Talk:Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation

Collaborative Forum on Mother and Baby Homes

Is the term Collaborative Forum on Mother and Baby Homes as mentioned here another term for the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation? If not, how are they related and how should the cited report be listed? Given that it deals with issues of racial discrimination in the homes, it is particularly important. Autarch (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this reference the Collaborative Forum on Mother and Baby Homes is distinct from the Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation. Autarch (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

Can someone tell me what is going on in the Conolly block quote that reads I don’t doubt your bona fides, a thaoisigh, but I certainly doubt your judgement.... --Melchior2006 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Melchior2006, good catch. I'll wrap that in language tags. Taoiseach is an Irish-language term, and is the title of the Irish prime minister, whom Connolly was addressing. In Irish, nouns are declined, and a thaoisigh is the vocative case of the nominative, Taoiseach. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious

I'm curious why we call their institutes "orders" when they themselves don't call them that, and why we call sisters "nuns" when they themselves do not call them that? Seems rude. Aren't people entitled to proper self-identification? Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage? Because they also don't call themselves "institutes"? See, for example, the media coverage over the last few days. Journalists and commentators may talk about the "institutions" women were sent to, but they mean mother and baby homes and Magdalene laundries. When they talk about the religious who ran the homes, they talk about orders, not institutes. The Bon Secours Sisters say "We are an international Congregation of religious women"; the Daughters of Charity say "The Daughters of Charity are an International Community of Apostolic Life within the Catholic Church." "Nun" is a commonly understood and widely used term for a member of a religious community of women, and I don't understand how it could be deemed to be rude. It's also useful shorthand when some are 'Sisters' and others are 'Daughters'. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bastun, I think it's common knowledge that secular media is typically tone-deaf if not outright hostile to Church matters. They gleefully mislabel things with homey old slang terms like "defrock" and "nun" even when they know full well that's not the correct term. It must be baked into their manuals of style.
So to make an analogy, it would be as if all news sources in Ireland reported on US Law like so: "In an American Circus of Law, the Judge wears Funny Pajamas and he sits on a Long Chair while he bangs his Wooden Hammer. The Bailiff takes notes on what people said."
The Catholic Church has actual, technical, legal terms for these entities we're describing, and there are ample WP:RS which have the correct terms. To ignore them and claim "we're going with the RS" is equally as tone-deaf and hostile as the secular media, reflects poorly on us as we summarize them, and damages our spotless reputation for neutrality. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And if you ask them, they would indeed call themselves "institutes". a Congregation is an Institute; a Community of Apostolic Life is an Institute, and an Order is an Institute; all communities are Institutes, but not all Institutes are Orders. It's a fundamental refusal to learn the correct terms. Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And they aren't "Daughters" as a title, it's the name of the Institute. I wouldn't go up to Sister Clare and say "Hello Daughter!" that would be rude to say the least! Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be absolutely clear: in the week that saw the publication of a 3,000 page report on a 5-year investigation that documented cruelty, mistreatment and the deaths of approximately 9,000 children through neglect, and where the religious orders implicated in that report have not challenged the findings but instead have apologised profusely for their actions and inactions - your issue with this article is that we may be perceived as being "rude" to the nuns who were responsible? I really don't think I'm the one who is being "tone deaf" here... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with the issue? Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then. Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, the "issue" is that in an article that says use Irish English, we're using Irish English. And in Irish English, we call the Bons Secours Sisters and the Daughters of Charity religious orders (of nuns), not religious institutes. So do the media, in Ireland - and elsewhere, for that matter. So does Eamon Martin, who, as Primate of All Ireland, probably knows what he's talking about. And the Commission's final report refers to Catholic religious orders six times in just the executive summary, and when it refers to institutions, it is invariably referring to mother and baby homes, not to religious orders. It doesn't use "institutes" at all. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unmmarked graves

The opening intrpductionary section refers to the Tuam site as 'an unmarked mass grave in the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, located in Tuam, County Galway.

But the site does not appear to be unmarked. There was was several memorial plaques on the site and the plot was deliberately not built over as it was known as a burial site. The grotto there was erested in 1990. It was cared for by a local “Graveyard Committee” long before the recent investigations according to the 5th intrim report. So can we really call it an unmarked grave?Aerchasúr (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Bastun (talk · contribs) 15:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 10:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, happy to pick up your nomination! The article is carefully phrased, so I'll give mostly soft flow suggestions. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

copyvios picks up a number of copyright violations that exceed the appropriate 40%. I would assume copyright policy is softer for law-related articles. I'll get back to you with solutions.

