Talk:Mother Teresa

All criticism has been moved to Criticism of Mother Teresa which was then renamed to Public image of Mother Teresa and a lot of positive stuff was added, which makes it basically impossible to find any criticism of her. The criticism should be moved back to this article. Polygnotus (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:That is false. There is still criticism against her in the "Social and political views" section. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

::True. Some day I will learn to think before I type. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:::The section on "Conversion practices" sounds like the 2nd side of argument with the 1st side missing. Chawla and Pierick seem to defend MT from some criticism that is not mentioned -- at least not in (or near) this section. There is clearly some criticism missing. 2003:E5:3F38:D500:1894:A833:7AA8:ECBC (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of this article we see the statement "However, she was also a controversial figure," with the last two words being a link: but when you click on that link, it doesn't take you to "controversies", it takes you to a section called "Legacy and depictions in popular culture", which is not about controversies at all. Indeed the main part of this section is titled "Commemorations" -- as if "commemorations" are something you'd expect to find by clicking on a "controversies" link. (The small blurb about Christopher Hitchens, nestled amidst the eulogy and commemoration, is the sole exception to this rule that I could find.)

In accordance with Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy, I would like to think this is not a deliberate "whitewashing" of the section -- where someone went into a "controversies" section and changed it to a listing of "commemorations". Perhaps it was just an honest mistake, of the kind that sometimes occurs over time, when many editors are involved in the same article.

Perhaps the "controversies" link in the third paragraph should be made to point to the "Social and political views" section instead, where criticisms of Teresa actually are listed? Thanks and happy editing.Chillowack (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Chillowack}} It is a bit more complicated. At some point, someone created a WP:POVFORK called Public image of Mother Teresa which I then AfD-ed because it was a WP:POVFORK. The result of the AfD was redirect. So now we need to move the criticism from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_image_of_Mother_Teresa&oldid=1245029655 the old version] (prior to redirection) back to this article. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Polygnotus}} Thank you for this information Polygnotus, and for the work you've done on this article. Reviewing the AfD discussion I see the redirect decision was made just a few weeks ago, so I guess this issue is in the process of being resolved. Thanks and happy editing! Chillowack (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Mramoeba, let's start with this.

Critcism, in fact, has been rebutted by others. Mainly Catholics, but that doesn't warrant the exclusion in this article unless they have made a statement that would disqualify them. Talking about reliable sources, is this [https://web.archive.org/web/20170402055003/http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/11/catholic-church-manufactured-an-ovarian-miracle-for-mother-teresa/ [1]] considered a "reliable source"? {{tq| And for that, the church had to manufacture a “miracles” in her name.}} And on the bottom of the article, there's a link to: "Christopher Hitchens – Mother Teresa: Hell’s Angel". Seriously? Is that considered "consensus material"? I'm not even religious but this website additionaly has an article with the name "Eight Reasons Why Christianity Is False". I don't believe my edits were evaluated properly here. I can agree to leave some things out which seem a little bit off-topic, but the "Criticism towards Mother Teresa has been challenged and rebutted by others" can definitely stay.

Regarding the canonization section: It is argued that it's consensus material. In fact, I'm not aware of such a thing. Anyways, I shortened the section because the speech marks really cluttered the whole section and it seemed unprofessionally written. Thanks. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)