Former good articleMother Teresa was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 31, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 7, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
August 20, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
December 27, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 6, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
December 17, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 28, 2016Peer reviewNot reviewed
December 30, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 4, 2016.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2004, September 10, 2011, September 10, 2012, September 10, 2016, September 10, 2019, and September 10, 2021.
Current status: Delisted good article


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 July 2024

edit

change "Dramatic films and television" to "Films and television" Jjmr1234 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead has only praise, needs to reflect the criticism

edit

This seems essential, especially as many readers will only read the lead. In many ways she was pretty reactionary. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems odd that the wording is so "protected" throughout.
The negative points from the article on public image should be reflected more clearly in both lead and content:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Mother_Teresa
Additionally, the same should go for the missionaires:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionaries_of_Charity
These negative aspects can't just be hidden away, that's a very strange approach to such promiment sides to the story. 62.192.163.121 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes it does seem that way as Polygnotus pointed out that the criticism and the praise got combined into one. my solution to this Inconvenience is to separate the praise and criticism into separate categories under Recognition and reception.
this way might be hard to introducing the fact that the Recognition and reception section will have to be reworded 206.163.232.56 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

NPOV

edit

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)Reply

That is false. There is still criticism against her in the "Social and political views" section. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
True. Some day I will learn to think before I type. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

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)Reply

@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 the old version (prior to redirection) back to this article. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply