Talk:Magdalene asylum

message: I live in Sweden. My sister was locked up against her will in a similar institution here in Sweden (but run by the municipality) when she got her first child without being married. And the bureaucrats tried to take her child. In that institution there were a number of women locked up that just had given birth. Their only "crime" being that they got a child without being married, the father of the child "being absent" and not protecting the woman and the woman not having a family that could protect her. 
When my family finally found out where my sister was we managed to liberate her. (The bureaucrats clearly had not realised that my sister had a big family that could protect her.) After that the bureaucrats attacked us by all legal (and illegal) means at their disposal. We had to keep my sister hidden from the authorities for several months while we informed the politicians and gathered evidence to defend ourselves against the bureaucrats. Finally with the help of some politicians the bureaucrats were made to stop their efforts to take my sisters child and locking her up again. Afterwards our lawyer said that as far as she knew we were the first family ever in Sweden to manage to keep a child in spite the bureaucrats being on full attack. And this happened as recently as 1999-2000.
Why the bureaucrats do these things I don't know. Perhaps there is black money to get in the adoption business or they simply do it so they "have something to do" so their department won't get downsized. The scary thing is that this is an ongoing thing, defenceless women (but good mothers) are still being locked up and get their babies taken like that in Sweden. 
--A disillusioned Swede 06:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all of you who think this can not be true 

message: It neglects to mention the mass graves found and linked to the Magdalene Asylums or Laundries across Southern Ireland. Women were admitted to there if they were guilty of pregnancy outside wedlock, either pregnant before they were married, or with a child believed to have been fathered by a man other than their husband. The babies were taken from the mothers at birth, and some of them were put into care, the children born with 'defects' or disabilities were not. What happened to these children, no one knows for sure, but hundreds if not thousands of babies, dating from different years, have been found in mass graves throughout Ireland.
Sadly, there are similar places still in existance. My great grandmother was admitted into an asylum by my great grandfather, and her own father as she concieved her youngest son 'out of wedlock' which is ridiculous as he is the son of my great grandfather. She was of sound mind and she was kept there until her death in 2001. The asylum is in the Downpatrick area of Northern Ireland. After the death of her father, her estranged husband (my great grandfather) did attempt to 'sign her out' but it never happened. They needed signitures of both men who admitted her, and one had died.
She was admitted around 1950 and lived there until she died in 2001. Her son, was admitted into care straight after birth and then fostered by his grandfather when he remarried, the same man who admitted his mother.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.107.191 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The babies of the mothers admitted. 

message: i think some exposition needs to be included of the economic aspects of this phenomenon. i.e. the catholic church helping themselves to a source of free labour, with the collusion of the civil authorities. this being a talk page, i feel no need to be npov. the material in the article would have to be. Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The final report of the Inter-Departmental Committee Investigating State Interaction in the Magdalene Laundries (led by Senator Martin McAleese) is due by year-end 2012, and should shed light on the economic of the Laundries. Evidence has been submitted by Justice for Magdalenes as well as uncovered by Dr. McAleese and his team, and will serve to highlight financial data.Culchiewoman (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics

message: Question:
Is there information any place documented about the exact same 'Church Programs' in the United States?  
I personally was locked up for 5 years working in a Good Shepherd laundry 6 hours a day, 6 days a week.
In the United States the Asylums were called "Home of the Good Shepherd".  They housed about 90 to 120 young girls from 10 to 19.  All the girls worked in the Laundry or else where in the "locked prison-like" buildings.  The nuns who did not live in the Cloister portion of the buildings were of the Good Shepherd Order.  They were called "Mother so & so" by the girls and were charged with the task of redeeming the 30 or so girls within their care.  The nuns of the Mary Magdalene Order were cloistered, did not speak, took similar vows the Good Shepherd Order did but were not 'good enough' to become a Good Shepherd nun because they were grown-up 'girl prisoners' from the un-cloisted side of the Good Shepherd Home who never left after become adults.  They spent their entire lives repenting for their sins while they were young girls - those sins being the catalist for being locked up in the Home of Good Shepherd.  
I was allowed to leave late 1964 upon turning 18.  My sin was running away from an abusive home environment.
I am now 62 and have sufferred nightmares my whole life.  I am seeking information about the Good Shepherd Homes in the United States and if they were ever "found out" and exposed for what they really were.
I know nothing about computers actually, so I respectfully will attempt to follow your rules above but am not quite sure what many of the terms mean.  If I have broken your rules, I apologize.  But can you direct me to further information other than that of the very same institutions exposed in Ireland which were also here in the United States?  I would like to try to connect with some of the girls my age with whom I lived and worked.  I want to see if their lives were as injured as mine?  I was in the Good Shepherd Home, 931 Blair, St. Paul, Minnesota. Best Regards and with Appreciation,  75.172.41.69 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An international perspective to the article, if relevant, would be a useful expansion. An Australian story : http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/26/1051316051211.html  Seems to be quite a lot in the External Links that could be incorporated. Ctbolt (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdalene Asylums - Ireland vs. aka Homes of the Good Shepherd & Mary Magdalene Cloisters - United States 

message: The material from the New York Times purporting to be a summary of the Irish Ryan report has been replaced with the actual factual information referenced to the reprt itself. The quote was exaggerated to the level of fantasy. Tens of thousands was not the number of those claiming abuse, but the total population of the istitutions over the 60 year period - of whom around 900 claimed physical abuse and 380 claimed some form of sexual abuse. 
The report specifically did not "claim" that any of the abuse allegations were verified. Saying that the report said these things on the basis of a garbled US newspaper article was false and misleading in the extreme.  Xandar  00:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that the 2002 Redress Act omitted women who had been remanded to Magdalene Laundries. As such, Ryan should not be cited at all with relation to the Magdalene Laundries, except to highlight that they were omitted from the Redress Act.Culchiewoman (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information 

message: I removed the link to the article on anti-catholicism because its presence was clearly meant to imply that the article is somehow anti-catholic.  
If you think the truth comes off as "anti-your-group" then tough mammaries - you need to adjust to reality.  POV-pushing like including that link doesn't belong on Wiki 12.52.96.200 (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is quite legitimate. Anti-Cathoicism is an aspect of much coverage of this issue, including the spreading of dubious tales and memoirs.  Xandar  00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-catholicism link 

message: This word is unknown to the SOED, it should either be replaced with a word or words whose meaning is plain or an explanation provided. treesmill (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  recarceral 

message: The articles says that the so called "fallen women" were sent to those  asylums, but there is no clear definition of what a fallen woman is. This lack of information might confuse readers unfamiliar with the subject. 187.13.4.30 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest qualifying with:
*Magdalene Asylums were institutions for so-called "fallen women", (a euphemism for sexually active unmarried women, contrary to contemporary social mores): unless someone has a better formulation. RashersTierney (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallen women 

message: I suspect those who used the terms "fallen women" and "wayward women" did so with the assumption that readers would realize these terms were meant to reflect how people in the past felt about such women.  Perhaps they could be replaced with more neutral terms.
Anyway, "fallen woman" is not a euphemism.  A euphemism is a word or term that tries to make something negative or disturbing less unpleasant than it is--i.e., "physically challenged," "downsizing," "landfill," "exceptional" (for intellectual disabilities) etc....
70.31.30.169 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallen Women and Euphemisms

message: This section seems out of place and random.  I suggest removal of it entirely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: I removed the line from the introduction, "It has been estimated that 30,000 women passed through Ireland's laundries." It wasn't appropriately citation'd. I did some quick Googling - although the 30,000 number is widely quoted, I couldn't find a reference to a primary source. The book Ireland's Magdalene Laundries by James M. Smith may have the primary source reference, but I haven't read the book.
This number should rightfully be removed, since the religious orders who ran the laundries have yet to produce their records.  So there is no verifiable source for the number "30,000" .  Justice for Magdalenes has collated 1901 and 1911 census figures indicating an average of 1,000 women for each census period resided in the 13 laundries.  One could extrapolate (with decreasing numbres by the 1960s) for the years leading to 1996, the closing of the last laundry.  But that number would still be unrealiable. (Mari Steed, Justice for Magdalenes)
I think it's important to the article to quote a figure, so if one of you watchers can find it, please add it in.
Raddick (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. RashersTierney (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  30,000 women? 

message: Why is every instance of the words fallen women given in quotes in this article? This was the actual description employed at the time. Also, the term is not a euphemism, as suggested at the start of the article. Van Speijk (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a misogynistic slur.  It would be like filling an article on black slavery with the n-word, unquoted.  The women did not "fall" and the article doesn't even provide a clear description of whom is being described by this - those pregnant out of wedlock (was there a place for the "fallen boys" who got them pregnant?), prostitutes, street criminals, victims of incest who were discarded by their perpetrators or what.  It also implies that women who had children out of wedlock were "often" (note quotes) involved in crime - without a citation.  Since the terminology is all of offensive, bizarre, morally biased (and far outside of current societal norms), misogynistic and has no clear meaning it cannot be used without quotes as a term that makes sense in modern English. The encyclopedic tone is one of modern usage.  The victims of this practice (not to say there were not legitimate homes for unwed pregnant girls) are accurately termed "inmates" unquoted as used in this article.  The same treatment of terminology is appropriate for any article which uses terminology which is outside of modern usage and which would be offensive.  The only expression using fallen in my dictionary from the blessedly thorough people at Oxford is "fallen angel" which you should feel free to use without quotes in any relevant articles. Obotlig (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good answer. Tend to agree. Particularly appreciate the dictionary observation! RashersTierney (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Yup.  Also agree with Obotlig.  BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find this article troubling in several respects. First a point about the use of quotes and the dictionary definition of fallen woman/women. Obotlig, if you look in the online Cambridge and online Oxford you'll find this term is listed (without quotes)  and , so your comment about fallen angels is slightly disingenuous. Note the absence of any mention that the term is pejorative; merely that it's old fashioned. To equate the term with nigger is absurd. That said, I can see that it makes sense to have the first instance of the term in quotes. However, we can get rid of the "so-called" since its use goes agasint the MOS; see WP:ALLEGED. Furthermore, we don't need to labour the point and other instances can easily be removed. I'll do this immediately. There is much unsourced material in this article and much of it is likely to be POV-laden; see this for example "The women were typically admitted to these institutions at the request of family members (mostly men)." I'll place the NPOV banner in the article. I suspect there's also a substantial amount of OR, but before putting that banner up I'll see what others say on that matter. the Legacy and Quotations sections are quite appalling and need either removing (certainly the Quotations section should go) or cleaning up. Finally, the new categories are, as RashersTierney says, subjective - highly, I might add. I'm removing them. Overall, the article is a long way from being encyclopedic. In the past it has obviously attracted the POV pushers, as subjects such as these are bound to. Any other suggestions? Van Speijk (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Mostly agree with Obotlig, though there is an element of revisionism at work too. The Victorian-era sensibilities were such that few things thought scandalous were discussed directly in polite society, so at the time it would have been normal to apply euphemism. The poison quotes are certainly appropriate, but so would be an outright discussion of (or wikilink to) the terms then in use which we now see as misogynistic, such as "compromised", "temptress", or "easy virtue" (as if men had no responsibility for self control). There are, of course, still societies and legal systems today which sustain the same pattern of thought. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fallen woman presently redirects to Prostitute. This is not correct. Van Speijk (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't always. I've restored that article, with some repair, but it needs more attention. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV banner is justified IMO. Also agree that the 'Quotations' section should go, as a minimum. There is more than a hint of campaigning here. RashersTierney (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but please remember to identify the problematic text, not just slap a banner on the lede. So far, I'm not clear what POV you think the article presents that is in need of balance. Is it too easy/too hard on the inmates/church/order/inquiry/garda in your view? Do the issues relate to the history or the current state of affairs? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree that there should be a concerted effort to address issues highlighted before interest wanes. I'll get out what books I have on the subject, but if anyone wants to make a start, feel free. RashersTierney (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes for fallen women 

message: You can read here by "Conditions":
:Magdalene asylums were a generally accepted social institution until well into the second half of the 20th century.
Then again on "Public scandal":
:The existence of the Irish asylums was not well known until, in 1993, an order of nuns in Dublin sold part of their convent to a real-estate developer.
In my understanding, something not well known can't be gererally accepted, so this might be just formulated unprecise, meaning:
:The conditions in the Irish asylums was not well known until, in 1993, an order of nuns in Dublin sold part of their convent to a real-estate developer.
I don't have much knowledge on this theme so I might just misunderstand things here, but maybe somebody more expert could take a look on ths?
Greetings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.147.145 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprecise formulation? 

message: As part of the revamp discussed above, could we start by deciding the scope of this article. The historic 'Magdalenist' movement had its equivalents in many countries, but this article focuses mainly on the phenomenon in Ireland. As a minimum there should be a dedicated section dealing with these institutions on a country by country basis. Most of the (limited) academic sources follow this approach.  The Irish section will probably develop into a separate article in time, given the material increasingly being produced and because they lasted into more recent times. Terminology (the term 'Magdalene' was not always applied to such institutions) is problematic too. Thoughts?.RashersTierney (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The introduction should perhaps not mention Ireland and should be restricted to an overview of the subject. All the Irish stuff should be in a section of its own, with other sections for the UK, and then as the article develops, sections for other countries can be added. I notice we still use the word "pejorative" in the intro. Actually the reference doesn't back this up and I'm not sure if it is a pejorative term - do we hear people insulting a woman by saying to her face "you fallen woman!"? The term was widely used in earlier times but isn't any more, so I think a simple "old fashioned" is better. I think for a term to be pejorative it has to be used, not just disliked. Also, can we get rid of the Quotations section? We could maybe get a quick decision on this one. Van Speijk (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Section removed. Would like to hear others on the appropriateness or otherwise of the 'fallen' term. Different sources treat it differently. Working my way through the books of James Smith and Frances Finnegan at the moment, as well as online sources, just to get an overall view for now. RashersTierney (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

text: The Cambridge link had it tagged as disapproving which is or can be a direct synonym for pejorative. Obotlig (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fallen women" with the scare-quotes is appropriate, in my opinion.  It's alien to us now, but that's how Irish society viewed women who deviated from the norm back then. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Subject matter

