Wikipedia

Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 2

< Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ryn78 in topic "Media corrections" section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Leed too long

Latest comment: 10 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion

It's now 6 paragraphs. 4 is ideal. It should be trimmed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Go 4 it! jxm (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1 could probably even do it. I'm going to go for it, incorporating all of the rest of the information into the article. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit did not "trim the lead" - it removed the fact that children died of malnutrition rather than just infectious diseases, the mention of two boys finding skeletons, and inserted "Further writers pointed out that the number of deaths, spread out over decades in a hospital in a developing country, while unfortunate, was not unusual", without citation, which ignores completely that this wasn't a hospital. that deaths averaged one a fortnight, and that this is a far higher death rate than at many other such homes - this insertion of yours ironically actually replacing the section pointing out the "criticism of the criticism" and excising Corless' statement. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The recent reversion by Bastun seems problematic to me. Much of the detailed information now present in the lede is already elsewhere in the article (or should be). The purpose of this intro is to summarize all of the material, not to home in on the latest sensational reporting. While the hospital comment by Bastun might be appropriate, I believe that the overall reversion was not. I'd vote to trim it down to two paragraphs, in fact. jxm (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article summaries of sections below can be added without citations. If the material becomes controversial (which is appears to have become) citations should then be added. I thought, and still do, that for the lead it was worth abbreviating a long list of infectious diseases and malnutrition caused by infectious diseases (which are represented in greater detail in the body) as "infectious diseases". The Criticism of Corless' writing does need to be definitively mentioned in the lead. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Cosmiccoffee: I would support truncating the lead paragraph's list of causes. Thank you for trying to add some new sources to the article. I'll try to restore them after Bastun deleted them. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks mate, per WP:LEAD I think we're better off not listing every cause. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As Harizotoh9 said above, 4 is ideal. I have no problem with an editor saying they're going to trim the lead, and doing so, where the material they remove is also covered in the rest of the article. I do have a problem with an editor saying that they're going to trim the lead, when what they actually appear to be doing is minimising the bad press received by the Bon Secours order. No deaths from malnutrition (when they received a headage payment to cover food and medicine for every inmate), just "infectious diseases." An attempt to classify the home as a hospital (it wasn't). Removal of Corless' clarification. Yet the piece from the National Catholic Register gets retained? Come on... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The 1947 medical report (which the media keeps citing to justify the "malnutrition" claim) was written during an outbreak of diphtheria, which often causes malnutrition by making it difficult to eat. That's also the context for the medical term "marasmus" which the more honest media sources have been using. And yet you, and the more sensational media sources, keep implying that children were being denied food. This is badly misleading or maliciously libelous. Ryn78 (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not think I have written anywhere that children were being denied food? I have reported on what the sources say - without interpretation, assumption of various outbreaks having happened, without synthesis or OR - that children died of malnutrition:
Here, even right-wing Catholic, David Quinn says children died of malnutrition - though it was "only a handful": http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/18415-irish-government-finalizes-terms-of-inquiry-into-mother-baby-homes
I was under the impression that the media was using Corless' research on the death certificates as the basis for the claim that children died from malnutrition. I see no mention in the sources above mention diptheria. We do quote Boucher-Hayes in the article, stating that he never claimed that nuns had deliberately starved children to death. Personally, I would imagine that if a child dies from malnutrition due to diptheria, then "malnutrition due to diptheria" or "diptheria" gets entered on the death cert? I don't know that, though, so I won't speculate. As regards libel - well, the nuns have lawyers, I'm sure, and all of those websites have contact addresses... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The connection to diphtheria is the 1947 report (written during a diphtheria outbreak) that the media keeps citing to claim there were ghastly cases of children starving to death. The 1947 report actually mentions living children suffering from malnutrition, not children dying from it - two different things. And the medical dictionary entry I cited does in fact say (despite your claims to the contrary) that diphtheria can lead to malnutrition when it says a feeding tube may be necessary to provide food because diphtheria can make it difficult to swallow food. Take a look under the heading "Prevention of complications" on that page, which is where it mentions the use of a feeding tube. Here's the URL again: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/diphtheria
This isn't OR, because I'm citing a medical dictionary rather than my own experience or knowledge. Providing context in a limited fashion doesn't violate any Wikipedia rule as far as I know. We don't need to play dumb when the media is peddling stuff that defies the "smell test". A few small sourced clarifications should be fine, I would think. I remember a discussion about this some time ago.
Yes, we need to quote news sources, but we DON'T need to use only the ones that engage in this type of nonsense, especially when there are so many to choose from. Why not use the more moderate and restrained articles which cite their own sources and provide direct quotes?
Where does Corless ever mention malnutrition? Give me a quote from her.
There's also a larger issue. Our article currently uses sources written months ago, before any investigation was conducted. These are now badly out of date. As far as I know, the media has pretty much dropped its original claim about babies starving to death and being dumped in a mass grave. But this article still presents that as a dominant narrative. Despite months of investigation, no "mass grave" has been found on the site aside from the one previously excavated back in 2011 by archaeologists, and that one was determined to be 19th century famine victims who died before the Bons Secours home existed. That mass grave is the only possible corroboration of the bones described by two boys in 1979, so we either have a case in which the stuff the boys found must be the grave unearthed in 2011, or (alternately) there is no evidence that they ever existed aside from the claims made by two young boys. Either way, this article needs to reflect something other than allegations that were made months ago before any investigation was conducted. Or do you want to just freeze the article at that point?
I'm also going to restore the part you removed about the police statements, because they were evidently basing their verdict on the 2011 excavation (since they said any bones there belonged to famine victims, as the archaeologists determined). They were only forced to launch another investigation after being ordered by politicians who were trying to respond to the media circus on this issue. Ryn78 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, at least, for doing edits one-at-a-time rather than a single block edit. Now - can I ask you to actually read the sources?
  • Malnutrition: There are multiple sources citing malnutrition as a cause of death (I've listed some of them above, twice) - so stop removing references to malnutrition.
  • Diphtheria: The page you list does not mention malnutrition. It does indeed mention use of feeding tubes. It is unclear to me how, if feeding tubes were required to treat children who had difficulty in swallowing, they weren't provided. But I'm not going to speculate. You, however, seem to insisting that all of the children who died from malnutrition actually died from diphtheria - which is a leap neither you nor can I make. So we report what the sources say. Deaths due to malnutrition.
  • The 1947 report: Thanks for bringing that up - it's been a while since I read the linked source in detail. It doesn't mention diphtheria. At all. The only mentions of diphtheria in the entire article are your own insertions, and that one mention of an inspector visiting "during a diphtheria outbreak" - which has no reference. The cited article is very clear on the numbers of deaths in earlier years, though, which will be a useful expansion.
  • Corless: Not sure of the relevance of her needing to have mentioned malnutrition.
  • "Larger issue": There has not been "months of investigation". Politicians are still arguing about the terms of reference. I'm not going to speculate on what the outcome of the investigation will be, or of the inquests that have been called for, if they ever happen. But as when they report, we can add the findings here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
[Edit to add] Regarding the mass grave discovered by the two boys. You seem to be permitting only two possibilities: a famine grave (under a concrete slab?!); or that the boys were lying and the priest and locals didn't think to check before blessing the site and re-sealing it. There is a third possibility - that there are approximately 800 bodies buried in or around the site of the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home. Unfortunately http://izzykamikaze.tumblr.com/post/89770303451/vaults-under-tuambabies-site-are-part-of-sewage-system is "only" a blog, and therefore not a reliable source for WP, but doubtless the information and research contained therein will also be available to the investigation, as and when it commences. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you really going to claim that feeding tubes aren't designed to counter malnutrition? (good grief, Bastun....) What do you think feeding tubes are for? The dictionary entry doesn't need to use the exact word "malnutrition" to make the point abundantly clear. You also implied that feeding tubes would have been provided to any diphtheria victims at the Bon Secours home, although the practice of putting tubes directly into the stomach is a modern treatment that wouldn't have been available at an orphanage 70 years ago. Which means that many of the children would have become malnourished. This is common sense.
And again, the 1947 report didn't say they "died" of malnutrition, since it describes living children with that condition. The media sources claiming "deaths from malnutrition" often use the term "marasmus", which is the term actually used in the medical reports they are citing. Marasmus generally refers to disease-induced malnutrition, since many diseases lead to that condition due to diarrhea, vomiting, etc. You want to use only the news articles that have been spinning that term by just interpreting it as "malnutrition" as if to imply that it wasn't from disease. That's a dishonest spin on the term, which is why I'm going to insist that we use the media sources which use "marasmus" instead of "malnutrition", and change the article accordingly.
Another important issue : the 1947 report doesn't blame the nuns for the high death rate; and even your version of the article admits that the high death rate was clustered mainly in just the years 1943-1946, which is part of the context for the 1947 report; but only a few years later in 1949 a new inspection found : “everything in the home in good order" and "congratulated the Bon Secour sisters on the excellent condition of their Institution.” It should be added that the peak mortality at the Tuam home coincides closely with the peak years in the rest of Ireland, as you can see at the following (which also explains why the "higher rate" at the Tuam home is misleading): http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/227620-statistical-biological-other-reasons-why-tuam-home-mortality-rate-misleadingly-high.html

And yet, you inserted text using the years from 1943-1946 to prove that the Tuam home supposedly had an extraordinarily high death rate, and right now the article uses mostly media sources which refuse to admit the above crucial contexts.

So where is the justification for the media's claim that these deaths were a "scandal" in which the nuns were to blame, which is of course the entire basis for the "scandal" coverage in the first place (otherwise, this would just be a historical case of then-common childhood diseases). There are numerous other, much better, articles on this subject available for us to use. I'm going to start gathering several of the more substantive and honest media sources and place them in the article to replace the problematic sources, but I suspect you're just going to revert these automatically.
You claimed the 1947 report doesn't mention a diphtheria outbreak, apparently because that's left out in the brief excerpts from that report mentioned in your preferred media sources? I'll have to look up that information, since I don't have a URL for it offhand.
You gave the view that a quote from Corless isn't necessary for the malnutrition claim, but right now the article includes malnutrition among a list of causes given (allegedly) by Corless. We either need to change the wording of this sentence or find an actual quote from Corless mentioning malnutrition as one of the causes.
You claimed that a mass grave for famine victims couldn't have been under a concrete slab, referring to the structure which Corless thinks is a "septic tank"; but historians such as Finbar McCormick have said that this structure in fact looks exactly like a common type of 19th century burial vault that was often used for famine victims. So yes, it's eminently likely that it was in fact a burial vault for famine victims.
Until a thorough investigation is conducted, all we've got is media speculation, much of which has been debunked already. Since when is a Wikipedia article supposed to report speculation? It doesn't make any difference whether normally "reliable sources" are doing the speculating, since we have the right to decide which sources to use and which ones to leave out. That's not "OR", it's just the normal editing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryn78 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

1) "Are you really going to claim that feeding tubes aren't designed to counter malnutrition? (good grief, Bastun....) What do you think feeding tubes are for?" I think feeding tubes are for feeding people who can't eat. What else would they be for? I didn't make any claim about them. I wondered why they (presumably) weren't used for feeding children that you speculated couldn't eat because of diphtheria. The inventor of feeding tubes died in 1940, so your speculation that this is a modern treatment would seem... odd.

2) "your version of the article" - I don't have a "version of the article". I included a quote from a source which outlined the number of deaths in some years.

3) "You claimed the 1947 report doesn't mention a diphtheria outbreak" - I've seen nothing, anywhere, to indicate a diphtheria outbreak. Though the claim that there was such an outbreak somehow made it into the article. Find a reference for one and it can certainly be included. The only mention of diphtheria in the "Report of the Inter-Departmental Group on Mother and Baby Homes" (DCYA, July 2014, http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/20140716InterdepartReportMothBabyHomes.pdf) is in relation to medical experiments (vaccine trials) carried out on children in Mother and Baby Homes, without consent. That report, incidentally, does not mention deaths from "marasmus". It - like all the other sources previously listed - does state that children died from "malnutrition".

4) "You gave the view that a quote from Corless isn't necessary for the malnutrition claim, but right now the article includes malnutrition among a list of causes given (allegedly) by Corless. We either need to change the wording of this sentence or find an actual quote from Corless mentioning malnutrition as one of the causes." What? Corless listed the causes of the deaths. To quote the article: "In 2012, local historian Catherine Corless published an article documenting the deaths of 796 babies and toddlers at the Home during its years of operation, from causes such as tuberculosis, convulsions, measles, whooping cough, influenza and malnutrition." Three references are listed to support that. The causes of death are listed on the death certs Corless obtained. (Not "allegedly"). The Dept. of Children and Youth Affairs report lists "malnutrition" as a cause of death. Not marasmus. Therefore, for the last time, I am asking you to stop replacing "malnutrition" in the article with "marasmus". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1) You're saying that nuns without any medical training would be able to insert feeding tubes into the stomach? I think that's a bit unlikely. As you yourself are fond of pointing out, this was an orphanage rather than a hospital. But, my purpose on that topic was to point out the likelihood that any "malnutrition" was due to disease. And yet some media sources have claimed "Nuns starved 800 children to death", which I think even you admit is false. How do you justify using sources like this rather than the more honest ones? Which Wikipedia rule requires us to only use media sources which are grossly sensationalistic or cretinously stupid? I must have missed that rule.
2) The statistics you inserted are from years in which the death rate in Ireland as a whole was greatly elevated, and also the number of children at the Tuam Home was greater than usual. If there were more children in residence and rampant epidemics in the surrounding community, the mortality rate is inevitably going to be higher. That doesn't prove the allegations being made against the Tuam Home. So why are those numbers being offered as proof?
3) & 4) My point about the term "marasmus" is that this was the term used in the original reports, regardless of what term is being used in some of the modern reports and news articles. Is there any reason we shouldn't use media articles which accurately quote the original language?
It doesn't make any difference whether the source I added for "marasmus" also uses "malnutrition", because "marasmus" was the original term used and therefore is more accurate. The only reason to use a more generalized, ambiguous term is to imply something that isn't justified by the medical term that was actually used in the original reports.
But here's the bottom line: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be more balanced and cautious than the sensational media. Right now, the media frenzy is based loosely on Corless' speculation (which has been challenged by other historians such as Finbar McCormick and probably cast into doubt by the 2011 archaeological excavation) combined with the idea that the death rate at the Tuam Home was higher than average for orphanages. Did you read the following post which debunks the idea that the mortality rate was higher? http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/227620-statistical-biological-other-reasons-why-tuam-home-mortality-rate-misleadingly-high.html
Granted, we can't use that as a source since it's a forum post; but we can certainly use it as a guide for deciding which news articles we choose to include. I think it makes a convincing case that the media's claims about this are complete hogwash.
Would it bother you too terribly much to limit our sources to those which stick to the proven facts, without any shrill stuff about nuns starving children to death, or dubious math, or manipulated statistics, or dodgy translations of medical terminology? Thus far, your typical response to this issue is to say "the sources say all this stuff", but that depends on which sources you use. Ryn78 (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
1) You're saying that nuns without any medical training would be able to insert feeding tubes into the stomach? Once again, Ryn, no - I am not saying anything that I didn't write above. Please stop attributng things to me that I have not said. But if there was a diphtheria outbreak, as you claim, and if some of those sick with it couldn't eat, then I would imagine that either a) some of the "Bon Secours Sisters - a Roman Catholic religious congregation for nursing" might, possibly have some medical training - and might, possibly, administer a feeding tube; or b) they could call a doctor to do it.
2) This is an encyclopedia. It presents facts. The death rates during those years is available, and will be of interest to readers. That the death rate in some homes, including Tuam (though it's far from the worst) are elevated, compared to death rate of children in the general populace. As was written as far as back as 1939, "I have grave doubts of the wisdom of continuing to urge Boards of Health and Public Assistance to send patients to the special homes so long as no attempt is made to explore the causes of the abnormally high death rate."
3) The sources, including government reports, overwhelmingly use the term "malnutrition". If government reports are using the term, exclusively, that's good enough for me. "Tuam marasmus" - 6,160 results. "Tuam malnutrition" - 69,100 results. Over ten times as many. Include marasmus in brackets after one of the mentions of malnutrition, by all means, but don't remove or replace what is an accurate, easily understood term.
"Bottom line" - I don't understand how the possible existence of a famine mass grave on or near the Tuam site detracts from the fact that there are no burial records for the 796 children who died in the home. As and when the investigations and/or inquests report, we can include what they say. In the meantime, we can report on what relevant media sources have already reported. The anonymous politics.ie post is interesting. It begs the question - how could a relatively rural mother and baby home, in receipt of payments from the local authority per inmate, and under the care of nursing sisters, have a death rate higher than urban tenements. Maybe the investigation will answer that. "we can certainly use it as a guide for deciding which news articles we choose to include." An anonymous post to a forum? A guideline for what can and can't be included in a WP article? I don't follow that logic. We have included sources such as government reports, inspections, mainstream "respectable" media reports (which include opinion and research pieces defending the nuns) as well as articles from the "National Catholic Register" - that would appear to be balanced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
i think Ryn78 was simply suggesting that some of the additional sources used in politics.ie might be helpful to us here, for setting context, etc. jxm (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Bastun: First off, thank you for attempting a compromise, although identifying marasmus as a "form of malnutrition" doesn't clarify what that "form" is. Why not just briefly explain that it's usually disease-induced malnutrition? That requires only the addition of a few extra words.
1) The impression I get from the medical inspections is that the Tuam Home didn't have consistent access to doctors, for whatever reason. In some cases the inspectors had to teach the nuns procedures for dealing with epidemics, after which the mortality rate dropped enormously. I don't think they would teach the nuns if the nuns could call a doctor whenever needed.
2) It was higher than the general population because all orphanages (or other institutions with large numbers of children crowded together) always had a higher mortality rate than the general population, because disease spreads faster when there are large numbers of children crowded together. Throw in the fact that a handful of nuns had to care for large numbers of children, and it shouldn't be surprising that there were problems.
3) By "government reports" you apparently mean the recent ones? I was referring to the inspections conducted at the time. Unless I'm mistaken, those tend to use the term "marasmus". But either way, none of the original medical reports conducted at the time make any allegations that malnutrition was caused by any wrongdoing on the part of the nuns. That alone indicates that we are in fact dealing with disease-induced malnutrition. But that's clearly not how people are interpreting it whenever the term "malnutrition" is used without explanation. Take a look at all these public statements, media articles, blogs, forum posts, etc, claiming the nuns were deliberately starving children to death. Clarifying this crucial context is the responsible thing to do. You claimed the term "malnutrition" is "an accurate, easily understood term", but in this case it's clearly being misunderstood.
