Talk:Mother Teresa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Mother Teresa has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mother Teresa article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Macedonia

She was born in Skopje, Kosovo Viljaet during the Ottoman Empire today's Republic Of Macedonia. Please edit this article!

She was born in ALBANIA and her ethnicity is ALBANIAN so that makes her ALBANIAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wasn't she Indian?

According to WP:MOSBIO, the concerned person's nationality should be mentioned and not ethnicity, unless it is relevant. I don't understand, how is her ethnicity important? Fact remains, she was Indian citizen and therefore an Indian and not Albanian. Please make the change and make it "Albania-born Indian Roman Catholic...". Thanks, --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What gives you the impression she was an Indian citizen? Hitchens says she was Albanian; another (Internet) source says, "Her passport was Albanian for much of her life, making that her nationality. But a little known fluke is that after her work became too much for the Communist government of Albania, they revoked her passport. That's when she was officially given citizenship by ....The Holy See. Its ruler at the time, Pope John Paul II, ordered the Secretary of State of the Holy See to issue her a diplomatic passport of the Holy See. That way she could travel anywhere in the world with the safety of diplomatic immunity." (I'm not sure that makes here a citizen, but... ) She stated that she "felt like" a citizen of Skopje. (Though I'm not sure her feelings are particularly relevant). Do you have a reference that makes her Indian? - Nunh-huh 08:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
She was awarded the Bharat Ratna and given a state funeral by India. Do I need to elaborate more? --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a citation which says she was actually an Indian citizen would be nice. - Nunh-huh 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See [1] [2] [3] [4]. Its really surprising that people who edit this page don't even know Mother Teresa was an Indian citizen! So you thought she lived in India for decades on tourist visa? Amazing. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good reference (much better than "Mellisa Anthony Jones thinks she was Indian"). I'm sure someone you haven't recently insulted will be by to help you straighten out her nationalities shortly. - Nunh-huh 08:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, nothing personal here. I was just surprised that this entire topic of her being an Indian citizen came up. It's like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't American because he was born in Austria!! Lol. I wonder how American pundits would take that. And yeah, I would be waiting for more hilarious citation requests :D. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have added the information on her Indian citizenship into the article. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The intro now states that MT was "an Albanian-born Indian Roman Catholic nun..." Isn't that a bit of a mouthful? I'm not arguing that it's not correct. My comment is just that it seems a little confusing. I know that sometimes accuracy and brevity often are in competition...any suggestions?--Anietor (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSBIO, the nationality should be stated and not ethnicity (can be stated only if it is relevant). Look at the intro para of the article on Arnold Schwarzenegger. It says, "Austrian-American..". We can change it to "Albanian-Indian.." or "Indian Roman Catholic nun of Albanian ethnicity". Any other suggestions? I would still prefer the current version though. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Of the two suggestions, "Indian Roman Catholic nun of Albanian ethnicity" is better. However, we may want to address her ethnicity in a separate sentence instead. Thoughts? Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian saints

I acknowledge the good work that Mother Teresa has done, but to make as if she was the only person doing good work in Calcutta is absurd; I make this assumption on the basis that no other organisations or Hindu saints get mentioned for their work in Calcutta, there are good mother teresa is awsome people in India working to improve the situation, MT was only one of many, so ultimately the media should acknowledge the work of others there, Hindus and other Indians do care about Calcutta, it's time they got mentioned in the media as well! NamasteDomsta333 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's contents depend on what people are willing to write. If you can provide reliable sources, then produce articles on WP:Notable people. You may find people interested in working on this at WP:India and WP:Bias.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammachi, that's from wikipedia, I'll look for non-wiki info...Domsta333 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosh publicity challenge

