Talk:Mother Teresa
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mother Teresa Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Template:Search box |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
- Redirect Template:Dated maintenance category
Template:Rcat shell Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Template:Contentious topics/talk notice Template:Top 25 Report
User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn User:MiszaBot/config Template:Archives
NPOV
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)
- True. Some day I will learn to think before I type. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
"Controversies" link does not point to controversies
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)
- Template:Ping 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 the old version (prior to redirection) back to this article. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Ping 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)