Talk:Becky Bell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Scholarly Accounts"

I was wondering why Binksternet, above, said he was presenting "scholarly accounts" instead of "medical accounts" or something similar. Now I see why! What he gives us are not accounts by doctors, or even, for the most part, by serious journalists or historians, but accounts BY LAWYERS; people who make their living as advocates. It is utterly absurd, for example, to present Laurence Tribe as an "objective" commentator. He is a famous abortion rights advocate. One might as well present Willke or the late Bernard Nathanson as objective observers, except that they, at least, were medical doctors. As for Selina K. Hewitt ("she describes how Becky's parents talked to all of Becky's friends [not just Heather] and pieced together the facts of her pregnancy") . . how many levels of hearsay does her account involve? In passing, I noticed the name Nadine Strossen somewhere in Binksternet's scholarly list, but missing were Gloria Steinem and Eleanor Smeal so I suspect he has to dig a little deeper.

Binksternet describes the Providence Journal's Mark Patinkin, a source for one of his sources, as a "veteran reporter" doing an "investigative piece" . . I should like the local angle (writing from Smithfied, RI) he thinks. My local angle, however, allows me to say that Patinkin is not a veteran reporter. He is a veteran columnist and was already a veteran columnist, not a reporter, when he did the piece on the Bells.

This being said, however, Wikipedia's Becky Bell article is still quite a bit better than it was before BoboMeowCat, GodBlessYou2, myself, and the editor who added the Frolik/Plain Dealer information entered the picture. One problem, however, is the awkward, unwarranted bit in the intro about the spontaneous abortion possibility being "less likely" than induced abortion possibility which I will soon attend to. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Whoops! Looks like someone already did this for me. Good.[reply]

Laurence Tribe does not have to agree with your stance for him to be a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. He assessed the case and gave his conclusion, which is quite fair in that he says it is "unclear" how Becky terminated her pregnancy, rather than assuming there is only one possibility. However, Tribe concludes that induced abortion was the most likely cause. Tribe is certainly not alone in this conclusion; a great many of the scholars looking at this topic have come to the same conclusion.
Likewise, lawyers writing in scholarly journals do not have to agree with your stance to be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. We will continue to use the analysis of lawyers despite your expressed repugnance. Per
WP:WEIGHT, the idea that spontaneous abortion is a much less likely possibility must remain in the article, and prominently declared in the lead section as well as detailed in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

But wait . . there's more!!

In touting Selina K. Hewitt's law review article as a superior sort of source for the Becky Bell article, Binksternet told us that Hewitt "discusses the case in detail in her scholarly paper." She does not. The material on Bell amounts to the first page of a forty-nine page article. Some of what Binksternet says is her article simply isn't there (nothing there about a death bed confession of sin, though I'm sure that Binksternet must have seen this someplace). What actually is in Hewitt's article is derived largely from that great bastion of scholarly journalism People Magazine and with quite similar wording. See [1] (coincidentally, or perhaps not, one the People article's co-authors is also named Hewitt). Binksternet had to know this because Hewitt at least had the honesty (or hutzpah) to credit People in her footnotes. As for the scholarly quality of the People article that Professor Hewitt relied on, it contains nothing about Becky's drug use, nothing about Heather Clark, nothing about the possibility of a self induced abortion, let alone the possibility of a spontaneous abortion. It does, however, say that Becky "adored animals and was so sweet-tempered that she had given up riding rather than use a crop on a horse." In short, a real Hollywood set piece.

Binksternet should do us all a favor and voluntarily abstain from this article. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt's article is superior because of its publication in a scholarly journal, which is reinforced by its having been cited so often. Scholars set the terms of discussion. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 131..... None of these sources are superior to any other. The claim that a count of the number of articles favoring one interpretation of events or the other does not help us to balance the WEIGHT of opinions or coverage. What Binksternet considers the "minority" opinion is simply that which was disfavored in the slant chosen by the majority of main stream publishers. But the minority opinion was covered by most main stream publishers -- including, for example, in the widely published syndicated column of Cal Thomas, which I presume was right along side liberal columnists taking the opposite opinion. Given the that country is pretty equally divided on the abortion issue, I suspect that polls of the public at that time would have indicated that the view that Becky likely had a miscarriage rather than an illegal abortion was widely held. In short, this article is in balance when it makes clear that the actual cause of her abortion is not known and was subject to debate, while at the same time noting that the pathologist and coroner both asserted that an illegal abortion was, in their opinions, while acknowledging the lack of physical evidence for those opinions, the most likely cause of the abortion and infection. I've read the Nathenson analysis which is highly critical of that opinion. And given his medical experience, Nathanson's opinion is not one to be dismissed lightly. But I would never claim that his opinion deserves to be given more weight than other sources cited, though clearly it deserves as much weight, or more, as any attorneys' opinions. -- GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of public-opinion polls, much less hypothetical public-opinion polls, to our coverage. Nathanson had, as far as I know, exactly zero experience in interpreting autopsy findings, which is probably why reliable sources gave his view so little credence. I think you're running up against the problem that the available reliable sources contradict your personal viewpoint. Right now, you're attributing that discrepancy to "the slant chosen by the majority of main stream publishers", but that's basically how we define
WP:WEIGHT here. MastCell Talk 20:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@Binksternet. No, scholars in their respective fields set the terms of discussion. Selina K. Hewitt is not a medical doctor, not a professional journalist, and not an historian. She is a lawyer/law professor writing about legal developments. Holding her article up as a superior source about the facts of the Bell saga is like holding up a golf story in a physics article as a superior source about the golfing event.
Once again, you (a.) Misrepresented Hewitt's article as one that "discusses the case in detail." (b.) Failed to note it's reliance on People Magazine. (c.) Claimed that there was factual material in Hewitt's account which WAS NOT THERE. I find little reason to take your contributions here seriously. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
131.109.225.24, please comment on content, not the contributor. Hewitt may not be a perfect source but it does sum up the case quite well. The fact that it partly relies on people magazine is irrelevant as that people article is itself a reliable source. Hewitt is just one of several sources describing the events that occurred and I don't see the problem with it in this context. Ca2james (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon Jim, give me a break. The two paragraph, three to four hundred word Hewitt contribution, relying most heavily on People Magazine, does not "sum up the case quite nicely." It says nothing about Becky's prior problems (except for a churlish boyfriend). It says nothing about Heather Clark, nothing about the possibility of a self-induced abortion, and nothing about the possibility of a spontaneous abortion. It is simply designed to be a sympathetic set piece intro to her legal presentation which involves the presumed dangers of "chipping away at Roe v. Wade." 131.109.225.24 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The facts of the case that I was referring to are that she got pregnant and died of a self-induced abortion because she didn't want to get parental consent, a requirement at the time. Any prior problems she might have had aren't relevant to the case; it doesn't matter why she didn't want to go to her parents, it only matters that she felt that way. Heather Clark's opinion isn't relevant, either, because she's not an expert on Bell. So yes, that particular source summed up the facts of the case quite well. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think 131's point is that Hewitt relying on the People article has no more authority or insight than one of us relying on the People article. In fact, it seems likely that we, perhaps individually and certainly collectively, have consulted and synthesized more sources and material than Hewitt cited. Therefore, the claim that Hewitt's piece represents a superior insight into this case from "academic" level, is specious. It's admittedly a source, but a tertiary one that is clearly agenda driven. I don't object to seeing it cited. I just don't think it adds anything that's not found in other sources.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hewitt's authority comes not from People but from her scholarly status. She cited People but we cannot know what else she looked at to form her analysis. There could have been any number of interviews or primary investigations made by her, which she would not cite. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If she did not cite her sources, that tells us a lot about the quality of her scholarship. Pretty basic stuff.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Revisions

I see that Ca2james reverted my changes to the lead. I'd like editors to discuss these below.

My version (citations omitted. First and last sentence omitted)

  • Bell went to Planned Parenthood with a friend and was told that Indiana state law required her to obtain parental consent but that parental consent was not needed if she went to their clinic in Kentucky, 100 miles away. According to her friend, Bell wavered about what to do. Bell was subsequently hospitalized with a case of severe pneumonia and died. The autopsy showed evidence of genital infection and fetal matter but no signs of trauma or infection of the cervix. The coroner and pathologist stated the most likely cause of the infection was an induced abortion, most likely illegal or perhaps self-induced, but they could not rule out spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) triggered by pneumonia.

Ca2james' version w/ Binksternet's minor edit (citations omitted. First and last sentence omitted)

  • She intended to get a legal abortion but was hindered by Indiana state parental consent laws, which required either her parents' consent or a waiver from a judge, which she was afraid or unwilling to obtain.[1][3] The autopsy could not determine whether she died as a result of an infection following an induced abortion or whether pneumonia caused a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).[3] Most experts agree that Bell appears to have obtained an illegal abortion or induced one herself and died due to complications from the procedure.[4]

My argument: First, I believe my lead is entirely accurate and reflects the facts. If you object to it, please identify anything in it that is inaccurate. Ca2James justified his or her revert with the claim that "including details about her confusion doesn't need to be in the lead as the lead is a summary only." But I think her confusion very relevant because it underscores what both the pathologist and Clark said and why there is no certainty about what actually happened. My lead also contains a clear statement to the effect that the coronor and pathologist both stated their opinions that there was an illegal abortion . . . which is the strongest evidence for that view point, since they were actually involved in the examination. I think that is precisely how the WEIGHT issue should be balanced in the lead.

Regarding Ca2james version: Statements like "she intended" and "she was afraid" are mind reading. At the very least they should be clarified with the attribution, "according to her parents, she intended..." My version attributes her wavering intent to the statements of her friend who asserts that she knows more about what was going on in her mind than her parents did at that time. Also, I think my version is more accurate in describing the results of the autopsy. And the the claim that "most experts agree" that she had an illegal abortion is not supported by all of the citations listed. Nearly all of those citations are referring to the same small group of experts: the coroner and pathologist. Unless one had the results reviewed by at least a statistically representative sample of several hundred autopsy experts, we don't know what "most experts" think about the matter. What Ca2james can assert is that "most mainstream media articles on the issue state that Bell died of an illegal abortion." But the phrase "most experts agree" is totally out of place. I think I've seen something in policy regarding the requirement for a very high standard of proof before claiming that there is a scientific consensus opinion on any matter, much less a very specific question regarding one young woman's cause of death.

So I invite other editors to chime in on editing the lead.

I would add that I have previously suggested that the lead could be as simple as: "Rebecca "Becky" Suzanne Bell (August 24, 1971 – September 16, 1988) was an American teenage girl who died of complications from a septic abortion. Following Bell's death, her parents became advocates for the repeal of parental-consent laws." But someone, perhaps Ca2james, argued that the lead should include a more complete summary of the body of the article, which is why I tried to summarize the body of the article as I did.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ca2james' version is good. The previous version included far too much detail (for the lead) about specific pathologic findings at autopsy, and also lacked coherent flow. As far as "most experts", I think Ca2james' version actually understates the sources. All of the experts interviewed in the reliable sources express the opinion that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion. (Nathanson and Willke are not experts in post-mortem diagnosis, and as far as I know neither has any experience in forensic pathology or in interpreting autopsy results). It might be more in line with the sources to say: "The coroner determined that Bell died of of a septic abortion, likely as a consequence of an illegal abortion, although the autopsy findings were subsequently disputed by anti-abortion activists." Or maybe that's too much detail for the lead, but I think we should be clear - it's not like there are a bunch (or any) forensic pathologists lining up to dispute the coroner's findings. MastCell Talk 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not in love with "most experts" either but I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing that at the time. The sentence proposed by MastCell works for me. I felt that the GodBlessYou2's version included too much detail and repeated too much content from the one section. Ca2james (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should stress the coroner in lead. Better to stick with the opinions of autopsy doctor (Dr. Pless), who is an undisputed expert with first hand knowledge. Coroner's are not MD's. They often have little to no medical training. Per the Coroner wiki page: "Qualifications for coroners are set by individual states and counties in the U.S. and vary widely. In many jurisdictions, little or no training is required." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to focus on this particular case, BoboMeowCat. Nobody at all has questioned the coroner's competence. You can close off that line of thought as unproductive. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can my version have "far too much detail" when it is only one line longer than the other version? If we don't want "too much detail in the lead," why not cut it down to the first and last sentence, like I suggested earlier? But if we are going to have further description sandwiched between, why not give accurate details? And the details I added are accurate. No one has disputed that.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just about how many lines the lead contains; it's about the level of detail. No one is disputing that the details you added are accurate but we are disputing that all those details belong in the lead. Those details were essentially copied from the body of the article which isn't a summary. Also, including those specific details gives them
WP:NPOV. Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

"Most Experts" vs "Most Journalists"

The assertion that "most experts agree" that she had an illegal abortion is not supported by the sources, all of which cite one or two parties. In none of the cited articles does the journalist claim to have found a consensus of experts. It is my impression that all are citing either the coroner or the supervisor of pathology. According to this Baltimore Sun article, Jesse Giles, the doctor who actually did the autopsy believes Bell "suffered a miscarriage." While Gile's report did note that an abortion had taken place (she had been pregnant, but was not pregnant at the time of death), due to the lack of any infection in the uterus ("sepsis) he had deliberately not used the term "septic abortion" in his report; the word "septic" was added by his supervisor (Pless, I presume).