A recent addition, which I reverted, referred to Prabir Ghosh's challenge to the Missionaries of Charity to have the medallion (I assume the MT locket that was the basis for the miraculous claim) cure another person. If a person is cured, he promises to give them 2 million rupees, and shut down his organization (Science & Rationalists' Assoc. of India). This didn't really seem to add anything to the article, and sounds more like a publicity stunt than anything else. It's not like the criticism of Christopher Hitchens, who has written on the subject and was even contacted by the Vatican to address his views, and has quite specific criticisms of MT's work, fund-raising, philosophy, claims, etc. If criticisms need to be relevant, sourced etc., then Ghosh's "prove it to me" skepticism doesn't really appear to qualify, even if he, himself, has legitimate professional credentials. It's certainly no surprise that a "rationalist" would not believe in a miraculous healing...that's not really noteworthy. His unique "challenge" makes a good tabloid headline, but it doesn't make it encyclopedic,and provides no information to a reader. Just wanted to explain my revert beyond that little edit summary box, and provide a spot for others' comments! --Anietor (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unsourced claim that the Missionaries of Charity have +1 million volunteers

I removed the following sentence from the article:

Today, over one million workers worldwide volunteer for the Missionaries of Charity.

The sentence was fact-tagged several weeks ago for lack of referencing. I have found no supporting material to validate the claim. Should anyone have a reliable source which shows otherwise, please feel free to re-insert the sentence along with a proper citation. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is completely slanted

I can't remember the last time I viewed an extensively-written article on a controversial topic, and found it to be so one-sided. Wikipedia generally does a good job of filtering out too much of one side, and indeed, I remember when reading this article a year or so ago, it presented pro and con views of MT in a balanced light, in keeping with the Undue Weight Policy. But I just looked at this article now, and as a WP user and administrator who prides himself on not letting his personal views bias his editing (I've often edited articles to remove material slanted in favor of ideas that I personally favor), I am appalled at the state of this article. The quality of the material critical of MT has been gutted so that it's little more than disorganized table scraps. Much information relevant to a critical examination of MT has been completely removed. This needs a rewrite, or more to the point, a reversion back to an edition from months or years ago. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is actually very well-balanced. The discussion page often gets entries from those who say they are "appalled", or express other such hyperbole. They are usually noted for their tendency to get the vapors after reading the article, without the ability to cite specific valid "criticisms" that have been left out. NPOV does not mean an article is divided into 50% positive, 50% critical material. Such dualism has no place here. The article is GA-status, and it has been reviewed multiple times over the past year, maintaining that status. It is a common comment here, and a rather hollow one, that there is "not enough" criticism in the article. Any material must be reliable, sourced and relevant. There are plenty of personal criticisms of MT out there. That's going to be the case with any article of a religious figure or group or idea, etc. But this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Specific, reliable and relevant criticisms, such as those of Hitchens, are in the article, integrated throughout, consistent with WP:criticism and other essays and policies that have been cited repeatedly in these discussions. --Anietor (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal for adding a section on Controversies Surrounding MT

Reading this article gives the impression that that everyone agrees MT could do no wrong. Not everyone thinks so though. Some have pointed out, for instance, that MT left the Calcutta clinic as poor as she found it, while spending many millions in donations in projects to aggrandise her order. It is worth noting that when she herself fell ill, she averred from undergoing treatment at the Calcutta clinic, checking in instead in a well equipt facility in California. A fairer assessment of MTs legacy would credit her with polishing the image of the Roman Catholic church, while recognising that the value of her contribution to the poor are much more questionable. (A good place to gain a glimpse of the less flattering facets of MT is Christopher Hitchens' article at http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/#Her).

I do no propose to call into question the work that has gone into the article to date. Many people do, in fact, see MT as a paragon of virtue. I only wish to depart from the cult of uncritical admiration by pointing out that it is possible to pose serious challenges to this outlook; and I am humbly petitioning the 'writership' of this article to countenance my inserting a short summary of criticisms.

Why am I seeking advice rather than directly inserting my criticisms in the article? While I do value Wikipedia's Be Bold policy, I am also keen to take precautions to avoid edit wars. Besides that, it is evident that many people have laboured hard to bring this article to it's current status. My petition is thus a nod of respect to these authors efforts.

I realise that many people today feel a need for someone to look up to. Hence I expect and am ready for the anger that is the inevitable reaction from a warning that uncritical admiration is of little value. I hope that people for and against my proposal will share with me their outlook.

--Philopedia (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of creating a separate criticism section has been brought up before. While there were strong opinions on both sides, the ultimate consensus was to integrate any relevant, sourced critical material into the body of the article. The current approach is consistent with WP:criticism. If you have something specific that you think the article is lacking, how about inserting it into the most relevant section? I would encourage you to try that, since it would allow you to insert relevant material without having to pick out material already in the article to add to a new section. I'm not sure why you read the article as implying that "everyone agrees MT could do no wrong." The article does have critical material, including cites to Hitchens. The article is hardly "uncritical admiration". But if you have specific material that you believe is relevant, sourced, etc., you are certainly free to insert it. But that doesn't require a separate section. --Anietor (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to see some activity from WPP:BIO. If this article is the current collaboration I would have liked to see some views from people who haven't taken a prior position or aren't turning up with one but just want to get this to FA. Unfortunately I can't see much sign of life.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think this article should be a lot more critical, but I understand that Wikipedia's policy of consensus (i.e., mediocrity) is opposed to that, and anyway I don't have the time or energy myself. But good luck to anyone who does want to work on it. --RenniePet (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


I just came to this page and was wondering why there is no "Criticism" or "Controversy" tab for me to click on at the top, I am aware her life is a source of controversy why can't I read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.148.1.142 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her father Nicola

I know for sure that Nicola was an Albanian nationalist.Is that any importance for this article? Do you guys think we should mention it and that the Bojaxhius had a rough life.As her brother Lazar conveyed in 1979 when mother Teresa received the Nobel Prize for Peace to a few journalist, a darker picture of ther childhood.Nicola's ceaseless advocacy for an Albanian Kosovo,he said, earned him the enmity of the Yugoslavian authorities that shadows their lives.He even said that in his mind Nicola got poisoned.The Great War was over,Yugoslavia was a nation,and Nicola-by that time a member of the Skopje city council-and other Albanian nationalists in the new nation agitated for Kosovo to be incorporated into Albania. Just some thoughts....--Taulant23 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikola and Lazar? those are very Serb names for an Albanian...? can u some me some facts about her nationalist father?

[edit] Aromanian?

http://www.albmuzika.com/nene_tereza.htm on this page you can find a copy of the letter that Mother Theresa send to the Albanian Preseident after her first visit in 1989... The letter presented cointains just the into and is in Albanian and she is writing her name in Albanian Teresa, maybe you can find someone that can translate for you but the whole letter contains the following: "Dearest Mr. President of my dearest country Albania, After long years of praying and wishing to visit my country; visiting different kind of places outside in the world; God gave me the beautiful present, to come and see my nation. My family has lived here for so many years and they died here and I had the opportunity to visit their graves. I hope that together we can do something beautiful for God and for my nation"

This letter was sent on the 8th of August 1989 to the President of Albania R.Alia and after he replied she send him another letter.

She also greeted the albanians in albanian when receiving The Nobel Price in Oslo and also her prayer on Albanian was broadcasted by the Voice of America on the 17th of June 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.30.31 (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[5] [6] and [7] say her father was Aromanian and her mother was Albanian. Should this be included somewhere in the article? BalkanFever 07:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's appropriate to mention that Aromanians consider her one of their own. I'd suggest handling the details of her ethnicity in the section on her early life and family rather than in the lead, per earlier talk page discussions. Be sure to cite reliable sources, preferably in English, for the English language Wikipedia article. Perhaps other editors have suggestions on how to incorporate this material into the article?Majoreditor (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but we can still search for his ethnicity. Are Aromanians related to Albanians? Do they consider themselves as Shqipëtar?

No, Aromanians are not related to Albanians, they are related to Romanians ...hence the name Adrianzax (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nikola was born Mirdita city, Albania, spoke Albanian, and presented himself as Albanian businessman everywhere, and was very involved in the Albanian politics. One of his main goals was the independence of Kosovo. When mother Teresa got her Nobel Prize, her brother once said to the media, that his dad Nikola got poisoned from Serbs. (Creepy, poison made by Beograd,they put it on his coffee).

