text:
Orlistat

Orlistat, sold under the brand name Xenical among others, is a medication used to treat obesity. Its primary function is preventing the absorption of fats from the human diet by acting as a lipase inhibitor, thereby reducing caloric intake. It is intended for use in conjunction with a healthcare provider-supervised reduced-calorie diet.

Orlistat is the saturated derivative of lipstatin, a potent natural inhibitor of pancreatic lipases isolated from the bacterium Streptomyces toxytricini. However, due to its relative simplicity and stability, orlistat was chosen over lipstatin for development as an anti-obesity drug.

The effectiveness of orlistat in promoting weight loss is definite but modest. Pooled data from clinical trials suggest that people given orlistat in addition to lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, lose about 2 - 3 kg more than those not taking the drug over the course of a year. Orlistat also modestly reduces blood pressure and appears to prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes, whether from the weight loss itself or other effects. It reduces the incidence of diabetes type II in people who are obese around the same amount that lifestyle changes do.

Benefits aside, however, orlistat is noted for its gastrointestinal side effects (sometimes referred to as treatment effects), which can include steatorrhea (oily, loose stools). They decrease with time, however, and are the most frequently reported adverse effects of the drug. In Australia, the United States and the European Union, orlistat is available for sale without a prescription. Over-the-counter approval was controversial in the United States, with consumer advocacy group Public Citizen repeatedly opposing it on safety and efficacy grounds. Generic formulations of orlistat are available in some countries. In Australia it has been listed as an S3 medication, available from a pharmacist without a prescription, since 2000.

Medical uses
Orlistat is used for the treatment of obesity. The amount of weight loss achieved with orlistat varies. In one-year clinical trials, between 35.5% and 54.8% of subjects achieved a 5% or greater decrease in body mass, although not all of this mass was necessarily fat. Between 16.4% and 24.8% achieved at least a 10% decrease in body fat. After orlistat was stopped, a significant number of subjects regained weight—up to 35% of the weight they had lost. It reduces the incidence of diabetes type II in people who are obese around the same amount that lifestyle changes do. Long-term use of orlistat also leads to a very modest reduction in blood pressure (mean reductions of 2.5 and 1.9 mmHg in systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively).

Contraindications
Orlistat is contraindicated in:
 * Malabsorption
 * Hypersensitivity to orlistat
 * Reduced gallbladder function (e.g. after cholecystectomy)
 * Pregnancy and breastfeeding
 * Anorexia and Bulimia
 * Use caution with: obstructed bile duct, impaired liver function, and pancreatic disease

Side effects
The primary side effects of the drug are gastrointestinal-related, and include steatorrhea (oily, loose stools with excessive flatus due to unabsorbed fats reaching the large intestine), fecal incontinence and frequent or urgent bowel movements. To minimize these effects, foods with high fat content should be avoided; the manufacturer advises consumers to follow a low-fat, reduced-calorie diet. Oily stools and flatulence can be controlled by reducing the dietary fat content to somewhere in the region of 15 grams per meal. The manual for Alli makes it clear that orlistat treatment involves aversion therapy, encouraging the user to associate eating fat with unpleasant treatment effects.

Side effects are most severe when beginning therapy and may decrease in frequency with time; It has also been suggested that the decrease in side effects over time may be associated with long-term compliance with a low-fat diet.

On 26 May 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a revised label for Xenical to include new safety information about cases of severe liver injury that have been reported rarely with the use of this medication.

An analysis of over 900 orlistat users in Ontario showed that their rate of acute kidney injury was more than triple that of non-users.

A study from 2013 looked at 94,695 participants receiving orlistat in the UK between 1999 and 2011. The study showed no evidence of an increased risk of liver injury during treatment. They concluded:

"The incidence of acute liver injury was higher in the periods both immediately before and immediately after the start of orlistat treatment. This suggests that the observed increased risks of liver injury linked to the start of treatment may reflect changes in health status associated with the decision to begin treatment rather than any causal effect of the drug."

Long-term
Despite a higher incidence of breast cancer amongst those taking orlistat in early, pooled clinical trial data—the analysis of which delayed FDA review of orlistat —a two-year study published in 1999 found similar rates between orlistat and placebo (0.54% versus 0.51%), and evidence that tumors predated treatment in 3 of the 4 participants who had them. There is evidence from an in vitro study to suggest that the introduction of specific varied preparations containing orlistat, namely the concurrent administration of orlistat and the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab, can induce cell death in breast cancer cells and block their growth.

Fecal fat excretion promotes colon carcinogenesis. In 2006 the results of 30-day study were published indicating that orlistat at a dosage of 200 mg/kg chow administered to rats consuming a high-fat chow and receiving two 25 mg/kg doses of the potent carcinogen 1,2-dimethylhydrazine produced significantly higher numbers of aberrant crypt foci (ACF) colon lesions than did the carcinogen plus high-fat chow without orlistat. ACF lesions are believed to be one of the earliest precursors of colon cancer.

Precautions
Absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and other fat-soluble nutrients is inhibited by the use of orlistat.

Interactions
Orlistat may reduce plasma levels of ciclosporin (also known as "cyclosporin" or "cyclosporine", trade names Sandimmune, Gengraf, Neoral, etc.), an immunosuppressive drug frequently used to prevent transplant rejection; the two drugs should therefore not be administered concomitantly. Orlistat can also impair absorption of the antiarrhythmic amiodarone. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has suggested the possibility that orlistat could reduce the absorption of antiretroviral HIV medications.

Mechanism of action

Orlistat works by inhibiting gastric and pancreatic lipases, the enzymes that break down triglycerides in the intestine. When lipase activity is blocked, triglycerides from the diet are not hydrolyzed into absorbable free fatty acids, and instead are excreted unchanged. Only trace amounts of orlistat are absorbed systemically; the primary effect is local lipase inhibition within the GI tract after an oral dose. The primary route of elimination is through the feces.

Orlistat was also found to inhibit the thioesterase domain of fatty acid synthase (FAS), an enzyme involved in the proliferation of cancer cells but not normal cells. However, potential side effects of orlistat, such as inhibition of other cellular off-targets or poor bioavailability, might hamper its application as an effective antitumor agent. One profiling study undertook a chemical proteomics approach to look for new cellular targets of orlistat, including its off-targets. Orlistat also shows potential activity against the Trypanosoma brucei parasite.

Orlistat prevents approximately 30% of dietary fat from being absorbed.

Legal status
Orlistat is available both with and without a prescription.

Australia and New Zealand
In Australia and New Zealand, orlistat is available as a "Pharmacist Only Medicine". In 2007, the Committee decided to keep orlistat as a Schedule 3 drug, but withdrew its authorization of direct-to-consumer Xenical advertising, stating this "increased pressure on pharmacists to provide orlistat to consumers...this in turn had the potential to result in inappropriate patterns of use".

United States
Orlistat was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 1999 as a prescription-only medication. On 23 January 2006, an FDA advisory panel voted 11 to 3 to recommend the approval of an OTC formulation of orlistat, to be sold under the brand name Alli by GlaxoSmithKline. Approval was granted on 7 February 2007, and Alli became the first weight loss drug officially sanctioned by the U.S. government for over-the-counter use. Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen opposed over-the-counter approval for orlistat.

Alli became available in the U.S. in June 2007. It is sold as 60 mg capsules—half the dosage of prescription orlistat.

European Union and Switzerland
On 21 January 2009, the European Medicines Agency granted approval for the sale of orlistat without a prescription.

At least since September 2017, tablets with 60 mg orlistat can be freely sold in Swiss drugstores. Formulations with 120 mg per tablet require a prescription, but can be sold without one in pharmacies under an exemption rule, which is based on a list of easily diagnosable diseases.

Generic formulations
U.S. patent protection for Xenical, originally to end on 18 June 2004, was extended by five years (until 2009) by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The extension was granted on 20 July 2002, and expired on 18 June 2009.

Generic orlistat is available in Iran under the brand Venustat manufactured by Aburaihan Pharmaceutical co., in India, under the brands Orlean (Eris), Vyfat, Olistat, Obelit, Orlica and Reeshape. In Russia, orlistat is available under the brand names Xenical (Hoffmann–La Roche), Orsoten/Orsoten Slim (KRKA d. d.) and Xenalten (OBL-Pharm). In Austria, orlistat is available under the brand name Slimox. In Malaysia, orlistat is available under the brand name Cuvarlix and is marketed by Pharmaniaga. In the Philippines orlistat is available under the brand name RedoXfat Plus manufactured by ATC Healthcare

Cost
At times, such as in spring 2012, orlistat has come into short supply, with consequent price increases because of nonavailability of one of the drug's components.

Counterfeit products
In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an alert stating that some counterfeit versions of Alli sold over the Internet contain no orlistat, and instead contain the weight-loss drug sibutramine. The concentration of sibutramine in these counterfeit products is at least twice the amount recommended for weight loss.

title: Orlistat


text:
Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 4

Jtdirl on the abortion paragraph
The following paragraph highlights exactly the soft of POV-laiden, agenda-filled writing that has been such a problem in this article.

''From the early 1970s Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, although these views were rarely conveyed in the mainstream media. To the dismay of pro-choice campaigners, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the outspoken views of Pope John Paul II. Many viewed this stance as counter to Mother Teresa's visible efforts in helping the poor.''

To the dismay of pro-choice campaigners, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. It is blatent agenda-setting to make one side's views alone the central focus of the sentence. The central fact is that she said these things, not the reaction of pro-choice campaigners. And referring to one side of the abortion debate and not the other suggests that the article is implicitly more concerned with the reaction of one side, in other words that that side has the more validity. It is not for wikipedia by its language to decide that either side is more important, so important indeed that their reaction becomes crucial. An encyclopædia's job is not to endorse abortion or to criticise it, but to factually explain it and contextualise the different interpretations attached to it.

Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the outspoken views of Pope John Paul II. Another dodgy agenda-filled POV. Billions agree with her and JPII. Billions disagree. 99.9% of catholic nuns also hold outspoken opposition of abortion. The difference wasn't her opinions, but the fact that unlike other nuns she was high profile so she had a chance to express it. As John Paul's "outspoken views" on the issues, he is no more outspoken than Pius XI at the time of the Lambeth conference, than Pius XII in the 1940s, John XXIII in the 1960s, etc. And Paul VI's Humanæ Vitæ was hardly silent on the issue. The sentence amounts to a highly superficial grasp of Roman Catholic teaching on abortion; RC didn't oppose abortion because of JPII and MT. They opposed abortion because of their RCism.

Many viewed this stance as counter to Mother Teresa's visible efforts in helping the poor. That is a classic POVing sentence. Some people thought that, others didn't. Using many and not pointing out that many others disagreed with that analysis again hammers home only one side of a controversial argument. Put with the earlier sentences, the entire paragraph reads like a 'pro-choice' critique of MT, which is as irrelevant to a factual analysis on its own as a 'pro-life' critique. A thesis arguing one side of the argument can suggest this (from either side) but an NPOV encyclopædia article cannot use language in a way that implies that it supports one side's arguments.

An anti-abortion twist to the paragraph would have produced this version of the paragraph. ''From the early 1970s Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, largely from groups and individuals supporting abortion. To the delight of defenders of the unborn, she called abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and continued to campaign against it on a political level throughout her life. Her strong opposition to both abortion and artificial contraception reflected the defence on the family of Pope John Paul II. Many viewed this stance as emboding Mother Teresa's visible efforts to the poor without endorsing western anti-family policies.''

If the above article was inserted, it would rightly be deleted as pushing one side of the abortion argument as correct, and as reviewing MT solely from that perspective. NPOV requires language structure and meanings, both explicit and implicit, that do not carry an endorsement of either side.

In inserting that POV article above, Eloquence removed the following:

''From the early 1970s, Mother Teresa began to attract some critical comments, although these views were rarely conveyed in the mainstream media. She was an outspoken critic of abortion, a viewpoint reflecting Roman Catholic teaching, she calling abortion the "greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel Prize acceptance speech. He also was an outspoken critic of artificial contraception. Her stances on abortion and contraception and her public campaigns on those issues lead to strong criticism from pro-choice groups and campaigners.''

It deliberately (1) makes her opinions central, not other people's opinions on her opinions, (2) explains what was the source of those opinions (ie, RC teaching) and says that she was criticised by those who disagreed with her. The paragraph in no way implies support or the rightness of either side, doesn't attribute POV interpretations of reactions (like dismay) and doesn't imply she simply followed Pope John Paul II, which is a preposterous suggestion that shows zero knowledge of Roman Catholicism. It is clinically factual, not emotion-loaded, much less pushing either side of the abortion debate.

It is the sort of woolly-headed, POV-laiden language in Erik's paragraph that embodies the problems there have been with Erik's edits. That he has a viewpoint that is pro-choice is OK (many have). That he has a chip on his shoulder about MT is his right. But lacing sentences with implicit agenda meanings is completely and utterly against NPOV. Our job is to analyse and explain, not agendaise and lecture. It is for the reader to reach conclusions, not for our articles to force opinions on them. It is no wonder that people not connected with the debate here wrote on the w-list that the Erik's version of the article read like the "case for the prosecution", in this case the pro-choice case against MT. This article is not supposed to be the 'pro-choice, liberal case against MT', nor is it supposed to be the 'pro-life, conservative case for MT', it is supposed to be a factual, trustworthy, unbiased encyclopædia article.

I am removing Erik's agenda-driven article and replacing it the far more neutral alternative which he had previously removed. FearÉIREANN 22:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Nicely done. silsor 22:29, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * (The point, not the emotion-laden anti-Erik speech). silsor

 * Actually, your comment/essay above is an excellent example for what is wrong with your behavior: Instead of trying to work with others in a friendly manner, seeking consensus and treating others with respect, you revert with prejudice and at best write a hate-filled diatribe attacking anyone who disagrees with you.

 * The paragraph in question in its original form, before Silsor's edits, was poorly worded and even addressed MT as a "He". You may have noticed in your courageous campaign for neutrality that the section under which this paragraph appears is entitled "Criticisms". Thus it is entirely appropriate for this section to primarily note what others criticized about MT's behavior. Whether the paragraph in question should have been in that section in the first place is of course debatable, but the style you criticize was entirely acceptable given its context.

 * Your insinuations that the paragraph somehow "endorsed" pro-choice views are laughable, as your poorly constructed counter-example, loaded with POV language that does not appear in the original paragraph, makes blatantly obvious. You have to resort to manipulative vocabulary like "anti-family" and "defender of the unborn" to make your point. We have agreed to address the two groups as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" on Wikipedia, respectively, because these are the names they give themselves. This does not imply any kind of endorsement, while your loaded vocabulary does.

 * What's most annoying, however, is that with your perpetually confrontational stance and your tendency to burn all bridges before even trying to walk over them, you make it next to impossible to achieve compromise solutions in the fashion that is normal and regular on Wikipedia. You seem to seek out a kind of ever-lasting state of war with other contributors, presumably because this fills some emotional void in your life. I'm not interested in that, but I will do what is necessary to preserve both truth and neutrality in this article.—Eloquence 23:02, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Unlike Eric I put an explanation for my edit here. Erik's response was to call it a 'revert with prejudice'. He makes an issue out of using pro-choice. I never did. I used it in my own rewrite! And as usual he fails to offer any reply, just a lot of hyperbole. What is Erik's problem? Is writing in an NPOV form so difficult for him? Or is he really so blinded by his own prejudice that he cannot see the undefensibility of his use of language, the agendas seeming from his sentences, his messianic belief in his own infallibility. Or maybe it is just that he want to be a secular pope but can't find anyone to elect him!FearÉIREANN 23:46, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * There was no agenda. The language of the paragraph was appropriate given its context -- the criticism section of the article. In any case, it is at best a minor issue. I reworded the para not because I want to inject some "pro-choice POV", but because it was broken. The issue is not that you refuse to explain, the issue is that whenever you explain, you also attack others. There can never be any productive cooperation based on this behavior, only counter attacks and edit wars.—Eloquence 23:59, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Another factually inaccurate Erik add-in- while conservative groups saw these positions as an opportunity to align themselves with her and often cited her to make their case. Some of the most vocal opponents of abortion belong to Christian fundamentalists who detest RCism, detested MT and call JPII the 'anti-christ' (eg, Falwell, Paisley, etc). Erik's edits again misrepresent (or completely misunderstand) the role and influence of someone like MT among anti-abortion campaigners. This and other edits suggest a highly simplistic understanding of both catholicism and the christian right, with a rather black and white belief on the influence of people like MT without understanding the culture and context within which they operated and the extent to which it is culture and context, not big names, that shape people's advocacy of a conservative agenda. FearÉIREANN 00:17, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good edits, Silsor. FearÉIREANN 00:23, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, if you knew the first thing about MT, you'd know that she was popular among virtually all religious groups except for the die-hard fundies on the far right, the kind of people who have Avro Manhattan's books on their websites. Protestant pro-lifers co-opted her, and even pro-choicers tolerated her because of her spectacularly good reputation. The kind of people who "detested" her are a vanishingly small minority, which is part of the reason there are so few informed critical voices about MT.

 * Stop being childish. And BTW many protestant 'pro-lifers' detested her while such pro-choicers as US President Bill Clinton, UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson and others were open admirers, Robinson I believe at a dinner party calling one of the critics you place such trust in a "turd". FearÉIREANN 00:41, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is indeed the intellectual level of MT's defenders.—Eloquence 00:45, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I hardly think one can be proud of the fact that MT's principal detractor is Christopher Hitchens, one of the few humans alive with more critics than Adolf Hitler. And whatever about her views on MT, I'd certainly much prefer to be associated with a real defender of human rights and women's rights like Robinson than a phoney like Hitchens. (And lest I be accused of bias, Robinson is a friend of mine, Hitchens an acquaintance I've met 10 or 12 times.) FearÉIREANN 00:51, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Hitchens is hardly her principal "detractor", but clearly the most visible one. Hitchens' work is based almost exclusively on the research done by others, but he ought to be commended for bringing the matter into the mainstream, even if his tone and style are obnoxious.—Eloquence

 * As for Silsor's edit, I agree; if I'm not mistaken he removed some of your "analysis" which I wouldn't have touched with a ten foot pole. ;-).—Eloquence 00:30, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Re Erik's edit of To its critics, however, the Order was seen as more preoccupied with dealing with poverty and the treatment of the poor as part of an expression of its religious belief, and the furtherance of its religion's acceptance in India, than with notions of alleviating poverty or of offering medical-orientated as opposed to charity-orientated help to the poor it treated, what is the problem with this? It says that critics suggest that MT and her order's behaviour was not based on a radical vision of alleviating poverty but on using their treatment of the poor as a way of expressing their own religious vision. In other words, whereas others outside religion see the poor as people disenfranchised by society and victims of power-structures, MT's concern was not with the poor themselves but with her belief, based on biblical teaching, that every human is made in the image of God and that in neglecting the poor she would be neglecting and betraying Christ. In effect she saw herself in parable terms as the 'good Samaritan' doing her duty to people created in the image of God. Thus her motivation could be seen as charity-based to help the dying die with dignity, not based on applying medical science to heal them or radical politics to change their lot.

