Talk:Kermit Gosnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Media Coverage[edit]

If media coverage of Dr. Gosnell's trial is going to be included on this page, I think it's only fair to also include the media's reaction to proposed legislation that was the direct result of it. The legislation proposed in Texas is very much in response to this trial, as well as a similar case in Houston, which is receiving national attention. Wendy Davis, a state Senator, is receiving national coverage (and praise) from outlets for filibustering this legislation. These same outlets, however, did not cover the Gosnell trial. As a result (and because the public is not fully aware of the Gosnell trial), this legislation is being portrayed a bit unfairly and without context.

Do you have any evidence of a connection? I did a quick search and I just see a couple of blogs complaining that the media are covering the filibuster and not Gosnell's trial, but of course Gosnell's trial has been widely covered and we would need a reliable source to be able to draw in other events. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a biography...[edit]

...and not a list of reasons why one side of the abortion debate is composed solely of terrible hypocrites. Since Gosnell has become notable mostly for his going on trial, and there is a genuine issue relating to defects in media coverage of the trial, some such material is on point here. Most of it is not. Argumentative original synthesis about people not named "Kermit Gosnell" definitely does not belong here. If this were an article about the charges and criminal trial, specifically, there might be more room for such things, though not much. In a biography such material is very bad, and should be removed. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He's a convicted murderer now[edit]

Time to update the article!!! 98.118.62.140 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (more to come probably) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The opening sentence should reflect this. Mark.hamid (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Opening sentence now reflects this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many editors on wikipedia unfortunately insist on including their own personal political bias into their edits. The fact of the matter is that Dr. Gosnell is a convicted murderer, his number of murders surpasses several individuals categorized as "serial" murders on this very website. This article has NOTHING to do with abortion, as the legitimate abortions Dr. Gosnell performed aren't in contention, only the murders he committed. The well documented bias of wikipedia, and the efforts of pro/anti abortion zealots will likely guarantee the page remains as absent meaningful content as it is now. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

this is wrong[edit]

"[w]ith eight counts of murder resulting from gross medical malpractice in treatment of patients at his clinics"

The trial did not establish that the infant murders were a result of "malpractice". No, he was convicted of MURDER and there was no mere "malpractice" about it. The death of the adult might rightly be termed malpractice, but the MURDERS of the infants were infanticide, plain and simple. This man is a infant SERIAL KILLER and should be called exactly what he is: A cold-blooded MURDERER !! The information proves at trial is enough to accurately call this man a infant serial killer. But if that's to POV, then at least don't soft-sell his actions against the dead infants (for which he was convicted) as "malpractice". 98.118.62.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the requested change being ignored? This was NOT a "malpractice" case. This was a MURDER trial for MURDERING infants (and one adult). 98.118.62.140 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Legally dangerous wording (infants-babies VS fetuses)[edit]

I'am very surpised by the wording «several had testified to "snipping" the spines of infants. One of these, Steven Massof, testified that he had personally done this over a hundred times,». The word "infant" include the legal meaning of someone already born, an so, the sentences means we face hundred counts of murder, which is not the case. Shouldn't infant be replace by "fetus" be used instead ? Yug (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Federales (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you aware that an incorrect wording on such issue can lead to prosecution of the wikimedia foundation for defamation ? If we keep "infant", please explain fully why. Yug (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, good grief.
We should keep the word "infants" because the sentence is talking about infants. It's in the Grand Jury report. Federales (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • This is dangerously close to a legal threat. Please see WP:NLT.
  • We are reporting the testimony of the witness, not making a claim ourselves. That testimony was given in open court, and has been widely reported on.
  • Indeed, the witness did essentially testify that he himself (under the direction of Gosnell) had possibly committed hundreds of murders (per the precedent set in this trial, where other similar incidents were ruled to be murder). However, we are not claiming he murdered them.
  • The source we are using actually uses the term "babies" rather than infants, but that does not substantially change the meaning. I would be open to quiting directly though.
  • As in at least the 3 cases involved in this trial, the babies were determined to be ruled alive; the witness testi
  • Per the grand jury
    • "When you perform late-term “abortions” by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it “ensuring fetal demise.” The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that “snipping.” Over the years, there were hundreds of “snippings.” Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the “snipping” was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff.
    • and "Gosnell encouraged his staff to kill babies born alive;"
  • claims of prolific (hundreds) "serial killer" status are easy to source from a variety of reliable sources.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

From the Grand Jury report:
"Gosnell’s staff testified about scores of gruesome killings of such born-alive infants carried out mainly by Gosnell, but also by employees Steve Massof, Lynda Williams, and Adrienne Moton."
And yet, the OP's objection isn't so much out of concern at the use of "infants"; it is actually out of preference for the word "fetus".[1] This is a political POV issue, and doesn't stem from any concern about Wikipedia's perceived legal risk. Federales (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
A preference for accuracy isn't a political POV issue - when talking about fetuses, we should use "fetus" rather than "baby" or "infant" (and I've had to correct this in articles before). The problem is that Yug is simply wrong and should really have thought about this some more and looked at the sources, because we're not talking about fetuses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I raise the issue, the talk will decide. Yug (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV if there's controversy about whether a usage of a term like "infant" is neutral in a given context, it should be attributed to whoever said it (e.g. the Grand Jury report) rather than stated in the wikivoice as if it were undisputed. I do see that the at least one pro-life web site has argued that zygotes are babies,[2] while my understanding is they are not currently legally recognized as such in the US. So I'd consider such terms to be somewhat charged. Their uses should therefore be attributed carefully. 2A00:1630:2:F00:0:0:2456:DAE8 (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is it disputed, can you provide WP:RS documenting a dispute of the term? Elizium23 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the dispute in general society as to when life begins, as applied to gosnell, the words baby(ies) and infant(s) have been used by the grand jury, the actual jury (by ruling him guilty of murder), his co-workers (that pled guilty and testified against him) and countless reliable sources using those terms. The only one involved or commenting on this case that used the word "fetus" is Gosnell himself (and his defense) - As he was found guilty, his logic is obviously incorrect. By using the word baby/infant vs fetus, we are not changing the definition of any terms, nor making a news standard to be used in general. We are specifically discussing the babies he fas found guilty of murdering, and the accusations of actions towards other babies in his practice. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Whenever members of the grand jury use "babies" it should be clearly marked as a citation of the grand jury. This was not the case in the former introduction. But it seems fixed now. Yug (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice regarding WP:NLT[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Yug on his user talk page and notifying others here that I have asked for an administrator review of the following section, as people raised concerns of a violation of WP:NLT. I have not accused anybody, just neutrally asked for a review. Safiel (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Abortion clinic[edit]

couple of strongly biased editors are using term "abortion clinic" for Woman healthcare clinic. They are trying to impress their religious views on us/wiki. Sorry but no, you can not use wiki for your propaganda purposes. Woman health care clinics primary care is not abortion. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the first four reliable secondary sources using the term "abortion clinic" which turned up on a Google search. [3] [4] [5] [6] Note that one is from the ultra-liberal Huffington Post. I humbly submit to you that "Women's health care clinic" is much more of a loaded, propaganda term than the other. I know pro-life people who would suggest that abortion is not at all "health care" because pregnancy is not a disease. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, please learn how to spell before editing articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I would further note that this article on the topic of abortion is subject to discretionary sanctions per ARBCOM decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion which means you are bound to WP:1RR in edits, and you have already crossed the line and are eligible for report and block by admins. Please self-revert now to avoid being blocked. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
with the same merit we could find same "reliable" blog calling our president Negro. Are we going to call him that way in his wiki article? I did not think so. Those clinics are not listed as abortion clinics anywhere.care to dispute that? I really don't care what you,or anyone else,call them in their propaganda.This is encyclopedia not bulvar.

50.9.97.53 (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick scan of the first few sources shows pretty conclusively that the only person trying to "impress their views on us" is YOU:
Business Insider [7]:"Kermit Gosnell's Nightmare Abortion Clinic Was A Multimillion-Dollar Business6"
CNN [8]:"West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial for running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed babies who had survived illegal, late-term abortions, and where a woman allegedly died of a botched painkiller injection."
Philadelphia Enquirer [9]:"Saying he did not believe she would leave behind a 13-year-old daughter she has not seen in 11 weeks, a Philadelphia judge Monday told Pearl Gosnell that she could be released on house arrest while she and her husband await trial over the operation of his West Philadelphia abortion clinic."
Associated Press [10]:"Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which operates two hospitals within a mile of Gosnell’s squalid abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, saw at least six of these patients — two of whom died. "
The New York-freakin'-Times [11]:"Squalid Abortion Clinic Escaped State Oversight"
Federales (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
still missing source providing official name of the clinic.Yellow pages etc. Wikipedia is not a bulvar. We need to use official/correct naming. No peacock words. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Excessive detail[edit]

