Talk:Bon Secours Sisters

message: At the end of this extended p.r. release, one sees the short mention of 800 babies buried by these nuns in septic tank.  Maybe more research and a better balanced article will be the ultimate result.  24.44.243.38 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27710206 If the article is correct, many or even all the children born at the home in Tuam were denied baptism! Just what sort of charity was this at the time (c. 1925-61?)  Norvo (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange punchline 

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

message: Ok, Bastun. The BBC article didn't say where it got its "death by malnutrition" info from, but I guess that's what makes the BBC such a ... cough ... reliable source, right? LOL  In my line of work, if you don't cite your sources you're considered a bloody fraud. But, I suppose at least it's something. 
You didn't address the other changes I made, but only reverted them. I gave reasons for making those changes in the edit comments, and I haven't seen any rationale for reverting them.
So I'm going to add this stuff back. And I'm gonna look at the "main article" you referred to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookncrem (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the BBC is absolutely a reliable source. There are multiple sources that reference death by malnutrition in the main article, not just the BBC. Please don't remove references from Wikipedia articles.  It's also good practice to avoid making multiple changes throughout an article with a single save. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

text: I have restored the sentence stating that deaths at this home were twice the national average.  It's sourced. Please do not remove referenced material, or references. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest that we carefully refine this sentence, since the cited report concerns a comparison for just a single year. I believe we should make that clearer in the article. On a related note, we should try to refrain from using the word 'average' in some of this material, unless it's included in the citation itself. The problem is that averages are easily skewed, especially if major accidents or outbreaks of illness occur unevenly over times or locations. Just a thought....   jxm (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with improving the wording, Jxm.  Do you have a formulation you'd prefer?  I think the use of "an average of two a week" is justified as it's over a period of 36 years.  My comment just above is incorrect - the sentence I restored doesn't state that the number of deaths was twice the national average, rather that it was twice the rate of some other mother and baby homes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: In this edit, Jxm changes "The child mortality at the home had averaged up to two a week , and (it was claimed) evidenced the discrimination and maltreatment that children of unwed mothers experienced while at the home." to " It was claimed that the high child mortality rate at the home evidenced...", stating in the edit summary "Drop improper use of 'average' - WP:OR and not in the cited refs)".
First reference (The Washington Post): 'Infant mortality at the Home was staggeringly high. “If you look at the records, babies were dying two a week, but I’m still trying to figure out how they could [put the bodies in a septic tank],” Corless said. “Couldn’t they have afforded baby coffins?”'
Second reference (NPR): "The death rate was high — 300 children perished in the span of three years, according to the report cited in the newspaper."
Wikipedia's WP:OR policy does not prevent extrapolating "up to two a week" from 300 divided by 3 divided by 52. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thnx fr yr comment, . As I mentioned above a couple of weeks ago, I think we should be cautious about using 'average' with data that clearly cannot pass a statistical test for normal distribution. I'm concerned about us simply adding to some of the sensational stuff that's already flying around. Combining the Kenny numbers from the main article and the 300 from NPR suggests that half of all deaths occurred during bad periods that accumulate to less than 5 out of the 36 years. So maybe we can incorporate a phrase like "many of whom died during various epidemics...." or something.  The WashPost ref is actually a quote from Corless, so perhaps we should use 'it is claimed' or somesuch descriptor for that. As for the NPR number, I believe we should probably specify the reported period (presumably 1941-1944). Otherwise, we might as well just cherry-pick some Kenny figures and claim "more than four per week". Thoughts? jxm (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. That's what I've been saying. Someone could pick out one particularly bad day during an epidemic when (for example) 20 children died in a single twenty-four hour period, then claim the average rate was 20 per day. That's just bloody absurd. But that's the type of statistical trick the media has been playing (not that extreme of course, but much the same principle). Cookncrem (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've raised the policy issue here. jxm (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Average" death rate 

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

message: "The independent not-for-profit[13] Bon Secours Health System, one of largest hospital groups in Ireland, developed from the initial Bon Secours hospitals." It says BSHS is NFP, as does the reference. What's the problem? Manannan67 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my edit summary should have said "next sentence." Bon Secours Health Systems Ltd is a private company limited by guarantee. It's for=profit. "In 2015 it had about 2,700 staff who worked with 350 medical consultants and saw more than 200,000 patients, making €2.5 million in profit after paying €3 million to the order in rent." Independent source, as opposed to WP:PRIMARY. See also here. This one quotes the directors as saying profits had dropped due staff costs. No objection to including that - like all healthcare providers in Ireland - it's a registered charity, but it is for-profit. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSHS 

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

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