Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Neglect is abuse

I have added the abuse categories back to this article. As quoted in the article, Enda Kenny states plainly: "we took their babies and gifted them, sold them, trafficked them, starved them, neglected them or denied them..."

From Tusla, the Child and Family Agency:

Definitions of child abuse

"Child abuse can be categorised into four different types: neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. A child may be subjected to one or more forms of abuse at any given time

Neglect

Neglect can be defined in terms of an omission, where the child suffers significant harm or impairment of development by being deprived of food, clothing, warmth, hygiene, intellectual stimulation, supervision and safety, attachment to and affection from adults, and/or medical care." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with Abuse categorisation Some editors want to include the article in Category:Child abuse. IMO this is not warrented. Nothing in the article says that the children suffered deliberate child abuse as we would understand it. No report says that it hsappened. That they suffered neglect and malnutrition is not the same thing. In modern language, the term has taken on the sense of sexual abuse. There is no evidence that this took place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't conflate "abuse" with "sexual abuse"; see the reactions section for plenty of accusations of abuse. It is absolutely in order for those categories to be used. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, I specifically did not use sexual abuse or abuse leading to death (although that probably applies). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Taoiseach's statement is of the most general kind. It speaks of a culture prevailing at that time. It does not even specifically mention Tuam. To classify it as "child abuse" is to apply early 21st century thinking to early 20th century mindsets. Must every 19th century home that had its chimney swept by children now be classified under "child abuse" also. It is not historically accurate to apply the mores of one time period to the mores of a different time period. Let us also note that all the official reports at the time record that the care was excellent. Different times, different standards. The evidence is not there yet to permit this categorisation. It might come in time with another report. Let us not jump to conclusions: WP is not a court. We must not use WP:Synthesis to come to conclusions. LEt us await citations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the official reports do not "all note that the care was excellent." Some do. Some express serious concerns. This is all right there in the article... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The medical records say all the children died of disease or complications (such as marasmus), almost entirely during regional epidemics. The only concerns were cases in which (for example) one doctor said there was a staphylococcus infection underway and he explained to the nuns how to mitigate it. He didn't allege they were guilty of abuse. A political speech cannot be used to replace official reports. Ryn78 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet again with the "regional epidemics" myth. You have never sourced this (beyond an American RC columnist asserting something without evidence). Even the local archbishop isn't trying to whitewash this. Please stop. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

An appeal to reason and evidence - from the Irish Times of all places:

"If we look calmly at what is actually known, then it seems that while the home was an awful, tragic place, it was not necessarily a site of insanity or evil. That the “structure” had 20 chambers suggests it had been turned into a kind of catacomb. That the children buried there were “swaddled up”, as one eye-witness described it, suggests they were not simply “dumped”. That the discovery of the structure in the 1970s was followed by a priestly blessing and then the setting up of a grotto by local people suggests the town of Tuam, and Old Ireland more broadly, was not a foul place but rather had many good people in it, concerned for the dead. The evidence we have so far suggests life in the home was exceptionally difficult and, of course, utterly unjust: these women had committed no crime. We also know the infant mortality rate was terribly high, no doubt as a result of poverty or institutional neglect, or both. But a holocaust? Babies flung in sewage? There’s no proof. Doesn’t proof matter? As an atheist, I have no interest in defending the Catholic church. I want to defend science, rationalism, and approach history in a measured way. You see, this is the terrible irony of the Tuam ghouls. In running ahead of the facts and turning this into a black-and-white morality play, in which they star as paragons of decency against hellish nuns, they reveal that they share something in common with the Old Ireland they claim to hate: a preference for moral zealotry over reason."

Irish Times, "Rush to moralise over Tuam has run ahead of the facts", Thu, Mar 9, 2017 Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The connection to regional epidemics was established by statistical correlation, published as a graph showing clearly that there was in fact a close correlation. Your "abuse" idea, on the other hand, was based mainly on an absurd attempt by a journalist to inflate the average rate by cherry-picking one bad year and then claiming this was the "average" although one year is never an average. That's basic math. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think the actual average was any worse than other orphanages. Such a claim needs to be proven by something other than a silly math trick. Ryn78 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged: That article makes very good points. Ryn78 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So does this one:

Moncrieff replies that she uncovered the death certificates but nobody knew where they were buried. “That’s exactly my point,” Donohue says triumphantly. “She didn’t find a mass grave.” For a man so concerned with the finer points of language – “I’m very careful in my words,” he says – Donohue is pretty fond of verbal distortion himself. He says scientists are “laughing” at the idea that so many bodies could be disposed of in a septic tank; Moncrieff clarifies that one academic has merely said that the chamber in question should be termed a “burial vault”. “Not much laughter there,” the presenter adds, with uncharacteristic venom. Undeterred, Donohue describes the reports of mass graves as a myth and a hoax. Moncrieff eventually has enough. “For God’s sake, man,” the host exclaims, “do you know how laughable this is, what you’re saying?” In truth it’s a mild reaction to a vile performance from someone apparently more worried about “anti-Catholicism in the west” than the suffering of the vulnerable under the church’s care. Of course, while Donohue’s views on the Tuam scandal are extreme, they are thankfully rare, in Ireland at least. Moncrieff plays a clip of Corless suggesting that Donohue is just looking for hype; it could be said that, for all the host’s indignation at his guest, he still gives him a platform for his opinions. But it’s a valuable item nonetheless, a prime example of how in this era of “alternative facts” people can deny inconvenient, not to say horrific, truths by hammering away at one small point to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Irish Times, "The ‘fake news’ about Tuam", Friday 10th March.

