Talk:Kermit Gosnell/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Kermit Gosnell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Media Coverage

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

This is a biography...

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

He's a convicted murderer now

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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

Done (more to come probably) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence should reflect this. Mark.hamid (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence now reflects this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

this is wrong

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

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

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

Legally dangerous wording (infants-babies VS fetuses)

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments8 people in discussion

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

No. Federales (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that an incorrect wording on such issue can lead to prosecution of the wikimedia foundation for defamation ? If we keep "infant", please explain fully why. Yug (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good grief.

We should keep the word "infants" because the sentence is talking about infants. It's in the Grand Jury report. Federales (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation is based in the USA, prosecution for defamation is not a point of concern for the forseeable future. JSory (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

From the Grand Jury report:

"Gosnell’s staff testified about scores of gruesome killings of such born-alive infants carried out mainly by Gosnell, but also by employees Steve Massof, Lynda Williams, and Adrienne Moton."

And yet, the OP's objection isn't so much out of concern at the use of "infants"; it is actually out of preference for the word "fetus".[1] This is a political POV issue, and doesn't stem from any concern about Wikipedia's perceived legal risk. Federales (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A preference for accuracy isn't a political POV issue - when talking about fetuses, we should use "fetus" rather than "baby" or "infant" (and I've had to correct this in articles before). The problem is that Yug is simply wrong and should really have thought about this some more and looked at the sources, because we're not talking about fetuses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I raise the issue, the talk will decide. Yug (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV if there's controversy about whether a usage of a term like "infant" is neutral in a given context, it should be attributed to whoever said it (e.g. the Grand Jury report) rather than stated in the wikivoice as if it were undisputed. I do see that the at least one pro-life web site has argued that zygotes are babies,[2] while my understanding is they are not currently legally recognized as such in the US. So I'd consider such terms to be somewhat charged. Their uses should therefore be attributed carefully. 2A00:1630:2:F00:0:0:2456:DAE8 (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is it disputed, can you provide WP:RS documenting a dispute of the term? Elizium23 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the dispute in general society as to when life begins, as applied to gosnell, the words baby(ies) and infant(s) have been used by the grand jury, the actual jury (by ruling him guilty of murder), his co-workers (that pled guilty and testified against him) and countless reliable sources using those terms. The only one involved or commenting on this case that used the word "fetus" is Gosnell himself (and his defense) - As he was found guilty, his logic is obviously incorrect. By using the word baby/infant vs fetus, we are not changing the definition of any terms, nor making a news standard to be used in general. We are specifically discussing the babies he fas found guilty of murdering, and the accusations of actions towards other babies in his practice. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whenever members of the grand jury use "babies" it should be clearly marked as a citation of the grand jury. This was not the case in the former introduction. But it seems fixed now. Yug (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice regarding WP:NLT

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

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

Abortion clinic

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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

Here are the first four reliable secondary sources using the term "abortion clinic" which turned up on a Google search. [3] [4] [5] [6] Note that one is from the ultra-liberal Huffington Post. I humbly submit to you that "Women's health care clinic" is much more of a loaded, propaganda term than the other. I know pro-life people who would suggest that abortion is not at all "health care" because pregnancy is not a disease. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, please learn how to spell before editing articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I would further note that this article on the topic of abortion is subject to discretionary sanctions per ARBCOM decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion which means you are bound to WP:1RR in edits, and you have already crossed the line and are eligible for report and block by admins. Please self-revert now to avoid being blocked. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

with the same merit we could find same "reliable" blog calling our president Negro. Are we going to call him that way in his wiki article? I did not think so. Those clinics are not listed as abortion clinics anywhere.care to dispute that? I really don't care what you,or anyone else,call them in their propaganda.This is encyclopedia not bulvar.

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

A quick scan of the first few sources shows pretty conclusively that the only person trying to "impress their views on us" is YOU:

Business Insider [7]:"Kermit Gosnell's Nightmare Abortion Clinic Was A Multimillion-Dollar Business6"

CNN [8]:"West Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell is on trial for running an abortion clinic in which he allegedly killed babies who had survived illegal, late-term abortions, and where a woman allegedly died of a botched painkiller injection."

Philadelphia Enquirer [9]:"Saying he did not believe she would leave behind a 13-year-old daughter she has not seen in 11 weeks, a Philadelphia judge Monday told Pearl Gosnell that she could be released on house arrest while she and her husband await trial over the operation of his West Philadelphia abortion clinic."

Associated Press [10]:"Doctors at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, which operates two hospitals within a mile of Gosnell’s squalid abortion clinic in West Philadelphia, saw at least six of these patients — two of whom died. "

The New York-freakin'-Times [11]:"Squalid Abortion Clinic Escaped State Oversight"

Federales (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

still missing source providing official name of the clinic.Yellow pages etc. Wikipedia is not a bulvar. We need to use official/correct naming. No peacock words. 50.9.97.53 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Excessive detail

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

I agree with the above. Many details in the article are repeated several times, especially the case of the murdered woman. It's fine to give a detailed account of the crimes and the circumstances in the clinic, but reading through the article is a chore. I'm not experienced enough, to decide where to cut out repetitions and were to leave them, but it seems necessary to do it. As it is, I can't help thinking that the repetition is there to hammer down a point, serving the political agenda of some contributors to this piece. Die-yng (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC - Described as a serial killer

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments15 people in discussion

CLOSED

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Some of the sources:

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

Survey

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

Threaded discussion

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

AndyTheGrump So is that a !vote for #2 or #3? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a !vote. It is a comment, in a section entitled 'threaded discussion'. Personally, I prefer to discuss things first, and then decide what my final position will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts drifted this way as well, Andy. Why can't it say "...has been referenced as one of the most prolific serial killers of all time by national media" or something of that effect? GRUcrule (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Murder or "during" abortion procedures.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding changes proposed by 68.173.128.206:

Proposed from: "... who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures."

Proposed to: "... who was convicted of murdering three infants during late term abortion procedures."

For the act to be considered murder, it had to be performed after such procedures. That is the nature of the crime in question. Gosnell was convicted for murder, not for abortion. The mechanism of the deaths was both initiated and completed after live birth. They were born alive during the attempted procedures, and killed after the attempted procedures. Had they been killed "during" the procedure, it would not be murder, but late term abortion. RuralVirologist (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"prolific prescriber of OxyContin" - No Charges, No Conviction

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering why yet another article from the Atlantic is cited as the reason for stating that Dr Gosnell was a "prolific prescriber of OxyContin"

That was the false Probable Cause for searching his offices, which would make all the evidence gathered inadmisable, and no charges of running a prescription mill were ever laid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.128.206 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic article cited says "Gosnell was allegedly scribbling out as many as 200 narcotic prescriptions per night." But he was never charged. These are weasel words "was allegedly".

the errors in your argument are almost too many to count.

Not only was he charged, he was convicted. [12] Gosnell pleaded guilty in July, after the murder trial, to charges that he illegally distributed what prosecutors called a "staggering" amount of OxyContin and other painkillers, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pills.
weasel words is a rule which applies to us as wikipedia editors, not reliable sources.
"allegedly" in this case is not even weasel words, because he was indicted by the grand jury, based on the allegations (legal usage) of the prosecutor/law enforcement
there are MANY WP:RS which back him being a prolific oxy prescriber.
- [13]And this amount does not include the money he made as one of the top Oxycontin prescribers in the state
- [14] Gosnell still faces federal drug charges. Authorities said that he ranked third in the state for OxyContin prescriptions and that he left blank prescription pads at his office and let staff members make them out to cash-paying patients.
- [15]That amount doesn't include the money Gosnell allegedly took in from his "side business" writing illegal prescriptions. One law enforcement agent said Gosnell was one of Pennsylvania's top three prescribers of the addictive painkiller Oxycontin.
- The Women's Medical Society was a "pill mill" by day, according that report. Gosnell allegedly didn't even show up during the day. Instead, he left pre-signed prescription pads so his unskilled workers could give walk-in "patients" prescriptions for Oxycontin and other controlled meds if they were willing to pay the right price, the report said.At least one former clinic worker had pleaded guilty to illegally prescribing painkillers at Gosnell's clinic.

