not characteristic of the faith. I donate to Catholic causes. I know Catholic friends who donate to protestant-run causes. This myth of a barely-contained political hatred denominations have for one another is merely another snide, smug smear-attempt by Atheists trying to paint Christians as bombastic, combative, and generally unhelpful. This is typically coupled with vague references to the Troubles in Ireland as a religious war (although it was mostly ethnic: British who were largely Protestants vs. Irish who were largely Catholic) and to the reformation and schism. This might seem like an earful for a sarcastic and assumptive remark, however the underlying ignorance needs address. 98.114.235.100 (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: No, no one has verified what happens to the funds. That's part of what is being complained about, the fact that for a charitable group, they're mighty opaque about where the money goes.--Prosfilaes 04:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much heresay & unknowns in current article. Demand a Clean-up!