Jump to content

Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Title

I think the article's title should be the name of the institution. The discovery of the mass grave has shed light on it, but the story is much deeper than just the grave. As the investigation continues more will be reported on the institution itself and its history.

I am not sure what it is actually called however. Was "The Home" its formal title? Or was it just what it was informally referred to? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case I think the articles should be merged, with the formal title of the home as the title. Is "Bon Secours Mother and Baby home" the full formal title? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we've three (now two!) separate efforts going on here, by three bunches of editors. The article here looks the most comprehensive, tho the title is likely better at the other article. Mind if I do a history-merge, so we can just get back to one? - Alison ❤ 07:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

See the section below. It seems this article uses text directly from news stories. The articles should be merged, and none of the text from this article re-used. It should be re-written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will remain neutral on this as the article's creator/updater, but I've dealt with most of the paraphrasing issues (see below) and I believe it is good to go now if this will eventually be merged to save the effort of rewriting. Harizotoh9 and Alison, any thoughts here? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok - I've actually done a history merge now and consolidated all three pages to this one page. The last text is currently topmost, but you can pick through the article history to see the contents of the other two pages. Feel free to pick the best parts out of each, especially the references. But anyways - we should be back to one page now with all the history, attribution, etc intact - Alison ❤ 08:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

What was the correct title of the institution: St. Mary's Mother and Baby Home? Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home? Other? Simplicius (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

While reading this article, I happened to notice that this passage:

"two little boys, Francis Hopkins and Barry Sweeney, accidentally broke apart the concrete slab covering it when they were playing and discovered a tomb filled with small skeletons. A priest gave prayers at the site and it was resealed, with the number of bodies below unknown."

is pretty similar to the wording in the cited Guardian article:

"two little boys, playing, broke apart the concrete slab covering it and discovered a tomb filled with small skeletons. A parish priest said prayers at the site, and it was sealed once more, the number of bodies below unknown"
 Fixed Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked two more sentences at random, and found them to be almost identical to the cited sources. Compare this from the article:

"Records at Galway County Council are also emerging of the discovery in the 1970s of a large number of unidentified remains in a water tank close to the home, concluding that deceased children were disposed of in the tank without a proper burial or any records being kept on their interment."

to this from the Irish Times:

"Records at Galway County Council list a very large number of deaths occurring at the home. Details are also emerging of the discovery in the 1970s of a large number of unidentified remains in a water tank close to the home, leading some to conclude that deceased children were disposed of in the tank without a proper burial or any records being kept on their interment."
 Fixed Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article:

"Many of the women, after paying a penance of indentured servitude for their out-of-wedlock pregnancy, left the Home to live in other parts of Ireland and beyond. Some of their children were left behind."

Washington Post:

"Many of the women, after paying a penance of indentured servitude for their out-of-wedlock pregnancy, left the Home for work and lives in other parts of Ireland and beyond. Some of their children were not so fortunate."
Red X Not fixed → Can someone help with this one? I can't come up with original wording for that part (forgive my English language). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I only checked these three passages; someone needs to go through the whole article to ensure the wording of each sentence is original. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This article will likely become a redirect and merged with Bon Secours Mother and Baby home, Tuam. So when merged make sure to not copy over any of the text from this article. Keep the references and make new text.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All thirteen sources have now been compared with our article and a few remaining issues were cleared up. Should be violation free as of now. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"a mass grave estimated to contain the bodies of 800 young children"

  • in 1975 two boys find a pit with bones, presumably human in it. A Priest blesses the site, it is resealed and looked after.
  • in 2014 a researcher compiles a report of the death certificated written by the Sisters and concludes that 769 people died at Bon Secours.

But no one has actually seen this grave since 1975. Did either of the boys guess at how many people were buried there? Did the Priest happen to be a forensic scientist who guessed at the age of the interned? We know that there are the remains of 800 children in that pit how?

Its worth noting that there is a large grave on the property but we can't claim to know who is in it. There could be the remains of 8 bodies or of 8,000 bodies in there. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It's not part of Wikipedia's remit to know. All we can do is report what reliable sources are saying. And frankly, given the nature of this particular tragedy, your snarky "forensic scientist" comment is really inappropriate - Alison ❤ 19:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(I did not mean to offen, but to drive home a point. I apologize if I came off as crass) This language remains incredibly problematic and not especially supported. We cant state these claims categorically. We have to be precise in who is assuming these things. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Word like "Discovered" are problematic

Corless didn't "discover" a grave, those two boys in '75 did. Corless didn't "discover" the deaths, they were recorded by the Nuns and a matter of public record.

I, for one, like "concluded". Cosmiccoffee (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be fixed to reflect the sources. I eced over this edit of yours, but did not revert it since your wording didn't make sense. ToBk (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Though I am content with the current text (is "deduced" better?), many sources refer to Corless having "discovered" or "uncovered" the burials. These are routine historical terms. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mass grave section is confusing

It was discovered by accident in 1975 and then watched by a local couple for 35 years or until 2010. What happened in 2010? Did the site get bulldozed?

Also, the article says "when two boys smashed a concrete slab". The first source says "two 12-year-old boys, Francis Hopkins and Barry Sweeney, peered into a hole in a concrete slab while they were playing. According to their accounts, it was “filled to the brim with bones.”"[1] This source is ambiguous on if the septic tank still exists. None of the sourced I looked at claimed the boys smashed a concrete slab.

The second citation is unabiguous and says "The bodies of 796 children, between the ages of two days and nine years old, have been found in a disused sewage tank in Tuam, County Galway. They died between 1925 and 1961 in a mother and baby home under the care of the Bon Secours nuns."[2]

The Wikipedia article is also wrong in how is reports the research by the historian. The article strongly implies that all 796 children whose death was reported were checked for in local graveyards. That was not the case. The historian only checked 100 of the 796 children.[3]

Other sources are ambiguous on if the septic tank has been opened and the bodies counted.[4] This article implies the septic tank has not been opened. "“We can safely assume that they’re all in that plot,” Corless told TheJournal.ie."[5] --Marc Kupper|talk 08:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unused source

Should any use be made of this source? On pages 48-49 there are some more details of the building's use as a workhouse, with a plan, and some information about Sister Hortense McNamara on p.55. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Death rate

796 children between 1925 and 1961 is 796 / ((1961 - 1925 + 1) * 12) = a death rate of 1.793 children per month. p.s. corrected.