It is quite elementary stuff that goes to the heart of the competing visions of what MT stood for and achieved, and the differing standards by which, depending on one's own vision, she is judged. That sort of underlying analysis is central to understanding MT and her critics. Erik has offered nothing in the way of justification for its removal, other than it is philosophical. Given that much of the criticism of her is based on differing philosophical analyses it is crucial that some effort is made to explain them. The paragraph may need tweaking, but it is something that cannot be ignored if one wants to understand the clash of philosophies of MT and her critics. FearÉIREANN 23:52, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I was editing it at the same time because I could take out about half the words and leave the same meaning. Being long-winded is fine in talk pages, but in the article it might pay to be a little sharper.  The paragraph was also on the verge of being off-topic. silsor 00:00, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re Silsor's edit, I think 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 is somewhat misleading. Many on the left subscribe to a more complex theory and are opposed to the principle of charity which MT espoused, seeing it as tolerant of the class and economic structure that produced the poverty and largely concerned with mitigating the extreme effects of capitalism. They see charity workers (whether MT, Bob Geldof of mainstream charities) the same way the far left sees social democrats, as 'ineffective do-gooders' not willing to take a radical stand to break the class structure and liberate the masses and the poor. So while some criticised MT for what they saw as organisational failures, and others criticised her on religious grounds, many saw her as in effect an appeaser with class interests that were responsible for causing poverty. The complexity of analyses at the heart of the criticisms of MT is not conveyed in the edit. That is why I deliberately wrote of criticism of MT not offering medical-orientated as opposed to charity-orientated help because medical-orientated implies active intervention whereas charity-orientated implies passive mitigation. FearÉIREANN 00:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * That was Eloquence's edit, not mine. silsor

 * Well, it seems to me that you are writing less about what Mother Teresa's critics have said and written, and more about what you think they should have said and written. Neither Hitchens nor Chatterjee nor Shields nor Louden ... and so forth, concern themselves much with the underlying theology or ideology of Mother Teresa's actions, and what Hitchens has expressed in polemical form -- that MT cultivated and celebrated suffering -- is a recurring theme in the criticism of her work. That is a much more dramatic accusation than saying that she tried to fulfill a vision and neglected the purpose of charity in the process.

 * Now, maybe that latter interpretation is more in line with your own views, and far be it from me to censor it. But it does not reflect the views of the critics we have cited so far (except perhaps for Robin Fox), so it would seem to me that you have an obligation to actually cite people holding this view before including it. Furthermore, if this view is included it should only be in combination with the other point of view, that MT did not act out of good motives but did a (partially) bad thing, but that she acted out of bad motives and did a (mostly) bad thing.

 * In addition, we may want to move this whole block of text into its own section, perhaps "The morality of Mother Teresa's actions".—Eloquence 00:02, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I propose to remove this paragraph from ==Criticism==:
 * Hitchens described Mother Teresa's organisation as a cult which promoted suffering and did not help those in need. Hitchens said that Teresa's own words on poverty proved that her intention was not to help people. He quoted Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

I want to remove this because the section is already far too long and this paragraph delves into the specifics of a critic who is already sufficiently covered in the previous paragraph. It breaks the rhythm of the section, being the only paragraph which does not outline a specific major criticism. silsor 05:28, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * If you remove it, please retain that quote in a different location. It is very fundamental to the criticism of Mother Teresa.—Eloquence 08:06, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
The Encyclopædia Britannica says that her father was a grocer, but this article says her father was a successful contractor. What gives? silsor 18:20, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * here is the edit that added the contractor bit. By Cimon avaro --snoyes 18:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I have stared at the diff, at several diffs at either sides of it, and I don't have the haziest of recollections of doing the edit, or comprehension of ever being in possession of facts that could lead me to make such edits. It is conceivable that this is an artefact of some stupendously weird edit conflict, or more probably my memory just is very poor. I certainly will be racking my brains over this. Good that it was taken note of. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:47, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * I know, the history of this article is pretty dense. For a while I thought I had tracked down this little gem:
 * For all Catholics the saving of souls is more important than any material consideration, and for a particularly zealous (and in some ways unsophisticated) Catholic like Mother Teresa, it seems to have been the overriding consideration.
 * to you, but it turns out you had just reverted to something older. I went back a few hundred more revisions but I still can't figure out how that crap got in there. silsor 00:05, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this appeared first in Adam Carr's rewrite of Oct 22: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Mother_Teresa&oldid=1606804 (this was first a separate article but later the histories were merged). --Wik 00:35, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I edited that crap out a while ago. Obviously it somehow got in again. It shows the scale of just how bad the article was that people were so busy correcting other things (or trying to) that something as ludicrous and POV as that crap as that wasn't spotted and binned on sight. But then I have lost sight of the number of factual corrections that were lost when edited text (edited over weeks) was replaced by pre-edited text recently. This may well be something that cropped back in when that was stage. FearÉIREANN 01:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. Actually, in your reverts you reinserted *anti-Teresa* POV stuff that was copied into the article from the talk page. You didn't read, you just assumed Alexandros did the right thing (which he did not). Furthermore, the paragraph in question was written by Adam Carr, I would never write something like that, but it should be noted that your analysis of Mother Teresa's motivations is no more or less biased than what he wrote.—Eloquence

Of course I inserted anti-MT stuff. And pro-MT stuff. And analytical stuff. And perspective. And context. Your contribution has largely been anti-MT stuff, snide anti-RC comments and supposed analytical stuff littered with loaded terminology, as the abortion pargraph epitomised. FearÉIREANN 01:33, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tone
The tone is a bit more sympathetic towards Theresa, even the criticisms seem a bit muted.

This is good in one sense, since we shouldn't be endorsing the point of view that Theresa is a fake saint, as some of her most hostile critics seem to regard her.

On the other hand, if she really did any of the following, I see no reason to pull any punches:
 * financial misdealing - if money is earmarked for schools or hospices but really spent on evangelism, this might be against the law - at least in SOME countries. I don't know the law in India.
 * medical malpractice - if all patients were dumped in a "ward for the dying", with no triage by a real doctor, this seems harsh at best. Too bad the article (a) mentions only one instance of this and (b) omits the name of the doctor making this claim.

As a religious man, of course I would like to read a lot more about Teresa's religious motivation and spiritual activities. Mostly, I'm disappointed with this article because it just gives a enough details about her early life to set up the meat of the article, which is an expose` of the (allegedly terrible) Missionaries of Charity.

My evaluation? A work in progress - not even 25% done. If it wouldn't make everyone scream, I would take the cutting shears to the article and eliminate everything that insufficiently fleshed out. As it stands, the article stinks. It's not up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd rather see a stub. --Uncle Ed 23:10, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * This is illogical. Articles should be expanded if they are incomplete, not cut. I for one feel that the article includes most of the thing one needs to know about MT.—Eloquence 23:14, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I guess you haven't written much software, Erik. Sometimes the fastest way to complete the project is to start over. More than once I've deleted the source code for an entire module, forcing the programmer to re-do the whole thing from memory (they never document anything, in their youthful confidenc ;-) -- and have consistently found that it takes less than 20% of the time spent so far, to reconstruct the lost work, with two to five times the quality. I bet it would work for English prose, too. Wanna try? --Uncle Ed 23:19, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't guess too much. The article has already been completely "refactored" by Adam Carr and edited many times over. Complete sections have been removed, restored, summarized. If you have any specific criticisms, make them. Better yet, add the material that you think is missing. I do know that I wouldn't want to work in your programming team.—Eloquence 23:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * If you don't like it you're welcome to improve it. No steps backwards, please. silsor 23:21, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yeah, yeah, I know. But the way things work around here, nothing short of the labors of Hercules could fix the MT article in a single edit. And doing it by the "death of a thousand cuts" method would be too much work, also. Not interested. JTD asked my opinion, I gave it; that's all. --Uncle Ed 23:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree completely with your point about most of the article being a setup to the Missionaries-of-Charity-bashing. silsor 23:36, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * It MIGHT be easier to make MT an article just about Teresa's life, and push nearly all the 'bashing' stuff to M of C. I'm more concerned with the process than the product, here, remember. This is not the kind of article where I can swoop in and make a few quick changes, then sit back in bask in everyone's admiration. There was a long and ugly edit war over this, and it's not going to end so cheaply. We have to find a way out of the situation, a road to the destination; it's less about product and more about process.

