Methodology
This page sets out how documents and claims are assessed, sourced and categorised on this site. It applies equally to claims that favour the Bon Secours Sisters and the Catholic Church, claims that are critical of them, official state findings, and media reporting. No claim gets special treatment because of who made it or who it favours.
Source standards
- Primary sources first. Where possible, we link to the original document (the official report, the statement, the registry) rather than a summary of it.
- Every item is dated and attributed. We record who produced a document, when, and where it can be independently verified.
- Quotations are exact. Where we quote a source, the wording is checked against the original document, not against a paraphrase in secondary reporting.
- Corrections are tracked, not hidden. Where a claim or document has since been corrected or clarified, we show the correction alongside the original, not instead of it.
How we categorise information
| Category | Standard applied |
|---|---|
| Documented fact | Directly confirmed by an original, linkable record. |
| Official finding | A conclusion published by a state investigative body, cited to the specific report and page/section where possible. |
| Public claim | Attributed to where and when it was made (a named outlet, campaigner, or statement) and checked against the documents available. |
| Interpretation | Clearly labelled as a reading of undisputed facts, not presented as fact itself. |
| Unresolved question | Stated plainly as unresolved, with what would be needed to resolve it, rather than filled in with assumption. |
What we do not do
- We do not use loaded language (for example: "hoax," "cover-up," "propaganda," "scandal exposed") to describe any party's position. See the language note below.
- We do not treat a claim as true because it is widely repeated, and we do not treat an official finding as final where the record shows it is genuinely still open (for example, several structures at the Tuam site have not yet been excavated as of this writing).
- We do not invent or estimate figures. Where a number is uncertain, we say so and cite the range given in the source.
Language we use
We use terms such as public claim, source evidence, official record, forensic update, correction, documented fact, and unresolved question. We avoid inflammatory framing in either direction. This is a reference archive, not a campaign site.
A limitation of the evidence, stated plainly
The individual Sisters of Bon Secours who staffed the Tuam home between 1925 and 1961 are now deceased, as are most others who worked there in that period. For events from those years, this site can only work from what was written down at the time or given in later testimony, not from a living first-hand account by anyone who ran the home. This limitation applies equally in both directions: it means no individual Sister can now confirm or contest a specific description of her own conduct, and it means no surviving account of conditions inside the home can be tested against a reply from the person it describes. Readers should weigh individual claims, whether critical or favourable, with that absence in mind.
Corrections process
If you believe an entry on this site is inaccurate, out of date, or missing important context, please see Contact & Corrections. Corrections that are supported by a source will be reflected on the relevant page, with a visible note of what changed and when.