You should paraphrase:

  • The paragraph that starts with: The third interim report reveals that legally enforceable discovery..
  • The all three points in the list that follows the above paragraph can be paraphrased (e.g. "in particular, the Commission has spent considerable time trying to establish the burial practices in the mother and baby home in Tua..")
  • There are other lengthy quotes, but this should be enough to get us below threshold

All sources seem to be reliable per WP:RSP. There is one tweet published by Claire Byrne/RTÉ who, I think justify, its reliability. checkY

Checked geo coordinates, all good checkY

Structure

The background and "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" section have repeated information. I think it makes sense to move up "Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home" section (without excavation and further info) at start of the background, as this particular home is the catalyst for the investigation. The "establishment" section (with terms and methodology) can be separated into another second level section, as it isn't the part of the background? Then "Tuam excavation" as the third second-level section after "Establishment", because Establishment is generally about the commission and multiple baby homes, while the excavation is particularly connected to the Tuam home? Not sure what to do with "Additional issues"; it is relevant but it doesn't seem to be a part of the investigation. Maybe it can be moved down below final report or merged with Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home? —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I think we can merged the two photographs we have into one template with one caption like on Longyearbyen

Do we have photos of other homes? photos of prominently involved people? The latter can be added to the reports section

Using the upload file wizard and pointing to the CC-by-SA 2.0 images of Sean Ross Abbey and Bessboro returns an error, saying that CC-by-SA 2.0 isn't allowed, unfortunately. Which is odd, as I've seen such images around, I'm sure. I will investigate further. I have added photos of the Taoiseach and President, as mentioned above. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies/reactions

I think we should structure the apologies/reactions by topic and mostly paraphrase the quotes. Probably one section for government and church reaction, and the second is public response. Maybe something like this:

  • First paragraph briefly mentions who apologized and taken responsibilities
  • Then, for example, the sinful church and "ludicrous notions of sexual morality"
  • Then, for example, accounts of the victims are distorted in the report according to ...
  • Then, for example, the lack of attention to illegal adoptions and downplay of "strong evidence of physical and emotional abuse"
  • if there shorter paragraphs (1-2 sentences), they can be merged together
    • I have reordered the apologies/reactions, going in the order of state/political apology and reaction (including the current and former presidents), then the religious orders' apologies, then the survivors and their advocates. I have looked at paraphrasing/shortening the quotes, but to be honest, I think we would lose too much nuance in doing so. E.g., former president McAleese's comments about "ludicrous notions of sexual morality" were extremely noteworthy at the time. I can revisit, but what do you think of how it is presented now? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see if can find particular phrases that can be paraphrased. My idea was to separate reactions by opinions not by people because some of the info repeats itself (e.g. PM and former president foremost condemn church for the incident and moral corruption; both both presidents say the church didn't adequately informed public; both Catherine Connolly and Survivors and advocates say the commission omitted some of the information provided by testimonies).
    • But to better structure this and avoid wp:SYNTH, we need to paraphrase. Also I noticed that criticism sections benefit from merging negative and positive opinions into two separate paragraphs to better articulate the crux of the debate.
    • Also, the 2nd opinion can be helpful; I usually more soft on quotes and can pass the article but some of the more experienced editors tend to lean towards maximum paraphrasing, so I need their opinion. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, that makes more sense now. I'll have another look at this shortly. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I have reworked this section based on the above. Personally, I prefer direct quotes, but I can see the benefit of paraphrasing, too. What I have retained, therefore, was what I regard as the most significant of the contributions, which was that of the Taoiseach. Everything else has been reduced and paraphrased to a much greater extent. I think that covers everything that had been requested. The only exception being photos that are public domain or CC-by-SA 4.0 of the homes in question. Thank you again for your work on this. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