There seems to be no doubt that the crimes of Gosnell were horrendous but I think this account goes into an excessive level of detail. There are serial killers who don't have hundreds of footnoted statements on their biographies. Granted, there is plenty of documentation because of government involvement and investigation of several agencies that doesn't exist in a typical murder trial. Still, I was very interested in this case and I could only get through half of this article before I started to see a lot of repetition, especially of the goriest details (

I'm loathe to cut out or condense large swaths of this piece because I don't want to step into abortion politics. But I'll check back and if no one else has edited this down, I'll make an effort to. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RFC - Described as a serial killer[edit]

CLOSED:

Closing the discussion per wp:SNOW; wp:RS, and wp:BLP. There currently is not enough reliable sourcing (which adhere to the three main principles of BLP) found to substantiate the use of the term "Serial Killer" in regards to the article's subject. Consensus leans heavily to option #1 "Not mentioned," as the majority of reliable, third party references do NOT use the descriptive term of "Serial Killer" or any of the other offered variations. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Kermit Gosnell has been described as a serial killer by a variety of sources, with ABCs Terry Moran (via his Twitter) saying "Probably the most successful serial killer in the history of the world" and a recent film saying "the most prolific serial killer in American History". Below are a smattering of the sources. Should we (eg, is it compliant with policy and consensus to) say

  1. Not mentioned
  2. He has been described as a serial killer
  3. He has been described as the most prolific/successful serial killer in history
  4. He is a serial killer
  5. He is the most prolific/successful serial killer in history
  6. Both #4 & #3
  7. etc (something else)

Some of the sources:

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • #6 or as a fallback #3 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #6 based on WP:RS. While this is a WP:BLP and we don't want to WP:PEACOCK it up by awarding him the uncontested badge of most prolific, it's pretty safe to repeat what the sources are asserting. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 3 it's what the reliable sources support.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1, maybe #2 if properly qualified These are opinion columns, slinging rhetoric, not facts, abnormal psychology, or criminal justice analysis. I fully share in their repugnance at Gosnell's acts, but even a brief reading of our article on serial killers indicates to me that Gosnell is qualitatively different from the likes of John Wayne Gacy. We might note the use of the phrase in the rhetoric of those condemning him, but I would insist on a more dispassionate analysis before allowing a flat statement into the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • 1 unless better sources are presented. None of these are up to the standards we need - hell, some of these are not, or barely, reliable for BLP claims in their news pages and you're using their blogs? Find something better and then we can consider! That's how it works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1 based on the sources presented. This is a BLP. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1, maybe #2 if properly qualified These sources justify describing him as a murderer but not as a serial killer IMO. 94.193.139.22 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1 only. Even #2 seems inappropriate - the case is outwith the normal definition of a serial killer and the sources using the phrase seem to be opinion pieces. For #2 to even be a possibllity it would depend on the significance of the person giving the opinion, and if there is a rational argument presented in that opinion about why his actions amount to him being serial killer (as opposed to someone just saying that he is a serial killer for shock purposes). 188.220.171.232 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1, maybe #2 if properly qualified - Per Mangoe. Sources offered are pretty clearly shenanigans. Frankly, this RfC has the vague odor of a bad faith query posed by someone trying to push pro-life POV. NickCT (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1. Cherry-picking poor sources to make a characterisation clearly driven as much by the debate over abortion as by Gosnell's own actions is unencyclopaedic. Present the facts, and let the readers decide for themselves what they think of him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1. All sources listed are blogs and opinion pieces. As such, they don't pass muster for WP:BLP or WP:RS. Even if we describe what others say about him, these are cherry picked and WP:UNDUE. Mention that he's polarizing and controversial with those sources, but it borders on WP:LIBEL to call him a "serial killer". Also relevant here are the subsections of WP:BLPSTYLE, especially "tone". EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • #1 I would really like to include the description, but this is BLP, and the sources don't permit it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Most of the sources cited seem to be opinion pieces or blogs. As such, they can be cited for the opinions of the authors - as opinions. I can see no reason why Wikipedia has to make any definitive assertions one way or another regarding this - our readers are quite capable of making their own minds up for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump So is that a !vote for #2 or #3? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a !vote. It is a comment, in a section entitled 'threaded discussion'. Personally, I prefer to discuss things first, and then decide what my final position will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts drifted this way as well, Andy. Why can't it say "...has been referenced as one of the most prolific serial killers of all time by national media" or something of that effect? GRUcrule (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
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.

In re: discussion above, the article is currently listed under Category:American serial killers. —Wiki Wikardo 06:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kermit_Gosnell&oldid=608161299"