No, you've ended up with the terms backwards: it's 1.793 deaths per month, for 37 years, that is, one death every two weeks or so. Without comparing to the number of live births at the same institution, it's hard to make a definitive statement, but that looks like a shockingly high mortality rate for what was essentially a maternity ward. What was the mortality rate for actual hospitals over the same period? My guess was that it was much much lower, meaning the people running The Home were either un-skilled or un-caring; probably both. How many of the nuns working there had actual training in (what today we call) neonatal care? The only parallel I can think of are the baby "farms" of earlier centuries, where unwanted kids were left and were not expected to thrive, and indeed were often "looked after" by older children, and given no significant health care. Theonemacduff (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a post birth abortion clinic. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

See List of countries by infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate (died in their first year) in Ireland in the early 50's was 41.42 per 1000. If they had more than 45 births a month (doubtful), then they are just average for the time period. But that assumes the children all died in their first year. I believe I read the Home kept children until they were 7. "That was then, This is now" from the Government of Ireland Central Statistics Office mentions "in 1949, one child in 16 did not live to see his or her fifth birthday ...". So to be average they would need maybe 30 births per month (still doubtful). Of course this is all original research (WP:OR), but gives us perspective when writing this article. It was incredibly bad by today's standards, but merely bad by the standards back then. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Their children were separated from them and cared for by the nuns until they could be adopted."

Several of the sources directly contradict this. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a Magdalene Asylum?

I don't think that The Home was, at least officially speaking, a Magdalene asylum. For example, as a "mother and baby home", former residents are not covered by the Magdalene Restorative Justice Scheme. "Women who spent time in mother and baby homes are not eligible to apply." (See [6]).

I'm not sure what the exact distinction is, but I think that people were sent to the asylums by the courts, for prostitution offences and the like, whereas women entered mother and baby homes 'voluntarily'. In addition, the Magdalene Asylum entry indicates that no births took place in those institutions.

Thoughts? jxm (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Was discussing this with another editor last night. I'm not sure it's accurate to refer to it that way, either, but I also don't know how malleable the "Magdalene Asylum" moniker is, i.e., whether it was ever an unambiguously defined term with clear criteria or whether, to some extent, it's a contemporary term that can be applied to the whole 20th C. Irish practice of shoving "undesirable" women out of sight and into religious custody. And it seems they were referred to as "inmates," after all. Not residents. We could use a subject matter expert. ;-) Dppowell (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What's it being called in the media? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Would agree, does not seem to be oriented around providing women a long-term employment alternative to prostitution. Cosmiccoffee (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to connect the dots about Magdalene Laundries and Catholic Homes for Unwed Mothers in Ireland

I highly recommend that one of your "reporters" work on bringing all the pieces of this "story" together in one comprehensive article. More about this horror needs to be brought to the world's attention.

See e.g.,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magdalene_Sisters


http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/new-film-philomena-has-lessons-worthy-gospel

184.56.247.71 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)tghavener@havenerlaw.com184.56.247.71 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail

A tabloid is not a good source for an encyclopaedia article. We should hold off including this material until a better source becomes available. --John (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Force Labor

The Washington Post article states:

"Many of the women, after paying a penance of indentured servitude for their out-of-wedlock pregnancy, left the Home to live in other parts of Ireland and beyond."

However the TheJournal.ie article states:

"Some of the poorer women who gave birth were forced to work for the nuns in the institution after they had their child as a way to pay for the service which had been provided to them."

I noticed the Washington Post article after I made this change. However I still do not see how real penance could be forced. So I am reluctant to change it back. We should be careful what goes in this article as the press in sensationalizing this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement "Thousands of unwed pregnant women were sent there to give birth and forced to work without pay as penance." does not match the source "Some of the poorer women who gave birth were forced to work for the nuns in the institution after they had their child as a way to pay for the service which had been provided to them." I'm changing it to match the source. I'd also like to remind people that Wikipedia has a NPOV and is not a place to advance agendas. User:Philip72 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

You recently pointed out on the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home talk page that tabloids (specifically the "Irish Daily Mail") were a poor source of information; so I wanted to ask for your help bringing some additional sanity to the "Bon Secours..." article. If you look at the nominally reputable media outlets that have covered this story and trace their sources step by step, you'll find that most of the information originally came from another tabloid, the "Irish Mail", which is so cheesy that I don't think we could call it a "reliable source". But the "Washington Post" quoted it while kicking off the current scandal coverage, and other news outlets quoted the "Post", and so on until CNN, NBC, ABC, etc were all screaming about "800 dead babies in the septic tank" - a claim which the "Irish Mail" had initiated, as far as I can tell. Then the alleged source of the allegations - Catherine Corless - began complaining that the media was distorting her comments and distorting the entire issue beyond all recognition. In other words: most of this is nonsense. Corless never claimed she found "800 babies in the septic tank" - a tabloid made that up - and everything else since then has been the result of layer after layer of embellishment as the original lie has been recycled over and over, with the tale growing more outrageous with each retelling. Wikipedia shouldn't be perpetuating tabloid trash - even if "reliable" news sources are unprincipled enough to repeat the tabloid trash - especially since it entails serious allegations against living people.