message: I'm having a hard time discerning which of the above neutrality concerns are still at issue.  If they have been resolved, the tag should go, but if not, could editors please list them here for the benefit of third parties? 67.21.131.22 (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lets kick this off. It was proposed above that there would be a section that would segregate analogous institutions by country/state. Would welcome comment on a section title where these institutions can be addressed in such a way; perhaps 'Magdalene asylums by country'? RashersTierney (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any organisation which did not explicitly use the term Magdelene or Magdeline should be included in the article. Also, the primary focus does seem to be about Ireland. Homes for unwed mothers should be a distinct article if there is any subject matter for it. Obotlig (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "If"?!  They - dozens of them - were known as "Mother and baby homes" in Ireland.  But they were indeed separate and distinct from the laundries.  Which is not to say that a woman couldn't be sent from one to the other. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree with bastun. While they are separate and distinct institutions (mother-baby homes were regulated, accredited and inspected by the State; Magdalene Laundries were not), there was enormous crossover between the two with girls and women routinely sent from one to the other, and also from industrial schools.Culchiewoman (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To Bastun above: Sorry, I didn't really mean "if" but whether there was adequate material that an editor would be interested in putting together for a new article, which might also be a more appropriate place for the international material.  I think the name Homes for unwed mothers is good if anyone wants to verify that it wouldn't duplicate anything. Then this article can be solely about the history of the institutions titled Magdelene and their laundries and conditions. Obotlig (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the proposed article name is missing the point from a historical perspective. These 'asylums' were not instituted either as homes or predominantly for 'unwed mothers'. My own view is strongly that the current title should remain, but that much of the Ireland-related content be forked to Magdalene asylums in Ireland. There would be a nominal amount within this article introducing and contrasting the Irish institutions in a section dealing with analagous institutions on a country by country basis. 'Lock asylums', for example, which served essentially the same function and had a related genesis but without using the term 'Magdalene' could also be addressed here - perhaps with a re-direct. RashersTierney (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be to the advancement of the neutrality aspect to shed some light on why folks thought these laundries were advancing choices for women, namely how many women in similar circumstances would end up engaging in prostitution or other criminal enterprises in other places. - Haymaker (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for comment. Part of the problem stems from what institutions this article should cover. From what I've been reading there were two main motivations involved. One was the 'rehabilitation/reformatory' agenda and the other 'the saving of souls'. Depending on the 'asylum' in question and what time period, sometimes both aspirations were pursued, though generally one or other predominated. The term 'Magdalene' was applied indiscriminately or not at all. There were convents that dated back to the middle-ages, particularly in Italy that were very similar in purpose. Should these be included, or are we to confine ourselves to the enlightenment-era phenomenon and later? RashersTierney (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we'd be best off exploring all of those locations if someone can put the time in for them, in the meantime I'd like something along the lines of "this is why masses of people thought these asylums were good ideas". - Haymaker (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute(s)?

message: From the discussion above, it appears the NPOV tag is inappropriate. The criticisms relate to the completeness of the content, e.g. which institutions should be covered by the article, and not a lack of neutrality in its POV-ness. I therefore suggest the removal of the NPOV tag or, in the alternative, a clearer description of any NPOV issue rewinn (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag Inappropriate

message: I noticed that a recent contributor entered a number of links to their website throughout the document. Remove the links from the article body and added one link to the relevant section. It seems that the contributor was attempting to self promote, rather than provide information conducive to the subject matter. Also edited badly written content, also provided by the contributor. (208.54.5.141 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you -- pretty sure who that contributor would be, and certainly not an "expert" in any sense of the word on the Laundries.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culchiewoman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: An edit summary is the usual way to let eds know of this sort of thing. RashersTierney (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Spam Links In Doc Body 

message: The last laundry to close is identified in this piece as having been in Waterford.
A search reveals multiple sources indicating that the last to close was that at Sean MacDermott Street in Dublin as previously stated by a contributor above. The following two links are among several Irish news outlets that cite Dublin as the last (those citing Waterford appear to be relying on wiki): 
http://irishsalem.com/irish-controversies/the-magdalene-laundries/lastdays-25sept96.php
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-given-one-year-to-implement-magdalene-recommendations-507954.html
Irish Melkite (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The laundry at Waterford closed in 1982 and that at Sean MacDermott Street, Dublin in 1996. See McAleese report Chapter 3 section 58. for Waterford and same source Chapter 3 section 29. for Sean MacDermott Street. RashersTierney (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I marked both cites as 'failed verification' because they supposedly give Waterford as the last laundry to close. They don't. Neither in fact mentions Waterford. See NYT and Toyntanen. Ref #5 does give Waterford as the last, but it is incorrect. Numerous RSs give Gloucester/Seán McDermot Street as the last to close in 1996 eg Finnegan and McAleese #29. Waterford closed in 1982 - see McAleese Ch.3 #58. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I was looking at the year of closure not the location, my bad! Snappy (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. RashersTierney (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Laundry

message: As the article now stands, it's a poorly-organized collection of apparently random paragraphs, many of them with no source cited.  The first section jumps between England and Ireland, and maybe back again, as well as through time.  Somebody who knows the full story should be recruited to whip this page into shape. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A start might be to deal with the topic country-by-country, and within these on a chronological basis. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Will begin to implement the above shortly, unless someone has an alternative suggestion. RashersTierney (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: A new editor has just added a large amount of material, sourced to a few books, about the laundries. On my talk page, the editor says it's for a college class project, and that she's working to a deadline on it. I've nominated it to be checked for neutrality. Examples from the introduction:
*...enslaved women, institutionalizing them against their will, and stripping them of their rights and identities." - but in sections below there are referenced contradictions to this, saying that not all of them were operated in this way
*From the first Magdalen laundry to open in 1758 to the last laundry to close in 1996, these institutions went through transformative periods, becoming progressively more violent and oppressive. - did all of them progressively become so?
*Initially the mission of the asylums was to rehabilitate women back into society, but by the early twentieth century the homes had become increasingly punitive and prison-like. - again, this is using the case of the homes that were operated this way to infer that they all were.
*Eventually, changing attitudes about sexuality and the role of women in society discredited the social values of these institutions, while the rise of the washing machine as a common household appliance undermined their economic viability. One author, Finnegan, makes this claim in a book, but this doesn't seem to be a widely endorsed conclusion.
From the "Ireland" section:
*Given Ireland's historically conservative sexual values, Magdalen asylums were a generally accepted social institution until well into the second half of the twentieth century. They disappeared with changes in sexual mores—or, as Finnegan suggests, as they ceased to be profitable: "Possibly the advent of the washing machine has been as instrumental in closing these laundries as have changing attitudes."[36] This is again cited only from Finnegan, though the editor doesn't give a page or even a book in the reference.
From the "Fallen women" section:
*As the motivations started to range from a need to maintain social and moral order within the bounds of patriarchal structure, to a desire to continue profiting from a free workforce, Magdalen laundries became a part of a large structure of suppression. - citation is from the Finnegan book and some unnamed work by Parrot & Cummings. I've added one book I found online by Parrot & Cummings (which mentions the Magdalene laundries) to the bibliography, but it's unclear if that's the work being cited: there are few page numbers in the new cites.
There are several other examples in there, and I'd like to see more eyes on this article to bring it to a more neutral point of view. Ruby Murray 10:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you suggest that a wiki page on "Slavery" or "concentration camps" be rendered more "neutral"?  These laundries are the site of many human rights violations, particularly in Ireland, as my edits clearly state. And my sources are researched historical academic texts.  What is the value of a site like Wikipedia if ppl like you are editing history to sugarcoat it or render it "neutral"?  It's offensive and irresponsible.  You should read Orwell's 1984 for a fictionalized account of what happens when truths are corrupted and history revised and whitewashed.  Marygmu (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all articles on Wikipedia need to be written from a neutral point of view. You can find more information about this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Ruby Murray 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's offensive and irresponsible." -- No, it's Wikipedia policy (which this charge violates). You should become familiar with those policies before editing or commenting. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the questions about the Neutrality of the POV. Given recent news, I think the hits on this page will go up making that a problem209.194.41.25 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: There are also some serious problems with recently-added references. In addition to the Parrot & Cummings reference, for which I've made a best guess as noted above, there are cites to "Lyall" and "Luddy", with no page number or book name from which to verify the references. I'm guessing that "Luddy" is the "Maria Luddy" referred to in the text, but which work of hers is being cited? What page? And who is this "Lyall"? Ruby Murray 17:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Luddy 112 is likely a reference to this source about convent archives, though it may be to , Prostitution and Irish society, 1800-1940. I haven't seen these, so I can't be sure, but that's where I'd look first.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Two weeks have gone by with no reply from the busy student who added them, so I've removed the unusably vague reference to the unknown works by Luddy and whomever Lyall might be, along with the contentious assertions that they were supporting. Ruby Murray 13:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't isolate the Lyall reference, and the "permeated almost every aspect of life" quote is almost a cliche, so search engines have not been helpful. Still I don't think that particular statement is very controversial. It would be difficult to find a wp:RS that opposed the idea that the influence of the Roman Catholic Church was (and still largely is) pervasive throughout Irish life. Is someone actually challenging that idea? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: This article's spelling should, as in Irish English, use BrEng spelling, not AmEng.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish English 

message: FYI. This article contains, at a glance, many glaring instances of sentences copied directly from references, and, strangely, inserted apparently at random. The resulting incomprehensible structure obscures whatever bias there no doubt is. zzz (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to make edits for clarifictaion, please.  Taram (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated, confusing abuse of [[WP:COPYVIO]] 

message: Many visitors to this page will be looking for information about the much-publicised discovery of the mass grave, as I was. Therefore, I have changed the title of the section from "Publicity and documentaries" to "Discovery of a mass grave", as it was extremely difficult to find any mention of it before. It is the appropriate title, since that is what the "publicity and documentary" were actually about. The previous title only served to hide the information.
In addition, I have expanded the section slightly so as to adequately describe the events. zzz (talk) 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Thank you. 75.173.129.29 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section title 