“Une jam shum tuj u lut per ju - qi dashnija e Zotit tu mbush zemrat e juaja dhe gjith boten". Mother Teresa praying in Albanian.--Taulant23 (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

p.s.by the way Nikola,Kol,Koli,Kola are northern Albanian names,and his last name is Albanian too,it's a trade,translates -bojaxhiu-the paintguy.


I actually disagree that it matters what Aromanians think about Mother Teresa - because she was not Aromanian in the same way that the Aromanians that consider her one of their own are (I hope that makes sense). Her father died when she was about 8, so she lost all connection with Aromanians and was raised Albanian. She did not speak Aromanian either. I'm quite sure that when Aromanians hear "Mother Teresa was Aromanian" they assume she spoke the language and knew of her background - as I said, highly unlikely. The (if sourced) fact that her father was Aromanian would not make a difference to Mother Teresa herself - it's just an interesting fact. BalkanFever 10:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


"By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus." by Mother Theresa--Taulant23 (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And? We all knew she said that. But she did not know her father or his blood. Why is it being viewed as so bad that her father was Aromanian? As I said, it doesn't make any difference - it's just some interesting information. By the way, Nikola is a very popular name in most Balkan countries, and I'm pretty sure it is ultimately from Greek. BalkanFever 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Mother Teresa of Calcutta, OM (born Agnesa Gongea Boiagi ) was a Roman Catholic nun of Aromanian descent, who founded the Missionaries of Charity in India. Her work among the poverty-stricken of Kolkata (Calcutta) made her one of the world's most famous people, and she was beatified by Pope John Paul II in October 2003. Hence, she may be properly called Blessed Teresa by Catholics.
http://heros4u.com/mother_teresa.htm I think we should write this info somewhere in the article Adrianzax (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any catholic aromanians ? As far as I know all of them are orthodox, so how could MT or her father be aromianan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawohl (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty. BalkanFever 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mother teresa

mother teresa is awsome

No she wasn't. Go read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. -- 201.9.116.157 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Her father Nikola was Albanian, not Aromanian. Can someone please edit this. There r no valid sources saying her father was Aromanian. His last name was Bojxhiu (painter in Albanian) and he was born in Albania. This is an insult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltoska (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No criticism allowed?

A thinly-disguised bit of criticism was added by User:Slashme on January 11, 2008, and managed to elude censorship until today. Now three different editors are saying no, no, no, to a critical fact published by a famous author. The fact is indisputable and the author and his book and opinions are notable.

So how should it be included in the article? In a special criticisms section? Will that make it acceptable? Or what? --RenniePet (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At the end of the section on global recognition, there is discussion on Western criticisms of MT in which Hitchens gets a mention. He also is mentioned in the beatification section. If there were evidence of his including the issue of MT's attitude to Diana's divorce in either his C4 programme, book or evidence to the Vatican, then that would provide a good point to link things in.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion on where and how to incorporate the material. Hitchens also briefly mentions this subject in one of his Vanity Fair articles; I can't remember the issue/date. Majoreditor (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit summary: "This is awkwardly placed. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the section."

Look, why doesn't someone just put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the whole article, and then let the Christians delete every single critical word, so MT shines like the God-like saint they want to believe she is.

Alternatively, let's create a "Criticism and controversies" section. We now have ample evidence that the concept of having criticism intermingled with the rest of the article doesn't work - the criticism just gets deleted on the grounds that it "doesn't fit in with the rest of the section."

Let's face it, this article is an extremely one-sided and uncritical view of a person who deserves very harsh criticism for her primitive and hypocritical beliefs.

And before you just dismiss me an atheist nut case, check my editing history for this article. I have actually tried to make some improvements at one point, doing a significant rewrite of the introduction to make it flow better, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=184072542&oldid=183750001 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=184358957&oldid=184180990. --RenniePet (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC) --RenniePet (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not an opinion piece. There was once a criticism section that took up nearly half of the entire article, which was a poorly-written hodge podge of various opinions. Having a separate criticism section is just poor style; criticisms should be grouped under the relevant heading. This is the current situation for this article. Look at the final paragraph in "Missionaries of Charity":
Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. While noting how little evidence Mother Teresa's critics were able to find against her, David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[1] She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[2] The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an anti-materialist approach that precluded the use of systematic diagnosis.[3]
At the end of "International Charity":
The spending of the charity money received has been criticized by some. Christopher Hitchens and the Stern have said that money that was donated with the intention of it being spent on the keeping of the poor was spent on other projects instead. [4]
I could also give examples from other sections like "Reception in India" and "Reception in the rest of the world", but I think the above is illustrative enough. Hardly "one-sided and uncritical".
>>Look, why doesn't someone just put a "Neutrality is disputed" tag on the whole article, and then let the Christians delete every single critical word, so MT shines like the God-like saint they want to believe she is.
Please don't resort to ad hominem attacks on a whole group of editors, just to find an outlet to vent your frustration. It certainly doesn't lend your points credibility, however good they may be. The "us and them" mentality is incredibly unhelpful. Brisvegas 08:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to calm down, but MT and this article do have a bad effect on my blood pressure.
Note that I started this section on this talk page after reverting a deletion by User:NewCanada of a critical bit, after which both User:Balloonman and User:Anietor stomped on me, despite my explaining the relevance and notability of the item and adding an additional reference. In the above discussion two editors agree that this bit of criticism can be added at a specific place, but it has not been added. I.e., censorship prevailed.
It was therefore very galling to see User:NewCanada once again weilding his/her censorship scissors, and rather than once again trying to do a revert and getting stomped on I came here and vented my frustration.
Now, what about that bit that was deleted on 19 Feb.? --RenniePet (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't remember "stomping" on anyone. Looking back at the edits, what I did, along with other editors, was acknowledge that there have been some heated discussions on this subject, and that a concensus had been reached to incorporate any relevant, cited criticisms into the article. A reasonable position, consistent with various policies and guidelines. Your reaction, Rennie, was to accuse us of censorship and to criticize the concept of consensus as a policy of "mediocrity", and then saying you had better things to do. So now you're back I see. You're certainly welcome to come back and engage in discussions, but as pointed out by another editor, attacking other editors and taking an us vs. them mentality doesn't help anyone. You seem frustrated by not having your position adopted. We've all been there. I've been frustrated in this very article with what I have thought were inappropriate edits, but I count backwards from 10 and get over it. So please keep your comments objective and to the point. --Anietor (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm refering to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&diff=192499375&oldid=192474627
The critical two sentences, originally added by another editor, had been removed. I reverted the removal, my restoring was reverted, I found a second source (should not have been necessary - a letter from a famous (semi-famous?) author to the New York Times should have been enough), restored it again, and it was again removed, and labeled as being "POV". Of course, as Tom Lehrer might have said, "when correctly viewed, everything is POV". --RenniePet (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You took the opinion of one person and wrote it as a factual statement - that is normally considered to be POV. It would be more properly written along the lines of Mother Teresa has been criticized for a lack of consistency between her public stand on some issues and her support for individuals taking the opposite path. In particular critics such as Christopher Hitchen have highlighted Mother Teresa's support for a prohibition against divorce in Northern Ireland with her support for Lady Diana's divorce. Our NPOV policy includes a requirement to give criticism due weight - not every anti-Teresa comment should be covered (nor every pro opinion). To be included this criticism should have support from several respected commentators. -- SiobhanHansa 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name pronunciation

I went to this article to get some background on MT's life and also for her birth name. I found both easily enough, but there wasn't a pronunciation guide to the Albanian middle and last names. (For my speech that I researched it for, I approximated the pronunciation of her last name as "boyy-adz-hee-oo" after a visit to the Albanian language page and some educated guesses there.) I would add it to the MT article page, since I feel it is an important thing to add (after all, if I was looking for it, someone else might have been too), but a) I only worked out the pronunciation of her last name (as I left her middle name out of my speech), both should be added, b) it's only a guess from my piecings-together from the Albanian language page, and c) it really should be in IPA, which I'm still not good at adding. I'm wondering if someone can take this on? --Canuckguy (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try fix it with my limited knowledge of Albanian phonology. BalkanFever 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't knnow 'MT' actually stands for Mother Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.90.219 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Will someone be so good and include sw:Mama Teresa into the interwiki? --78.52.183.125 (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Thrilltalk 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)