Talk:Mother Teresa

For previous discussion, see:

• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive1
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive2
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive3
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive4
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive5
• Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive6

You may want to read the Talk:Mother Teresa/FAQ and related discussion before commenting. Also see Talk:Mother Teresa/Groundrules.

I added more info about Teresa's charity work. Greenmountainboy 23:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Looks good to me. There's a whole chapter in Chatterjee's book (not in the online version) about the long campaign by Muggeridge and leading Catholics to get MT the Nobel Prize, I might include some information from that when things have cooled down a bit. It caused quite a bit of resentment in India because Mahatma Gandhi never received the prize.—Eloquence

Yes, that would be ok, but I would wait until the "conflict" dies down a little. Greenmountainboy 23:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure. BTW, the book is definitely worth reading and not polemic at all for the most part. I think it would greatly increase the quality of this debate if everyone involved in it would familiarize themselves with the depth of the arguments Chatterjee makes (he also cites most of the other critics, including many former employees of the order). In contrast, virtually all biographies of MT completely ignore the criticisms (and have highly religious overtones). The polarization in this article is very much reflected in the literature.—Eloquence

Yes, I'll be sure to check it out. Greenmountainboy 01:16, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is quite a lot in the "substandard medical care" section which is not directly relevant to Mother Teresa, such as a description of the rooms at the home for the dying, the lack of facilities etc. Is there a good reason for keeping this here, rather than moving it to Missionaries of Charity, or even a new page like Home for the Dying? I recognise the article says "Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible" for these things, but I don't see that moving them to an article which focuses on the home and it's medical conditions more specifically would be a bad thing. Obviously a summary would remain here. Any objections? Angela. 05:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I fully agree. gbog

The Louden criticism could be moved to Missionaries of Charity and briefly summarized in one sentence with a link to that article. The Fox criticism referred to a home directly run and operated by Mother Teresa, directly held her responsible for the conditions, and as such, belongs here.—Eloquence

That's what I thought you'd say. :) Hmmm. Didn't I say I wasn't going to get involved with this? Angela. 08:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seen a discussion on this title. "Secret baptism" is not correct as it appear that MT didn't made a secret of it. "Baptism without clear will to convert" is unclear and POV by itself (subtly arguing that baptism should be accompanied with a will to convert). The best title I found is "Controversial religious activities". Any objections? gbog 05:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think Baptism without clear will to convert is pov. That's exactly what happened. Controversial religious activities sounds worse to me. Angela. 05:16, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For God's sake, I'm native to English, and "baptism without clear will to convert" even makes me avert my eyes; that's hideously awkward.

OK. How about "Dubious deathbed conversions"? I think that is much more euphonius. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:44, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dubious seems more POV to me. Angela. 09:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Even if it's not pov, Baptism without clear will to convert is a complex title involving two religious matters (baptism and convertion) that, if subtitle is this way, should be explained shortly in the article (to lighten the differences between both). As I am not sure that MT article is the right place for such a religous explanation, I would prefer another subtitle, if possible. A possibility could be Dying's baptism but, as it is to be under Critics section, it is may be a little bit implying that to baptize a dying is "bad". What about Criticized religious activities or simply religious activities, which could also involve others critics like proselytism and so on? gbog 05:51, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think the matter was worth even mentioning in the article, if the only think happening was baptism of the dying. It is the conversion that is the issue here. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:56, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

If it's already under the criticisms subheading, do we need to say anything in this subheading about it being criticised? Would baptisms, or maybe conversions to Catholicism of the dying suffice? I disagree with gbog that having such a title in the criticisms section implies that this means all baptisms are to be criticised. Angela. 09:09, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• She perceived evangelisation as her central goal, with her care of the poor a secondary one, involving the bringing of "Christ to the poor." (who said that?)

