Talk:Great Ormond Street Hospital

Info box
The info box was showing Speciality. I have changed it to Pediatrics. If anyone can think of a better specialty then they are welcome to change it. RicDod 21:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to paediatrics - sorry, correct spelling
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.161.145 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 November 2006



It seems very odd to run the OTA information. Many groups have been founded after 'meetings at Great Ormond Street', some more recently and with stronger links to it now. I would delete this sc195.194.165.1 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

photographs?
This article needs some photographs. Sadly I do not have any. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Excellent. Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Added photo from Geograph. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Charity single
the charity single has been deleted. GOSH has done many things to fundraise over the years why single this one out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.68.26 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It should not have been deleted. The song was a hit and featured many notable artists. If there are other things done that are notable - add them.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Best funded
The comment about 'best funded' has been deleted as it is tendacious. Great Ormond Street deals with some of the sickest and most complex patients in the NHS. proceedures such as heart transplants, bone marrow transplants, gene therapy and the like are highly expensive, because they are so highly labour intensive. current funding systems in the NHS underfund specialist trusts and there have also been significant cuts in research funding. it is the combination of financial issues that explains why GOSH has not been able to submit a suitable business plan to become a foundation trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.68.26 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Pan Copyright
I would agree with the anonymous editor who deleted JasonAQuest's contribution about new works based not requiring GOSH's permission anymore:  the footnotes refer to  the GOSH website but there's nothing in there that confirms the statement. The copyright status of Peter Pan is complex, especially in the US where the novel is in the public domain but not the play, but that doesn't necessarily mean the story of Peter Pan is. Since the play is the same story as the novel, with same settings, characters and incidents, it can be argued that the copyright covers the latter as well. I'm not saying it does, just that it can be interpreted that way. As far as I can see from different reports, lawyers are divided on the issue - and the Somma case which tried to force the issue was settled out of court so no precedent could be drawn from it. The other footnote referring to an old Australian article is not particularly helpful either: apart from the fact it's full of mistakes (e.g. referring to a "perpetual copyright" in the UK when it's not, as is made quite clear in the Copyright Act), it doesn't reach any conclusion apart from moaning about long copyright terms and doesn't even talk about the outcome of the Somma case. I feel the comment should be deleted or amended because such a sweeping statement looks like a personal POV but not a consensus of opinion. What do people think? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelmaris (talk • contribs) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had no response to the above and I therefore propose to delete the last part of the sentence stating that GOSH 'acknowledges that .... works based on (the novel) do not require their permission or royalties', since this is clearly not what they say on their website. That the novel is in the public domain, yes (which actually means the same as 'do not have the copyright on the novel' so why repeat it?) but nowhere does it say permission is no longer required. It is a grey area, and anything else is not a neutral POV, but personal interpretation. I also propose to remove the inconclusive Australian reference which doesn't bring anything to the entry. If you disagree with this, please make a case for it - don't just reverse my editing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelmaris (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When your edit removes a citation, and adds an uncited personal summation of the legal situation, reversing that edit would be perfectly justified. But let's discuss:
 * The Australia Library and Information Association article is a report by a law professor that documents the statement of facts preceding it: that there was a dispute and what the positions of the parties were. I fail to see the benefit of removing it.
 * If the novel is in the public domain, permission to adapt its contents is not required. That isn't a personal interpretation; that's what public domain means.  If you doubt that, follow the wikilink. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I objected to the Australian article mainly it was inconclusive and contained some inaccuracies - by all means, put it back in but with these caveats. However, I think the Stanford Law Center summary cited on the Peter Pan & Wendy page would be a more valid reference, especially as it comes from (one of) the horse's mouth. As far as public domain is concerned, my point was the case of Peter Pan is not as straightforward as other books, because there are two works involved here: a novel and a play of the same story, with the same characters, so it has been argued that the play's copyright does extend to characters. It is after all an exceptional situation, if not unique to Peter Pan (which makes it all the more interesting). As I said earlier, I'm not saying this is right, just that it is not clear cut in its legal definition - if it was, the Somma case would have been easily sorted out but in the event, was settled out of court. Until we have a clear legal precedent, I don't think anyone can say for certain permission is or is not required in the US and the GOSH websites cited do not say it isn't, as was implied. Hope we can reach a compromise here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stelmaris (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is not exceptional. For characters to appear in both public-domain works and in other works copyrighted later, is actually rather common (e.g. Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet and Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet, Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Thompson's Cowardly Lion of Oz).  I am not aware of any legal ruling that calls into question the principle that "public domain" in that context means exactly what it says on the tin: they are public property.  Somma's capitulation only demonstrates that she bit off more than she could afford to chew; it doesn't imply that there was any legal basis for GOSH's former bluster.  And in any case, GOSH no longer asserts that they control the characters; if you believe they do... [citation needed]. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether you meant your reference to Shakespeare (after all, he died 4 centuries ago so no copyright issues) was as a joke or not, but I feel you're comparing apples and pears here. I was referring to two works in different format written by the same person. I have added a reference to a legal article which talks about the US copyright term being unclear - it does however refer to a perpetual copyright in the UK, which is incorrect... A better reference to include would have been an article written by Catherine Seville published in the Cambridge Quarterly (http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/dr_catherine_seville.php) but unfortunately it's not accessible online (I read it in a reference library). My point still remains though that nowhere on their website (I read through their copyright page and FAQs carefully) does GOSH confirm they no longer control the characters in the US - only in the countries where Peter Pan has fully gone into the public domain and as long as there is doubt, I don't think one point of view should be asserted over the other here. --Stelmaris (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference to Shakespeare wasn't a joke; it was an attempt to clarify that public domain is the same regardless of whether it's been true a few centuries, or a few years. You seem to believe it's different if the authors and characters are the same, but that's a legal theory I don't believe exists in any statute or court ruling.  The legal precedent is very clear that releasing a new version of a prior work does not reset the timer on copyright expiration; only the new elements in the new work are protected by the new copyright.  ("The copyright on my novel will expire in only X years!  My heirs will be destitute!  I know: I'll rewrite it as a play!" It doesn't work that way.  This is why Disney keeps lobbying to extend US copyrights: they don't want to lose control of The Mouse when the copyright to Steamboat Willy expires.)  You've cited a UK lawyer who took GOSH's word about US law back when they were putting out bluffing press releases, but GOSH has stopped singing that tune.  (My guess is their US counsel explained that it was unsound.)  The situation is made clear by their current statement that "the novel Peter Pan (also known as Peter and Wendy) is in the public domain in the US".  That does it.  (They go on to talk about the play as a separate item, because they don't want US theaters to stop paying the performance royalties they are due for the copyrighted dialog in that work, but it doesn't change their direct statement about the novel.)  They have released the contents of the novel into the public domain, and no one controls material that is in the public domain.  It's really that simple.  GOSH doesn't spell it out that Wendy and Peter are free for anyone to use, because they understandably don't want to encourage that.  But that's what the statement means.  Since you object to phrasing it more clearly, how about we change the article to use GOSH's version (above)?  It's unfortunate that some people won't understand the implications of it, but I can live with that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually all for phrasing it more clearly - but not from one person's POV. I'm not a lawyer (I work in publishing but just can't believe that GOSH would only have consulted UK lawyers for interpretation of US law (didn't they use a US law firm for the Somma case?). Anyway, I'm happy to accept your compromise of using GOSH's version for the article - you could put in quotation marks to show it's their version, rather than a universal one and readers can always read this discussion page to make up their own mind, or at least understand it's not clear cut. The sooner copyright laws get standardised internationally, the better for everyone (except possibly lawyers?!)... By the way, I do think your Peterphile is great and a fantastic source of information - carry on the good work!--Stelmaris (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Charity events
While I agree with Rangoon11 that the info about One Direction was somewhat trivial, how is it different from the other events also included, eg Arsenal, X Factor, Channel 4's Comedy Gala, etc? I'm sure GOSHCC benefits from many events every year, so why single out these few? --Stelmaris (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:St Christopher's Chapel, Great Ormond St Hospital, London, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:St Christopher's Chapel, Great Ormond St Hospital, London, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 16, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of Daily Mail as a Ref for GOSH appearing in the Olympic Ceremony
I know the Daily Mail are considered unreliable, however I provided the source as the article provides a photo of the letters of GOSH being shown at the Olympic ceremony, and the article stating it was referencing the hospital.

I know Wikipedia don't like the Daily Mail but even they would not lie about something being in the ceremony when billions of people worldwide watched the ceremony.

Wikipedia sometimes suffers a "rules are more important than common sense" problem.

Also I provided other sources to back it up. Chulcoop (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Daily Mail should count as a reliable source for a simple matter of fact such as this. On the other hand, as long as there are better sources, why not use them instead? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical breakthroughs
My God, an article about GOSH that doesn't describe the medical innovations created at the hospital -- and doesn't even mention the word "heart". This is one of the major research hospitals in the world, and they've saved the lives of more children around the world than I can count. This is more important than the chapel or the fundraising drives.

I don't have time now to find WP:RS secondary sources, but I'm going to use the following summary from their own web site. Ideally I'll replace it with a proper history from Pubmed, although I would welcome anybody else who wants to beat me to it.

The hospital is the largest centre for child heart surgery in the UK and one of the largest centres for heart transplantation in the world. In 1962 they developed the first heart and lung bypass machine for children. With children's book author Roald Dahl, they developed an improved shunt valve for children with water on the brain (hydrocephalus), and non-invasive (percutaneous) heart valve replacements. They did the first UK clinical trials of the rubella vaccine, and the first bone marrow transplant and gene therapy for severe combined immunodeviciency. --Nbauman (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW this PubMed search didn't work. "great ormond street hospital"[All Fields] AND "history"[MeSH Major Topic] --Nbauman (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This article needs so much improvement
Was researching GOSH for a uni project and can't believe how little information, and how generally oddly written, this article is. Almost nothing substantial. Briefly mentions that the chapel was moved (?!) in the 1980s but no other information on what happened to the rest of the hospital? 148.88.244.178 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)