  • the terms of reference had been agreed at cabinet for an "independent commission, which has a three-year deadline and which will cost approximately €21 million, following the signing by the Taoiseach of a Government Order at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting" ----> the terms of reference, agreed upon by the cabinet and signed by the Taoiseach of a Government Order at Tuesday's cabinet meeting, established an "independent commission, which ha[d] a three-year deadline and cost approximately €21 million".
  • The investigation covered the period from 1922, the foundation of the state, to 1998. I assume this is verified by Terms of reference. I would add an extra cite to be super solid.  Done
  • of the named institutions to provide accounts of their experiences -----> of the named institutions where they could share accounts of their experience Reason: better flow? substituted second "provide" as it carries different meaning than the first "provide"
  • The Commission was to rely on this analysis... ----> The Commission was authorised to rely on this analysis..
  • The Commission was brought into being following extensive worldwide media coverage of statements that the remains of up to 800 children had been interred in an unmarked mass grave --> The Commission was catalysed in the aftermath of extensive worldwide media coverage of an investigation claiming that remains of up to 800 children had been interred in an unmarked mass grave Reason: Simplifying start of the sentence. Changing coverage of statements to investigation, because the source says: "The controversy emerged in 2014, when an amateur historian raised questions about the fate of almost 800 children..."; the second sentence expands on the investigation by Catherine Corless
  • The report said that the most commonly recorded causes of death among the infants were congenital debilities, infectious diseases and malnutrition. The article said that the bodies were buried in a site at the Home and that there was a high death rate of its residents. ---> The report found the death rate of its infant residence to be abnormally high, with the most commonly recorded causes of death attributed to congenital debilities, infectious diseases and malnutrition.
  • This two seems to carry duplicate information The article said that the bodies were buried in a site at the Home... and Her research led her to conclude that almost all had been buried in an unmarked and unregistered site at the Home...
  • Zappone has appointed human rights expert and Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, Professor Geoffrey Shannon, to examine these issues and to report to her on his findings Do we have update on results of Shannon's work?
  • The release of the final report generated huge media interest in Ireland and abroad. The state broadcaster, RTÉ, created a special section on its website to cover the issue, publishing over 40 news articles on the topic in the days following release. I hate to be that person, but I think it's WP:OR. This sentence is cited to a list of RTE articles, not an article analysing RTE's coverage of this issue.
  • The Bon Secours Sisters, who ran the nursing home which eventually resulted in the setting up of the Commission, released an apology. It states: ---> The Bon Secours Sisters, who ran the nursing home which affairs prompted the creation of the Commission, released an apology that states:
  • The order also committed to participating in a "Restorative Recognition Scheme" to be set up to compensate survivors Do we have update on this; did they realize the plans?
    • The government did indeed set up a compensation scheme that is actually deserving of an article in and of itself! I can include a section on the scheme, probably to go after section 7. The scheme included various aspects such as financial compensation, access to counselling, and access to free healthcare. It was heavily criticised for restricting access to the scheme to only include people who had been in certain named M&B Homes, and for a minimum duration of six months, rather than allowing access to people who had been in any of the registered M&B Homes. I can find nothing to indicate that the Bon Secours Sisters contributed to the scheme, though they may well have done so. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Taoiseach also promised that the apology would be followed by actions, including access to counselling and records, provision of medical cards, and a system of reparations. Did we an update on this promise?
  • That is totally out of line with the evidence given by the women and the men. This part can be paraphrased and better integrated
  • Roderic O'Gorman, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and the official to whom the report was presented, stated that on the issue of consent to adoptions and forced adoption, the Commission had taken a narrow and very legalistic approach to the issue of consent, and that women had been left with absolutely no choice. ----> O'Gorman issued a statement pertinent to the issue of consent, as well as adoptions and forced adoption, saying that the Commission had taken a narrow and very legalistic approach to the issue of consent, and that women had been left with absolutely no choice.

Second pass

  • The Irish government came under pressure to launch an investigation, which eventually resulted in the establishment of the Commission in February 2015. The background already mentions the commission was established in the aftermath of the journalistic investigation; I think the paragraph highlighted above is redundant  Done
  • Now that you paraphrased majority of the quotes, I think we don't need this summary; we don't have a source analyzing the overall response in the style of Metacritic: There were mixed reactions to the report from a variety of organisations and individuals, including politicians, the religious institutions who had run some of the institutions that were investigated, and survivors and their advocates. The state formally apologised to victims and the government proposed reparations, while the religious orders also apologised for their actions or lack of action.
  • I ran a second copyvious. It still picks up copyright violations, mostly quoteboxes. But I couldn't find a nice way to rephrase them; Enda Kenny's isn't particularly informative but it has an interesting tone for a political speech. checkY
  • Sorry to bring up the structure again, we can merge aftermath reaction to the final report and the aftermath? First section section reparations and recognition (including the release of personal records connected to the case), second: lawsuits, third: alternative report?
    • The first two paragraphs within the "Criticisms in the aftermath of the final report" section can be merged with "Multiple advocacy groups described the..." paragraph; both are criticism by survivors against final report

Lead and infobox

  • I would change the current short description "2021 Irish government investigation" to "Irish government committee (2015–2021)", as the article is centered around the committee  Done
Changed to "Irish state commission (2015-2021)", as it was an independent commission, rather than a government one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may consider adding a note to the budget listed in the infobox. That 7 mil is calculated out of three-year budget of 21 mil given to the commission in 2015  Done

Updates

Hi, LastJabberwocky, thanks for picking this up! I've added two new citations, where you had requested them, and I've added in a named reference to the Terms of Reference per your second bullet point in the 'Prose' section above; #2 of the ToR state the period covered. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update, evening of 2 October: I think all of the above recommendations are now complete, with the exception of a) additional photos of M&B homes, and b) the reactions section. I hope to complete this section tomorrow. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update, 3 October: Reactions section now also re-worked. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It turned really really good, a more smooth and structured read! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further suggestions, promoting! Also I will support images alt text. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mother_and_Baby_Homes_Commission_of_Investigation