I readily acknowledge that this article was written by a professional pro-life staffer, but given the liability issues such an article raises, the Baltimore Sun certainly engaged their fact checkers before publishing it both in regard to claims made about Giles and those made about Erica Richardson. In any event, this is just one more bit of evidence that the claim "most experts agree" Bell had an illegal abortion is not supported by the record.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I wasn't thrilled with the "most experts" phrasing. However, saying "most news articles" or "most journalists " is worse because it's not
WP:NPOV by downplaying the fact that the coroner and pathologist and almost all medical experts agree that she had an illegal abortion. MastCell suggested a change to the sentence in the preceding section that I fully support so go ahead and put that in. Ca2james (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Regarding the Baltimore Sun piece, we don't use partisan opinion pieces as sources for factual claims. This is spelled out in
WP:RSOPINION, but should hopefully be a matter of common sense. MastCell Talk 01:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@CA2James: Regarding your statement above, where is the source for the information that beyond the pathologist (Dr. John Pless) and the coroner, "almost all medical experts agree that she had an illegal abortion."?
@MastCell: Thanks for linking
WP:RSOPINION to your above statement. Otherwise I might not have learned from its first sentence that: "Some sources may be considered reliable as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(author) says . . . .'" In other words Wikipedia CAN "use partisan opinion pieces as sources for factual claims" as long as it designates them as claims, and not as outright facts and attributes them inline to the author. Hopefully, however, this should be old hat to an administrator such as yourself. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the anti-abortion point of view is already well-documented, if not given
agenda accounts pushing for these sorts of low-quality sources here doesn't help build a better article. MastCell Talk 01:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Please help me pull together a list of all the "experts" are who are being represented in all of these various sources:

  • Induced, illegal abortion: Dr. Dennis J. Nicholas (coroner); Dr. John Pless [pathologist, and Curry's superior], who in Plain Dealer article admits that it could be miscarriage, but thinks illegal abortion most likely. Are any other experts cited? These are the only two I've seen mentioned, in addition to the Bell's own account, of course.
  • Miscarriage: Dr. Jesse Giles, the pathologist who did the autopsy; Dr. Bernard Nathenson, obstetrician and former abortion provider who had experience treating infected reproductive systems; Dr. John Curry (interviewed and quoted by Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist; interviewed but not quoted in 60 Minutes report); Dr. Jack Willke, obstetrician; and according to Willke, numerous others NRLC had shown the autopsy report to, two of which are identified here as Dr. Tommy Hewett and Dr. Mayo Gilson.

I'm open to seeing the reports of Planned Parenthood's preferred experts, especially if they make their arguments from the autopsy results to dispute the autopsy analysis of Nathenson and those who side with him, but I haven't seen any other experts cited except Nicholas and Pless (whose statements are clearly framed in terms of illegal abortion being the most likely scenario, in his opinion, but he does not rule out spontaneous abortion, given the evidence at hand.)