As for the lack of burial records: Corless has said she couldn't find any, which doesn't automatically mean that none exist or ever existed. Records are often lost due to fires or other disasters, and it's possible that Corless didn't do her research thoroughly enough to determine the matter. Jumping to the conclusion that the current lack or gap in our knowledge means that nuns must have dumped the bodies in a septic tank is a variation of a classic fallacy in which an hypothesis is based on a gap in our knowledge rather than actual supporting evidence to prove the hypothesis. Sure it's possible, but so are any number of other possibilities. One of the things which bothers me about much of the media coverage, and Corless' own statements, is the utter refusal to even consider other possibilities. Whenever there isn't direct evidence to support an hypothesis, you're supposed to abide by the principle known as "Occam's Razor", which says that the most plausible conclusion is usually the one which requires the fewest unproven assumptions and which is statistically more likely. Which of the following two scenarios would be more likely: A) the bones of famine victims unearthed by archaeologists in 2011 are probably the same ones found by the two boys in 1975, and children from the Bon Secours home were probably buried somewhere else, regardless of whether Corless managed to hunt down the records or not. These children probably died of disease rather than deliberate murder or neglect; or B) sadistic nuns starved children to death by neglect or direct homicidal intention, and then added insult to injury by dumping their bodies in a sewage tank.
Far too many media sources have jumped to B as the only conclusion, almost entirely ignoring A even though A involves circumstances which are far more commonplace. If every historical event were to be analyzed the way the media is covering this one, we'd have to rewrite all the history textbooks. It simply isn't done the way Corless and the media are trying to do things, and that's a huge problem.
So at what point do we just shut off our brains and go along with stuff that defies common sense as well as violating basic methodology? I thought there was widespread agreement among Wikipedians that certain basic principles shouldn't be ignored even if "reliable sources" get those principles wrong.
Again, I'm not saying we should use OR to write things ourselves, but we can certainly choose sources which abide by basic common sense. Right? Ryn78 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Jxm: I was suggesting that the statistical analysis in that forum post places many things in proper perspective. If some of the media sources are fudging the numbers, that raises questions. There are reliable sources which don't fall into the same problem or at least use more caution in how they interpret the death rate at the Tuam Home, and I'm merely arguing that we should primarily use the latter sources rather than the former. Sure, we need to include some of both to provide balance, but right now the article is taking its main narrative primarily from the bad ones, it seems to me. Ryn78 (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Extra words removed. You are now attempting to characterise all of the deaths that were due to malnutrition as due to marasmus caused by "disease" (no longer "diphtheria", as we seem to have lost that claim) - this is not supported by the sources and would appear to be contradicted by the 1947 report.
1) You are speculating about what the "nursing sisters" had or hadn't access to, and what nursing training they did or didn't have. Let's just not. The sources say they had a doctor, and they certainly had the funding for more.
2) Unsourced, and surprising to me that a semi-rural mother and baby home in the care of nursing sisters and in receipt of a headage payment per inmate would have a higher mortality rate than an unsanitary Dublin or Limerick tenement, where overcrowding was rampant. "Handful of nuns" - you have a source for how many there were? Or you're speculating again? I would again request that you actually read some of the sources. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/children-at-tuam-home-were-emaciated-and-starved-30337248.html - they had access to a doctor (why they used one 80-year-old doctor is an interesting question, seeing as at £/head they could certainly afford more and better care.)
3) If government reports and reputable media use the term "malnutrition" and don't feel the need to qualify it to mean "When we say malnutrition, we really only mean marasmus caused by disease" then neither should we.
No, you pretty much do seem to be saying to engage in OR and synthesis, and that we should selectively choose the sources that absolve the nuns of all blame, because reasons. That's why we have the Maurice Gueret quotes in there, even though they make no sense (as although "children were dying all over Ireland from infectious diseases" we know that they were far more likely to die in particular institutions, including Tuam). You're pointing to a post on an anonymous forum where someone is comparing apples to oranges (death rate in Tuam to national Infant Mortality Rate) where the author even says s/he's estimating the number of children in the home and saying that their own comparison is flawed - and you're holding that up as an example of good sourcing.
The allegation (from whom?) that the nuns starved 800 children to death is patent nonsense. But the only mention that there of that in the article is Boucher-Hayes saying just that, so I'll not waste time on that straw-man. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Bastun: In what way does the 1947 report contradict how I'm explaining the word "marasmus"? And I have no idea how you can make a statement like 'You are now attempting to characterise all of the deaths that were due to malnutrition as due to marasmus caused by "disease" (no longer "diphtheria", as we seem to have lost that claim)'.
Are you even reading anything I write? For the umpteenth time: "marasmus" (the term actually used in many of the direct investigations at the time) is defined in medical dictionaries as generally the result of disease. I pointed out that diphtheria is one of many diseases that can cause this condition, not the only one. I haven't "dropped" any arguments about diphtheria, which was only connected with the 1947 report, not "all" of the reports mentioning marasmus / malnutrition. I've explained all of this ad infinitum, but I get the impression you aren't reading it.
You removed my attempt to clarify "marasmus" in the article, but you didn't explain why. Your own edit described it as a "form of malnutrition", although the issue actually concerns the cause, not the form. So why not just clarify this by stating what medical dictionaries say: that it's "generally malnutrition caused by disease"? If we need to add a reference to avoid OR, I can just add a reference to a medical dictionary. Can you present any reason not to do this? Right now, the description isn't really true.
To your points #1 & 2: By "doctor" I assume you mean "medical officer", because that's the term that I've seen in the actual reports. So what exactly is a "medical officer" in the context of an orphanage run by nuns? Is it a trained doctor, or a nun doing the best she can without much training? Unless you know for a fact that this type of position was filled by a doctor, don't accuse me of "speculating".
That Irish Independent article you cited makes the claim that children were being "abused" by nuns via starvation - exactly the type of claim which you said (below point #3) that you view as "patent nonsense". So if the Irish Independent article is spouting patent nonsense on the big points, why do you expect me to view it as a reasonable source for anything else?
To your point #3 and the paragraphs below it: Despite your claims to the contrary, there are numerous media sources which make allegations of nuns starving children to death or close variations on that theme, including the following Journal.ie article which claims the Tuam Home and other Catholic institutions "starved infants" (it doesn't merely say the "infants starved" but that someone "starved infants"): http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/mass-grave-galway-tuam-1494001-May2014/
And of course a very similar claim is made in the Irish Independent article (mentioned above) which you yourself cited as a source, and the many sources you've inserted which use the "malnutrition" claim to imply something very similar - i.e. if the children died of "malnutrition" and if the malnutrition wasn't caused by disease (as I think it was but you clearly don't) then you must think it was caused by human action. That's the definition of deliberate starvation induced by the people running the orphanage... and yet now you claim you view that allegation as "patent nonsense"? How in the world do you argue both positions simultaneously, since you've been relentlessly preventing me from adding the explanation that it was caused by disease? But if you've truly now decided that the allegation is patent nonsense, then can we finally agree to explain that it was disease causing the malnutrition ? That's the only point I've been trying to make by explaining what "marasmus" usually means, but you accused me - in your point #3 itself (!) - of trying to "absolve the nuns of all blame". So which is it : are the nuns to blame for any deaths from malnutrition, or is it patent nonsense to blame them? It can't be both at the same time.
You completely deleted CosmicCoffee's recent edit, throwing out a number of valid new sources rather than just removing the few errors his / her edit contained. That has become your standard operating procedure, as if you're trying to assert ownership of the article by chopping out almost every single word added by anyone else. That's unacceptable. I'm going to restore the valid sections of that edit. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. Same question to you, re the 1947 report and mentions of it in the sources, where children are described as emaciated, and with no mention of disease, and where the availability of a doctor is mentioned.

