Gosnell Wikipedia entry considered for deletion: ‘A local multiple-murder story … nothing more’; Update: Entry stays

Prosecutors and former employees of Kermit Gosnell say his abortion house of horrors was a place of real-life nightmares: Babies screaming and moving after abortion procedures, living infants beheaded and babies’ feet severed and kept as trophies. A woman testified that starting at age 15, she assisted with abortions and saw two newborns move after being pried from their mothers’ wombs.

But according to the national media, this is just a “local crime” story, not worthy of their attention.

And now, the Wikipedia entry for “Kermit Gosnell” is being considered for deletion.

Here’s what currently appears at the top of the Gosnell entry.


One of the reasons “this article is being considered for deletion”? “His case has not received national attention. It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more.”

I think this page should be deleted for several reasons. First, it is about a living, alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BIO, “Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.” Second, this person does not meet other notability criteria. His case has not received national attention. It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more.

President Obama quickly condemned the killing of late-term abortionist George Tiller, but has nothing to say about these horrific accusations of baby murder. The complicit media won’t even feign interest in covering this story. As actress Patricia Heaton noted, “There was more coverage of Manti Teo’s imaginary girlfriend.”

And the inconvenient details the media won’t lift a finger to report could even disappear from Wikipedia if that doesn’t change.

Today is the “Break the Gosnell Media Blackout TweetFest.” Thousands have signed on to flood Twitter with the #Gosnell hashtag and pressure the media to do their jobs.

Make this one count.

* * *

Update: After considerable debate, the Wikipedia entry stays, although it remains open for editing and updating. Wikipedia contributors cited “very significant international coverage” and hundreds of thousands of Google searches in the decision.


Just a ‘local crime’ story: Floodgates open on demand for Gosnell mass murder trial coverage

Obama ignores Gosnell horrors with media’s aid: Pesky babies didn’t ‘just come out limp and dead’

Telling: NBC’s Luke Russert can’t turn to NBC for Gosnell trial coverage

Kirsten Powers, Michelle Malkin quiz the media: #WhoIsKermitGosnell, where’s the coverage?

Baby screamed, media silent: The MSM blackout on news of Gosnell worker who heard newborn ‘screaming’

Patricia Heaton wonders why no Gosnell trial coverage

He kept severed feet in jars but escaped mainstream media coverage: Gosnell trial continues

Brit Hume tweets on Gosnell horrors: ‘This is where the culture of abortion can lead’

  • therantinggeek

    *waves his hand* This isn’t the story you’re looking for. #WikiMindTrick

  • http://pinterest.com/j0s1395/ Josephine (D)

    And, of course, Wikipedia is very liberally biased, especially to abortion. Ugh.

    • MarcusFenix

      Eh, somewhat. Sadly, the same freedom people have to add/edit those pages brings the same idiocy out when it comes to this sort of thing, as demonstrated by the consideration for deletion. It’s likely some left-wing retard who doesn’t want to tarnish their abortion stance with facts, truth, or accountability, and they want to whitewash the whole thing. It doesn’t support the liberal narrative, so….it can’t be allowed to remain.

      • http://twitter.com/KayGester KayGee

        Don’t feel bad, there’s always conservapedia, where they don’t even let the liberals edit and tarnish pages with their non-facts. http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

        • MarcusFenix

          Would have responded earlier…but you replied 3 days ago…and its just now showing as added…..go Disqus. <_<

          I was also always a fan of the Wayback Machine…people would go nuts when they would swear they didn't do something…and you pulled up the original and the scrubbed version and shoved it in their face.

          Good times. :)

  • Mead

    “Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on
    an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.” <– if this is true, then despite the silliness of 'local crime only' bullshit, they have a valid point.

    • lonestar

      rename it. They have an extensive article on George Zimmerman listed under shooting of Trayvon Martin.

      • Joe W.

        I just linked to it for you, my friend….BTW….AWESOME morning in Texas, yes???

      • TN05

        If they were to do anything, that is what they would do. Many times the perp of a crime isn’t independently notable outside that crime, so they just fold their article into the ‘Trial of X’ article.

    • Joe W.

      Then why does “WIKI” have THIS, I wonder? Is this not a “local trial”?? Is it still, as yet adjudicated?? Still think there is no bias or double standard??


      • Mead

        Relax, pal, before you have a stroke. You clearly didn’t slow down long enough to understand the extremely simple point I was making, so maybe you should do that before your shift key files assault charges.

        • Joe W.

          Don’t get so butt hurt over my post, “pal”. I was clearly emphasizing the fact that your point was invalid, based upon Wiki’s own contradiction. You said they “have a point” and I said they did not. And you get all offended?? Give me a break. As for me having a stroke?? Mind your own damned business, please. I’ll tend to my own well being and you tend to yours. Is that O.K. with you??

