Talk:Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home

"Mass graves" as fake news?

The term "mass grave" appears out of place here, though obviously of propaganda value for the proponents. "Mass grave" gives the feel of some kind of WWII-era pit for an exterminated population or for a group of people genocided in the Balkans. Does the British press (BBC, The "Irish" Times) describe paupers' grave-sections in Victorian cemeteries across the UK (where people are burried in common with no memorial) as "mass graves" or is there no propaganda value in that? Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Why the scare "quotes" around The Irish Times? The "Irish" Independent, "Irish" Examiner, Radio Telifís "Éireann" and plenty of "Irish" reliable sources use the term mass grave, because that's exactly what it is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the Irish Times is traditionally a Protestant newspaper, so they are pretending that it's outside (British) forces, with an anti-clerical bias, outside the state which is trying to sully the good name of the nuns!! </sarcasm> This editor is arguging completely in bad faith. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The "religious" affiliation of the Jackeen Times isn't the main problem. The fact that it is an explicitly imperialist publication whose editorial modus operandi is to attempt to de-legitimise Ireland as a semi-independent state is the problem. Essentially, they, along with the BBC are pushing this false narrative of evil nuns abusing babies and flinging them irreverently into so-called "mass graves" as part of a wider "see, they cannot manage their own affairs" line. Its purile propaganda and POV. The sexual abuser priest thing is a legitimate issue, this is just artificially manufactured and twisted propaganda. And yes, the propaganda comes from the Anglosphere and their little stay-behind brain-trust in Dublin. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. And there was me thinking the I.T. article by Rosita Boland and used as a reference no less than seven times in this article could be fairly described as apologist in nature. Shows what I know, eh? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes - now that you mention it, this is the same editor who wanted to claim Amnesty International as a British-government controlled organisation interfering in Irish affairs :-D Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The nuns did a pretty good job of sullying their own good names. Stop trying to blame it on the proddy Irish Times which, incidentally, still remains a reliable source - Alison ^❤ 08:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ask Wikipedia. A mass grave is "a grave containing multiple human corpses, which may or may not be identified prior to burial", so I think this is perfectly apt here. I'm not seeing any POV or spin here, other than a simple statement of fact. Collins' Dictionary similarly describes it as "a grave in which a large number of corpses has been buried". As Bastun points out - IT, RTÉ, Examiner and Indo all meet the Wikipedia definition of WP:RS, so I think we're good here - Alison ^❤ 00:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Documentary - Children of Shame

Should this 2014 film, Children of Shame (Crime Documentary) be added to the article?
Vwanweb (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions related to My Name Is Bridget

Cocooranator, thanks for the recent additions. They're not appropriate for the article lead, though, at least in such detail, and need copy-editing to comply with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and Manual of Style. Is "AIRR" the Access to Industrial and Related Records Project? I'll work to incorporate your additions into the article over the next while. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Trimming in October 2018

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The basis for my recent trimming of the article is:

• Associated Press: there is no exaggeration mentioned; there is no other mention of baptism or lack thereof in the article. Removed as irrelevant and WP:UNDUE.
• Boucher-Hayes: Removed as there is no mention on the page of children being deliberately starved to death. Therefore WP:UNDUE.
• Gueret is a GP. He seems to have completely missed the reports on relative death rates between Bon Secours and other M&B homes. Therefore including it is WP:UNDUE.
• Kenny's assertions and suppositions are just wrong. Why would we include them? Removed as WP:UNDUE.

The article is on enough watchlists that a reaction could be expected if I'd done something out of order, but there appears to be only one objection. I have restored the edits. Please discuss here if you wish to include this material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you don't get to unilaterally remove stuff we had previously agreed to include after months of debate, so I'm restoring a portion of the material and expect you to leave it until discussion is over, since that has always been the standard you insist on when the shoe is on the other foot.

Secondly, I'm going to cover this as briefly as possible because we've already argued most of this stuff ad naseam.

Boucher-Hayes : This article does in fact mention the "malnutrition" issue since you always insisted on using that term instead of the actual medical term (which refers to the results of certain diseases), hence it isn't "undue" to at least mention a rebuttal. In fact his comments would be relevant regardless of whether this article mentions the subject, because it was an issue in the media coverage.

Guerat: you're engaging in personal speculation that he "missed" the relative death rate issue, which 1) is just your opinion; 2) it's more likely that he realizes (as a doctor) that relative death rates can be caused by numerous different factors, such as the local area's rate (which can differ from one region to the next) or the degree of overcrowding in the orphanage, or many other factors. Either way, it's not up to us (much less you unilaterally) to speculate whether he's correct or not. He's relevant as someone who has done actual research on this specific institution. If you have an RS that argues against his viewpoint, you can cite it as a rebuttal.

Kenny: He gives precise numbers from the records (which are not in dispute) and mentions when they died (which is not in dispute), so in what possible sense is he "just wrong", and according to whom? (aside from you, I mean)

In any event, since we had already worked out a compromise (or several compromises) to allow this material, it is absolutely pointless to rehash this stuff yet again, especially since you will inevitably come back some months from now and remove it again as if the discussion never occurred. I'm not going to play that game again. Just let it rest, after four years of bickering over this. Ryn78 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking in the archives, Ebelular also felt the section needed trimming per WP:DUE and we didn't come to an agreement, I gave up arguing the issue with you.

• Boucher-Hayes: "said other media sources had misreported his words in order to erroneously claim that nuns had deliberately starved children to death." There is no mention in the article of any other media source claiming the nuns had deliberately starved children to death, so he's rebutting nothing that's covered. Therefore WP:UNDUE absolutely applies.
• Gueret: His thesis is that children "were dying all over Ireland from infectious diseases" and that there was a higher death rate in homes/orphanages than without. That's not in dispute. His "actual research" was reading newspaper and magazine archives. About one-quarter of his article is about death rates generally; one-quarter about coffins bought in Tuam; one-quarter is about one particular doctor contracted to the home (who was an educated man, apparently, which is good to know!); and one-quarter about attempts to find out who the fathers were. (Actually, it's really about 1/8th each, as he then goes on to talk about the Irish language for the rest of the article. This is an article about the Tuam home, where children were dying at twice the rate that they were in other such homes, over a period of decades. So including Gueret's point is irrelevant and yes, WP:UNDUE.

• Kenny: Patrick Kenny questioned whether the "mass grave" was a disused septic tank [it was] or a "19th-century burial vault".[it wasn't, so why include?] He asserted that the deaths were clustered during outbreaks of disease, especially during the period of economic hardship during World War II. [We've pointed out to you before why mentioning WW2 is irrelevant - also the "clusters" he mentions are more outside WW2 than within it] Significantly, one-third of all deaths at the home occurred during the years of World War II, a period of widespread economic hardship."[same]. So, again, irrelevant and undue.

"Details of the death certificates of the babies have been released and were published in mid-June. They reveal regular outbreaks of infectious diseases that seem to have spread quickly amongst children living together in close quarters. For example, 24 children died in just six weeks in a serious measles outbreak in the spring of 1926, while measles also killed 13 in the early spring of 1932, and bronchitis and pneumonia killed 10 in 1954. Four children died in four days from gastroenteritis in 1942, while nine died from whooping cough during a two-week period in 1943." Yup, that's all just factual, and can be retained, but in the Mother and Baby Home section, not the Reaction to the Reports section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Side issue: If you're going to follow WP:BRD then follow BRD; I've just noticed that your restore of content was partial and selective: no mention of who Kenny is, what he was right and wrong about, or the actual long-standing paragraph on what Boucher-Hayes actually said. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bastun: Wikipedia:BRD actually says that if someone reverts a "bold edit" (in this case, I reverted your "bold edit") then you should discuss the matter rather than putting your version back in (it says "Don't restore your changes"). You did the latter before discussion could run its course, so I'm placing the article back to the point where it's supposed to be according to the guidelines. The reason I didn't restore all the stuff you removed is because I'm willing to compromise on some of it, such as removing the AP quote you wanted to remove. I don't see how compromising on that would violate BRD.

Re: Boucher-Hayes: His quote just says "starved", not "deliberately starved"; and in any event the use of the misleading term "malnutrition" - which is also in this article itself - is exactly how the "deliberate starvation" idea originated in the first place. You insisted that this article needs to likewise use the term "malnutrition" rather than the actual medical term (marasmus) or its translation into common English, so we need to at least retain a rebuttal.

Re: Gueret: you're still using your own personal analysis to dismiss his research. Do you have an RS that argues against his position? But if you want this to come down to our personal opinions, I would just reiterate that common sense tells us that disease rates at an orphanage can be caused by numerous things such as the rate in the local area (which can vary enormously from one area to the next) or the conditions at the specific orphanage, rather than neglect or some sinister plot (or whatever you're trying to imply).

Re: Kenny: no, the investigation didn't prove it was ever a septic tank (they thought it MIGHT have been), and certainly didn't prove that it wasn't converted into a burial vault, in fact it clearly had been converted into a burial vault since it was divided into twenty chambers (which is not typical of a septic tank). Burial vaults were routinely adapted from existing structures, so Kenny's point is still valid. And his point that the deaths occurred during regional epidemics is also valid because it disproves the entire narrative claiming something scandalous was going on in the home (regional epidemics were not the fault of the nuns) and also underscores Gueret's assumption that the deaths were just part of the normal cycle of epidemics at that time. Whatever you may think about his WWII comments, the rest of it is certainly relevant. We could leave out the WWII portion of it if you'll accept that as a compromise, as well as trimming most of these quotes so they aren't as long. And I would certainly accept moving Kenny's quote about the statistics into a different section. Can we agree on that as a solution? Ryn78 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. You didn't revert my bold edit. You restored some content, sure, but in the process of carrying out your partial restore, you also edited that content. So "National Catholic Register columnist Patrick Kenny questioned whether the bones found in 1975 were from the Bon Secours Home (they were) or from one of the previous institutions which had occupied the same building (they were not)" - the sentence pointing out who he actually is and that his truth-by-assertion suppositions are wrong - doesn't get restored. Instead we're straight into "Patrick Kenny questioned whether the "mass grave" was a disused septic tank or a "19th-century burial vault." Disingenuous at best.

I have given the reasons why I made the changes I did, citing WP guidelines and policies. Your response doesn't address those, but does indicate you've not read the article, let alone the sources. Your supposition and WP:OR doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, etc. Address the issues raised, please, not what you think happened in Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

So you're claiming I didn't follow BRD just because I abbreviated some of the stuff you yourself wanted to remove entirely? I was trying to compromise. I left out Kenny's more questionable assertions precisely because you labeled them irrelevant ! Good grief, Bastun. I likewise left out the AP quote for a similar reason. The reason I wanted to retain Kenny's opinion that the structure is possibly a burial vault is because the official reports have not ruled out the possibility that the structure had in fact been converted into a burial vault (it has twenty sub-chambers with shelves, for crying out loud) and hence his opinion on that point isn't "irrelevant" nor rendered obsolete by recent findings.

As for your objection that I'm engaging in OR: YOU were the one who said that Gueret had to be removed because you personally think he's wrong, which is your OR. I specifically asked (twice) if you had an RS that would prove him wrong, which you haven't responded to; so I said that if you want this to come down to our own personal opinions then I'll give mine as well. You started this OR discussion; I was just responding in kind. So, yes, I did address the issues you raised, while also suggesting a specific compromise, which you completely ignored. Are you willing to compromise at all?

But if you really want to trim this article down, let's start by trimming some of the endless quotes from politicians about one recent media firestorm. This article is supposed to be about an institution that goes back to 1925, not just a recent political controversy that erupted in the last four years. Right now, the article is mostly - by far - about that one issue, and the treatment of that issue currently sounds more like a news story rather than an encyclopedia article because it's so heavily based on recent media reporting and quotes from politicians. An encyclopedia article would mostly be based on the views of historians and other academics, and WP's guidelines specifically say we should avoid "recentism" (see: Wikipedia:Recentism) Ryn78 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Re Gueret: read the rest of the article. It's already addressed.

Re Kenny: It's a septic tank, per the experts who investigated and reported.

You'll not be whitewashing the page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

So while you're claiming the article needs trimming, you've added a whole paragraph about Corless' honorary doctorate, which has very little to do with the Home itself. Put the material about her honorary doctorate in the Catherine Corless article, not here; otherwise don't tell me this article needs to be trimmed.

Re: Gueret: Where are his points addressed in the rest of the article? You didn't even give any indication of what "addressed" is supposed to mean (refuted, confirmed, or...?)

Re: Kenney: Now you're just stubbornly ignoring the fact that the report didn't even address whether it had been converted at some point into a burial vault (no matter what purpose they thought it had originally been intended for). Septic tanks do not have shelves, so it was clearly converted into a burial vault (how else can you possibly interpret the shelves?) and hence Kenny's quote is still relevant.

Re: "whitewashing": Including both sides is not "whitewashing", but eliminating all countervailing opinions would count as whitewashing.

You also didn't address my comments about Wikipedia:Recentism and the need to trim out the bloated sections quoting political reactions or blow-by-blow media coverage of a recent event. The political issue and excavations are recent events that should not be covered so extensively as per Wikipedia's rules. Ryn78 (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed the article of WP:UNDUE and irrelvant commentary. Corless receiving an honorary doctorate precisely because of her work on the deaths at Bon Secours is directly relevant.

Re Gueret: 1) Gueret's article repeats some of Corless' research and claims nothing more than "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." This is directly contradicted by a) the sentence starting "Professor Liam Delaney said the high child death rate at the Home could not be explained by higher overall child death rates at the time, nor by the higher death rate among "illegitimate" children" and its reference; b) the following sentence from Kevin Higgins and its reference; c) The paragraph beginning "Data from the National Archives from 1947 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," and its reference.

Re Kenny: You're just clutching at straws now. Kenny also repeats some of Corless' research (re causes and timings of deaths) and makes several claims. One claim is that the bones found in 1975 might not be from the Bon Secours Home (they were) but might have been from one of the previous institutions which had occupied the same building (they were not). He also claims - prior to any investigation and without maps - that the structure was or might have been a 19th century burial vault (it wasn't). (Hint: Famine poorhouses did not have burial vaults. Clue: the shallow graves found nearby several years before. And the extensive records of famine workhouse plans that are still extant.) None of his claims are that the nuns converted a 19th century "burial vault" into a septic tank and then back into a burial vault again. This conversion process seems to be entirely your own imagining. What we do know is that the the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, and the Expert Technical Group consistently state that the structure is part of a sewage system. See, e.g.:

• the DCYA's FAQ (section 9);
• the Expert Technical Group 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.";
  • 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"
  • 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". But all of the above was already known to you as of January 2018, and you're still persisting with the burial vault speculation?! You may also have missed the recent addition to the article (the section covering publication of My Name is Bridget), which quotes the State Pathologist, Professor Marie Cassidy, and what she saw there. Your assertion that the septic tank was at some point converted into a burial vault is not claimed even by Kenny, so it's entirely unverified speculation contradicted by the actual sources. Reminder: the word "vault" occurs precisely once in a 232-page report.

Re WP:RECENTISM: Whilst obviously "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" (let alone "rules"!), parts of the WP:RECENTISM "explanatory supplement" may indeed apply: namely the ten-year test. For example ~ "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" The answer is obviously yes, a reader 10 years from now will be far more interested in the illegal adoption of children, the burial of 796 babies in a mass grave in a former septic tank, the uncovering of same, and society's reaction to it, than they will be in what was otherwise an unremarkable Mother & Baby Home in rural Ireland. Lastly, it's still bizarre that you think there are "sides" to take on this article.

In summary: I've removed nothing that wasn't undue or irrelevant. Goodbye. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Gueret: none of these sources proved why the rate was higher, in fact they basically just stated the rate was higher for reasons they implied were due to something sinister but without any proof whatsoever; which means that no single opinion has been proven and hence Gueret's viewpoint isn't suddenly "irrelevant". Read up on the issue of including multiple opinions. And the data you refer to ironically shows that almost all the deaths took place during regional epidemics, which tends to underscore Gueret's main point rather than contradict it. If that region had more epidemics than the average region, then any institutions within that region will inevitably have more deaths; but right now we don't know what the cause was.

Kenny: You either somehow misinterpreted or deliberately misrepresented my point about the septic tank / burial vault issue: I didn't claim that the nuns had converted a burial vault into a septic tank and then back again (an absurd caricature of my argument), but rather my point was that the presence of SHELVES in the structure proves that it was by definition either (a) never a septic tank; or b) started as a septic tank but was remodeled at some point into something that would fit the standard definition of a burial vault - i.e. a structure where people are buried, in other words. The reports do mention the shelves and hence are admitting - either directly or indirectly - that it was in fact remodeled into a burial vault since septic tanks never have shelves. This is such a blazingly obvious point that I shouldn't need to keep restating it. And your comments about the burial pit associated with the workhouse is another ironic issue, since dumping bodies into an open pit - on the very same site - has never sparked any outraged claims of scandal but burying children on ordered shelves inside the twenty chambers of a structure has sparked enormous outrage. Perhaps you can explain why.

On the issue of Recentism: since Wikipedia is defined as an encyclopedia rather than a news outlet, the WP:Recentism page deals with a subject that is central to the core of Wikipedia's nature, regardless of how much you want to Wikilawyer the issue by splitting hairs. A blow-by-blow account of every stage of the media coverage, including politicians bloviating, is not the way an encyclopedia is written. Even if you personally think that the Home's entire history is unremarkable (except of course for the sadistic nuns dumping babies into raw sewage), nonetheless that's what this article is supposed to be about - the Home's entire history. Try going to an article about an historical nobleman and tell the editors there that the nobleman himself is too dull and pedestrian for coverage, so we need to cover a recent portrayal of him in the media instead.

Given that the article currently has very little about the history of the Home up until 2014, Corless' honorary degree is undue, and so are endless quotes from every politician. The article's text on the Home itself would have to be expanded by many orders of magnitude before some of this other stuff might be justifiably included.Ryn78 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You again appear to be a) engaging in some combination of WP:OR, b) attributing statements, motivations and "sides" to people and bodies that have not made any such statements and don't appear to have any such motivations, c) failing to read the article, or its sources, or are failing to understand them, and d) once again attributing words to me which I never wrote.

Gueret: a) Once again, all that he says is "children were dying all over Ireland." The other sources don't have to "prove" anything - they state the fact that the death rate in Tuam M&B Home was almost twice that of other homes over the same period.

b) Ireland has had not any epidemics since the 19th century, "regional" or otherwise (outside worldwide pandemics). There were no pandemics during the period of the Home's operation that I am aware of.

Kenny: a) Your assertions "prove" nothing. We go with what the sources say. WP:BESTSOURCES such as the "Expert Technical Group" (the clue is in the name!) rather than a columnist with a minor American religious newspaper - WP:FALSEBALANCE if ever there was one! See above for what those experts who have actually investigated and excavated the Home actually say, because I'm not repeating them again. (Here's a hint, though: they involve the words "sewage" and "septic" on multiple occasions. They use the word "vault" once in 232 pages.) See the January discussion for consensus on this.

b) Don't know where you're reading about bodies being dumped in an open pit, but if you're referring to the Famine burials, I suggest you read what the sources actually said - because that's not it.

I think you'll find yourself in a minority of one if you try to remove the most salient "stuff" about the home on the grounds that there isn't enough coverage of other periods.

Further, I stronly suggest you are exhibiting behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and you may wish to reconsider your participation on this page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Gueret: I cannot believe you're using the argument you're using. Even today in most countries, including my own, there are periodic outbreaks of disease which affect significant numbers of people in a given area - it happens several times each winter in many US states including mine, especially flu outbreaks - the only difference is that today we can easily cure most of these diseases. So let's not play semantic games with the term "epidemic". And some of the statistics you're referring to show that the deaths occurred during outbreaks of disease that effected the whole area, regardless of whether you personally define that as an "epidemic" or not. Gueret's point was that outbreaks of disease were common, which isn't "contradicted" by the death rate at the Tuam home for reasons I've already explained. More importantly, you're using OR to claim these sources contradict his view when in fact they don't state anything of the sort, nor do they rule out the possibility that outbreaks of disease may have simply been more common (or deadlier) in that region than the average. To contradict the latter, you'd need to find a source which says that the regional rate was the same as other regions.

Re: Kenny: I have no idea what you think the term "burial vault" means, but it simply means a structure used for burial, regardless of what the structure had originally been intended for. The report doesn't even address the issue of whether the structure had been converted from a septic tank into a burial vault (which is the issue here); nor does it claim that septic tanks are equipped with shelves, hence it is admitting that the structure had in fact been converted by definition, since it contains shelves; nor does the report claim that the structure was still being used as a septic tank at the time of the burials (the media has implied that, not the report). Absolutely no one disputes the fact that this structure was used to bury people (hence it is by definition a burial vault), nor does anyone dispute the fact that it was equipped with shelves for the bodies. As for the workhouse mass grave: show me any report about it that describes the bodies being buried in a structure of any type: they were just placed in a pit and then the pit was covered up.

When you say I'm trying to remove "the most salient" information, you mean to tell me that quotes from politicians and Corless' honorary degree (the parts I suggested removing) are the most salient parts of this article? No, the historical and medical facts and official reports are the most salient material here.

And while you claim you aren't engaging in Recentism, you immediately then just added yet another newsy section reporting on the mere announcement of a planned future excavation of the site - which is not remotely what an encyclopedia covers. Once an excavation has been finished we can report the results, but having a whole paragraph about a planned future excavation is undue. Show me one Britannica article that gives a blow-by-blow account of every single public announcement of future plans. You're trying to write a news article, not an encyclopedia article, while claiming that we need to strip out "extra" sections which in fact are far more relevant than the stuff you keep adding.

You also keep accusing me of "OR" and now also "violating NPOV", and yet you are the one who is trying to eliminate virtually all viewpoints that contradict a specific narrative (which IS a violation of NPOV), and you're arguing for removal based solely on your personal view that these opinions are somehow contradicted by sources which do not even address those specific opinions. Present a source that says that Gueret and Kenny are wrong, otherwise it's just your opinion that they are wrong. And even if there are sources that say they are wrong, NPOV still would require providing their opinions for the sake of presenting multiple viewpoints. But whenever I point that out, you give me a silly lecture claiming "there are no sides here" despite the patent fact that you yourself are claiming that one set of opinions is contradicted by another set of opinions, in which case there are multiple sides here by definition. The NPOV principle says we're supposed to include more than one opinion. Ryn78 (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources you say you want me to produce are all already in the article and/or on this talk page - you're just not reading them; or selectively reading them and forgetting the bits that don't support what you want to believe. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have explained repeatedly why those sources don't actually contradict the material you want to remove, but you just ignore my arguments and then repeat your tired claim that the sources support your view. Ryn78 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

One last time. Gueret: Claims "children were dying all over Ireland." Whatever relevance that has, the sources state the fact that the death rate in Tuam M&B Home was almost twice that of other homes over the same period. Kenny: claimed the bodies were from the Famine workhouse and that they were buried in a 19c burial vault. The Expert Technical Group proves they weren't. So yes, the sources already there completely contradict Gueret and Kenny. Your refusal to accept the facts doesn't alter them. Persisting with this pattern is wasting your time and mine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let's go around and around on this yet again, since you never want to compromise by restoring even a small part of these quotes that you're determined to remove.

Gueret: You keep claiming that the quote "children were dying all over Ireland" is contradicted by the rate in the Tuam home even though Gueret never claims that the rate at Tuam wasn't higher, and the other sources never prove that the higher rate couldn't have been due to a regional variation. You had previously quoted one source as giving the opinion - without any evidence to back it up - that the higher rate was due to something in the home itself, but that's one person's unsubstantiated opinion. How does that justify removing Gueret's opinion? You still haven't explained that, you just keep repeating the same mantra.

Kenny: Kenny's quote gives precise statistics, which are neither "irrelevant" nor "contradicted". I wasn't defending the claim that the bodies were from the workhouse; I was just pointing out that if a structure is used for burial then it is by definition a burial vault regardless of what it had once been. If you're objecting to Kenny's opinion that it was converted or purposefully built as a burial vault in the 19th century, then I think that's a case of hair-splitting that you're using to justify removing his entire quote. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't supposed to determine absolute truth nor exclude quotes just because part of it may not be accurate.

And you've dropped the issue of Boucher-Hayes' quote, which provides some needed context regarding the media distortions on this issue. The fact that this specific media claim isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article itself doesn't mean his correction isn't relevant: it just means that the article currently whitewashes the rather repugnant media distortions that occurred.

I'm going to - once again - suggest a compromise even though you didn't respond to my previous suggested compromises. We could restore only portions of these quotes while leaving out anything that is definitely and objectively no longer relevant (not just the stuff you personally think has been contradicted). At least address this suggestion this time, otherwise you're just stubbornly hoping you can get everything you want in this article, which amounts to an ownership mentality. Ryn78 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's not. You are clearly engaged in WP:tendentious editing on this article, presumably to somehow defend the Bon Secours sisters or RC church in general. 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 (definitely!), 2.16, 2.17 all apply. Looking back over the talk page archives is enlightening - you want our Taoiseach's quotes removed, but are objecting for a month now (the only page you've edited in a month!) to the removal of erroneous quotes from a foreign Roman Catholic columnist for a Roman Catholic newspaper?! (The stats he quotes actually came from Corless' article, btw). The material you want to reinstate is either a) wrong, or b) undue, as has been explained multiple times. I'm not going over it again. The article is on many people's watchlists and not one, bar you, has jumped in to object to the trimming or wants to add back refutations of material that hasn't been mentioned anywhere else in the article. No. Drop it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You again ignored my offer of compromise while ironically accusing me of being the tendentious one. You have repeatedly tried to purge this article of all countervailing viewpoints using different excuses each time. If I'm being tendentious then so are you. And as usual, you're resorting to claims that I'm biased, although I could allege the same about you for the above reasons. And no, I'm not "obsessed" with this article: the reason I haven't edited other articles recently is because I've been busy. I've only edited this article after you tried to purge more material you dislike, as you have done repeatedly for the last four years. If anyone is obsessed, it is you.

Re: the voluminous quotes from politicians: I didn't say all the quotes should be removed entirely, but rather that they are excessive and need trimming. If this article was about a historical place in the US, I wouldn't include a bunch of quotes from Donald Trump and other politicians : instead, I would want to focus on the views of experts from relevant fields since that's how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be written.

Likewise for the other blow-by-blow news sections like the "Pope's visit to Ireland, August 2018" which is a current events issue, not something for an encyclopedia article about the entire history of an institution.

The reason I wanted to retain Kenny's quote or at least a portion of it is because he includes precise stats and makes a valid point about the possibility that this structure was at least converted to a burial vault since it has SHELVES (a point which you keep ignoring). You don't like Kenny because he's Roman Catholic and foreign, which says more about your biases than mine. I don't care whether he's Roman Catholic or foreign: I'd quote him if he was an Irish atheist.

As for Gueret: he conducted research into this specific institution and is also a medical doctor who knows something about disease, which makes him far more relevant than the sources you claim contradict him: Liam Delaney is an economist rather than a historian or medical expert; Kevin Higgins is a lawyer. You recently added McKeown, who at least is a doctor, but it's not clear how much study he has conducted on this institution and he admits the rate was similar to the home at Bessborough and doesn't give any theory for why the rate was five times the average during that time period and hence cannot "contradict" any specific theory about the cause. He also added (and you decided to include) the entirely irrelevant comparison to modern times (of course it's going to be a lot higher than in modern times), which is just a gratuitous way of making an even more sensational comparison.

And as usual, you feel entitled to keep adding more stuff of your own while we're supposed to be discussing the current issues, which is another case of you trying to exercise ownership. Ryn78 (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Gueret is a GP. McKeown is an epidemiologist who shows the death rate was not on a par with Gueret's "children were dying all over Ireland" but rather was five times that of the children in the general population. Your argument on this is beyond belief! McKeown wrote a report on his field of expertise and you say "It's not clear how much study he has conducted", while Gueret's "research", per his own article, consisted of reading Corless and magazines. Stop flogging this dead horse.

Kenny includes stats referenced elsewhere in the article. You keep talking about "SHELVES." Writing before any investigation or excavation, Kenny includes speculation that there may have been a burial vault on the site. He does not mention "shelves." None of the reports mention "shelves." The reports do mention co-mingled remains and no signs of formal burial.

Your arguments have failed to convince anyone. We're done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this the Gueret piece in question? https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/sunday-independent-ireland-life/20140629/281930246072578 If so, it does not merit inclusion here. Crucially, as has been--repeatedly--pointed out, this...editorial? 'thought piece'?...makes a few cavalier statements about children dying all over Ireland but fails to address why they were doing so at a higher rate under the care of the nuns. Gueret fails as a reliable source and he fails to make any substantive contribution. Kenny's piece similarly fails to explain why the death rate in Tuam was higher than elsewhere. Some of Kenny's claim 'Verifiable facts are thin on the ground' might have been true in 2014 but it certainly not now. If editors take the time to read the expert reports linked to in this article they will see that it nicely summarizes the factual findings to date. Perhaps the 'Reactions' section could be consolidated into more coherent paragraphs. Clearly the recent visit by the Pope merits inclusion--not only did it provoke a huge gathering at the cite, but Zappone raised the issue of the Tuam directly with the Pope. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article in question. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Gueret: If you want to remove Gueret because he doesn't address the cause of the differing rates (as AugusteBlanqui pointed out) then you'd also need to get rid of some of the other quoted sources for the same reason since they don't really address the issue either other than to make very vague and unsubstantiated claims that something sinister was going on, without providing any evidence; and more to the point, their speculation is contradicted by a quote from an inspection report (from 1947) included in this article itself which mentions the high death rate but says: "the care given to infants in the Home is good, the Sisters are careful and attentive; diets are excellent. It is not here that we must look for cause of the death rate". I'll agree to remove Gueret if you agree to remove the quotes which make unsubstantiated and vague claims about the higher death rate, because what we really need are quotes which present actual evidence for or against different possibilities, not vague claims.

Regarding the shelves issue: Even the most strident activist sources mention shelves, such as the tuambabies.org website which says the children were "stacked like slabs of bacon on crowded shelves". See https://www.tuambabies.org/home.html So the structure which the same site calls a "septic tank" had shelves, making it unique among all septic tanks.

I noticed you contacted AugustBlanqui to ask his help, and I noticed that he had taken your side in the past. Can I contact Laurel Lodged, who had mostly taken my side? If I did that, you'd accuse me of violating the rules against canvassing; so why are you permitted to do that type of thing? Ryn78 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't need to do anything. Gueret was removed for the reasons already explained on multiple occasions. The 1947 report has already been discussed on Talk. Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude aside, the facts about the high death rate - far from being "unsubstantiated and vague claims" - originate in multiple reliable sources including a HSE report.

The article does not use tuambabies.org as a source. I don't think it ever has. Do you have a WP:RS for the existence of shelves? One that puts the shelves in the same location as the septic tank (which exists, is referred to in multiple reliable sources including the expert reports, and doesn't need "scare quotes")? I'm unsure what the presence or absence of shelves in any of the site's locations is supposed to prove - nobody is claiming that bodies were dumped in a live septic tank.

Laurel Lodged presumably has this article on their watchlist and is of course more than welcome to contribute. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The Gueret piece does not pass WP:RS besides failing to offer anything useful. I don't see the use of normative language in this article or the expert reports it is largely based upon. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Gueret: You continue to misrepresent my argument. I never said the higher death rate was "unsubstantiated", I said the speculation that it was caused by something sinister going on in the home (rather than a more mundane cause) was unsubstantiated. I've explained this clearly so many times that you can only be deliberately distorting my statements in order to create a strawman, while ironically accusing me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

On the shelves issue: the reason I cited tuambabies.org is because it promotes your view that the home was the site of scandalous activity and yet it also mentions the shelves. A number of media sources also mentioned the shelves, and you've seen these media sources even if you won't admit you've seen them.

And yes, plenty of people have in fact claimed the babies were dumped into a "live septic tank", including the abovementioned website itself which says they were "flushed into a septic tank", using the word "flushed" (!) as if they were flushed down the toilet. But if you're finally admitting that it wasn't a live septic tank, then you also need to finally admit the obvious point that it had - at minimum - been converted into the classic definition of a burial vault - a structure used for burying people - even if it didn't start out that way. Why not just admit this?

As for AugusteBlanqui's sudden claim that the Gueret quote isn't from an RS: why exactly isn't the Irish Independent an RS? No one else has suggested that. You also removed the more nuanced description of the commission's views on the structure: the report actually said they weren't sure what the structure was but that it probably (emphasis on "probably") was part of a sewage system. The lead should use the more nuanced language. Ryn78 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Gueret, it fails WP:RS clearly because: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The expert report provides a detailed explanation of the sewage tank--several pages in fact. The quote I have included is perfect for an article lead: it is by an expert group and conveys the significance and unique nature of the site. When time permits I'll add 'Sewage system' as a subsection under the 'Mass grave' heading. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My "view" that there was scandalous activity? Yet again you're putting words in my mouth. Anything I've added is reliably sourced to - for example - the Health Services Executive, the Expert Technical Group, the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, published statements and/or reliable media sources on what the above reported. In it's detailed report, the ETG does not make mention of the conversion of the septic tank into a burial vault, but perhaps when the final report issues and/or the site is fully excavated there'll be something to substantiate that claim, and I'll happily include it then. Until then, we do have the testimony of the Chief State Pathologist and the current ETG reports, which make no such claim.

I don't know why you're again talking about babies being dumped into a live septic tank - the article never claimed that this happened (you might recall I had to insist on Corless statement that she never said babies were dumped in a septic tank being included!); and it's not our job to defend a website you're now bringing up on Talk which has never been referenced in the article. I really think we're approaching Topic Ban territory here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

To AugusteBlanqui: The guidelines say "rarely", not "never", and the reason for the rule is that editorials are usually written by people without much standing, but in this case it's written by a professional doctor who knows something about the spread of disease. On the subject of your changes to the lead: my objection was that the report actually says that they weren't sure what the structure was and didn't know whether it had ever actually been used as a sewage system, which the lead used to state but you took it out. Is there any valid reason to remove all nuance and make it sound like the thing was an active sewage tank when babies were placed in it?

To Bastun: You know perfectly well why I mentioned that website: it's because you specifically asked me to provide an example of anyone describing shelves in the structure, so I provided an example that I thought would be particularly meaningful since it was from a site that opposes the Bon Secours Sisters rather than defending them. I then used the site again as an example when you specifically asked me to provide an example of anyone claiming babies were dumped into a live septic tank. But you're now threatening me with a topic ban simply for responding to your own requests? That's a new low. Ryn78 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I reread the Technical Report https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/mother_and_baby_homes/20171212MBHExperttechGroupReport.pdf. There is no ambiguity. Bastun, regarding the photograph on page 195 of the .PDF, do you now if this is public domain because it is a government report? Some of the other maps/diagrams in this report would also be good to use in the article if they are public domain. As I mentioned above, I'll try to make the time in the next week or so to add a specific subsection on the Sewage tank to summarize the Technical Report's findings. Regarding Gueret, 'rarely' can an editorial be used for factual information and this piece shows why. Appeal to authority because he went to medical school does not salvage the article as a source of factual information. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryn, the reasons why I'd seek a topic ban were outlined previously; you just didn't take the warning. AugusteBlanqui, if it's been laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas then my understanding is that it becomes a public record and would be usable. I can confirm this later today/tomorrow. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bastun, I did some investigating and the images in the report appear to have been used with permission so they are not fair game for us to upload to Commons. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui unfortunately Irish Government reports aren't automatically public domain, as in the U.S. Interestingly the Italian news source credited for the image on page 195 itself credits Twitter for that image (and oddly not a particular user). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

AugustBlanqui: You linked to the wrong report: the one you linked to is a recommended plan BEFORE excavation, written in the future tense and with a concluding paragraph that says : "it is highly unlikely that any action undertaken on this site will definitively answer the questions that the public and family members have" (p 56), and similar statements in other sections. Interestingly, the report admits that the structure has "20 chambers", which septic tanks do not have; and it also admits that on-site burial in unmarked graves was common at orphanages and other boarding houses (bottom of p. 14), which confirms what other sources (now deleted from the article of course) were saying about the routine nature of this historical situation. In any event, the final report I remember (the one written AFTER excavation had been completed) said they didn't know for certain what the structure containing the skeletal remains was. They also said they found a second structure that was definitely a septic tank but was empty except for rocks and dirt. I could look up that report to find its URL. Re: Gueret: perhaps you can explain why these other opinions - such as the ones by politicians who are just giving their opinion - are permissible but a quote from a doctor isn't? At least Gueret is trying to provide some historical and medical context, whereas the politicians are just trying to milk a scandal for all they can. Granted, Gueret's quote isn't very substantial, but if I added a more substantial quote from a historian who had conducted extensive study on the issue then that would be removed as well, just as the quote from historian Finbar McCormick was removed a long time ago. There has been a systematic attempt to remove all countervailing viewpoints. Bastun: All I've been trying to do is make sure the article isn't completely one-sided, whereas you've systemtically removed anything that doesn't match a certain narrative. But you claim I'm the one who ought to be banned from this topic? Re-read the guidelines about providing multiple viewpoints, and then describe to me which parts of this article currently provide alternative viewpoints? Ryn78 (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryn78 Editorials are problematic as sources of factual information for many reasons. They are best to be avoided altogether unless you are using an editorial for a specific purpose relating the viewpoint of the author. Let's say, for example, that you have an editorial from Stalin in Pravda where he writes, "Everyone knows that Kulaks drain the life-blood from the proletariat." This editorial would not pass as a reliable source for the claim that Kulak's steal the life-blood from the proletariat. However, it would be a good source to indicate how Stalin used state propaganda to persecute farmers. Or to take another example, say Trump tweets something about immigrants as rapists. Such a tweet would not be a source to support a factual claim about the issue but you could use it to show how Trump stokes racism to mobilize his base. Also, be careful that you don't conflate 'neutral point of view' and 'balance.' This is not RTE. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So you're using Stalin's quote "Everyone knows that Kulaks drain the life-blood from the proletariat" as an analogy for a doctor's statement about the undisputed fact that there were recurring outbreaks of disease which killed a lot of children - a historical fact which is universally accepted. That's the only argument you can come up with for deleting an undisputed historical fact? You also didn't address my point that this article currently contains quote after quote from politicians who actually ARE just giving their own personal opinions or sensationalizing the issue rather than providing scholarly, encyclopedic descriptions of the issue; and yet you have no objections to these opinions being included. Why doesn't your analogy apply also to these opinions? Ryn78 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryn78 The quotes by politicians in this article are relevant as reactions. If there is a specific statement in Gueret that you think merits inclusion as a fact then please post it here. However, "Children were dying all over Ireland at the time" would not be an example of this. I had another read of Gueret. There is nothing salvageable there. This was pointed out before, the death rate in the home was higher with or without outbreaks of disease. Gueret fails to address this basic question which is disappointing given the he holds a medical degree. Even to include it as an example of Catholic reaction would be wp:undue AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been explained to you now on at least 12 occasions by two different editors why Gueret shouldn't be included. Stop flogging the dead horse. Persist, and I can only assume you're looking for a topic ban. The article is not "completely one sided" - far from it. It presents the reliably sourced facts, as known - that death certs for up to 796 babies and children from the Home exist, that an unknown number appear to be buried on the grounds, including many in a disused septic tank. We also report on the illegal adoptions that took place. The deaths, discovery of illegal adoptions and discovery of remains are sourced to government agencies and court-commissioned reports. Current commentary is obviously relevant and must be included. I don't know what "side" it is that you're trying to defend, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