The medical dictionary you're referring to doesn't say that marasmus is "generally caused by disease", it says "frequently associated with infections", which is very different. I'm not comfortable with using your interpretation of a medical dictionary definition that does not appear to support what you're saying. So let's either use a compromise form of words like " marasmus-related malnutrition" and let the reader look up 'marasmus' if they wish, or just use "malnutrition", which is what the majority of the sources use.

As has been pointed out on several occasions now, the 1947 report says that they had a doctor. Not a "medical officer." So yes, you are speculating – e.g., recently, that they had no access to a doctor, that the nuns had no medical training (despite being a nursing order), that the practice of using feeding tubes was unknown at the time, etc.

To clarify, the allegation that the nuns starved 800 children to death and dumped their bodies in a septic tank is, I believe, patent nonsense. Personally, I believe the nuns probably were guilty of neglect, failing to care properly for "illegitimate" children that they would have viewed as the result of sin. The sources would certainly seem to bear that out and it would be in keeping with many, many other reports and accounts of Catholic (and other) institutions of the time. Describing somebody as starved or starving does not necessarily imply deliberate starvation, though it certainly can imply neglect.

CosmicCoffee's recent edit, as you agree, did contain errors. Those aside, the title of this section of the talk page is "Lead too long". CosmicCoffee agreed with this and even proposed shortening it, but now is re-adding material that's already covered in proper depth in the main body. I do not believe it is necessary to go into further speculation in the lead about whether or not the bones found were or were not from the Famine, or the institution, as we already say "Some local people speculated it was a grave for Great Famine victims or unbaptised babies." as I do not think it adds anything.

However, the final two sentences are very problematic as they are presented as facts, which is very much not the case. "Further writers pointed out that the number of deaths, spread out over decades in an orphanage in a developing country, while unfortunate, was not unusual." One writer says this. His opinion is contradicted by other sources, who point out that the death rate in Tuam was extraordinarily high compared to others. We have covered this previously. "The story has been described by some commentators as "a hoax" and an example of anti-Catholic bias." Three commentators, one of whom is being used no less than ten times in the article. Another, from the National Catholic Register, used 5 times. This assertion is covered in more depth in the article body - in an NPOV manner, where alternate viewpoints are also presented. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I cant find you more sources, if thats the sticking point. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Cosmiccoffee, the "sticking points" are that the lead is too long, and that what you've added is covered in more depth and in a NPOV manner further in, whereas your addition is one-sided, that the death rate in Tuam, despite what your reference says, was extraordinarily high compared to others, that there's no source or evidence for a diphtheria epidemic, and that you keep re-adding this material without addressing these points. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I tried to cut things down 12 days ago but you reverted me. Our sources (the ones cited elsewhere in the article, the ones that I suspect that you have read) say that the death rate was not unusual, given the circumstances. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
And those sources are contradicted by others, which you keep ignoring. You can't "shorten the lead", as you claim in your edit summary by taking out something you don't like, while actually lengthening the lead by inserting a one-sided and unbalanced statement... Please revert that addition. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I could level the same charge at you, but I'm trying to keep things civil. Which sources are contradicted by which sources? I tried to shorten the lead but then you reverted that too, so... Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Bastun: You said the medical dictionary describes "infections" rather than "disease", but it also says (farther down in paragraph 5) that the condition frequently occurs in "children with chronic disease". In any event, I suppose "marasmus-related malnutrition" would be an acceptable compromise if that's the best you'll allow.
You're assuming the nuns neglected these children (based on what direct evidence?) because they were born out of wedlock, but Catholic doctrine doesn't blame the child in these cases (the mother and father yes, not the child). The only excuse the media has come up with to allege wrongdoing by the nuns is the idea that the children were being starved, and the idea that the mortality rate was astronomically elevated. I think both of those ideas have been debunked, for all the reasons I've given in so many previous notes. Even if both were true, the media still hasn't presented any actual evidence of wrongdoing, and the inspection reports never blame the nuns (in fact some of them praise the nuns for running the orphanage well). So it seems to me that you're just speculating on this point, and so are the media sources which imply or state wrongdoing. Ryn78 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the nuns neglected these children. That's based on countless media reports, documentaries, court cases and public inquiries resulting in government reports over the last couple of decades, that culminated in the Taoiseach describing the treatment of mothers and children in these homes as "an abomination" (and saw him receive no criticism for doing so!), and that led the bishops to apologise. Maybe this doesn't make the newspapers in America.
Or maybe you can speculate that they're "probably" making it all up... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
If the nuns were to blame, then why do the medical inspection reports - even those cited by the sources you keep quoting - never blame the nuns? Some of them actually praise the nuns for doing a good job. I've already mentioned specific examples. As for the statements from bishops : that sounds like the classic response from people in leadership positions whenever the media is breathing down their necks. Did these bishops even look into the matter first? It's all too easy for them to throw lowly nuns to the wolves in order to make it look like the bishops are "doing something" and cooperating with the media, just as the politicians had gone into overdrive expressing their "horror" and "shock" in response to even the initial tabloid-driven allegations, without even bothering to look at the facts. Ryn78 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Distractions

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It seems to me that this article is becoming something of a distracting catalyst of unnecessary controversy, which in many ways unfortunately reflects the excessive media hype over the broader issues that we're trying to work around.