Yes, regular news media outlets would usually be considered "reliable sources"; but if a specific news article is ultimately based on information from a tabloid that we would never consider reliable, then that specific news article should also be considered unreliable and should not be used. I won't have much luck convincing most of the current people editing the "Bon Secours..." article - I've had to struggle just to include some tiny degree of balance - so I was hoping that since you're an admin you could help solve this problem. Ryn78 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post. I am not acting as an admin here but of course I will try to bring some thought and experience to the matter. Leave it with me. --John (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I reposted the above from my user talk page. If it is true that this story originates with an unreliable source, then that should factor into how the article is written. Material which originates with a poor source but is then repeated by more reliable sources, to some extent picks up credibility from the reliable sources. We might want to consider wording which makes this evolution clear. What do others think? --John (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
While I, to an extent, have some sympathy with the thinking behind making clear this evolution, I fear this may set a bad precedent as far as involving WP:OR is concerned. Also, I'm a little wary of setting a hard rule that The Daily Mail (and its subsidiaries) are "tabloid[s] that we would never consider reliable": as Gareth E Kegg has pointed out in a previous thread on this page (and has been persuasively pointed out to myself on another occasion), The Daily Mail "is an RS in some cases". How can a line be drawn between this, and some editor alleging that a fact published in, say, an Oxford University Press book has originated from "an unreliable source"? I don't think we can start doing this unless such a distinction has been drawn by at least one reliable published source. i.e. I would personally be unhappy if Wikipedia's rules were stretched or bent by WP editors to accommodate a prejudice held by certain editors against particular sources, bearing in mind that even stories originating from The Times can prove not entirely trustworthy. Alfietucker (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no OR involved in saying that the Daily Mail is a tabloid and therefore an unreliable source. We don't work on precedent as such but it should be easy to find numerous central discussions where the Mail has been so discussed. Or indeed, one's common sense. --John (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
John, whether one can find sources which say that "the Daily Mail is a tabloid and therefore an unreliable source" is not the issue. If I understood your previous post correctly - in particular where you write "Material which originates with a poor source but is then repeated by more reliable sources, to some extent picks up credibility from the reliable sources. We might want to consider wording which makes this evolution clear." - then what you are proposing appears to risk breaching WP:OR, unless you can find a reliable published secondary source which explicitly presents this evolution. To now say such action (i.e. making "this evolution clear") can be justified by finding a source that says "the Daily Mail is a tabloid and therefore an unreliable source" is surely risking synthesis of different sources in order to reach what an editor believes to be a desirable conclusion. Just to quote relevant WP policy, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Alfietucker (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, you greatly misunderstand me. If there is a reliable source that describes how this story evolved from tabloid to respectable media, then we should use it. If not, we can't. --John (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad we're reading the same hymn sheet/WP policy. Alfietucker (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to thank John for being willing to take up this issue. While I understand the concerns about OR, nonetheless in this case we'd just be going by information explicitly stated in the sources we're already using. I.e., if source X quotes the "Washington Post" article and the "Post" article quotes the "Irish Mail", then that's an objective, straightforward matter of citing what our sources say about their own sources. I don't think that's OR, and we don't even need to state the evolution of the story explicitly, since we can just word the article more cautiously and conditionally. The only value judgement we need to make is whether the "Irish Mail" counts as a reliable source or not. If you look at it, you'll notice the all-too-familiar mix of gigantic sensational headlines combined with vapid celebrity gossip ("Mick Jagger Is Smiling Again!") which is the true mark of the tabloid. I don't think we would normally view this as a reliable source. The "Washington Post" quoted this source, then other media outlets quoted the "Post" and so forth down the line, to produce the enormous media attention to this subject in the last few days. My Baloney Meter overloaded, all of its circuit boards melted, and I had to buy a new Baloney Meter. At any rate, all I'm suggesting is that we should phrase this article with more qualifiers - "source x alleges that..." - rather than stating everything as scientific truth just because there are nominally "reliable sources" repeating the tabloid nonsense. We also need to give greater weight to the news articles which have taken the trouble to give the opposing side of the issue, such as the ones which admit that Catherine Corless - the original source for the allegations - is upset that the media has distorted the subject so badly. This is really just a matter of balance and caution, in keeping with the normal Wikipedia guidelines. Ryn78 (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Great post, Ryn. Your "Mick Jagger Is Smiling Again!" example is always the sort of story that is held up by detractors of tabloids as proof of their unreliability as an RS, but it is also exactly the sort of story we would never include in an article anyway because it is unencyclopedic. I've seen instances where John has removed DM cites despite the information in the DM article deriving from the subject themselves. These papers are legalled up to the nines, and are far more cautious now than they were. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
But the Irish Mail's spin on Corless' allegations has been repudiated by Corless herself, which isn't exactly a good indication of accuracy (at least their Mick-Is-Smiling article was backed up with a photo of Mick's fat lips curving into a clear, incontrovertible smile, so maybe that one was accurate). And it gets worse, because many of the other media articles actually contradict themselves on this subject. Most of them have a headline that reads something like "800 Babies Found In Septic Tank" or "Mass Grave Found", but the body text of the very same article will contradict that by saying that "the septic tank hasn't been excavated yet" (or words to that effect), or will admit that the "mass grave" idea is based only on Corless' (misquoted) speculation and the rumor that a couple of small boys said they found about "twenty" skeletons on the site in 1975. "Twenty" isn't "800"; the alleged bones haven't been found again yet; and the septic tank hasn't been searched. So what portion of these news sources do we quote : the body text or the sensational headline which is directly contradicted by the body text? We're really supposed to quote only actual evidence given in news sources, not speculation or sensational hyperbole. Certainly, if we're going to state anything as a Wikipedia-approved fact, in Wikipedia's own voice, we really need to wait until the sources include hard evidence : namely, if any bones are actually located and scientifically analyzed to determine how old they are and who they belong to. If they turn out to date from the 14th century, then they obviously have nothing to do with the Bon Secours Children's Home. The Children's Home was hardly the only place located in that building over its history: it had previously been occupied by a workhouse for the poor during the Great Famine and a military barracks during the Irish Civil War in which prisoners were executed (either of which could be the origin of any bones on the site), and probably a lot of other things. That area has been inhabited for thousands of years. Remember the famous "Staffordshire Hoard" which was found just barely beneath the surface, as if it was of recent origin, and yet it was dated to the 7th century. All I'm saying is that right now, the sources are making wild guesses and yet Wikipedia's article is citing the wild guesses as established fact. We're not supposed to do that. One of the good things about Wikipedia is that it's often more balanced and restrained than other sources because it's the result of so many people's mutual effort. I think we need to uphold that good tradition in this article. Ryn78 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Let's reflect the plurality of the debate here, Corless's warning should spur our caution. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded a few portions of the article since there seems to be agreement (or at least no objections) in the above discussion. The changes were fairly small I think, mostly rephrasing as well as providing more precise details of what the sources actually say. We might want to also state how the media coverage began and the implications of the original source, although I'm not sure how to phrase that (maybe just cite a few articles which give their sources, and connect the dots from one to the next? That should be objective and properly sourced I think). Ryn78 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to insist on authentic, full quotes from the involved parties, rather than allowing someone to water the quotes down until it seems that they support the "mass grave" hysteria. No "mass grave" has been found. Even the "Irish Mail" - the source which started the "mass grave in the septic tank" stuff - now seems to be pinning its slim hopes on "anomalous structures" found under the site by a radar scan. This strongly implies that they've now abandoned the septic tank theory, and the radar sweep hasn't found anything unusual. If you'd scan almost any location in Europe you'd find plenty of "anomalous structures" (foundations of medieval buildings, remains of Roman-era fortifications etc), which isn't surprising and isn't proof that there are gabillions of dead babies buried there. I'll say it again: the media coverage has yet to cite a single piece of actual proof to back up the lurid claims the media has been peddling, and we need to be careful about repeating stuff that doesn't have a single shred of actual archaeological evidence to back it up. They'd need to find actual skeletons and then carbon date them to determine whether they date from the same era that the Children's Home was in operation. Ryn78 (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors and admins here need to be aware of the media spin involved in discrediting this story. The "reputable" newspapers didn't cover this story at all' for almost two weeks. Then the first Irish Times article on it was about the media coverage, rather than the actual fact of the unreported burial of 796 babies or mother and baby home mortality rates. The printed version of the Rosita Boland Irish Times article contradicts the videoed interview with Corless on the very same page.

Corless has not retracted her allegations. Please see the @AdrienneJoCo twitter account and http://kettleontherange.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/an-international-publicity-frenzy-and-my-mother/ - both maintained by Corless' daughter. On another issue. Ryn78, that's not how carbon dating works... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting - http://izzykamikaze.tumblr.com/post/89770303451/vaults-under-tuambabies-site-are-part-of-sewage-system and the various links from it. Bottom line - there was a mass grave found - by two boys, in the 1970s. We don't know how many bodies are buried in that grave, or how many more are on the rest of the site. But the fact is 796 children died in that nursing home. Sorry, Ryn. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's sort this out. The quote from the Irish Times article which you removed from this Wikipedia article merely says that Corless has refuted claims she said "800 babies" were dumped in the septic tank; it doesn't claim that she completely repudiated all of her allegations. Those are two different issues. As for the video attached to the Irish Times article: the video is just a brief excerpt from an interview. The fact that this brief excerpt doesn't include some of the details covered in the article does not mean that Corless never said these other things mentioned in the article, it just means that they weren't included in the video. At best, you're engaging in personal speculation and using it to contradict a reliable source, which is something we cannot do at Wikipedia.
Secondly, the Twitter account and blog you mention are not reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines, especially since we can't determine whether they are truly maintained by Corless' daughter.
Thirdly, I'm truly amazed that you would claim that carbon dating isn't used to date bones, when in fact it is common procedure. This isn't in dispute, except by you. In all other cases, they always use carbon dating on organic artifacts to determine the time period the artifact dates from, and that should be step number one for this particular investigation - if they ever find the bones which two boys claimed they found nearly 40 years ago.
Finally, here is an article - the only new one on the subject listed by Google News - from a doctor who has studied medical records concerning the Bon Secours children's home, and points out that the death rate wasn't unusual in that era. He criticizes the media-manufactured outrage over something which was in fact routine during that time period, saying "We need less outrage and more home truths": http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/we-need-less-outrage-and-more-home-truths-about-tuam-30380889.html
In other words, the media has distorted the historical context. And unless someone actually finds these bones and analyzes them to determine whether they date from the right time period, there is no evidence that they had anything to do with the Bon Secours home. That same building and its septic tank had previously been used for many decades as a workhouse for the poor during the Great Famine in Ireland, when millions died (especially the poor) and were often buried in mass graves. That's why the local police said they thought any bones found on the site probably dated from the time of the Great Famine. But we won't know unless the bones are found and dated, until which point the media is just indulging in speculation. Ryn78 (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What an exercise in obfuscation and deflection. "We can't determine whether they are truly maintained by Corless' daughter" - really? *sigh* The video is a brief excerpt from the interview? Yes, it is. So is the printed piece. What's your point? The article (an excerpt) contradicts what Corless actually says in a video (an excerpt from the same interview). One does not hold more water than the other. If anything, the video (in Corless' own words) holds more weight than Rosita Boland's written interpretation of what Corless said. See also Boland's own twitt- oh, no, wait, it might not really be Rosita Boland's Twitter account...
There are many articles on the death rates at the time. They point out that mortality rates in Catholic Mother and Baby homes (not just Tuam, but especially the Sacred Heart Home in Bessboro, Cork) were extraordinarily higher than in the general population. (One wonders how multiple children die from "malnutrition" in Mother and Baby homes...)
Carbon dating is not as accurate as you seem to think it is. What do you think such would prove? The accuracy is around +- 60 to 80 years, depending on samples and many other factors. Given that we're just talking about a few decades ago... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: the Corless interview: the video and printed text do not "contradict" each other : at no point in the video does Corless insist on the idea that there are "800 babies in the septic tank", in fact she specifically says she doesn't know how many there might be. The text quotes her as saying that the media erroneously attributed the "800 babies" idea to her, which does not contradict anything in the video. Where on earth do you get the idea that the two sets of excerpts "contradict" each other? Just because they don't contain precisely the same snippets from the interview? There's absolutely no reason why they would have to repeat exactly the same snippets, in fact that would be rather redundant and would negate the point of including both the text and video on the same webpage. You then alluded to Borland's Twitter account, which you imply admits she fabricated the text of her article, but you didn't provide any link to Borland's Twitter account : you had previously linked to what you said was Corless' daughter's Twitter account instead, not Borland's. Or was that previous link supposed to be Borland's account? Or maybe its authorship changes ? At any rate, if you're going to accuse Borland of falsifying the text of her article, you need to come up with something more substantial than your own supposition. I'm going to restore the quote from Corless repudiating the "800 babies" stuff until you can prove that Borland falsified that point.
Re: "malnutrition": Corless listed deaths from disease, not malnutrition. Cite a source that shows deaths from malnutrition.
As for the death rate: all orphanages had higher death rates than the general population, since disease spreads faster where there are large numbers of children in close proximity (that's also why children tend to contract illnesses in schools more frequently than in most other venues, but that doesn't mean that schools are deliberate death camps). You need to compare the death rate at Catholic orphanages to other orphanages, not to the general population. This is what the doctor I quoted meant when he said the death rate wasn't unusual. Here's an analogy : all modern hospitals have a far higher death rate than the general population too (hint: ill and injured people are sent to hospitals, and a percentage of them die), meaning that it would be grossly dishonest to claim that modern Catholic hospitals are death camps just because they have a far higher death rate than the general population. You'd have to compare them to other hospitals.
Re: carbon dating: You're assuming the bones must be of recent origin, but that location has been inhabited for many centuries. Without testing, you can't tell whether they are of recent origin or not. In fact, the two boys who found them would not have the expertise even to determine whether they are human or animal bones, since there have been cases in which even adults have mistaken one for the other. At any rate, some method of analysis and dating is always used whenever bones are found, rather than leaving the matter to guesswork. Right now, you (and far too many media sources) are speculating that the bones must come from the Bon Secours home even though the bones were never tested in any manner to determine anything about them, and despite the patent fact that the building had been used for other purposes by other groups for a long time. You can't just make stuff up.
The thing that bothers me about most of the media coverage is the complete lack of any type of substantiation that would normally be considered required procedure in all other such cases. What we have instead is sensationalism, speculation, and exaggeration. Frankly, the article really needs to avoid quoting sources which present nothing but unsupported allegations and reports of public outrage, because unsupported allegations are not reliable and the public outrage in this case was sparked by the media's own unsupported allegations in the first place. Ryn78 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Amazing.
You seem absolutely determined to undermine this article. Corless ***has not*** retracted **anything** about 800 babies. That won't be true no matter how many times you state it. What Corless has said, and what reliable sources repeat, with evidence, is that 796 babies and children died in that "Mother and Baby Home", that she retrieved their death certificates, and that there are no burial records for those children. What she has "repudiated" (to use your word) is in the first line of that Irish Times article. "I never used the word 'dumped'."
It's Boland, not Borland. I referred sarcastically to her Twitter account, as earlier you had implied that Adrienne Corless' Twitter account and blog weren't genuine.
Malnutrition: you want sources for this? Why, do you not believe it happened? OK, then:
* http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/tuam-mother-and-baby-home-is-a-scandal-of-church-and-state-271013.html
* http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/mass-baby-grave-in-tuam-galway-bon-secours-nuns-told-to-assist-investigation-30331124.html
* http://www.irishcentral.com/news/-18-children-died-of-hunger-at-Tuam-mother-and-baby-home.html
Even arch-Catholic Defensor Fidelis David Quinn admits children died of malnutrition (though he seems to believe babies materialised in the home, perhaps divinely): http://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/18415-irish-government-finalizes-terms-of-inquiry-into-mother-baby-homes There are dozens more sources.
I'm aware of the death rates - it's been reported on since in the Irish media. See http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-660-children-died-in-dublin-home-in-seven-years-1.1840174 and http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/baby-homes-death-rate-up-to-50-271048.html Tuam certainly doesn't have the highest rate, but one a fortnight? This wasn't a hospital - being a child isn't a disease. Unless you're illegitimate in pre-millennial Ireland, anyway.
Look, it's quite possible that there aren't 796 babies' bodies dumped in a septic tank. It's quite possible that there are in or around 800 babies buried somewhere on the site, because we know nearly one death a fortnight, on average, took place there (yes, some from malnutrition). See, for example, http://philipboucher-hayes.com/2014/06/04/tuam-babies-the-evidence/ Perhaps some - many - are in that tank, perhaps some in other structures on the site. (There are no Roman ruins in Ireland, by the way). It's now being investigated. The truth - or some of it - will emerge, and will hopefully be reported. Attempting to whitewash what happened now is doing nobody any good. You can't just make stuff up, true. Nor can you pretend stuff didn't happen, when there is prima facie evidence that something did happen, and it's being investigated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait - you state blogs aren't reliable sources - then cite a letter to a newspaper as one? I think your own bias is showing... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
"since the article currently is mostly a litany of claims from only one side of the issue)" Could you outline what you believe the two "sides" are? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's take these issues one at a time:
Firstly, you linked to three media articles which you claim would prove that children died of starvation due to deliberate neglect or worse, but these articles are horrendously misleading if not outright nonsense. Let's look at them one by one:
1) The Irish Central article says that 18 children died of "marasmus", which it interprets as malnutrition caused by a lack of food; but the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine says that marasmus can also be "caused by disease and parasitic infection", and Medscape's medical database says the condition is "frequently associated with infections, mainly GI." (see http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/984496-overview )
In other words, there are many diseases which cause malnutrition, either by causing vomiting or diarrhea or both - if you're throwing up all your food or your body isn't digesting it properly (as with diarrhea), that will certainly lead to malnutrition even if you're being fed enough food. In fact, this ties in with an eyewitness description of one of the Mother-and-Baby Homes by one of the doctors who inspected it, Dr. James Deeny, who said that many of the babies in the Home had diarrhea caused by a staphylococcus infection (a common problem at the time). So a common bacterial infection was to blame, not a deliberate attempt to starve babies to death. Dr. Deeny didn't accuse the nuns of any wrongdoing. The media isn't taking any of this into account when they try to interpret medical terms like "marasmus". When lurid, unfounded allegations result from the media's ignorance or (perhaps) deliberately malicious "spin" on subjects like this, I tend to lose patience.
