Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Criticism of the findings of the reports" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the risk of opening a can of worms - as originally proposed here, given the findings of the Commission of Investigation, I think it's safe to remove a lot of the "Criticism of the findings of the reports" section and related paragraphs at this stage. Unless there are objections, I would propose removing:

• the paragraphs referring to Patrick Kenny's/National Catholic Register's criticisms/justifications,
• Boucher-Hayes' denial of saying something that the article never refers to anyway,
• AP's criticism of the media reporting,
• Golding's criticism of the criticism of the media reporting.

I won't do anything for a week and I won't do anything if it's going to provoke wall-of-text debates that go nowhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for waiting instead of making unilateral changes. Secondly, why don't we compromise and remove approximately half of the material you want to remove, while leaving the rest in to indicate the early response / debate? Ryn78 (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(The original proposal is in the 'Missing the obvious' section in the archive but for some reason the link won't work for me and just goes to the top of the archived talk page.) What are you proposing could be removed? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should leave in one quote from each side, although I'll have to look over that section when I get back since I'll be out of town until Wednesday evening, with limited internet access. Ryn78 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, there aren't "sides." No worries, anyway, there's no rush - I'll not do anything until you've had time to read over things and propose something. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

When I said "each side", I meant people who criticized the coverage and people who defended the coverage or criticized the criticism. There are definitely differing points of view on this issue, hence different sides. Ryn78 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the size of that subsection. Before the Commission's interim report it made sense. However the commission's report is a bit of a smoking gun. Maybe keeping the large 'criticisms' section violates WP:DUE? ___Ebelular (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah - that's the thing. "It couldn't possibly be true, it's sensationalist tabloid nonsense, we overdramatised it, if there are bodies (which there aren't!), they're from the Famine! Except the ones who were dying in these epidemics, I suppose, but remember they had NO money to look after those kids!" Oh, wait... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to go back to OR personal theorizing (complete with the stipend stuff that has nothing to do with the issue) then I'll be forced to give my own analysis in return and we'll be right back to endless bickering again. There are objective reasons to retain the criticism: partly because it summarizes the debate as it existed during the initial wave of coverage, and partly because there is still criticism of the coverage, including criticism from that atheist who is quoted in the newer material (I'd have to look up his name). There are reasons why even some atheists are criticizing the way the media is covering the subject, such as the exaggerations which go way beyond what the Commission has actually said, and the complete avoidance of any historical context. Ryn78 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical context such as the fact that no criticism of religious was tolerated in the Ireland of the 40s and 50s...? This was the country where nuns let children die in a fire rather than have people see them in nightdresses, after all, but sure, no historical context. OR personal theorising? What?! If you can't see how a facile argument such as Kenny's "OMG, they were so poor in the war!" doesn't square with reasonable state payments, then we're clearly not going to get anywhere with this. Let things stand, so. Including staunch defenders of Catholicism such as Kenny, telling everyone in Ireland how wrong we are about those 796 bodies that weren't buried there and if they were they were from the Famine - it does make him look foolish in the extreme, but I suppose if the cap fits... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Kenny's comment about the poverty-stricken nature of society would seem to refer to the fact that slums breed diseases which then spread to everyone else, regardless of how much money they have. Many of these diseases had no cure then, which means the stipend wouldn't have bought a cure that didn't exist even if 1 (one) pound per month was truly the enormous sum you claim it was. As for historical context: there were countless thousands of communal graves (since that used to be commonplace) which the media has never turned into a scandal, including the one found on the very same site in 2011. Even some of the media sources admit that it was common for orphanages to bury children on-site. The critics of the coverage are asking why exactly the Bon Secours communal grave is a huge scandal but not all the thousands of other ones, and that's a good question. But we're not going to get anywhere by going back to bickering. We could've just worked out a compromise, but instead you want to ridicule the critics by sticking your own analysis in, which forces me to give the opposing view. Is compromise over? Ryn78 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Slums breed diseases? Sure. You're familiar with Tuam? It's a rural town. No slums. I'm not "claiming" anything about the value of the allowance paid (per week, not per month) - it's right there, referenced, in the article. "Countless thousands of communal graves" aren't a media scandal because they don't exist. Individual burial was and is the norm, not burial in mass graves. The last related scandal was when an order of nuns exhumed the remains of Magdalene Laundry victims from individual graves (more coffins found than had been recorded) and cremated the remains so they could sell the graveyard for housing. That was 1996, by the way. I don't see anyone (bar Kenny) asking the questions you're posing, but if you can't work out why illegally burying 796 children in an unmarked mass grave that appears to have been a disused septic tank is a scandal, then maybe you shouldn't be working on the article at all. I have not proposed including my own analysis. I have proposed removing Kenny's premature - and, as we know now, given the Commission's interim "smoking gun" report (as Ebelular puts it) - totally erroneous analysis. Yes, compromise is over. Can of worms re-closed and sealed. We leave Kenny looking like an idiot. Congrats. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good grief. Historian Finbar McCormick said communal burial vaults were once used in Ireland; even some media sources admitted it was the norm for orphanages to bury children on-site; there was a communal grave dug up in 2011 on the very same site as the the Tuam Home; there are communal burial vaults all over the place in the US and throughout Europe. It was in fact fairly common. And if the general population in any area (including rural areas) has a poor diet it can lead to greater frequency of diseases which can then spread even to people with a decent diet and a reasonable amount of money. But there is no point in endlessly bickering over all this stuff yet again. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Good grief, indeed. How you translate "Bones of famine victims were found nearby in 2011" into "there was a communal grave dug up in 2011 on the very same site as the the Tuam Home" is a monumental leap of OR and SYNTH. Finbar McCormick (he's a mediaeval historiam, not a modern one, btw) did indeed say "Until proved otherwise, the burial structure at Tuam should be described as a communal burial vault." It's now been proven otherwise, by international experts. The fact you're still disputing the existence of a septic tank and that it was used for burials - well, says it all, really. As to disease - maybe have a read of the letter after the one where you found the McCormick quote. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Commission said it didn't know whether the structure containing the bodies was ever a septic tank - only the one that was filled with rocks and dirt was definitely ruled a septic tank (and how many septic tanks do you think that building had? ) So no, Finbar McCormick hasn't been proven wrong, and my main point about McCormick was that he indicated communal burial vaults were once commonly used in Ireland, hence the practice itself was not considered scandalous as you claim. The structure at the Tuam Home certainly had been converted into a burial vault regardless of what its original purpose may have been - no serious commentator has claimed it was still used as a septic tank during the burials, so what's the point of calling it a septic tank other than to sensationalize the story? And I think it's accepted that the “bones of famine victims” were in fact found on the same plot of land, not merely somewhere in the neighborhood; but the exact location wasn't the point. My point was that it was clearly and indisputably a communal grave that the media never made into a scandal, and there are numerous other examples. I've seen communal burial vaults here in the US (which no one here views as a scandal), and there are many in Europe as well. BTW, I took out the “Apologism” heading you added since 1) it breaks the discussion into two discussions for no reason; 2) the loaded accusation implied by the title is just another “shaming” tactic that you often use as an ad hominem attack, which is especially absurd in this case since I have been doing little more than pointing out very basic facts that aren't disputed by anyone except you (the common use of communal graves, the spread of disease among poor populations etc). If you want to keep having longer and longer bicker sessions over this, I'm game; but it's a waste of time and it's an OR / personal opinion discussion that we're not supposed to be having in the first place. Ryn78 (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spiked editor's comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Spiked is a minor, libertarian, online-only UK-based website. The views of it's editor would be irrelevant anyway, but the fact that the larger part of the quote is just attacking use of the word "Holocaust", when the word Holocaust appears nowhere else in the article, makes it WP:UNDUE - as noted, both "sides" should be included. As there is no other mention of Holocausts, this simply does not stand by itself. FWIW, all "sides" of the "debate" are included in the reactions section - those appalled at what happened, whether from the RC church or secular society, and apologists for the order of nuns whose defences and alternate explanations have been refuter or disproven - even where those are sourced to a GP writing to a "Letters to the Editor" page. Largely single-purpose accounts who can't remain objective on this article should probably stick to editing articles on the lives of saints. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia isn't supposed to "include both sides". This isn't RTÉ, where you need to use stopwatches to ensure "both sides" get equal amount of time. cf. WP:FALSEBALANCE ____Ebelular (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: The only reason there are any countervailing views left is because I fought you constantly to keep them in, remember? We had worked out a compromise on the Brendan O’Neill quote itself and it remained in the article for some months, but now you want to fight over it yet again. When is this going to finally end? You have persistently tried to purge this article of virtually all viewpoints other than one narrative, using whatever excuse you can think of; and in this case the excuse is worse than usual. The fact that it's a UK libertarian online publication does not disqualify it in any conceivable sense, its "minor" status is debatable (I've seen it quoted all over the place), and the author was addressing the fact that many people have compared the Home to a Holocaust death camp (a claim which I have seen repeatedly even if none of these claims happen to be included in this particular article). Removing his viewpoint is POV-pushing or worse. Claiming I'm a “single purpose account” is nonsense, given that I've edited everything from articles on recent terrorist attacks to articles on German cities, Jellied Eels, the “Catwoman in other media” article (to undo vandalism by a serial vandal), but mostly articles on the Hundred Years' War and other medieval topics. Claiming that I only edit saints articles is ridiculous given that the only edits I've made in recent years that would fit that description would be removing vandalism or improper edits to a handful of articles dealing with one medieval saint who took part in the Hundred Years War (see the pattern?). Ad hominem arguments / personal attacks against me would seem to count as a violation of the rules, but you do that persistently too. Enough is enough. And re: Ebelular's claim that Wikipedia articles are allegedly allowed to only include one side and exclude the other: read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Ryn78 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I overstated your concentration on defending/promoting RC points of view, somewhat, in your approximately 1,500 edits and yes, you have indeed undone vandalism. Now please actually read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Refuting an assertion of opinion, with a large quote from a minor figure (and he is that in the context of this article), when the assertion itself isn't actually reported on in the article is exactly a case of WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We might include O'Neill's comment if we're also including the original Holocaust quote. I've never added it because I think a hyperbolic comment from a non-notable journalist in a tabloid newspaper isn't notable or worthy of inclusion, but knock yourself out and add the original comments if you want O'Neill's quote included.

One person's opinions on the forthcoming referendum to repeal the eight amendment are irrelevant in the context of an article on the Tuam home, and might merit a sentence in the relevant article on the referendum. But it's "One", not "some", and I'd need to check our policy on anonymous/unattributed sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: I've left out the second quote (about the abortion issue) since I'm not even sure when that was added, but the O'Neill quote is something we had previously agreed to include after working out a compromise. The fact that O'Neill addresses the Holocaust claims doesn't invalidate the quote: he was using that issue as one example (among many possible examples) of just how unhinged the coverage as a whole has been; and his quote specifically lists two of the sources using the word “Holocaust” even if our article doesn't. He could have also covered any number of other examples of the coverage's problems (such as the starvation claims) but you'd just come up with another excuse for excluding his quote even if he had. It's also ironic that the various quotes you added do little more than engage In political grandstanding (using lots of word like “shocking” without much substance) and yet you want to include those. How on earth do you justify the latter type of quote while trying to exclude O'Neill's quote? It's also galling that you keep alleging that my edits (in most articles) supposedly “defend the RC position”. Quoting historians like Finbar McCormick isn't “defending the RC position” especially when I've also criticized the local Archbishop for throwing the nuns under the bus (the Archbishop's views represent the actual RC position). In other articles, my edits on the subject of the Hundred Years War or other medieval historical issues do not "defend the RC position" either: I cite secular historians. And my knowledge of history also tells me that it was common practice at one time to bury orphanage children in on-site burial vaults, which was never considered scandalous and still isn't except in this one case that the media and politicians are clearly using for political purposes. The quotes you want to include from politicians help underscore the shameless political nature of the issue, whereas at least the Brendan O'Neill quote tries to explain some of the practical realities of the situation (there is no evidence of any deliberate killing, in fact they died during regional epidemics; the structure was clearly a burial vault with twenty chambers, not a sewage pit; the bodies had been carefully placed there as in any other burial vault rather than being callously "dumped" in it, etc). In fact the O'Neill quote probably covers more substantive facts than all the other quotes combined. We had previously agreed to include his quote. If the previous compromise we worked out is now null and void just because you say so, then what good will it do to work out any further compromises here? Ryn78 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You're now blatantly making up your own facts. Read the actual published report. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Including quotes that use emotive language (like *"shocking"*) are good ways to show the reaction of people to the findings, namely that the found them shocking. This is very relevant to the topic, and this article.

I'm skeptical of the use of including a quote that refutes that this was a holocaust. No-where else in this article calls it a holocaust, and there are very very few campaigners calling it that, so introducing this, as a refutation, seems like a way to diminish what happened ("Oh don't believe the meida, sure they call it a holocaust!") ____Ebelular (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Similarly, we have Philip Boucher-Hayes refuting something that also isn't included in the article, but "mainstream media, eh?" Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the problem that there is a refutation of the claim that a holocaust took place or is the problem that the refutation quoted is too long? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It's simply WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be included at all. The section appropriately includes comment from TDs, Ministers, the Taoiseach, the President, the responsible archbishop and the National Bishop's Conference. What's an online journalist from the UK doing in there? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to include the refutation because hardly anyone is making that claim. By refuting it you're implying that it's an actual thing commonly said thing. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: I don't think I'm the one making up facts. The Commission's report had said the bodies were found in an unknown structure (the septic tank was filled with dirt); and in the government report you've added, I couldn't find any mention of bodies being found in a septic tank: it was discussing plans to excavate a septic tank to see if anything was inside, unless I missed something (you didn't give a page number for the information, which is an additional problem with your citation since citations always need a page number). You still haven't provided any valid reason for deleting O'Neill's quote. Your edit summary (“Consensus has changed”) would only make sense if you can single-handedly create consensus by yourself. As for Ebelular's defense of the political quotes: my point was that hyperbolic language devoid of any details or historical context is not exactly what a Wikipedia article is supposed to be emphasizing, especially when the “shock and outrage” is so ridiculously selective: these same politicians never expressed any shock over the large number of bodies unearthed on the very same site in 2011. Both cases deal with the same type of mass burial practice which was once very common, which is why historians such as Finbar McCormick have pointed out that it looks like a typical burial vault that was once commonly used. We need more historical context and less sensationalism. At least the O'Neill quote tried to put things in perspective a bit. Ryn78 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryn78 writes: "The Commission's report had said the bodies were found in an unknown structure". The Report of the Expert Technical Group, however, is clear that the structure was a sewage tank: "The combination of an institutional boarding home and commingled interments of juvenile remains in a sewage treatment system is a unique situation, with no directly comparable domestic or international cases." AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus has changed" is, I think, to refer to several explainations which have been decisively disproven. It's just famine bones. It's bones of babies and children, it's from the time the home was in operation, and there are "significant" amounts of them. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, Ryn78 does have a point w.r.t. sewage tank. The export report often says "Human remains in underground structures, some of which might have been used for sewage processing". There is one instance (quoted above by AugusteBlanqui) where it says they are in a sewage system, but most of the Expert Technical Group Report uses the original wording of being ambiguous. Mostly they don't confirm or deny whether there are remains in the sewage tank(s). I suppose we'll have to wait for proper excavation. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

He does not. Among other instances of truth-by-assertion (the "regional epidemics" are back, I see), Ryn78 is still maintaining, above, that "the structure was clearly a burial vault with twenty chambers, not a sewage pit"; and that "the bodies had been carefully placed there as in any other burial vault rather than being callously "dumped" in it, etc". How he knows this, or how O'Neill does (from one "eyewitness account", apparently), or how co-mingling of carefully placed human remains takes place in a purpose-built "burial vault" is unclear. And nobody, from Corless on, is claiming that bodies were "callously dumped."

However, the DCYA, the Commission, and the Expert Technical Group do now consistently state that the structure is or, at the very least, certainly appears to be, part of a sewage system. See, e.g.:

• the [https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/mother_and_baby_homes/20171212FAQsTuam.pdf DCYA's FAQ (section 9);
• the ETG report
  • Exec summary, page 1: " ‘significant quantities’ of juvenile human remains were located in ‘underground chambers’ that were associated with a structure potentially relating to the historic treatment of sewage waste."; (a little ambiguous?)
  • section 3.3, page 14: "The combination of an institutional boarding home and commingled interments of juvenile remains in a sewage treatment system is a unique situation, with no directly comparable domestic or international cases.";
  • section 5.4, page 47: "However, the remains are apparently contained within a number of chambers that may, in some fashion, be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water" (this is the most ambiguous statement in the report, possibly?)
  • section 7.1, page 56: "Minister Zappone and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs have taken a leading role in attempting to deal with the discovery of juvenile human remains in a sewage facility in Tuam."

None of the above hint at a "burial vault".

None of this is on-topic, though. The issue and the bottom line is still that the inclusion of a minor journalist's opinion in a reactions section, refuting an opinion from a red-top journalist that isn't even included in the article, is completely WP:UNDUE and unjustified. As stated above, the other people quoted are the President of Ireland, the Taoiseach of Ireland, ministers, TDs, the Archbishop with responsibility for the area, and the Bishop's Conference. And a minor UK web-journalist? No. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

" Among other instances of truth-by-assertion..." Totally agree. There has been a lot of things said which are contradicted by sources. "the inclusion of a minor journalist's opinion.." Agreed. There appear to be more definitive statements in the ETGR than I had found in my first skimming. ____Ebelular (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun et al (I'm just going to reply once, primarily to Bastun, since this is getting longer and longer with each passing day): We've been going in circles on this for several years, since 2014 (if memory serves). Re: the issue of commingled bones: isn't that phrase only used in a description of preparations to excavate, hence before the bodies were found; and didn't one of the other reports say that bodies were on separate shelves in the chambers, each body on its own shelf rather than intermingled? We're dealing with information that seems unclear at best. Re: the sewage tank issue: the new report – as you just described – generally uses qualifiers like “may” etc rather than stating bluntly that it's a sewage system (with a few exceptions). This seems to indicate that, as the Commission's report also says, they are assuming it was probably originally a sewage tank but still are not sure. Either way – and this is the main point which is constantly being ignored – burial vaults were often adapted from older structures, so it doesn't really matter whether it had once been something else, so what's the point of hammering on that issue? Corless has sort of implied that this one may not have been cleaned first, but without presenting any evidence : she has merely asked the question rather than stating it flatly, so there's no reason to believe that bodies were placed in a filthy sewage tank regardless of what the structure had originally been intended for. Re: the O'Neill quote: the reason for including it has nothing to do with O'Neill's relative rank on the totem pole but rather to provide at least one quote that isn't just an uncritical repetition of the same claims, for the sake of balance and context. O'Neill may not be the ideal candidate for that – I'd prefer an historian – but right now the O'Neill quote is the only one actually in the article that provides any criticism. We had previously agreed to include it, but of course you want to bicker over that same point yet again. Ryn78 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"We've been going in circles on this for several years, since 2014" A lot has changed since 2014. Proper research has backed up nearly all of the original media, and Corless', reports. "the O'Neill quote is the only one actually in the article that provides any criticism" WP:NPOV doesn't require criticism in every article! There is no criticism needed in the "earth goes around the sun" article. Find a historian who makes claims like that and include that. WP:NPOV isn't the BAI rules about equal time. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the questions asked, it appears that no, Ryn has not yet read the report. And it's not me "hammering on" on this talk page, by the way. To be clear: neither the Commission nor the (separate) Expert Technical Group are "assuming" anything. They are investigating, and reporting on what they've found. One person is assuming the common existence of burial vaults in Ireland (in workhouses, no less!), is asserting that they were "commonly adapted from other structures", and is insisting that this sewage tank was one. No. It wasn't. We are verging deeper and deeper into WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory at this point. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: Didn't you admit – yesterday – that the report usually uses terms like “may” and other qualifiers, only occasionally stating it with more certainty? But you want to use the report to confirm that the bodies were definitely found in a sewage tank anyway, and you're still claiming that burial vaults were never used and never adapted from earlier structures? Our article itself used to cite a source (a Guardian article) stating that on-site burial at orphanages was common, but you removed that based on nothing but your own claim that it wasn't common (based on what?). And I suppose you deny that the very same plot of land contained another mass burial site unearthed in 2011, right? Maybe you can explain why one is a scandal and the other isn't. And there are in fact burial vaults all over the place – I've seen them - in numerous countries. Denying that obvious fact isn't helping your cause.

Ebelular: The only thing that has been backed up by the excavations is that bodies were buried inside a structure of some sort. Notice there isn't any scandal coverage for any of the thousands of burial vaults around the world nor the mass grave found on the very same site in 2011, and it's the scandal coverage – nuns allegedly starving hundreds of children to death and then dumping them in a filthy sewage tank - which definitely has NOT been justified as far as I can see. That has always been the crux of the issue. Asking me to find a historian who makes criticisms of the coverage is a bit problematic given that Bastun removed the quote from historian Finbar McCormick (as I recall) just as he also removed the citation noting that orphanages used to commonly bury children on-site. He will inevitably remove any other citations I provide, and you'll likely back him up as you always do. Ryn78 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Back to "hammer on" about burial vaults again? What I wrote yesterday is available immediately above, so there's no need to put words in my mouth, thanks. Your claims that burial vaults were common in Ireland (and it's only Ireland we're talking about, not the rest of Europe!) is completely without attribution. On-site burial was common. Nobody is disputing this straw man. It didn't happen in purpose-built brick burial vaults, though. Poor-law paupers got paupers' graves. Not "shaft burial vaults" of the type found in other parts of Europe. Evidence: well - how about the discovery of remains from the Workhouse? No brick burial vaults there. And not sure why the discovery of a famine grave would be a scandal.

The quote from McCormick was from a letter to a newspaper. Please note that his letter ends "Until proved otherwise, the burial structure at Tuam should be described as a communal burial vault."" I refer you again to the report written by the Expert Technical Group, following investigation by consultant engineers, archeologists and forensic anthropologists, and which was published by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs:

• section 3.3, page 14: "The combination of an institutional boarding home and commingled interments of juvenile remains in a sewage treatment system is a unique situation, with no directly comparable domestic or international cases.";
• section 7.1, page 56: "Minister Zappone and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs have taken a leading role in attempting to deal with the discovery of juvenile human remains in a sewage facility in Tuam." Q.E.D.

If, even after you this, you persist in blindly asserting "No, it was a burial vault!" then the only conclusion we can logically draw is that you're engaged in tendentious editing - see, specically, WP:REHASH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Time to end this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"The only thing that has changed...". False. Even the PR spokesperson for the nuns has rolled back on her earlier claim that: "If you come here you’ll find no mass grave, no evidence that children were ever so buried and a local police force casting their eyes to heaven and saying, ‘Yeah a few bones were found – but this was an area where famine victims were buried. So?'". You're not paying attention. ____Ebelular (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: Wait, what? So you're arguing that a burial vault would be unusual but it was considered perfectly proper to just place a bunch of people in dirt pits? The Eachtra Journal said they were just pits with several bodies apiece. So if the Home children were just placed together in a dirt pit in the backyard that would be fine, but a masonry structure isn't? My jaw practically dropped open since this would be a very strange standard. And (again) it's contradicted by an historian who said that in IRELAND itself burial vaults were common (even if the historian wrote it in a letter to the editor it was still written by an historian who would seem to take precedence over your personal opinion). And yes, there are two (2) quotes from the report which lack the usual doubtful qualifiers about the structure's nature, but you previously admitted that all the other statements from that same report use terms like “may” etc. Why would the two exceptions take precedence over the majority? That's not how we're supposed to do things.

Ebelular: so you're trying to contradict my statement that the excavations have only confirmed the presence of bodies, but the only thing you present to “contradict” that statement is basically to say that the excavations have confirmed the presence of bodies. How on earth does that contradict my statement which said the same thing? Here's my verbatim statement: “The only thing that has been backed up by the excavations is that bodies were buried inside a structure of some sort”. You either aren't reading what I'm writing or something else is going on. Ryn78 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the new information is what sort of bodies, and from when are they from. They aren't famine bones. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This beggar's belief. Once again: do not put words in my mouth. You've clearly either still not actually read the report; or are wilfully miscontruing what it says. You've also clearly not read the Eachtra report or have failed to understand it, the context of what a poor house was, or the circumstances of the Great Famine. You've also evidently miscontrued or forgotten what McCormick actually wrote. What McCormick (a zooarcheolgist who specialises in mediaeval and earlier periods) actually said was that "deep brick-lined shafts were constructed and covered with a large slab which often doubled as a flatly laid headstone. These were common in 19th-century urban cemeteries." He wrote this in June 2014, prior to any investigations or excavations having taken place. The Tuam workhouse was not an "urban cemetery" but in any case we now definitively know that the remains are from the 20th century, not the 19th. The extensive research conducted by the ETG includes an examination of all extant plans and maps of the area, historical records outlining works undertaken, the standardised designs for workhouses (which, er, don't include provision for burial vaults) and Tuam's in particular (likewise), and actual excavations. They did not conclude that the remains were found in a burial vault or similar structure (the word "vault" occurs precisely once in the 232-page report). They do conclude that the structure was a sewage treatment system.

It's been three days now since you've discussed the actual topic of this section and no valid reason for it's reintroduction to the article has been presented, so we can take it that issue is closed. The burial vault issue has been well-and-truly settled by the publication of the ETG report, but can of course be revisited should additional evidence come to light when the Commission reports again, and/or new information emerges when the authorities decide what will happen with the site. Until then, we can regard this particular horse as flogged, dead, definitely dead, and thrown in a disused septic tank 19th century urban cemetery burial vault. You're not getting it. Continuing to argue this point in the face of all the evidence would clearly be tendentious, and if you persist then I'll have no option but to seek a topic ban. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: I would gladly drop the subject since I'm extremely busy and have better things to do than constantly repeating our arguments in this article, especially since you're ignoring my actual points while focusing on strange distinctions that have no possible relevance, using double standards, and then accusing me of wrongdoing when I've done nothing wrong. But all of this has been rehashed so many times, I agree there's no point in continuing and will gladly drop the matter if you do.

Ebelular: My point was simply that the excavations confirmed bodies were in a structure, but they didn't confirm the other parts of the media narrative (deliberate starvation or neglect, dumping babies into sewage, etc). I don't know why you want to argue about that. If Bastun wants to drop the whole thing, let's drop the whole thing. Ryn78 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.