For example, a few days ago, when Ryn78 asked about direct evidence of neglect at this home, the response was four essentially-similar newspaper reports about Enda Kenny's overall abomination statements. In the same way, my concern about using inmate as a generic unquoted descriptor resulted in an almost-instant and barely-vetted list of potential references, which mostly turned out to be cherry-picked extracts from earlier documents, and not RS reflections of current usage of the term.

The article is specifically about the Tuam Home, NOT the overall M&B situation, and consequently much of the verification and fact-checking is turning out to be irrelevant, and thus a major distraction for me. Yes, this institution has been a significant trigger of broader activity on the topic, but by rights I believe that we should be trying to carefully identify actual Tuam material here. Much of what I've had to review is unspecific and would equally apply to most of the other places too, like Sean Ross Abbey, Bessborough, etc.

Our detailed reporting about the Commission of Investigation here also relates to the wider problem and is not Tuam-specific. And it's not particular to the Bon Secour Sisters - or even to the church for that matter, since it will also cover non-Catholic institutions like Bethany Home.

Basically, I'm finding it very difficult to do a decent job of helping to build an encyclopedic entry here. It's costing too much time and money, and I have a limited amount of both to give to WP. So I'm going to drop this page from my watchlist and focus on various other WP projects instead. FWIW, I have JSTOR access through WP and am willing to help with specific queries on this or other topics. You know where to find me. Tnx! jxm (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You made a good point about the evidence (or lack thereof) for neglect by the Bon Secours nuns, and likewise for other points. I'm hoping you'll continue to edit this article. I don't think it would need to take so much of your time, since you don't need to shoulder the entire burden (there are others arguing over these same points). Ryn78 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Taoiseach's remarks about treatment meted out to women and children, the bishops' apology, and the investigation into all mother and baby homes were all as a direct result of Tuam, so they are very relevant to this article. I'm at a loss to know how I can demonstrate "current usage of the term inmate" when we no longer confine women and girls to mother and baby homes during pregnancy and for up to two years after birth. Thanks for the offer of JSTOR access - much appreciated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that while the article should link to the broader M&B coverage, the focus must be on Taum. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not inmates

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

I'm removing two uses of the term inmate. It's a highly charged term, and is quite inappropriate for several reasons: (1) We have little or no evidence of the usage of inmate in our reliable sources. (3) It is difficult to identify what proportion of the mothers were actually required to stay in order to pay off the debts, so we can't routinely characterize them all as forcibly detained as inmates. (3) The inmate death rate mentioned in the first paragraph concerns the children under care, not the mothers who may have been confined. It's incorrect to refer to the children themselves as inmates. (4) A separate exploration is needed to determine how many - if any - of these women may have been remanded to this place by the justice system, as a form of punishment. I suggest we wait until the Commission of Investigation's report before making those implications. jxm (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, all of them were required to pay their "debt"; as with all such "Mother and Baby Homes", either the family paid the fees, or the mothers worked. See for example, re Castlepollard M&B Home: "When they arrived, girls were given an assumed name to use, and they were expected to work to effectively “repay” the cost of their stay, which in some cases, lasted years, even though the state gave a per capita allowance to the sisters for the care of the young women." See more at: http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2014/06/06/4030756-up-to-500-babies-buried-at-castlepollard-home-for-single-mothers/#sthash.Bme15h4K.dpuf
There are references generally to "inmates" in Mother & Baby Homes, such as in Castlepollard (the above article), Bessborough ( http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/young-mums-denied-painkillers-to-make-them-suffer-for-their-sins-30337250.html ); see also the report from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, which refers to inmates: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/20140716InterdepartReportMothBabyHomes.pdf and states:

"the usual practice is to keep the mother and her child in the County Home for about two years at least. After that period the child is boarded out and the mother may be permitted to leave the home. This, however, is not the invariable rule. The mother may be retained much longer and the child may be boarded out much earlier....many matrons rely almost wholly on inmates for the performance of the burdensome menial work necessary for the running of such large and varied institutions. As good domestic labour is extremely hard to come by nowadays, the removal of unmarried mothers would create something of a problem". O’Sullivan and O’Donnell xxiv note that: "While conscious of the importance of unmarried mothers to the institutions, the committee nonetheless recommended that the period of detention be reduced from two years to six months...It seems to have taken some time before this recommendation trickled down to the matrons.” Unlucky for the inmates, wouldn't you agree?

However, there are also plenty of references to "inmates" for Tuam, for example:
* http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/childrens-home-tuam/
* http://www.irishcentral.com/news/The-Home-babies-in-the-news-A-timeline-of-neglect-in-plain-sight.html
* http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-is-a-scandal-of-church-and-state-271013.html
* http://philipboucher-hayes.com/2014/06/12/tuam-new-understanding/
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/06/800-dead-babies-are-probably-just-the-beginning/
* http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-church-should-set-up-its-own-commission-of-investigation-following-mother-and-child-home-controversy-1.1837066
* http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZZKcG0xrC_8C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=Tuam+inmate&source=bl&ots=i_QY7GRy2o&sig=xdG2EC3F7xbfx4xXu-aRXCanfSk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6r4uVKCcIYm07Qa8-YHgDg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=Tuam%20inmate&f=false
There are more. Would you care to reinstate? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; here are a couple of comments.
I'm not disputing that payment for maternity services was required for all the women, in one way or another. I'm simply saying that, afaik, we don't yet have a sense of what percentage were detained for this purpose. (I believe that the capitation fees were for daily maintenance etc., not for the birth-related costs.)
Withe regard to our use of the term inmate itself, most of these cited sources seem to be referring to earlier contemporary usage at the time, not to present-day terminology. For example, the lengthy quote provided above, from the 2014 Children and Youth Affairs report, is actually an extract from a 1951 document. I'm concerned that, unless we put the word in quotation marks, we're just prolonging this prior disdainful labeling into the present. Elsewhere in WP, we don't generically use terms like tinker, negro, lunatic, etc. In my opinion, preserving the use of inmate in the current context has equivalent connotations. jxm (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What birth-related costs would they be, jxm? You're not familiar with Irish M&B home practice, evidently:

These women were "expected" to stay. Are you merely "expected" to stay in jail when you are an inmate? Now I'm sure that the social pressure to pay their debt was exception, but its not encyclopedicly correct to describe these women as inmates. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cosmiccoffee, they were "expected" to stay. And returned by the guards if they ran away:

BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about the use of the word "inmate", but agree that it probably gives the wrong impression. As for guards... where does it say that in the pdf file? Did nuns chase after the women who tried to escape, or what? Ryn78 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Guards is a colloquial word for Gardai, which is the Irish police force. The reference is on page five. jxm (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused by what you mean by "it probably gives the wrong impression". It's an accurate term.
Ryn78, I think part of the problem with this article may well be - with the best will in the world - your lack of familiarity with Ireland, and recent Irish history, especially when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church. Up above, you say "You're assuming the nuns neglected these children (based on what direct evidence?) because they were born out of wedlock, but Catholic doctrine doesn't blame the child in these cases (the mother and father yes, not the child)." That's a lovely concept as far as it goes, but has been proven again and again and again to have not been the case in reality. Illegitimate children were seen as fruits of sin, worthless, a burden. No pain relief for mothers giving birth; no stitching. Children used in vaccine trials without parental consent; sold in (forced and/or illegal) adoptions; adoptions that happened not soon after a child's birth, but up to two years later - when the payment from the local council ran out; and, yes, neglect from nuns in mother and baby homes. Eamonn Fingleton points this out. This has all been documented and written about - the bibliography at the end of http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Report-into-adoption-practises-in-Ireland-since-1922.pdf is well worth reading. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Bastun: I think "inmate" probably gives the wrong impression because the term is now associated with criminals held in prison.
You gave a list of alleged offenses by nuns against unmarried women and their children, but how many of these have been proven? The news media you're getting these from is the same news media which also claimed that nuns starved hundreds of children to death. Ryn78 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
All of them have been proven. Eamonn Fingleton can say it's all a media hoax blown out of all proportion and we'll use him a source for that, but when he says the nuns were guilty of neglect, he's lumped in with the opposite hyperbolic end of the media. Uh-huh. As I actually wrote above - check the bibliography in the above link. Published books, academic research and articles reporting on investigation findings. Not just media speculation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The bibliography you provided is part of an article about adoption which is badly spelled and almost hysterically activist in nature, complete with phrases like "Adoption Machine", " dirty little secrets of Holy Catholic Ireland and it's [sic] savage war on single mothers and their babies" and so on. It sounds like a polemic, not an academic analysis. The tabloid stuff about nuns starving children to death was frankly more objective in tone. Worse, I can spot cases in which the article is distorting the facts pretty badly, such as its characterization of Dr. James Deeny's description of the Bessborough home. Deeny actually said that the nuns reduced the mortality rate down to single digits after he explained how to control a staphylococcus infection, which is a far cry from accusing the nuns of deliberate neglect. The worst he accused them of was medical ignorance (nuns usually don't have medical degrees), not neglect. But this article makes it sound as if Bessborough was a second Auschwitz. That makes me seriously doubt the claims the article is making, and doubt the sources in the bibliography. In fact, the problem with this entire subject is the shrill, over-the-top nature of so much of the "investigative" work and media reporting, in stark contrast to the normal process of analyzing facts with at least some small degree of objectivity and restraint. Ryn78 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm recommending the bibliography to you, not the article. It's a bibliography that includes many of the commonly recommended works on Ireland's recent sociological history. The same or similar lists would be present in many scholarly and academic works, especially those covering the subject of mother and baby homes and other such institutions. You "doubt the sources"? Sr Sarto of Bessboro threatened all sorts of legal action against June Goulding, but for some reason no action was ever actually initiated by Sarto or her order against Goulding or her publisher. I wonder why? Bruce Arnold - a highly respected journalist. Tim Pat Coogan - highly respected journalist, author and historian. Mike Milotte - multiple award-winning journalist and documentary maker. Professor Diarmaid Ferriter - well known and respected historian and academic. Mary Raftery - award-winning journalist whose work on Prime Time and States of Fear led directly to the setting up of the Murphy Commission of Investigation into clerical abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese, which published the Murphy Report in 2009, and also led to the statutory Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Really. Check out the books and documentaries listed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In other words, these are the same academics and journalists who made a huge scandal out of the 2% rate of pedophilia among Catholic priests, but remained hush-hush about the 5% rate of pedophilia among teachers in the public education system. I think the same thing is going on with the current Mother and Baby Homes scandals: they're taking commonplace problems and selectively expressing outrage only when it comes to certain institutions, especially those run by the Catholic Church. All the evidence I've seen points to common childhood diseases and mortality rates that were probably no worse than in many other orphanages, despite all the statistical juggling the media has been doing. Ryn78 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least you're not hiding your agenda... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
My "agenda" is to see that balanced evidence is presented rather than libelous nonsense. These nuns didn't invent common childhood diseases. Ryn78 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, they didn't. But they did receive a headage payment per mother and child for their keep, which was to include bed, board and health care. "Probably" no worse... OK, fine, ignore the sources. We'll go with your hunches and speculation, instead. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one making up speculation : it's the media which is doing that. I'm just asking for evidence from these sources before I believe them. Yes, I'm guilty of requiring evidence, and being skeptical until I have evidence. Ryn78 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have strong feelings about the word "inmates". The word has a definition that does not apply here. Unless you've got a better source saying that these women were confined, we can't use it. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly support changing the word "inmate" (which I believe was Bastun's term), and I'd also support some of your other changes. But it was an orphanage, not a "hospital", and some of your changes have undone the negotiated agreements that have been worked out (and Bastun took the opportunity to re-add "malnutrition" by itself without clarification). Ryn78 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It was not an orphanage. It was a 'mother and baby home'. The children weren't orphans. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This was a place where people came seeking medical care and were treated by trained nurses. Now I'm not married to the word "hospital", but what would one call that? People came there seeking medical care, and the received it from other people who were trained in health care and whose professional life was in healthcare. "clinic"? The place can be described as being more than one thing at the same time, but it should be described as some sort of a health care something. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"Mother and baby home" is the correct common name, and the one that is used in our sources and official government reports. Maternity home is also used, but less commonly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to quote some guy in the lead

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The lead is for summarizing arguments. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you only seem willing to allow one side of the argument to be presented... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Topics you have introduced into the lead:

1. Number of deaths not unusual. 2. It was a poor country (and this was a contributing factor). 3. Story described as a hoax and an example of anti-Catholic bias.

