Talk:Bon Secours Sisters

strange punchline
At the end of this extended p.r. release, one sees the short mention of 800 babies buried by these nuns in septic tank. Maybe more research and a better balanced article will be the ultimate result. 24.44.243.38 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)captcrisis


 * See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27710206 If the article is correct, many or even all the children born at the home in Tuam were denied baptism! Just what sort of charity was this at the time (c. 1925-61?) Norvo (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Recent events"
Seems a little odd to classify the congregation's role in the long and hideous history of mother and baby homes in Ireland as "recent events." I'm assuming that's the reason for the tag at the top of the page, anyway. I mean obviously the specific stuff about the mass grave is sort of new information and is getting a lot of public attention, but the subject matter itself is pretty far from recent. - 92.40.250.75 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Ok, Bastun. The BBC article didn't say where it got its "death by malnutrition" info from, but I guess that's what makes the BBC such a ... cough ... reliable source, right? LOL In my line of work, if you don't cite your sources you're considered a bloody fraud. But, I suppose at least it's something.

You didn't address the other changes I made, but only reverted them. I gave reasons for making those changes in the edit comments, and I haven't seen any rationale for reverting them.

So I'm going to add this stuff back. And I'm gonna look at the "main article" you referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookncrem (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the BBC is absolutely a reliable source. There are multiple sources that reference death by malnutrition in the main article, not just the BBC. Please don't remove references from Wikipedia articles. It's also good practice to avoid making multiple changes throughout an article with a single save. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the sentence stating that deaths at this home were twice the national average. It's sourced. Please do not remove referenced material, or references. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that we carefully refine this sentence, since the cited report concerns a comparison for just a single year. I believe we should make that clearer in the article. On a related note, we should try to refrain from using the word 'average' in some of this material, unless it's included in the citation itself. The problem is that averages are easily skewed, especially if major accidents or outbreaks of illness occur unevenly over times or locations. Just a thought....  jxm (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem with improving the wording, Jxm. Do you have a formulation you'd prefer?  I think the use of "an average of two a week" is justified as it's over a period of 36 years.  My comment just above is incorrect - the sentence I restored doesn't state that the number of deaths was twice the national average, rather that it was twice the rate of some other mother and baby homes. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bastun: if you would replace the current text with an actual average-to-average comparison there wouldn't be a problem. But right now it's using a flagrantly unacceptable comparison. See my comments on the other talk page. Cookncrem (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Average" death rate
In this edit, Jxm changes "The child mortality at the home had averaged up to two a week, and (it was claimed) evidenced the discrimination and maltreatment that children of unwed mothers experienced while at the home." to " It was claimed that the high child mortality rate at the home evidenced...", stating in the edit summary "Drop improper use of 'average' - WP:OR and not in the cited refs)".

First reference (The Washington Post): 'Infant mortality at the Home was staggeringly high. “If you look at the records, babies were dying two a week, but I’m still trying to figure out how they could [put the bodies in a septic tank],” Corless said. “Couldn’t they have afforded baby coffins?”'

Second reference (NPR): "The death rate was high — 300 children perished in the span of three years, according to the report cited in the newspaper."

Wikipedia's WP:OR policy does not prevent extrapolating "up to two a week" from 300 divided by 3 divided by 52. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thnx fr yr comment, . As I mentioned above a couple of weeks ago, I think we should be cautious about using 'average' with data that clearly cannot pass a statistical test for normal distribution. I'm concerned about us simply adding to some of the sensational stuff that's already flying around. Combining the Kenny numbers from the main article and the 300 from NPR suggests that half of all deaths occurred during bad periods that accumulate to less than 5 out of the 36 years. So maybe we can incorporate a phrase like "many of whom died during various epidemics...." or something. The WashPost ref is actually a quote from Corless, so perhaps we should use 'it is claimed' or somesuch descriptor for that. As for the NPR number, I believe we should probably specify the reported period (presumably 1941-1944). Otherwise, we might as well just cherry-pick some Kenny figures and claim "more than four per week". Thoughts? jxm (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Someone could pick out one particularly bad day during an epidemic when (for example) 20 children died in a single twenty-four hour period, then claim the average rate was 20 per day. That's just bloody absurd. But that's the type of statistical trick the media has been playing (not that extreme of course, but much the same principle). Cookncrem (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've raised the policy issue here. jxm (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit protection
Please note that the discussion on inclusion of quotes which resulted in addition of the edit protection is ongoing at Talk:Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home. (Ping ) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2017
Please change line 5 of the lead from "Excavations in 2017 found a burial vault consisting of an "underground structure divided into 20 chambers", containing the remains of children up to three years old, in an area labeled as a cemetery on older maps." which is incorrect and unreferenced, to "Excavations in 2017 found a burial vault consisting of an "underground structure divided into 20 chambers", containing the remains of children up to three years old, in an area labeled a septic tank when overlaid with maps of the period of use as a workhouse. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

, could you have a look, please? Edit will change this article to match lead of Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose this change, because Corless herself said the area was labeled a cemetery on maps; and the map with the septic tank was (if I'm not mistaken) from the 19th century poorhouse that had once existed there. At best, we've got ambiguous information which the sources do not make clear. Ryn78 (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Then you'll be able to back Corless saying that with a reference? The Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article, however, states: "[Corless] then cross-referenced the names with those in local graveyards and found that only two had been buried in any of them.[29] Her research led her to conclude that the only possible location for the bodies was the site where the skeletons were found in 1975. Maps showed that this was the site of the Home's septic tank,[29] and Corless believes that some of the skeletons found are inside the septic tank.[19]" Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Better reference again: "By overlaying a map of the site as it looks today, she discovered that the place where the bones were discovered by the two boys in 1975 correlated exactly with where a sewage tank had been located during the building’s workhouse days. The tank had been put out of use in the 1930s when it stopped working. Catherine concluded that this was the most likely site where some or all of the 796 children who had died at The Home were likely to have been buried." ~ http://www.thejournal.ie/catherine-corless-tuam-mother-and-baby-home-3268501-Mar2017/

, I've looked again and can find no trace of Corless saying the area was a cemetery, as you state above. Can you produce such a reference, or acknowledge that the proposed edit is correct per the sources, please? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: Here's an article quoting Corless about two burial grounds listed for that location, a map listing a burial ground and city council records mentioning a "children’s burial ground and adjoining burial ground”: https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/she-said/2015/jun/15/the-mystery-of-the-missing-remains-of-the-tuam-babies
 * There's a big difference between the term "burial ground" versus "mass grave" versus "septic tank". You might want to ask why people don't just describe it as a "burial ground" since that's the actual term used on the map and by the city council. Ryn78 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So what Corless says in the Guardian article is: "Maps from its time indicate the “burial ground” area includes cesspit caverns from workhouse days. Could the burial ground relate to remains of people who died at the workhouse? “No,” says Corless. “Some were buried by the North Wall of the site, others in the pauper’s grave in the town cemetery.” - that certainly indicates that we need to add "cesspit caverns" to the sentence about the map overlay, doesn't it? We wouldn't want to try hiding anything from readers by including part of a sentence. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: You mean you want to add "cesspit" to your "sewage tank" description?  Or, we could go by what the Commission actually said: the only identifiable septic tank on the site had only dirt and rocks in it, whereas the vault with the bodies is of unknown origin and nature. Ryn78 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You know that isn't the case, on either front. The first sentence in this section spells out what I want the sentence to read. The Commission said no such thing as you claim (but you really do have an established track record of selective reading and mis-attributing quotes). What the Commission actually said - as you know - was: "The Commission has not yet determined what the purpose of this structure was but it appears to be related to the treatment/containment of sewage and/or waste water. The Commission has also not yet determined if it was ever used for this purpose."  So - there's the Commission's quote, there's Corless' quote above. Can you now agree to the change to bring this article in-line with the Mother & Baby Home article, or do you want it to remain inaccurate for another two days because reasons? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: The Commission's quote that you just cited says exactly what I said it says: "The Commission has not yet determined what the purpose of this structure was". Yes, they speculated that it MIGHT have once been a septic tank, but that's currently speculation. They also said that the only structure that could definitely be identified as "a large sewage containment system or septic tank" was "filled with rubble and debris".  Let's directly quote the Commission's statements in full, since that's the only way to provide a truly accurate description that we can hopefully both agree on.  Ryn78 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Progress, of a sort! One week on, and you've finally acknowledged that the incorrect and unreferenced "in an area labeled as a cemetery on older maps" can be changed. Now. Given that we have references stating that "By overlaying a map of the site as it looks today, she discovered that the place where the bones were discovered by the two boys in 1975 correlated exactly with where a sewage tank had been located during the building’s workhouse days. The tank had been put out of use in the 1930s when it stopped working", what exactly was wrong with the original request?!


 * Propose "Excavations in 2017 found a burial vault consisting of an "underground structure divided into 20 chambers", containing the remains of children up to three years old. This area is labeled as a septic tank when overlaid with maps from the workhouse era, and had been decommissioned in the 1930s."[][] ~ Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: You continue to misrepresent a number of things. Firstly, the sources also say that maps and city council records describe two "burial grounds" there, including a "children's burial ground", using that term. Secondly, I have no idea why you think I agreed to get rid of the reference to the above sources mentioning burial grounds, since I never said anything like that. Thirdly, you keep pushing the claim made three years ago (!) that the bones found in 1975 were on a site marked as a septic tank, although that claim from 2014 has now been superseded by the Commission's findings after an actual excavation, and their findings are as follows: the structure containing the bodies is of unknown origin (possibly once a septic tank but unknown), and the only structure that's definitely a septic tank was filled with rubble (no bodies).
 * So no, your suggested version is not in keeping with the most recent and official sources, and I'm surprised you're dredging up that old claim from 2014 rather than just quoting the Commission's report. We should quote the Commission's statement in full even if it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say. We should also really clarify that even Corless doesn't claim that the vault was actively used as a sewage tank at the time of the burials. Ryn78 (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Even Corless"... again with the disparagement. Corless never did claim that, of course. The Commission's statement is quoted in full on the issue, two sentences later. As the current sentence is unreferenced and as the replacement sentence proposed above is backed by two references, I am going ahead with the change. I've been more than reasonable in the face of your intransigence. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: You didn't even address the points I made (except for my use of the word "even"). I therefore removed that sentence and also changed a few other erroneous claims such as the idea that "most" of the bodies dated to the 1950s (the Commission doesn't say that, stating instead that they date from the 1920s though 1950s). And BTW, if you really believe the septic tank was only decommissioned in the 1930s as the deleted sentence claimed, and that the bodies were placed in this septic tank (as you keep implying), then you would in fact be claiming that the bodies buried in the 1920s were placed into an active septic tank filled with sewage despite your previous protestations that you weren't making that claim. So the sentence you want to include contradicts your own stated claims about the information which the sentence references. If you want to retain that sentence, then you'll need to justify dredging up a three-year-old claim rather than just going by what the Commission has said. Ryn78 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have misrepresented nothing. I have inserted a sentence supported by a reference (which you left in place) that replaced an unreferenced sentence. The inserted sentence is supported by what the Commission has said. Everything else - your assumptions about what I think, for example - is irrelevant. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: If it's supported by the Commission's conclusions, then why not just cite the Commission's conclusions rather than a three-year-old claim?
 * On the marasmus issue: the sources which directly quote the medical reports use that term rather than the more vague "malnutrition", and we should go by the more precise and direct quotes from these reports. That's especially true given that the use of the word "malnutrition" gave rise to the "deliberate starvation" idea which was debunked by the same guy whom the media was claiming was the source of it; so we shouldn't use a term that only perpetuates a debunked misconception. Ryn78 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What "claim"? It's not a "claim." It's a fact.


 * On the marasmus issue: Marasmus is a form of malnutrition; you are speculating and assuming again about what gave rise to the "deliberate starvation idea". As Boucher-Hayes isn't mentioned in the article, I don't see the relevance of your point. "marasmus Tuam" gets 1,740 Google hits. "malnutrition Tuam" gets over 19,000. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Bastun: By "claim", I was referring to the allegation that the septic tank labeled on the map is the same structure as the one with the bodies, whereas the only definite septic tank identified by the Commission was the tank that only had rocks and debris in it. Yes, the map lists a "septic tank", but maps and other official sources also mention two "burial grounds". You want to mention only the septic tank while deleting all mention of the burial grounds. Let's just quote the Commission.
 * Yes, marasmus is a form of malnutrition but it's caused by disease, not neglect or deliberate starvation. That's why we need to quote the sources which actually bother to use the term used by the medical reports themselves : it's more precise and more accurate. Sure, the media has been relentlessly pushing the "starvation" idea (see how many instances of "starvation", "Auschwitz" etc you can find as well as "malnutrition"), but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to also use sensationalistic, misleading, or vague terminology. Ryn78 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

BSHS
"The independent not-for-profit[13] Bon Secours Health System, one of largest hospital groups in Ireland, developed from the initial Bon Secours hospitals." It says BSHS is NFP, as does the reference. What's the problem? Manannan67 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my edit summary should have said "next sentence." Bon Secours Health Systems Ltd is a private company limited by guarantee. It's for=profit. "In 2015 it had about 2,700 staff who worked with 350 medical consultants and saw more than 200,000 patients, making €2.5 million in profit after paying €3 million to the order in rent." Independent source, as opposed to WP:PRIMARY. See also here. This one quotes the directors as saying profits had dropped due staff costs. No objection to including that - like all healthcare providers in Ireland - it's a registered charity, but it is for-profit. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Headquarters
"The congregation’s international offices are located in Marriottsville, Maryland, on the campus of the Bon Secours Retreat and Conference Center." Manannan67 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Manannan67, this article contains referenced, sourced information on the Bon Secours Sisters. That includes unpalatable facts that are clearly not to your taste, such as the fact that the Sisters' operations in some places are for-profit; that they ran the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home where the remains of up to 796 infants were discovered in a disused septic tank; that the death rate for the mother and baby home was twice the rate of other such homes. Yes, another article covers the topic, in much more depth, and that's fine. Please stop removing information verified to various reliable sources. Almost 13k of deletions?! It's a clear breach of neutrality policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bastun: The Sisters of Bon Secours have been around for 196 years; 159 in Ireland, about 140 in Britain, and 139 in the U.S. and are primarily known for their healthcare facilities, yet you would have a full 40% of this article devoted to Tuam, a situation in one town in one country that took place over about twenty years over sixty years ago. This particular article is NOT ABOUT TUAM!

"'It has not  been  possible  to establish who  actually  physically conducted the burials. It seems likely that the burials were conducted on the instructions of the  Sisters. As  is  described  above, the  burial  process  required  lifting a concrete  lid. It is highly unlikely that the Sisters actually conducted the burials themselves.(8.142) All the residents of the Tuam Home were the responsibility of the Galway and Mayo County Councils.  It seems to the Commission that responsibility for the burials of deceased children  rested  with  the  local  authorities.(8.143) 'Galway  County  Council  members  and  staff  must  have  known  something about  the manner of burial when the Home was in operation.(8.144) 'Employees  of  Galway  County  Council  must  have  known  about the  burials. County Council employees  would  have  been  in  the  grounds  of  the  Home  quite  frequently  as  they carried out repairs to the building and possibly also maintained the grounds.' (8.145)'Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, Fifth Interim Report, 15 March 2019, p. 95"
 * Tuam is covered in Catherine Corless (23,107 bytes), Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home (85,533 bytes) -not a particularly good article, and Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation (53,994 bytes).
 * The citations for the "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" section, which by the way, appears to be a misnomer, are largely from media reports from 2014, and therefore inherently somewhat speculative because they predate by at least TWO years any official investigation to establish actual facts.
 * Nowhere in the three articles above cited is it anywhere mentioned that the Tuam home was owned by the Galway County Council which was responsible for repairs and other maintenance charges. You insist on claiming that the remains were fund in a sewage tank, which the Commission characterized as "inaccurate commentary".(p.9) You also repeatedly remove any sourced statement that might either provide context or discuss the situation in Ireland at the time, and appear oblivious to the blatant fact that situations like this did not arise in any of the other countries where Bon Secours has worked. Scapegoating much (?!) Nowhere is it mentioned that:
 * While the events at Tuam are disturbing, there seems more that enough blame to go around, yet you focus solely, and incessantly on the sisters. Your references to "cover-up" and "crusade" are ironic, to say the least.
 * It is customary to provide a link to the Main article with a brief summary. Even with my edits, fully 15% of the article still concerned Tuam, which as has been noted above, is covered extensively (if not well) in other articles.
 * I repeat, this article is about Bon Secours -most of whom never set foot in Ireland. Their history in healthcare is of interest as they are a primary initiator among perhaps a dozen religious congregations in the establishment of a healthcare system that currently serves over ten million people in two countries.
 * Regarding your edit summary "wtf": yes, there are indeed headquartered in Maryland. Ireland's Bon Secours Health System is now part of Bon Secours Mercy in Ohio. As you appear to know rather little about the subject, perhaps you should direct your efforts elsewhere. Manannan67 (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Restoring verified, reliably sourced content, again. You don't have consensus for removal of material that's been here for months, if not years at this stage. What you have inserted was done absent any context. Agree the main Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article could be improved, but as I recall, we did have a crusader on that page, too, refuting things that weren't even mentioned in the article. And please don't put words in my mouth - this response is the first where I've called anyone a "crusader." <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC) ETA: ah, you meant the edit summary. Edit summaries! They're a thing! They're great! Personally, I wouldn't use an innocuous summary to also remove additional referenced information, such as the profits made by a business, but others do... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the simple fact that almost half of the article you want devoted to Tuam, as if that is all this outfit has done or the only thing they're noted for. To add addditional information (which does not belong here) in order to make it more accurate would only give more undue weight to an issue that has it's own article. Verified, reliable or not, all that much verbiage about a situation in Galway years ago does not belong in this article, but the one (or two or three) specifically pertaining to it. A summary and link to the Main is perfectly sufficient. Manannan67 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. your revision removed the Main link to Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation.


 * I agree with Manannan67 here. I worked on this material several years ago, but it became very difficult to constrain the 'mission creep' of the article. For example, why does the narrative wander off to the topic of Sean Ross Abbey, which was not run by the same order? It's all the more troublesome given that there are already Main articles on both the Tuam home and the Commission, so we end up having to maintain the same material in multiple locations. In its current state, we have four links to the Commission page in the space of three paragraphs - another example of editing headaches. I'd recommend trimming this section down to just two paragraphs, summarising the Tuam issue and the Commission's mandate, with links to the two main articles. jxm (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Fixed indentation. --HaeB (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SUMMARY, some the same information can and should be maintained in different articles - it's just the question which and how much. That said, I agree with your point about Sean Ross Abbey and have cut down that part. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Manannan67, please immediately stop your aggressive edit warring to push through your mass deletions. We can discuss some of your removals in detail, and I have tried to keep your additions intact inasmuch there weren't other concerns about them (cf. below).
 * But the basic problem here seems that you disagree with the weight that reliable sources have given this topic, and are trying to rewrite the article according to your own opinion that other parts of the organization's history deserve more attention in the public sphere than these sources have given them. Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. (We could discuss why sources have made these choices, but per WP:OR we can't base content decisions on such second-guessing. Still, maybe it helps if you keep in mind that most religious orders have not faced such widespread concerns about abuse and ethical failures; this is something that sets the Bon Secours Sisters apart. And yes, it's an unfortunate fact that whenever an organization goes through a scandal about such matters, there will have been innocent people at the same organization doing good work who had nothing to do with it. However, the public image of an organization can and likely will be affected if its structure and culture allowed such failings.) More specifically:
 * You deleted the parts from the lead section that explain these widespread concerns (namely that the children in care of the Bon Secours Sisters appear to have had a greatly increased mortality rate), and left in place an apologetic off-topic non-sequitur about death causes in Ireland in general. This misleading summary of the affair violates WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV.
 * You didn't explain why you deleted the lede statement about for-profit activities, an important clarification.
 * Please cite sources when adding new information to the article.
 * This article is not about the Galway City Council, and in any case it's not clear why the fact that some of its employees "must have known something" about wrongdoing by the order should mean that mention of said wrongdoing has to be removed from the article about the order.
 * Please avoid promotional WP:PEACOCK language like "hard work", "great respect" etc. Again, it's not a problem per se if you personally admire and respect the article's subject, but per WP:NPOV you need to keep your own opinions out of the article.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not "disagree with the weight that reliable sources have given this topic." I disagree with the weight editors have given it regarding this particular article. Include whatever tripe you please in the others. As it is, I am not personally acquainted with any Bon Secours personnel or their facilities and have no problem with a discussion of the events at Tuam. Something to which I do take exception is that the article about a group in existence for about 200 years has 30% of content devoted to a subject that is covered in depth in two other articles. It is distorted. It is common practice to provide a brief summary with a link to the Main article -and re Tuam there are two. I do not see what makes this article different, nor why the same material is repetitively duplicated across multiple articles. If you insist on lengthy discussion where most of the sources aren't worth much for reasons given above, then it does indeed concern the Galway City Council, a fact you and Bastun apparently wish to obscure. -I don't recall the source for the phrases "hard work", "great respect" which you will note relate to their work during a cholera epidemic. Heaven forefend that there should be anything said in their favor in the context of this hatchet job --but then I expect you would also take issue with those terms being applied today to medical personnel treating Covid patients. Manannan67 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * All good points, -, why do you keep removing the fact that the Sisters operate a large, for-profit business?  It's relevant and referenced. The sources in the Tuam section are all absolutely fine, I believe. If there is a problematic one, please do list it and we can discuss, or ask the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But you haven't done so to date, you're just casting wide aspersions now on all the sources related to Tuam.  Note, I do not have an objection in principle to shortening the coverage of Tuam - in fact, I'll do so shortly myself. I do have an objection to your obviously biased excising of very relevant parts of the article and inclusion of out-of-context "defence in advance" about death rates, while also removing the context that was provided.  WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is exactly the issue here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently has 60 references, more than half of which (37) pertain to the Tuam Home topic. And 17 of those are drawn from a single week of sensational media coverage in March 2017. But the article is intended to address almost 200 years of the organisation's history. Clearly a case of notability bombing WP:NOTEBOMB, and should be flagged as such. jxm (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:V and WP:RS require references, especially for controversial or contentious issues. Doubly so where material would be removed in the absence of such references.  If the balance of references is an issue, work on improving the references in the rest of the article - there are obvious omissions. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you and HaeB persist in missing the fundamental point. It is not so much the question of content but LOCATION. It does not belong here. Anywhere else there would be a BRIEF summary and a link to the Main article. In this case there are at least two to choose from. Why is this article handled any different? "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."WP:RSUW What would not necessarily be undue in the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation article is certainly undue here. I repeat, this article is not about Tuam. You say You are willing to trim it, then do so. I did not delete the Tuam case; I cut it to about 15% of the total article with links to appropriate Mains, which was more than sufficient since it's covered in THREE other articles. Again, why is this handled differently from common practice.Manannan67 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merged these two talk sections, as they are largely the same issue. When the topic of Tuam first arose, every single fact that was reported on was challenged by one or two, shall we say, crusaders. It was all speculation by tabloids;  there wasn't a grave; there were no bodies; if there was a grave it was a famine grave and certainly not a sewage tank; it was a European-style crypt; the babies were well looked after and marasmus is only a type of malnutrition caused by disease; babies and infants were dying all over the place and everyone was poverty stricken; and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.  So yes, I and others had to find references for pretty much every single sentence. No biggie - it's what policy requires.  It should also be noted that the Tuam section is well and fully referenced to various reliable secondary sources; whereas much of the rest of the article, where references do exist, contain only bare references (URL only), and many of those are to primary sources.  When references are stripped out of this article, the several Tuam controversies (illegal adoptions, extraordinary death rate twice that of other homes, burials in a disused sewage tank, etc.) account for approximately one-third of the article.   Given the controversies listed, their extent (1,000 illegal adoptions, 800 burials), it is entirely unsurprising that the main article on the religious order responsible would contain the level of content it does, in addressing those very notable issues.  The article does also include interesting facts about services the order provides in various locales, but ultimately there's not that much you can write about them.  But by all means do expand on them.
 * Now, can I ask again, why is reliable and relevant sourced content being removed? Why do you keep removing the fact that the Sisters operate a large, for-profit business, for example, and you don't include that in your edit summaries on the multiple occasions you've done it? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And all of it is already covered in depth in the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article. I will not bother to address the many odd statements above as they are better addressed in the relevant Main article, other than to draw your attention to the official report wherein it states: "In the Commission’s view, there is very little basis for the theory that the children concerned did not die but were “sold” to America. Children from Tuam were adopted to America (as were children from nearly all the institutions under investigation). These adoptions are generally recorded in the Tuam records. It is not obvious why subterfuges would be required to arrange such adoptions." (p.9) What is this obsession with plastering this crap over every article you can think of. Please do not use Wikipedia for some kind of personnel therapy. Tuam is covered in four separate articles, but I do not doubt I could find more if I bothered to look. You're fondness for sources that pre-date any serious investigation by two to five years is ridiculous. There is no first hand information as to what may or may not have happened and why, because everyone who worked there at the time is now dead. Most academic studies in the interim have focused on the socio-economic situation of the country, which lacked either the resources, interest or capacity to take on intransigent social problems. Yet you would somehow blame the Bon Secours for problems that were endemic for decades, and an objective view simply does not support that. -and even if it did, it belongs in the Main, not at such length here.
 * When the story first broke it was indeed shocking -and titillating, as the media intended. And they handled it literally as an episode of "Tales from the Crypt". It may still be a subject of some interest to some in Ireland, but outside Ireland, not so much. Peruvian flood victims do not trouble themselves as to what may or may not have happened in some Irish institution seventy or more years ago.
 * Your fixation on five-year-old financials is misplaced in light of the subsequent merger. While they may still operate under the name Bon Secours, they are in fact "Bon Secours Mercy", a significantly different, larger corporate entity, and I very much doubt that their 10 million patients regard the Tuam home as much other than yet another sad episode someplace in Ireland. The excessive coverage here in UNDUE WEIGHT and duplicative of at least three other articles. This is a question of WP:BALASP and WP:PROPORTION


 * feel free to strike out the first phrase of your last comment, as the terribly inappropriate merge was reversed. Manannan67 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Admins notified
I've raised this matter here. jxm (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that went well... For the record, what the admins said is here. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)