 * Material should only be moved to MoC if it relates primarily to that organization, and not to the way MT conducted its operations. And I object to the term "bashing", in quotation marks or without them. This is factual information about the person andd her work that has a definite and obvious place in this article. It is quite bizarre that over all the months this article has been edited, MT's defenders have spent most of their time trying to remove or hide facts, instead of adding meaningful information about her life. If there is so much material missing, shouldn't it be trivial to add it? Where is it? I'd really like to know.—Eloquence 23:55, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * Material should only be moved to MoC if it relates primarily to that organization, and not to the way MT conducted its operations. I was thinking about this article on the bus ride home and I also reached this conclusion. silsor 00:05, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * Was there a discussion on that already? silsor 23:49, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article is improving, but then it was so bad it could hardly disimprove. I think Silsor is doing a good job in editing and rewriting. It is a pity so many others who might have had a lot to contribute were frightened off by accusations that they were pushing Catholic agendas. But this article is still far from encyclopædic standard and rather one dimensional, with no analysis of the belief system of MT, of her spiritual vision, of the theological framework that shaped her activities, etc. Instead it plays heavily on too many one dimensional impressions of Catholicism that seem like a rambling pass level sociology exam answer rather than anything based on a comprehensive understanding of the topic, let alone anything purporting to be an NPOV-style encyclopædia article. It certainly cannot count as one of wikipedia's better efforts as writing an article. The fact that someone thinks it includes most of the things one needs to know about MT speaks volumes about the lack of knowledge possessed about the topic. It will take a lot of work and a lot of rewriting to bring it to pass standard, let alone honours. But Silsor has made a good start in rescuing it and I would certainly welcome Ed's ongoing observations on the rewriting of this article. FearÉIREANN 23:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JTD got it just right. I hesitate to help, not because I fear accusations of pushing an agenda -- that hasn't stopped me from writing on global warming etc. -- but because I'm daunted by the amount of WORK involved. It's hard enough writing a long article, when people are working together... --Uncle Ed 23:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, if you don't want to help, then I would suggest not to make sweeping generalizations. Specific criticisms are helpful, general "I don't like this" comments are not and will merely be instrumentalized by either side of the debate.—Eloquence

I think you mean, if I /DO/ WANT to help, then I should avoid general comments. If that's what you're saying, then, I'm sorry: I don't always have specific suggestions.

Thus I'm going to give another one of those "unhelpful" general criticisms and say:
 * Dividing into two "sides" is going to impede progress on this article
 * It would be better if both "sides" would agree to stop fighting and to work together to make a neutral article

--Uncle Ed 16:30, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If we wrote this article, the way I lead programming teams, then we would start by "doing the simplest thing that could possibly work". Begin with a stub which says something like:

 * Mother Theresa, the founder of the Missionaries of Charity, is beloved by millions of people worldwide for her devotion to the poor yet vilified by some as a charlatan.

That is just off the top of my head, of course. The next step is to ask the primary "disputants" if each agrees that this stub is (A) accurate and (B) fair.
 * 1) If they agree, then we move on to fleshing out the article.
 * 2) If they disagree, then we try for a more agreeable stub.

Process over product is the fastest way to get a product to market. This advice is coming to you from a man who has never missed a deadline. (That's why I get the big bucks ). --Uncle Ed 19:48, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * This is ridiculous. You assume that everyone agrees with you that the current article is not a proper basis to work on. I don't, and nor, I assume, does Silsor. Even Jtdirl pushed for using Adam Carr's version as the basis for further edits, and this is what we're using right now. I have always accommodated useful additions, I won't even stand in the way of a rambling section on philosophy or theology if some people want it. But the continuing attempts to butcher this article are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I think highly of you, Ed, but you've really lost your perspective here. —Eloquence 21:51, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think the article in its current form can be salvaged. Stubbing it would be the nuclear option if it was so ludicrously overblown and one sided, whether glorifying MT or demonising her. This article did border on that (actually it was so OTT it was hilarious even if it belonged in the page on bad jokes!) but was been pulled back. But the nuclear option should only be gone for if all efforts at turning it into a proper article fail. It really is up to Erik as to whether he continues to wage war on everyone to force his agenda. If he manages to restrain his POV (which he entitled to have) and apply elementary rules on NPOV and encyclopædic content to an NPOV encyclopædia article then we have a chance to make a good article out of a dog's dinner. FearÉIREANN 22:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * If you stop with the rhetoric and hyperbole, and start with pointing out what you perceive to be POV, then we can talk about ways to change it that will accommodate both sides.—Eloquence

People have been queuing for weeks to list problems. You turned a deaf ear every time. You know very well where the problems are. Everyone (now including Ed) keeps telling you. But then your response when the patiently obvious deficiencies in the abortion were pointed out didn't show much evidence of any awareness of POV in language, structure, layout and content. FearÉIREANN 23:20, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, I clearly explained why your interpretation was wrong.—Eloquence

No. As usual you expressed your POV and decreed that your POV is of course correct. No-one agreed with your analysis of the paragraph. FearÉIREANN 01:38, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I provided logical arguments, while all you do (and continue to do as below) is make assertions and hope that, given that majority opinion will always favor MT, your POV will prevail on those grounds alone. The intellectual level of discussion you have shown here in the last months is quite pathetic (hyperbole, appeals to authority, ad hominem ad infinitum, circular logic -- it's all there).—Eloquence 01:45, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Proposal to move some text to Missionaries of Charity
If anybody thinks that the current text of any of the "specific criticisms" except ===Criticism of her motivations=== belongs on Mother Teresa rather than Missionaries of Charity, please talk about it here. I may soon edit those sections to, for example, replace "Mother Teresa and her followers" with "the Missionaries of Charity" and "Robin Fox observed that Teresa's order" with "Robin Fox observed that the Missionaries of Charity" in preparation for this sort of transferal. silsor 00:14, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * The only thing I see that can be moved is the first 2/3 of "Diversion of donations"; a summary needs to be left in place. The part about missionary activity should not be moved because this directly relates to Teresa's calling (it's very short anyway). The Fox testimony cannot be moved because he visited the Home of Dying Destitutes in Calcutta, and Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for the conditions in the home. He referred to her several times and called it "Mother Teresa's approach" (which is why he received a lot of hatemail as a result). The "Secret baptisms" part should not be moved for obvious reasons - it describes actions taken and openly supported by MT.—Eloquence 01:29, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

I think what you suggest is quite correct, Silsor. Much of the text belongs elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 01:36, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I have fixed the section on Dr. Robin Fox according to Eloquence's new info. According to that info that much should stay in MT.  I still wish to move the first 2/3 of ===Diversion of donations===. silsor 01:48, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I can agree with that, as long as you leave a summary behind that notes that it was on MT's request that the order does not use funds to purchase medical equipment, and that the order does keep very few records of its operations. The details of the financial situation of the order are perhaps better placed in the MoC article, but there should be a prominent link in the summary paragraph ("see Missionaries of Charity for further details").—Eloquence 01:56, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not, MT either knew, or should have known what was going on in her order. She is personally responsible for many of the criticisms of the order, especially since it seems to have been such a cult of personality.Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair! 01:46, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Maybe true, but I feel that the text is far more relevant to an article on the Missionaries of Charity than it is to an article on Mother Teresa. I would go right ahead and start copying text into that article, but maintaining the same text in two places is not the Right Way. silsor 01:52, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * Duplicating text in two places is not the best idea. I think the text is far more relevant in MoC article. A short summary can be kept here, with a standard wikipedia link. FearÉIREANN 02:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You know, some day you will learn to write "I agree with what Eloquence said" ;-).—Eloquence

Actually, I have often said I agreed with you in various places. (Even praised you on occasion elsewhere.) On this page I even reverted to your version rather than Alex's. But in your above version, you proposed bolding a link in the text. That is not wikipedia policy. I suggested the 'standard wikipedia link', which is different. FearÉIREANN 02:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, it's in the MoS. See Manual of Style: "Sometimes it may be useful to have an explicit cross-reference in the text, for example, when a long section of text has been moved somewhere else. In these cases, please make the link bold so that its significance is easier to recognize."—Eloquence 02:25, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry I did not know of that recommendation. In that case I withdraw my objection. Once the link is neutral it will be OK with me. :-) FearÉIREANN 03:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I would prefer that s/he learn to indent ;) silsor 02:12, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately on a lot of pages I find the indent commands don't seem to work well and typing in the command would be a waste of time. So I simply stopping doing it. :-) FearÉIREANN 02:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Consensus is currently held up by User:Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!. S/he seems to be a puppet user created solely to dissent in this talk page. If s/he does not respond to my point about the text being more appropriate in the other article (though it would also be useful here) I will move it anyway. silsor 04:40, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. This user seems to be one of these mysterious creations who just appears, starts their 'contributions' with a talk page message (usually showing an incredible knowledge of debates and procedures of wikipedia given that they are supposedly a 'new' user) and then either disappears completely or makes a few edits over a short space of time to make themselves look 'real' and then disappears. Of course now that this has all been said, this 'user' will probably be recreated to make a few symbolic edits elsewhere to 'prove' they exist, but will not be heard off again within a week. Those users creating phoney identities like that should be banned. FearÉIREANN 06:17, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I added an NPOV dispute banner to this article. The article contains two guilt by association images which is over-the-top POV. Articles should not try to make a point via which images are included and the point, the POV, of this article is quite crisp: Mother Teresa hangs out with dictators and future felons. Occasionally, the Pope too, but mostly criminals. Daniel Quinlan 22:18, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * The images depict unusual historical events that have occurred and are both factual and neutral. What you read from them is your business. This is not a neutrality dispute, this is pointless whining. We are not implying anything by including these images. You have made quite clear that you condemn what you believe to be Wikipedia's practice of shoveling dirt on other persons. I'm sorry to break it to you, but Wikipedia's NPOV policy has nothing to do with not including negative information. It has to do with attributing this information in a way that Wikipedia does not make controversial claims itself (and the historical events in question are not even controversial, i.e. nobody denies they have happened). We do not have a "Let's be nice to the person we write about" policy, much as you would like to have it, and it is certainly not an element of NPOV. Your dispute header is therefore bogus, and I will remove it unless you can provide meaningful criticisms of this article.—Eloquence