As to "Your "abuse" idea, on the other hand, was based mainly on an absurd attempt by a journalist to inflate the average rate by cherry-picking one bad year and then claiming this was the "average" although one year is never an average. That's basic math. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think the actual average was any worse than other orphanages. Such a claim needs to be proven by something other than a silly math trick" - you could try reading the article. "Death rates were extraordinarily high: 34 per cent of children died in the home in 1943; 25 per cent died in 1944; 23 per cent died in 1945; 27 per cent died in 1946."; "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.[57]" But sure, just one year, bad math... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Many points could be made here, but the main one is that the article you mentioned makes no attempt to actually investigate the reasons behind the death toll: even if it was higher than other homes of that type, the first basic procedure in any such case is to look to see if there were local issues that might explain the higher rate - e.g. if that area had more frequent epidemics, or if (as some of the medical reports imply) conditions in the old building were exacerbating the spread of illness, etc). The sources you keep citing make seemingly no attempt to even look into issues like that, but instead jump to the conclusion that it "must" have been due to sinister nuns deliberately abusing children because that suits the narrative. Maybe that's why real historians need to conduct the research on this matter rather than a former secretary and a bunch of journalists and politicians. That doesn't make me an "apologist", it's just basic procedure as well as basic common sense. I would add that an encyclopedia is supposed to make use of scholarly material from people in the relevant field.

In short, you still haven't provided any evidence of "abuse", hence I'm going to remove the abuse categories. Don't put them back in without evidence to justify it. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"Evidence" is not required; what is required is that reliable sources report on claims or admissions of abuse. Abuse has been claimed by journalists, academics, politicians, commentators, residents of the home and bishops, and bishops have apologised for what went on in the home. Moreover, there is consensus for inclusion. Stop removing the categories. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not true to say that reliable sources have been produced. Redtop headlines writers are not reliable let alone authoritative. They have no direct evidence themselves (just "dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bhean léi). Journalists commentating on those same journalists are not authoritative. Politicians commentating on journalists who are in turn commentating on those same journalists are not authoritative. Only the official reports of inspectors of the time and of the Commission of Inquiry now are authoritative. Everything else is hearsay and sensationalism. As I reproduced above, "If we look calmly at what is actually known, then it seems that while the home was an awful, tragic place, it was not necessarily a site of insanity or evil." and again, "The evidence we have so far suggests life in the home was exceptionally difficult and, of course, utterly unjust: these women had committed no crime. We also know the infant mortality rate was terribly high, no doubt as a result of poverty or institutional neglect, or both. But a holocaust? Babies flung in sewage? There’s no proof.". To answer that author's rhetorical question, yes - proof does matter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Adding official categories stating that "abuse" occurred is tantamount to using Wikipedia's own voice to justify the allegations. That requires more substantial proof than just quotes from politicians or unproven speculation by journalists. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But then we've also got the broadsheet journalists, the institutional neglect referenced by above LL, the eyewitness testimony of former inmates, the HSE report of 2012... And the little matter of the discovery of human remains apparently present as the result of unregistered burials. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: The sources you mention cite - at best - allegations that haven't been proven yet. For Wikipedia to justify claims of abuse, we would need an official conclusion by some type of relevant authority, not just allegations. Ryn78 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not a correct interpretation of policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: which policy allows Wikipedia articles to use a category like "child abuse" when no child abuse has been proven? We can quote allegations, but using a category like that is using Wikipedia's own authority to declare that abuse occurred. Ryn78 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CAT, supported by WP:V,WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: WP:CAT actually says: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable... Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view... Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial". The last point is especially important: the "abuse" claim is hardly "uncontroversial", nor is it NPOV to state something which hasn't been established, much less generally agreed-upon. NPOV means that Wikipedia is either stating the overwhelming consensus view or stating both sides of an issue. That isn't the case here. Ryn78 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass grave

