Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive7

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)

Substandard medical care

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)

Secret Baptism title

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)

List of POV statements

Without attribution

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 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=teresa+%22Christ+to+the+poor%22&btnG=Google+Search)). 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] (http://meteorbooks.com/chap9.html) and [2] (http://are.berkeley.edu/~atanu/Writing/teresa.html) 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)

Imply that a POV is better than another

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.

Other stuff

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?)

Parts needing rework

Moved parts from article that could need rework

Religious mess

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)

Medical care refactoring

In medical care: He observed that doctors were called in irregularly, leaving decisions about patient care to be made by the sisters and volunteers (some of whom had medical knowledge). replaced with He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. My idea is to avoid the soften parenthesis, because it showed that the main sentence was to strong in critics. May be my refactor don't work. Just try another one or tell me try another one. (btw, I'm not sure that "lack" and "doctor" are words that "go together well"...)

There have been a series of reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities moved to the end of paragraph.

Secular views versus religious views

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) :

Positive views of Mother teresa

Although there have been some negative secular views on Mother Teresa, there have also been many positive secular views. The former U.N. Secretar-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, for example, said "She is the United Nations. She is She is peace in the world." Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan said that Teresa was "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."

"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)

Unexplained revert

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)

Pictures

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)

--Missing image
MotherTeresa02.jpg
image:MotherTeresa02.jpg

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

I think the 'dying' picture is necessary to contextualise the nature of the treatment given by MT's order. As to the b&w picture above, I think it is positively hideous! :-) I think the current picture is superb in quality, image and colour. The proposed picture is of inferior quality, more of a character study (and so POV) than an observation shot like the current picture. IMHO character study portraits should be avoided unless, as happens in Saddam Hussein, they themselves are the issue, in Saddam's case through deliberately constructed images to convey his message. The current MT image, through respectful of her, is the one that the media and other sources would use in preference to character study portraits. FearÉIREANN 21:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand why character study is pov in itself. gbog

Quotations

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 agree in the current form they are wrong. I think that POV the article excessively with a pro-MT slant. I would suggest moving them to the end of the article and rename the section comments about Mother Teresa and include also quotes from Hitchens and other critics. Their only value at present is to nail the nonsense about 'secular versus religious' perspectives on MT. In reality she had her critics amongst religious people, and supporters in the secular sphere. Remember also to diffrentiate between reactive official statements (comments at her death which by nature would be positive and written by speechwriters, polemical attacks) and other sources removed from reactive or propagandistic contexts that may be more honest. A broad source of quotes would help. FearÉIREANN 21:57, 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

They could be encorporated into a "praise of mother teresa" section which talks about all the wonderful things people think of her. Greenmountainboy 21:51, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it only fair if Eloquence is not around (I've heard he is going to stay away for a month) not to include these. On the other hand, if a "praisee of MT" is written, I would suggest including it here beforehand. I am doing this for two reasons:

a) Because I do not like them as they are and gbog has said sth not quite contrary.

b) Because I think such a loaded and nonstandard section must be at least clearly discussed with people who have devoted so much time to this article as Eloquence.

In any case, this has been quite bold and I am aware it may be reverted immediately. Pfortuny 22:02, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it may have been too bold, as many people including Jtdirl, Adam Carr, and I'm sure others, have not discussed the removal of the quotations. I think the section is just as loaded as "criticisms of mother teresa" but thats just me. I don't plan on reverting your edit as someone else can always do so later. Greenmountainboy 23:06, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

POV/NPOV

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

Now, I'm no pessimist, but I think that a long time will pass before this happens. A lot of people on wikipedia will always have qualms with articles such as Teresa no matter how NPOV they happen to be. Greenmountainboy 21:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It isn't the joke article it used to be but it still isn't perfect. But if there is a general consensus that the header can go, so be it. The header was put in because there was a consensus that the article was POV, with only one person insisting that it wasn't, largely because it reflected his opinion. FearÉIREANN 21:57, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice to hear that. Is pov header is removed with consensus, I will feel that our time hasn't been spent in vain, and we will launch few fireworks for that!

Again, what I would really like to do before that wonderful milestone, is to remove those two tabloid pictures that only show that someone wanted to proof articles allegations (what is not, I guess, the common use for pictures in WP). I will try also to refactor a little bit the "medical care" section. gbog

Sorry to meddle.................. But please do discuss the changes here when (better before) doing them, just in case someone opposes (I am worried by Eloquence's absence, but of course this is a wiki, as well). For the sake of clarity would you mind signing "completely"? (just write ~~~~ at the end). Thanks. gbog 09:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You forgot "no" in "nowiki" tag, so your signature didn't appear at all :) But you are right, I should write full signature. There is plenty of wiki customs that I don't know well. For example, as I'm used to usenet, I feel that it is a little bit hard to follow complex discussions and know who said what, when someone (me for instance) have answered in the middle of a paragraph. Anyway, history page can help, but it's not so easy to use (and I have a slow conn) See upstairs for medical care discussion. gbog 09:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Apologies for the mess. Pfortuny 12:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New Section

this is a work in progress. The italics are POV IMO and might need to be changed to NPOV by someone like Eloquence. Greenmountainboy 23:12, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is something quite different from the list of quotations we had. A paragraph like this might be included in an Encyclopedia, yes. Pfortuny 09:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(A mistake in nowiki tags made this looking like I wroten it, but it was written by Pfortuny, I guess. I'm not sure that this paragraph could be included like this in an Encyclopedia, but I think it is better than the previous list) gbog 10:34, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Some comments from Adam

I withdrew from working on this article some time ago when I decided it was impossible to argue with Aplank-Alexandros. Now that I am told he has withdrawn, I have come back for a look.

Some comments:

The biographical section is much as I wrote it some time ago, and still reads quite well, if I say so myself. But problems bebin almost at once after that.

Baptisms of the dying

Why does this come before the heading Criticism? Surely it should come after.

I recognise that this is not in the right place, but putting under criticism in pov in a way, as it would imply that baptism of dyings is something bad in itself. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be less POV to integrate some of the criticism into the main article body, but that might be a bad idea. Greenmountainboy 17:57, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Some critics alleged that Teresa had pre-Vatican II belief that salvation is only possible through the Roman Catholic Church."

Well of course that's what she thought, why resort to these mysterious "some critics"? She was a totally unreconstructed pre-Vatican II Catholic, and proud it it. Why not just say so? If you have an allegation from her stating this, it's ok.

"As long as the person agreed, secular and religious defenders didn't see any problem here."

Whose opinion is this? Who are these "secular defenders"?

One example of them is given in ext links, see [3] (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1434) gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In fact, James Martin is religious, and Simon Leys is secular, I guess.gbog

This sentence is bunk. Are we to believe that lifelong Muslims and Hindus agreed to be baptised as Catholics on their deathbeds?Of couse they didn't, and in most cases they had no idea what was going on because (a) they were poor and illiterate people and because (b) they were dying. This was baptism of adults without their informed consent, which is (I believe) illegal under canon law.

... agree to be baptised Why not? Maybe they aren't so tied to their own religion as you seem to think. I have no idea about that, but I would not say that because those people were poor and old, they were more stupid than other, and then weren't able to decide by themselves, without asking me and you. And if I do believe what she said in the quote, she asked them before. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Abortion and contraception

"They claim she frequently spoke against both in meetings with high level government officials and regret that, in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace"."

Well of course she did - that is the official position of the Catholic Church after all. Why is this listed under Criticism? It should be under the biographical section, stated as a fact, not as a criticism.

Yes, this is an absurd section. If someone wants to know about the catholic beliefs, they can go read Catholicism. In addition, I think she said more important things in the Prize speach which should replace the existing quote. Greenmountainboy 18:00, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand you very well. Baptisms of the dying are also facts, aren't they? gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mrs Gandhi

"Mother Teresa has also been criticized 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."

This should be either documented, or deleted.

I agree. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"As many other criticised religious people, Mother Teresa had a short response to her critics: "No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work"."

What other prominent religious people have dealt with serious criticism in this way? This sentence is just propaganda.

The Pope has been criticized also, I guess. I read somewhere that the main problem in writing religious article is that religious person don't feel the need to defend themselves with arguments. But anyway, "As many..." could be removed without great loss, imho. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Donations

"Defender claim the received those donation before thefts were uncovered and that she had to lobby for her cause, therefore had to deal with dictators in poor countries and with thieves in rich ones."

This sentence is atrocious English, and is also rubbish. What "defender" said this? If MT's defenders can't find any actual quotations from people defending her actions, they can't just make them up or insert their own opinions. If this is the best they can do, they should retire.

This sentence is my own poor work and surely need to be rewroten. Please do it. But if we remove all the "defense" sentences, we will go back to a heavy criticsm part without counterpart, what is annoying. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Mother Teresa and her possible defenders apparently didn't feel a need to directly answer those allegations. There is no dearth of expressed opinion about the motives of such criticism, however. Even though no need was felt to rebut the accusations even to point out factual mistakes, some proponents of the order argue that missionary activity was the central part of Teresa's calling, and that she perceived evangelisation as her central goal."

Again, who are these un-named "defenders"? Why can't we have a quote from one of them? The second sentence is meaningless - who is writing this illiterate rubbish? "Factual mistakes." Which factual mistakes? List them, refute them, don't just allege them and make no response.

Diversion of donations

This is actually the most serious allegation against MT, that she either practised or condoned large-scale fraud on those who donated money to her order, and yet this section has been almost entirely removed to another article, as though MT had nothing to do with it.

I think that Angela moved this part, because donations were done to the order. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All in all this is still a deplorably bad article, apart from the strictly biographical section. It is bad because these "defenders" of MT are all anonymous and don't have any actual facts to put forward, just vague statements in bad English to the effect that MT was a saint and therefore none of this nasty stuff can be true. This isn't good enough.

It is not good enough, but it is much better than before and is absolutly not intend to say MT was a saint. The problem with previous article was mainly that it was much more criticist than, say, the one about Mao Zedong. gbog 17:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This whole section ought to be rewritten, by someone who has the time and resources to go away and research it properly. Then they can post the results of their research and see what people have to say. At the moment it's a complete dog's breakfast.

Merry Xmas

Adam 14:04, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I haven't read your comments yet but for me it is a great piece of news to have you back here. Pfortuny 16:29, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you had better read my comments before you get too enthused :) Adam 08:06, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have and I am convinced your "stay" is better for the article (which I always thought). I know you want to make good articles, and that's enough for me. Facts are facts despite what they may be, who may state them or how, isn't it? And a historian usually has a better way to present them. I am the first not to want a kind of "this part is pro-MT" and "this part is against-MT" article. And we tend to differentiate between articles and talk pages, don't we? :) As a matter of fact, I am concerned by Eloquence's temporal withdrawal. Pfortuny 21:17, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Mother_Teresa/Archive7"