message: This is an important aspect that should certainly be examined. I have summarised the position of the Catholic League. Statements from other Catholic organisations or officials would also be useful, to give a broader perspective. I have not been able to find any, as yet.
I also incorporated the (very small) section entitled "International law" into the following section, "2013 publication of inquiry report", in order to minimise the profusion of sections. zzz (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you zzz (talk). You might want to think about re-titling your new section. I am not insulting you when I say that, but calling it the "Catholic" perspective is misleading. I don't want the casual reader who comes to the page to summarily dismiss and ignore your important notations if that reader only disagrees with the concept. Just think about it. I have no intention of insulting you. No need to insult, here;  just collaborate to find better ways of expressing information. Taram (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't think of a more apt title. As I understand it, your only objection is that I haven't supplied any other, equally notable, statements by Catholics, to counterbalance the perspective given. There is no reason why any editor could not supply these, I simply haven't managed to so far. I only just added this one! zzz (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep thinking about it, give it some time, rest, and I am sure you will come up with something better. Good writing takes time (along with all the other processes, of course). You are on your way and I believe you can do it! Keep up the good work zzz (talk). Taram (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment. I do not "bicker": I have been threatened by user Taram with being "banned by administrators" and repeatedly insulted, both here and on my User Talk page, for absolutely no reason that I am aware of, after I had allowed him to immediately delete half of nmy edit without complaint. I'm kind of depressed about the whole thing, to be honest If you want to suggest that I am at fault here, then please explain that. But anyway.
You need to show convincing evidence to support your opinion that "the material doesn't represent the church establishment". Such as, a bishop publically distancing himself from the Catholic League. That would at least be a start. This guy has been spouting his views everywhere from MSNBC to the New York Times, so it's not like he flies under the radar. Far from it, to judge from his WP page. The CL defends the church; but the church has nothing to do with them? That theory would need evidence. The American church, that is, of course: the Irish church would be a different question. But I'd guess that you won,t find the hierarchy objecting to his opinions anywhere. His is the loudest Catholic voice in North America, so you'd need a lot of good evidence to convince me that he doesn't speak for Catholics in general, or the hierarchy in particular. Otherwise, it's rather like claiming, for the sake of argument, that Sinn Feinn don't represent the views of the IRA - there's no direct proof that they do (or, rather, did, but you get my point), but it's not remotely realistic to claim otherwise - why else would they exist? Besides, his is a very signifivant Catholic voice, independently of what you may or may not suppose other Catholics (privately) think. As I said, the article needs to have a Catholic reponse.
Secondly, as far as the Ryan report goes, I have to agree, that was a poor choice of quote. I'm surprised it was'nt objected to earlier.  I've just got rid of it. But I assure you, the Donohue report was primarily about the laundries, so I can't see how it's a distraction. It's the most notable, and the most official Catholic response that I'm aware of. zzz (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Tnx fr making those latest updates to the article. Unfortunately, the SF/IRA analogy doesn't really apply here. As a clandestine org, the IRA had/has limited scope for participation in public debate; hence the representation of SF as its mouthpiece. OTOH, the Catholic Church has ample public relations channels and resources to promulgate its 'official' views at all levels - diocesan, national, and globally. As you say, official silence speaks volumes, if that is indeed the case. Concerns about legal liability is no doubt driving a lot of this stuff, but it's probably worth spending some time ferreting out some appropriate references anyway. For example, this report refers a Vatican comment about the film: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3589305/Exaggerated-I-did-the-opposite.html.  In the meantime, with regard to the Donahue material, I'd be inclined to relocate it to the section on media coverage or possibly the US section. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for yr latest edits. I think my main concern about including the CL quotations is the assertion that no-one was imprisoned, etc. These specific comments are in complete disagreement with the findings in chapters 9 and 10 of the McAleese report, which in turn raises questions about how much we should depend upon this material as a reliable source for an 'official' church position. jxm (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Ok, no prob. I think that putting the CL quotations in the context of the nuns' responses helps set the right tone here. I believe that we can put the matter to rest if we simply change the first sentence to read.... "In a detailed commentary by bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League (an American anti-defamation organization), ...." Yes/no/maybe? :-) jxm (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is fine. Something like that, definitely an improvement, to at least suggest how bizarre/Fox News/etc it is. Go ahead: whatever you can come up with! Cheers zzz (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

text: jxm, how about (an American media campaign group), maybe? zzz (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

text:  Or, "(a U.S. media advocacy group)" zzz (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic perspective 

message: I've added a bit about the visit of the English author in 1955. It demonstrates that the Catholic hierarchy, at least locally, were well aware that something was going on which they did not want the world to find out about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical perspective 