I'm fine with the lead saying that the coroner and/or pathologist believed illegal abortion was the most likely cause of the abortion, but "most experts" is not supported by any of the sources.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "most experts" turn-of-phrase includes all the scholars who have written about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All but two of the sources cited for this statement are articles by journalists. Are you claiming they are "scholars"? Or are you saying "most experts" is sufficiently covered by the two lawyers cited, Tribe and Hewitt? I'll concede to calling them scholars; but they are not physicians so not anywhere near being experts. But perhaps they cited some physicians other than Pless and Nicholas. That would be helpful. Please inform me of the string of medical experts, cited by Tribe or Hewitt, who side with Pless and Nicholas against Giles and Nathanson.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than op-eds, commentary, and literature from the
reliable sources for Giles, Nathanson, Curry, et al. We do, however, have very reliable sources for Pless and Nicholas. Pless, the forensic pathologist who actually performed the autopsy, is very clear in the 60-minutes interview, "Becky Bell died as a result of a septic abortion with pneumonia", and Frolik is clear on Nicholas, "According to Dr. Dennis J. Nicholas, the coroner here in Marion County, Becky Bell was killed by pneumonia brought on by the use of unsterile instruments during an illegal abortion." Without reliable sources sources that contradict the findings of Pless and Nicholas this discussion is just more of the same logical fallacy committed by Willke (i.e., it's Argumentum ad verecundiam, see Walton, Douglas N. (1991). "Bias, critical doubt and fallacies" (PDF). Argumentation and Advocacy. 28. American Forensic Association: 1–22., Case 5, page 9 for an explanation of Willke's fail). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Cleveland Plain Dealer references are not op-ed pieces and they contain reference to physicians, arguably biased ones, who say miscarriage is most likely explanation. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I feel that by quibbling over these words, we're losing sight of ways to improve that sentence. I've replaced the "most experts" sentence with the suggested version by MastCell, above. Hopefully we can lay this discussion to rest now. Ca2james (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this sentence recently added: "The coroner determined that Bell died of of a septic abortion, likely as a consequence of an illegal abortion, although the autopsy findings were subsequently disputed by anti-abortion activists" it seems best to add a few words regarding why it was disputed by anti-abortion advocates. Perhaps just adding "noting the autopsy showed no injury to Bell’s cervix or uterus." would be sufficient. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we should be placing that technical stuff in the lead. It already states that the autopsy findings were not clear-cut. Ca2james's edit is definitely an improvement on the "most experts" wording which was especially bad given what
agenda accounts. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC) I'm going to give it a tweak or two, however.[reply
]
The attribution to the coroner is much better than to "most experts," and clearly supported by the sources. I'm also fine with "this explanation was subsequently disputed by physicians associated with the pro-life movement."
I think the other tweaks of wording in 131's most recent edit also improve objectivity by eliminating words describing Bell's inner thoughts and feelings. These can be reinserted if the lead is changed to describe these in terms of, "according to her parents" in the say way Morey Safer repeatedly framed these type of statements as "according to the Bells." —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE. Besides, that sentence already says that the autopsy didn't clearly show an abortion. I'm very happy that we're all satisfied with the change. Thank you to both MastCell for the original suggestion and to 131.109.225.24 for the subsequent tweaks, which I agree improve the sentence. Ca2james (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that it's best to avoid too much detail in lead.
original research with wikipedia editors determining who was an expert and who was not. Seems better to just specify who thought what. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Re: recent changes to lead

According to

spontaneous abortion.76.119.115.57 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I prefer MastCell's text as it's shorter, more summary-style, and flows better. The details that are omitted in the lead in that edit are better placed in the body of the article; they add information that is of interest in the full description of what happened but are unnecessary for the lead. Ca2james (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the previous language, about the autopsy being unable to determine the cause of death, was sort of misleading. The autopsy doesn't determine the cause of death; the coroner makes that determination, using the autopsy results as one data point. For example, the autopsy of a deceased person with a gunshot wound to the head often cannot determine whether the death was a homicide or a suicide. But the coroner may determine, by incorporating other data, that the death was a homicide (for instance, if witnesses observed someone shoot the victim). My point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to emphasize the uncertainty of the autopsy results in isolation, particularly in the lead, when the coroner's determination was quite clear. MastCell Talk 17:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of the coroner determining the cause of death rather than the autopsy determining it, but your explanation makes sense to me. Therefore, I support your change for that reason, too. Ca2james (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping. Looking over the recent changes, they seem to change the POV of the lead away from neutral. The longstanding version says:

The autopsy could not determine whether she died as a result of an infection following an induced abortion or whether pneumonia caused a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).[3] The coroner found that Bell died of a septic abortion, likely as a consequence of an illegal abortion, although this explanation was subsequently disputed by physicians associated with the pro-life movement.[4]

recently changed version:

Bell either obtained an illegal abortion or attempted to self-abort, leading to a fatal infection. The coroner determined that Bell died of a septic abortion, likely as a consequence of an illegal abortion, although this explanation was subsequently disputed by physicians associated with the pro-life movement.[4]