 * The images depict unusual historical events in a way that is non-neutral and not at all dispassionate. I do condemn Wikipedia's practice of shoveling dirt because most dirt shoveled on Wikipedia is idiosyncratic, in the form of criticism rather than factual information ("so and so believes or says X or Y"), or both.  And while that is a general concern of mine and may be a problem here, it is not the immediate reason why I added the NPOV banner.  Your ad hominem argument and other hand-waving does not change the fact that the images chosen for this article are designed to present a certain POV.  Incidentally, it is the same POV you push.  It's the same guilt by association and POV image selection also seen at Donald Rumsfeld (which I just noticed was also added by you).  I personally don't revere Mother Teresa, but that does not change that images can be misused to make someone look bad or to make someone look good (not too common here, but Joseph Stalin is an example).  Anyway, I'm not asking for the article to be nice, just for it to not present a specific POV.  That fact that a Charles Keating image is included is ridiculous.  Nobody has ever alleged that she was involved in the S&L scandal, nor is she a supporter of Keating's, nor is the image particularly noteworthy in terms of her history, yet there it is.  By the same token, the dictator wife image is also a problem.  Daniel Quinlan 04:20, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Read the fucking article. She defended Keating in a letter to the DA, and the DA personally responded and asked MT to give back the stolen money that Keating donated to her. She complimented the Duvaliers when the world community was allied against them. It is absurd to even insinuate that this material does not belong in the article. The documentation of the facts concerning Teresa's life, in pictures or in words, is not "POV", but their removal clearly would be. Whether you deduce from these pictures that MT, or Don Rumsfeld, or anyone else, is guilty of anything is your own business and I don't give a shit if you do or don't. The facts will stay in this article, and in other articles I work on, whether you like them or not. You don't "dispute" anything. You don't have facts. You didn't even read the article you're commenting on. All you do is act on the basis of your gut feelings. Here's a clue: The image of Teresa posing with the Pope is far more meaningless and generic than the image of her posing with Miss Duvalier or with Charles Keating. Yet you don't, and would never, criticize such an image on NPOV grounds. Why? Because you are not interested in the truth, Daniel. You are only interested in hiding it, because it makes you uncomfortable, and like so many conservatives, you can only uphold your contradiction-riddled worldview through constant self-censorship. You can censor yourself, but you cannot hide the truth from others. We won't let you.—Eloquence 04:56, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is difficult to reply to such an abusive attack as yours, but I will try my best. First, to reply to your request that I "read the fucking article": The article says that Mother Teresa asked for leniency, which (in my estimation) is not an unusual position for a Catholic.  I can also see Mother Teresa's position as understandable that she did not give the money back if it had already been allocated to her causes, although I may disagree (actually, I'm not sure what I think about that).  I'm not sure what the law has to say about that particular money, but the DA did ask, not demand, according to the article.  My impression is also that she probably had to suck up to a lot of dictators to get access to help the poor of those countries.  I personally disagree with that policy and would rather not had her support the Duvaliers, support sending Keating to jail forever, but as those are my views, they don't belong in the article.  I'm not sure how you can claim the image of the Pope is meaningless.  Didn't she work with and interact with the Pope and the institutions of the Catholic church much more often than Charles Keating or the Duvaliers?  Second, I'm tired of people falling back on the "facts" to support their one-sided negative view of people.  I just saw that Bill Gates had a mugshot from the 1970s (1 of 2 images) of when he was arrested for speeding.  Very factual and equally POV as the above examples (note: it was not Eloquence's image).  And finally, the point of view that you have, that these past associations illustrate how she is a bad person, seems to be why you have included these images, so don't pretend you are interested in NPOV.  If you were interested in NPOV, you would not be trying to portray her as primarily in the company of thieves and dictators, more firmly link to actions for which she has been criticized.  Instead, you would aim for images that are representative of her life.  You even admitted the images were unusual.  Daniel Quinlan 05:28, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)  P.S. Please don't call me a conservative.

 * It's nice to know that you can come up with excuses for MT (regarding "sucking up to dictators", you should note that a large part of her order's activity, especially outside India, is not charitable at all but purely missionary activity). That does not justify the removal of these images, which you called for, in any away, however. Images of MT with the Pope are a dime a dozen. It is widely known and utterly uncontroversial that she was a staunch ally of the Pope. They are pure photo-ops that do not convey useful information and therefore, as images, they provide little more than "fluff" content. Images are particularly useful when they tell us something interesting. The image of the Home of the Dying gives a rather accurate portrayal of the real conditions in these homes, for example, and therefore is useful.

 * That has nothing at all to do with NPOV. Nor does NPOV say that facts or pictures about a person need to be "representative" for that person's life. I'm fairly sure that O.J. Simpson didn't kill more than two or three people, that doesn't mean that the murder trial or related material should not be part of the article. We have policies besides NPOV to avoid confusion, such as Establish context. In fact, the original image captions provided a lot more context to prevent people from drawing any wrong conclusions. Jtdirl reduced these captions to half-sentences, inconsistent with his own behavior elsewhere, arguing that they would "distract" from the image instead of letting it speak for itself. I tolerated this behavior in the interest of peace, hardly anticipating that it would provide the grounds for attempts to remove the images entirely.

 * NPOV does say something about balance and proportion, and it is true that the criticism section was intially out of proportion in relation to the rest of the article (I always acknowledged that). However, the solution to that was to expand the article accordingly, not to remove facts. I have always been willing to compromise on matters such as summarizing quotes or moving material elsewhere that might be considered off-topic. I have even sized the pictures down to avoid immediate offense. None of this was required by Wikipedia policy, but hey, I try to work with people as long as they are not trying to distort or censor facts. You say that I am not interested in NPOV. I confess: I regard it merely as a vehicle for truth, useful, but not as an end in itself. If I write an article about Mother Teresa outside Wikipedia, you can sure as hell bet that it won't be anywhere near NPOV. But I respect this principle, and the article in its present form is completely in compliance with it. To remove crucial elements of an article simply because you feel that they are not "representative" for that person's life is the exact opposite of NPOV. It is POV censorship.—Eloquence 06:22, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Of course the banner should be there. You were right to add it. It should never have been removed. FearÉIREANN 23:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The dispute header is not bogus. This article's neutrality is disputed by me, by Ed Poor, by Daniel, by Alexandros, by pfrotuny, by others in page after page of comments and by Silsor, who has spent his time doing excellent work removing its patent POV aspects. Any attempt to remove the dispute tag will be reverted every time. When are you going to listen, Erik? Are you so blinded by your own prejudices that you cannot grasp what people are queuing to tell you? In the vote, wikipedian after wikipedian told you there was a problem with your edits. Everyone since has told there is a problem. Everyone on the w-list said there was a problem? How many people have to tell you there is a problem before you listen? Have you some sort of of Christ-complex? Are we supposed to believe in your infallibility? I don't believe in the pope's and I sure as hell don't believe in yours! FearÉIREANN 03:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You keep telling me how you keep telling me how you keep telling me how this article is POV, without relevant or factual criticisms. Ed, a self-confessed admirer of MT, spent an entire section on this talk page saying how he didn't like it and would love to rewrite it on the basis of a stub, without saying anything about its content. You have just spent another long paragraph saying essentially nothing, as you have done countless times before. Don't you have any better things to do? Please stop wasting my time. If you have anything to say, factual, relevant, pertaining to this article, other than meaningless insults and rants, do so. Take your Alpha male crap elsewhere and bring me facts, then we can talk like adults.—Eloquence 04:56, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I shall wade randomly into the dispute. I think that everything in it is good. It does seem a little more tilted towards the negative, but I think the way to improve it is not to take out the criticism but to put in more positive stuff. All the criticism is well-phrased and relevant. Those who would like to see it say more nice things about MT should start writing! moink 05:32, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have so far forced myself to stay out of this controversy, being involved in enough other disputes as it is, but as I was asked to comment, I will say this: My personal view of MT is probably as critical as Eloquence's, and I think that his criticisms section, taken by itself, is sufficiently NPOV and relevant. However, the fact that it made up some 70% of the article made the article as a whole unbalanced so that it couldn't be seen as NPOV. And I think it is too easy to say "well, others are free to add the positive stuff". You can't just fill up an article with only praise or only criticism. Articles should be NPOV at any time and NPOV applies not just to all parts of the article but also to the balance of the whole article. For that reason, I think Jtdirl did the right thing originally when he moved the criticism to a separate article, linked to from the main article, and leaving only an adequately-sized summary of the criticism in the main article. This way all the information was still there, and there was no POV issue. It wasn't fair to suggest that Jtdirl wanted to hide or bury this information because of a pro-Catholic bias. The alternative to a separate article can only be a severe pruning of the criticism. The current version is already much better than it was originally, but the criticism still seems to be out of proportion, and a dispute header is justified. But in any case, both of you went over the line in terms of personal sniping and as someone who likes to think you are both very valuable contributors I still hope you can settle this in a more amicable manner if you remember to discuss strictly the issues and to avoid getting personal (and even if one side starts it is not necessary for the other to respond in kind). --Wik 05:53, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * I more or less agree, except that I don't think the separate article worked out as a superior solution to the NPOV problem. It primarily served to hide the POV and made the main article less balanced.  I should also note that there are alternatives to simply deleting criticism.  Rewriting, adding positive information, etc. are also helpful.  I am generally in favor of removing idiosyncractic criticism, though, as it is too easy to find someone who will criticize any major figure or institution.  I generally prefer when we write about things than about what people say (or what we think they believe) about things.  Daniel Quinlan 06:10, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks, guys for offering advice. It was much appreciated. Please contribute as much as you wish to this page. It needs a lot of work. FearÉIREANN 06:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Splitting away material from either side of the issue is as POV as it gets, and nobody supported Jtdirl when he tried to do that. Balance is not simple to define. What may be an unbalanced article for you is a balanced article for a Teresa critic. If you think that Teresa's primary accomplishments are the reduction of poverty and of the ailment of the poor, then you may want more information about that in the article. If you think, like I do, that she contributed to suffering on a global scale through her tireless anti-abortion and anti-contraception campaigning, through her missionary activity, through her Kevorkian style medical care, through her involvement in financial transactions of a highly dubious nature, then you don't particularly care to read more of the official story. I have detailed previously lots of criticisms that are still missing from this article. From this perspective, which I ask you to take for a second, it is absolutely unreasonable and POV to argue that criticisms should be removed. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the main article should only convey the "official story" and the real story should be discussed elsewhere to avoid offense to the reader. This is not NPOV, and I think that becomes quite clear if you see it from the point of view of the other side.