LL, an old map lists a cemetery on the site. The children were not buried in that cemetery. The Commission reports that remains found date from when the Bon Secours nuns ran the home, when the cemetery was not in use; the bodies were not found buried in a cemetery; they were found in an underground structure thought to be a water treatment of sewage tank. How is this in any way not a mass grave? (Which many of the sources use!) Please stop removing this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sources including The Guardian use the term mass grave so it is appropriate to use it as a category. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is appropriate to report that tertiary sources use the term "mass grave". Many newspaper headlines use the term. When you go into the body of those articles, they either do not mention it again, of only do so as an opinion piece. WP is not interested in the opinions of headline writers. No secondary source uses the term None of the reports use the term. None of the primary sources uses the term. WP is about sources and the quality of those sources. Report that people say it - yes. State it as a fact - no. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Dozens of bodies found in an underground chamber, thought to have been a water treatment or sewage tank, buried without coffins? It's a mass grave. Much as you personally might not like to have it called that, that's what it is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki's own article for mass grave defines it as "Mass graves are usually created after a large number of people die or are killed, and there is a desire to bury the corpses quickly for sanitation concerns. In disasters, mass graves are used for infection and disease control. In such cases, there is often a breakdown of the social infrastructure that would enable proper identification and disposal of individual bodies.". Does Tuam realy meet that criteria? I think not. The children died one by one and were buried one by one over many decades. That meets the criteria for a cemetery. It does not have to be consecrated ground to be a cemetery. There are many secular cemeteries. Crypts and catacombs contain dozens of bodies; nobody would describe them as mass graves. It is POV pushing to suggest that Tuam meets the criteria for mass grave. Provide authoritative sources that say it is a mass grave. I would not classify the headline writers of the Daily Mail as an authoritative source. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it does not meet your invented "criteria for a cemetery" - because I'm pretty sure any such criteria also include things like informing the proper state authorities when a burial takes place. As is required by law. Even Bishop Neary isn't trying to defend or deflect what happened. (The headline writers - and reporters - of the Irish Daily Mail were being castigated here in 2014, as was Catherine Corless. Guess what? They weren't making it up.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: The report basically says it was a vault that MIGHT have once been used or intended as a sewage tank; so how exactly should a burial vault be called a "mass grave"? There are burial vaults here in the US and we never call them "mass graves", a term that is almost entirely used for cases of homicide or genocide (e.g. the mass graves in which ISIS dumped its victims). Yes, some of the more sensational media articles have applied the term to this case, which has led a horde of internet commentators (and some politicians evidently) to assume the deaths were deliberate and systematic like in a death camp. But that's precisely because the term is almost always used for deliberate mass-slaughter. Wikipedia does not need to repeat tabloid-style journalism when there are plenty of more objective media sources available to use. As usual, Bastun, you're trying to cherry-pick the absolute worst of the coverage while ignoring more moderate accounts. That needs to stop.

You also said that there was a problem with not "informing the proper state authorities when a burial takes place". This leads to an obvious question: since official autopsies were conducted on each of the children - that's how Corless found out about their deaths in the first place - apparently the current narrative is that the nuns first contacted the authorities to conduct an autopsy but then secretly dumped the bodies in a sewage tank so the authorities wouldn't find out? Ryn78 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Bastun doesn't like my criteria for a cemetery (hardly a revoltionary defininition I would have thought), perhaps he'd like to supply his own criteria for a mass grave. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cemetery: Above ground. Individual headstones/memorials. Burials taking place in daylight. The dead are in coffins. Burial places recorded. Known generally as "a cemetery." Individual graves. Mass grave: Hidden. No indication of its presence. Interments take place at night. No coffins. Burial places not recorded. Several hundred bodies in the one (not very large) structure. Thought to have been a water treatment/sewage treatment tank. Widely referred to in the media as a "mass grave." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Anybody else care to contribute some definitions that are slightly less idiosyncratic? My personal favourite is "Above ground"; exposure of the dead fell out of fashion following the declince of Zoroastrianism in the 9th century. Please don't list all the cemeteries in the world that don't fit into one or more of the criteria listed above as would likely be quite a long list. Regarding the redtop writers, as I wrote above, by all means report that people have said that it is a mass grave, but do not report such sensationalist click-bait headlines as fact. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, nitpick away. You know what I meant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Autopsies." Good one. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: There are many communal vaults in plenty of cemeteries, but no one calls them "mass graves" nor makes the whole thing into a scandal. Anyone who has studied history knows perfectly well that all the elements in this "scandal" were in fact the norm, including any conversion of a septic tank (if it even was a septic tank at one time) into a makeshift vault during a time of epidemics. Literally any type of structure could be converted into a burial vault if necessity required it, and that was common. So were high death rates in orphanages. A large percentage of all children used to die before the age of two. We've been over this stuff many times before, and yet you stubbornly refuse to admit even the most basic of facts. Ryn78 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"A large percentage of all children used to die before the age of two" Yes. However one aspect is how the death rate in the Mother & Baby homes was much, much higher than the rest of the country at the time. People aren't comparing 1950s Mother and Baby Homes to 2017 Ireland, they're comparing 1950s Mother & Baby Homes to 1950s Ireland. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ebelular: But you can't just compare the rate at an orphanage to the rate in the general population because whenever large numbers of children were clustered together, there was usually a much higher rate of disease. Even a comparison to other orphanages needs to take local conditions into account. This is basic stuff. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ryn, your invention of "facts" about 1950s Ireland is a joke at this stage. "Literally any type of structure could be converted into a burial vault if necessity required it, and that was common." ROFL! "all the elements in this "scandal" were in fact the norm"?! Are you for real?! Even your own church's Irish bishops - born and raised here - are shocked at what went on, but you can still write that? You clearly have no objectivity on this topic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Are you honestly trying to claim that this structure was first converted into a burial vault only in the 1950s? The Commission said some of the human remains in it dated from decades earlier. And since there's no indication when the structure was built or when it was converted into a different purpose, it could date from the 19th century or earlier since the building is at least that old. More to the point, when archaeologists in 2011 found a communal grave for large numbers of 19th century famine victims on the same site, no one in the Irish media portrayed it as a scandal. If any type of mass-burial is taboo in Irish society as you claim, why was there no outrage in Irish society over the 2011 find on the very same site? If the difference is the "septic tank" idea, then that issue is still in dispute and it certainly didn't contain sewage when the bodies were placed there. You're creating a strawman and then you try to gain points by using "ROFL" to dismiss my argument. That's downright childish, and it's eroding what little respect I still had for you.