          • Mead

            No you didn’t, you tried to imply that I didn’t think there was bias or a double standard. Pointing out that they might actually finally be following their stated policy for once is in no way saying that. And seriously, calm down. It’s not good for you or your keyboard. But hey, if that’s what you want to do with the rest of your life, then go right ahead…

          • Joe W.

            My implication was correct, Bosco. You said that you believed they had a point. I proved you wrong. You can’t handle that. Tough. And again, thanks for your concern for my health, sonny. What I do with the rest of my life is my business and does not concern you. You sound like a liberal with all this defensive, hair splitting drivel. Have a great day. And, as I know you are the sort that just has to get the last word in, be my guest. Take your best shot and then just please leave me alone, so I can “calm down”…

    • jynxedforlife
    • TN05

      Wikipedia’s Biography on living persons (BLP) policy is pretty strict, but the media coverage has been enough to establish the page is needed IMO. Wikipedia doesn’t want people to sue them, so they have to have rules like that.

      • Mead

        Yep. It would be nice if they’d get consistent, but then .. it is wikipedia after all :)

        • TN05

          I agree, there needs to be consistency. Unfortunately, they also have a policy called Ignore All Rules (IAR) with basically prevents that.

  • TN05

    As a Wikipedian I want to apologize for this.

    • answer1776

      Reconsider should be your first response. Apology second.

    • TN05

      No. I edit primarily Contemporary Christian/Christian rock and football articles, which have pretty crappy coverage. Further, if you look at the discussion all but two people are saying to keep it. The guy who proposed it is a new user, not an established one. Considering I voted ‘no’ I have nothing to apologize for.

  • disqus_eric

    If it gets deleted, does that mean it never happened?

    • Mead

      I copied it to a file, everyone should.

  • AWomaninTX

    I just saw that! I went to Wiki to see what they had up & noticed that it was up for review.

    It’s been marked for several reasons other than lack of national media coverage, ones that can be easily remedied.

    If I understand correctly, anyone is allowed to have an article reviewed (so it is feasable that Gosnell himself could ask to have it removed) and anyone is allowed to edit the article to help it stay within the guidelines. But considering it has been up for review since June of 2012, I think it will be saved.

    I do think they have a point with the fact that he has not been convicted, yet. What exactly should be done, I do not know.

    • robcrawford2

      They have an article about St. Trayvon. Zimmerman’s not been convicted yet, either.

      • AWomaninTX

        Good point. Again, the readers are the one who report articles for review. Maybe it too should be put up for review.

        Personally, I am wary of Wiki articles. They are not as reliable as (too) many think. I have reported inaccuracies & plagiaries when I have found them. The articles are whatever someone, anyone, types up & submits.

  • CatHerder

    I’m fine with deleting the article, as long as they delete Gosnell at the same time.

  • pink for the girls

    meanwhile there are/were hoaxes that wikipedia has/had on their site for YEARS.

  • Kleverabevera

    10 yrs from now Gosnell will be the victim on his Wikipedia page.

    • RblDiver

      He valiantly was defending himself from evil babies, er, fetus’ assault wails, or something.

    • Jack Perry

      Right! Because even though the UN has stated that life starts at birth without regard to the cord being attached/detached, he was just completing the late-term abortion because even though he was not fast enough to kill a viable “fetus” he should be allowed an exception to the legal definition of murder and the mere legal fact that the fetus transitioned to child should not have any impact on this… minor wrinkle… let’s see what the jury has to say.

  • Jack Deth

    Since Wikipedia is more or less today’s indisputable Pravda.

    This kind of reminds me of the Russians air brushing malcontents, “un-persons” and those best left forgotten out of photos in their news papers and history books throughout the 1950s and beyond.

  • conservativechick

    It is a local multiple-murder story in Pennsylvania, nothing more. WHAT? Please try to imagine if the doctor or even that so called “clinic” were ravaged like those poor babies. It would be the lead story with gory details for years. This is beyond mind boggling. Even abortion rights advocates can’t think this ok? I know Obama supports letting botched abortion babies, born alive, be left to die, but this was torture. Everyone should be outraged.

  • R0nin

    I’ve long since realized that Wikipedia is just another Liberal organ. I only use it now to look up unimportant things (such as a TV series), knowing that on any issues of import, you will only get what Liberals want you to think on a topic.

    For crying out loud, I had to edit the article on the Bill of Rights because it omitted any discussion of religious freedom– even when specifically addressing the First Amendment. Since then, the article has been used to reflect a number of Liberal biases.

  • sueanneh

    I asked my local news stations to report on the story. Here is what they said, ” we rarely cover trials that are outside the metro Atlanta area, those are best left to national news outlets. This link is also an opinion column and not an article, which would limit what we could report from it. I suspect the case is so gruesome that’s also limiting coverage nationwide. Thanks for writing.”

    So I guess they didn’t report on Casey Anthony? Or OJ? Or the shootings in Connecticut?

    • AWomaninTX

      “I suspect the case is so gruesome that’s also limiting coverage nationwide.”
      That’s what I am thinking, too. Thing is, when he was arrested, news organizations *did* cover it; Some in detail too, so much detail that I remember having to change the channel so my children did not hear it.

      ETA: Personally I hate having to watch the news in my room with the doors shut so as to not scare my children. I hate how sensationalistic, how very graphic, it has become in recent years. It’s scary how far it has gone to compete. I hate the way HLN is covering the Jodi Arias trial. I am *not* a fan of Nancy Grace & her like.

      I *do* think things should be covered, not ignored completely. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. But the absolute lack of mention is scary.

      • Mead

        Nah, everyone went nuts over Dahmer, there’s something else going on

        • AWomaninTX

          Good point.
          I just hate to think it’s all about “protecting abortion rights” over full, honest coverage. Infanticide is such an awful topic to discuss.

  • caseym54

    Wikipedia has to be careful lest trivial matters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anya_Jenkins) clutter their pages, or pages upon pages relating to politically charged Philadelphia crimes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania_v._Mumia_Abu-Jamal) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal_in_popular_culture) spawn unwanted politicizing of the service.

    After all, disk space is really costly these days, with each 10,000 pages costing a dollar of hard drive.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    I like how you can find the most miniscule, unimportant information on Wikipedia about things like what guys the Kardashian’s have dated or comic book character’s love lives yet the story of a man who mass murdered babies over a 30 year period is considered too small of a story.

  • http://silverandblueblood.com/ DoomsDaddy


  • SPCAndyJ

    That’s why Conservapedia is a much better resource…

    • Guest

      I have not heard of that! Thank you for the mention.

  • daPenguin

    First…. and second…. and third- the golden rule of libs, never ever speak ill of abortion in any way no matter how much you have to lie and obfuscate.

  • Karl Winrich

    The only potentially valid reason I could see for them to delete it at this time is that the trial is still ongoing, and could (not likely) still swing in the wrong direction and free this devil. So hurry up jury and find this bastard GUILTY so we can stick his a$$ in the chair!

  • Im_Rick_James

    Response from a liberal re. #Gosnell: re. Dead babies, RT @lilmsgs “I like em deep fried wTeriyaki sauce” – #Gosnell

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Gate/100002541144506 Susan Gate

    Well… Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murder .. was just a local story..nothing to see hear folks..
    Isn’t everyone enraged yet?

  • http://twitter.com/1RandiStarr Randi Starr

    A site that is not allowed to be used as factual basis for research, is entertainment, no reason to eliminate the article.

  • TK

    It should be noted that only two Wikipedia users have voted in favor of deleting the article, including the one who suggested it in the first place. All others have voted to keep it.

  • Barack Hussein Sharpton

    Wikipedia is going to abort the news.

  • rivers

    Honest to God, do these people read Orwell as instruction manuals?

  • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

    This article should be deleted because IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

  • http://www.twoconservativelesbians.com MeredithAncret

    If you look at the comments there is only about 3 people saying it should be deleted. The rest want to keep it. Thank god for that, people aren’t total morons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kermit_Gosnell

  • TN05

    Just a note to all of you, good job. Media coverage of the deletion request has led to a current effort to improve the page, so congrats to Twitchy and other media sources who reported it.

  • Zefal

    We are going to blackout this story because the national media is blacking out this story.

    “Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.”

    Have they deleted the George Zimmerman/ Trayvon Martin page based on this?

  • holygoat

    The overwhelming opinion in the Wikipedia discussion is that the article remain. Anyone with an account can request that any article be deleted, which is what appears to be the case here. This is not Wikipedia the “entity” considering deleting it, it is a single user with a political axe to grind. And he has been soundly refuted.

  • msueh

    This may well be the last time I consider checking wikipedia for anything – or at least take anything they write seriously…

  • J.N. Ashby

    Tss It’s not easy being an abortionist or sumpthin tss tss *clap* double clothes hangers

  • JR RJ

    The person that nominated it for deletion is a lesbian activist type.

  • ZimbaZumba

    The Wikipedia idea is beginning to fail in certain parts of the site, due to infiltration of Marxist/Feminist mobs. I am basically liberal myself and my views on abortion are complex, I find this deleting of pages tactic by these people disgusting. All gender related pages are polluted by these ideologues, they are using Wikipedia as a mouth piece.

    One of the tactics of Cultural Marxism, as designed by the Frankfurt School, is to subvert language and information. Wikipedia is a petri dish of this in action. All efforts should be made to retain this page.

  • I’mNotMraBut…

    This is classic Wikipedia politics and Group Think. Wikipedia is a very poor quality technocracy where the abuse and bullying by the elevated Sysop cadre is legion. The left wing extremism they display is disturbing – and I say that as a Life Long Socialist.

  • The Invisible Hand

    When a Wikipedia page is deleted, the MSM loses their main research source! :)

  • assholery

    DAE Pro-Life?