2) The Belfast Telegraph article says : "Documents discovered by local historian Catherine Corless show the children may [emphasis on MAY] have died of starvation and neglect"; but the quotes I've seen from Corless refer to diseases, not starvation; and the Telegraph must be ultimately referring to the same records that use the term "marasmus", so the same comments about that term would apply here as well. The Telegraph is also using the weasel word "may", and you might want to ask why the Telegraph can't express the matter with more certainty.
3) The Irish Examiner article similarly says: "could have died of malnutrition" (emphasis on COULD), another weasel word in the absence of adequate evidence to justify a more certain term.
4) You also misrepresented David Quinn's quote by mockingly claiming he thought the children just "materialized" in the Home. He was alluding to the patent fact that the children who were taken in by the Home often came from poor families and other unfortunate circumstances and hence were often not in the best nutritional state or degree of health when they arrived. Most orphanages had that problem, but usually people don't blame the orphanage for existing problems the children already had before arrival. In other words: if a child arrives malnourished and ill, with the illness causing vomiting or diarrhea and thereby exacerbating the malnutrition, there may not be much the Home can do to stop further deterioration in an era before effective medications existed.
You claimed my hospital analogy wasn't apt, mockingly saying "being a child isn't a disease"; but in an era when a large percentage of children in the general population died of disease (I've seen estimates of 40% just before the age of five alone), it should be obvious that being a child was risky in that era and far riskier in an orphanage or other institutions in which children were concentrated in close proximity. So yes, my hospital analogy is perfectly apt.
The letter from Professor Finbar McCormick is from an expert and is printed in a reliable media source, and would therefore be more reliable than someone's Twitter account. He raises an important point about the structure which the media has claimed is a "septic tank", because if McCormick is correct that it's actually a common 19th century burial vault, then that changes the context quite a bit. Even the media has admitted that the structure dates from a mid-19th century workhouse which used to occupy the same building which later housed the Bon Secours Home, and the workhouse was there during the Great Famine when large numbers of people died (especially children) and were often buried in communal graves. Which of the two scenarios is more likely: A) any bones on the site are from victims of the Great Famine and the structure is a 19th century burial vault for famine victims, or B) crazed sadistic 20th century nuns murdered hundreds of children and dumped them in a sewage tank just for giggles? In the absence of actual evidence supporting the latter, I think we need to err on the side of the more likely scenario. Professor McCormick's letter provides a necessary historical context and a more restrained interpretation to offset the media's sensational spin on things, so I've re-added it to the article.
You also repeated your claim that Corless never repudiated much of the media's spin, which you based on the fact that she has said that 796 children died in the home and she can't figure out where they were buried; but that's not the same as the media's claim that she bluntly said "800 babies were dumped in the septic tank". Even in the video you keep referring to, she says she doesn't know how many might be buried on the site, and her description of the 796 deaths refers to diseases which were common at that time. That's a far cry from the media's lurid tale of sinister nuns butchering children. There is no evidence that Boland fabricated the text excerpts from that interview, and you have presented no evidence. More importantly, no skeletons have been unearthed yet in the alleged "septic tank" to allow experts to study any bones that two little boys said they found 40 years ago; so Corless's views - whatever they may be - are just speculation at this point.
And it's the speculation that gives me pause. What if two little boys said they found bones near your house, and the media promptly accused you of mass murder? Is that reasonable, or would it be more reasonable to first: 1) find the bones again in order to verify the claim; 2) have experts determine whether the bones are human or animal, since little boys aren't necessarily expert biologists or forensic scientists; 3) carbon date the bones to determine whether they are recent or much older; 4) if they turn out to be recent human remains, perhaps maybe a thorough investigation should occur first to determine who killed them, rather than just assuming you're automatically guilty without any investigation or fair trial? Maybe, just maybe, there should be some sort of due process, and maybe that principle should also apply when nuns are accused? You claimed that I'm just "biased" in favor of the Catholic Church, but I would make the same points if unsubstantiated allegations were made against Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just trying to use basic fairness.
Wikipedia's rules require that we operate according to basic fairness as well as basic standards of proof. The most recent media articles that have been coming out in the last three weeks have been steadily debunking the previous version of this issue, with the AP admitting the story is "a study in how exaggeration can multiply in the news media" and another article calling the case "one of the most irresponsible press hoaxes of modern times". That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the previous version. None of the recent articles seem to support the original story, not since June 7th, nearly a month ago. You asked what I meant by "two sides", and this is what I was referring to : the original story, which was based on speculative ideas and rather wild allegations; versus the more recent calls for restraint, based on the actual known facts. There has always been a huge gulf between the speculation and the facts on this issue. Wikipedia is supposed to report established facts, not just speculation even if it's repeated in normally reliable sources.
If they ever unearth any skeletons and examine them to determine something substantial about them, then we'll have grounds for a reasonable report on the issue. Until then, we've got some sensational headlines and some articles debunking the sensational headlines. Ryn78 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of OR and synthesis in your reply.

I'm on holiday at the moment and am not going to try to edit an article from a smartphone. I will address the article properly on my return.

In the meantime, could an editor please restore the full Corless quote where she says she did not use the word 'dumped' and also re-insert 'malnutrition' as a cause of death? If someone dies from diarrhea, you record the disease or infection as cause of death on a cert, not malnutrition. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And to clarify... multiple reliable sources state that some of the children did indeed die from malnutrition, and this is recorded on their death certs. Putting some other interpretation on that is OR. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Bastun: I've reinserted Corless' entire quote, as you asked. But to include malnutrition as a cause of death requires a source - Corless never listed malnutrition, as far as I remember (correct me if I'm wrong). Asarlai added a source from thejournal.ie but that article initially says the deaths were from disease, then farther down it says disease "or malnutrition" but doesn't include an actual quote from Corless to back it up. The other sources I've seen only list diseases, I think.

Re: the related claim that deliberate starvation was a cause of death (you reject the idea of disease-induced malnutrition): what evidence is there for that? I don't remember Corless accusing the nuns of starving anyone to death, nor did the 1944 government inspection report. That report described children who were malnourished but still alive, not children who had died from it; and it didn't accuse the nuns of wrongdoing. If any of these sources meant deliberate starvation rather than disease-induced malnutrition, I think they would say so explicitly, especially since it would qualify as a potential crime; and unless they do state it explicitly, we can't claim it was deliberate. Now THAT would be OR or synthesis. Sure, some media articles have been making the claim of deliberate starvation, but some of them have been directly refuted by the person they were (mis)quoting (Philip Boucher-Hayes), and others are just basing it on their interpretation of a single word. You seem to think that I'm guilty of OR for evaluating these sources like that, but we are supposed to pass over sources which are promoting stuff that might qualify as nonsense. If we were working on an article about the D-Day Landings during WWII and I said I didn't want to use a source which claims the Japanese were manning the machine guns overlooking the beaches, would I be guilty of OR or am I just pointing out that the source is patently wrong on a basic point? Wikipedia has a rule against patent nonsense. So when the media uses a medical term like "marasmus" to justify its claim that nuns were starving children to death, I think we can use a little common sense and go by what medical dictionaries actually say about that term, rather than mindlessly accepting what the media says without using any judgement. If a media source doesn't back up allegations of serious crimes with any evidence aside from a dubious interpretation of a single word, I think we need to evaluate whether that source is spouting ridiculous claims. Nothing obligates us to use any given media article, and we are currently leaving out most of them anyway. We already select them based on our judgement.

Enjoy your vacation. Ryn78 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


On the issue of recent edits and why I've made the edits I have, I'm going to try to cover as many points as I can, as briefly as feasible:

- Asarlai stripped the intro of all criticism except one brief, very minor point. That's not remotely balanced. If my version has too many critical quotes then we can scale those down a bit, but we need to have something other than just a brief remark about the "800" figure. That was never the main point, not when you've got so many lurid allegations from the media that have been refuted (such as Philip Boucher-Hayes' comment that he never actually claimed children had been deliberately starved to death).

- The media sources which have been cited to back up the claim that the Tuam Home had a "higher death rate than the general population" are doing the following things which Wikipedia is not supposed to repeat: the "Explainer..." article from thejournal.ie compares the Tuam Home's overall child death rate to the general population's rate for only "infants" (babies up to maybe age one?), which is a classic case of comparing "apples to oranges". The rate for all children will always be a lot higher than the rate only for babies alone, so how on earth do we justify using such a dishonest comparison in Wikipedia's article? And it gets worse, because these news sources are also refusing to acknowledge the obvious fact that all orphanages had a higher death rate than the general population because disease spreads more rapidly when large numbers of children are in close proximity; which is why you need to compare the Tuam Home to other orphanages, not to the general population. These news sources don't do that. Is Wikipedia obligated to repeat sources that aren't even bothering to make logical comparisons? Would we repeat similar faulty comparisons if they were being used to make allegations against Muslims, Jews, or Hindus? I don't think we would, in fact irrational stuff like this is really patent nonsense, and Wikipedia has a rule against that. I think we should be able to agree on this, especially since Asarlai himself has been avoiding some of the really bad media claims, such as the erroneous claims that "nuns starved children to death"; so apparently Asarlai agrees that we can't just repeat stark falsehoods, right? I think the same principle needs to apply to the false "death rate" claims being made, unless you can find a source which actually makes a logical and legitimate comparison. In other words, patent nonsense doesn't belong here.

- I'd make similar points for the "death by malnutrition" issue. The "Explainer...." article initially says the deaths were from disease, then farther down it says disease "or malnutrition" but doesn't include an actual quote from Corless to back it up. The 1944 report doesn't accuse the nuns themselves of doing anything wrong, which means two things: the report doesn't actually back up the media's claim of wrongdoing, so we've got another case of evidence being misrepresented; and if the inspectors didn't blame the nuns for the malnutrition cases then we're presumably just dealing with the routine case of malnutrition caused by diseases which induce vomiting, diarrhea or other gastrointestinal problems. Although we can't state that without a source, neither can we use the 1944 report as justification for the "deliberate starvation" theory. If we were writing an article about a modern hospital, would we mention that it contains malnourished patients who are suffering from stomach ailments or undergoing chemotherapy or afflicted with AIDS (or other conditions which make it difficult to keep food down), and would we repeat this fact as if it were something unusual or darkly ominous about that particular hospital? That would be grossly misleading or maliciously dishonest, would it not, even if some media sources were using that type of tactic against the hospital? So what's the purpose of doing something similar here, and how do we justify it?

- Re: the archaeological dig which found bones near the site: The "Explainer..." article claims that the Gardai mistook a "nearby" archaeological dig site for the Tuam home site, but the source which that article references to "prove" its point - an archaeological journal article - actually says that the bones came from the same workhouse which used to occupy the building that later housed the Children's Home. When the "Explainer..." article claims that these are two different sites, that's just patent nonsense because it's the same building - it has the same name as the Union Workhouse that had been there before the Home. And by the way, this archaeological investigation is precisely why the Gardai said any bones found in that area were 19th century famine victims: that was the verdict of the archaeologists. Sure, it's possible that there may be other, more sinister, bones there (somewhere, yet to be verified) which were from children killed by fiendish nuns; but that is nothing but speculation at this point. Why don't we stick to media sources which actually present confirmed evidence? Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to do?

Bottom line: we need to keep in mind that the entire reason for the media's coverage, and the entire point of our article's coverage of the media's coverage, is the claim that the nuns were doing something unethical or criminal, otherwise none of this stuff would be mentioned at all. Therefore, the media sources we cite need to actually prove this claim, otherwise there's no reason to quote them. We shouldn't just be in the business of repeating every bit of salacious speculation about the Tuam Home, since that makes Wikipedia into a tabloid; nor would it make any sense to describe commonplace conditions (like diseases in orphanages) which were in fact routine in that era. We don't mention how many of the nuns themselves died of diseases contracted while working in the Home, because orphanage workers often contracted diseases. To be relevant for inclusion, it needs to be noteworthy.

One of the good things about Wikipedia is that its articles are often more balanced - and more sober - than the sensational media. I think this trend needs to continue, rather than mindlessly repeating sensationalism just because the media has stooped to that level. If they present actual verified evidence which is relevant to the allegations, then we can include it. Ryn78 (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for re-inserting the quote. How3ver, you are now using Boucher-Hayes' blog as a source; either that (and his statement) has to go, or re-insert the quotes from Adrienne Corless' blog. Either all blogs are RS, or none are. You can't have it both ways. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I used a news article for the quote from Philip Boucher-Hayes (yes, the quote originally came from his Twitter account, but it's being quoted in a news article rather than directly from his Twitter account). But, we can add the quotes from Adrienne Corless if you want; I never said that I was forever opposed to including it, but merely that I didn't like the idea of using a blog to contradict an article from the Irish Times. Ryn78 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

thejournal.ie article

This must be the "main article" I was told about.

I removed the "thejournal.ie" citation because it doesn't prove the claim that it's supposed to prove. In fact it's bloody daffy. It cites "one year" of deaths from the Mother and Baby Home and then compares this to the national average. That's comparing apples to oranges, because "one year" (presumably their worst year during a really bad epidemic) is not an "average" and should not be compared to genuine averages. An average means adding the stats from all the years and then dividing by the number of years. A single year will often be a lot worse than the overall average, so it doesn't prove anything.

Are there any valid analyses to back up this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookncrem (talk • contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than supposition, we use what the references say, without guessing if something was "their worst year during a really bad epidemic". It does not compare the death rate to the national average, it compares it to the death rate in other mother and baby homes. Please do not remove referenced material. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified this item to reflect that the news article is referring to the rate during a single year. On a broader topic, I think we might consider transferring this whole litany of dates and deaths out of the lede and into a later section. Comments? jxm (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bastun: that doesn't change the fact that the source you've chosen - out of all the sources on the subject - is comparing a single year to an average, which is obvious manipulation of the statistics. It's not even subtle. We can choose which source to use rather than being stuck with this one specific journal.ie article. There's a good reason Wikipedia is edited by humans rather than using an automated news aggregator : it's to allow human logic to choose content. So I ask again: is there a source which uses honest methods? Jxm's edit is an improvement, but we shouldn't be using that source at all, and we shouldn't be making that type of comparison. Cookncrem (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, Cookncrem. But in that case, we should also remove the preceding apologia from the National Catholic Register (a source perhaps a little more biased than the BBC, no?) - which also selectively picks years/events when there were epidemics... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Further articles on mortality rates in other mother & baby homes: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-660-children-died-in-dublin-home-in-seven-years-1.1840174 and http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/baby-homes-death-rate-up-to-50-271048.html Tuam certainly doesn't have the highest rate, but an average of almost one per fortnight - for what wasn't a hospital, but was a place where each child's stay was funded by the local authority? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should first move this entire paragraph out of the lede, then try to restructure it into a better summary of the situation. Right now, it consists mostly of a lengthy quote of cherry-picked numbers from the Kenny article and some other disjoint info. The Irish Times piece that Bastun mentions concerns deaths at the Dublin home, but those stats are not included in the calculations used for the Kenny piece. So I think that using it will branch off the article's material in a (yet-another) different - and possibly distracting - direction. I agree with the idea that we should attempt to put all this stuff in context. However, if feels like we're going to introduce too much WP:OR if we are to properly address all the numerous confusions around localized epidemics, missing records, etc. jxm (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Bastun: I think the National Catholic Register article is just pointing out that the deaths came in spurts during epidemics (as these things usually do) in which case the average of "one every fortnight" is misleading because it implies constant death and possibly sustained neglect or abuse. If the deaths came suddenly during epidemics, there is no reason to suspect wrongdoing on the part of the nuns. Statistics, including averages, can be badly misleading when taken out of context. We need to avoid media sources which ignore this crucial context, or which make faulty statistical comparisons.
You also removed the statement that some sources claimed the deaths were caused by the nuns (providing the context for the National Catholic Register article's rebuttal). You claimed no one has blamed the nuns, but even a quick Google search finds tons of people blaming the nuns or even accusing them of running a Nazi extermination camp. I can give you examples if you want. I think the statement needs to be reinserted, especially as it provides context for the following sentences.

Yes, it wasn't a hospital. But at one time in history childhood was a very dangerous period of life. Large percentages of children used to die very young from disease.

Jxm brought up the topic of original research. We can avoid OR just by choosing sources which don't need to be contextualised. Use honest sources and there's no need for our own analysis or explanation. Cookncrem (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
But you're (presumably) claiming that the National Catholic Register is an "honest" source, while on the Bon Secours article talk page you cast doubt on the BBC being a reliable source...? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Re-reading your paragraph above, I see now you're saying that the quote "Yes, it wasn't a hospital. But at one time in history childhood was a very dangerous period of life. Large percentages of children used to die very young from disease." needs to be contextualised. It doesn't, as it's not used within our article. It's also fallacious - you were far more likely to die if you were a child in a M&B Home than if you were in the general population - which is what the other sources say. These weren't hospitals looking after sick children. They were institutions that received a headage payment from local authorities to provide accommodation to mothers and children. Guaranteed income. So the NCR's argument about poverty is completely missing the point. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My comment about the BBC article dealt with its lack of sources. At least the National Catholic Register's article gave its sources and even linked to some of them, such as the birth certificate records summarised in an Irish Independent article. Yes, I tend to place more trust in an article which links to its sources so I can check it out for myself, rather than one which doesn't provide any inkling of where the deuce it's getting its information from.
Now, about your second comment: you're now comparing the mortality rate at M&B homes to the general populace? Or did you mean other orphanages?
We've also gotten off topic. The discussion was originally about replacing news articles which use flagrantly bad statistical methods or which fail to cite sources. There are many other media articles from which we can choose. Cookncrem (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Corless article online?

Does anyone have a pointer to the original Corless piece? 20% of our citations use it, but I haven't found any links online for review/verification. It seems a little odd that the reference page numbers used (pp 5 to 16) are different than the table of contents in the cited source here (pp 75 to 83). Furthermore, this disparity also implies a different article length. Given the plethora of controversial and unreliable reporting, I believe a decent verification cycle is warranted. Comments? jxm (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article was originally published in issue 9 of the "Journal of the Old Tuam Society" (and references to that use pp 75 to 83) but it was subsequently separately published in booklet format - I've found this version online: http://motherandbabyhome.com/booklet.pdf BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home/Archive_1&oldid=1082468272"