These changes to lead remove the ambiguity of the case. If there are concerns regarding the stable version, perhaps it could be tweaked to say why the autopsy results in this case were considered unclear. I seem to recall sources discussing lack of marks on cervix or injury to the uterus or cervix etc, but I think that could get lengthy and think the longstanding version is probably fine.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if either MastCell or Ca2james have reread this short article. The coroner, at least in his own mind if not in his official report, was not "quite clear." The fourth paragraph of the "Background" section says "The county coroner and the pathologist both later told the press that the abortion and infection were most likely caused by the use of unsterile instruments used during an illegal abortion procedure but could not rule out a spontaneous abortion." This, of course, conflicts with MastCell's lead paragraph edit which flatly states "Bell either obtained an illegal abortion or attempted to self abort, leading to a fatal infection" which precludes the possibility of a miscarriage. The two statements are clearly at odds and should not exist in the same article. 173.162.254.25 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding me that the body of the article also needs to be corrected to follow the sources. (We base our coverage on reliable sources, not on other sections of the Wikipedia article, after all). I've listed sources elsewhere and I don't think there's a need to repeat them all here, but there is clearly a consensus among reliable sources that Bell died of complications of an unsafe induced abortion, and that the coroner concluded as much. To the extent that our article misleadingly obscures this consensus, we are violating this site's core content policies. I'll take another shot at fixing this. MastCell Talk 18:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive zeal. However, "bold editing is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing." The lead of an article is supposed to reflect the body of the article, not vice versa, and the information that you've removed from the body was already reliably sourced (though other sources are probably available to buttress it) and supported by consensus. Substantively, you seem to have actually made this article more objectionable, not less objectionable, than it was before the compromises of December 2014 to which you agreed. For example, the language that you have twice, now, inserted in the lead: " . . . Bell either obtained an illegal abortion or attempted to self-abort, leading to a fatal infection" is a preclusive statement in Wikipedia's voice and is thus utterly dismissive of any dissenting views mentioned in the body. To further dismiss those views you've gratuitously added the fact that on one occasion one source found one doctor who was supposed to have supported Willke's dissent but didn't. Far more important, of course, would be those who did support Willke, and the physicians involved in the autopsy and coroner's report who believed that the forensic evidence pointed to an induced abortion but who admitted that they were not certain. 76.119.115.57 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, there's clearly no ongoing consensus for the older text, so please (dear IP editor) stop reverting "per consensus". There seems to be a decent amount of support, both here on the talkpage and in edits/edit summaries on the article itself, for the newer language. I'm open to further discussion, but not to more blind reverting "per consensus" when that consensus clearly no longer exists. MastCell Talk 01:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only "ongoing" support I see for your version on this talkpage is from you (dear editor/administrator). It is true that
I just don't like it
?
The substantive problem with your lead change is obvious. It is a classic
Birther category of dissent. That might be excusable if we were actually dealing with Truther/Birther nonsense but here we clearly are not. When physicians involved in Bell's autopsy and coroner's report admit to the possibility that she had a spontaneous abortion rather than an induced one then that possibility should not be precluded in the lead. Yet this is exactly what you have done. You should know better. 173.162.254.25 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I've been elsewhere and haven't paid close attention to what's been going on here, so please do not mistake my silence on this page for agreement with your views, IP. I still support MastCell's version of the lead and I support his proposed changes to the body because they better conform to the reliable sources on the subject, which agree that she had an abortion (either illegal or self-induced). I have read the short article, and it is clear to me that the pathologist and coroner both concluded that she had an abortion (by saying that she most likely died as a result of an infection due to the abortion) but couldn't prove it (by saying that they couldn't rule out other causes). To suggest that it's equally possible that she miscarried as obtained an abortion is to misstate the reliable sources and is not appropriate anywhere in the article because, as MastCell says, to misstate the consensus of reliable sources goes against the core content policies. Ca2james (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ca2James, I agree that we shouldn't present possibility of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) as equally likely as induced abortion, but it seems MastCell's version rules out spontaneous abortion as a possibility, which seems contradicted by The Plain Dealer source. Full discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell/Archive_1#Plain_Dealer_article_exists but we should probably take into consideration this excerpt from final column on page 14-A:
Pathologist Pless says, "we can't determine" precisely how Bell died. He found no evidence of internal injury, which he felt ruled out a self-induced abortion. Nor were there any marks on Becky's cervix that would be lieft by the instruments commonly used for clinic abortions. He theorizes someone pushed something up her cervix without leaving a sign.
Other physicians who have examined the evidence come to different conclusions. Some suggest a self-induced abortion, although Becky's family and friends say she would be too squeamish for that. Still others say it's possible she got an infection that led to pneumonia and triggered a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage. Heather Clark subscribes to that theory. It would explain why Becky asked her to schedule an out-of-state abortion.
"I cannot prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous abortion," said Pless, who said he based his conclusions on "the percentages" of what would most likely to produce the results he observed. "I wish we had all the answers, but unfortunately the answers went to the grave with the little girl. She was the only one we know knew."
Perhaps the ambiguity can be addressed by adding qualifiers such as "most likely" and "possibly" or "could not rule out". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Ca2james and MastCell have stated above "To suggest that it's equally possible that she miscarried as obtained an abortion is to misstate the reliable sources and is not appropriate anywhere in the article because, as MastCell says, to misstate the consensus of reliable sources goes against the core content policies." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Becky_Bell&oldid=1195168506"