message: Ther are no ongoing disputes as to neutrality that I am aware of. No issues have been raised by whoever placed the tag, or anyone else.
Since no one has suggested which of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines is being broken, I will remove the section tag, and the one at the top if there are no objections. zzz (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a concern raised that indeed there is a neutrality concern, the discussion will occur here and I will attempt to do the best that I can in assisting concerns with this article/section. Jab843 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: I have had no concern raised to me. What is your concern exactly? It is not sufficient to merely put a neutrality tag on a section without specifying why you think it is not neutral. Since you are have not done so, (obviously, since it is clearly completely neutral) I will remove the tag, as placing it for no good reason is vandalism. zzz (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was relaying the concern of other editors. But my own concern with the section is that it seems heavily slanted in attacking the Catholic establishment. If we want to even keep the section titled Catholic perspective, it needs a fair amount of rewriting. In its current state, the more appropriate section title would be "Censorship by the Catholic establishment." As in its current form, it doesn't state any views by the catholic church, it is merely a laundry list of times that members of the church have rejected requests for information. Jab843 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is only an essay, not a policy or a guideline. Wikipedia:Edit warring, on the other hand, is a policy. You guys need to quit edit warring over tags and discuss and resolve whatever issues there are with the article. If you continue edit warring over tags, the page may be protected from editing and you may be blocked. If you need outside help or opinions, please pursue options available via dispute resolution. Sarah 01:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, there are two issues here: one is a content dispute and the other is a behavioral issue. I am not sure why you feel it is appropriate to be so aggressive and abrasive. Wikipedia is a project that works through collaboration. You cannot simply take control of an article and chase everyone else away. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to be willing to collaborate with other editors and reach an agreement (often a compromise) about the content. If you are suggesting that I was canvassed to come here, you would be mistaken. I have this article on my watchlist because I edited it eight or nine years ago and I noticed your edit warring over tags on my watchlist. I then came here to this page and saw for myself your aggressive behavior towards other editors. Sorry but I am not withdrawing my comment and I am quite prepared to block editors or protect the article if edit warring resumes. I do not believe the other users refused to explain their tagging; rather, you refused to accept their explanations and instead decided to force your own way against policy. If you are going to continue editing this page, you need to collaborate with the other editors. Sarah 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sarah: Your accusations are, of course, baseless (read through this section and find me one "explanation for tagging"). The way I see it, there is just one issue here: users attempting to censor this article. Since you have, you claim, apparently been watching this article for "eight or nine years", I find it peculiar that the total lack of information regarding the mass grave (international) news story did not trouble you at any point! From the start, editors (now including you) have been attempting to scare me off with carefully worded, patronising, personal abuse, and entirely unconvincing threats (thus increasing my "abrasiveness"); also by canvassing against me on all the wikiprojects listed above, and elsewhwere. As a self-professed "Awesome Wikipedian", it is a shame that you chose to support those who are opposed to my improvements of this article (but refuse to explain why), regardless of your own personal prejudices. Therefore, you should retract your comment - but it's entirely up to you.zzz (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Ps, I use the word "editors" loosely, since no one other than myself ever actually adds any new material to this article! zzz (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us please refocus this discussion on content, rather than the contributors and behavior. This talk page is here to facilitate building an article. I have made a couple improvements to it now. I think there is no glaring neutrality problem right now, but there is perhaps some subtle language that could be better. For example, the USA section does its best to portray the asylums as failures at best and malicious at worst. I think that we should apply a little bit of WP:AGF here to the founders and caretakers of these instutitions. Wikipedia demands neutrality, so we cannot paint a negative picture unless that is the unanimous view of all sources, which I doubt. I am sure that there is a lot of bad press for the asylums in the modern media. Things like the mass grave are black marks on their record, but I do not think that omission of a mention was malicious censorship. We need to dispassionately report what the reliable secondary sources say in all cases. Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I just want to stress that adding material from about an international news story is not "aggressively following my own agenda" (re: canvassing, above) - personal attacks should be directed at me, not canvassed around willy-nilly.zzz (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tags 

message: This page is listed as important to and supported by four Wikiprojects: WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (specifically WikiProject Catholicism), WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, WikiProject Ireland, and WikiProject Women's History. Each Wikiproject has a scale to determine both importance and quality based on determinations made by Members of each project. One project may find the quality and/or importance of an article to be greater or of less importance than another. The assessment scale of each project helps Members make that determination. Within the category of Catholicism articles by importance, Top-class articles refer to "Key" articles, considered indispensable to understanding the tenets of Roman Catholicism such as "Pope, Roman Catholic Church, etc." High-class articles are High-priority topics and needed subtopics of "key" articles, often with a broad scope; needed to complement any general understanding of the field. These include topics such as "Thomas Aquinas, College of Cardinals, etc." Neither the Magdalene laundries nor the Magdalene asylums fit in to definitions of Top or High classifications within WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (specifically WikiProject Catholicism). So for the Members of Wikiproject Catholicism, as it regards Catholicism (not the value of discussing the unfortunate and controversial issues surrounding the Irish Mother-Baby homes) the Magdalene Laundries/Magdalene asylum page is either a  Mid class article or a Low class article. Within the Membership of the Wikiproject Catholicism group, a mid-class importance rating indicates Mid-priority articles on more specialized (sub-)topics; possibly more detailed coverage of topics summarized in "key" articles, and as such their omission would not significantly impair general understanding. These include: "Filioque clause, Knights of Columbus, etc." The low-classification of the importance of articles supported by Wikiproject Catholicism include articles that while still notable,  are highly-specialized or even obscure, not essential for understanding the wider picture ("nice to have" articles). These include topics such as "Quaesitum est, Suburbicarian diocese." In the opinion of this Member of Wikiproject Catholicism, the level of importance to the Members of WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism (specifically  WikiProject Catholicism), this article on the Magdalene Laundries-Magdalene asylums fits in the Mid-classification of importance on the scale as described by the Membership of the Wikiproject. This does not mean that the article is not important, it just identifies where the article fits in the hundreds of other articles supported by Wikiproject Catholicism. When a Member of Wikiproject Catholicism marks this Magdalene Laundries-Magdalene asylums page as of mid importance to the project, other editors of the page who are not Members of the project should try not to be upset by that classification. That is because the mid-level classification of importance does not mean that the article and subject matter are not important, it identifies where the article fits in the particular Wikiproject system. Members of the other Wikiprojects supporting this article will identify where identify the importance level of the article based on their own classification systems.Taram (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvolved members of the project should, and already have, made the determination. zzz (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi zzz (talk), Are you a Member of the Wikiproject Catholicism? If not, would you be so kind as to look into the history and find which Member made that determination? I work during the day and do not have the time spend time on the computer doing that. Thanks for your help.Taram (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

text: If you continue your vandalism of this article, I will report you to administrators. zzz (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Wikipedia's definition of  vandalism: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Correcting incorrect project ratings is not vandalism. Sarah 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Just checking on my way out the door. You can find who rated it by going through the hostory section. Then if you give me the name , I can cross checkit with the membershiip past and present. Thanks!Taram (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