All of those are points of view and if they are to stand in the lead, must be answered in the lead.

1. is challenged by Liam Delaney's quote and the figures from the National Archives. 2. is challenged by Corless' ("some guy", apparently) pointing out that the nuns received a headage payment of £1/week per mother and child. "Poverty", therefore, is irrelevant as a contributory factor. 3. is challenged by Tanya Gold's quote from the Guardian.

Please either self-revert your latest edit, or remove the extra POV material from the lead and let it remain, as was, in the body of the article, where all arguments are presented. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Media corrections" section

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The newly added "Media corrections" section is problematic. It's situated out of the chronological narrative, giving the false impression that it's the most recent aspect of the story. It isn't - that would be the snail's pace inquiry which has just had its draft terms of reference circulated to government departments. (No "months of investigation" have taken place, Ryn78). It's essentially a repeat of a couple of sentences in the "burial ground" section.

"Burial ground" section: 1. "The Associated Press wrote, "The case of the Tuam 'mother and baby home' offers a study in how exaggeration can multiply in the news media, embellishing occurrences that should have been gripping enough on their own"."

2. "Eamonn Fingleton wrote that "The image of nuns consciously dumping babies in a septic tank is one of the most irresponsible press hoaxes of modern times". Source (53) - http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/09/that-story-about-irish-babies-in-a-septic-tank-is-a-media-hoax/

"Media corrections" section: As more facts came to light the Associated Press,(64) Washington Post,(65) and others offered corrections of their original coverage.(66)

  • Source 64 gives a 404 error.
  • Source 65 is an opinion piece. It does not retract or correct coverage.
  • Source 66 (the later Forbes article) is an opinion piece that does not act as a source for what it's being used for (but interestingly, Eamonn Fingleton also writes in source 66 that "Incidentally I am in general agreement with the mainstream press on most other aspects of the story, most notably the point that the death rate at Tuam was disgracefully high" - so maybe we can use this source elsewhere).

I am going to remove the dead links from both sections and remove sources 65 and 66 from the latter in one edit. I am then going to remove the "Media corrections" section, as it's one sentence with one source, referring to multiple sources, which isn't supported, is covered in the "Burial ground" section, and will be more chronologically correct there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I won't object to removing the Media Corrections section at the end; but I restored the quote from Finbar McCormick after finding an RS for it (the first Forbes article by Fingleton). We've been using that source elsewhere, so it should be acceptable as an RS. Ryn78 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is doubting that the letter was published or disputing it's wording - it's still available online at http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/mother-and-baby-home-deaths-1.1823515. The problem is that a letter to a newspaper is still just a letter to a newspaper and therefore not a reliable source, even if it's referred to in some other source. I have a blog source where someone has - instead of just speculating - actually researched the site quite extensively, and concludes that the children may be interred in the old workhouse's decommissioned sewage system. The blog has also been reported on in the media. But I've not included it's findings, a link to it, or the media reports on it, because it's a blog, and therefore not a RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Re: the Finbar McCormick quote: So are we now going to get rid of any news source which quotes a source which wouldn't normally be considered adequate? If so, we'd have to get rid of a significant percentage of the citations in this article because most of the media coverage was ultimately derived from a tabloid (the "Irish Mail"), and most of the rest is vapid speculation. Months ago, I had argued against including these sources for that very reason, in the first comment I made on this talk page; but the article still extensively quotes these sources anyway. I thought the McCormick quote was acceptable, especially when quoted by an RS, because McCormick is a historian who probably knows his subject, and it wasn't self-published (yes, it's a letter to the editor...). And at least it isn't just speculation, since he was only pointing out what the structure looks like, rather than claiming that it's definitely a burial vault; and he was asking the media to exercise some needed caution. But we need to adopt a consistent policy here. If media references to the McCormick quote can be removed, then many of the other sources should be removed as well. Ryn78 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You didn't address my points on this part of the discussion. Do we apply the same standards to all the sources? If we can't include a historian's view, even when quoted by an RS, because that view was given in a letter to the editor, then why are we using media sources which ultimately got their information from a tabloid or from other shady sources or methods? Ryn78 (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Am I to understand that you want to remove material that's sourced from The Irish Times, thejournal.ie, The Irish Examiner, RTÉ, the BBC, The Guardian, The Belfast Telegraph, et al- because the newspaper that broke the news story was a tabloid? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It depends on where each individual article is getting its information from. Some of them quote material from a tabloid (either directly or via a Washington Post article which quoted a tabloid), whereas others don't. Many of them don't cite their sources at all, which itself is problematic. But we need some type of consistent policy. Previously, you had basically taken the position that anything quoted in an RS was permissible regardless of the source, but now you want to remove the McCormick quote even when it's quoted in an RS. And at least that article gives a source, whereas many of them do not. Ryn78 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You didn't reply to this issue (again). If you don't reply this time, I'm going to re-add the McCormick quote.Ryn78 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying sooner... As long as you understand that if you're adding a letter to a newspaper that's quoted in another publication as a RS, I'll be using the Izzy Kamikaze blog in the same manner. (Alternatively - we could leave both out and see what the investigation says on where the bodies are buried, when it eventually reports. I'm happy with either course of action). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I think there's an objective difference between a letter by a historian which was published in an RS after vetting, versus a personal blog by someone named "Izzy Kamikaze". Even if the latter is mentioned in an RS, the blog post itself wasn't subject to vetting. Ryn78 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a newspaper's letters page, not a peer-reviewed journal. There is no "vetting". I've had letters published in newspapers without even a call or email to verify my identity. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
But newspapers don't publish every letter, because the staff decide which ones to publish. A blog has no vetting at all. Ryn78 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home/Archive_2&oldid=666729833"