Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV

I do not have a dog in this fight. While Ms. Corliss' raw data may be reliable, her interpretation of same remains to be tested. Yet it is this interpretation that appears to be promoted in this article. When I first started reading it, it struck me as more than a little weird that of the first half-dozen references I looked at, two questioned aspects of the reporting of the story, yet were cited in support of the more sensational allegations without mentioning the reporters' reservations. Their caution seems to have been well-placed per the AP article mentioned some sixteen paragraphs later. Then I found Terrence McCoy cited more than once for information that does not appear in the source cited, thus calling into question the use of citations in this piece. The article quotes at length a 1947 report mentioned by Crawford on the condition of the children, but neglects to include the subsequent statement from the same report that, "It is not here that we must look for cause of the death rate."

There appears to be little interest in providing much historical context regarding either Tuam or Ireland at the time in question. The article is in serious need of an introductory Background section supported by Guerit, White, Luddy et al., -which I have no interest in writing as I have better things to do than to engage in edit wars with persons pushing their own agenda. This leaves the article superficial, and appearing more like a not too subtle attempt at scapegoating, rather than consider the situation of a poor country with a rudimentary social support network, and an archaic way of handling abandoned children and unwed mothers. (Ireland in the 1920's appears to bear a number of similarities with New York City of the previous century, a difference in time likely attributable to an intervening famine, emigration, and civil war, which all would have delayed the development of social services.) Mannanan51 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am all for transparency, do not have an agenda, and edit much more widely than Roman Catholic topics.

• It's Corless, not Corliss.
• When the news story first broke, the headlines were the sensational ones about bodies being "dumped" in a septic tank, even though Corless stated that she had never used the word "dumped". Another editor insisted on using the reference with AP's later correction in the lede. It can certainly be removed and be replaced with any of the other multiple references to the mass grave, unregistered burials, etc. (now that I've restored that wording, which you had removed).
• I would like to quote more extensively from the news article on the 1947 report, to include:

"However, despite the shocking number of deaths, the report found that "the care given to infants in the Home is good, the Sisters are careful and attentive; diets are excellent. It is not here that we must look for cause of the death rate". and

"Death records obtained by local historian, Catherine Corless, for the home make clear the sheer level of neglect prevailing throughout the institution." and

"There was neglect and that's the truth. There are all sorts of reasons given for the causes of death. It's not enough. It would suggest that they just had to put down something," Ms Corless told the Sunday Independent. She described the death rate as "scandalous", adding that it was "simply colossal". "The report just talks about the children as they found them. The inspectors called to the home every other year and a copy of the report from 1947 shows the state of the emaciated babies. It's in the report, there's no denying it. The truth needs to be known. You can see the state of the babies from it, they were recorded as not thriving and with emaciated limbs. When you see that, you can't just hide that away. Pot-bellied is a sign of hunger. You can't hide the truth of it," she added. - but we might run into copyvio problems.

• Your request for a background section supported by Roman Catholic apologists is interesting. If such a section is written, I would also look to include the likes of Raftery and Milotte - leaving them out would be a not too subtle attempt at whitewashing.
• Re "historical context", you may have missed the part in the article that in part covers this: "Others pointed that Ireland being a poor country was irrelevant, as for each mother and child in the home, the County Council paid the nuns £1 a week,[19] and 1947 data from the National Archives showed that, during the preceding twelve months, the death rate of children in Bon Secours was almost twice that of some other mother and baby homes," but we could also include "Corless also points to the significant funding the nuns received for the care of these children and their mothers. "You can't excuse that no matter what the times were like. The nuns [who were qualified nurses] were getting well paid for those children. They were getting a pound a head for each mother and child from the government, which was quite a bit of money at the time. They were self-sufficient, they had their own vegetable gardens which the mothers tended so when you look it that way, the treatment of them can't be accepted."
• This was also Ireland in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s... The last Magdalene Laundry only closed in 1996.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I edit on a number of topics. The article relies too much on the opinions of "Corless, 60, a former secretary at a textile factory who ... develop[ed] an interest in local history", whom The Guardian describes as an "amateur historian". And why is it that the reporters who she says misquoted her are characterized as "journalists", but those who question the stories are "columnists"? This could do with less "insight" from a bunch of hacks trying to sell papers and more from some reputable scholars. All in all this is both poorly written and poorly organized. Mannanan51 (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Bastun: over two months ago on June 10th, you had told me to leave one of your new additions in the article while we "discussed" it, but you promptly broke off discussion right after that point. This is why I don't like leaving disputed new additions in the article while "discussion" takes place because discussion often never takes place. Now, I'll try to assume good faith and just assume that you were violently prevented from discussing it by malignant gremlins who magically blocked you from entering this talk page until today. But I also removed the offending passages until actual discussion has taken place.

Also, you shouldn't use a quote from Corless to second-guess professional doctors who actually inspected the home, because Corless is neither a doctor nor an eyewitness. In fact her comments on this point are so ignorant that she doesn't even realize that many diseases cause malnutrition from vomiting, diarrhea, or other causes. Only a doctor should be quoted on this subject, in keeping with Wikipedia's standard rules. The quotes we do have from doctors repeatedly say - in report after report - that the nuns were not doing anything wrong, in fact many of these doctors praised the nuns for doing the best job they could. They also use the term "marasmus", which usually means disease-induced malnutrition. So that's obviously what was causing the malnutrition in the eyes of professional physicians, and Corless - or journalists - are not remotely qualified to second guess their diagnosis. The "nuns starving babies" trope has gone beyond the point of absurdity by this stage, and Wikipedia articles should not be emphasizing it.

You also removed an important quote from a journalist who said he had been misquoted on a particularly lurid point - the idea that he said nuns had starved children to death, as claimed by many "news" sources. His correction of this nonsense needs to be left in for clarification and also to put the news accounts in proper context (i.e. so many of them used dishonest methods that they are hopelessly lacking in credibility by this point).

I also object to the claim - which you originally inserted as little more than your own personal opinion - that the impoverished condition of Ireland was irrelevant because the nuns were paid some money for each child. That sidesteps a number of issues, including : 1) the actual point made by people who have raised the issue of Ireland's economic state is (if I'm not mistaken) the fact that poor countries often have frequent epidemics and these epidemics can spread to anyone, regardless of the individual's personal degree of wealth. 2) the money paid to the nuns would not prevent these children from contracting diseases that were spreading in the nearby area. The statistics show that deaths at the orphanage almost always occurred during area-wide epidemics in which large numbers of people outside the orphanage also died, especially in places where children were clustered in close proximity because children are more suscectible to disease. The stipend paid to the nuns would not prevent deaths from a general epidemic, so what's the point of bringing up the stipends? Yes, it's possible -as you have long claimed - that this particular orphanage had a higher rate of disease than other Irish orphanages (a separate issue), but it's also possible that it happened to be in a region that had an overall higher rate of disease. Ryn78 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Mannanan51 - thank you for making points that need to be made. This article repeats sensational claims that originated in a tabloid (the Irish Mail) and were then repeated by mainstream "news" sources that are no longer worthy of the name. Corless has also been contradicted by historians on the "septic tank" allegation, since the thing she thinks is a septic tank has been labeled a "19th century shaft burial vault" by people who have studied that era. And yet this article emphasizes the "babies-dumped-in-a-sewage-tank" theme by repeating stuff that originally came from a tabloid, the "Irish Mail".

Worse, there is also the issue of the cited sources which claim that 800 bodies were actually found in a septic tank, although even Corless never claimed that any bodies were actually found (she speculated that there might have been nearly 800 buried somewhere on the site, but never claimed that was anything more than speculation). The only actual bodies found on the site were mid-19th century famine victims who died during the Potato Famine in the 1840s (long before the Tuam Home existed), as determined by archaeologists in 2011. The only slim basis for believing Corless is the account of bones found by two boys in 1975, but right now all the evidence points to the likelihood that these were the same bones that were later dug up in 2011. No other bodies have been verified, and yet this article still quotes sources claiming otherwise. I've been fighting to improve the article for over a year, without much success. Thank you for helping to clean it up. Ryn78 (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I discussed recent news stories on illegal adoptions in depth above, but even if I hadn't, WP is not censored and material sourced to the Health Services Executive of Ireland can certainly be included.

Boucher-Hayes. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of anyone saying that nuns had starved 800 children to death - so why include a quote from Boucher-Hayes saying he'd never said it?! It doesn't make sense to include a refutation of an allegation without the allegation being first mentioned, and it'd be pointless to include an allegation that nobody takes seriously.

1947 - what doctors inspected the home? What doctor's reports do we have?

The per capita payment to the nuns is referenced. Can you provide a source pointing to the epidemics that were occurring around Tuam? Why were children "clustered" in close proximity to a private Mother & Baby Home? How do we know Tuam had a higher rate of fatal disease? Is this all just WP:OR or speculation on your part? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Point #1: You discussed the issue only briefly, and only up to the point when I agreed to stop removing your version, which I did only because you claimed you wanted to discuss it further. You then broke off discussion on literally the same day. This kept your version in, quite conveniently for you. Yes, WP isn't "censored", but neither is it supposed to be an unbalanced dumping ground for every sensational or mendacious claim. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or political propaganda piece. You want to spend four paragraphs on a recent allegation reported in very few sources (as far as I know), and using hyperbolic language that gives the impression that we're talking about kidnapping (that's what "trafficking" usually refers to). Even if Ireland used to have a xenophobic law which prevented "evil" foreigners in the US from adopting Irish babies (cuz Americans routinely eat babies, or something), that doesn't justify the outrageous manner in which the issue is being covered here. What we've got here, at worst, is a case of an unusual and obscure law forbidding otherwise routinely allowed foreign adoption, a law that has since been revoked. But it's being covered as "illegal trafficking" as if the nuns were members of a gang. This is just a continuation of the lurid coverage of this orphanage all along, such as Corless' claims that babies were starved through neglect or (in some cases) media claims that they were deliberately killed. This leads us to the next point you raised.

Point #2: You now claim that the Boucher-Hayes quote isn't needed because the article doesn't mention the starvation allegations, and yet you yourself recently stuck in a quote from Corless claiming that babies were emaciated because of neglect, and there were in fact media sources making worse claims even more loudly and dishonestly. So yes the Boucher-Hayes quote is needed to counteract some of that stuff, as well as to underscore the sheer dishonesty of so much of the coverage, which in turn leads to serious questions about whether the rest of it is remotely trustworthy. That's an important context, and yet you have repeatedly removed quotes that contradict your viewpoint or agenda, only leaving them in if there's enough opposition from me or others. I'm not going to allow you to remove yet another one, especially since you had accepted its inclusion for months. Why remove it now?

Point #3: If I have time, I can look up the doctors' accounts (again), but I think we already covered that issue thoroughly months ago, didn't we?

Point #4: I didn't say children were clustered "around" the home: I was pointing out that in any general epidemic, orphanages or other places with lots of children in the same building typically have a higher rate of disease. I can re-lookup the statics on epidemics in that area if I ever have time, but you keep asking me to do more and more work without providing any evidence to back up your own positions. That's a common tactic in internet debates, and it's a bad one to be drawn into.

I'll add another point: you reinserted the claim from Corless that babies were emaciated from neglect, based on the idea that she is credible because she has studied the orphanage. But she isn't qualified to second-guess doctors, and her claims defy common sense (doesn't she even realize that chronic illness can lead to emaciation? She thinks it can only be from neglect?) She's not only engaging in pure speculation of a particularly ignorant sort, but it's also outside her area of professional expertise. Since when does Wikipedia use non-experts as sources to contradict actual experts? If our positions were switched, you'd want to remove that quote for the same reasons I've given. Ryn78 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: I discussed the issue as much as it needed to be discussed. Your response was that you understood trafficking to mean something different from its use in countless other place, and you further demonstrated a lack of knowledge of adoption law in general and Irish adoption law in particular (fwiw, legal adoptions generally require full, free and informed consent by someone legally entitled to give such consent). I don't see the relevance at all of your references to sex trafficking nuns and I really don't think any reader with a modicum of intelligence would draw those conclusions. In your point 3 in the section above you pretty much state your opinion that the issue doesn't need more than a paragraph. I disagree, and have included relevant material sourced to an Irish government agency. This is not "scandal mongering."

Point 2: I explained why I removed it. You've re-inserted it - grand, leave it in. I still think it reads oddly to arrive at that sentence and leave readers confused as to who was claiming nuns were deliberately starving babies, because no such claim is mentioned until the retraction appears.

Point 3: You keep referring to "professional doctors who inspected the home". Do you mean the author(s) of the 1947 report? Because I don't think they were doctors. I could be wrong, though. Regardless - Corless' opinion is still relevant because it's commentary offered by someone central to the issue, who has researched it in depth. You're unfamiliar with Ireland of the 1940s and 50s - a place where under John Charles McQuaid the clergy and religious were largely exempt from any criticism.

Point 4: Again, as referenced in the article, Tuam seems to have much higher death rates not only over the general population (which I never disputed) but over other mother & baby homes, too. This despite the headage payment ensuring adequate food and medicine, and the nuns being trained nurses. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[Subsequent discussion moved below the next section break] Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mannanan51, the difference between a journalist and a columnist is that one reports on and/or breaks news stories, while the latter interprets events after the fact, offering their own opinion and/or interpretation of events. Changes subsequently made/restored to the article:

* More of the 1947 report included;

* Luddy reference reinstated;

* McCoy reference moved to more appropriate place where it can't be misconstrued as citing something it isn't - though without also removing the Justice For Magdalene references.

Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why does the lede state "Her research led her to conclude that almost all had been buried in an unmarked and unregistered mass grave at the Home, some of them in a septic tank.", when Ms. Corless is quoted twice in the body of the article as saying, "I never said to anyone that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank." This article would be better served if sources were either quoted directly or para-phrased without characterization. There is entirely too much WP:SYN. Mannanan51 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Because she did indeed conclude that almost all had been buried in an unmarked and unregistered mass grave at the Home, some of them in a septic tank. Per the article, and references: "Her research led her to conclude that the only possible location for the bodies was the site where the skeletons were found in 1975. Maps showed that this was the site of the Home's septic tank,[31] and Corless believes that some of the skeletons found are inside the septic tank.[3] This common burial ground, described as a "mass grave", was unmarked and not registered with the authorities; no records were kept of any burials there.[35] Her conclusions were backed by some locals who recalled seeing nuns and workmen apparently burying remains there late in the evenings.[36]" What she did not say was that 800 bodies had been "dumped" in a septic tank. Yet that is what some of the second- and third-hand reports claims she said. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Point #1: On the adoption issue: I thought you had previously said that the illegal action in these cases was allowing babies to be adopted in the U.S. rather than the lack of agreement by the mother, because there are many cases in which babies are taken from mothers who are deemed unfit and given for adoption without the mother's consent. That's true in most countries. In this case, the mothers were deemed unfit for having a child outside of wedlock, which was seen as a sign of irresponsibility as well as immorality. It makes no difference whether you personally agree with that assessment or not, it was the rule at the time and was not illegal (as far as I know). The only illegal thing was allowing these babies to be adopted in the United States, and that law has since been overturned.

Point #2: Ok, thank you. That issue is settled then.

Point #3: The only reason Corless is "central to the issue" is because she ran to the media with a sensationalistic claim, but without offering any evidence of neglect whatsoever aside from her personal assumptions. I think the usual Wikipedia practice is to cite people who are knowledgeable about a given field (in this case, medicine), or who have cited actual evidence, not speculation. If she could cite historical accounts that actually back up her allegations, that would be acceptable; but she hasn't. Ironically, the only evidence of neglect that Corless can cite has been: 1) records which actually say that the nuns weren't to blame for any problems rather than saying the reverse; and 2) she mentioned her own youthful decision to mistreat some of the Home children whom she had met in school, and she offers that as an example of abuse - but it's her own abuse of these children, not actions by the nuns.

Point #4: You say that the Tuam Home had a higher rate than other Mother and Baby Homes, but that presumably means homes in different towns which had a different rate of disease in the general population (how many such institutions were in Tuam itself?) If you agree that Tuam had a higher rate of death from disease than many other areas, then it's reasonable to assume that the higher rate in the Tuam Home was likely due to the area it was in, and that needs to be addressed in the article. I believe there have been some sources mentioning that. I don't know why you keep bringing up the headage payment, since that wouldn't prevent disease if there was an epidemic going around. Many diseases couldn't be treated for any amount of money back then, and the headage payment was pretty small anyway.

Another point: You and Mannanan51 have been arguing over the wording of the lede, and I noticed that one of your edit summaries said that I accepted the lede. You mean I finally got tired of fighting with you over it. But in fact, much of the article repeats patent nonsense which is based on a set of classic fallacies. Corless' entire hypothesis is based on nothing but a variation of the old "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy - i.e. Corless can't figure out what happened to nearly 800 babies, so she just assumes that they "must" have been buried in a mass grave which "must" be in a septic tank and the babies "must" have been neglected or mistreated or whatever her imagination conjures up. Her failure to find evidence may mean that she needs to do more research, but it certainly cannot be used as proof of anything. This is basic Logic 101, and Wikipedia has rules against inserting fallacious information even if it's found in nominally "reputable" sources. The media made the issue worse by describing Corless' speculation as proven fact, or by claiming that 800 bodies had actually been found in a septic tank or that the nuns had starved babies to death. This is patent nonsense. I doubt it would normally be included in other Wikipedia articles. Ryn78 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ryn78 - I'm very busy at the moment; I'll respond at the weekend. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Point 3: Corless did not "run to the media with a sensationalistic claim." Rather, some elements of the media reported in a sensationalistic manner on what she wrote. She is citing historical accounts - namely, the 1947 report itself. I'm recording my disagreement with your removal of her quote, but I'm prepared to live with it. Irony: "You can't hide the truth of it," according to Corless.

Point 4: Where do you get the idea that headage payment of £1/week was "small" - it was actually quite reasonable! Average female earnings in 1949 was £2.97; a loaf of bread cost 3p in 1949; a stone of potatoes (14 pounds) cost 14p. And obviously economies of scale would apply. I've not engaged in original research or synthesis around what epidemics were prevalent in what areas. I have inserted sourced material stating that in one period, the death rate of children in Bon Secours was almost twice that of some other mother and baby homes.

Which brings us to Point 1. "In this case, the mothers were deemed unfit for having a child outside of wedlock, which was seen as a sign of irresponsibility as well as immorality." Were they? Really? By whom? When? Where? Under what authority? Could you cite a source for this new claim? What "rule at the time" are we talking about here? And which law was "overturned" to allow adoption to the United Stated? When did this happen?

The reality is that legal adoption was only introduced to Ireland in 1952 (taking effect in 1953). All adoptions effected under that and subsequent adoption acts require the "full, free and informed consent" of the natural mother. Of course, in addition, there are cases where babies are taken from mothers who are deemed unfit and given for adoption without the mother's consent. In Ireland, a High Court action is required to revoke parental rights and dispense with consent. That has happened, of course, but only in a relatively tiny number of the 40,000+ adoptions effected since 1952. Nobody has previously suggested or offered evidence of mass removal of parental rights, and there's nothing in Milotte's work on this, but if you have such sources, please do provide them.

In the meantime, we have a newspaper report from a reputable Irish broadsheet, discussing a report from the Health Services Executive (a government body), which discusses the trafficking of children for the purpose of illegal adoption. Let's use what the sources actually say, and stop removing the word "trafficking." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Point #3: Corless' entire argument is based on speculation by her own admission. The records, including the 1947 report, do not say that the deaths or cases of malnutrition were caused by neglect - that's her spin on things, and yes I would call it sensationalistic to use unproven assumptions to make lurid allegations against an entire group of people, in fact I would call it libelous. What the records DO show are epidemics of then-common diseases, and you can debate whether the Tuam home had an unusual rate of disease or not, and you can further debate the causes. The bottom line is that the medical reports which Corless cites do not actually blame the nuns, and in some cases they exonerate the nuns of any wrongdoing. All else is speculation.

Point #4: How is money going to cure then-incurable diseases? If you're assuming the malnutrition was caused by a lack of food, then we've been over that issue numerous times (the term used in the medical reports is "marasmus", which is generally disease-induced malnutrition, not the result of denial of food).

On the adoption issue: I haven't brought up any "new" claims on any of these points, since I had said the same things many times before, in fact I thought we both agreed on the things you're now objecting to. If I was wrong on the adoption issue, it's because I thought you had previously said that a law forbidding foreign adoption had been later overturned. Maybe I misremembered or misinterpreted. I'd have to look into Irish law on the matter. Either way, the term "trafficking" has a very different connotation - at least to an American reader - than how it's being used here. Wikipedia is written for an international audience, not just an Irish audience. Why do you object to phrasing it in a way that describes precisely what was going on? I think that's the most neutral language as well as the most informative since it tells the reader exactly what it's referring to rather than using a term that has multiple meanings. Ryn78 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again: In your experience, the term "trafficking" may be applied solely to cases of gangs kidnapping girls off the street and selling them into prostitution. In reality, the term "trafficking" has several different common meanings and the way you use it is not exclusive. I already linked to Trafficking of children above, but there are many examples of the use of the term "trafficking" in relation to the illegal adoption of children (19 million there), all very easily found and widely available. These include reputable mainstream media, legal articles, respected university journals, Irish Christian advocacy organisations, Irish secular advocacy organisations, international secular advocacy organisations, the United Nations, and if they're not good enough for you, the [www.state.gov/documents/organization/135993.pdf US Government] and the Hague Convention - an international convention set up to prevent trafficking of children for the purposes of adoption. You claim that "trafficking" will not be understood by an American reader therefore does not stand up to scrutiny, and I do not believe most Americans to be that ignorant. Even if that were the case, as you point out, WP is written for an international audience, not just an American one... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you object to just stating clearly what the alleged incidents actually involved? If they involved illegal adoption, why not just say "illegal adoption" rather than using a term that has several different meanings? Clarity is preferable to using a vague term with several definitions. And I doubt it's only an American audience that would view this as a loaded term with an unclear meaning. Ryn78 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you object to using the correct terminology, used in its proper context, by the sources - a reputable broadsheet newspaper and a government agency? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You answered my question with a question rather than an answer. I already answered your question by explaining why "trafficking" isn't a good term to use. Now you answer my question: why do you object to calling illegal adoption "illegal adoption" ? Ryn78 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

March 2017

Right, so, given the fact that Corless has now been entirely vindicated, I think it's evident the NPOV tag can now die. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing the Obvious?

This page is a mish-mash of two different things 1) What happened at Tuam 2) A controversy about the reporting of what happened at Tuam

For the sake of clarity and to avoid this fairly absurd squabbling (not to mention the Dispute flag), why not separate the two - either logically within the article, or by creating two separate articles? Mrs Brady (Old Lady) (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The article should only be about 1. There's is nothing inherently valuable in 2. It belongs only in footnotes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I would give it one or two short sentences in the "2012–14 reports" section, rather than footnotes, but otherwise I agree. It had a certain usefulness while the existence of the graves was still uncertain but, since the reports have been shown to be essentially correct by the latest finds, it's now dead weight. Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Too soon to cull it to one or two sentences just yet, perhaps? There's been quite a bit of coverage over the last couple of days contrasting Terry Prone's defence of the order at the time to her reaction now (although somehow, Prone is entirely absent from the article, so maybe the point is moot). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the righteous indignation run its course for a few days. Once the smog of morale outrage has dissipated, a cull can be carried out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Odd wording. It was the more... religious... editors who were determined to put in as much as they could about the press coverage in the first place, insisting on the AP "correction" (which IIRC they were calling a "retraction"), quotes from the National Catholic Review, etc... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Everybody is convinced that right is on their side. All are guilty of smug self-righteousness. It's terrible to look at, whatever the viewpoint. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Another gruesome link

In case it has gone unnoticed:

• Grierson, Jamie (3 March 2017). "Mass grave of babies and children found at Tuam care home in Ireland". The Guardian.ClemRutter (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Very much not unnoticed. Major coverage in a lot the Irish media, and international. I am travelling at the moment but intend expanding the article with new material early next week. Then spending some time defending it from apologists who were previously describing this as sensationalist fake news... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that this particular source is somewhat inaccurate. It says "The discovery confirms decades of suspicions that the vast majority of children who died at the home were interred on the site in unmarked graves..." It does not. The Commission itself states that the bodies were found in "a long structure which is divided into 20 chambers. The Commission has not yet determined what the purpose of this structure was but it appears to be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water." Not "unmarked graves." That won't stop certain editors trying to use this source so they can state "unmarked graves" instead. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: you claimed that the commission determined that the remains were placed in a sewage tank, although your own source says: "The Commission has not yet determined what the purpose of this structure was", and then adds: "it APPEARS to be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water. The Commission has also not yet determined if it was ever used for this purpose." So you are again - as during the previous debate - exaggerating the sources to push a POV, in this case implying that the vault was filled with raw sewage when the bodies were placed there, which the report does not remotely say. Enough is enough. Let's use actual quotes from now on, not your own spin.

You also censored a sourced quote from a news article which notes that the practice of on-site burial was common at orphanages during that time. This is a legitimate source regardless of whether it suits your agenda or not, and it provides needed historical context. Let me ask you this: if the Commission eventually decides that the vault was a standard burial vault of the type that was used for the (then-common) on-site burials at orphanages, would anyone still say the burials were shocking and horrifying, or are those reactions due to the perception that babies were dumped into a sewage tank?

You additionally cherry-picked some quotes from politicians on one side of the issue without any opposing views to balance it out, nor any statements from historians to provide context (and no, Corless is not a historian: she's described as a "former secretary at a textile factory"). It's especially bad given the nature of those quotes: when Enda Kenny says the children in the vault were treated as sub-human, he's apparently under the impression that babies were dumped into raw sewage, unless he opposes all burial vaults? Probably he's assuming the former idea, which the Commission doesn't claim. But if I put in some quotes that are more balanced and informed, you'll inevitably delete them wholesale since that's what you did to every single edit I made earlier today in three different articles. Wikipedia requires a balanced selection of quotes from both sides, not just yours.

You ironically removed the POV tag while pushing your own POV. If you persist, I'm going to restore the POV tag.

Worse, in one of the other articles (Bon Secours Sisters) you went so far as to restore material which included Ariannathomas's recently-added and entirely unsourced claim that the nuns deliberately starved children to death, which you had previously admitted was nonsense (during the previous debate). At least your later edit eventually replaced this claim, but your practice of wholesale reversion of all my edits is going to lead to more of this type of thing as well as bordering on "ownership".

So let's set some basic commonsense ground rules. 1) We need to actually quote the Commission's statements rather than spinning them. 2) The more lurid the claim, the better the sources need to be in order to justify it. 3) Media sources - which make claims that are all over the map on this issue - need to be held to some sort of minimal standard since we have plenty to pick from and can't use them all. I think the ones we use need to present some type of official information and preferably present both sides, as is supposed to be standard journalistic practice anyway, rather than just running a headline blaring one claim and then presenting nothing to back it up except the claim itself. For example, the following article runs a headline claiming a nun from the order was "lying through her teeth" but the body text presents only the claim itself, with no evidence and no countervailing opinion from the other side: [ http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/nun-lying-through-her-teeth-about-tuam-home-court-hears-1.3000196 ]

4) Reporting politicians giving responses is one of the more dubious methods, since the politicians are generally saying what they think they need to say to keep the media from making them a part of the scandal, resulting in language (such as "shocked and appalled!") which is often then used by the media for sustaining the perception that something appallingly scandalous happened without providing any context. 5) Finally, can you agree that we need to at least cite some sources which provide historical context? That's basic procedure, especially as there are sources which state that the historical context would provide a very different perspective on this than some sources have been reporting. Ryn78 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: "Unmarked graves" is the term used by all the media: The Journal, The Mirror, The Indo, The Times, The Mail, RTÉ and Irish Central, as well as on the Politics.ie message board. The fact that it was in a septic tank has not prevented it being called a burial. The commission used the word "structure", but it did not say, "a structure not a grave". If the Guardian calls it an unmarked grave then that's what it is, unless and until the balance of sources say it is wrong. Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Scolaire. I was away for the weekend and am just catching up on the news reports. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What I "claimed" is right there in black and white - don't put words in my mouth. I have no "agenda." There are no "sides" in this, and it's bizarre to suggest there are. Unless you mean the Catholic Church and the order is somehow one "side"? I'll ignore the straw man of the article I didn't use, insert or quote from. I have now inserted a reaction from the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam but I think you've some neck suggesting that the Taoiseach and Minister for Justice shouldn't be quoted on this issue in this article. Lastly, given your lack of knowledge and neutrality on the issue (it wasn't so long ago that you were claiming the original Mail article was lurid and fanciful and you're still using that word now despite what's been found!) I think I'll be very careful about accepting your sources for historical context. It most certainly was not common practice in Ireland to inter baptised children in a mass grave in an underground structure, whether or now it was or wasn't a septic tank. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: You again removed sourced historical context by claiming it was "speculation" while simultaneously sticking in more actual speculation from political and religious figures. If you want the Commission's report to "speak for itself" (your justification for removing the historical context), then why can't you let the report speak for itself in place of politicized statements from politicians? Here on the talk page, you claimed that the media source I cited was wrong about the practice of placing people in communal burial vaults, but you've offered no evidence of that aside from your own personal assertion that Irish people don't accept burying baptized people in underground vaults of any kind. You can't replace an RS with your own OR. But if you really want this to be an exercise in OR, then let me ask whether or not Irish people object to the catacombs in Rome, in which the bones of thousands of baptized Christians are just piled up underground in a jumble? Why aren't any Irishmen condemning that as scandalous, if it's truly a scandal to Irishmen?

You also justified your deletion of that source by claiming that my previous skepticism about the tabloid-style coverage (which in some cases was literally from tabloids) somehow invalidates even my choice of RSs, which is interesting logic. And no, the recent finds did not validate the claims that babies were dumped in sewage after being starved to death by sadistic nuns. Once again: the Commission's report says they didn't know whether the vault was ever used or intended as a septic tank; they certainly didn't say it was actively used for storing sewage when the bodies were buried there; and the nuns-starving-babies stuff was - by your own previous admission - complete nonsense or at least exaggeration. So explain again why the media article I cited is invalid?

As usual, you're trying to stock the article with sensational hyperbole ("chamber of horrors", etc) while removing any attempt at providing more moderate voices and historical context. I don't see how that's consistent with Wikipedia policy. Ryn78 (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet again you've accused me of saying something I never said and set up another straw man. I'm done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: If by "strawman" you mean the "chamber of horrors" quote, that's in one of the quotes from Enda Kenny which you did in fact add (I didn't claim you personally said it, but you keep adding all these lurid quotes which give a badly misleading impression of what was going on). And today you added more (to two different articles), some of which basically contain - or strongly imply - unproven allegations against an entire order and its large hospital network (plus the State for good measure), including what seems to be another iteration of the "starvation" claim which you agreed was bunk. I think some of this is arguably a violation of Wikipedia policy, which tells us to be cautious about repeating unproven allegations. I suppose the quotes just barely avoid crossing the line into libel, but only by a thin margin. Yes, we need to include some "reaction", but encyclopedia articles are supposed to emphasize scholarly responses that are based on a careful analysis of the evidence, not political grandstanding. Some of those quotes are frankly atrocious examples of political grandstanding, and there's far too much of it. Ryn78 (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Catherine Corless

Catherine Corless links to this page. Her name should be red linked until she has her own article; she certainly satisfies the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 22:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

Bastun: You have continued to deluge two different articles with the same excessive quotes from politicians which give a very misleading picture of the issue since they vaguely make claims which are not supported by the Commission's report. There is also far more text from these politicians than the description of the Commission's report itself. We're supposed to emphasize verified facts from people who have researched the matter thoroughly, not just gassy pontificating from politicians. I commented-out (not deleted) two of the quotes which make the worst unproven claims while leaving the others in. Let's try to work out a compromise. Ryn78 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: You ignored my arguments while claiming I just "don't like" the quotes. And yes, there are good grounds for libel. One quote repeats the "starvation" narrative which even you seemed to admit is false, hence it's libellous unless there's evidence to back it up. The other quote claims the entire Bon Secours hospital system was "built on the bones of babies" as if they were systematically slaughtering babies for profit. That's just over-the-top libel. Unless you can present credible evidence to back this stuff up, stop claiming there isn't a concern about libel. Keep in mind that some of the nuns may still be alive, in which case BLP rules apply; and the organization as a whole certainly still exists and is being demonized. Ryn78 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Commission hasn't issued any "report" - they released a press statement. As and when it does a report, interim or final, that will be covered. If you're a lawyer, you're certainly not an Irish lawyer. Libel absolutely does not and cannot apply. Even if it did, there is a thing called Dáil privilege, which most certainly does apply. Wikipedia absolutely can include direct quotes from Ireland's Taoiseach and other politicians, on an issue such as this, without them being censored - but we're not even doing that, we're quoting from secondary sources. (You might also note that I've inserted quotes from the Archbishop of Tuam and the Conference of Bishops in Ireland). Bottom line - stop trying to censor the article, belittle Corless, and minimise/justify/excuse what occurred. You've been doing it since 2014 and frankly it's pathetic. Stop removing the quotes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: And ever since 2014, you've been filling this article with the most lurid and tabloid-esque snippets you can find, even in cases where the claims constitute patent nonsense (the starvation stuff) or refer to things that actually were the historical norm at the time. I think that's frankly pathetic. On the issue of libel, you entirely missed the point: the issue is that Wikipedia doesn't allow unproven claims about people who are still alive. It makes no difference whether it would technically count as libel under Irish law - it's still unproven and grossly exaggerated rhetoric which in some cases is patent nonsense (you really think this entire hospital chain is built on the mass slaughter of babies? Good grief). Your comments about the Commission also miss the point: until it justifies some of these claims with an official statement, we can't treat these allegations as reasonable facts. And when you claim I'm "belittling" Corless, you mean I'm describing her how she describes herself: she admits she was a secretary and also admits her "historical research" was limited to sporadic part-time efforts for a few months in her spare time, which would never merit the term "historian" for anyone else. Show me one other case in which sporadic work on a single subject for a few months would land someone the label "historian". That term is only applied to someone who either has a degree, an official position as a researcher, or someone who has done many years or decades of their own unpaid work. Ryn78 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Keep in mind that some of the nuns may still be alive, in which case BLP rules apply" It looks like there might be only two nuns alive who were connected to the Home. "the organization as a whole certainly still exists and is being demonized" Correct. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

And BLP obviously does not apply in what isn't a biography and where no nun is named, bar the founder of the home, and against whom no allegations have been made. The "tabloid-esque" sources are Ireland's paper of record and other national daily broadsheets, the state broadcaster, the Dáil record, et al. Very much reliable sources - even if you don't like what they're saying. If you think what's been reported is lurid, that's quite possibly because there's not many other ways to describe what's been uncovered. I've no idea what you're on about re the commission. It isn't "alleging" anything. It's stating fact. It released a press statement saying "We conducted excavations. We found human remains belonging to children dating from when the home was operating. We found them in a structure that appears to have been for water treatment or sewage treatment though we don't know if it was used for that." Again - fact, not allegation. Stop removing the quotes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: In your edit comments, you said the Taoiseach should be quoted, but I left one of his quotes in. He doesn't need to be quoted twice. And I already pointed out why your references to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED are not relevant here.

Your comments here on the talk page have STILL sidestepped the issues I raised. The principle underlying the BLP rules would still apply regardless of whether it's technically a biography since the basic principle is that we shouldn't repeat unproven and potentially libelous statements in ANY article, regardless of whether it's a biography or not. You know that, so what's the point of skirting the issue?

You also keep pretending that the Commission's statements somehow justify the claims in the quotes I removed, although the Commission never said anything similar to what those quotes are alleging (show me a statement by the Commission justifying Enda Kenny's starvation claims; or the other quote's claim that the Bon Secours hospital system was "built on the bones of the Tuam babies"). And by "tabloid-esque", I wasn't referring to the more moderate coverage but rather the articles that are just making things up such as the idea that nuns starved hundreds (or some articles claimed "thousands") of babies to death. You used to admit that some of this stuff is nonsense, but you seem to have stubbornly adopted a more rigid approach now.

You had previously tried to justify these quotes by invoking "Dail privilege", but that principle merely means that politicians can't be prosecuted for statements that would normally be considered libelous; it has nothing to do with the issue of whether the statements are libelous or not. Wikipedia's rules are not built on "Dail privilege". Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ryn78 I am surprised why you're deleting the quote from Enda Kenny. This story has been all over the Irish media recently. It's a big story. The reaction of the highest level of the Irish government (Taoiseach) to it is very relevant to this event. It is quite clear that the quote is the reaction of a politician to the event, not an actual historian or expert giving their expert opinion, so there no attempt to pass off a "gassy pontification from politicians" as "expert facts". And in fact there are many who claim that E. Kenny is being too soft on the Bon Secours sisters. I don't think this article reads like a biography article, and I don't think many people in Ireland would treat talking about this as a defamation issue. Ireland has heavy defamation laws, and there's been no hint that anyone (except you here) that anyone wants to invoke them in this incident. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ebelular: I only removed one of Kenny's quotes while leaving the other in. How many different quotes do we need from him? I removed it largely because of the "starvation" claim, which is not supported by the official sources, in fact much of the "starvation" narrative stems from admittedly false media coverage of an interview with Philip Boucher-Hayes, who bluntly said the media misquoted him and that the claim was unsupportable. How long do we need to keep quoting this nonsense given that it was debunked by the very same guy who the media claimed was the source? The issue here isn't Irish defamation laws, but rather Wikipedia's rules. And those rules still apply even if this article isn't a biography. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Ryn, I don't think you have justified why WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOTCENSORED don't apply to your edits. You have further failed to explain why the BLP policy can even apply to this article, which names no nun except the founder of the home, accuses no individual nun of any crime, and isn't a biography. The particular quote by Kenny was quoted in full by every Irish broadsheet any many other media outlets. And as Ebelular points out, he's been criticised for it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: The quote makes allegations against an entire group, which includes at least two nuns who are still alive. Can't you just admit the obvious fact that unproven allegations are forbidden regardless of whether it's a biography or not? Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous statement. Please actually read WP:BLP. Inclusion is reliably sourced to multiple sources and absolutely justified for inclusion in accordance and compliance with WP policies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and others. Removal is not justified by WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Here's what WP:BLP says: 1) The policy applies "to any Wikipedia page" (with "any" in italics), and a bit farther down it clarifies that it applies "to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". Hence not just biography articles. 2) It says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased)... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" In this case, you're adding contentious material from political speeches that are based on nothing but assumptions, with no evidence presented by those sources. 3) It says: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material". That means you. So present sources with actual evidence, not just politicians spouting off. 4) It says: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". All the quotes you've added take essentially the same viewpoint, without a single one questioning that narrative. Would you be willing to add a quote from that atheist source which Laurel Lodged mentioned? Until we've got some countervailing viewpoints, the quotes need to be culled quite a bit to avoid a gross overload of material from only one POV. Ryn78 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As confirmed by other users, WP:BLP does not apply; even if it did, WP:BLPGROUP would apply and WP:BLPSOURCE is more than satisfied. "No actual evidence"? You may have missed the bit about large quantities of human remains dating from the time of the operation of the home being discovered. That is what the politicians and bishops and President were "spouting off" about. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: I just quoted the rules which say that "ANY Wikipedia page" mentioning still-living people must abide by the principles set forth in WP:BLP, not just biographies. Which part of that isn't clear? And you also know perfectly well that these two quotes go well beyond what the actual evidence has found. The "starvation" claim is not justified by the fact that bodies were found in a vault, as was once common practice. Neither is the claim that the entire Bon Secours hospital system is built on the "bones of children". And as I also pointed out, the current list of quotes is both excessively long and completely unbalanced. Ryn78 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, any WP page where there are BLP concerns. You seem to not grasp what BLP entails. As has been pointed out several times by several editors, there are no BLP concerns on this page (except, perhaps, for the demonisation of Corless). If you disagree, please enlighten us as to whose reputation is being impugned. Named individuals, please? (Your requirement for "evidence", btw, would preclude any article from stating that anyone was under investigation or charged with or undergoing trial for anything). "Evidence" is not required to report on what our Taoiseach put on the Dáil record. With regard to the Smith quote, you do know that's a metaphor, right? Not that her quote needs "evidence" either, but you may have missed the parts of the article that talk about the retention of money for upkeep where the children had already left, or, y'know, the child trafficking for the purpose of illegal adoptions, for profit. Could I also point out it's a little ironic that it's you who has introduced "the H-word" to the article and absent the Kenny quote, the only mention of starvation in the article is one you introduced when you added the Boucher-Hayes quote. Should we add back in the quotes about emaciated babies and children or comparisons to the Holocaust in order to give the Boucher-Hayes and O'Neill quotes some context? Likewise, nowhere in the article is it claimed that bodies were dumped in sewage, but you keep insisting that's what I'm saying. I never have.

Look. Bottom line. There are no BLP issues. The quotes are sourced and relevant. There are quotes from politicians, independent figures, and the church. As and when the BS Sisters issue a statement, that will be included too, but "balance" doesn't arise - the article reports neutrally on the home and events. You do not have policy or consensus behind you in removing relevant sourced quotes. Stop doing it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: I don't see why individual nuns would need to be named for there to be a concern here. If living people are affected - as they certainly are - individual names don't need to be listed one by one as far as I know. At least that's not my understanding of BLP or - more importantly - the underlying principles behind it.

On the starvation issue: Enda Kenny mentions starvation in his quote I've been trying to remove, so it's not an issue of whether you personally said it, which I have never claimed. I've explained this countless times.

And yes, the other quote contains a metaphor, but it's a metaphor that has an obvious meaning that there was massive and perhaps deliberate slaughter of children, when in fact the death records show all of them died of then-common diseases. Ryn78 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again - the consensus is there is no BLP issue. You are the only editor maintaining that there is. Starvation: I don't know what you're talking about here, I think you misread what I wrote when you responded. Brid Smith quote: That's entirely your interpretation. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Enda Kenny's second quote specifically mentions babies being starved. How can you claim it isn't in there? The other quote also clearly alleges something that isn't justified by the evidence, for reasons I explained earlier. And as for WP:BLP: the rules at WP:BLP state explicitly that it applies to "any article", not just biography articles. It doesn't make any difference whether you and a handful of other people here are doggedly ignoring that patent fact, it's still explicitly stated in the rules. Ryn78 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)