text: zzz , checking in for a minute: did you find any name on the subject, yet?  Back later. Taram (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The project ratings were originally done by an ip. They are obviously incorrect. There is no way this article should be rated as "high" or "top" level importance for any of those projects. Sarah 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like that incorrect project rating happened during a 16-hour copy-editing marathon, involving about 300 edits that were mostly focused on Irish sports people and politicians. The IP address appears to be in Ireland; it would have been an all-night session if the user(s) was actually located there. jxm (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saw your posts, Sarah and jxm (talk). Thank you for checking into that! Taram (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiprojects

message: Since the new material, 2 users have attempted to lower the "importance" level of the article. Reason given in edit summary: 
The mass grave ("specialised sub-topic") doesn't make the subject less important. If it was high importance before, with the info omitted, it must surely be more important now, if anything, not less. zzz (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Omission" refers to the overall article; dropping it entirely "would not significantly impair...." etc. jxm (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Grave Importance 

message: I have now split out Magdalene laundries in Ireland:
*I removed "Magdalene institutions" from the lede. It is not in common usage
*I have created the England and Ireland sections
*Not sure what to do with the media representation section (apart from The Magdealene Sisters film). It is listcruft. Notable publications could be put in Further reading.
::-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good and is much easier to read! Thank you, Alan (talk) Taram (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Just a heads up that here I've noted the lack of a wikilink from Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd. -84user (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdalene laundries in Ireland now split out 

message: Placed previous Australia section here in case someone wants to work on it, as it is copied verbatim from Chenoweth. (Note, link to "Forgotten Australians" appears to be no longer active.)
There are no precise figures for the number of girls who worked in the eight Magdalene laundries, run by the Good Shepherd Sisters, in twentieth-century Australia because Good Shepherd has not released their records.  As a result of the 2004 Senate report "Forgotten Australians" it is known that the Good Shepherd laundries in Australia acted as prisons for the girls who were forced to labor in workhouses laundering linen for local hospitals or commercial premises. The report also described the conditions as characterized by inedible food, unhygienic living conditions and little or no education. In 2008, Senator Andrew Murray likened  the Convent of the Good Shepherd 'The Pines', Adelaide to a prisoner-of-war camp. Mannanan51 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: I heard the women who worked in a magdalene laundry referred to as "gratitude girls" on Australian TV (on a show set in the 1920s).  Is this an Australian euphemism or a general term? -- Beland (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard it used in relation to the Irish laundries, , so may be just an Australian thing? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, looking back on the script it appears that was a fictional program at a fictional laundry. -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratitude girls 

message: Were these institutions primarily a Roman Catholic phenomenon?  Did it vary by country?  The talk page suggests so, but the article is unclear. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backing 

message: The article suggests the first 18th-century institutions were started by what sound like Anglican (Protestant) institutions in England, Wales and Ireland (Church of Ireland is Anglican, not Catholic.) I had thought the laundries were based in Catholic institutions, because they had more of them. This should be organized historically first, then by country. It is clear that Great Britain led the establishment of such institutions, although the movement to help fallen women, at a time of social change with industrialization and urbanization, spread to other English-speaking countries. Thus it does not make sense to discuss Australia before UK. Catholic orders operated many of the laundries in Ireland and the US, which seemed to persist longer than Protestant ones. Parkwells (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize chronologically

message: This article has been completely white washed of negative coverage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29307705
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/20/sisters-of-charity-abuse-maternity-hospital-irish-state
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sidonie-sawyer/-the-true-scandal-of-the-_b_4509415.html
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/un-demands-that-pope-launches-investigation-into-magdalene-laundries-29984197.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki washing 

message: There used to be a section on "Catholic perspective", as a sub-section of the "Ireland" section. But when the main body of the "Ireland" section was moved to its own page, the necessary and useful section on Catholic perspective was eliminated. I've restored a limited version of it, as a stub. But this section really deserves to be much longer, because as it stands the article's predominant tone is very polemical. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as much of what is written about in the Ireland section is known to have happened and has had independent investigations confirming same, the Irish government have acknowledged same, and are currently in the process of compensating survivors based on the findings of independent investigations, I must assume that the U.S. lay Catholic organisation defending the laundries is speaking only to the history of laundries in the U.S., and I've accordingly moved it to a subsection of the U.S. section. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic perspective - again 

message: Was it controversial at the time, or only from a modern perspective? This should be clarified. Equinox ◑ 14:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversially the men in society were never victimised for committing the same crime" 

message: Apart from Sinead O Connor (as is referenced in her own wiki article)— are there any another notable people who once spent time in this ‘system’?  Genetikbliss (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable “alumni” 

message: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/world/europe/magdalene-laundry-reunion-ireland.html 
Orders of Roman Catholic nuns ran the laundries for profit, and women and girls were put to work there, supposedly as a form of penance. The laundries were filled not only with “fallen women” — prostitutes, women who became pregnant out of marriage or as a result of sexual abuse and those who simply failed to conform — but also orphans and deserted or abused children.]]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaxocdncntx (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should include this NYT summary paragraph 

message: — Assignment last updated by Studentinhistoryofsexuilty (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality