Jump to content

Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Catherine Corless

There is information and a list of sources in the history of the redirect linked above which could be used to improve this article, or to create an article about Ms. Corless if she becomes notable for other activities besides her research into the Mother and Baby Home. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Jan 2015 BBC Story:

Think this is the most recent reliable source discussing this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion and blog sources:

Opinion piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/15/796-babies-in-a-septic-tank-does-a-hidden-anti-catholic-agenda-explain-a-global-hoax/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/09/that-story-about-irish-babies-in-a-septic-tank-is-a-media-hoax

Blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth-behind-irelands-dead-babies-scandal-five-questions/

These sources have no place in an article about history. They fail as WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bastun wrote:

(Remove blogs/opinion pieces presenting one version only. (We could always include blogs presenting the other side, for balance?))

The solution is to just remove all blogs and opinion pieces, regardless of what view they put forth. A history article should rely upon high quality newspaper, books, official legal inquiries, etc. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion and blog sources:

Opinion piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/15/796-babies-in-a-septic-tank-does-a-hidden-anti-catholic-agenda-explain-a-global-hoax/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/06/09/that-story-about-irish-babies-in-a-septic-tank-is-a-media-hoax

Blog:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth-behind-irelands-dead-babies-scandal-five-questions/

These sources have no place in an article about history. They fail as WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bastun wrote:

(Remove blogs/opinion pieces presenting one version only. (We could always include blogs presenting the other side, for balance?))

The solution is to just remove all blogs and opinion pieces, regardless of what view they put forth. A history article should rely upon high quality newspaper, books, official legal inquiries, etc. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference 2

Reference 2, from www.thejournal.ie, currently appears as "Explainer: What is happening with the mass grave of the children in Tuam?", but if you go to the link, the title of thejournal's article is "Explainer: What is happening with the possible mass grave of the children in Tuam?" (that is, the true reference has the word "possible" in its title). I think this should be changed in the references section to reflect the true title. Also, the reference is used in the second line of the article to justify the comment "gained notoriety due to revelations of the apparent burial of up to 800 children's bodies in a mass grave" ... given the true title of the reference, perhaps it would be better to say that the home "gained notoriety due to revelations of the possible burial of up to 800 children's bodies in a mass grave" ... I think there is a big difference between "apparent" and "possible". I am new to wikipedia and not sure about editing the page directly, so I pass on my observations here and if you agree, please do change it. Thanks, M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.228.19.235 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, M. I've changed the title of the reference, to add "possible", as you've requested - it should certainly be the same as the title used in the actual source. I've left "apparent" in the body of the article; Corless claims that there is no other place where the bodies could be, and an investigation is underway. "Apparent burial" would appear to be supported not just by reference #2, but also by the other references listed in the following paragraphs in the lead and those in the 'Burial ground' section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

On 3 June 2015, the Irish Examiner published a special report which claimed that the HSE had voiced concerns in 2012 that up to 1,000 children may have been trafficked from the Home, and recommending that the then health minister be informed so that "a fully fledged, fully resourced forensic investigation and State inquiry" could be launched. I included this and further information in the article: diff.

Ryn78 objects and has made several reverts and other changes to the article.

1. Repeated change of "Trafficking" to "Adoption". Adoption is a legal process whereby a person assumes the legal responsibility for and parenting of a child, from that person's biological or legal parent or parents, and the rights and responsibilities of the biological parent or parents are permanently transferred. Trafficking of children or the sale of children is a form of human trafficking and is defined as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, and/or receipt" of a child for the purpose of exploitation. Adoption is governed in Ireland by the Adoption Act of 1952 (and subsequent laws). What is being discussed in the HSE reports is not legal adoption, but trafficking of children from Ireland to the United States for the purposes of illegal adoption. "Trafficking" is absolutely the correct term to use. It is not just a case of "one media source sensationalizes the subject by using that loaded term" - it is the term used by the reliable sources that reported on the HSE and it is also the term used internally within the HSE by the professional adoption social worker for a full HSE region, the then assistant director of Children and Family Services and the then head of the Medical Intelligence Unit. If it was legal adoption that was being discussed, why would the HSE be concerned? (FYI, the adoption of Irish children to foreign countries was illegal until 2010). To avoid using the term "trafficking" is censorship, presumably due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

2. Duplicate sentence One sentence was duplicated in the text in two consecutive paragraphs. I deleted one instance, with an edit summary of "Remove duplicated sentence." Ryn78 deleted the other, with an edit summary of "Since you removed this as a redundant sentence, I'll remove it as well." What? Really? I just don't know what to say about that...

3. Removal of material This edit, with an edit summary of "There is no justification for adding so much about yet another purely speculative allegation without any counterpoint from the other side. Add the opposing view first if you want to expand this new section." has multiple issues. It not only replaces "Trafficking" with "Adoption" and removes two sourced paragraphs (which the edit summary covers), it also, elsewhere in the article, removes a statement from the solicitor representing some former inmates, and makes other pointy changes not covered by the edit summary. I am not aware how the allegation is "purely speculative" or who the "other side" might be. Ryn could, if s/he wanted, have simply added something along the lines of "As the Commission of Investigation has now been established the Sisters of Bon Secours do not believe it would be appropriate to comment further except to say that they will co-operate fully with that commission,” which was available from the examiner334315 reference. Better to add that rather than delete sourced material and break said reference. A sentence was also removed from the lede. The purpose of the lede is to summarise the content. Inclusion is certainly justified, as the trafficking of up to 1,000 children is at least of similar significance to the revelations about the 796 deaths. Please do not make changes in multiple places

I am therefore restoring the article to a prior version. Please do not revert without discussing the changes and achieving consensus. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If I had added new material which you contested, you'd remove the new material until a discussion had taken place, so I acted accordingly and removed the new material you added until a discussion can take place. Let's use a consistent procedure.
In response to your points above:
1) In common usage, the term "trafficking" is applied to cases of gangs kidnapping girls off the street and selling them into prostitution. In this case we're talking about letting couples in the U.S. adopt Irish babies. Even if Ireland used to have a law that made it illegal for Irish babies to be adopted by people in other countries - a very unusual and seemingly xenophobic law - that still doesn't justify using a loaded term like "trafficking" in cases in which babies were put up for adoption when the mothers were deemed unfit (rightly or wrongly) since they had gotten pregnant out of wedlock. You may disagree with the view that they were unfit, but that was the common view even in the general society at that time. Even if "reliable sources" use a loaded and perhaps deliberately malicious term, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is forced to follow suit. This is the same business with media sources using the term "mass grave", which led many people to claim that these nuns were running death camps along the lines of Auschwitz (I've seen people make that claim due to the use of that term). Neutrality means that we refrain from using loaded or dubious terminology, especially if it may unfairly harm the reputations of living people. "Foreign adoption" is what we're talking about here, and so "foreign adoption" should be the term that we use.
2) You seem to be claiming that I caused the removal of both occurrences of that sentence, which isn't true (as far as I know). Here's what happened, as should be clear from the edit history: when I reverted your edits, I realized that I had also reverted your removal of the duplicated sentence, thereby inadvertently restoring it, so I tried to remove it again. If I removed the wrong copy of it, that was accidental and also irrelevant given that the other copy was still there. I only removed one, not both.
3) The reason I object to several paragraphs (and a prominent mention in the lede) about the "trafficking" allegation is because: 1) it's a new allegation that hasn't been covered enough yet to allow such a prominent mention. One paragraph, sure; but why several paragraphs plus the second sentence in the lede? 2) the facts aren't all in yet; 3) the accused persons haven't had a chance to present anything resembling a rebuttal (saying they will "cooperate fully" is just the usual comment and certainly not a rebuttal or explanation). If an allegation against any other person or group had been made, most Wikipedia editors would want to be more cautious about giving it prominent coverage rather than eagerly rushing to stick in as many lurid allegations as possible. Ryn78 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Your opening sentence appears to be a personal attack. The procedure used by most editors is WP:BRD - not just repeatedly reverting in the hopes of prompting another person into opening a discussion.
1) In your experience, the term "trafficking" may be applied solely to cases of gangs kidnapping girls off the street and selling them into prostitution. In reality, the term "trafficking" has several different common meanings and the way you use it is not exclusive. I already linked to Trafficking of children above, but there are many examples of the use of the term "trafficking" in relation to the illegal adoption of children, all very easily found and widely available. These include reputable mainstream media, legal articles, respected university journals, Irish Christian advocacy organisations, Irish secular advocacy organisations, international secular advocacy organisations, the United Nations, and if they're not good enough for you, the U.S. government [www.state.gov/documents/organization/135993.pdf] (pdf) and the Hague Convention - an international convention set up to prevent trafficking of children for the purposes of adoption.
But - setting aside that what you know about "trafficking" isn't all that there is to know - a more serious issue is your removal of the term, even though it's used (correctly) not just by the media sources reporting on this, it's used by professionals working in the Health Service Executive (Ireland) - the competent legal state authority. Both the primary and multiple secondary sources use the term, and neutrality means that we use the correct terminology as per what the sources say. Child trafficking for the purposes of illegal foreign adoption is what we're talking about here, not warm, fuzzy consensual, legal adoptions.
The rest of your response to this point (where you display ignorance about adoption, especially in relation to Ireland) is irrelevant to the inclusion of the term "trafficking." I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you on your or my talk page, if you so wish.
2) You're correct on that one - I missed the earlier restoration. Apologies.
3.1) Being a "new allegation" (it actually arose in 2012) is not grounds for exclusion. WP:RECENTISM doesn't really seem to apply. Why several paragraphs? Why not? Why not cover something in detail when we can, and have sources to support everything said? Wikipedia is not limited in size and is not censored because you don't like it. A single sentence in the lede does not seem excessive. No problem moving it further down the lede.
3.2) No, the facts aren't all in yet. They aren't all in yet about the 796 death certs, either, or where the bodies are buried, but we still report on that. We don't hold off on reporting what reliable sources say. Same as any other article, as and when more facts become available (for example, when the Murphy Commission starts reporting), they can be added.
3.3) Wikipedia is not a court and we do not owe anyone a "right of reply." We had an article on Oscar Pistorius before he killed his partner. We did not wait to hear his defence before adding what was reported on his arrest and subsequent trial to the article. Articles must adhere to the NPOV policy, but I honestly believe that there is nothing in my additions that weren't in accordance with that. I've inserted what the order said about the most recent media reports. As and when more emerges, that too can be reported, whether it's positive or negative. I recommend reading the WP:NPOVFAQ and if you still have concerns, raise them on the NPOV Noticeboard - I'd welcome more eyes on this article, too.
I'm going to restore to the previous version now, then move the resulting second paragraph/single sentence from the lede to the end of the lede. If you want to change the "Trafficking" heading, "Trafficking for the purposes of illegal adoption" would be accurate, and acceptable. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I don't know why you would interpret my first comment as a "personal attack". I just pointed out that in most cases, new material which is contested is usually delayed until discussion has taken place. That's been my experience, and pointing it out isn't a "personal attack" since I didn't say a single derogatory thing about you, I just questioned the procedure you're using. Is any criticism a "personal attack" to you?
Regarding your other points:
1) The examples you gave of the usage of the word "trafficking" wouldn't change the fact that it is _generally_ used to refer to something very different than how you're using it here. Wikipedia is supposed to be written in a way that clearly conveys the issue for a general audience, in a way that this audience will understand, rather than using a term which (at best) is ambiguous due to its many different usages. At worst, it conveys the entirely misleading impression that nuns with guns were kidnapping children for the sex slave market in Columbia or something. Is there any reason we can't just describe the actual situation - "illegal foreign adoption" - which the sources say as well? They don't solely use the term "trafficking", so there's nothing that would compel us to use only that term rather than something more precise. We're supposed to be precise.
You accused me of "ignorance" about Ireland's adoption policies, but without addressing the patent fact that laws disallowing foreign adoption are extremely unusual, which means that the "illegal trafficking" theme ignores the fact that in most countries it wouldn't be illegal at all, and it's no longer illegal even in Ireland. Saying that it was "non-consensual" is no different than countless other cases in which children have been removed from parents who were deemed unfit. Whether you or I personally agree with the verdict of unfitness in these cases is irrelevant.
2) Ok, we agree on something then.
3) I didn't exclude all coverage of the adoption issue, since I left a full paragraph in. I took out the other paragraphs because this article is supposed to be a general article covering the entire history of this institution, which means that the endless attention paid to every recent media allegation is already excessive and only made worse by several additional paragraphs. Should a general article about Ireland focus mainly on recent Irish political scandals, or would that be absurd? Right now, the vast majority of this article focuses on allegations made over the last few years, and you've now added several more paragraphs on the adoption issue. If you want to make an article that deals exclusively with the allegations, you can do that. But in a general overview, it makes very little sense to keep piling on paragraph after paragraph for every new media item. One paragraph should be adequate unless the issue becomes the massive international media frenzy that the "mass grave" allegation became.
Frankly, what this article needs is more coverage of the history of the Tuam home. Right now, that entire history is covered in just a few paragraphs. Ryn78 (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

How many indiviudals can be counted in the mass grave?

How comes that there is no number? -- Simplicius (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Because no official examination or investigation of the site has taken place yet. It is possible that the Murphy Commission may order such an investigation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Atleast 796 confirmed,.. I'm amazed that the title puts almost no notice on this when it's really why people are here.Anonymous 573462i (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Home's entire history, not just the issue you mention; and the title reflects that. I would add that nothing has been "confirmed" because no bodies have been found; and the "796" figure comes from Catherine Corless' inability to figure out where 768 of the children were buried, which led her to speculate that they MIGHT have been buried on the site. That is still speculation at this point. Ryn78 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename -> Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home -> To -> Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home child homocides

I didn't even know a page existed on wikipedia for this... I had to google "Ireland 796 children" to get here. I've read the comments showing that there is an unwillingness to highlight "Catholic" too openly... So can we have the title above suggested to atleast give a brief of the article's nature.

Anonymous 573462i (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. While there were certainly unethical and/or illegal practices in the Home, there is no basis for asserting that there were 796 homicides, and nothing in the article backs that. Let the Murphy Commission do it's work, and we may one day know more. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Before you're sure of that, please reconsider because homocide doesn't necessarily mean with intent.

See;

homicide Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Homicide

The killing of one human being by another human being.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

I ask you to reconsider this because I really couldn't find this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous 573462i (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Failing that... Alledged Child Abuse.

Take a look at what the article actually covers: the Home itself over its entire history, not just the incidents which you're referring to; which means that changing the name to reflect only those incidents would make absolutely no sense. And for whatever it's worth, no source uses the term "homicides" (regardless of how you want to define the term) because the records show that the children died of disease, usually during general epidemics that affected the entire area. One local amateur historian (Catherine Corless) has speculated that "neglect" may have contributed to disease but the actual medical reports never allege this, in fact they often praise the nuns for doing the best job they could during regional epidemics. But the bottom line is that the article's name reflects the fact that it's a general article about the Home's entire history, not just one issue, so we can't rename it as you suggest. Ryn78 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't medieval history and the catholic church is terrible when it comes to preserving the safety of children... Deaf children (once turned adults) were finally able to expose the catholic church while no catholic would listen to them... there's an autobiographical documentary on youtube of them explaining this. I read those police reports on the Murphy Commission and the constable, probably catholic left it to the bishops who were refusing to answer any direct questions. This isn't a court case, this is a historical article... it's not about whether we record history of them being innocent until proven like a court... it's about what the evidence indicates... "nuns doing good work" is heresay... You said "they" indicating to who?... I'm not saying the article should be wrote suggesting catholics were to blame but to put the actual headline of the case instead of trying to conceal it. Like jesus... and "children died of decease which 1/4 of the atleast 796 identifiable children were in a tank. The Propaganda is real. No respect for those kids... mad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous 573462i (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Your response didn't make much sense, and I see you've been blocked recently for causing problems elsewhere. In any event, the article isn't just about the allegations you're referring to. The title needs to reflect the subject of the entire article, not just one portion of it. Ryn78 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ryn78's usual "Catholic Church can do no wrong" white-washing, speculation that there were "regional epidemics", and ignoring of unpalatable sources aside, s/he is correct that no source uses "homicide". And yes, the police were absolutely derelict in their duty as regards investigation child sexual abuse by priests and religious, leaving it to the church to police their own, as several recent investigations have shown. That, however, is reflected in other articles and doesn't apply to this one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Bastun: Here we go again. The fact that most of the deaths occurred during regional epidemics is proven by the statistics (compare the annual mortality rates at the Home to the years when local epidemics occurred). We've been over this before. Nor is it "whitewashing" to note that the actual medical reports never blame the nuns, except in some cases for a lack of medical knowledge (they weren't doctors). But the same reports which note their lack of medical knowledge also praise them for correcting things and reducing mortality rates down to very low levels once they were told what to do to prevent disease. I'm going by the evidence, whereas your argument has consistently been based on the assumption that there must be some hidden secret horrible stuff that went on, and any lack of evidence for the aforesaid horrible stuff is just the result of a huge conspiracy of silence. In any event, hopefully Anonymous573462 will notice that both of us are telling him the same thing about his proposed title change - probably the only thing we've ever agreed about - despite the fact that we're on opposite sides. Ryn78 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, here we go again. Complete failure to acknowledge that a mother and baby home where women and girls went to give birth and was staffed by a nursing order of nuns and a doctor had a far higher death rate than other comparable homes or the general population, despite access to a headage payment per inmate to pay for food, medicine and lodging. You also completely fail to acknowledge the unprecedented influence over Irish society that was enjoyed by the RC church until relatively recently - an influence that meant that a blind eye was turned to crimes by priests and religious, up to and including child rape and the imprisonment of "potentially wayward" women and girls in Magdalene Laundries. The last such laundry only closed in 1996! Plenty of Gardaí, health and education inspectors and TDs in Opus Dei, the Legion of Mary and Knights of Columbanus... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
So we just ignore what the medical reports actually say and just assume there was a conspiracy to hide the truth? Does that include making up all sorts of hideous crimes because the conspiracy "must" have concealed the evidence for them? We have to go by what the evidence actually says.
To look at "comparable" institutions, we would need to look at places in regions which had the same frequency and type of local epidemics, institutions with the same degree of crowding, buildings with the same conditions (old drafty buildings in a damp, cold climate tended to be worse for health), etc. And I still don't see how a small headage payment would compensate for most of these factors: it certainly wouldn't do much to counteract local epidemics if the disease was untreatable in that era, or only treatable at considerable expense. But we've gone around and around on these points for months (on and off). Ryn78 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? What "conspiracies"? You're the only one mentioning conspiracies. I don't know where you get the idea that the headage payment was "small." Or the knowledge about conditions in the home, how frequent "epidemics" were, or what other "regions" have to do with this (just how big do you think Ireland is?!). Your selective memory is a problem, so, to remind you, see immediately below. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
"Others pointed that Ireland being a poor country was irrelevant, as for each mother and child in the home, the County Council paid the nuns £1 a week,[23] and 1947 data from the National Archives showed that, during the preceding twelve months, the death rate of children in Bon Secours was almost twice that of some other mother and baby homes.[55] A government inter-departmental report into the records stated that an "assessment of mortality rates will need public health specialist/historical analysis of statistics on children born and resident at the home in Tuam."[56][57]
Columnist Dr. Maurice Gueret, who conducted his own research into the institution's history, criticised the media coverage and said there was a need for more historical context, saying: "It was no secret that many children died young, especially in the 1920s and 1930s. They were dying all over Ireland from infectious diseases. This was the pre-antibiotic era. You were considered lucky if all your children lived to adulthood."[58] Others, such as Professor Dr Liam Delaney, said the high child death rate at the Home cannot be explained by higher overall child death rates at the time, nor by the higher death rate among "illegitimate" children. He added: "This points to something serious within these institutions".[59] Kevin Higgins, a solicitor representing former residents, said that the number of deaths recorded at the Tuam home over a period of over more than 30 years was "off the scale" compared to the rate of children's deaths elsewhere at the same time.[60]"
Re: the conspiracy issue: to refresh YOUR memory, just yesterday you again claimed that the evidence I mentioned would be irrelevant because "a blind eye was turned to crimes by priests and religious" since so many members of the police and medical profession were Catholics, therefore you speculated that there would have been a cover-up or failure to investigate the Home. That sounds like a classic conspiracy theory, but whatever term you want to use for it, it's a case of speculating that there must have been wrongdoing that just hasn't been uncovered. My argument is that no evidence of wrongdoing has been uncovered, and we need to go by the evidence -- which is not "white-washing", as you keep alleging. You also dredged up the old arguments you previously made about the headage payment and related issues while completely dodging the actual points I made in relation to those issues (e.g., I pointed out that a headage payment isn't going to cure an incurable disease, as many diseases were back then). Ryn78 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I realise my replacement isn't perfect but I still want a replacement (better than I suggested indicating to the deaths so people can be aware of and make up their own mind on it). Not even I'm not completely wrong there since most newspapers seem to direct to some form of homocide. It's like making an article based on the Russian chessboard killer but instead naming the article on "Moscow's Bitsa Park" then mentioning him somewhere nearer the bottom of the article because despite he admits to killing I believe 61 or 63 people, they couldn't find all of the bodies. "No comment" doesn't mean the ones responsible for the children have no ties to their well-being within this articles case. I can't really comment for Bastun or you Ryn78 but they more honest since you're shooting me down based on a previous block... where we don't exactly have a trial by jury here on wikipedia so I don't really have to answer to that. As forgiving and non-judgemental as that comment was (satire). Anonymous 573462i (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

From source 10 states; investigations into child abuse... Would renamimg the article "Investigations of child abuse at Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" be considered more fair and practical by you guys? Please consider... I couldn't find the article in regards to the abuse unless I copied details and you could say (some people's speculations are that most news articles highlight this as the head)... I also took a look around in the search... "Government Accountability Office investigations of the Department of Defense" an article is also worded to note investigations so it's not falling out of line would be the point. Could even have "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home investigations of child abuse ... either suites me. Sorry for repetition of points also, it's just to put everything together. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Anon, there will no doubt be an article on the Commission of Investigation headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, once it begins publishing information, which will contain all relevant details. I'd still not remove any content from this article as it is still relevant here, though doubtless some would disagree... Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Changing the title to: "Investigations of child abuse at Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" (or anything similar) would narrow the focus of the article so it only deals with the recent allegations, whereas the article is actually about the institution as a whole over its entire history. Your request is analogous to asking us to change the "Microsoft" article so it focuses only on one recent news item about that company rather than the company as a whole. Do you want us to just delete everything in the article that doesn't deal with the allegations? As Bastun pointed out, there may be a new article written about the investigation itself, but this article isn't it. You're targeting the wrong article. You also continue to distort the allegations. Even Catherine Corless has never alleged that the nuns deliberately killed anyone. Corless said she wanted to find where children who died of DISEASE were buried, since she couldn't find records of the gravesites. She also made allegations of neglect (which are still unsupported), but never made any allegations of deliberate harm. She said her goal was to make sure these children had a proper burial, not to investigate serial homicide. Wikipedia talk pages are designed to discuss the actual article and the issues it deals with, not a fantasy version that you've made up. This is not your private soapbox, nor can you expect us to change the entire purpose of the article because you want to narrow the focus to only this one news story. Enough is enough. Ryn78 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Corless said she wanted to find where the children who died were buried. Period. Don't put deliberately incorrect words in the mouths of others. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The evidence we have shows that they died of disease, and I think Corless has said so as well (I'd have to look up her exact statements, but they include a lot more than just the two-word phrase that you mentioned). If you think they died of some other cause, then show me some evidence. Ryn78 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You misquoted her. Perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. For once, just for once, admit you're in the wrong, say sorry, and move on. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the quote you mentioned. I'd have to look up all her quotes to see if she admitted that disease was the cause of death, but in any event my main point was simply that she has never accused anyone of homicide ("neglect", yes, but she can't present any evidence even of that). Ryn78 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
"but she can't present any evidence even of that" Jesus, you're some piece of work. Corless did not say what you claimed she said, and it's not Corless' job to present "evidence". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For crying out loud, Bastun. Which part of her statements are you claiming I'm misquoting now? Her claim that there was "neglect"? She did in fact say that (she said: "There was neglect, and that's the truth"), and yes, she needs to present evidence to back up an accusation like that, otherwise the statement is libelous (or don't you have libel laws in Ireland?). Claiming that she doesn't need to present evidence is just atrocious nonsense. She says she's a historian; well, historians document their theories with evidence, and allegations by anyone always need to be backed up with evidence. What part of that don't you get? Ryn78 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryn78 you're likely misunderstanding my position in this matter or you could be slandering it, I'm not sure as I referred from a legal dictionary as to what homocide means... it can mean any cause of death including a john or jane doe (which doesn't mean a crime necessarily... no crime is just as optional). It seems to be the case that no article uses "homocide" so I had stopped suggesting it. Instead, can we make an article directed at the investigations using the opinioned links I've saved and perhaps even the one the bot has removed to be later be updated once the results arive... I'll stick them all on my talk page for now. We could also add those a link refering to those investigation that should be lead by Judge Yvonne Murphy and link this investations based article with this article here together in their "See also" sections. Whatever the results of the investigations the opinionated sources can still be used... saying either "it was alleged by news articles before in (enter date, I believe June) or "suspecions first arose in (date)". Just so we have something on that. Anonymous 573462i (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We could make a new article just about the allegations and investigation, but it would largely just duplicate what we already have about that subject in this article, and it would lead to yet another round of rancorous debate all over again, as we've had in this article for a year and a half. If your goal is to get a Wikipedia article to come up more readily in the search engines (as you mentioned), then you need to keep in mind that Google mostly considers the inbound links that lead to a page from other sites, not the title of the page. Changing the title probably won't change its rank in the search engines, and a new article will have a very low rank because it won't have any inbound links from external sites. So I don't think you're going to accomplish your goal by adding a new article or changing the title of this one.
I looked over some of the links you listed on your talk page. Some of them are mainstream articles, including some that I added to this article; as well as some mainstream but erroneous articles claiming that 800 children were "found" in a septic tank, although no bodies have been found. Worse: one of your links, from childabuserecovery.com, claims that 800 bodies of "decapitated and dismembered children" were found on the site in 2014 by the Garda, who supposedly determined that the "Ninth Circle Satanic Child Sacrifice Cult network" was responsible for killing them, supposedly resulting in the prosecution of Queen Elizabeth II (!) and several other Royals, a member of the British High Court and eight other "top judges"; the Archbishop of Canterbury, and various other dignitaries. This is patent nonsense, and either a deliberate parody of the Tinfoil Beanie conspiracy people, or something written by the tinfoil beanie boys themselves. No bodies have been dug up at the site except for 19th century famine victims excavated in 2011; the local Garda said any additional bones on the site were likely also 19th century famine victims; and no Royals or High Court justices have been accused or arrested, in fact no one has been officially accused or arrested. If Bastun is interested in this article, he can take a look at the following URL (whaddaya think, Bastun? Should we add a paragraph about Queen Lizzie herself being arrested for the Satanic sacrifice of 800 Tuam babies?): http://childabuserecovery.com/decapitated-dismembered-children-in-catholic-mass-grave-site-were-ritually-murdered/ Ryn78 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read all of them... just collecting them. Agreed we can rule that one out or purport it within the correct manner as a conspiracy theory if another source about this names it as such. (although "conspiracy theory" is becoming outdated... since "theory" presumes evidence is available for every claim and should just more simply be called a conspiracy claim)... conspiracy theory is an americanised term as it is. I'm not fused for traffic being an issue since we can link both the articles in a "see also" section. It doesn't have to be a huge article... just different perceptions on the case whether legally valid or not if they can be fitted in. People can still after reading the list of allegations and investigations come to this page and work out the more reasonable assumptions for themselves. If you read more into the articles... the articles claim that the gravesite is a "septic tank"... I don't know whether this is true or not. I was puzzled by the mixture of claims but doubt it is.

Anon, please sign your posts with four tilde characters: "~~~~" (actually, preferably register an account with a better name than Anon... ;-) Wikipedia articles need reliable sources and must also respect the principles of neutrality and undue weight. This means that fringe/conspiracy sources should not be included without very good reason and should be removed where they have been included. (Admittedly I've not yet read the article mentioned by you and interpreted by Ryn, who does have a history of misreading sources and conflating information when it suits his/her agenda - e.g., interpreting malnutrition-related causes of death as always being secondary to some infection or other, even though that's not listed on any of the actual death certs. And while child sex rings did exist in children's homes and were used by the privileged of British society, there is absolutely nothing to suggest such abuse in the case of Tuam - certainly not by the British!). Referring to poorly-sourced claims gives "false balance", lends undue weight to them, and allows rebuttal, which some editors would then use to imply that since one source is clearly "wrong", made up or whatever, then all sources from that "side" probably are. If we stick to reliable sources - such as, for example, mainstream media and modern, official state reports, such as those from the Health Services Executive, rather than pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic websites or publications - it's far harder for editors to whitewash out material they don't like. Such as, say, removing reporting of illegal adoptions in an official report as "scandal mongering." Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Bastun: You're intent on dredging up literally every point of contention we've had over the last year and a half, aren't you? Ok, we can do that. 1) I merely said that the medical reports use the term "marasmus", which generally refers to disease-induced malnutrition from vomiting, diarrhea, etc; whereas some news sources were claiming that nuns had starved babies to death. The latter is not justified by the actual evidence. 2) The illegal adoption issue was being played in the media as the worst crime since Charles Manson's killings, although in most countries it's common practice to find foster parents - even in foreign countries - for the children of mothers who are deemed unfit (whether you personally agree they were unfit or not). Additionally, at that time it was a new allegation that hadn't been covered very much, so I thought its inclusion was unjustified at that time. That was my main point.
On the issue of the childabuserecovery.com article: if you think I'm misrepresenting it, go read it yourself: http://childabuserecovery.com/decapitated-dismembered-children-in-catholic-mass-grave-site-were-ritually-murdered/
In fairness, it's not much worse than the numerous "reliable mainstream" media sources claiming that nuns starved hundreds of babies to death and dumped them in a septic tank. Ryn78 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Anonymous 573462i: The investigation is supposed to release its findings at some point. Until more information is available, a new article would largely just repeat what we already have in this article. Ryn78 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
1) There are no news sources in the article claiming that the nuns starved babies to death. There is a quote from journalist Philip Boucher-Hayes, sourced to the partisan National (by which they mean the U.S., not Ireland) Catholic Register saying he was being misquouted and that "other media sources had misreported his words in order to erroneously claim that nuns had deliberately starved children to death." As I've said before, having that quote in there without the original "nuns starved babies" reports is confusing and pointless. Going by the actual evidence rather than your speculation, the death certs contain no reference to your supposed primary causes of death, e.g., infections causing vomiting, diarrhea. (The certs allow for such clarifications, notes, explanations, etc., and primary or related causes are listed on many other certs.)
2) WT actual F are you talking about?! You really have no clue whatsoever about Irish adoption law and practice (which is not the same as fostering law and practice!) - but you seem to assume you can use your limited knowledge of modern U.S. law and practice to fill in?! Your ignorance in this area seems to know no bounds!
  • "The illegal adoption issue was being played in the media as the worst crime since Charles Manson's killings" - your PoV. It was covered pretty much by one newspaper.
  • "Additionally, at that time it was a new allegation that hadn't been covered very much" - so it was a new allegation that hadn't been covered very much that was simultaneously being played in the media as the worst crime since Manson's killing? Ok... Do you often think two contradictory things at once?
  • "so I thought its inclusion was unjustified at that time" so kept removing it for PoV reasons even though another editor wanted it included and even though it was reliably sourced to national mainstream media and originated from a national government agency - the one with competence and authority in the area.
  • "in most countries it's common practice to find foster parents - even in foreign countries - for the children of mothers who are deemed unfit" - the ultimate supposition, assumptions and demonstration of ignorance. Who, exactly, deemed the mothers unfit? Produce your evidence. Surely you have some for this claim? Are you familiar with the requirements of the 1952 Adoption Act? The consent requirements? The procedures to be followed where there is no consent forthcoming? Which court has jurisdiction in such cases? Where are the resulting orders published? Are they public or private? When did that change? When you know the answers to those questions, you might start to have an inkling about how ignorant your remarks are. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
To point #1: You admit some media sources did in fact claim the nuns starved babies to death, and yet you still want to contest my point on that? Yes, it's not in the article - only the rebuttal - precisely because it was refuted as nonsense. How much vacuous nonsense do we need to include? On your point re: the causes of death: if the death certificates don't clarify matters, then we need to go by the medical reports since that's the only other evidence we have. The medical reports use the term "marasmus", which does in fact strongly imply malnutrition from disease, regardless of how the media was trying to spin it. Why not just admit this and we can finally move on?
To point #2: You admit the adoption issue was covered only by one newspaper, which is exactly what I meant when I said it wasn't notable or established enough for inclusion. And when I said that it was being covered in an exaggerated, shrill manner by the media, I meant the newspaper that WAS covering it was exaggerating the issue, which doesn't "contradict" my statements about the sparseness of the coverage : the coverage can be both shrill in tone and also limited to only one (or a few) news outlets. How the dickens do you possibly find that contradictory?
On the adoption issue: You added information into the article alleging that "1,000" children "may have been" given for adoption in the U.S.; so does the phrase "may have been" mean that nobody has the slightest idea whether any of it happened at all? In fact this entire section of the article is filled with phrases like "may have", "the possibility", and "speculating", which means the whole thing - by your own admission - is based on speculation at this point. This is another reason I thought it was premature to include it. But I keep forgetting that you don't think evidence is needed for this type of thing, in which case you might as well insert information from the childabuserecovery.com article, in fact that article would be a way to demonstrate to the public just how far this lunacy has gone.
When I said the mothers were deemed unfit, I was assuming that out-of-wedlock pregnancy was considered grounds for declaring the mother unfit at that time, which I may have been mistaken about. I never claimed to be an expert on Irish adoption law, but it only becomes relevant if these alleged incidents actually occurred rather than "might have" occurred based on speculation. Ryn78 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
"May have been mistaken about"? Try "I was completely mistaken about that, sorry for causing offence"? This entire section of the article is filled with a newspaper reporting on a Health Services Executive investigation - the HSE being the relevant and competent government agency - which you completely fail to acknowledge. They deemed the evidence compelling enough to alert the relevant minister, because they found documentary evidence of large-scale trafficking! But to you it's just "speculation"? Your PoV-pushing is completely blatant at this stage... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Your own text which you placed in the article says it's speculation about something which "may have" occurred. But now it's a proven thing? And it gets tedious for you to pretend that any mistake I make is a grave "offense" that I need to apologize profusely for, while you never apologize for calling me a "piece of work" or other personal insults (which frankly violate Wikipedia's rules for civil debate). Ryn78 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems you need a reminder of what the article actually says: "The issue had arisen within the HSE when a principal social worker responsible for adoption discovered "a large archive of photographs, documentation and correspondence relating to children sent for adoption to the USA" and "documentation in relation to discharges and admissions to psychiatric institutions in the Western area." The HSE noted that there were letters from the Home to parents asking for money for the upkeep of their children and notes that the duration of stay for children may have been prolonged by the order for financial reasons. It also uncovered letters to parents asking for money for the upkeep of some children that had already been discharged or had died. The social worker had compiled a list of "up to 1,000 names." HSE reports mentioned the possibility that up to 1,000 children had been trafficked for adoption with one speculating that it was possible that death certificates were falsified so children could be "brokered for adoption", which could "prove to be a scandal that dwarfs other, more recent issues with the Church and State."
So no, there's not much speculation there, except about the extent of the problem and whether or not death certs had been falsified.
When someone starts pulling "facts" out-of-their ass that the women in Tuam had been legally judged to have been unfit mothers and had their children legally taken from them for fostering or adoption, when that person clearly has no idea what laws were in effect, from when, and has made no effort to find out - well yes, I may get a little angry. I'm not "pretending" anything - your remarks on that particular issue are offensive to the women, the dead children, and to the children who were illegally adopted to the U.S. from there. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
That text you cited is peppered with words such as "may", "possibility", and "speculating", except for the definite statement that an archive of photos etc relating to adoptions in the US had been found, but this is being stated by the same media which also claimed that 800 starved babies had been dug up in a septic tank, which I think even you admit is nonsense since no bodies have been dug up except the 19th century famine victims excavated in 2011. You'll forgive me for being a little skeptical of this latest set of allegations, given that: 1) it's being made by only one newspaper, by your own admission; and 2) the media's track record for this subject has been truly dismal, with a lot of stuff being invented out of thin air. And yet you accuse me of doing that. As for my skepticism being "offensive to the victims": let's wait to see whether these allegations are ever actually proven before trying to silence all skepticism with emotional blackmail tactics. That's getting very old by this point, and Wikipedia is supposed to be based on objective criteria rather than automatically assuming one position is correct and then accusing dissenters of hurting people. Ryn78 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"being stated by the same media which also claimed that 800 starved babies had been dug up in a septic tank..."?! Sorry, not wanting to put words in your mouth, so to be clear - are you now claiming that there is one, "homogeneous media", and that because some elements of that homogeneous media are sometimes very poor, all mainstream media should be treated as an unreliable source? The Irish Examiner is a long-standing, reputable newspaper and is most certainly a reliable source on Wikipedia. You are aware that they're reporting on an official Health Service Executive report - not just making stuff up for the fun of it?! No bodies have been dug up? Correct. No exhumation or physical excavation of the site has been ordered by the Commission of Inquiry to date. What's that got to do with illegal adoptions? Illegal adoptions that are documented and reported on by the HSE - yet you still doubt they occurred. The only thing being speculated upon is the scale of the trafficking. So much for your objectivity. As is clear from this talk page and your edits, your only agenda is to minimise the reputational damage of the Bon Secours Sisters. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Since I also have opposed the theory which claims the Royal family was involved in the Tuam deaths, I guess I also have an agenda to shield the Royal family's reputation? Or am I just opposed to unproven allegations? The HSE - if I'm not mistaken - is still in the process of investigating the allegations of illegal adoption, which means the matter has not yet been proven, and the Examiner's summary may or may not be any more accurate than the numerous "reputable" media sources which stated that it had been "proven" that nuns deliberately starved 800 babies to death. Those media sources were all considered RSs, too, remember. For that matter, the Royal Family / Satanic Cult idea was put forth by an official "Child Abuse Recovery" organization, so I guess that's a reliable source too, right? The bottom line: Everyone has a right to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and that includes groups which you personally don't like, including Catholic nuns. I'd be arguing the same thing if it was any other group that was accused of something like this, especially given the atrocious dishonesty of so much of the media coverage. Ryn78 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryn78 didn't even seem to understand what homocide means when the definition sat right infront of them despite it couldn't be used (for wikipedia's rules) and was still telling me it was wrong objectively... the etymology is a give away "homo" -> human "cide" -> death (not suggesting killing or anything... just; dead human's is the statement being made on very broad terms.) Ryn78 you're argument is a little symetrical to this situation... a man walks into someone's house... he grabs the tv and leaves... he is caught with it in the street... a policeman watches this and asks "what are you doing with that?"... !Before any response is given from this point on... The policeman can rightfully assume that it's his and he's moving it for whatever reason or he's a random man stealing it. You're somewhat looking for a middle-ground as an affirmative that he's borrowing it as an answer in comparison to the infections. The fact is they had a responsibity for the children, there are flaws in the way they cared for those children, the catholic church isn't poor (the richest state today and has always been rich generally throughout the last 1 or 2 thousands years) and it's fair to say their institution keeps mosts of the funds people donate for themselves which could have went to causes such as this. They also have too much authority over potential witnesses (with regards that they're catholic). Curiously, if you were that policeman Ryn78 with that random man being Pope Benedict XVI... how would you respond to the situation if the response was "I'm just borrowing this tv"? *eats popcorn* Anonymous 573462i (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You claim "homicide" doesn't imply "killing", but standard dictionaries do in fact define it as "killing": see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide
This is why even Bastun didn't want to use that term, so don't pretend it's just me. Here in the U.S., and I'm sure also Ireland and all other English-speaking countries, the term "homicide" is ONLY used for murder, without exception. Maybe you're not a native speaker of English, I don't know; but for whatever reason, your definition is simply false.
You claim there were flaws in the way the nuns cared for the children, but the actual medical reports don't seem to back that up aside from some fairly minor criticisms. Can you present any evidence? You also speculated that the Church was wealthy enough to have saved these children, but money can't buy cures that didn't exist back then. Many diseases could not be cured no matter how much money was spent, so how would money be relevant here? Ryn78 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Malnutrition can be "cured" with the provision of food. Can you provide evidence that the malnutrition was the result of prior infections causing diarrhoea, or vomiting? No? Then stop speculating. For your information, antibiotics were common from the 1940s on; vaccinations for common childhood illnesses in Ireland began in the 1930s. What diseases were they suffering from that had no cures? Or are we looking at a Mother Teresa "suffering is good" scenario? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
"Curing malnutrition with food" only works if the food is kept down rather than being vomited up, and if it's digested properly rather than just running through the system as happens with diarrhea. And yes, I can prove that the term "marasmus" in the reports would normally refer to exactly this type of disease-induced problem (because that's how the term is defined in medical dictionaries), whereas the claim that nuns withheld food until children starved to death is not indicated by any evidence whatsoever. Can YOU prove the contention that nuns starved children to death? Where's YOUR evidence? Ryn78 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please do so, then. You may also want to improve our own article on marasmus, which seems oddly lacking in defining marasmus as a disease-induced condition. I'm also puzzled as to how the death certs don't list these underlying conditions at all in the "other causes" space, where additional useful information can be recorded. (Marasmus is itself listed as an "other cause" in some deaths). Once again, I still have not claimed that nuns withheld food. Please stop claiming that I have.
Antibiotics were common from the 1940s on; vaccinations for common childhood illnesses in Ireland began in the 1930s. What diseases were they suffering from that had no cures? Or are we looking at a Mother Teresa "suffering is good" scenario? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Several months ago a link to a medical dictionary entry for "marasmus" was already posted, remember? I didn't think you were even disputing the definition. Here it is again, and please note that it says "These conditions are frequently associated with infections" : http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/984496-overview
And you admit that marasmus is listed in some of the death certificates as a contributing cause, but you still want to dispute that it was a cause? You're also claiming you're not alleging the nuns withheld food, and yet you claim the malnutrition wasn't caused by disease either. So what exactly is the third possibility? You seem to be shifting your argument, since there are really only two possibilities here unless you can name a third. In any event, plenty of media sources have certainly alleged that "nuns starved children to death".
You've also repeated (verbatim) your comment about antibiotics from the 40s onward, which is misleading for several reasons. Let's take the example of a common bacterial infection among children which is specifically cited by one medical report of one of these Homes as a cause of diarrhea in babies: staphylococcus. The following article says that although penicillin was used from some point in the 40s onward (Wikipedia's article says 1942) to treat staph infections, nonetheless by the late 40s there were already strains of staphylococcus which were immune to penicillin, which required waiting for the development of new drugs such as methicillin. More importantly, the Home began operation in 1925 and the highest death tolls (if memory serves) occurred in the 30s and very early 40s, before even penicillin was in use (1942) or during its very early trial period. So how would they have treated staph infections in the 20s, 30s and earliest part of the 40s? It's probably not coincidence that those periods saw such high mortality rates, correct? Here's the article I mentioned: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/antimicrobialresistance/examples/mrsa/Pages/history.aspx
At any rate, we aren't even debating changes to the article, so what's the point of rehashing all this stuff? Ryn78 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, you're putting words in the mouths of others. What I actually queried was why the "other causes" entry is blank, if marasmus is listed as the cause of death. According to your assertion that marasmus is a symptom of some other condition, there should be something there, even if it's only "vomiting" or "diarrhoea." To be clear, there are some certs where cause of death is listed as, e.g., pneumonia, congenital malformation of colon, and marasmus is listed as an "other cause."
Staphylococcus infection is not listed as cause of death in any of the 796 cases. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You're asking me to comment on death certificates which neither of us know very much about, but I do know that even today there are still many mysterious "crib deaths" where a baby suddenly dies of unknown causes, because babies are susceptible to so many maladies which can become fatal for someone that young and fragile. About a month ago, I overheard a woman talking to her friend about the mysterious death of one of her grandmother's babies, whose cause was never determined.
I mentioned staphylococcus infections because one of the medical reports of a similar Home had mentioned that most of the babies had severe diarrhea due to a staph epidemic. Children still get staph infections all the time, but today it's easy to treat it. Ryn78 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unwed mothers "were sent"

There's a few uses of this in the article, including the opening paragraph. Sent by whom? Family? Courts? Health Boards? Doctors? Any sources for same? Bogger (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home/Archive_3&oldid=1255601072"