Don't know who added this, but it's one of those stock phrases applied to MT, like "poorest of the poor". I suspect it refers to the way many Catholic publications described her (see Google). If it bothers you, we can remove it.—Eloquence

Not sure we speak about the same thing. I'm wondering who said that "she perceived evangelization blabla".gbog

• Patients were left with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Families were strongly discouraged from visiting their relatives at the home. (in fact, all those two inflated paragraph on volunteer Mary Louden that didn't accept to adapt to Indian confort level seem to me very strange here, except if fairly balanced with another volunteer's writing)

Moved to Missionaries of Charity. The claim that she didn't want to "adapt to Indian comfort level" is of course POV.—Eloquence

Yeah, it's my pov, or my at least guess, but I don't write it in the article.gbog

• Mother Teresa maintained secrecy of her order's financial situation and instructed her employees not to keep detailed records (who said that?)

Good question. It was in one of the witness accounts, but I don't find it at the moment. I have removed this for now. See [1] and [2] for the lack of disclosure of her accounts.—Eloquence

• There is an accusation that funds donated for relief work for the sick and poor were actually diverted to missionary work in non-Christian countries. (who said that?)

That was redundant with the following sentence. Removed.—Eloquence

• However, many members of the Hindu and Islamic faith were critical of this alleged baptism programme, seeing the idea as disrespectful of their faiths and beliefs. (who said that?)

I didn't write that, apparently added to balance the previous para (which itself is a bit fluffy). I removed it for now until we find some actual publications by Hindus criticizing the practice (Chatterjee is an atheist.)—Eloquence

• Mother Teresa did not disclose her order's financial situation except where she was required to do so by law. (who said that?)

By the way, is there any obligation to do so if Law does not require it? Just in case I have to show my Goverment all my money even though they do not ask for it. Pfortuny 18:44, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• NEW: Mother Teresa has also been criticized (by who?) because she supported Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of democracy in 1975, and her son, Sanjay Gandhi, in his unpopular population control campaign.

• NEW: In this context her care of the poor was not even a secondary one, The primary being bringing "Christ to the poor." and the secondary being bringing poor to christ, regardless of their prior faith. (who said that? removed from article until attribution)

• Teresa's belief in the centrality of Christ and Roman Catholicism may have led her to believe that it was morally right to baptise Hindus and Muslims into Christianity in this manner, reflecting the pre-Vatican II belief that salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church. (Implies that "baptize Hindus..." is morally wrong.)

I rephrased the "morally right" part. Better?—Eloquence

Much better, but there is still a pov issue: Who says that "MT beliefs may have led her to..." I'll try to fix it.

• Fox conceded that the regimen he observed included cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and kindness, but he noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was disturbingly lacking. (Imply that managing pain is a good thing. I'd replace "concede" by "wrote" and "noted" by "denounced")

"Disturbingly lacking" is a quote. It should have been in quotation marks.—Eloquence

• In Catholicism, the combination of charitable works and evangelism has played a central role in the actions of some religious orders. (Because preceding paragraph is talking about Christian belief, this sentence implies that evangelism as not played a central role in Protestantism, what is highly debatable.)

No opinion on that.—Eloquence

I'll try to fix this pov issue.

And a very strange thing grabbed in the end of "relationships":

• There is no suggestion that she was aware of any theft before accepting the donation in either case. (It is as if an article in Wikipedia had to write, at the end of a debate: "this is written from a neutral point of view". If this sentence has been added and accepted here, if one feels that this sentence is useful here (and I do), it BECAUSE the preceding text is actually suggesting such a bad thing)

It is written from the NPOV and factual, this is merely a clarification to avoid misunderstandings.—Eloquence

It would be better to avoid "misunderstandings" by improving the text itself.gbog

Something else I would like to understand: Susan Shields alleged that Mother Teresa's order engaged in secret baptisms of Hindus and Moslems in its facilities. What does Shields means with "secret baptism". Does any baptism have to be publicised? I guess she means that those baptism where made without asking to the Muslims or Hindu religious leaders, but this thing shouldn't be under "criticist section, as Wikipedia don't have to decide whether it's ok or not to baptize someone without religious leaders agreement. What I would personally do here is to remove that paragraph until further discussion, and may be place it later out of critics section. If no one disagree, I will do that soon.gbog

Yes, that should not be under the criticism section. Also, Teresa obviously said that her order baptised people of other religions, so the passage shouldn't make the practise sound like a cover up. Greenmountainboy 15:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

I thought about that issue but didn't find anything to address it. Add a new main section titled "debates"? Not very convincing... gbog

• She offered to resign her position as head of the order. (When?)

Moved parts from article that could need rework

In Christian belief, charity is a duty imposed on followers of Jesus Christ by scripture. Although many Protestant denominations believe salvation comes only through faith, with charitable works a duty of every Christian, Roman Catholicism places considerable emphasis on the performance of good works as a necessary (but not sole) condition of salvation.

In Catholicism, the combination of charitable works and evangelism has played a central role in the actions of some religious orders. To their defenders, the actions of Mother Teresa and her followers fulfilled that tradition. Her critics, however, viewed Mother Teresa as being preoccupied with the furtherance of Catholicism and its causes, rather than with alleviating poverty or offering medical help to the poor she treated. They also claim that Teresa gave a false impression of the nature of her work.

Defenders of the order argue that missionary activity was the central part of Teresa's calling. She perceived evangelisation as her central goal, with her care of the poor a secondary one, involving the bringing of "Christ to the poor." Stern magazine alleged the (Protestant) Assembly of God charity serves 18,000 meals daily in Calcutta, many more than all the Mission of Charity homes together.

I think that "religious mess" belongs in the mission of charity article, not teresa's bio. Everyone agree? Greenmountainboy 16:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I do. But there will be a hudge POV issue in Missionaries of Charity! :) gbog 17:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would like to include positive secular views to counter the secular criticism. Eloquence: you said that secular views were negative, and catholic views were positive, so I think it might be good to include positive views from secular figures. Greenmountainboy 17:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) :

"She is the United Nations. She is peace in the world." Former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar

"An example of selfless devotion to charity. I hope she can be a good example to all charity workers and philanthropists." Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad

"A rare and unique individual who lived long for higher purposes. Her life-long devotion to the care of the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged was one of the highest examples of service to humanity." Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan

The Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize panel, Francis Sejersted, said Mother Teresa stood out "as an example of true self-sacrifice in humanitarian work." She was awarded the prize in 1979.

"This evening, there is less love, less compassion, less light in the world. She leaves us a strong message, which has no borders and which goes beyond faith: helping, listening, solidarity." French President Jacques Chirac

"A loss to the entire humanity. She will be deeply missed in our efforts to build international peace, and a just, caring and equitable world order." South African President Nelson Mandela

"The humanity of the world has lost its mother." Congress Party President Sitaram Kesri

Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral called her "an apostle of peace and love."

Not bad. But, according to Village Pump (bottom), Eloquence said he will not discuss here for a moment. I am a little bit more in the mood to rearrange and filter few things where we still feel an underlying flamewar, but feel free to add what you want. I suggest a new section "Quotations on Mother Teresa", or something like that. gbog

Ok, but I will call it "secular views of Mother Teresa" Greenmountainboy 17:22, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Cimon Avaro had apparently reverted my work on the page. If he want the picture back, or if he disagree with new subtitles, he should discuss here, or do them on the page. He even didn't give any comment in "summary" box. He may have misunderstood few things about how Wikipedia works. Or It's me, again, that is wrong when I think that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia.gbog 17:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well removing an image is hardly collaborative. I don't know about the captions. It is possible that a decision concerning the captions had already been made. Greenmountainboy 17:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If Cimon Avaro wants the pictures to go back on the page, I don't care at all. But why not saying it simply?

Btw, do you agree with the subtitles I added?

I didn't see the subtitles. Greenmountainboy 22:45, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I like the bw photo of her with the child, who put it there? Congratulations! That's good taste. By the way, I like it very much without any caption. Pfortuny 18:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think its gmb. It's nice, but I think it's may be a little bit two much with the first photo. If fact I prefer the new one, and I d like to move or remove first one, if nobody disagree. Pfortuny, do you see clearly the photo in hospice. On my screen, it is blurred someway. Maybe it could be possible to find a better one (and smaller, if possible).gbog

I'd recommend moving the one of MT with the child down the page a bit. Too many positive images too high in the text can POV the text and make it too pro-MT. It should be shifted lower down. But the colour one of MT should be kept. A good quality colour shot should always be used at the start to make the page visually appealing to a reader. And as she was a devotee of the Rosary, an image of her with rosary beads seems apt. FearÉIREANN 01:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The hospice photo looks low quality to me and compared to other photos out there (in the wp, I mean) is worse (I am speaking of quality). I think (Not sure) that photo is highly loaded so I would ask others about its removal. I really would like a better one (and with better taste, but this is as everything a matter of tastes).

I agree with you on the first part: I like the bw more than the colour one with the Rosary. But again I am not the only one to give an opinion.

Thanks Gbog for your many efforts. Pfortuny 18:57, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think a good colour picture is a must. I think the opening one is fine. As to the hospice, it is a poor picture that is also too big. But I think some picture of the hospice should be included. If no other one is around, this one should be kept but smaller. FearÉIREANN 01:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Good night. gbog

I added the bw one. (It had actually been uploaded by my brother I think, but it had been removed) Greenmountainboy 21:52, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how the keating photograph's caption is relevent. plus the long caption makes it look stupid. Can we just change the caption to "Teresa with Keating? I will remove the long caption it if no one disagrees. Greenmountainboy 22:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think a longer caption than what you propose would make sense. Remember not everyone reads the full text. On its own a picture of Teresa with Keating would be meaningless unless someone had read the text. A good caption should lure a reader into understanding the picture and so wanting to read the article for more information. Someone scamming the page would otherwise find a picture of MT with some unknown person called Keating devoid of context. FearÉIREANN 01:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

also, I think the Pope John Paul II caption is a little too long also. Greenmountainboy 22:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed.FearÉIREANN 01:41, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The bw photo appears really too near the beginning. Yes it should be moved down if the color one is kept. Definitely, the "home of the dying" photo is bad quality (unfocused, not a problem of the digitalization but of the camera, I guess) and way too big.Pfortuny 08:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have modified hospice picture. Hope it is better on your screens. I have also replaced first picture with a more neutral one. A little bit dark. Tell me if you don't like. I can brighten it a bit. I also want to move downward the one with the child in arms. gbog

The more I think about it, the less I do believe that MT&Keaton and MT&Duvalier reach encyclopedic standards. I reminds more The Bild or any of those cheap newspaper than Britannica. And removing them will not touch neutrality of article, because facts are in the text (no needs to add proofs for them). gbog 16:39, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wik doesn't like my picture for top, so I keep it here for evaluation. The reasons why I prefer mine (it's not only bacause it's mine :) ) is because it shows only her face, without christian attributes. gbog

I like the bw again, from the photographic viewpoint although it is quite dark (if it is enhanced I definitely like it more), but... do you really think her cloak is not a christian attribute? :)

Ough! You are rigth! But, in a way, this cloak is really her (her order, I guess) and not as christian as the rosary. Could be muslim, no? The second one is better? Wik, say it if you don't like! (not sure he hears me)

The home for the dying photo looks now much better.

Thanks for doing all the job. Pfortuny 17:01, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I still think the home for the dying picture is ugly and something else should be substituted for it. Greenmountainboy 17:12, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I searched and didn't find any better. gbog

Changing topic, I really dislike the "positive quotations" as they are (quite out of context and look quite forced into the article). If there is a better way to include them (but as they are now I would prefer them out). The section title is at least strange. But then and again, I am not alone in this world so my opinion counts one. Pfortuny 08:56, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I fully agree on your comments. No time to check this now, but feel free to find another picture for Hospice and try to edit. Other idea: find pictures where "quotations" could be used as captions. gbog

Feel free to remove the positive quotations. Greenmountainboy 13:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I try to move them before. Question: is it normal to bolden those names?

It is better at the end but anyway... Well, if nobody else complains... But I do not see that they fit in at all.

I don't think the names should be bold anyway. Pfortuny 17:01, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence did complain on them on his talk page. I won't cry if they disappear.gbog

When do you think we will be able to remove the ugly pov header? What should be refactored before? Is npov oasis still very far? Jtdirl, we are waiting for your comments! (others also, for sure)gbog