ResultingConstant (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Abortionist"

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The use of the word "abortionist" is charged. dictionary.com says "usually disparaging." Wiktionary says "chiefly in anti-abortion discourse, derogatory."

I would like to change it to "physician."

Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I notice that another user edited it to "abortion provider" without discussion. I have edited it to "physician" as I discussed above.

Kermit Gosnell had many flaws as a physician (to put it mildly), including in areas unrelated to abortion, such as irresponsible and criminal distribution of narcotic pain medications. Other Wikipedia articles on abortion providers who are physicians identify them as physicians first.

Finally, the crimes for which he is best-known were not in the performance of abortion, but in premature induction of labor followed by infanticide. Yet we would not call him a former laborist.

Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

serial killer

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Prolog Gosnell was convicted of 8 counts of murder, and implicated in 100s of more. He is a serial killer. Additionally, you are in violation of the 1rr rule imposted on this page. I suggest you replace the cat before you are sanctioned. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The article does not call the subject a serial killer nor does it seem to provide a source for the claim. If this killer meets the definition, it should be easy to find some high-quality sources saying exactly that. As stated on WP:BLPCAT, "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." Prolog (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources :

In addition to the movie and book which are already in the article naming him so. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The film does not qualify as a reliable source and the book written by the filmmakers is clearly sensationalistic. The links you listed above are reliable and could be used in the article, except for Twitter, but they use the term as a statement of opinion (WP:RSOPINION). The scarcity of quality sources using it as a fact suggests that this is fundamentally a WP:CATDEF issue: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Prolog (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

They consistently and commonly define the subject as having committed (and been convicted of) multiple murders over an extended period of time. You know, the definition of serial killer. There is no policy that requires sources to use exactly the words that we use in our category names. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not the definition for serial killer. There are several and few are as expansive as yours. For example, Gosnell does not meet the definition in the FBI's Crime Classification Manual ("three or more separate events in three or more separate locations"). There's plenty of killers that are rarely described as serial killers even if they do fit this description, such as hit men and war criminals. The classification of criminals is the purview of reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. Prolog (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We do have multiple reliable sources describing him as a serial killer. The book and film do count. WP:BIASED We also have reliable sources saying that they are avoiding talking about this story because it conflicts with their biases and political leanings. Additionally, that is NOT what the crime classification manual says (you may have an outdated edition) :

Serial murders are involved in three or more separate events with an emotional cooling-off period between homicides
Serial murder generally involves three or more victims. What sets this category apart from the two others is a cooling-off period between murders. The hiatus could be days, months, or years

A more succinct FBI definition https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder#two - Serial Murder: The unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender(s), in separate events.

us law https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/540B - The term “serial killings” means a series of three or more killings, not less than one of which was committed within the United States, having common characteristics such as to suggest the reasonable possibility that the crimes were committed by the same actor or actors.

ResultingConstant (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware that the FBI has adopted a broad definition, but the ones found in the landmark works have been imprinted into the public mind and this is reflected in how cautiously reliable sources use the term. These articles write about this issue. The solution is finding an authoritative source that is explicit in its wording. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on the book, but claiming that a drama film is a reliable source for facts is untenable. Prolog (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree because the provide list of editorials and opinion columns do not establish facts per WP:RSOPINION and opinions must be properly attributed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of victims

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It looks to me that the number of victims (field in the infobox) should be set at 25, based on the convictions: 3 counts of murder, 1 of involuntary manslaughter, and 21 for illegal late-term abortions, which means the children would have survived to birth if not for Gosnell's interventions. Elizium23 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)