Claiming that these clergy are from "my" Church is rather ironic. You know nothing about my religious views, and I think your constant attempt to allege bias is just projection. You certainly are not objective in the least: you've spent three years filling this article with practically the worst that the media has been coming up with while censoring most of the more moderate analysis. I would oppose that type of behavior regardless of what group was being targeted: if it was a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu-run orphanage I would make exactly the same points.

BTW, I interpreted the Archbishop's comments to be the standard case of throwing subordinates "under the bus" to keep the media from dragging the Archbishop himself into the scandal. Very common tactic, since these nuns are "expendables" and most of them are dead. In any event, none of these guys have investigated the matter, so their comments count for very little. We need quotes from historians who know something about the relevant subjects and who know how to conduct proper research, not just soundbites from public figures.

On the issue of calling it a "mass grave": in standard current usage, that term is now used almost exclusively for cases of genocide. But I suppose your quotes from politicians basically label it genocide (one says the entire hospital system supposedly was built on slaughtering babies in vast numbers), so I suppose you'll claim it counts as a case of genocide. You forgot to include the "genocide" category. You might as well add "Auschwitz" too since that term has been used relentlessly by some media sources, dissidents within the Catholic Church, and countless internet commentators. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Unmarked catacomb might be a more accurate description. Do we have a category for that? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that it was a thought to have been a water treatment or sewage tank and there were no Romans involved, no, it wouldn't be. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Defining the place of burial: What makes a cemetery a cemetery?" by Julie Rugg, University of York, Mortality, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2000 distinguishes between cemeteries, burial grounds, and mass graves. For mass graves she writes: "this term is used to define a location in which burial has taken place on a large scale, but where the bodies lack individual identity. This situation may arise for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which being that death has taken place on such a scale that it becomes impossible to deal with each set of remains as a separate entity. The consequence is burial en masse within existing churchyards, cemeteries or burial grounds, or at a single site or collection of sites." She continues: "The absence of the bereaved and of appropriate funerary ritual, and the loss of individual identity of the people interred at the site, means that these sites are granted limited respect." AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This, combined with the widespread use of the term by the media, politicians (including government ministers) and commentators and the fact that not even the RC bishops are objecting to the term, clearly demonstrates it's a suitable category for this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

So Tuam fails to meet the Rugg criteria on most points. That's quite clear. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass grave implies buried quickly and at once. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like Tuam would meet the Rugg's definition of mass grave? "burial has taken place on a large scale" Yep, "significant quantities". "bodies lack individual identity" Yep, no-one knows where each person is buried. "absence of the bereaved" Yep, the mothers or fathers were not told of or shown the burial. "[absence] of appropriate funerary ritual" Well, technically we don't know if a Catholic funeral mass was performed, but I think it's likely. AFAIK this wasn't consecrated ground. "loss of individual identity of the people interred at the site" Yep, the people there don't have gravestones etc. ____Ebelular (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"burial has taken place on a large scale". It did not. There was not a single burial that took place at a single point of time such as would take place with a massacre. Instead the burials took place one by one over many decades. That's what happens in cemeteries: one by one over many decades. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the dark? At night? With no coffin, no priest, on unconsecrated ground? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun seems to have access to evidence that nobody else has. Perhaps he should inform the CoI. For the record who says that any of the above (apart from the lack of coffin) happened / did not happen? Does Rugg say that burial at night is a defining characteristic of a mass grave? Does Rugg say that absence of a coffin is a defining characteristic of a mass grave? Does Rugg say that absence of a priest is a defining characteristic of a mass grave? Even for non Christian burials? Does Rugg say that absence of consecrated ground is a defining characteristic of a mass grave? Even for non Christian burials? Clearly the answer to the above is "No". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've read the sources and related articles. It's all readily available. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

By sources I assume you mean redtop headlines. We've all read them. They are neither reliable not authoritative. None can satisfy us that most of Rugg's criteria has been met. Is a failure to meet one of Rugg's criteria sufficient to deny the use of the term? Mo? How many points of failure of Rugg's criteria is resonable before accepting that the use of the term "mass grave" is inappropriate or unproven at this time? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Assume all you want... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: As I recall, the idea that the babies were buried there "in the dark, at night" is based on a single account of a single incident in which someone said they saw a nun carrying out a bundle of something which they assumed was the body of a child, which has not been proven. That doesn't remotely establish that the burials were done at night for the purposes of secretly dumping babies in sewage. And there is no evidence that there weren't any priests involved in the burials, nor that the burial site was unconsecrated. You're just making stuff up. Enough speculation. We need to go by established facts.

As for the mass grave scandal: you may recall that an historian, Dr. Finbar McCormick, said that "shaft burial vaults" were once commonly used in Ireland in the 19th century (and therefore presumably for some decades after that). That's the type of expert opinion we're supposed to go by, not your own personal assurances that this type of thing wasn't allowed in Ireland. And again, we have the 2011 finding of a mass burial on the very same location, which no one turned into a scandal. Ryn78 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet again with the cherry-picking of "facts", translated to original research, and what I can only assume is deliberate misinterpretation of what I've actually written. How do 'shaft burial vaults commonly used in the 19th century' translate to interment in chamber 'believed to have been for water or sewage treatment' from 1925 to 1961? (BTW, you're the only one maintaining that I'm saying that babies were dumped in sewage. I have never said that. Stop repeating it.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: So are you arguing that McCormick's comments about the common usage of burial vaults in the 19th century has no relevance to anything even a few years after the 19th century, or are you clinging to the septic tank idea instead, or a combination of both? The Commission hasn't established that it was ever used as a septic tank, and you yourself just admitted that the bodies weren't placed in an actively-used septic tank filled with sewage. And we're talking about burials that began in the 1920s or earlier, not long after the turn of the century; hence I think McCormick's statements would be relevant since things didn't abruptly change on 1 January 1900. More to the point, show me an RS stating that such burial methods weren't allowed in Ireland during the time period we're talking about. So far, you've just been giving your own personal assurances on that subject and using it to contradict a statement by an historian, which is not what we're supposed to do. Ryn78 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This article, which is widely cited in the field, provides additional insight into defining mass graves. Haglund, W., Connor, M., & Scott, D. (2001). The Archaeology of Contemporary Mass Graves. Historical Archaeology, 35(1), 57-69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25616893 From page 57: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC) "The term "mass grave" should probably be left as a relative term and specific graves described by an estimate of the minimum number of individuals it contains. For instance, the grave used as an example in this article is a mass grave containing a minimum of 500 people. In addition to the estimate of the number of bodies in a grave, mass graves are defined by their internal configuration, the major attribute of which is whether the bodies are adjacent or separate. A mass grave of 50 people, where the people are laid in a trench not touching each other, is vastly different from a mass grave where the bodies press against each other." Haglund in particular suggests that defining what a mass grave is should not require knowledge or judgement about what brought it about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugusteBlanqui (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on Rugg and Huglund "mass grave" seems appropriate. Keith Mant a well-known and respected pathologist offers an even more basic definition as the commingled remains of two or more people in "Knowledge acquired from post-war exhumations", in: A. Boddington, A.N. Garland, R.C. Janaway (Eds.), Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science, Manchester University Press, Manchester UK, 1987, pp. 65–78

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC) I think Mant's definition is too broad, and it is interesting to note the difference between Mant (a pathologist) and Huglund and Rugg (archaeologists). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources from Ireland for use of the term and Category:Mass graves:

• Irish Independent
• Irish Times
• Irish Examiner
• RTÉ
• TV3
• Newstalk

Reliable sources from outside Ireland for use of the term and Category:Mass graves:

• The Guardian
• The Irish Post
• Washington Post
• Time Magazine
• Daily Telegraph
• The BBC
• CBS
• Al Jazeera

to name just a few... Definition satisfied, multiple reliable sources listed. Please stop removing this category. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To AugusteBlanqui & Bastun: Is there any particular reason why you two are so insistent that we MUST use the term "mass grave" rather than "burial site" or some other more neutral term? As I said, "mass grave" is almost always used for cases of genocide or other mass-murder cases, no matter how it is technically defined by Rugg. That makes it a loaded term in actual usage. We're supposed to pick the most neutral phrasing, not the least. Ryn78 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It is important that Wikipedia be as accurate as possible; mass grave is the most accurate description of the site. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, it's a mass grave by just about every criterion. Stop futzing around with semantics - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There are multiple reliable sources which use the term "mass grave". That's what everyone is calling it, so let's use that term. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a mass grave. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

By "just about everyone" you mean newspaper headlines from the same media sources which used to run headlines declaring that babies were starved to death, until their source (Philip Boucher-Hayes) said the media was misquoting him. And as Laurel Lodged pointed out, the articles which use "mass grave" in the headlines generally never mention it in the body text. That's pretty much the definition of sensationalistic headlines. Wikipedia is not supposed to go by sensationalistic headlines. Ryn78 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Who exactly are you quoting when you say "just about everyone"? You're the only person on this page to have used that phrase. It's not the first time you've misread, misunderstood, or put words in other peoples' mouths, though. I do, however, owe you an apology. The Irish Independent link I added above for evidence of use of the term 'mass grave' only uses it in a headline and subheading. Here is an alternative Irish Independent article that does use the term 'mass grave' in the body of the article. The other thirteen articles I listed, however, all use the term in the bodies of their respective articles. Perhaps an apology from you for your use of "alternative facts" is in order... Once again, so - stop removing reliably sourced content against consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: It was Ebelular who used the phrase "That's what everyone is calling it", so that's who I was responding to with that comment (and that's why my note wasn't addressed to any specific person since it was addressed to all of you who had posted that day). As for the issue of whether the sources use the term in the body text: I was quoting Laurel Lodged on that point. I haven't gone through all of them to see what percentage use it in the body text, but if you want me to apologize profusely for quoting someone else's tally, then I'll apologize profusely while groveling and beating my chest. But I don't ask you to apologize for quoting much more dubious ideas.

The main point, however, is that the term is generally used today to refer only to cases of homicide or genocide, regardless of Rugg's definition; and this makes it a loaded term and hence not the most neutral term that we can use. Wikipedia guidelines call for neutral language. Ryn78 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus clearly disagrees with you. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: "Consensus" in this case comes down to a handful of people agreeing with you, against Laurel Lodged and I. If that's a meaningful consensus, it's a razor-thin margin. Ryn78 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Kenny Article

Bastun: You removed: "the deaths were clustered during epidemics, especially during periods of national deprivation" by claiming Patrick Kenny doesn't say that, but the excerpt from him right after that sentence does in fact say: "Significantly, one-third of all deaths at the home occurred during the years of World War II, a period of widespread economic hardship", and his article mentions that many of the deaths occurred during "outbreaks" of various diseases. "Outbreaks" would imply epidemics in the area, and I remember a different source which had a chart showing clear correlation between regional epidemics and the deaths at the Tuam Home. There's no justification for just deleting this crucial bit of context. Ryn78 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is. It doesn't satisfy WP:V. Explicitly, the sentence says Kenny says that "the deaths were clustered during epidemics, especially during periods of national deprivation." That is nowhere in Kenny's article. I have already explained on this talk page that "economic hardship" doesn't apply; the nuns received a headage payment of €1 per child in their care. If you can find sources for "epidemics in the area", by all means reference them. Assuming Kenny's mention of "outbreaks" in the home equated to "epidemics in the area" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Malnutrition makes a person vulnerable to illness so it would not be a surprise if the death rate was higher for these children during an outbreak. Starved children tend to die of illness before they die of hunger. It would be necessary to show that the death rate was the same as the rest of the area. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Patrick Kenny explicitly mentions the time of hardship during WWII. You've attempted to dismiss that with your own OR statement about the headage payment, which: 1) refers to a very small payment which didn't go very far even back then; 2) a headage payment will not stop diseases that were incurable at the time (if there's no cure, then no amount of money will purchase a cure); 3) if an epidemic starts in the slums it will spread even to well-off neighborhoods and affect people regardless of income. That's what is meant when people point out that Ireland was a poor country then and was prone to epidemics - i.e. it has nothing to do with how much money this specific Home had. 4) Kenny still mentioned the time of hardship during WWII whether or not you personally think he was right about that subject. The source does in fact mention it, so stop removing the summary which says that the source mentions it.

I'll have to look up the article correlating the deaths to regional epidemics, since I don't have much time now. Ryn78 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui: The "starvation" idea was based on a misquotation of a statement by Philip Boucher-Hayes, who said bluntly that the media misquoted him. Stop repeating debunked claims. Ryn78 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The removed sentence read: "Patrick Kenny stated in The National Catholic Register that the deaths were clustered during epidemics, especially during periods of national deprivation." In fact, the cited article makes no mention of epidemics or "periods of national deprivation", "especially" or otherwise. We have already been over the headage payment (OR? What OR?). Let me quote from this talk page from 2015 (when you were trying to censor the language actually used in an official report from a state agency): "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." Bottom line, however, is that the source just does not say what you want it to say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: The Kenny article mentions the "period of widespread economic hardship" during WWII, which would justify the phrase "periods of national deprivation", unless you're claiming we need to use the exact same phrase in which case we can use "period of widespread economic hardship". I don't know what the difference would be since one is a very close paraphrase of the other. You can debate whether he mentions regional epidemics since that depends on what he meant by "outbreaks". As for the headage payment: your list of prices doesn't address the issue of how money is supposed to cure diseases which in many cases were incurable at that time. Ryn78 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, the source just does not say what you want it to say. Fine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Are you reading the same source? It says "a period of widespread economic hardship" during WWII. Why not just admit this, and we can move on? Ryn78 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that edit is needlessly repetitive, but whatever floats your boat. Now - is it time to think about removing the earlier Kenny sentences, where he claims there couldn't possibly be bodies there, and if even there were, they were from another time, and even if there were bodies from another time then they were in a burial vault, definitely, he's sure because reasons, and "Ican'thearyouIcan'thearyouIcan'thearyou!"; or is it more appropriate to have the utter defence of everything Catholic in there, no matter how foolish it makes someone look now? It would be in keeping with your theme of the first mention of starvation being a denial that someone had mentioned it; and the first mention of "Holocaust" being a quote about people using the term inappropriately... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: If you want to go thru the entire article and weed out every comment that turned out to be false or still isn't proven, can we also take out all the shrill quotes from politicians and reporters describing the Home as if it were a death camp? Otherwise, you're selectively removing only statements from one side. I would add that Kenny was just pointing out that the evidence available in 2014 didn't support the claims, and the evidence still doesn't support some of the claims, especially the more lurid ones.

I covered the "marasmus/malnutrition" issue on the Bon Secours Sisters talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have not removed anything, bar some unnecessary "clarifications" from AP (nobody really cares that they were out by a year in the time the Home was open). I've no problem leaving Kenny's quotes in. I just think they make him look... unwise. Though, of course, he wasn't pointing out that the available evidence didn't support the claims, he was a) defending the Order, and b) offering his own unsupported theories that were themselves arrived at without evidence. On the marasmus issue: Marasmus is a form of malnutrition; you are speculating and assuming again about what gave rise to the "deliberate starvation idea". Read the quote - Boucher-Hayes "debunks" nothing; he states that he'd been misquoted. The first mention of "starvation" in the article is therefore, perversely, Boucher-Hayes saying he'd been misquoted about it. However, you want it in there, just like you want the only mention of 'holocaust' being someone saying it's not appropriate to use. So we'll leave those quotes in... Though I'm wondering should we also include the original uses of the h-word to give your quote some context, otherwise it just appears bizarre. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: If you want to put in a Holocaust claim to provide context then go ahead: it'll illustrate the nature of so much of the media coverage and reaction.

I covered the "marasmus/malnutrition" issue on the Bon Secours Sisters talk page. Ryn78 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing referenced material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Address my reasons for changing those sentences rather than just edit-warring. Ryn78 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reasons for most of your edits genuinely appear to be nothing more than "This could possibly be construed as anti-Catholic, therefore I don't like it and will remove it. Stop removing referenced material against consensus. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: You either aren't reading what I wrote, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my arguments in the same fashion you always do. I'll interpret that as clear proof that you don't have any counterargument to make. Until you present an argument, I'm just going to keep reverting the article back to the version that actually quotes the medical reports and other relevant information. (Hint: the medical reports don't say "malnutrition AND marasmus"; they just say "marasmus" AFAIK; and they specifically mention typical causes of marasmus such as staphylococcus infections of the GI tract causing chronic diarrhea and similar maladies of the stomach or intestines. It's horrendously misleading to claim that this is standalone malnutrition as if it was caused by something other than disease - such as neglect or deliberate starvation, as so many people are claiming). On the "septic tank map" issue: balance and neutrality requires that we either also quote the sources which mention the two "burial grounds" listed on maps, or that we just quote the Commission's conclusions on the matter. You won't do either, because you insist on perpetuating the narrative that babies were dumped into a septic tank. Ryn78 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jebus. What you're essentially saying is you're going to continue edit-warring despite not knowing the facts and that you are assuming a hell of a lot, including bringing in your own unreferenced original research. Hint: our article doesn't say "malnutrition AND marasmus" either; and not a single instance of staphylococcus infection appears in the records. Marasmus - a form of malnutrition - is listed as the sole cause of death in seven instances. (It is listed alongside other "causes of death" in another seven, though one of those other causes is "mental defective" and another is impetigo, which normally isn't serious, let alone fatal!) The vast majority of sources - 19,400 - use "malnutrition" when writing about Tuam, versus 1,750 using "marasmus".

On the "septic tank map" issue: WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NPOV require that we report what the sources say: this article has accurately reported for months (years?) that the "The report noted that the site was also the location of a septic tank when overlaid with maps of the period of use as a workhouse" and this is backed by the references. You have begun edit-warring on the Bon Secours Sisters article to replace the same well-referenced sentence with an unreferenced and incorrect sentence. Both articles do, in fact, include the Commission's statement that they don't know if the structure that appears to be treatment of waste water/sewage was in fact used for that purpose. There's your "balance." Please stop removing referenced material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Staphylococcus infection is mentioned in one of the reports by a doctor who inspected the home during an outbreak. I think the article quotes this, otherwise I could look up the source again and cite it here if you want. "Marasmus" isn't really an ambiguous term that could refer to literally any cause of malnutrition: it specifically means a GI infection or other medical problem which leads to malnutrition. Right now, the article says "malnutrition (including marasmus-induced malnutrition)" or words to that effect, as if some of the malnutrition cases wouldn't qualify as marasmus. Unless the actual medical reports say that, Wikipedia can't claim that. And yes, the majority of the media sources are sloppy enough to use just "malnutrition" but many of them also claimed nuns starved hundreds (or in some articles, thousands) of children to death. That's why we need to use the media sources which actually bother to use direct quotes from the medical reports, not the tabloid-style nonsense.

On the map issue: you claim I've been adding "unreferenced" material on that point when in fact I've merely been deleting a sentence without adding anything of my own whatsoever, as in this edit I made yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bon_Secours_Sisters&type=revision&diff=773542153&oldid=773402425

You're therefore (again) accusing me of something I didn't do. Are you bothering to look at my edits before reverting them, or are you just in the habit of making false accusations and ad hominem comments? This needs to stop. And as I said, if you really want to include a gratuitous comment about the map showing a septic tank on the property then balance requires that we also include the sources which mention the maps that show two "burial grounds". Corless herself has mentioned this, so why don't you want to include that? Ryn78 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

One doctor may indeed have mentioned staphylococcus infection in a report; there is no mention of it in this article or on a single death cert. The "tabloid-style nonsense" is purely your opinion; the Irish Independent, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, New York Times, RTÉ, BBC, Guardian, etc., most certainly wouldn't be regarded as "tabloids" by the vast majority of people. ("It's the New York Times, for crying out loud!") Marasmus is indeed a form of malnutrition; the sources use both terms, and they use the latter far more often than the former. Both terms are included in the article. WP:V, W:RS versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and WP:FLOG, being honest).

On the map issue, yes, you're correct, you merely removed a referenced sentence to leave an unreferenced sentence that gives the false impression that excavations "found a burial vault", implying some purpose-built burial structure. So yes, apologies for that, and I'll fix the preceding sentence now.

As to "gratuitous comment"? WTF? It's highly relevant that Corless identified years ago that the most likely resting place of the 796 children was possibly in the former septic tank - that you think this is somehow "gratuitous" is all too telling. You've not edited outside this article and the Bon Secours Sisters article for a fortnight now; or outside the defence of the BS order and an article about a Christian lobby group for a month. Maybe time to broaden your horizons to other (non-religious) topics? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Some of the death certificates mention gastrointestinal diseases, and the doctor's report I mentioned further places things in context since he talks about examining a large number of babies with chronic diarrhea due to a staphylococcus epidemic. There is no reason to use the language currently in the article, and it only perpetuates the starvation narrative.

On the septic tank issue: You still haven't given any reason to use a three-year-old bit of speculation that has now been supplanted by an actual investigation. Instead, you've gone back to your habit of implying bias on my part, which is what you usually do when you don't have an argument to make. I think I've presented a good objective set of reasons for making the edits I've suggested. Either respond to those reasons or consent to a compromise. Ryn78 (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is supported by WP:V, WP:RS, and the sources. You seem to want us to assume that all of the children mentioned in this doctor's report subsequently died; that the children whose death certs list "marasmus" as cause of death also had contributing other causes which weren't recorded, for whatever reason; and/or that some of the children who have gastrointestinal diseases as cause of death but don't have marasmus listed as a contributing factor or other cause did actually have marasmus. That'd be WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. No, we won't be doing that.

The fact that the septic tank reference is three years old is entirely irrelevant. Stop bringing that up like it's an issue. (How old is that doctor's report, lol?) You keep asserting that it's a "bit of speculation." It isn't. It's a verifiable fact, that's now been substantiated by an actual investigation. That you cannot comprehend or acknowledge this fact suggests some sort of cognitive dissonance on your part around this whole issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: It's not a matter of "contributing other causes" of death: if someone has a GI infection that inhibits digestion, then they're going to become malnourished because they aren't digesting food properly. That's what marasmus refers to in the death certificates. I mentioned the inspection report because it further clarifies what was going on, regardless of whether those specific babies later died because certainly other babies with the same problem did.

On the septic tank issue: the Commission's report only definitely identifies one of the structures as a septic tank, and it isn't the one with the bodies. The map led Corless to assume the bodies were placed in a septic tank, which has not been proven. Unless the Commission says the vault with the bodies was a septic tank, we can't use the map to justify anything, and there's little reason to mention it now except to document to stages of Corless' thought process on the matter; but that needs to be handled in a section dealing with the latter issue rather than phrased in a way that strongly implies the map proves the bodies were in a septic tank. This should be common sense. Ryn78 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Marasmus: I really don't know how many different ways I can say this, or why it needs to be said so many times: the current wording is supported by the sources, satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. We will not be including anything involving WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. End of.

Likewise on the septic tank map issue. "[Corless'] report noted that the site was also the location of a septic tank when overlaid with maps of the period of use as a workhouse", "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." - facts. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV are all satisfied. End of. Goodbye. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be a an attempt to weasle out of what the reliable sources say. The sources keep talking about this. We shouldn't tweak it just because it makes the nuns look better. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Also agreed. It's our job here to summarize and report on what the reliable sources are saying - and there are many - and not put our own interpretation on them. Furthermore, I'm starting to smell a WP:WEASEL, with due respect - Alison ^❤ 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Do you have a source that provides an actual documented case where marasmus wasn't the cause of malnutrition as described in the medical reports? Because otherwise you're the one who is engaging in OR to claim that some of the cases didn't involve marasmus. I.e. the media is using "malnutrition" as a substitute for "marasmus" since that's the actual term used in the same medical reports quoted by some of the media sources themselves; meaning that any statement which goes beyond that is OR, not vice-versa. You're turning this upside down.

On the septic tank issue, you just keep taking this in circles because you refuse to address my actual points. Again: yes, one map mentions a septic tank, and other maps and city council records mention two "burial grounds". All of this has been cited in the media sources, so what possible justification is there for prominently mentioning the "septic tank" map but not the other sources mentioning the "burial grounds"? You're just trying to perpetuate the dumped-in-a-septic-tank narrative in the absence of a clear conclusion by the Commission.

Ebelular: No, I've been arguing that we should quote the Commission and the sources which actually bother to cite the evidence itself rather than using sensationalistic claims. You want to use the latter to make it look like the nuns are guilty before the Commission declares them guilty. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? The doctors who inspected the home didn't blame the nuns, nor did the Commission. Wikipedia isn't supposed to create the perception of guilt where none has been proven. Ryn78 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ryn, do you have actual evidence of a staphylococcus epidemic as a factor in any deaths, or is it more like when you were championing diptheria as the Grim Reaper of Tuam, equally without foundation? No, we're not "using malnutrition in place of marasmus." Official government reports use the term too. As has been pointed out to you in the past. By the way, the Commission will not be declaring anyone innocent or guilty. That's not it's purpose and not how they work.) "The doctors who inspected the home didn't blame the nuns, nor did the Commission." - the Commission that hasn't reported yet? Doctors - in 1947 - in Ireland - criticising nuns? As if! Really. We're done. Step away from the poor dead horse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Bastun: Is there any possibility that you'll ever compromise on this? It takes two to beat a dead horse, by the way.

You've returned to your argument that no doctor in 1940s-era Ireland would ever blame nuns no matter what they were doing, therefore you think it's fine to just assume the nuns were doing something horrible. Do you have an RS to back up any of that, or is it just your own opinion?

I cited the staphylococcus outbreak as an example of what the doctors found about the reasons many babies were losing weight; I don't know whether any of the death certificates list that specific type of bacteria as a cause but it would certainly fall within the category of medical problems covered by the term "marasmus", and it wouldn't make any difference what specific type of microbe was involved since the point still stands (i.e. the only evidence we have indicates that infection or other medical problems were the cause, not the withholding of food). But which specific cases were due to malnutrition that DIDN'T involve marasmus? Ryn78 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)