AugusteBlanqui: Quotes from politicians are not something that an encyclopedia normally deals with. That's a news article. Re: Gueret: I could look up a substitute quote in place of the Gueret quote, but it will just be removed if I add it, so what's the point?

Bastun: The side that isn't being represented is the side that has pointed out that the coverage of the issue has been sensationalized and overblown, given that: 1) on-site burial at orphanages was commonplace, as mentioned even in the report that AugusteBlanqui linked (see page 14 of that report), and yet you removed a quote from a Guardian article which said the same thing. Will you accept a quote from the report instead? 2) the actual medical inspection reports blame disease (such as Staphylococcus infection) rather than the nuns; but right now I think the article only briefly mentions one quote of this type from the inspection reports; 3) almost all the children died during regional outbreaks of disease; 4) the media misquoted people such as Philip Boucher-Hayes to create false claims; 5) lots of other dubious treatment of the facts that I've gone over so many times during the last four years. Most of the sources mentioning any of this have (with rare exceptions) been purged from the article. If I'm "beating a dead horse" it's because you stubbornly won't acknowledge the above (which is also a form of "beating a dead horse"), but Wikipedia's rules require balance nonetheless. Ryn78 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Quotes from politicians on current affairs issues are actually very common on Wikipedia. 1) On-site burial, where it took place, was carried out in recognised grave plots, not in septic tanks or at the dead of night. If you can't recognise or acknowledge the exceptional nature of what happened here, you shouldn't be editing this article. 2) They do not; and the untouchable position of the RC church in Ireland at the time has already been explained to you. 3) They did not. Just because you keep on saying it does not make it so. 4) Has already been addressed and put to bed so there's no need to go over this yet again. 5) Vague accusations. Now - will you let this drop, or do I seek a topic ban for you? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of a topic ban: I think I'd have a better case for getting you banned from this article since I've done nothing wrong whereas you have constantly purged this article of any balance; so if you seek a ban for me I'm going to seek a ban for you. Or, we can agree to just have a normal debate like adults and try to work out a compromise, as I've suggested several times but you never responded to those offers. Here's a new suggested compromise: drop Gueret and the other ones you dislike if at least something is added to provide some badly needed historical context rather than just repeating the standard political spin on this issue. I think that's reasonable, and would finally end this debate.

Concerning your points (as briefly as I can): 1) The idea that children were buried "in the dead of night" comes from a single claim by someone who said they saw nuns bringing something (which they couldn't see clearly) outside at night, which they speculated was a body. That's nothing but speculation about something that was too dark for them to see clearly by their own admission. On the septic tank claim: we've been over that so many times before but you won't admit the obvious (speaking of "flogging a dead horse"). 2) Even the medical report mentioned near the top of this article itself says "the care given to infants in the Home is good, the Sisters are careful and attentive; diets are excellent. It is not here that we must look for cause of the death rate", and the other reports say similar things. You've responded to this issue by: A) implying they say otherwise but without being able to cite any example; and B) claiming "the RC Church was untouchable" and we should therefore just assume that the inspectors were all lying, which is speculation at best and defamation at worst. 3) People who have examined the death records have shown that most of the deaths align with periods when the general area also suffered an outbreak of disease, you just refuse to accept that. 4) So now you're claiming that Boucher-Hayes was lying about being misquoted? Based on what? Again, speculation is not what we're supposed to go by.

Are you willing to at least try to work out a compromise? I'm willing to grant you the removal of these quotes you want to remove, if we add at least one source providing some substantial historical context. Ryn78 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am confused. Where in the article does it say children were buried "in the dead of night"? Are you criticizing the article for content that is not present? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The quotes have been removed, per policy, as has been explained to you ad nauseum. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I somehow completely missed the above socking case until now! Wow! So much time wasted on those back and forths! Thank you! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reports and images

AugusteBlanqui, are you aware of this copyright licence, which the Oireachtas uses for its website and publications uploaded there? I don't think it lets us use reproduced images, necessarily, but may be of use for OSI diagrams and the like. I'll hopefully be visiting Tuam before Christmas; if I do manage a visit, I'll bring the camera - the article could definitely do with some images. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will try to get to Tuam in late December if you don't get there before. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks for providing those photos, AugusteBlanqui - much appreciated! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)