 * "Adding positive information" in general is not NPOV either. The information also needs to be true or attributed, and relevant. The same rigid criteria need to be applied to all positive things about MT as are applied to all negative things about her. But if there are important facts missing from this article, those who feel this way are free to add them. If you ask yourself, in all honesty, what NPOV means, if you substitute Mother Teresa with any other person, I think you will have to admit that this is the only approach that is applicable and universal. As a matter of fact, some people on the other side have argued that Mother Teresa is a "special case" because of her "aura of holiness" (I'm not making this up). This is of course nonsense. There can be compromises on details, and I have made many of them, but there can be no compromise on NPOV.—Eloquence 06:36, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive 4


text:
Air Namibia

Air Namibia (Pty) Limited, which traded as Air Namibia, was the national airline of Namibia, headquartered in the country's capital, Windhoek. It operated scheduled domestic, regional, and international passenger and cargo services, having its international hub in Windhoek Hosea Kutako International Airport and a domestic hub at the smaller Windhoek Eros Airport. , the carrier was wholly owned by the Namibian government. Air Namibia was a member of both the International Air Transport Association and the African Airlines Association.

Early years
The origins of the airline trace back to November 1946, when South West Air Transport (SWAT) was established. Using Ryan Navion aircraft, this carrier started operations in 1949 linking Windhoek with Grootfontein. Charter and cargo flights were also undertaken. In 1950, the company started feeder services for South African Airways. By 1958, a fleet of seven Ryan Navions and one de Havilland Dragon Rapide served a route network that included Grootfontein, Tsumeb, Otjiwarongo, Outjo, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and Windhoek. On 26 March 1959, SWAT merged with Oryx Aviation — a small passenger airline established three years earlier— to form South West Airways (Suidwes Lugdiens). IATA membership was gained later that year.

Two Cessna 205s were purchased, entering the fleet in December 1962 and eventually replacing the Navions. Namibair, set up as a charter airline in 1963, became a subsidiary company of Suidwes Lugdiens in 1966. In 1969, Safmarine acquired a 50% stake in Suidwes, eventually boosting its participation to 85%. At February 1970, the Suidwes fleet comprised four Piper Aztecs, one de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver, two Piper PA-28 Cherokees, one Cessna 182, one Cessna 205, one Cessna 206, one Cessna 402, three Douglas DC-3s and five Piper PA-30 Twin Comanches; at this time the carrier had 45 employees. A Fairchild-Hiller FH-227 was acquired in 1974, and a Convair 580 was later incorporated into the fleet to perform charter flights carrying miners to their jobs in Grootfontein and Tsumeb.

Suidwes merged into Namib Air on 1 December 1978. The South West African government became the major shareholder in 1982. Following the creation of the South West Africa National Transport Corporation in 1986, Namib Air took over all air transport operations in the country. The airline was designated as the country's flag carrier in 1987. That year, two 19-seater Beech 1900s were bought. In 1988, the company was incorporated into the Namibian state-owned holding company Transnamib. On 6 August 1989, a Boeing 737-200 leased from South African Airways that flew the Windhoek–Johannesburg route inaugurated the carrier's jet era. In 10 the same year, a third Beech 1900 was incorporated into the fleet.

Services to Lusaka and Luanda were launched in 1990 and 1991, respectively. Following the independence of the country, the company was re-christened again, adopting the current name of Air Namibia in October 1991. The early 1990s also saw the launch of long-haul services to Europe: the Windhoek–Frankfurt route started being flown in 1991 twice a week using a Boeing 747SP, and London was included into the route network in 1992, with a non-stop flight. In 1993, services to Frankfurt, which were served twice-weekly, were also extended to London. Air Namibia was re-absorbed into the Namibian government after an injection of US$3700000 1998 in 1998, following the precarious cash position it was led into by TransNamib. LTU, Germany's second largest airline at the time, entered into a codeshare agreement with Air Namibia in February 1998. Air Namibia acquired a new Boeing 747-400 Combi in April 1999 with financial aid from the U.S. Export Import Bank. Named Welwitschia, the aircraft was handed over by the manufacturer in 10 that year. The new machine came to replace the carrier's Boeing 747SP, and was retired in 2004. That year, the carrier started flying the McDonnell Douglas MD-11.

Developments since the 2000s
By April 2000, the airline's employees numbered 418. At this time, Air Namibia operated a Boeing 727-100, two Boeing 737-200 Advanced, one Boeing 747-400 Combi and three Raytheon Beech 1900Cs that served Cape Town, Frankfurt, Johannesburg, London, Luanda, Luderitz, Lusaka, Maun, Mokuti Lodge, Mpacha, Ondangwa, Oranjemund, Swakopmund, Victoria Falls, Walvis Bay and Windhoek. That year, the airline joined the African Airlines Association.

The first of three Embraer ERJ 135s the airline leased from Régional, intended to replace the Beechcraft 1900 fleet, was received in February 2011; likewise, the first of two leased Airbus A319-100s entered the fleet in 10 the same year. Intended as a replacement for the Boeing 737 fleet, the company ordered another two Airbus A319s in February 2012, in a deal worth US$90 million; in 7 the same year, the carrier signed an agreement for the lease of two Airbus A330-200s, aimed at replacing the Airbus A340-300s. Of the last two A319s ordered, the first one was incorporated into the fleet in early January 2013. In September 2013, Air Namibia took delivery of its first Airbus A330-200.

In April 2017, the airline was granted permission to fly to the United States by the US Department of Transportation. In March the airline completed a re-certification application by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (an audit process which was initiated in 2013), enabling the airline to fly to any EU member state.

Decline and shutdown
Air Namibia had been making losses since Namibian independence. In 2020, its assets stood at below 1 billion N$, while its liabilities amounted to 3 billion N$. Around 11 billion N$ had been provided by government over the previous 20 years. The airline was essentially "on death row".

On 8 July 2020 the Transportation Commission of Namibia suspended the carrier's Scheduled Air Services Licence, citing financial and safety concerns. In October 2020 the airline was given notice by Belgian lawyer Anicet Baum, of the company Challengair, claiming that Air Namibia was insolvent and unable to repay its debts to Challengeair (an amount of 18,s million Euro), which was settled to be repaid in instalments until September 2021.

On 11 February 2021, the Namibian government announced the immediate shutdown and liquidation of Air Namibia due to overwhelming debt and years of financial dependence from the state. At the time of closure, the airline operated nine aircraft and employed approximately 600 staff.

In late October 2021, a South African aviation company offered 3.2 billion Namibian dollars to purchase the airline.

Destinations
, the route network comprised 18 destinations and 19 airports in nine different countries in Africa and Europe, with seven of these destinations being domestic ones.

Codeshare agreements
Air Namibia codeshared with the following airlines, :
 * Condor
 * Ethiopian Airlines
 * Kenya Airways
 * Turkish Airlines

Final fleet
The Air Namibia fleet consisted of the following aircraft (as of August 2019):

Fleet development
In recent developments regarding the Embraer ERJ-135-fleet, Westair Aviation, a 100% Namibian-owned company, acquired the four aircraft from the previous owner, Air France. According to the new owners, Westair would've enabled the upgrade and renewal of the domestic and regional fleet. In August 2017 the airline confirmed that it was committed to purchasing 2 new Embraer ERJ-135 and 4 new Embraer ERJ-145 jets, for delivery 2018  However, none of those were ever delivered prior to the airline's demise.

Former fleet
The company previously operated the following aircraft:

 * Airbus A340-300
 * ATR 42
 * Beechcraft 1900D
 * Boeing 727
 * Boeing 737-200
 * Boeing 737-200C
 * Boeing 737-500
 * Boeing 737-800
 * Boeing 747SP
 * Boeing 747-400
 * Boeing 747-400 Combi
 * Boeing 767-300ER
 * Cessna 182
 * Cessna 210
 * Cessna 310
 * Cessna 402
 * Cessna 404
 * Cessna 414
 * Convair 580
 * Douglas C-47A
 * Douglas C-47B
 * Douglas C-54A
 * Douglas C-54B
 * DHC-8-300
 * Douglas DC-4
 * Douglas DC-6B
 * Fairchild Hiller FH-227
 * Fokker F-28-3000
 * Fokker F-28-4000
 * HS 748 Series 2A
 * Indonesian Aerospace CN-235
 * McDonnell Douglas MD-11
 * Piper PA-31 Navajo
 * Piper PA-34 Seneca

title: Air Namibia


text:
JavaCC

JavaCC (Java Compiler Compiler) is an open-source parser generator and lexical analyzer generator written in the Java programming language.

JavaCC is similar to yacc in that it generates a parser from a formal grammar written in EBNF notation. Unlike yacc, however, JavaCC generates top-down parsers. JavaCC can resolve choices based on the next k input tokens, and so can handle LL(k) grammars automatically; by use of "lookahead specifications", it can also resolve choices requiring unbounded look ahead. JavaCC also generates lexical analyzers in a fashion similar to lex. The tree builder that accompanies it, JJTree, constructs its trees from the bottom up.

JavaCC is licensed under a BSD license.

History
In 1996, Sun Microsystems released a parser generator called Jack. The developers responsible for Jack created their own company called Metamata and changed the Jack name to JavaCC. Metamata eventually became part of WebGain. After WebGain shut down its operations, JavaCC was moved to its current home.

Uses
Software built using JavaCC includes:

 * Apache Derby
 * BeanShell
 * FreeMarker
 * PMD
 * Vaadin
 * Apache Lucene
 * JavaParser

title: JavaCC


text:
Roth IRA

A Roth IRA is an individual retirement account (IRA) under United States law that is generally not taxed upon distribution, provided certain conditions are met. The principal difference between Roth IRAs and most other tax-advantaged retirement plans is that rather than granting a tax reduction for contributions to the retirement plan, qualified withdrawals from the Roth IRA plan are tax-free, and growth in the account is tax-free.

The Roth IRA was introduced as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and is named for Senator William Roth.

Overview
A Roth IRA can be an individual retirement account containing investments in securities, usually common stocks and bonds, often through mutual funds (although other investments, including derivatives, notes, certificates of deposit, and real estate are possible). A Roth IRA can also be an individual retirement annuity, which is an annuity contract or an endowment contract purchased from a life insurance company. As with all IRAs, the Internal Revenue Service mandates specific eligibility and filing status requirements. A Roth IRA's main advantages are its tax structure and the additional flexibility that this tax structure provides. Also, there are fewer restrictions on the investments that can be made in the plan than many other tax-advantaged plans, and this adds somewhat to their popularity, though the investment options available depend on the trustee (or the place where the plan is established).

The total contributions allowed per year to all IRAs is the lesser of one's taxable compensation (which is not the same as adjusted gross income) and the limit amounts as seen below (this total may be split up between any number of traditional and Roth IRAs. In the case of a married couple, each spouse may contribute the amount listed):

History
Originally called an "IRA Plus", the idea was proposed by Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon and Senator William Roth of Delaware in 1989. The Packwood–Roth plan would have allowed individuals to invest up to $2,000 in an account with no immediate tax deductions, and the earnings could later be withdrawn tax-free at retirement.

The Roth IRA was established by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) and named for Senator Roth, its chief legislative sponsor. In 2000, 46.3 million taxpayers held IRA accounts worth a total of $2.6 trillion in value according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Only a little over $77 billion of that amount was held in Roth IRAs. By 2007, the number of IRA owners had jumped to over 50 million taxpayers with $3.3 trillion invested.

In 1997, Roth wanted to restore the traditional IRA which had been repealed in 1986, and the upfront tax deduction that goes with it. Under congressional budget rules, which worked within a 10-year window, the revenue cost of giving that tax break to everyone was too high, so his staff limited deductible IRAs to people with very low income, and made Roth IRAs (initially with income limitations) available to others. This slid the revenue cost outside the 10-year window and got the legislation out from under the budget rules.

Economists have warned about exploding future revenue losses associated with Roth IRAs. With these accounts, the government is "bringing in more now, but giving up much more in the future," said economist and Forbes contributor Leonard Burman. In a study for The Tax Policy Center, Burman calculated that from 2014 to 2046, the Treasury would lose a total of $14 billion as a result of IRA-related provisions in the 2006 tax law. The losses stem from both Roth conversions and the ability to make nondeductible IRA contributions and then immediately convert them to Roths.

Differences from a traditional IRA
In contrast to a traditional IRA, contributions to a Roth IRA are not tax-deductible. Withdrawals are tax-free under certain conditions (for example, if the withdrawal is only on the principal portion of the account, or if the owner is at least 59½ years old). A Roth IRA has fewer withdrawal restrictions than traditional IRAs. Transactions inside a Roth IRA (including capital gains, dividends, and interest) do not incur a current tax liability.

Advantages

 * Direct contributions to a Roth IRA (principal) may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free at any time. Earnings may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free after 5 years if the condition of age 59½ (or other qualifying condition) is also met. Rollover, converted (before age 59½) contributions held in a Roth IRA may be withdrawn tax and penalty-free after 5 years. Distributions from a Roth IRA do not increase Adjusted Gross Income. This differs from a traditional IRA, where all withdrawals are taxed as ordinary income, and a penalty applies for withdrawals before age 59½. Even capital gains on stocks or other securities held in a regular taxable account, so long as they are held for at least a year, are generally treated more advantageously than traditional IRA withdrawals, being taxed not as Ordinary Income, but at the lower Long-Term Capital Gain rate. This potentially higher tax rate for withdrawals of capital gains from a traditional IRA is a quid pro quo for the deduction taken against ordinary income when putting money into the IRA.
 * Up to a lifetime maximum $10,000 in earnings, withdrawals are considered qualified (tax-free) if the money is used to acquire a principal residence for the Roth IRA owner. This principal residence must be acquired by the Roth IRA owner, their spouse, or their lineal ancestors and descendants. The owner or qualified relative who receives such a distribution must not have owned a home in the previous 24 months.
 * Contributions may be made to a Roth IRA even if the owner participates in a qualified retirement plan such as a 401(k). (Contributions may be made to a traditional IRA in this circumstance, but they may not be tax deductible.)
 * If the Roth IRA owner expects that the tax rate applicable to withdrawals from a traditional IRA in retirement will be higher than the tax rate applicable to the funds earned to make the Roth IRA contributions before retirement, then there may be a tax advantage to making contributions to a Roth IRA over a traditional IRA or similar vehicle while working. There is no current tax deduction, but money going into the Roth IRA is taxed at the taxpayer's current marginal tax rate, and will not be taxed at the expected higher future effective tax rate when it comes out of the Roth IRA. There is always risk, however, that retirement savings will be less than anticipated, which would produce a lower tax rate for distributions in retirement.
 * The Roth IRA does not require distributions based on age. All other tax-deferred retirement plans, including the related Roth 401(k), require withdrawals to begin by April 1 of the calendar year after the owner reaches the RMD (Required minimum distribution) age of 72 (prior to the year 2020, the RMD age was 70½). If the account holder does not need the money and wants to leave it to their heirs, a Roth can be an effective way to accumulate tax-free income. Beneficiaries who inherit Roth IRAs are subject to special minimum distribution rules.
 * Roth IRAs have a higher "effective" contribution limit than traditional IRAs, since the nominal contribution limit is the same for both traditional and Roth IRAs, but the post-tax contribution in a Roth IRA is equivalent to a larger pre-tax contribution in a traditional IRA that will be taxed upon withdrawal. For example, a contribution of the 2008 limit of $5,000 to a Roth IRA would have been equivalent to a traditional IRA contribution of $6667 (assuming a 25% tax rate at both contribution and withdrawal). In 2008, one could not contribute $6667 to a traditional IRA due to the contribution limit, so the post-tax Roth contribution may be larger.
 * On estates large enough to be subject to estate taxes, a Roth IRA can reduce estate taxes since tax dollars have already been subtracted. A traditional IRA is valued at the pre-tax level for estate tax purposes.
 * Most employer sponsored retirement plans tend to be pre-tax dollars and are similar, in that respect, to a traditional IRA, so if additional retirement savings are made beyond an employer-sponsored plan, a Roth IRA can diversify tax risk.
 * Unlike distributions from a regular IRA, qualified Roth distributions do not affect the calculation of taxable social security benefits.
 * Roth Conversions not only convert taxable IRA income to tax-free income, but if the IRA holds alternative assets such as REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), Leasing Programs, Oil and Gas Drilling Partnerships and Royalty Partnerships, a Fair Market Valuation (FMV) or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may provide reductions in the conversion income tax by up to 75%, possibly more, depending on assets and the Fair Market Valuation.
 * Roth Conversions using the FMV or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may reduce the estate tax attributed to IRA's on large estates by up to 75%, or more, depending on the assets held at the time of conversion.
 * Roth Conversions main benefit is in the conversion of taxable IRA income to tax-free Roth income, however Roth-Conversion income does not add to MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income) hence reducing the taxpayers Medicare Part B Premiums (another tax).
 * FMV or "Substantially Discounted Roth-Conversion" may allow the taxpayer to reduce RMDs by up to 75%.

Disadvantages

 * Funds that reside in a Roth IRA cannot be used as collateral for a loan per current IRS rules and therefore cannot be used for financial leveraging or as a cash management tool for investment purposes.
 * Contributions to a Roth IRA are not tax deductible. By contrast, contributions to a traditional IRA are tax deductible (within income limits). Therefore, someone who contributes to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth IRA gets an immediate tax savings equal to the amount of the contribution multiplied by their marginal tax rate while someone who contributes to a Roth IRA does not realize this immediate tax reduction. Also, by contrast, contributions to most employer sponsored retirement plans (such as a 401(k), 403(b), Simple IRA or SEP IRA) are tax deductible with no income limits because they reduce a taxpayer's adjusted gross income.
 * Eligibility to contribute to a Roth IRA phases out at certain income limits. By contrast, contributions to most tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plans have no income limit.
 * Contributions to a Roth IRA do not reduce a taxpayer's adjusted gross income (AGI). By contrast, contributions to a traditional IRA or most employer sponsored retirement plans reduce AGI. Reducing one's AGI has a benefit (besides reducing taxable income) if it puts the AGI below some threshold to make the taxpayer eligible for tax credits or deductions that would not be available at the higher AGI with a Roth IRA. The amount of credits and deductions may increase as the taxpayer slides down the phaseout scale. Examples include the child tax credit, the earned income credit, the student loan interest deduction.
 * A Roth IRA contribution is taxed at the taxpayer's current income tax rate, which is higher than the income tax rate during retirement for most people. This is because most people have a lower income, that falls in a lower tax bracket, during retirement than during their working years. (A lower tax rate can also occur if Congress lowers income tax rates before retirement.) By contrast, contributions to traditional IRAs or employer-sponsored tax-deductible retirement plans result in an immediate tax savings equal to the taxpayer's current marginal tax bracket multiplied by the amount of the contribution. The higher the taxpayer's current marginal tax rate, the higher the potential disadvantage. However, this issue is more complicated because withdrawals from traditional IRA or employer sponsored tax deductible retirement plans are fully taxable, up to 85% of Social Security income is taxable, personal residence mortgage interest deduction decreases as the mortgage is paid down, and there may be pension plan income, investment income and other factors.
 * A taxpayer who pays state income tax and who contributes to a Roth IRA (instead of a traditional IRA or a tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plan) will have to pay state income taxes on the amount contributed to the Roth IRA in the year the money is earned. However, if the taxpayer retires to a state with a lower income tax rate, or no income taxes, then the taxpayer will have given up the opportunity to avoid paying state income taxes altogether on the amount of the Roth IRA contribution by instead contributing to a traditional IRA or a tax deductible employer sponsored retirement plan, because when the contributions are withdrawn from the traditional IRA or tax deductible plan in retirement, the taxpayer will then be a resident of the low or no income tax state, and will have avoided paying the state income tax altogether as a result of moving to a different state before the income tax became due.
 * The perceived tax benefit may never be realized. That is, one might not live to retirement or much beyond, in which case the tax structure of a Roth only serves to reduce an estate that may not have been subject to tax. To fully realize the tax benefit, one must live until one's Roth IRA contributions have been withdrawn and exhausted. By contrast, with a traditional IRA, tax might never be collected at all, such as if one dies before retirement with an estate below the tax threshold, or retires with income below the tax threshold. (To benefit from this exemption, the beneficiary must be named in the appropriate IRA beneficiary form. A beneficiary inheriting the IRA solely through a will is not eligible for the estate tax exemption. Additionally, the beneficiary will be subject to income tax unless the inheritance is a Roth IRA.) Heirs will have to pay taxes on withdrawals from traditional IRA assets they inherit, and must continue to take mandatory distributions (although they will be based on their life expectancy). It is also possible that tax laws may change by the time one reaches retirement age.

Double taxation
Double taxation may still occur within these tax sheltered investment plans. For example, foreign dividends may be taxed at their point of origin, and the IRS does not recognize this tax as a creditable deduction. There is some controversy over whether this violates existing Joint Tax Treaties, such as the Convention Between Canada and the United States of America With Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital.

For Canadians with U.S. Roth IRAs: A 2008 rule provides that Roth IRAs (as defined in section 408A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) and similar plans are considered to be pensions. Accordingly, distributions from a Roth IRA (as well as other similar plans) to a resident of Canada will generally be exempt from Canadian tax to the extent that they would have been exempt from U.S. tax if paid to a resident of the U.S. Additionally, a resident of Canada may elect to defer any taxation in Canada with respect to income accrued in a Roth IRA but not distributed by the Roth IRA, until and to the extent that a distribution is made from the Roth IRA or any plan substituted therefor. The effect of these rules is that, in most cases, no portion of the Roth IRA will be subject to taxation in Canada.

However, where an individual makes a contribution to a Roth IRA while they are a resident of Canada (other than rollover contributions from another Roth IRA), the Roth IRA will lose its status as a "pension" for purposes of the Treaty with respect to the accretions from the time such contribution is made. Income accretions from such time will be subject to tax in Canada in the year of accrual. In effect, the Roth IRA will be bifurcated into a "frozen" pension that will continue to enjoy the benefit of the exemption for pensions and a non-pension (essentially a savings account) that will not.

Income limits
Congress has limited who can contribute to a Roth IRA based upon income. A taxpayer can contribute the maximum amount listed at the top of the page only if their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) is below a certain level (the bottom of the range shown below). Otherwise, a phase-out of allowed contributions runs proportionally throughout the MAGI ranges shown below. Once MAGI hits the top of the range, no contribution is allowed at all; however, a minimum of $200 may be contributed as long as MAGI is below the top of the range. Excess Roth IRA contributions may be recharacterized into Traditional IRA contributions as long as the combined contributions do not exceed that tax year's limit. The Roth IRA MAGI phase out ranges for 2021 are:
 * Single filers: Up to $125,000 (to qualify for a full contribution); $125,000–$140,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution)
 * Joint filers: Up to $198,000 (to qualify for a full contribution); $198,000–$208,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution)
 * Married filing separately (if the couple lived together for any part of the year): $0 (to qualify for a full contribution); $0–$10,000 (to be eligible for a partial contribution).

The lower number represents the point at which the taxpayer is no longer allowed to contribute the maximum yearly contribution. The upper number is the point as of which the taxpayer is no longer allowed to contribute at all. People who are married and living together, but who file separately, are only allowed to contribute a relatively small amount.

However, once a Roth IRA is established, the balance in the plan remains tax-sheltered, even if the taxpayer's income rises above the threshold. (The thresholds are just for annual eligibility to contribute, not for eligibility to maintain a Roth IRA.)

To be eligible, one must meet the earned income minimum requirement. In order to make a contribution, one must have taxable compensation (not taxable income from investments). If one makes only $2,000 in taxable compensation, one's maximum IRA contribution is $2,000.

If a taxpayer's income exceeds the income limits, they may still be able to effectively contribute by using a "backdoor" contribution process (see Traditional IRA conversion as a workaround to Roth IRA income limits below).

Contribution limits
Contributions to both a Roth IRA and a traditional IRA are limited to the total amount allowed for either of them. Generally, the contribution cannot exceed your earned income for the year in question. The one exception is for a "spousal IRA" where a contribution can be made for a spouse with little or no earned income provided the other spouse has sufficient earned income and the spouses file a joint tax return.

The Roth annual maximum input increased to $7,000 as of 2024, is a $1,000 increase from prior years and $500 increase from 2023. It is highly recommended that an investor to max-out the annual input amount for maximum return; however, penalties exist for going above the maximum allowable investment amount.

Conversion rules
The government allows people to convert Traditional IRA funds (and some other untaxed IRA funds) to Roth IRA funds by paying income tax on any account balance being converted that has not already been taxed (e.g., the Traditional IRA balance minus any non-deductible contributions).

Prior to 2010, two circumstances prohibited conversions: Modified Adjusted Gross Income exceeding $100,000 or the participant's tax filing status is Married Filing Separately. These limitations were removed as part of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.

Backdoor contributions
Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA. This allows for "backdoor" contributions where individuals are able to make Roth IRA contributions even if their income is above the limits.

One major caveat to the entire "backdoor" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the "backdoor" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. In effect, one cannot choose the tax character of the contribution, as it must reflect the existing proportion of tax character in traditional IRAs. For example, a traditional IRA contains $10,000 post-tax and $30,000 pre-tax funds, it has 75% pre-tax character. Converting $10,000 into a Roth would lead to 75% ($7,500) of the contribution being considered taxable. The pro-rata calculation is made based on all traditional IRA contributions across all the individual's traditional IRA accounts (even if they are in different institutions).

Backdoor Roth IRA contributions were explicitly allowed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Prior to that, there was concern that the process would violate the step transaction doctrine that one cannot combine individually legal steps to achieve an outcome that would be illegal if done in a single step.

Distributions
Returns of regular contributions from Roth IRA(s) are always withdrawn tax and penalty-free. Eligible (tax and penalty-free) distributions of earnings must fulfill two requirements. First, the seasoning period of five years since the opening of the Roth IRA account must have elapsed, and secondly a justification must exist such as retirement or disability. The simplest justification is reaching 59.5 years of age, at which point qualified withdrawals may be made in any amount on any schedule. Becoming disabled or being a "first time" home buyer can provide justification for limited qualified withdrawals. Finally, although one can take distributions from a Roth IRA under the substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP) rule without paying a 10% penalty, any interest earned in the IRA will be subject to tax —a substantial penalty which forfeits the primary tax benefits of the Roth IRA.

Inherited Roth IRAs
When a spouse inherits a Roth IRA:
 * the spouse can combine the Roth IRA with his or her own Roth IRA
 * the spouse can make contributions and otherwise control the account
 * required minimum distributions do not apply
 * income tax does not apply to distributions
 * estate tax (if any) does not apply at the time of transfer

When a non-spouse inherits a Roth IRA:
 * the non-spouse cannot combine the Roth IRA with his or her own
 * the non-spouse cannot make additional contributions
 * required minimum distributions apply
 * income tax does not apply to distributions, if the Roth IRA was established for at least five years before the distribution occurs.
 * estate tax (if any) applies

In addition, the beneficiary may elect to choose from one of two methods of distribution. The first option is to receive the entire distribution by December 31 of the fifth year following the year of the IRA owner's death. The second option is to receive portions of the IRA as distributions over the life of the beneficiary, terminating upon the death of the beneficiary and passing on to a secondary beneficiary. If the beneficiary of the Roth IRA is a trust, the trust must distribute the entire assets of the Roth IRA by December 31 of the fifth year following the year of the IRA owner's death, unless there is a "Look Through" clause, in which case the distributions of the Roth IRA are based on the Single Life Expectancy table over the life of the beneficiary, terminating upon the death of the beneficiary. Subtract one from the "Single Life Expectancy" for each successive year. The age of the beneficiary is determined on 12/31 of the first year after the year that the owner died.

title: Roth IRA