Talk:Kermit Gosnell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reactions section

The reactions section seems like a long list of quotations of people from different ideological positions condemning his arrest. While this may currently be interesting in the sense of Gosnell's arrest being a top news story, in the long run, might this quotation collection be overkill? Kansan (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree - unnecessary. This isn't an article on the rights and wrongs of legal abortion, but about allegations of murder. In any case, the section needs rewriting in prose format if it is to be kept. There is also the issue that several of the comments apparently presume guilt, which at this stage is a violation of WP:BLP policy. I've removed the most problematic ones for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree - unnecessary and certainly overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.135.58 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to WP:BLP policy here?

This article violated WP:BLP policy in many ways - most notably in making statements that assume guilt before trial. Can I ask contributors to take proper note of policy here? I know this is an emotive subject, but that doesn't excuse poor standards. I've just removed the most flagrant content violations for now, and will look at restoring what can usefully be included in a more appropriate manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, all too common on WP. I concur with your stance. Collect (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're fine with "allegedly" and "supposedly" in the same sentence? General practice is to just use allegedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.119.3 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Fraudulent abortion practices"

Whatever is this supposed to mean? How is an abortion or an abortion practice fraudulent? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is suggested that some of the staff were claiming to have medical qualifications that they didn't, which would probably be fraudulent. It is also alleged that Gosnell used methods to hide the fact that abortions were carried out after the legal maximum, which again might be fraud - though also illegal in other ways, if true. I'm inclined to agree that 'fraudulent' isn't perhaps the best term though. The article still needs more work, though I think I've at least removed the obvious BLP violations. It could do with a bit more research I suspect, as I had to be fairly brutal with my edits - the 'illegal drugs' issue needs adding back in, with balance and proper sources, and it should probably say a bit more about the others facing charges. This of course leads to the issue as to whether the article should be about Gosnell, or about his clinics. I'll leave this to others to think about for now, and maybe do a little research tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The "practice" in medical parlance is the establishment run by a doctor. If such a "practice" is deemed legally "fraudulent" then that is entirely the right wording. Meanwhile, the wording seems to avoid that problem now. Collect (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks. It also doesn't fully convey the issue around these clinics, though - we discuss the murder charges in the next sentence, but the wording seems to give odd prominence to the fraud part. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Gosnell was operating an unlicensed clinic. That is the very definition of fraudulent.

Readers who are less familiar with medical terms may interpret "fraudulent abortion practice" as meaning something like "the habit of doing fraudulent abortions" — which would be confusing; what's a fraudulent abortion? Saying "fraudulent medical practice" might suggest something like selling snake-oil or fake drugs, but might still be an improvement. But if the accusation is one of medical services being delivered by unlicensed practitioners, may as well say just that — "unlicensed practice of medicine" maybe? —FOo (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2012 multiple issues

I was casually browsing Wiki and came across this article. I had to log on just to tag it because the article has quite a bit of potential and could easily be turned around by an interested editor. The history section is confusing and could use some cleanup as far as the structure of the section. Also, the reactions section has great quotations from particularly notable persons but the bullet point list is a bit arduous and needs some organization. cReep talk 07:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a disinterested editor would be of more help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.250.158.34 (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Deletion discussion has been closed as keep anything else here will just veer into WP:NOTAFORUM. Safiel (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Extended content

The fact that this article is nominated for deletion when all it clearly needs is some editing exposes the blatant left wing bias by many who come here under a ruse of neutrality. This is a typical knee jerk reaction by far left zealots to protect the abortion industry at any cost. This kind of thing is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.52.148 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) This is certainly notable. If the 2012 Aurora shooting is notable enough for an entry, this certainly should be. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I agree that this article shouldn't be deleted. However it does need some better editing. -- ETbyrne (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Don't call it 'deletion,' call it 'politically expedient removal.' struggle (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with Charlie from Colorado. This incident is just as notable as Newtown, Aurora, George Tiller or many others. The mere fact that some want to delete this shows the incredibly effective blinders many on the left wear. This article should be deleted because IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. 12.48.88.1 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) This article should not be deleted. MatthewRobertOlson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Agreed that there is no way this article should be deleted. It's clearly notable. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) On what basis was its deletion argued? I would love to know. It reminds me of a Jim Carey line in the movie Liar, Liar. During court Carey stands up and objects to an action of opposing counsel. Judge says, "On what basis do you object?" He replied, "Because it is devistating to my case!"Billturner1983 (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC) The article should not be deleted. The mainstream media has, to some extent, finally picked up on the case--it seems they had to be shamed into it thanks to an op-ed by Kirsten Powers at USA Today. If the Aurora movie theatre shooting and Sandy Hook are notable, then the killings that took place at Dr. Gosnell's clinic are also notable. If the allegations are in fact true, then that would mean that more people (in this case newborns) died at 3801 Lancaster than Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook combined. About 10-20 times as many. That is definitely notable. It would easily make Gosnell the worst serial killer in US history. Msawyer91 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Reading the discussion there was an overwhelming majority in favour of keeping, the tag has since been removed, lets not worry about it anymore and focus on fixing the flow of the article to satisfactory standards for such a reasonably notable case.--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Works for me. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC) That's fine, but the real issue here is how ready certain people were to delete it. This is a topic for discussion as well, though perhaps not HERE. Another place to discuss it should be opened by the admin types and a pointer to there should be created. Perhaps some actual discussion about the Wiki tendency to reflect only the Lefty opinion on "hot button" issues can be brought to the fore... like perhaps twin editors, reflecting each point of view, to control changes... I dunno, something. What you have sucks. --OBloodyHell (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Delete this article! It will be used as a weapon against a woman's right to control her fertility. Delete it now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.68.87 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2013 (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.

Mug shot (was "Image")

Leaving aside the policy Wikipedia supposedly has against using mugshots for people not convicted, File:Kermit_Gosnell_mug.jpg is claimed to be "a work of the United States Federal Government" and public domain as a result. I can't turn up any evidence that he was ever in federal custody, and mugshots taken by local authorities aren't necessarily free of copyright. The image description page is no help in clarifying this. Does anyone know for certain where the image came from? 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Surely there are plenty of better images now available online? Click here for Google search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbobhurst (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell is facing both Federal charges and state charges. The Federal charges are for allegedly running a pill mill, selling prescriptions for medications such as OxyContin and Percocet. The state charges are for first degree capital murder (7 counts for the babies), one count of third degree murder of one of the mothers and several other charges, including corruption of a minor. He likely has both Federal and state booking photographs. Msawyer91 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Msawyer91, do you have any specific information about where this specific image came from? If you can show evidence that it was taken by a federal employee, that would make it a free image. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, here's the straight skinny: It's true that the mugshot is not a work of the federal government, and so is not presumed to be in the public domain. It is, further, true that the Philadelphia Police Department's website would appear to have a notice on it which includes the mugshot in its declared copyright protections. As a practical matter, though, the mugshot image might or might not actually be in the public domain... at least effectively, in the sense that everyone in media knows that all mugshots may be used in an unlimited manner, even for commercial purposes, despite whatever might be on the website of the police department which created said mugshot (let's not forget that the courts have found that failure to actively defend either copyrights or trademarks can ultimately lead to a determination that they're effectively void).

However, in this particular mugshot's case, all of that is moot because it has, indeed, been released, by the Philadelphia District Attorney's office (which, as the highest-ranking law enforcement office in the Philadelphia jurisdiction, has the power to so release) for use by Wikipedia and all of its downstream users, including for commercial purposes; and so it is, in effect, released pursuant to the {{cc-zero}} template...

...which I am in the process of formalizing, even as I'm writing this. All of my work (and it's considerable, at this point) regarding same is assiduously and painstakingly documented in the mugshot's 12 April 2013 PUF discussion -- which is where visitors to Gosnell's article were referred, by a link beneath the mugshot, before it was unilaterally removed today -- to participate in the discussion about whether or not to remove it. Said visitors have now, by its removal despite the formalization of its authorization for use by Wikipedia being both mid-process and timely executed by me, been deprived of said participation. No one gets to unilaterally so deprive... especially if not also posting about it, here, on the "Talk" page. No one's supposed to have that kind of power! The user who actually did it apparently thinks otherwise. Again, please read the entire (unforunately, now, long) discussion about it over on the mugshot's 12 April 2013 PUF discussion page to see what I'm talking about.

In the meantime, pursuant thereto, I'm now reversing that user's removal of the mugshot from the article; and I will then continue my timely pursuit of the formalization of its authorized use here, as I was working on before its removal distracted me away from that task, and wasted my time until it became so late in the day, on a Friday, that I could no longer continue my discussion about it with the Philadelphia District Attorney's office (which, I confess, angers me no end; and which, had I completed it, might have allowed it time to send its email to Wikipedia OTRS, which I was right in the middle of tutoring it how to do at the time). I am taking responsibility for all this: If it turns out that I can't, once and for all, get the more formalized release that I've been more informally given, then I will happily remove the mugshot from the article, once and for all.

[sigh] Patience, everyone! Please.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hmm. Looks like someone else reversed it... beat me to it. Oh, well, matters not, as long as it got done.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

i tried to tidy the history section, its hard to find a proper bio even though it surely exists. I read somewhere he has children, in one article a son helped in the clinic, in others his daughters are mentioned. Another mentioned they were present at the trial, but I couldnt find it again and it would need verification. He had 3 wives and obviously no mention of the previous ones.

Other than that an editor with a decent knowledge of WP layout guidelines (which is not me) could fix it. It is certainly notable for several reasons and has been widely reported. I realise i was Bold in going ahead with changes, feel free to comment or edit or we can discuss here. I am open for discussion.--178.148.218.205 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC) ps. this is me --Fredbobhurst (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

i see my changes were duly undone without any concern for the issues i raised. Most of the sources I replaced seemed to have been automatically generated and were not in fact accurate. Im not sure why reverting all of it to its original unorganised state was helpful I will start editing again but as i said i am open for discussion. The article should be improved it is big news and will be bigger as time goes on. It will probably subject to alot of vandalism and we need to keep on top of it. As it stands its very messy.

I accept im not an experienced editor so I will start posting my reasonings for changes here and people can explain what is wrong with it.

• So first of all the opening paragraph provides no real information about the person. In History it mentions his school and nothing more. I added his age, birth and school information.
  • Kermit Gosnell was born in February 1941 and is the only child of a gas station operator and government clerk. He was a top student at the city's prestigious Central High School and graduated from the Jefferson Medical School in 1966. He became an early proponent of abortion rights in the 1960s and 1970s, and and in 1972 he returned from a stint in New York City to open up a clinic in on Lancaster Avenue in the impoverished Mantua neighborhood, West Philadelphia near where he grew up. He was married three times. His third wife Pearl worked at the Women’s Medical Society, as a full-time medical assistant from 1982 until she married Kermit Gosnell in 1990.

I of course referenced everything from what I assume is a reliable sources; abclocal and NBC Philadelphia. I added it in, there should be no reason for deletion if so please explain what I'm doing wrong. More information probably can and should be found. We know he has kids but I cant verify how many etc.

• now it gets tricky because we are mixing his "history" with the allegations and trial. Regardless; " He allegedly employed his wife, Pearl, at his abortion clinic, who has also been arrested". How is it alleged when she has not only been arrested but pleaded guilty, its clear the article is out of date. She did work at the clinic this not contested. the sources detail her role:

After that she assisted her husband on Sundays, when the clinic was normally closed, to perform extremely late-term abortions. It is claimed that Gosnell is not certified in either gynecology or obstetrics. Pearl Gosnell has no medical license, according to the grand jury report. and is licensed in cosmetology. It has been reported that he was well known for providing abortions to poor minority and immigrant women and it is claimed that Gosnell charged $1,600-$3,000 for each late-term abortion.

This is what I added in history giving an idea of the clinics operation. Again I see no problem with adding what I added to the existing text.

• Surely this sentence should be moved to the chapter Arrest and alleged malpractice (and shouldnt the heading be switched to; Alleged Malpractice and Arrest):

The FBI and DEA raided his office in February 2010 and word quickly circulated about the poor and unsanitary conditions inside the building.

• • what follows is details of various issues of negligence and malpractice. Surely they should be given some sort of subheading. They are not part of his Bio history. The prose should lead into it in some way:

"From early on concerns had been raised at various levels about the clinic". Presumably it should be chronological which is why i started with 1998 Some of the sentences are worded strangely and the sources arent great I tried to help and was obviously ignored. but here goes again.

On January 31, 1998, a then 15 year old Robyn Reid in the company of her grandmother sought an abortion from Gosnell's clinic - a triangle shaped building in West Philadelphia called Women's Medical Society. Once she was in the clinic, though, Reid, an 87-pound teenager at the time, told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion. Gosnell apparently got upset, ripped off Reid's clothes, and restrained the girl. Reid stated that Gosnell told her, "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." Reid regained consciousness 12 hours later at her aunt's home, with the abortion having been completed against her will.

I merely added context to what was there before, this sentence it seems was removed altogether.

• In 2001, Nicole Gaither, approximately 28 years old, sought her first and only abortion from Gosnell after five months of pregnancy. After four days, she said, the pain was so bad she could barely walk. She returned to the clinic as a result of the excruciating pain. Gosnell performed an ultrasound on Gaither and discovered he left fetal remains inside her womb. He then proceeded to suction out the fetal remains without anesthesia.

again i merely elaborated on the case using sourced material. I left in the original source if it helps and added another.

• In Novemeber 2006 Gosnell was not able to complete an abortion for Dana Haynes, but apparently waited hours to call paramedics after it was apparent she needed help. "I couldn't believe that a doctor would have done this to me," Haynes said. "I really felt like he was going to let me die." Haynes filed a civil lawsuit against Gosnell but the lawsuit was dismissed because Haynes missed a deadline.

I re added it, it seems somewhere this piece too was removed. Its notable in history because she took a lawsuit before his trial.

• A judge awarded another Gosnell patient after court found that Gosnell performed an abortion on a fifteen-year-old without parental permission

a judge awarded which patient what?? the source does not give much information for this.

• The Pennsylvania Department of Health did nothing when they became aware of Gosnell's involvement in the death of Karnamaya Mongar.

My edit was to say "The Pennsylvania Department of Health apparently did not act on the information it received about Karnamaya Mongar’s death at Gosnell’s hands." Did nothing is subjective to say "they did not act" is more encyclopedic. The source merely states "e department was informed of Mongar’s death at Gosnell’s hands", it does not say "it did nothing".

• The trial is very bad. It has 1 sentence, so thanks for removing all of my Additions. here goes again.

On March 18, 2013, opening statements were given in a Philadelphia court. Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder as well as multiple counts of conspiracy, criminal solicitation and violation of a state law that forbids abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy.

Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan, is the eight victim. Prosecutors say Gosnell's staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers during a 2009 abortion. Former Philadelphia city prosecutor Jack McMahon represents Gosnell and his wife. McMahon argues that Karnamaya Mongar also had other drugs in her system that did not come from Gosnell's clinic. He also argues that none of the infants were born alive. No physical evidence exists in five of the deaths; the murder charges are instead based on staff testimony that the babies moved or cried. Authorities have a photograph of the sixth baby, who allegedly had a gestational age of 30 weeks, and the body of the seventh.

Eight co-defendants have pleaded guilty, most of whom will testify against Gosnell. Three of them pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, which carries a 20- to 40-year term. Gosnell's wife pleaded guilty to performing illegal abortions, conspiracy, criminal conspiracy and corrupt organization. Spousal privilege, means that she won’t have to testify against Gosnell but she may still go to prison. Pearl testified to the grand jury that she alone assisted on Sundays, and that her role was to “help do the instruments” in the procedure room and to monitor patients in the recovery room. Another employee testified that Pearl assisted with late-term abortions “on Sundays or days we were closed [to] do special cases.” Pearl Gosnell is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 15.

The only employee on trial with Gosnell is Eileen O'Neill, 52, of Phoenixville, who allegedly held herself out as a doctor at the clinic when she was not licensed. Her lawyer told jurors she never did so, and only performed medical duties under Gosnell's orders.

McMahon has stated that "Everybody's made him the butcher, this, that and the other thing without any trial, without anything being exposed to the public and everybody's found him guilty, that's not right," said McMahon. He accused the government of "a lynching" in going after their client, who is black. "This is a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who's done nothing but give (back) to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia," Jack McMahon told the predominantly black jury. "It's a prosecutorial lynching of Dr. Kermit Gosnell."

Gosnell faces the death penalty if convicted of first-degree murder in the infant deaths. He is charged with third-degree murder in Mongar's death.

• I added in the stuff i had on the perceived media blackout (especially as its mentioned but sparcely sourced)

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Serial Killer

It appears to me that much of the focus has related to abortion but from the grand jury report it appears that the guy was a serial killer. I saw the tweet from Terry Moran today so looked up the Grand Jury Report. (Terry Moran is a Nightline co-anchor.) Right up front that states this: "This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it."

I wonder if this case is going to go in the serial killer direction? SunSw0rd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• the case is harrowing but we obviously need to be careful about OR and POV. --Fredbobhurst (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes understand. Read however the story in the The Atlantic dated April 12th 2013. As the author points out there are a HUGE number of serious issues here. The serial killer aspect is only one of them. SunSw0rd (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

if you followed my additions you'll notice I added it to the article. Defining him as a serial killer is OR unless there are several reliable sources making that statement. you might think he is a serial killer (but then again most pro-lifers would consider All Abortionists serial killers) but we cant just say it out of context and without it being part of the discourse.

and as usual i forgot to sign--Fredbobhurst (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

To do

So as a less than experienced editor, what *needs&* to be done? A structure is slowly taking shape but there are still several problems for a case that is and will be so big.

• On the positive side i think most of the stuff has been verified and sourced with reliable references. But much of it doesnt fit in with a proper prose.
• in the deletion discussion there were several proposals to rename it. There are pros and cons, the case does involve several individuals, most of whom pleaded guilty (including Pearl Gosnell), and issues including the media coverage and the broader Abortion issue. On the other hand the litany of violations and prior lawsuits leading up to his arrest are a part of His character and make him Notable also
• as I just said. The prior complaints section should include everything not related to the trial but related to his malpractice;

lawsuits, regulations not followed, licensing issues, deaths, any case not being discussed in the trial. perhaps change the heading to "prior controversies" or something.

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as familiar with Wiki's policy so I am mentioning this here rather than edit. Shouldn't the Twitter media campaign be included or at least put on its own page and linked?

its mentioned under "reactions", and i have 4 or 5 references of the discourse surrounding the lack of coverage. This can indeed be given a separate section but I would avoid it until at least until the "reactions" section is also tidied. --Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

216.226.184.94 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Archena

Quick "first thoughts" as a more experienced editor:

1. Article name is very important but sometimes hard to "get right". It should be explanatory and neutral. Even for persons guilty of crime, often it is the incident or happening, rather than the person, which is "more important", and our policies strongly lean towards naming the article for the event rather than the criminal - so for example many other mass killings are titled by the killing event, not the killer's name. A separate article may exist for each, if logistically required, but if they would overlap a lot or there isn't much to say about one that wouldn't be said about the other, then one might lean to a common article for the criminal and crime, often named for the event or crime. There aren't "hard and fast" rules on it, but here I'd expect to lean towards something like Kermit Gosnell abortion center trials for example. Wikipedia tends to try and describe how a topic is seen by authoritative sources and while many people are in the case, the coverage is very much focused on Gosnell as the founder and directing person and "key player" in the matter, so using his name alone would be sensible.

   while i agree in principle, I still think He is (and will be particularly if he gets convicted and the Death penalty issue arises) notable. His past dealings with the law, his licensing issues, the lawsuits against him personally, the documentary about him in 1972 and more recently,(?) his character and personality inform the case and the context. It is clear that there is more to it than just him though as you outline below, even if his wife can be included with him there were other employees and the case itself is More Notable than Him alone. In the long run it could be split?--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

   What would happen is an article would exist on Kermit Gosnell - but it would be a redirect to the article on the case. So people could find the same material by either means. Typically it's worth splitting out if there is a lot to say on him, separate from the case. But here, everything else is background for the case. He isn't really of note in a context other than the case, and without the case wouldn't be likely to have an article himself. The case is why we have an article - that a clinic was shut down, clinical murder indictments, other indictments, investigations, media coverage, and the rest. In an odd way, Gosnell himself is only notable as the person who is seen as "Most responsible" for the case centered events, and the person whom the case-related events center around (so to speak). Apart from the specific event(s) (ie the case and related horrific findings/repercussions which was what gained the significant coverage), frankly very few people would care to the point of notability about him. (useful though subjective policy link: People noted for one event). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

   Gosnell took part in the innovative and failed super coil Philly abortion trial. He is also a legal innovator in starting abortions that were past DE's time of abortion in DE but finishing them in PA where such abortions were legal. For both of these innovations in his craft, he is notable beyond the trial. Setting up a separate trial article might be appropriate though. TMLutas (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

2. It would be appropriate to state facts relevant to the centres and case, which are the core of the article. The less they touch directly on the practice, facts and cases (and analysis of these) the less relevant they are for Wikipedia purposes. So for example, these would be reasonable and desirable:

   • A summary in bullet form listing others charged, their role or key findings, and trial outcomes;
   • Better summary of the 2010 matter - what led to it, what happened, any other legal investigations, or analysis of these?
   • A SUMMARY (probably) of missing important information if any, related to relevant matters mentioned above such as malpractice, lawsuits, licensing etc
   • A BULLET SUMMARY or 1 - 2 SENTENCE SUMMARY of applicable laws or regulations which weren't followed.
   • A BRIEF summary if desired, of the legal regime - what laws govern such practices, what regulation exists, and what (in a short sentence or 3) is required of them by law?
   • A BRIEF summary of any reports or key findings useful to the case.

   Agreed. The case itself could use context like the regulations not followed etc. but neutrality and sources will be tricky.

   Shouldn't be. The facts we need are in the legal indictments and reports, the trial reporting, press statements, law books, past media coverage, and the like. Aim for a similar style and fill in the gaps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

3. Timeline is a bit lacking. We hear he was investigated in 2010 but never hear why, or what resulted, but the next we hear is that some pleaded guilty in 2011 but we never hear what happened between the previous event and this. We don't hear when it "broke" and when the arrest was, or when indictments were sought or filed. So it could do with a bit more timeline, especially (but not only) from when "rumblings first started" (and what caused it) to April 2013. We never hear the early history of the clinics - he was on TV in 1972.. was he a celebrity? How did they grow? Were there early "adulating reports or was the media silent from 1972-2009 with brief exceptions? It doesn't need a lot of detail, but imagine explaining the case to someone who doesn't know it, what do they need to know to "get" the passage of key events and "who did what"?

   It is confused and needs to be reworded, the raid in 2010 was by the DEA (and FBI) in relation to this illegal pill selling. It was the agents testimony of what they witness which ultimately lead to his arrest. The article doesnt distinguish that he is being charged for the murders but separately in a federal case for the Pill stuff.--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

4. Analysis is always worthwhile. An article like this recounts the events for sure. But what of the analysis? People will have analyzed the case - how it happened, what weaknesses in law or regulation made it possible, legal analysis of the case itself and of the charges, "what the case shows" (or potential/perceived longer term "meaning", significance, or social impact), and analysis of who was to blame for what (and rebuttals), expert dissections, nature/extent of domestic vs overseas coverage and how it was seen, etc. Again, not bookloads, but an analysis (or summary) of the public and legal and political analysis is very important to cover. I'd aim to avoid "name dropping", their role or "authority" or "position" is useful (example style:- "John Doe, a legal analyst for social policy thinktank Don't Discuss It Now!, commented that....." etc)

   Analysis, yes, impact and importance. It will be interesting now that mainstream (ie liberal/prochoice) media will take more notice, what they will make of it. Prolifers have been talking about it since he was arrested in 2011 so again Neutral POV will be important.--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

5. Social impact is relevant, but we aim to summarize so it's easy to get, rather than just copy out everything anyone said. We describe this as "characterizing" the case rather than "replaying" or "rehashing" it - we sum up what is known or said, so a reader gets the core points salient to understanding the matter. We don't need to tell them what to think, the facts plainly stated are what matters (although thayt can include facts about what "significant" people opined, or believed, even if it eventually turned out as been incorrectly believed). So if there was a high profile campaign or discussion, we might cover it briefly, but we're trying to sum up its essence, not just replay it "blow for blow" like news media might attempt.

   The reactions section needs a good tidy and im not sure what to make of it, the discussion over media coverage and twitter campaign does add a wider scope to the case's significance. --Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Obviously when I say "brief" or "one-two sentences" there is flexibility (it's Wikipedia, do what seems needed!) - it's a way of saying "we shouldn't need to say volumes or replay everything, sum it up and get the important essence of it (if any). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd add a quick summary to this, about style and name-dropping, for those new(iush) to editing. It can be tricky to convey these; I'll try to cover the gist of it, but please don't bite if I word it wrongly (for you!!):

Names of "non-core people" are not always needed. Doubly so names of victims, minors, the uninvolved. Many people's names aren't really needed unless they feel like they add something. So it's quite alright to say "The arresting officer stated..." or "A victim age 34 commented that..." -- these are often people who could be "any officer who happened to respond that day" or "whichever person was the director of that body" or "whatever person had walked in the store" - we have no especial need to throw their name in as it's their position or role making them of value, not their name (even if the media writes loads about them to get a "human angle"!). As a reference source, Wikipedia has a DIFFERENT TAKE from mass media. In news media it's axiomatic to lead off with a name or human "hook", it creates interest and humanizes the story, and engages the reader emotionally (or persuades them to think, to agree, to feel some emotion, etc). Wikipedia isn't really in the persuading style as much as the educating style. Facts speak heavily for themselves, you don't need to shout how evil someone is if a list of legal findings of their actions or charges says it all. So we're aiming to educate not "win over". The style reflects that (even in horrific/emotional human-interest topics like this one). One can more than in usual press, afford to be dispassionate and try to state the essence of what's known and salient. One might almost say it's a neutral recital of data (if that gets the idea and isn't an unreasonably cold and clinical analogy!), or if preferred, one can ask oneself "what does a reader need to know here, to understand the topic" - that works quite well too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I also formatted the indents on your comments - take a look to see how I did it :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

added section - Medical Practice

Gosnell's practice was complex and really needs to be described properly in order for people to understand what is going on. There are currently too many pronouns going on here so it's not clear that we're mostly talking about Gosnell's PA operation. This guy had his fingers in NY, PA, DE and LA at some point. The innovative avoidance of Delaware law by starting abortions in DE and finishing them in PA really needs its own section and makes Gosnell ripe for a federal case if we happen to get a pro-life AG before this guy dies. TMLutas (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

if you can source it well, by all means, just be careful of POV.--Fredbobhurst (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Drudge

This link is on the front page of Drudge today --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

what is wiki's policy of including controversy about wikipedia articles in the article itself...? Sad, but proves it is really notable and should also places an obligation on us to bring it up to a good standard as this article is notable in and of itself :p --Fredbobhurst (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage

Conservative blog has some interesting but obviously POV stuff http://newsbusters.org/category/people/kermit-gosnell I particularly like this bit from the ahem only New York Times article. "A doctor who operated a women’s health clinic here killed seven viable fetuses by plunging scissors into their necks and “snipping” their spinal cords and was also responsible for the death of a pregnant woman in his care". http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/philadelphia-abortion-doctors-murder-trial-opens.html?_r=1& ...for what should be a reliable newspaper it seems to have missed the point that he is charged with: killing seven living breathing babies, so please bear in mind that all journalists are subject to bias and we need to avoid pandering to either side and focus on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.216.249 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Killing babies

I daresay the most inflammatory aspect of the Gosnell controversy is the accusation that he "killed live babies". As I recall from trying to mediate articles on the Abortion controversy, the definition of baby and human are slippery.

There are ethical and legal issues here. Deliberately killing another human being who is not posing any immediate threat to you, is generally considered murder. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is labeled "murder" by abortion opponents. But it's "no big deal" to others.

Lets try to get some more information on the implications of Dr. Gosnell's (alleged) actions. Why are people so upset with him? Who said what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with abortion. Gosnell has been accused of killing live, breathing, moving babies, after they were born. That is murder - not abortion. Ss6j81avz (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

there is a discussion to be had over the implications of the case for abortion regulation and policy. simply put people are upset with him for killing people (and pro choicers are upset with him for providing unsafe abortions). Is wikipedia a discussion board where we can discuss the difference between killing a 2 second old baby and aborting a 30 week "fetus" in the womb? or is it a place where we outline the facts of an event or person, their implications for the community and society and how its being discussed by the society. --Fredbobhurst (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all true - however it's largely not our dispute when editing Wikipedia. This is what is meant by neutral point of view, a mandatory policy on Wikipedia. As we edit Wikipedia here, and not the news or a blog, we don't have to answer these perplexing questions to do our job properly. We do note the controversy (if there's evidence one exists), and describe the views on it (if any), and we do try to find language that won't come over as biased if there is genuine concern whether it's partisan or neutral. That's why, for example, when I edited, I used the expression "fetuses and babies" or "fetuses or babies", because we don't know which, we don't know if it was sometimes one and sometimes the other -- and it's actually not Wikipedia's or our place to make that decision here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. While it is notable both for the terrible crimes, it is also notable because of its association with the controversial abortion issue. We do have to be careful in discussing it. This is an encyclopedia and not necessarily a debating board. Once the discourse gets going we can keep track of it but I dont feel its for us to decide the nuances of terminology surrounding the debate.

He is being charged with murder of newborns (the fact that they were only recently born and that had he managed to kill them in the womb it would have been permissable are beside the point). If balanced sources begin to discuss this nuance then we can take it up but until then we need to focus on the case; the policies and regulations it might inform rather than the ethical dilema of it all.

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, in the testimony of Kareema Cross and others it seems the prosecution has emphasized that most of the children were at or past 24 weeks development, so the state may be trying to hedge their bets to get a convinction for illegal abortions (in Pennyslvania most abortions are illegal once 24 weeks are reached), if they can't get a conviction for killing life infants. For example per this CNS News article [1] the child of Shayquana Abrams, that is the child that Kareema Cross said she saw swimming in the toilet, was at 29-weeks development. Specifically the article states "Abrams testified that she was 29 weeks" so there is testimony that clearly could establish a case for illegal abortions even if the born-alive aspect is unproven.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Per this [2] Philadelphia Inquirerer article Abrams was told by the staff at Gosnell's clinic that her child was at 24 weeks, Daniel H. Conway, a neonatologist at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, testified based on his reading of "the Photo" (I presume the taken by Adrienne Moton, an employee of Gosnell, which also may be the one included in the CNS News article), and also based on ultrasounds of Baby Boy A taken by Gosnell that Conway also studied, he (Conway) estimated Baby Boy A to have been somewhere between 27 and 31 weeks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Propose moving details of legal case to a separate article

This would help keep this article in line with WP:BLP, while allowing for the inclusion of things that he himself did not do and are not directly relevant to his biography, such as the things performed in his clinic while he himself was not present. 128.42.221.6 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't see a need and not what is done in other, comparable, cases. Take a look at Hasan Akbar case for an example. When someone only comes to attention for their "case", and it's the case that causes them, to get that attention, then we usually have no difficulty in a combined article, since there is almost nothing we would say about the person that wouldn't need repeating in the case article (anything about the person that's not relevant to the case probably isn't needed). In some extremely high profile cases we do have both articles, but usually I'd say that tends to happen when the person independent of the case gets significant attention in his/her own right. Here, most coverage is "through the lens of the case, the abortion practice, and the allegations about his medical activities" though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There were 46 malpractice lawsuits against Gosnell before the FBI raid, at least one of which was settled, specifically for $900,000. On the other hand the grand jury report on Gosnell promted two Pennsylvania State Senate committess to hold hearings, and was very closely linked to additional laws governing abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. At least four other states have also enacted laws in part as a response to the Gosnell Grand Jury report, and in Illinois the government has started inspections in reaction to it, per this [3] article linking the Illinois reaction to the case. So on the one hand we have a deep background of issues with Gosnell that only slightly relates to the FBI raid and grand jury report, on the other we have reactions to the grand jury report that only barely relate to Gosnell. We should have two articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits if found guilty

At present Gosnell's innocence or guilt is not legally determined, although it seems "obvious" to many that the weight of evidence and employee testimony means it is very likely he will be. But he is not, yet.

If he were found guilty of the alleged murders, then some or all the following categories and links might be relevant to add to the article:

(Collapsed for future reference, not relevant unless convicted)

Mass murder in the United States American criminals American medical doctors American people convicted of murder American serial killers Health care professionals convicted of murdering patients Medical practitioners convicted of murdering their patients People convicted of ... [various] and a "see also" links to: List of serial killers by number of victims Most prolific murderers by number of victims

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving Reactions and Criticism of Media coverage to under the Legal Case section

The reactions and criticisms of media coverage sections aren't about Gosnell as a person, they're about the case. As such, they should be under the legal case section. Does anyone have any objections to this? Transcendence (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't. They aren't the same; and the one (mostly) isn't a reaction to the other or even about the other.

A case like this tends to cover a few pretty typical things. Background to the person involved; background to the issue or matter they became notable for (or which became notable); the legal case - which is courts, findings, investigations, and legal-as-in-courts aspects; media coverage and reactions, aftermath/impact; and "other stuff as needed".

Sometimes there are reactions or controversy over the legal case, legal process, or legal ruling. Here the media reactions are not in any way reactions to the legal case; they aren't coverage on legal blogs or legal articles, about (say) constitutionality, due process, reactions and assessments of the legal issues, controversy over the Grand Jury process or defendant pleas, etc. (For a case where there were such reactions, see a GA I wrote on a Supreme Court case, Berghuis v. Thompkins#Legal views and responses, which did include significant "reactions and criticisms" to the legal matters.)

In this case the media coverage reactions and criticisms are about the shockingness of it, the scale of it, how to (societally) assess it, the (failures of) DoH and other bodies whose agents are charges with safety and had turned a blind eye or lapsed over it, and the way that the media grappled with its own discomfort of covering it and failure to discuss it. It wasn't media or expert reaction to the legal case at all. It's a separate aspect in its own right, as the current structure (rightly) has it.

(The same article I cited above has both a "legal reactions" and "media response" subsection, you can see the difference of focus which could be useful). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. With that in mind, the title "Reactions" sounds ambiguous to me. What do you think about changing it to "Reactions to Allegations"? Transcendence (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Take a look - any better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, thanks, it looks better. Transcendence (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

On the Subject of moving things

Should the Cases cited in the media be moved to prior complaints. As it stands those cases cited in the media are *not* part of the legal case which relates to 7 newborns and 1 death from overdose. The Prior Cases could be renamed to more accurately reflect the chronology and the piling amount of complaints and "cases" which colour his character and past but not necessarily the case itself...?

--178.148.216.249 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure... which means "I'd be open to seeing what others reckon, too, or to letting it develop over time".

My concern here is that the actual timeline of events went something like,

• Sporadic cases that surely should have been put together, or gained attention over time, but didn't.
• THEN the raid prompted (notably) by prescription level concerns not complaints.
• FINALLY the lid came off on the malpractice and killings as a consequence.

In other words until 2010/2011 the picture (publicly, and pretty much everywhere except a few "behind the scenes" whispers) was "routine clinic, decent, unremarkable, nothing much to see. As so often the case, finding the first few issues uncovered a graual torrent of newly exposed older ones that never got attention or proper complaint handling. A few did. But only a very few.

If we "front loaded" the historical background by adding 2010+ findings to the section "prior known history of complaints", and add all the others that only LATER came out AFTER the raid, and publicity of what was found concerning conditions and practice as a result of the raid AFTER 2010/2011, we distort that timeline by making it seem they were known up front in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 200s. The reality in any meaningful sense was they should have been, the info was there - but they weren't. It was not "known" in any meaningful sense by any significant portion of society, media, government, or law enforcement, with a sole exception of community groups who gradually stopped referring patients during 2000-2009 -- but even they didn't know much, just enough (it seems) to prefer referring women somewhere else.

I'm thinking the timeline should leave a reader with a sense of how it progressed over almost the 4 decades involved. That's done right now by listing known complaints, then those in the Grand Jury testimony and investigatioin report, and mentioning by way of a sample in bullet form , 3-4 of the cases the media picked up. (They probably picked most of those from the Grand Jury report or law enforcement as well - where else?).

We could organize it in other ways, there's pros and cons. This way doesn't conflate "what was indeed 'known' in a meaningful sense" with "what was revealed by the media and testimony and investigators in 2010+", which is useful, and therefore the reader is clear. No fixed view, I'd like to see it discussed if its still a concern (because it is to an extent an artificial divide). We could for instance do it as a table "known" and "unknown" in 2 side by side lists, but there just isn't a clear divide and we aren't trying to document every case of thousands here, or even create List of prior complaints people made during 35 years of WMS. A sample to indicate is enough.

Anyhow good question, and like to hear what you reckon. That's where I'm at for now, if it helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, there is the fact that Semika Shaw's family members sued Gosnell after she died as a result of the botched abortion he performed on her, and that lawsuit was settled for $900,000. Shaw died in 2000. There are clear documents that the University of Pennsylvania Health System reported this to the state of Pennsylvania and tried to raise some sort of warning about Gornell's clinic with it. They also claim they reported other incidents, but it appears there are not documents for that. Since Shaw's death is not even being considered in the current trial, this would indicate that Gosnell is not just notable for one thing. I am not sure best how to integrate information on Semika Shaw into the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

ok I see the point and this make sense (even if its not entirely implied that way in the article itself). I think that any case which was reported or legally based before 2011 should be in the earlier section. At present the "cases cited in the media" seems to be women who came forward as a result of the aftermath/investigation. However I would move this one:

• Fifteen year old (undated): damages awarded in court upon a finding that Gosnell performed an abortion on a fifteen-year-old without parental permission.

if damages were awarded in court, it was a legal case separate to the current one and predates the arrest and trial and is part of the narrative "stuff which was on the public record but didnt raise enough concern". --178.148.216.249 (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Put it another way, we do already list some and say afterwards that "46 known cases exist". How many of the 46 cases need to be listed, to give an ordinary reader a sense of "the picture"? More than a few (4? 5?) is probably redundant. So we need to be selective even though other cases exist. Later, after 2010/2011+, the Grand Jury and media and others gradually started to highlight other cases they knew of. Again, which do we want to list specifically, to make the point and give a reader the picture of the developing disclosures and the cases which gained the public eye? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Semika Shaw

It is hard to believe anyone thought Gosnell might not be notable. Margo L. Davidson stated as can be seen from this article [4] that her vote for placing abortion clinics in Pennsylvania under the same regulations as all other out-patient surgical centers was the result of her counsin Semika Shaw dieing at the hands of Dr. Gosnell. I am trying to put together more information on the Shaw case to include in this article. Since it is not one of the 8 deaths that Gosnell is being tried for, it is an aspect about Gosnell that is noteworthy and seperate from the trial. I cannot believe anyone thought that someone whose actions had already lead to a change of laws in Pennsylvania was in any way not noteworthy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Even the media - apparently - thought this was just a "local legal case" so it's hardly surprising at least one editor here might feel there was a question to be raised on that point regarding the article. Anyway it's past and I don't imagine anyone would feel this way now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your claim has no basis in fact. This case recived international coverage when it first broke in 2011, and has recived noticable coverage since the beganing of the trial. True, it has not recived anywhere near the coverage it deservs, but it was never locally limited and it has always involved multiple state governments directly reacting and other states indirectly reactiong. Just because one uninformed Washington Post reporter called it a "local crime case" does not mean the "media" viewed it this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is, I don't find it hard at all to believe that someone might have had a doubt as to the significance and notability of the case. There have been myriad AFDs in which someone has expressed that concern - rightly or wrongly. That's what AFD is for - to consider the validity of concerns a person might have about whether a given article meets inclusion criteria. Sometimes it seems blindingly "obvious" they should (or shouldn't) yet someone expresses the concern unexpectedly. "WP:SNOW" closes (like this one was) means the community response was "Not a snowball's hope in hell", which is exactly what you'd expect for this topic. But the question is still okay to ask. It's routine and not unusual at all for SNOW AFD's to be opened. It's "shrug and ignore" - a "bread and butter" AFD question not worth wondering about.

As for Shaw, looking up information is never a bad idea. After all, the case played some role in prompting a political action and it may also turn up valuable article content and background. See what turns up...? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case it was clearly an ideologically driven attack, especially considering the article itself has existed for over two years. There was never any legitimate question that this could possibly be deleted. The grand jury report lead to the governor of Pennsylvania firing multiple officials over two years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Officials fire people all the time - the most likely explanation (for me anyway) is that what close observers to the case may see as "obvious" or malice in others' views, often isn't. It's simply "people have different views or information". I re-read the nomination, it seems reasonable and good faith if misinformed. AFD closed, article kept. Lesson is more likely how diverse individual perspectives and assessments can be, not how evil or malicious people can be. Hanlon's razor comes to mind. Either way the deletion is a dead issue and the community snow kept it, so it's not relevant any longer to current editing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing information

The article is missing information on the early stages of the case. Specifically:

• We have the Grand Jury "recommended" charges, but not the list of actual defendants and actual charges brought to trial subsequently by law enforcement.
• We don't distinguish the Federal drug-abuse case from the State case nor say what has happened in it.
• We don't note which defendants pleaded guilty, or when, or what happened legally between January 2011 (Grand Jury report) and March 2013 (trial commences for last two defendants)
• We don't note any unusual features of the legal proceedings (if any) during that time, yet at least one news report mentions a "gag order" and there were surely other manouverings taking place.
• We aren't too clear about what came out into the public awareness at what point, between the 2010 raid, the 2010 Grand Jury convening, the 2011 Grand Jury report, and the 2013 trial.

Any of these could be worth some attention. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I added information on the gag order. This article [5] also talks about the prosecution searching Pearl Gosnell's cell to try and get letters from it and questions about whether they had proper authorization to do so. I am not sure if any of that information is worth including.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Charges against others

I have began trying to compile this section. Any help would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You and I, Jack, don't agree on some stuff, as is clear from our below; but I, for one, do agree that the names of all other persons charged is, indeed, both relevant and newsworthy. The old newspaper editor in me would never argue for its exclusion from an article of this kind. Your desire on this one, then, in my opinion, is dead-on (though others, of course, may disagree; and so should chime-in, here, of that's the case).

How can I help? I mean, where are you in it? (so that we don't duplicate effort)

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• My name is not Jack. Please stop refering to me as that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism to the lede

Someone at IP address 173.28.203.125 just profoundly changed the lede from something which makes this article, first and foremost, about Gosnell who, by the way, is in big trouble...

...into, instead, one that's chiefly about his troubles.

If the story is to be about the trials and tribulations of Gosnell, then that's what its title and unambiguous subject matter should be.

The change made by the anonymous user at IP address 173.28.203.125 attempts to rob Gosnell of his even being a licensed physician, which, like it or not, everyone, he is. Is the Right's hatred of him so profound that it cannot even allow the incontrovertible facts which accurately describe him to be present in the lede of the article about him? Fair is fair, people.

Can we please revert it back? I'm a liberal/progressive who's in favor of a woman's right to choose; but even I don't much like Gosnell! Still, I want the article here, about him, to have integrity; and so this kind of vandalism just has to stop.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you avoid trying to assert any knowledge of political motivation on the part of the people who want to deny that Gosnell has an MD. In fact, I would assume good faith and not even assume that trying to deny he has an MD was the goal of the edit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's asking too much, in light of the reality of what's going on with this story out in the rest of the world. I'm not saying that you'd not be right under most other circumstances, but... er... well... to keep this from getting nutty (by our going back and forth, if that's what happens, between two sections), how 'bout we discuss this down in the immediately-below section where I ask if the article should be semiprotected; and where I've actually addressed the political motivation issue. Cool?
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

(Posted before DesElms's immediately-above) You should not call editing that you disagree with "vandalism" unless it clearly serves no purpose. While I agree that the fact that Gosnell is a physician should be mentioned in the lead, I do not think removing it from there was vandalism. This seems to be a legitimate question of how much should be included in the lead, it should have been discussed here before action was taken, but removing the information was not vandalism, especially since it was still included elsewhere in the article. Anyway, discrediting people who are universally disparged, as Gosnell is, is at least as likely from those who feel they are close ideological alies to the person, at least to ourside perception, than from those far afield. In fact, there are those who will point out very strongly that Gosnell ran a clinic licensed by the state of Pennsylvania. He was recognized by the law. This fact is most likely to be pointed out by people who feel the law needs to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack, I went to journalism school, and was an editor at a newspaper. While that's a different style of writing, I realize, a lede is nevertheless still objectively recognizable; and what the anonymous poster did was vandalism by any article type's standards. It didn't even conform with how virtually every other biographical article on Wikipedia is written. It's moot, though, now, because I see that someone has fixed it. Kudos to him/her. As to the rest of that to which I'm here responding, so that we won't be bouncing back and forth between two sections having essentially the same discussion, how 'bout we go down to the next section, where I ask if we should semiprotect the article; and where I actually address some of what you write, here, in the rest of your response (to which I'm now resonding). Thanks!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1- My name is not Jack. 2-I think you should read Wikipedia:Vandalism beofre throwing out accusations of it. It says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I do not think that the editor had that goal. I think they figured that the article should focus most on the charges against Gosnell. I agree with you that the edits were not wise, but they do not consittue vandalism. It states "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Removing information from the lead is not "blanking pages", especially when the information was still in the body of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it finally time to semi-protect this article?

I don't know if it's true what those on the socio-political Right have been saying about that no one cared about Kermit Gosnell until the FOX NEWS CHANNEL pointed-out that the mainstream (and by that, read "liberal") media was ignoring the story. I'm a liberal, but I'm not blind; and the truth is that FOX may be right. I dunno.

I know that when I spoke with the Director of Communications for the Philadelphia District Attorney's office, yesterday, it would certainly seem that no one cared until what FOX said because, according to her, there was a flurry of activity and interest on the part of the media back when Gosnell was first arrested; but then pretty much nothing after that...

...that is, until what FOX reported; and then, all of a sudden, she said, she became inundated with requests for more information, and for his mugshot (even though police dept policy is that mughots may only be released for only up to 30 days after the arrest of whomever's in said mugshots). So, then, again, who knows: Maybe FOX is right... which, as a liberal, I confess pains me no end. But pain or no pain, facts are facts...

...and the fact of this article is that it has suddenly gotten lots of new attention, even though it was earlier suggested, here, that it be deleted (which, suggestion, by the way is being reported by FOX, et al); and so has become hot and controversial, and is now attracting vandals who post anonymously, identified only by their IP addresses, as happened in that which I describe in my section herein, above, entitled "Vandalism to the lede".

So, then, all that being the case, is it not finally time to at least semi-protect this article? At least that way, those who contribute to it will be known and verified; and so may, then, be subject to disciplinary action by Wikipedia for vandalizing it. I think it's time to end the anonymous postings by those who clearly have skin in this whole "right to life" versus "right to choose" battle which is clearly motivating some of the both edits to the article, and postings here on this "Talk" page.

Could we maybe semi-protect it now, please? Isn't it, alas, finally time?

Just askin'.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think "vandalism" is the wrong term. Unwise editing, with not the best understanding of the lead maybe, but it was not vandalism. In fact, this article has attacted very little vandalism. I do not think we would gain anything from protecting it at this time. I do still think it might be worth splitting the article on Gosnell from the article on the operation of his clinic, and the criminal charges against him and his employees. However I do not see a case for protecting that article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My use of the word "vandalism," I confess, is probably rooted in my overall disgust... er... wait... okay, even I admit that that's too strong a word; let's call it my... um... let's say "disappointment" at how this article, just generally, is worded. I'm sorry, but the whole thing is a loaded -- nay, highly-charged -- issue which the FOX NEWS CHANNEL recently politicized; and so even though I, Mr. Liberal and pro-choice, agree that Gosnell is despicable, I nevertheless want to see this article appropriately neutral. To deny that the Right wants to use this Gosnell story as both an example of how horrific abortion clinics can be, and also how the so-called "liberal" media has seemed to ignore it, is as ridiculous as the Left denying that, you know what, maybe FOX is right; maybe it really did kinda' drop the ball on this story. We cannot, as we do this work, bury our heads in the sand. It is what it is, and we on both sides of the issue nevertheless need to try to be painstakingly (and even painfully, if it comes to that) neutral about how we craft this article. C'mon, politics aside, don't we all agree with that? (that was mostly a rhetorical question, by the way)

I used the word "vandalism" to refer to my earlier-referenced change to the lede because, in my opinion, much of what's now in the article is tantamount to vandalizing it because of my perception of its lack of neutrality. So maybe I was so ready for more that when I saw it, I considered it more than what it maybe was. I dunno. This is a hard subject. I am pro-choice, but I abhor abortion; and so... well... this is a hard subject. As a pro-choice liberal, I'm angry, frankly, with Gosnell for so harming the cause. Of course, his actual crimes trump all that, but I'm just sayin'.

Forgetting about all that for a moment, though, begged is the question, JP: If the operation of Gosnell's clinic, and all that has now happened as a consequence, were to become a separate article, might the article about just Gosnell then become questionable under Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines? I mean, isn't Gosnell's article here pretty much only because of his arrest, and now trial? Or was it here before that? (Serious questions, 'cause I seriously don't know)
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with JP Lambert on the issue of semiprotection. Speaking as an admin who puts in a bit of time at Requests for page protection, I don't think you'll get anybody to semiprotect at this juncture. As JP Lambert says, the article isn't getting much vandalism currently. If that situation changes going forward, then by all means log a request at RFPP. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you, so much, Bishonen, for that response. Understood. See? I learn sumpin' new ever' dayee 'round here!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have not said anyone does not want to capitalize on the Gosnell case. I just questioned what type of people gain from not admitting he had an MD. The Semika Shaw case is really totally seperate from the current trial. Mongar's family has a seperate wrongful-death suit against Gosnell. He was involved in medical studies in the 1970s that have no relevance to the trial. So there is clearly stuff that is seperate from the trial about Gosnell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack, you question what kind of people gain from not admitting he had an MD. My response to that is the kind of people who, like most people, see physicians as persons worthy of society's respect and admiration; and so, then, because they clearly don't want Gosnell to have that, they play the psychological trick of denying him being referred to as a physician right from the outset of the article, despite that the standards for biographical articles around here include that a person's very primary profession and station in life be right in the first sentence... or at least in the first couple of them. That's who. Beyond that, I'll resist asking you to not, as my ol' man used to say, pee on my leg, and then tell me it's raining... er... wait... I'm sorry... I guess I just effectively did that, after all. Oh, well.

To the rest of what you wrote, I don't recall bringing it up. The bottom line is that the edit to the lede, by the anonymous person who made it, was loaded, indeed, given the circumstances, by denying Gosnell even being referred to as a physician. Of course, again, it's now moot because, unless someone has changed it again, it has now been quite nicely repaired in the article; for which I, for one, am grateful.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

To what extent should we identify the victims

There are lots of issues that make this case very hard to cover. Having limited coverage in the media, especially for the first month is only one of the issues. A bigger issue is the fact that there is not consistent identification of the victims. The victims of first degree murder are identified as things like "Baby Boy A". From this article [6] at CNS news we learn his mother was Shayquana Abrams. This article [7] from AMrch 21, 2013 back when Abrams was testifying identifies her only as a "17-year-old Chester student". That might clue why her full identity is not being divulged, except it is confusing to. That makes it sound like Abrams is now 17, when in fact she was 17 when she gave birth to her child who was then killed and was hospitalized as a result of the proceedure. So what is the best way to speak of Abrams and her child, Baby Boy A?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack. C'mon. How can you chastise me in the immediately-previous two sections for not ignoring how some of the edits clearly politicize this thorny subject, and then both ask questions and make posits like you've just done in that to which I'm now responding? I'm sorry, but you, me and God all know that what you really want is to ensure that all victims are identified so that they may, in turn, be somehow shamed for their having sought a legal abortion: hence your loaded way of writing "when she gave birth to her child who was then killed and was hospitalized as a result of the procedure". That's the modus operandi of the pro-lifers. C'mon Jack... back to the peeing on the leg thing.

She sought an abortion, not the live birth of a child that would then be "killed." This semantic distorion is of exactly the same sort as intended by pro-lifers using the term "pro-abortion" to refer to those who are actually "pro-choice." There's a huge difference; and the Right uses the former loaded term because if its inherent ability to inflame. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I abhor abortion. In my ministry, I council young women not to do it, if possible, all the time. However, sometimes it's not possible; and if they insist (and I never make 'em work very hard at it; I simply make sure their eyes are wide open before they finally do it), then I stand by that decision, repugnant though it may be, because she has a legal right to choose, like it or not; and that right trumps my wish -- and yours, too -- that she wouldn't choose to abort.

She also has the right to her privacy while seeking said abortion; and, again, you, me and God all know that the pro-lifers routinely try to violate that privacy, and to "out" women who seek abortions... again, in the hope that it will somehow shame them.

And so, Jack, I'm sorry, but it's very difficult not to see your interest in this subject as somehow in keeping with what seemed to me as your likely pro-life personal position, and your inability to keep it from influencing how you edit, here, when you chastised me, in the previous sections, for not refusing to notice that, c'mon, there's some politicizing going on around here.

I know we're not supposed to turn any of these chats into a debate... and, seriously, I'm not trying to do that. Seriously. Believe it or not, I completely respect what is obviously your pro-life position; and I don't feel like we need to be enemies over it 'cause, truth is, if we could meet in real life and sit down over coffee about it, I'm sure we'd find that we agree more than we disagree. I, like you, abhor abortion. But I'm a citizen of the United States, too, and, like it or not, choice is a woman's current legal right (and, yes, I meant "current" to be loaded, in recognition of that the Right is doing everything in its power to get Roe v Wade overturned... and might actually succeed, to my chagrin).

Now, having written all that, here's the cold, hard truth of things, as I would assess and recomment were I still a newspaper editor...

If the information's out there, in public, then it's fair game, journalistically speaking... that is, of course, unless there's a statutory prohibition against it. And so that, right there, covers whether or not it's fair game because she was a minor: in some places, it's actually against the law (a statutory violation) for the media to publish the names of minors in situations like this... that is, at least until and unless it's provably out there, irretrievably in the wild... in public; and in some places, it's not permissable even then.

Now, whether or not Wikipedia wants to take it that far, I don't know. That's a matter for people around here who are above my pay grade. And media of all types routinely decide not to publish victims' names, or the names of minors (even if they're perpetrators, sometimes), all the time, even if they're not legally required to. For them, it's an ethical/moral and also stylistic (as in "manual of style" type "stylistic") issue. Hopefully, Wikipedia imposes similar voluntary restrictions on itself; but, again, that's a matter for someone above my pay grade around here.

As for her being a minor at the time, but no longer, that usually doesn't matter. What matters is what age they were at the time when it was all happening. And so, then, in that case, the prohibition against publishing her name on account of her being a minor would extend beyond and into her no longer being one. In that sense, it's kinda' like how a person who committed a crime many years ago, before laws where changed to make either the elements of the crime, or punishment, more rigid or severe, must be prosecuted under the laws as they were back when the crime was committed; and that's, in largest measure, because citizens are responsible only for the knowledge they could possibly have at the time they commit a crime. Note that I wrote "knowledge they could possibly have had," and not "knowedge they had;" and that's because ignorance of the law is no excuse, and so it's the knowledge that they could have had, and not the knowledge they actually had, that matters. My point is that outing someone about something only after they're of age because it wasn't legally possible before is generally as not possible as prosecuting someone under current law for something they did under old law, and for much the same kind of inferential reasons.

The sad bottom line, when all is said and done, is that if it's out there in public, it's probably fair game; but is that really how Wikipedia wants to handle things? I mean, c'mon: she was just a kid, feeling backed into an untenable corner, being "kid" stupid, and with a reasonable expectation of privacy when she went to the clinic. Maybe we should leave publishing her name to the radical pro-life websites; they're gonna' do it, you know, no matter what, so will it really harm the article, here, to leave it out? Really?

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Some brief bullet points for the above:

1. We don't rely on "effectively in the public domain" here. Unlike news media we are in no race to publish nor a race against competition. If we can't source an image within our own self-chosen policies and the law, we simply don't have an image. The world won't end. See comment here.
2. Names of co-defendants, and state+federal charges brought and settled, are relevant to the article. I'd include them too.
3. I wouldn't call this edit by 173.28.203.125 "vandalsim in the lede" at all. It looks like a perfectly good-faith edit, albeit one I disagree with and would revert myself. The user's good faith is confirmed by the subsequent edit where a word removed by others for being unsourced is researched by him/her resulting in high quality sourcing.
4. I'd ask if you can also tone down a little your own outrage, which a few times has manifest as attacks and accusations of bad faith against others. I'm thinking of posts like "I find it difficult to believe you meant anything short of malice" and "something akin to furious at your actions" and "There is no word, then, which better fits what you have done than "recklessness;" and, worse, that which you have done already warrants a filing by me of an official request by me for dispute resolution and disciplinary action against you" and "My use of the word "vandalism," I confess, is probably rooted in my overall disgust [..] let's say "disappointment". We don't need to accuse people of conspiracy because we don't understand their views; it's quite obvious they are editing in good faith and are open to reason. The reality is that (unlike news editing) we are not under time pressure or commercial pressure, and this sort of style comes over as an over-reaction, from an encyclopedia-writing perspective. With regard to the image, SJ seems to have not over-reacted back which helps, and the image is restored pending confirmation of the release. It's all good.
5. We semi protect pages to deal with persistent multiple-IP vandalism (WP:PROTECT). There isn't vandalism here, much less persistent or multiple-IP.

6. Whether we write it as one article or two, is likely to be down to if there's much to say about Gosnell that isn't also sayable about Gosnell's practices, Gosnell as the owner/founder of Gosnell's practices, the trial related to Gosnell's practices, or the socio-political aftermath of the trial of Gosnell's practices. Often a person and their related incident + aftermath are covered in the same one article — and that's so even for very major cases with a lot written about the perpetrators. See Hasan Akbar case, or the Moors murders - Britain's most notorious mass murder cases with many books on the perpatrators over decades - and more currently the Boston bombings & related AFD for other examples. All of these are arguably comparable in public outrage to this topic.

   Two articles only starts to have real value for something like Steve Jobs and Apple, where the person truly was in the public eye for entirely separate things than the matters eventually forming the "visible event" or its background, or the few cases where the sheer detail and length required to cover the background appropriately make a separate article relevant. For example, if Gosnell had also had a significant senior political career then a separate article might be relevant.

   (Jimmy Saville is an example of this kind - long distinguished career in media and philanthropy as a celebrity, posthumously also identified as one of Britains most prolific child abusers. Our articles on the person and the crimes both have to be in-depth and they both have to cover very different and mostly non-overlapping scope)

7. Names are often unimportant. What difference would it make if the victim was called "alice" or "barbara", and what benefit from naming someone in a prominent website? So in this article I'm all for just saying "Girl, 17" or similar for victims.
8. Wikipedia is not journalism. We aren't writing to convince people, but writing a neutral dispassionate reference work - and that's what we do even for horrific humanitarian topics and politically explosive topics, like this. We have self-selected policies on what belongs, unlike many media where rules are bent to get circulation and publicity ("oxygen"). If information is out there it is "fair game" - but we still may choose not to use it because it's not important enough or pushes our boundaries.

Hope this helps! By the way, you asked "Whomever did it!" ... I think that was me :) One gets to know the ropes, after almost 50,000 manual edits and a couple of hundred original articles in almost a decade of editing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• My name is not Jack. I wish people would not refer to me as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Names allow for people to connect the facts reported here with other facts reported in other sources. They also allow for multiple references to be easily connected. This [8] Philadelphia Inquierer article clearly names Abrams as a witness and explains what issues she was a witness for (the death of her son). There is no shaming involved here, and to suggest it is really going beyond the mark.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• For what its worth, the only named victim that Gosnell is on trial for is Mongar. The other victims of the direct charges against Gosnell as identified as "Baby Boy A", who is the child of Shayquana Abrams. It has been established that a-Abrams and all the other mothers were unconscious at the time their children were killed, which relates to why Mongar died, widespread use of anesthesia that was not done with proper regard for its negative side effects, and might have been specifically done to prevent mothers from realizing their children were fully born. b-Gosnell and associates conspired to misrepresent the age of the children being killed. Thus there are clear allegations that Abrams and others were victims of fraud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• That said, we could create a section with the seven cases of first degree murder and the known facts of each case. I think I will start it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Victims

I have started this section. It still would benefit from listing the other six charges of first degree murder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What?!?

"she had seen at least ten babies breath after death who were then killed" Atomivoi666 15:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomivoi666 (talk • contribs)

Reduced charges

I revised the trial section to make it clear that the 7 count was first-degree murder charges. I also added in wording to make it clear that the 3rd-degree murder charge was left in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are now early reports that one of the dismissed muder charges might be reinstated. There isn't a sufficiently reliable source for this assertion yet, but it ought to be clarified if it turns out to be true. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I found an AP report on this, so it's now added 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

LiveAction Sting

Not sure how relevent this breaking story is.

"The pro-choice side points out that Gosnell was already acting illegally, hence there is no need for more regulations on abortion. But the Bronx sting raises the question of how blurry the line might be between legal and illegal actions in abortion mills." But a primary reason the Gosnell case has received amazingly scant and grudging attention from most of the major media outlets is that it’s impossible to discuss illegal abortions without thinking more about legal ones. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_truth_about_late_term_abortion_TDW9MnQT0XIQDRyfInpm2L

The liberal media response (particularly to the alleged blackout) was often to argue that this is an isolated incident. That Gosnells crimes were illegal and he should be practised but this is the very reason abortion should be safe and legal otherwise there'd be more of the same. The pro life narrative is certainly something along these lines

"Gosnell “is not an aberration. He is not alone. There are abortionists all across the country who are performing [illegal] late-term abortions and killing babies,” Rose says. “The inhumanity is business as usual.”

"But if a child should be born and immediately murdered — “snipped,” in the revolting word in use at Gosnell’s clinic — who will know about it? The only people present and not under anesthesia are likely to be complicit in the crime.

So it’s a murder that will be discovered only if one of the murderers confesses. And given the nature of what goes on in abortion clinics, those murderers might seem likely to fail to even admit to themselves what they have done". This sting shows the attitude towards abortion and infantcide in abortion clinics. they both inform each other... This begs the question as the New York Post notes how prevalent similar stories are. LiveAction did a sting operation which was obviously meant to coincide with this story, it has at least 2 more, and it certainly fits into the narrative of the discussion of Gosnell. But I wasnt sure how much we were going into the abortion discussion in the media as a direct result of this case. Id be curious for opinions before seeing if its worth adding... --Fredbobhurst (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the general topic - what changes exactly are you proposing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The question (as opposed to "proposed changes") I had was whether or not we are going to discuss the media discussion of Gosnell and the trials implications for abortion laws, and the discourse both sides are engaging in. We mentioned the "media blackout" and the response. Much of the articles cited are generally from pro choice liberals giving their narrative of the debate (Gosnell is guilty of breaking laws, but is an exception and mostly abortion is safe). LiveAction it seems are attempting to highlight the pro life side which is that Gosnells attitude towards abortion and failed abortions (ie new born infants he allegedly kiled) is more widespread than pro choice journalists are willing to admit. I realise the talk page is proposing changes but I merely hoped editors would read the new york post article and perhaps watch the video and decide whether or not it fits into the narrative. I feel the sting case was as a direct result of Gosnells trial, deliberately released at this time, and will inform the discussion. I am asking if its worth mentioning in the article? It could well get more coverage esp if they release more videos (although clearly its not been immediately picked up by mainstream outlets yet). It is substantiated, it is notable and related to the case etc.

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources begin discussing something, I don't personally see the point of hypotheticals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

is the new york post not reliable? is the Washington Post not reliable??[9] its not hypothetical. The story broke on Pro Life sites (so theyre unreliable but pro choice journalists are? ok...), and since then on 2 media outlets (which I thought would fall under reliable), merely from a google search. More will come, especially when more videos are released. The question is does the section on Impact and Media require expanding and dealing with the discourse surrounding how both sides view the implications of the trial?

--Fredbobhurst (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/28/live-actions-latest-abortion-clinic-undercover/193812 was tweeted by Kirsten Powers (who if we recall was the journalist who highlight the "media blackout", where she said Wow, @mmfa is defending an abortion worker who bragged abt how they would kill a live 23 week old baby born alive. https://twitter.com/kirstenpowers10/status/328907792306040832 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbobhurst (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The impact and media section certainly could talk about how both sides view the implications, but again, you've got to use reliable sources. With the volume of media attention around the case, Twitter, Media Matters, and op-eds with people's individual opinions won't cut it. The section as it stands is actually quite bad. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kermit Gosnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403150001/http://nation.time.com/2013/04/23/3-murder-charges-against-pa-abortion-doc-tossed/ to http://nation.time.com/2013/04/23/3-murder-charges-against-pa-abortion-doc-tossed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kermit Gosnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130415132215/http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf to http://phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kermit Gosnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221233505/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/19/abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-charged-with-8-counts-of-murder/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/19/abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-charged-with-8-counts-of-murder/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kermit Gosnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919060128/http://www.newstribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/jury-philly-docs-failed-report-dangerous-peer/ to http://www.newstribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/jury-philly-docs-failed-report-dangerous-peer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919060128/http://www.newstribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/jury-philly-docs-failed-report-dangerous-peer/ to http://www.newstribune.com/news/2011/apr/10/jury-philly-docs-failed-report-dangerous-peer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)