Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

David Wilson

Criminologist David Wilson said that Lucy Letby was an outlier: she did not fit the profile of a serial killer nurse at all. He also said that the fact she was often there when bad events happened is a most unreliable piece of evidence and he does not see it as a useful “red flag”. It is clear to me that he is prepared to accept that she may be innocent. An outlier is a sample point who probably doesn’t belong in the sample at all. He has also recently written about his belief that Colin Norris is innocent - a Scottish “serial killer nurse” convicted on the basis of insulin evidence. Richard Gill (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

As above, this would amount to WP:SYNTH. You state that "it is clear to me that he is prepared to accept that she may be innocent" and partly claim that he must feel this way because you read that he wrote about another nurse, but he has unequivocally not stated this and in fact contrastingly spoke to Newsnight about how he believed Letby's motive as a murderer seemed to feature a hero complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVLx9U6MFXU. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". To say that Wilson is 'also' saying she is innocent is plainly an artificial construction and amounts to WP:SYNTH. Snugglewasp (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Snugglewasp, I am not suggesting changes to the article. I’m telling you my personal opinion. My personal opinion is based on my synthesis of everything that I know. I know a lot of things which at present cannot be referred to in Wikipedia reliable sources. However, since an appeal seems to be starting up, based precisely on the material which I refer to, it might well be substantiated with "reliable sources" in the near future. This page is the talk page on Lucy Letby, or rather, on the Lucy Letby case. It is a controversial case. I imagine that it will remain a controversial case for some years to come. It seems to me that any sensible person must always be prepared to change their own personal opinions as new information becomes available. As you know, Lucy's defence team has filed for an appeal. They are working closely with Sarrita Adams and Peter Elston's "Science on Trial" organisation. Yes, it is true, I cannot back that fact up with Wikipedia reliable sources. The mainstream media haven't reported this yet. But I assure you, it will come out sooner or later. This has no consequences for the Lucy Letby article at present. So just ignore what I'm writing here: I have no problem with that. Richard Gill (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Now please let me mention a statistical fact which is easy to verify by reliable sources: in the US, 15% of convictions for serious crimes in complex cases with an accused person who denies guilt later get reversed. In the UK and in the Europe the rate is 10%. Legal scholars have pointed out that the UK's "level playing field" has become more and more tilted in recent decennia in favour of the prosecution. One may expect the rate in the UK to be increasing, maybe it is already 15%. I think that this means that an article about a criminal trial should not assume that the person being tried is guilty. Lucy was found guilty by a jury, yes. So now she is a convicted serial killer nurse. That does not mean that she actually is a serial killer nurse. In every civilized country except the UK she would have an automatic right to an appeal. In the UK she can file a request to appeal and it can be turned down by a single judge. If that fails, she can try again and it can be turned down again by three judges. For instance, they might find it not to be in the public interest or they might find that it is not in the interest of the parents of the babies. An enquiry. has been set up with the task of finding out why the management of the hospital tried to stop the doctors from reporting Lucy to the police. But Lucy can still appeal the conviction. Personally, I find the haste unseemly, but of course there exists massive public support thanks to the reporting by the main stream media of the trial, and the lacklustre defence of Lucy, till the last months of the trial, by which time Ben Myers was in touch with Sarrita Adams and others. Richard Gill (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gill110951: may I suggest that you stop swamping these talk page discussions, when you have already been politely asked to refrain from participating on this issue in the first place due to your COI? I think also I ought to remind you at this point that this talk page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby, with it saying at the top this. "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". You yourself have stated "I am not suggesting changes to the article", so seeing as you are apparently not here to discuss improvements to the article and only make general points about Letby in part to try and encourage people to 'change their own personal opinions', then perhaps you could consider the appropriateness of your additions?

A couple of other things I am a bit concerned about - please avoid removing/redacting your own talk page points after they have already been replied to, per WP:REDACT. You did so here [1]. Additionally, I am concerned that, giving your stated purpose here is not to suggest changes to the article, there is instead potential for you to be infringing on the rules of WP:PROMOTION and WP:COICAMPAIGNING, especially with the posting of links to your personal article and the sites of your allies as you did here: [2]. Snugglewasp (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously there are those dangers when I say anything here. You can ignore everything I say here. May I therefore just remind you of the following general guidelines: Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming to newcomers; Seek dispute resolution if needed; and then there are the article policies: Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability. Do you agree that according to "neutral point of view" and the fact that an appeal is forthcoming, "neutral point of view" might tend to imply that the article should not (yet) assume that Lucy actually is guilty? Yes, we all know that she has been found guilty. That is not the same. Per the "good faith" assumption, I do assume that you do have a neutral point of view. I hope you also agree that there are reliable sources which argue that the trial was not fair. I have not seen any academic or otherwise independent scientific statements that the trial was completely fair. Note that non-unanimous verdicts of a smaller than normal jury is also something rather unusual. Richard Gill (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that the Wikipedia article about myself has been repeatedly vandalised in recent months? I hope you will agree with me that the present atmosphere in the UK is that anyone who stands up and suggests that Lucy might be innocent gets their head bitten off immediately! It's not an atmosphere conducive to writing neutral wikipedia articles about a controversial trial. Richard Gill (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gill110951, WP:COI says: ... our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject. So if you see a "vary obvious" error relating to yourself, you can fix it. If you spot other mistakes or vandalism then start a new section here to describe them, for someone else to fix. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course. The vandalism to the article about me was rapidly fixed, in most cases by other editors, I did not have to do anything. I did report vandalism and after that, senior and independent Wikipedia editors took care of the matter. Richard Gill (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, WP:COI encourages those with a COI to participate in talk page discussions with suggestions for article changes. It says: COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. Also, the promotion and campaigning guidelines are related to article content, not talk page discussions.

The talk page is exactly the correct place for an involved editor to voice their opinions and suggestions for article improvement. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Two things - firstly, another editor (not me) suggested that Gill110951 avoided participating in this particular discussion, I simply noted that Gill has not heeded this suggestion. Secondly, it would be correct to say that a COI editor is encouraged to take to the talk page to suggest edits - if that's indeed what they are doing. The editor in question, however, has stated otherwise - that they "are not suggesting changes to the article". Snugglewasp (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

David Wilson has not said he believes Letby is innocent or that he doubts her conviction. This is not verifiable in any reliable sources - and I don't count Mr Gill's private emails with Mr Wilson as reliable sources, btw. Structuralists (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that David Wilson said that. Wilson said on one of those YouTube TV channels that Lucy Letby is an outlier; and he writes about his conviction that Colin Norris, another similar case, is innocent. Coincidence? Anyway, I am not proposing to add to the article material which cannot be supported by reliable sources. I am only suggesting that editors of the article bear in mind that a conviction at an initial trial does not imply that the accused *is* guilty. Indeed, Lucy is applying for an appeal. 10% of convictions in such cases are reversed on appeal. In my opinion, editors should bear that fact in mind and be a little sensitive to a real possibility that Lucy is innocent. She’s a real person. She may be innocent. An editor who believes that she’s been proven guilty has a COI. “Proven guilty” is not the same as “found guilty”. Richard Gill (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"10% of convictions in such cases are reversed on appeal". Nope. Lucy Letby has a whole life term, name me one prisoner who's been sentenced to a whole life term in the UK and then been completely exonerated and freed. You won't be able to, as there isn't any. In 'such cases' there have never been any convictions reversed on appeal in the UK. Z E R O. And just to clarify for you, that's 0% by the way! MeltingDistrict (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Since there have hardly been any full life terms, the fact that no reversals have been observed yet does not mean that the chance of it happening is zero. In fact a simple statistical calculation says that the long run percentage might be as large as 20% (95% confidence upper bound, using Poisson distribution for small numbers of rare events). There have also been almost no life sentences based on majority verdicts of a reduced size jury. There quite simply is no basis to your assertion. You need to learn some basic statistical theory. Richard Gill (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrial

Letby will be retried on one attempted murder count that the jury couldn't reach a verdict on. I can't edit this page, so if someone could please make the change. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions have already been had

I dispute the inclusion of a line claiming that statisticians dispute the conviction. It makes it sound like all statisticians do, rather than two or three including Richard Gill who has recently been blocked from this page and then from Wikipedia permanently for conflict of interest edits on this page and others. Such inclusion of content needs justifying Snugglewasp (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The source literally names two. But fine, I will change it to say "statistician Richard Gill is among those..." or similar, which is literally what the source says. It is entirely irrelevant whether Richard Gill has been blocked from Wikipedia, and I am a little concerned that an editorial decision appears to have been made based on that fact. Neutrality in presentation of the material requires that we neutrally present the information, regardless of any biases we feel. The Telegraph article clearly is written to say that yes, some people are into conspiracy theories, but, in fact, respectable statisticians (e.g. Gill) have raised questions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of content about Richard Gill has already been discussed numerous times on this page on several threads. By edit warring and trying to re add it you are not only contravening ONUS but also trying to dismiss several other previous consensuses. Do not add the material again while this, especially while this is still being discussed. Snugglewasp (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. My edit was fully inline with policy. You raised an objection to the summary of the source (saying it makes it sound like all statisticians believe this), so I fixed that and summarised it more closely. Your revert of this, however, and especially with this edit summary,[3] looks a bit bad tempered and uncollaborative, no? What precisely are you objecting to there in that new summary? Isn't that exactly what the source is saying? In what way is the source being misrepresented? Indeed, as we are discussing it, perhaps we should expand this sectionsignificantly, showing why the Telegraph think it is relevant that Gill is saying this - owing to his previous success in exonerating a nurse in such a position, and perhaps we should also mention the papers he has co-authored looking at the misuse of statistics in criminal trials, establishing his recognised expertise in the matter. Why don't you want any of this in the article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It should not be included because, as Snugglewasp says, there have been numerous deliberations on this talk about talking about Richard Gill on the article, which you have not been a party to. There is no consensus for the inclusion of content about Richard Gill. Previous deliberations have highlighted, for instance, the issue of WP:UNDUE: [4], including the fact that there are only one or two reliable sources out there discussing Gill's theories in the mass of coverage about Letby in general, showing how much of a FRINGE theory it is. The one or two reliable sources that do discuss him, additionally, are not independent overviews of his theories as they are interviews with him - in those cases of course they (or him talking about himself) are bound to give his views a thought! Structuralists (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think perhaps you did not notice that the content was already included. There is a citation to the Telegraph article, there in our article. The only issue is that the summary of that article was rather misleading and certainly not neutral. My first edit did not mention Gill, and better summarised the source you already have in the article.[5]. That was reverted because, apparently it makes it sound like all statisticians believe this which I am inclined to think is nonsense, but in any case reformulated it and thus had to mention that it was Gill being quoted. That is a summary of the source that is there. If the information is undue (and it is not) then the source, and probably the whole section needs deleting because it is not possible to summarise the source without mention either that a professor of statistics with expertise on the misuse of stats in criminal trials or a statistician called Richard Gill has raised doubts about the use of statistics in this trial. But, in fact, it is not undue to mention that he has cast that doubt because this is someone who literally helped write the Royal Statistical Society handbook on use of statistical evidence in criminal trials. If he has a concern, it deserves a mention. A very small mention, sure. There is no need to mention any detail, but it is relevant that statisticians are once again (and we have been here before) raising concerns about how people are using statistics in criminal trials. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep up, Sirfurboy. I and others have already asked for that whole section to be deleted on the grounds of undue. Maybe read previous discussions here before you come here as a result of what's been happening on Richard D. Gill, to just add stuff about Mr Gill? Structuralists (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Right, but it is here. As long as it is here, the summary must be accurate, and it was very much not accurate and still isn't, because it is misrepresenting that source. And if you were to keep up, you would notice that I addressed the undue argument, and yet you have not answered the points I made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the points have already been addressed billions of times before in previous discussions, which you apparently haven't even bothered to read. So I'm not going to go over this again and again. You claim things like "isn't that exactly what the source is saying?" yet then delete direct quotes from the source. Structuralists (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked Snugglewasp to WP:AGF, now I ask you. Not only have I read the discussions, I have disagreed with your view in them (in general. I agreed on some points). That was why I made the case that the information is due. I note that past discussions about whether to include references from Gill's blog, for instance, are irrelevant to that point. They are undue, but they are not this. We are talking about whether it is due to include a line that an acknowledged expert in the misuse of statistical evidence in criminal trials has raised doubts about the statistical evidence. You will note that my edit specifically included his disclaimer that he doe not necessarily think her innocent, but it is surely relevant that he has raised a doubt about the statistical evidence. Many will argue that she was not convicted on the statistical evidence, and that is fine, but to censor the fact that he has raised valid concerns about that part of the evidence is really quite hard to understand.

You argue that the Telegraph article that is currently being misquoted should not be used to mention Gill because it is an interview with him. But it is not. It is an article about doubts in the Letby case in which a reporter has interviewed him. There is a difference. A subtle but important one. The piece is not about Gill, it is about the interplay of conspiracy theories and genuine doubt. It would really be rather extraordinary if the Telegraph article had not interviewed Gill in that context, but the fact that they did so does not make it not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

But you do understand that I have a different view to you, right? I don't think any person interviewed for an article titled How web sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent should have their views recognised on an encyclopaedia without a pinch of salt. Especially when it says in the same article that the views Letby is innocent are "extremely hard to entertain... sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". You, meanwhile, want that section to not be mentioned, nor the bit where it says "the conspiracy theories are already spreading", and the only thing to be taken out of that article to be Gill's own opinions. Wtf? You can't just expect everyone else to interpret that article in the same way as you and be offended when people question you Structuralists (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, I don't see the purpose of having an argument over our interpretations of the sentiments of the article. You have your opinions, and I have mine. Those are clearly not going to change. The best you can do is try and convince others that the only thing we should take out of an article titled How web sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent is that Richard Gill is a really amazing statistician and that others who are campaigning for Letby are definitely not web sleuths and conspiracy theorists. Structuralists (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think an article is defined by its byline, you have some reading to do. Where in this article[6] does it suggest that either Richard Gill or Neil Mackenzie KC are "web sleuths"? And why are you so averse to actually saying in the article what the source actually says? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Related Issue at Lucia de Berk

There is a related issue with neutrality of the article about Lucia de Berk. Please see the talk page sections "Background" and following. For the uninitiated, De Berk was a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence that was clearly refuted, and she was exonerated. Richard Gill did some of the statistical analysis, and also added much to the page well over a decade ago. I would appreciate more eyes on that one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say, User:Sirfurboy, that your request for help above somewhat comes off as WP:CANVASSING, which I note was what Richard Gill was blocked for in the first place and should perhaps act as a warning to not get involved in such. Per WP:CANVASSING:

"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate".

It could be perceived that you preceding your request for other editors to go to the Lucy de Berk page with "For the uninitiated, De Berk was a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence that was clearly refuted, and she was exonerated" is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of the discussion. Snugglewasp (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read that page a little more carefully. Especially WP:APPNOTE

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

...

The talk page of one or more directly related articles.

My summary was neutral. De Berk was indeed exonerated, and I drew attention to the fact that Gill previously edited the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well all I'm saying is that you could have just said:

"There is a related issue with neutrality of the article about Lucia de Berk. Please see the talk page sections 'Background' and following. I would appreciate more eyes on that one".

But instead, you chose to add

"clearly refuted"

and that Gill only edited the page

"well over a decade ago".

This is unneeded spin and implies that there are only certain edits that need to be made, with the implication being that any edits concerning Gill's contributions are not necessary and that the article should in fact be focused on how the evidence was "clearly refuted". Furthermore, saying that de Berk was

"a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence"

is POV. The article itself makes it clear that statistics were only one part of the various pieces of evidence against her, and indeed these two contemporary sources [7], [8] make it clear that it was the unrelated diary entry evidence that was key in initially convicting her. So the point I'm trying to make is that it was not necessary or proper to include these personal case summaries and views when you informed editors of the discussion, as that could be perceived as being done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Snugglewasp (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

In the section on doubt about the conviction, this is not a neutral summary of the sources:

The Telegraph reported that some people have raised doubts about Letby's conviction, and a campaign to raise money for an appeal was started. The New Statesman criticised the large amount of 'true crime' content produced on the case and drew parallels with the events surrounding the recent disappearance of Nicola Bulley, stating: "The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant."

The reason is that there is an implied synthesis here. We are implying that there are doubts, but that the doubts come from people with "zero expertise". Yet the first source is clear that there are doubts about the statistical evidence from two named individuals who do have considerable expertise. Editors do not seem to want to admit that information into the article. The first source names the experts but attempts to include what the source says [9] are being reverted. [10],[11]. This is a very small part of a big article, but it is not clear why we cannot mention that two of the authors of the Royal Statistical Society report on Statistical issues in investigation of suspected medical misconduct [12] have raised concerns about the statistical evidence in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I agree with you, and support the inclusion of expert doubt per WP:BALANCE. These are not minority views, fringe theories, or extraordinary claims - they are the opinions of leading experts in the field. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not support the inclusion of 'expert doubt', for the reasons I and others have gone through billions of times before and which we are just repeating now. I remind you of my previous comment on a previous discussion, which is just as relevant now as it was then:

Two or three reliable sources, which are generally critical of the theories [or are interviews], are no where near enough to justify the inclusion of an entire section titled "doubt about conviction", even less so a promotional pitch on the credentials of Mr Gill. What's more is that there is currently no consensus for the inclusion of a promotional-tone sounding line on Richard Gill... And as I've drawn attention to previously, experienced editor DeCausa (talk · contribs) already concluded in a previous talk page discussion, rightly in my view, that the inclusion of Gill's theories would be undue. The previous discussion I was involved in, on Sarrita Adams, also concluded with an agreement that it would be better to not include information about the living persons Sarrita Adams and Richard Gill to avoid BLP and neutrality problems. Therefore there is also the possibility here that the re-inclusion of the content is a dictatorial attempt to override previous consensuses, despite no new, wider consensus being reached which would justify the disregarding of previous consensuses and discussions.

I'll say again, there is currently no consensus on the inclusion of content about Mr Gill. A much simpler solution which would solve this all in seconds is the removal of the "doubt about conviction" section. It is proving impossible for editors to agree on neutral wording of that section, so if editors feel it's going to be either un-neutral in favour of the prosecution (as you feel) or un-neutral in favour of a tiny minority of innocence campaigners (as I feel) then there;s no good having that section at all, it's not helping the article. Structuralists (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa was rightly objecting to inclusion from the Letby article on Gill's blog, which was certainly undue, and he made his comment 3 days before the source in question was published,[13] so cannot apply to consideration of that. But pinging them in as you didn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll need to read through this more thoroughly later today (don't have much time right now) as I've taken this article off my watchlist. But, yes, when I posted before, Gill's views weren't yet mentioned in the RS so what I previously said is not now relevant. It's now a question much more of WP:DUE and reflecting accurately how Gill is being reported. However, looking at the The Telegraph article, it's pitched as Gill forming part of the internet conspiracy theory/fringe circus, whatever his expertise is (which isn't a surprise). My initial view is we must follow that if we mention him. But I'll take a more detailed look later today. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

How on earth would it be neutral to only include an outline of the guy's views, but then remove any negative things to do with him, sourced from reliable sources, as DeFacto did [14]? If, and only if, the guy's views are given recognition, it is part of neutrality that we should give the other side - such as that police warned him against contempt of court, warned him that he risked arrest and that the defence rejected his offers of help anyway. And that's not even getting into the way that pro-Letby arguments have been described by The Telegraph. As Structuralists pointed to in a previous discussion, I think the most crucial point is that the defence themselves didn't want him to be part of their case. Why, therefore, should we give him unchallenged recognition in this article as if he is a key part of the case?

And there's more. DeCausa made the very pertinent point that the content from The Telegraph pitches Gill as forming part of the internet conspiracy theory/fringe circus, whatever his expertise is. This I agree with, because it can also be supported by The Herald [15] - "On the margins, however - mostly on social media - a very different view is taking shape", "A fringe movement of amateur sleuths has already branded Letby's conviction as a miscarriage of justice and a US website, Science on Trial (which, btw, Gill supports [16]), is fundraising for an appeal", and "Beyond these claims, the Letby sceptics are drawing on everything from statistics to precedent" before it then interviews Richard Gill. How can it be right to use these sources to give recognition to his views, but completely ignore the negative commentary of pro-Letby views in the same sources? How is that neutral? It is in my view unarguable to say that we should treat these sources as having almost two articles within one, as if one is about the conspiracy theorists and the other is completely separate and about the totally-not-connected-or-related-at-all statisticians like Gill, and that these two groups, despite being discussed in the same article, should be treated as completely alien to each other? Snugglewasp (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying to assess that Telegraph article, I was surprised. It says such theories are hard to handle right after the verdict and that it sounds like some mad internet theory, but goes on to present Gill and Neil Mackenzie KC as making reasonable points from positions of expertise, which the Telegraph doesn't then challenge or describe as mad; instead it sets them against the judge's condemnatory assessment. It's a bit of an "it sounds daft - and there are some very daft theories out there - but when you really look at it" approach, with something of a "too soon" tone. This may be the Telegraph journalist or editors trying to be at least ostensibly neutral or hedging their bets in this particular case, or maybe general journalistic habit and training, but it's not making direct negative statements about Gill and neither is the Herald. NebY (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, you wrote How on earth would it be neutral to only include an outline of the guy's views, but then remove any negative things to do with him, sourced from reliable sources, as DeFacto did[17]? That's not the reason I removed it, read my edit summary. It was a misrepresentation of the source. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

OH MY GOD THANK GOD FOR SOMEONE SENSIBLE LIKE YOU @DeCausa: having spent days trying to hold back the reactionaries responding to the final complete blocking of Richard Gill from Wikipedia the other day: [18]. You should know that DeFacto and Sirfurboy have been spending the last few days blocking and removing as much negative things about Gill as possible from the Richard D. Gill article, even though it had been tagged with a COI tag post the blocking [19] as it had been written and edited on BY GILL HIMSELF and needed cleanup to comply with COI. Seems they are now moving on to this article. This is a worry especially since Gill was finally blocked in the first place for canvassing for other editors to come to his aid on Twitter, and also on Wikipedia: [20], [21], [22]. So suddenly now Sirfurboy, who had never before edited on the Richard D. Gill article, [23], comes and removes only negative things about Gill and then tries to include content about him on the Letby page, which he had also never previously edited before: [24]. Coincidence? Anyway, I am obviously also opposed to including content about Gill. But I don't think Structuralist or Snugglewasp go far enough, it should be restored to the consensus version. How anyone can claim that the Herlald isn't making negative comments about Gill when it described the overall pro-Letby group, INCLUDING STATISTITICIANS, as "a fringe group of amateur sleuths", is beyond me. People are just being pedantic and saying that because Gill's name itself isn't preceded by "conspiracist" or "fringe theorist" that he can't come under the wider category introduced earlier in the article MeltingDistrict (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, I haven't edited the Richard D. Gill article in three days (since 27 September @ 09:35), and before that I removed one piece of info from the article (three times) - the BLP-violating misrepresentation of the article from The Telegraph. So nothing that was verifiably a negative thing about Gill. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

MeltingDistrict, This rant is not particularly helpful in focussing on the issue: that there is a neutrality issue with the stated paragraph. I have seen enough of DeCausa's work to have every confidence that they will read the source and then decide what they think. They may or may not agree with me, but not prejudging the issue is important here. On that, I don't think you can make any claim to neutrality here. See: [25], an edit for which you were rightly reprimanded, and in response to which you said you would not edit the Richard Gill page [26]. A promise you did not keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Having read through some of the threads and looked at the text...I remembered why I took this article of my watchlist some time ago. I think I'll post this and take it off again. I agree with Sirfurboy that the current text doesn't reflect that it isn't just "internet sleuths" who are casting doubt - Gill and Mckenzie aren't in that category wahtever one may think of them. The key here is to keep the section very short to reflect the lack of prominence/significance (at the moment) of the view that she's not guilty. I would say it's a little too long if one compares it say to the "calls for regulation" and "other reactions" sections which are far more important. It seems to me it boils down to the RS saying those doubting her guilt come from 3 sources: (1) a few of her friends (the independent article) (2) the internet sleuths who have "zero experience" (3) specifically Gill and Mckenzie but have a somewhat WP:FRINGE view. And that's what the article should say:

A small number of her friends and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]. Despite the thorough nature of Letby's trial, after the verdict conspiracy-theories soon began circulating on the internet doubting the outcome.[Cite Telegraph article] The Letby case has joined a trend where amateur "internet sleuths" purport to have uncovered evidence suggesting that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. [Cite both the Telegraph and New Statesmen articles] Amongst this, statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases have also cast doubt on the outcome.[cite Telegraph article].

All the additional quotes and counter quotes just gives WP:UNDUE prominence to the whole issue. It needs to come across as a very very minor point in the overall article, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for agreeing to wade into this. I think your proposed text is very fair. I'll wait to see what others think, but personally happy to go with that text, and I agree it should be kept very short. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I am 99% happy with the text. However, there are just 10 words that should be added. It should say at the end "The defence had rejected help from Gill for the trial" (sourced to AD [27]). That's not to be negative or critical of him, that's just to emphasise why more detail is not gone into on Gill's theories and to clarify that his views were not considered important for the defence case. I really don't think that is unreasonable. If that is included, I would be prepared to accept your proposed text. Structuralists (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't read Dutch - is a subscription needed? Unless it says that his post-trial views should be ignored because the defence didn't want him then you're trying to do WP:SYNTH by implication so can't be done. The source needs to make the connection - we can't do it and hope readers pick up the hint with a nudge and a wink. I would say your concern is unnecessary. One of the aims of limiting Gill to a single sentence and not using terms such as statisticians "such as" or "including" makes it clear enough (I believe) that his views are isolated without traction. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why should we say that some friends and colleagues continue to believe in her innocence, when two others [28], [29] have specifically said that they became persuaded by the end of the trial that she was guilty? And what about the widely reported outrage at the 'appeal fund' that was launched [30]? Why are including Gill's views more important than this? And why would anyone think it is not important to note that Gill has been in legal trouble and committed contempt of court during the trial, let alone the fact that he's been self-reporting being blocked on Wikipedia for editing on such articles with his conflict of interest [31], [32]? I disagree with the text as Gill or the other one shouldn't get a mention at all, and there shouldn't even be a "doubt about conviction" section anyway, the small paragraph needed can just go in "other reactions" MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If you come at this wanting to "get across" a particular point of view, you often end up achieving the opposite in Wikipedia. It's always best to be just pulled along by the letter and spirit of the RS. On the "friends" support - that is the main point of an Independent article. In some ways it's not surprising that some friends continue to support her. And by putting in more about 2 friends going the other way all you're doing is building up the prominence of the whole point ("wow, only 2?"). "Outrage" at the appeal? We're not a tabloid. And referencing negative items about Gill is WP:SYNTH unless it's brought up in sources about the validity of his views on the Letby case. And again, all it does it draw undue prominence to the whole "doubts" issue. We can't ignore the coverage Gill has got in that Telegraph article, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's very good; thank you. One possible tweak; I appreciate that "Despite the thorough nature of Letby's trial" is sourced but it does rather look like editorialising on our part, and your text works well without it too, with a sentence that begins simply "After the verdict, conspiracy theories soon began circulating ..." NebY (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I included that because The Telegraph took the trouble to put the conspiracy theories in specifically that context (quite pointedly actually). To say that, therefore, seemed to me to reflect how The Telegraph reported it. However, I don't feel strongly about it. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add my view that this is an improvement over what was previously in the article. I also added a relevant source (more about the inquiry), which may be of use Tristario (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To me there is still a feeling of lack of neutrality in the 'doubt' section and a number of improvements could be made accordingly

1) her close supporters. "a SMALL number of her friends" it is too easy to infer that there is a larger group of friends that hold an alternative view; there is not reliable reference to just how many there are; it is too easy to infer that maybe her family do not hold sympathetic views. I think it better to say

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

2) Conspiracy theories and amateur internet sleuths. The reference article is too much of an opinion-piece on this point to hold weight; the specific examples mentioned : a)Richard Gill - (I can see he has been challenging already in this discussion - sorry!!) and Science on Trial. These two do not fit the wikipedia definition of Conspiracy theories; b) The r v lucyletby site rexvlucyletby2023.com (associated with 'science on trial' which is also mentioned in the articles seems to be well presented according to scientifc principals with references to peer-reviewed academic articles and does not really seem to sit within 'Conspiracy theories and amateur internet sleuths'. I suggest, leave out the sentence etc.

This leaves:

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

Statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases have also cast doubt on the outcome.[cite Telegraph article]."

Further,I think it reasonable to consider inclusion or reference to rexvlucyletby2023.com as that seems to be the most reasonable and well presented example of doubt and the content seems to align with the spirit of Wikipedia's own content guidelines, perhaps more-so than RG writings? Without this inclusion (or similar) there is little justification for the section at all? Very little 'meat'? Kcaj2385 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that would be heavily WP:UNDUE and misleading and give the impression that there is "weight" to the doubts which the sources make clear is not the case. Science on Trial (rexvlucyletby2023.com) is a WP:BLOG and can't be used per WP:RS. As an aside, it's also conspiracy-theorist nonsense, but that's besides the point as it doesn't even get to the first hurdle of WP reliable sourcing criteria. DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa here. We don't link to blogs, we link to references and references must be reliable sources. It may be that this doubts section will evolve should the doubts gain more traction amongst other statisticians. The intervention of the RSS described in the Guardian article might suggest that will happen, but important to note that it has not happened yet. This week's intervention merely raised the possibility that they may voice concerns. They did not actually raise those concerns. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. When there is more notable information published, then we will follow suit. But thanks for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and we cannot read the RSS's intervention as even suggesting they will cast doubt. The RSS argues, as reported, that better use of statistics could lead to earlier intervention. Spiegelhalter expresses it more directly when he talks of something being inexpertly dismissed as "just a coincidence". NebY (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I accept that it is not time to include other information, particularly from blogs. However, labelling the reference as conspiracy-theorist nonsense seems to show bias as I do not believe rexvlucyletby2023.com site matches the wikipedia description Conspiracy theory. There are more credible sources of doubt https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html#comments-12552809 but let's wait and see how the develop.

However, I still stand by my proposal to redact information that seems to imply bias (it does to me at least!). Kcaj2385 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe put it this way - if the title of the section was 'There is no credible doubt about the trial' then the contents seem to fit better. The contents of a section 'doubt about the trial' should give reference to doubt, not rebuttals of doubt. Well, certainly not so closely intertwined. Add the rebuttals at the end? Explain what is meant by 'a small number'? Kcaj2385 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Daily Mail isn't credible and can't be used as a source either - see WP:DAILYMAIL. We reflect how the case is reported in sources which meet our WP:RS criteria. If there is "bias" in those sources then we reflect that bias. This is explained in WP:DUE and WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, me again! It occurs to me that the case MAY be linked to Conspiracy theory in that there has been an implication that the doctors involved in alerting the deaths to the hospital management and implicating LL were conspiring together in order to divert attention from themselves. But we should not assume that, just because a conspiracy theory has been proposed, all presentation of doubt is also conspiracy. That might be what is going on here? Kcaj2385 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. We only report what reliable sources say, not what we think or our own ideas. That's prohibited as "original research" - see WP:OR. If your speculation is not a proposal for changing the article, and just floating an idea for discussion, that's prohibited as well - see WP:NOTFORUM. DeCausa (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the ' it's also conspiracy-theorist nonsense' logic, proposed this as an explanation as I don't think this was explained and perhaps I made a poor attempt to suggest that the referenced article itself does not actually make the link between science on trial and conspiracy theory. I accept the daily mail is not a good source! I was not suggesting myself to include it as a reference. I will try to get up to speed asap. Meanwhile, I DO propose that the section should have elements redacted as I suggest.

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

Statistician Richard D. Gill and lawyer Neil Mackenzie KC, who co-authored a work with others on the use of statistics in court cases have also cast doubt on the outcome.[cite Telegraph article]."

Alternatively I would support

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]."

Alternatively I would support the whole section is removed.

These changes cannot introduce bias and I think it may protect the article from allegations of bias. thanks. Kcaj2385 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As was previously explained to you, that breaches Wikipedia's concept of neutrality as set out in WP:NPOV. We must reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources. The reliable sources are reporting "doubt" originating from 3 places: a small number of friends (and is is reported as a small minority), conspiracy theories on the internet, and Gill. That's what the sources currently say and that's what we must reflect. It may or may not change in the future and we must reflect any future change. Reducing it in the way you want gives a credibility to "doubt" which has not been reported. That would be a breach of neutrality. DeCausa (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about

"A number of her friends and colleagues and a small small number of people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]. "

or maybe

"A number of her friends and colleagues, including a small small number of people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester, have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]. "

That seems to be a way to accommodate 'small' while staying accurate to the referenced article.

Thanks for your patience. Kcaj2385 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Could I also suggest that the New Statesman reference does not seem directed in the same sprit as the statement to which is is used as a reference. I suggest it should be removed here. The article talks generally about morbid interest in true life crime and covers those who support the conviction or are just interensted in the case; it is not specific to 'doubter' so should not be in this section. So I suggest:

"The Letby case has joined a trend where amateur "internet sleuths" purport to have uncovered evidence suggesting that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. [Cite only the Telegraph]" Kcaj2385 (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From paragraph 6 of the NS piece: The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant... Even media-literate, supposedly concerned individuals...have rushed to offer their thoughts, ultimately based on conjecture: that Letby’s ethnicity was a factor in why she wasn’t caught sooner; or that she might even be innocent. This follows the opening of the piece: Over the last few years, we have seen the rise of social media sleuthing and content creation around missing person cases...The latest news subjected to this trend is the case of Lucy Letby DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My point is that "innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment" is broader than "miscarriage of justice". It seems the article reference is being applied while making the mistake of 'cherry picking'. I can't find a wikipedia guide that suggests 'cherry picking' should or shouldn't be allowed so I might be on thin ice as far as reference in the rules. It seems to ne that it is not best placed as a reference in a section 'Doubt about the conviction'. By all means, use it elsewhere. Maybe the section title could be more generic like 'controversy' (that is a suggestion, not conjecture).

And I still think 'small' is significant in the current text and not supported by the reference unless appropriately adjusted.

Thanks Kcaj2385 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Miscarriage of justice" encompasses questions of "innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment", and can also include process (eg was a trial fair and timely), but has become quite a charged term for some, and the NS writer's that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant flows far more easily than the functionally equivalent "that their personal opinions on whether or not a stranger has suffered a miscarriage of justice are relevant"; that's all. NebY (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

English

@DeFacto: per WP:DONTREVERT, this revert on the basis of undiscussed nationality change was unnecessary. There is no dispute that the subject is English, having been both born and brought up in England, and that it is a more specific term to use than British. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

But then, MOS:ETHNICITY note a says Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. How do sources describe her nationality? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that the article is categorised under English murderers of children, English nurses and English prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but categories are included in upper categories so you place the article in the lowest category in the tree. The same does not apply for ethnicity in page text, where MOS:ETHNICITY is clear that any change should be through a content discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to English as an ethnicity, but as a (sub)nationality, per WP:UKNATIONALS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neveselbert, please look at the essay at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. We really need to know whether she had a preferred nationality before we change it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

She's a convicted felon criminal, so I doubt it will cause any issues. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "felony" does not have the same clear definition in the UK as it does in the US. The term almost certainly applies, but it looks a bit like an Americanism in that usage. On the question of nationality, the considerations are how the best secondary sources describe her (with a preference for British sources) and the preferences of the subject, regardless of criminal convictions. We don't ignore how she thinks of herself simply because she has been convicted of a crime. So... as per my initial question: how do sources describe her nationality? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Felony" was abolished in England an Wales in, I think, the '50s or '60s. The modern equivalent is indictable offence. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

British sources are unlikely to describe her as British or English for obvious reasons. Her preferences don't appear to be publicly known, and likely won't ever be given the sentence she was handed down, hence my point. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Like too many of these true crime pages, this article is almost entirely constructed from primary sources. I would point editors to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Are there any secondary sources about this yet that we could use? I have tagged the page appropriately. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Incidents stopped

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.

---

Structuralists you restored this,[33] against ONUS, with edsum Not the consensus wording see talk, and the first bit is sourced in the body. Where is the consensus to include this wording?

The article says that suspicious cases stopped after she was moved, sourced to a television documentary, which must, of course, be handled appropriately. The article also says that the unit was downgraded just after she moved, in July. The summary As soon as Letby was removed from duties in June 2016, the incidents stopped. is not a good summary of the main because it carries the implication that the incidents must have stopped because she was moved (and implications, presumably, that management were wrong, per the article, to think it was coincidental). It is not even summary style, because the sentence in the main about the documentary says and the suspicious collapses stopped so there is some editorialising in that sentence in the main, which is not NPOV. We are drawing a hindsight inference here in the lead text that is unwarranted. It is clearly fallacious to draw attention to cases stopping, when the hospital stopped taking such cases through downgrade, a confounding factor that reminds us that correlation does not imply causation. I don't think it belongs in the lead at all. Leads are summaries, but this is detail beyond a summary and defies quick summary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: You do realise that all reverts on this site are not against ONUS, right? Otherwise nothing could or would ever be reverted and the whole site would be unworkable. You misunderstand my edit summary anyway, since the 'consensus' I'm talking of is about the later wording of which has already been discussed.

Being sourced to a television documentary does not invalidate inclusion. Especially considering it is from the BBC, which, as WP:PERENNIAL clearly states, is considered by this community as a generally reliable source - including BBC documentaries. You make it sound like a BBC documentary is bound to be a massively biased, unbalanced, bloodthirsty and tabloid-like source. Well no, the BBC is specifically there to be impartial - it might not get it right all the time of course, but let's not get into a Nigel Farage-like attack on the BBC as if it's some obviously political bandwagon that we should stop paying the license fee for. Come now. Furthermore, I am in absolute agreement that we should use the direct wording of the source! Lets indeed just follow the source and not put editorial spin on it by arguing that it was 'actually the downgrading of the hospital' that stopped the cases, as that would quite obviously be WP:OR. The source is quoted (I note the timestamp should actually be 29:00) "...she was finally removed from the neo-natal unit three weeks later. The suspicious incidents stopped". Therefore saying that when she was removed the suspicious incidents stopped and citing it to the doc is not editorialising, it is just what the source says. I'm sorry if you disagree with the source but we can't spin the information in our own way, we just follow what sources say. What would be editorialising would be to assume the source is being biased in saying that and attempt to include our own personal argument against the source within the wikivoice saying "actually no that's wrong, they actually stopped when the hospital was downgraded and that's more important and what the source ought to have mentioned!!". In any case, the hospital was downgraded a month after she was removed, so the events were not simultaneous. Please could you elaborate on why we should totally ignore what the source says and write it according to our own perspective instead? Structuralists (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are aware of what ONUS says. You just don't choose to follow it. Thank you for clarifying your edit summary. So there is no consensus for that line in the lead. It can go then. As for the sourcing discussion, you are confused. I am not concerned that the BBC is an unreliable source, I am concerned that it, and all the other sources in this article are primary sources. Your latest reverts say it is OR, but actually, of course, we have the sources (primary sources) in the article stating that the unit was downgraded. You just chose to ignore those. When I say the documentary source must be handled appropriately, I meant, of course, appropriately as a primary source. Your revert does not handle it appropriately. You might wish to have a read of WP:PRIMARY which says, inter alia:

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

And

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.

It is a misuse of primary sources to assert that suspicious incidents stopped, because that is not a straightforward description of facts. For a start, it makes no sense, when talking about statistically rare events, to say they stopped. That is just a nonsense. It also, as explained, misses the fact that the unit, as per our article, and sourced here, was downgraded so that they would no longer handle such cases. This is not an appropriate use of that source. It should go. If you don't understand that, I expect you need to spend some time learning how to handle primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it can not "go". You are aware of what WP:STATUSQUO says, as you've had this discussion before. The content is restored to the stable version status quo while it is discussed on talk in attempt to find consensus. You just choose to ignore this policy and don't choose to follow it because you like ONUS better. It is OR to say that the incidents stopped when the unit was downgraded, when no source says that. Period. It is not OR to say that the incidents stopped when she was removed from the neo-natal unit, as sources do say that. Get it? Using your personal statistical beliefs and research to personally disagree with a quote from a source is OR.

I expect a paragraph in response outlining how incorporating your own personal views are more important than quoting the source, and how we should follow some Wikipedia policies instead of others. Structuralists (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And you are aware that STATUSQUO is an essay and not policy. WP:ONUS is the policy. The fact I did not choose to edit war with you last time you did this, on the Talk:Michael Stone (criminal), where you argued for STATUSQUO, does not mean I agree with your erroneous interpretation. But, of course, it did mean I had to open an RfC on the issue there owing to lack of eyes on that page. Again, the policy is ONUS. You consistently ignore it. The remainder of your comments do not address my concern with the sentence in the lead, which is misusing a primary source. I suggest that further meta discussion of the ONUS policy could go to my talk page if you like. Please focus comments here on the point at issue: that we are misusing a primary source to make a statement in the lead that is obviously POV, based on the information on the page and referenced there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2023 (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.

What is a "baby collapse"?

I understand what it means when a building or a house of cards collapses, or an old person who has trouble standing up, but what does it mean when a baby who can't even walk yet collapses? What were they doing to the babies that made it even possible for them to collapse? A5 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that it is a medical term applied when a neonate (term or near term) is discovered in a state of "cardiorespiratory extremis such that resuscitation with intermittent positive pressure ventilation is required."[34] The fact that you needed to ask the question does suggest we should edit the article to appropriately describe the term. I am not sure that should be in the lead, but then we would need to avoid the term "collapse" in the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Add the following text to whatever section would be relevant: "On 12 December 2023, the Nursing and Midwifery Council struck Letby off the nursing register after finding her unfit to practise; Letby denied her guilt but did not contest the Council's decision. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Truecrimefan22 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done with a shorter version by user S C Cheese. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Letby Introduction - Suggested edit

First line is currently:

"Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted to murder six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. “

It should say:

"Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is an alleged British serial killer and former NHS neonatal nurse. She allegedly murdered seven infants and attempted to murder six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She has lodged an appeal against her conviction.”

Justification: 1.The Court were unable to conclusively prove Lucy had murdered the infants - hence word "allegedly" and Peter Hitchins article in UK Newspapapers "What if Lucy is Not Guilty?"

2.The current wording shows unfair bias in light of the defence's appeal lodged against the conviction Flamingjune1900 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Although willing to consider a change of wording, I don't think this is quite right. She has been convicted of the murders, and "alleged" is terminology usually applied prior to conviction. I am certainly willing to consider that convictions are not always safe and satisfactory, but any wording must still capture the state of play as it is. How about:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She has lodged an appeal against her conviction. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Sirfurboy for your guidance I hope your suggested edit can be implemented Flamingjune1900 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now made that change. Other editors may wish to adjust it though, which is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Flamingjune1900 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WARNING editors - that IP above is a clear sockpuppet of Richard Gill, the editor who was blocked indefinitely for advocacy in trying to portray convicted nurses as innocent. That almost EXACT suggested wording for how to word the intro is exactly what Richard Gill was demanding the article should be changed to on Twitter the other day - see here: [35]. Please can we not allow this article to be dictated by users banned from here for advocacy? Can neutral uninvolved editors who were aware of Gill’s block such as @DeCausa: @El C: @331dot: @Theroadislong: please have a look at this, and not allow these backdoor edits to be made by the banned Richard Gill (Gill110951). 93.96.18.54 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, talking of sockpuppets, you sound a lot like someone, no? Thanks for bringing the tweet to our attention, but it seems to me it is less likely Gill than one of his twitter followers. In any case, the edit as per Gill has not been made. I made an edit based on my own view that "convicted of the serial murder" is the better rendering. As I have indicated, editors in good standing may disagree and adjust that, and that is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

dear Sirfurboy I am not sure what this means but I didn't mean to cause problems I wanted to balance the introduction passage particular as Letby's defence is trying to appeal but if this is unacceptable change I understand. This is my only account as someone asked I will not make any more suggestions but I do think the page seems out of balance many thanks Flamingjune1900 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Quetstar, you have reverted the change with edsum "disagree". Could you unpack that a little please. Is it the whole change, or a part of it? What is the disagreement with text that says she is convicted of murder over text that says she is a murderer? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the change because i felt it was downplaying the fact that she is a killer. Your change emphasized her former job as a neonatal nurse over her status as a murderer, which she is more commonly known for. Quetstar (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Surely she is known for being a nurse who has been convicted of murder of the babies in her care. a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants doesn't downplay anything. This is your first edit to the article. Why this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

First, I have been watching this article for a while now. Second, the text you proposed also emphasized the fact that she has filed an appeal, which no other article does. So in the end, I think that the original text is well balanced, neutral and consistent with other articles about convicted killers. Quetstar (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so we can leave the appeal part out and keep it in a later paragraph (where it was, but needs updating). Whereas I do not think you have expressed any reason why the article should not use "convicted of". I will amend. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the status quo in the opening sentence. Letby has been convicted of her crimes and is notable for her crimes. She wouldn't have an article on account of her nursing career. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

But now you have restored a version of the lead that doesn't say that. You have removed mention that she was convicted of her crimes. Why? This is how we report the facts of the matter. See, for instance Michael Stone (criminal), although it is never a great idea just to look at other Wikipedia articles, so let's see what others say. The Guardian has, e.g.,

Letby, who was a neonatal nurse at the hospital, was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more. [36]

People.com has:

Nurse Lucy Letby, one of the U.K.'s most prolific child killers, was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder six others in August 2023.[37]

I could go on. Those were just the first two I found with a "who is Lucy Letby" Google search. I expect there are counter examples too, but this is bog standard reporting and it is utter nonsense to say that there is any denial of her notability by saying "convicted of". Worse, this is POV editing. A neutral point of view would only stress the facts. The facts are that Letby is notable because she has been accused, tried and convicted of the murder of 7 babies and attempted murder of others. The fact she is a nurse, who had babies in her care is also key to the notability of this case. But, if we just call her a serial killer we are actually going beyond the facts and editorialising. It is editorialising because she has not admitted the crimes and is appealing them. It is a fact that she has been convicted of the crimes. It is likely a fact that she murdered the babies. But, we don't need to take sides on what is likely. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. So what you just restored has a neutrality issue.

It is not just there, of course. The whole article broadly follows the Panorama documentary and is put together with newspaper reports and so that is what it reads like. These are all primary sources. The whole article is not an encyclopaedic treatment. The problem is that we don't have secondary sources to work with. I have been looking, but not found any good independent reliable secondary sources yet. We should recognise that this article has serious issues, and not seek to bolster those by fighting to retain POV wording in the lead.

Also you have reverted lodged an appeal of the verdict to announced her intention to appeal. This is not a proper summary. Per the page, she has now lodged the appeal. Why did you revert that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I restored it to the way it was. Of course she's been convicted. Otherwise you couldn't describe her as a serial killer. It is completely NPOV to describe her as such, as that's what she was found to be in a court of law. You can't write an article which takes into account the extent to which the conviction is correct or otherwise. That would be editorialisation. The appeal is mentioned in the article but that, as of now, is not lede worthy, as it's a small part of the overall story. Of course if the appeal were successful, it would certainly become lede worthy. But this is NOTNEWS, and the main point is that she is a serial killer. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course she's been convicted. Otherwise you couldn't describe her as a serial killer. - Yes, but you have not understood the POV issue here. If we describe her as a serial killer then, you say, that of course this must mean she is convicted (and apparently don't need to say that - although, in fact, one can be a serial killer without being convicted of it). In any case the reverse is not actually true. If we say she is convicted of the murders, we state that a court has decided, beyond all reasonable doubt, that she is a serial killer, but actually she might, in an unlikely scenario, not be a serial killer. We know that in a small number of cases, convictions are overturned on appeal - or sometimes even after more than one appeal. By saying she is a serial killer we imply she is convicted, but we also imply that we have prejudged the issue of appeals and determined that there is no world in which this conviction would be overturned. It may seem we are obviously right in that, but we don't need to make the prejudgement. We have a neutral form of words that is factually correct and widely used in the sources. But you would rather we have a form of words that makes a prejudgement. This is not neutral point of view. I find myself at a loss as to why people are reverting to a non neutral version rather than seeking to refine and improve the wording I proposed.

As to the appeal, the appeal is mentioned in the lead. You simply reverted to the old version of that text that is now an incorrect summary of the main (the lead summarising the main per MOS:LEAD), because the appeal has been lodged. I think this was inadvertent on your part, but it is also a bad edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what others think. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @NEDOCHAN on this. Quetstar (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've mulled over whether to respond here for a few days, and after reading everything above and many articles about the case, I've decided I will, and here is my two penn'orth...

Sure, it is expected and accepted that the news media will label those who have been convicted of multiple murders as "serial killers" and to say they have "murdered <n> people", and I am sure we can find plenty of reliable sources to support the use of that language here. We also have WP:BLPCRIME saying A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law, implying they are presumed guilty if convicted by a court. So it seems we are policy-compliant if we present it that way in the article.

However, we also know that Letby consistently and vehemently denied the charges, and that she has made an application for permission to appeal against all the convictions. We also know that the case lasted about 10 months, was heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence, and that the jury took more than 100 hours over 4 weeks deliberating to reach its verdicts. We also know that there are lawyers and scientists out there who are not sure that there hasn't been a misscarriage of justice. That all suggests that it wasn't a clear-cut case, and that there were serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's hypotheses.

So, bearing all this in mind, and given the advice given in the WP:WIKIVOICE section of WP:NPOV to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, I support Sirfurboy's argument and believe that the wording should clearly state the outcome of the trial, but should stick to just the incontrovertible facts, and omit the editorialising and interpretations that assert guilt in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, in the light of this discussion, I had already modified my original edit to:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

You also reverted this reformulation, and your substantive argument above is only that "otherwise you can't describe her as a serial killer". I thus propose:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

I believe this answers your objections and this fairly represents a consensus view. I'll leave it a while for you to answer before asserting that edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not an assertion, it's a conviction. I have made my point and there's no need to repeat it. The lede is absolutely fine and correct and it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to account for the effectiveness of a court of law. The appeal is mentioned but is, as yet, of very little relevance. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware you are the one who removed "convicted" in the first place so you may feel wedded to that, but the question is not whether you think the current wording is fine, but whether you believe there is any problem with the proposed change. If so, please express the concern. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not support the proposed change as she is notable for being a serial killer. She is not a famous nurse. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

But of course she is famous for being a nurse who was convicted of killing babies in her care. Sources already given in this thread. What is your argument for withholding this information, considering sources above show that this is how she is, in fact, described? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because she would have failed the notability test for crime perpetrators as described in WP:CRIME (and thus wouldn't get her own article) had not been for the nature of her crimes. She was virtually unknown until her arrest and conviction. Therefore, she is notable as a serial killer and the lead, as a summary of the article, should reflect as such. Quetstar (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Look this is just a nonsense. MOS:LEAD does not say you can only mention in the lead the thing that makes the subject notable. It says: the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. That Lucy Letby was a nurse is important content. Again, why wouldn't we say that? what is wrong with that revised formulation above? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a slight reordering of words could satisfy both camps - how about:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British woman who was convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital whilst she was a neonatal nurse there between June 2015 and June 2016.

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with that one. I might note that she is not notable for being a woman, but that might seem churlish, so I won't ;) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Um, Sirfurboy, current contemporaneous, reliable sources explicitly introduce Letby as a serial killer: [38], [39], [40]. That is, as NEDOCHAN says, how she is defined and what she is notable for. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't describe Fred West as a serial killer in the first line? Letby is now defined by being a serial killer. What is your argument for withholding this information, considering said sources show that this is how she is, in fact described? Presumably your argument will be that this describing of Letby comes from 'primary sources' reporting on the trial - it does not, they are secondary news sources reporting on different matters months after the conviction introducing her unambiguously as a serial killer nurse, and obviously the term "serial killer" is not taken primary-source-style from the trial as she was not - and could not - be described as such in sources until she was found guilty. So you can't use the argument that this is some sort of ineligible 'primary source' definition. Is your argument then DeFacto's, that this is some sort of immoral sensationalist term that "the media" use? Because we should not be deviating from what "the media" say because we don't like it, we have to follow the sources, not decide for ourselves whether we agree with them or not and instead spin it our own way. I am fully in agreement with NEDOCHAN, Quetstar and IP 93.96.18.54 here. 109.144.211.65 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I noticed that our see also has (emphasis mine):

• Beverley Allitt – British nurse convicted of murdering, attempting to murder and causing grievous bodily harm of infants and children in 1993
• Benjamin Geen – British nurse convicted in 2006 of murdering two patients
• Genene Jones – American nurse responsible for the deaths of up to 60 infants and children in her care during the 1970s and 1980s
• Colin Norris – British nurse convicted of murdering four patients with insulin in 2008
• Barbara Salisbury – British nurse convicted in 2004 of attempting to murder patients to "free up beds" - Note, I removed this one as a red link which makes no sense in a see also. Removal of it is without prejudice to someone creating a page from the red link, so happy to have the red link here.
• Harold Shipman – British general practitioner convicted in 2000 of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 250

Genene Jones is listed as "convicted" of one count in her article, as that is all she was convicted of. The "up to 60" is speculative. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word "convicted" in crime articles. It is good summary information. They all also specify nures/GP up front, before the word "convicted". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Quetstar, this revert [41] is stonewalling. Note that it is again a new formulation, and one where you where you have failed to identify any issue with the wording, whether in the discussion or in your edsum. You are instead repeatedly reverting to your formulation, also without any consensus. In what way is that wording deficient? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the change due to the fact that it did not secure enough consensus for it to be made. At this stage, you should follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, which you are clearly seeking to circumvent. Quetstar (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You reverted a change that did not have any objections except from a sockpuppet who asked you to make the change on your talk page. The sockpuppet is disruptive. An RfC to change one word is the next step, but will take a month and a lot of my time to put together. I would rather avoid that by building a consensus here. I would ask you to ignore the sockpuppet and consider the discussion here where it is very clear that the word "convicted" is the usual and expected way of describing these things. Any dispute resolution will attempt to drill down to what is actually wrong with the attempted reworking above. What exactly is wrong with that wording? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I objected to it. Sirfurboy I'd remind you that you're not the arbiter as to what constitutes a solid argument. The examples you give all describe their subjects as serial killers/murderers. They wouldn't be able to do so had the subjects not been convicted. In my opinion there is no need to change the wording. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You did not object to it. Please see above, version by DeFacto, 19:13, 3 December 2023. You have no stated objection to that revised wording (note that I also included a wikilink to serial killer in the edit). What is your objection to that version please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worse than what's there. For reasons I've stated. I also think you're veering into BLUDGEON territory. Keep the STATUSQUO and wait for the input of others. We have time. I think you've had your say. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:SQS and particularly WP:SQSAVOID. What are the policy reasons against the edit please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to satisfy you. Why do you insist on making me repeat myself? The edit above does not describe her as a serial killer, which is what she is notable for. All similar articles, including the ones you have linked above, do. I also think you're BLUDGEONing this discussion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It does. It describes her as a serial murderer, wikilinked to serial killer. See here: [42]. It very specifically takes account of that objection. Again, this was a refined edit taking account of objections you have raised. So what is the policy objection to this edit please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't describe her as a serial killer. That is what she is NOTABLE for. Re policy, this is about as blatant an example of BLUDGEON that I can think of. Again, you have given your views. Wait to see whether you get CONSENSUS. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Quetstar, and remember too that 'consensus' doesn't mean majority of votes, it, per WP:DETCON, is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

So quality of argument with respect to Wiki policies is the measure (not majority based on a count of personal opinions). What we need from your side is the policy-based rationale for keeping the version you reverted too to help resolve this. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that an RfC is the way forward at this stage. Also, the edit was implemented before others had the time to comment on it. Quetstar (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I waited a day, but yes, the edit was bold (being a new and different edit and not a simple reversion). Your reversion should describe what is wrong with the edit in the edsum or here. Thus far you have not explained why that formulation was not policy compliant. Please also have a read of WP:SQS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So I made another edit 9 days ago which has not been reverted, saying:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

I thus take it that the point at issue was a contention that "is a British serial killer" should be preferred over "convicted of the serial murder" (linked to serial killer). I just want to check this before taking this to an RfC, because if the word "convicted" is also being contested, the RfC options will need to reflect that. Currently I propose the above wording as one option, and

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

as the other. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)