Talk:Richard D. Gill

Untitled

Thanks for cleaning up your article, you should get rid of the signature as part of the article. Uncompetence 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Uncompetence, I have lots to learn and obviously I should not be working on my own biography at all. Now I have added on this talk page what seems to be necessary for a biography of living persons, namely WikiProject Biography living=yes, I hope I am not unauthorized to do this --Gill110951 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucia de Berk

I restored and expanded the short section on Lucia de Berk, using the linked article. Could somebody check the two Dutch references, which I couldn't reference today, but cited per AGF. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I wasn't aware that Gill's work played such a large role in the trial. It seems a bit undue weight to me, but that is definitely more a fault of the popular media and its application to our policies than your editing. NW (Talk) 04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a statistician, and I was raised by two nurses, my mother and grandmother. I cannot imagine anything more important than freeing a wrongfully convicted nurse, who will spend her life in jail because a non-statistician has forgotten the main ideas of a first course in statistics. Perhaps I am not the best judge of NPOV! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 05:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps you are a better judge of it than I :) I think the article is much better today than it was last week. Nice work! NW (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Gill1109's personal POV on Richard D. Gill's role in the case to my/his user talk page. Richard Gill (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On my talk page there are links to the compensation news for Lucia (Dutch media including a press release by ANP. [1]. Richard Gill (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Degree at Free University; Employer Mathematical Centre

CWI, formerly MC, is a research institute funded by the Dutch national science research council. Quite a few young people are employed there, doing research towards their PhD. The PhD degrees are granted by universities and CWI is not part of any university or affiliated to any university. People doing PhD research at CWI are typically supervised by senior university researchers with part-time positions or advisorships at CWI. The thesis is then defended at the supervisors' university. Cobus Oosterhoff, my thesis advisor, had an advisorship at MC and a chair at Vrije Universiteit. Richard Gill (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You had at least one other high-powered classmate graduating in 1979, whose name's spelling is beyond me now. I'll clarify the MGP information, per AGF.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, roughly!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I gave a "heads-up" at the COI bulletin board, just declaring today's brief discussion at your user talk page, for transparency.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that is good. I think I should move the Lucia stuff I wrote to my user page. There is a lot of personal point of view in it! (I don't understand how people can't get emotional about injustice, especially injustice at such a level. I get similarly emotional about injustice towards Mathematical Truth (which consists solely of tautologies). How you use /interpret mathematical truths in the real world is another matter, but heavens above, please let's agree on the tautologies.). I'll link to it from here. (And I really am on the point of taking a real vacation!) Richard Gill (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Done it. Richard Gill (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard D. Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408192403/http://www.cwi.nl/pr/press-releases/2007/pb-petitieGrunwald-011107.html to http://www.cwi.nl/pr/press-releases/2007/pb-petitieGrunwald-011107.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=73585

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Hi, @MeltingDistrict. The Lucy Letby case is not closed. She can, and likely will, appeal. So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. If we were now at the “long after the case is closed” stage, The Telegraph would not have published that article. Richard Gill (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a sentence added saying that “Gill is currently one of a number of scientists advocating for an appeal and a retrial of Lucy Letby.” The Telegraph article could be cited. Richard Gill (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gill110951: You are edit-warring against two other editors and have reverted all our edits. Before we discuss the content of the article you need to stop reverting against consensus. In terms of the content I see no reason why we shouldn't use the wording of the article itself as was done originally. Can you explain the removal of all edits about Benjamin Geen please? MeltingDistrict (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict: You are the one who should have brought this to this talk page, after your edits were challenged. The principles of WP:NPOV (of which undue weight is an aspect) and of respecting living persons are paramount here. A newspaper article highlighting multiple people's arguments that an appeal may be justified in one recent legal case is not an adequate basis for adding a large subsection to this article, let alone mentioning it in the lead section. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well fair enough that I drastically overstated the info, but the newspaper article wasn't just doing that, it was saying that those who are advocating an appeal appear largely to be from the web sleuth and conspiracy theory online group, and those criticisms I put in were direct quotes. The way you refined it to just be a couple of sentences in the body was fine with me and sensible I thought. MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That's just it - the article was about a group and their ideas, not singling out Gill's ideas specifically. Also, your two sources on the Ben Geen case didn't even mention Gill.

What do you and Gill110951 think of the section as I just edited it to be? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent changes, as far as I am concerned! By the way, a new application was made this year to the CCRC for Ben Geen, based on new statistical evidence. I think it has a good chance of success, at last. And Ben’s barrister Mark McDonald spoke out for Lucy’s possible innocence when interviewed on TalkTV, to the enormous surprise of the people interviewing him. In England, if you express doubts as to Lucy Letby’s guilt, you are treated as if you are crazy. But things are changing. Some key figures are “coming out” in her favour. This is good, I can now get back to being retired. Richard Gill (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Chairs

Was he chair of xyz (as in chairman) of a dept/school of xyz, or did he hold a chair in xyz (as in being Professor of xyz)? The article is unclear, at least twice. RDG could answer this question here as a factual clarification with no COI! PamD 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have held chairs at Leiden, Utrecht, and then Leiden again, as well as guest chairs (visiting professor ...) at various places

I have been department chairman in Utrecht. That was a function which rotated among the full professors. Richard Gill (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked a couple of "became"s to "held" and hope the article is thus more correct. PamD 19:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

COI tag (September 2023)

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Number of concerns on a COI editor. ltbdl (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of unverified content

Structuralists you are removing a lot of content from this article, but the information appears to me to likely be correct, and presumably due. Yes, citations are needed, but the citation needed templates only went on yesterday. How about leaving it a week to see if anyone can find citations. Any puffery can go, but factual information about the career would belong here if sourced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if I have caused unhappiness. I only thought to act on the banner at the top about the article possibly requiring cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. The information can be added back in if someone finds sources. Structuralists (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Structuralists, I have the impression you are angry with me because we have different opinions concerning the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby of the crimes she has recently been convicted of. I tried to give you some explanation of my point of view on your talk page but you have erased it, calling it "ramblings". It seems to me that that is unbecoming behaviour of a Wikipedia editor. You are consistently refusing to apply the good faith presumption to my work on Wikipedia and now it seems you are vandalising the article about me, removing material which was put there years ago by other editors, and which in fact it is easy to find sources for. Richard Gill (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how am I vandalising the article by removing unverified content? That is an unfounded statement on me, and I do not know where these claims of me consistently refusing to apply the good faith presumption are coming from. I didn't even know who you were until the other day and I've only been involved in a couple of discussions that have involved you? Structuralists (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You could start by asking other editors to look for reliable sources for the information which you have deleted. I can easily give you such information myself. Have you read the article in the journal "Science" about my work? https://www.science.org/content/article/unlucky-numbers-fighting-murder-convictions-rest-shoddy-stats I think that "Science" it is a pretty reliable source for information about famous scientists. I was attacked by a number of editors of the Lucy Letby article who presumed that I was doing some kind of campaigning pro Lucy on the talk page. I was not campaigning, I was trying to inform them of ongoing developments which may well be relevant in the near future. It furthermore seems that no-one understands the difference between actually being guilty, and being found guilty, of alleged crimes. In the US and most of Europe every convicted person has a right to appeal. In the UK you only have a right to ask for an appeal and it can be turned down by a single judge. Legal scholars agree that UK's criminal prosecution procedures have become strongly biased in favour of the prosecution. The level playing field is tilted. Richard Gill (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me add that this is a sensitive issue for me at the moment because the article about me has been repeatedly vandalised in recent months. The UK public has been whipped up into a frenzy of hatred for a murderer of tiny babies, who possibly is actually not a murderer at all. According to a growing number of people she was a whistleblower in a failing NHS hospital, and this led to four consultants reporting her to the police. Some notable authorities are now speaking out in public in her favour and supporting the movement for a retrial. If I were allowed to edit the Lucy Letby talk page, I would be able to give reliable sources and further information. Richard Gill (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Look I'm not really interested in getting involved in another of these advocacy-like talk page discussions on Lucy Letby. Letby has been convicted and you have been blocked from editing on Lucy Letby and it's talk page. The sooner that is accepted then the easier it will be to move on with this Structuralists (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Everybody knows Letby has been convicted. I am not objecting to the block right now. I will apply to have the block to the talk page reversed when the time is right. Richard Gill (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You can absolutely recommend restoring some of the removed content and provide sources that support it here at the talk page. It's one of the best ways editors with a COI can still help to improve the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:V,

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

I am concerned that information that is almost certainly factually correct about the page subject's career was removed less than a day after "citation needed" tags were added. My concern is that this makes the article less useful, and is entirely an independent matter from the hot issue of advocacy. This is purely factual information. I do not have sources for it, and with the information removed, no one is going to hunt for citations. Instead of improving the article by making factual statements verifiable, we have simply jettisoned the information because it was unverified. I am thus reverting in some of the deleted statements: those that most clearly are factual and useful biographical information. I do not have sources, and am reverting the information in under WP:IAR because with it in the article, editors can see what sources need hunting and can improve the article. I ask that this information not be removed from the article again for at least a week. If the statements remain unverified in a week, they can go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Structuralists your revert here [2] has removed information for which I had now provided a reference and edit conflicted with me providing two more. You are now removing verified and factual information from a biography. Why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

And seeing as you removed the material from under my feet as I was adding this reference, I'll just leave a link to it here. [3] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear any removing of sourced content wasn't intentional, apologies. I think I got confused with the intermediate edits. Let me have a look Structuralists (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

That link was to source his position as head of department at CWI and additionally Professor of mathematical stochastics at Utrecht. The edit is lost. You won't find it in the page history. Feel free to put the information in the article though, as I was attempting to do. I am leaving it there for tonight. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Risk of arrest

I was warned by UK police that I *might* risk arrest. Since the trial is over and I did not influence the jury, I do not risk arrest. The letter from the police is by now all over internet. Whoever wrote about this affair might like to take a look at it, and at my response to the police. https://gill1109.com/2023/09/20/contempt-of-court/

By the way, four independent scientists got similar intimidating letters. And all of our offers to help the defence were ignored. In the UK, new scientific evidence may not be introduced after a trial has started.

Richard Gill (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• The "now" wasn't really supported, and I slightly rewrote that part. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Active role editing this page about myself

I took an active role when this page about myself was started many long years ago when Wikipedia was a friendly place. It was started by someone else, I didn’t know who they were (still don’t). I did not actively edit it since. I think the notice at the top of the page is misleading. It appears to be part of the recent campaign of vandalism of this page because of my outspoken support of Lucy Letby. An interesting phenomenon. I am not the only victim of the witch-burning hysteria which has gripped the UK though it still gripping the UK Richard Gill (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• You were actively editing the article within the past month. That said, the COI notice is supposed to prompt fixes, not be a badge of shame. Give it some time. In the meantime, maybe read or re-read WP:Vandalism. It's important that you don't label good-faith efforts at improving the article, even ones you disagree with, as vandalism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks! My active editing this month was almost entirely reversion of appalling vandalism, which kept on happening. Later, other editors were watching the page, and took care of that. I try to distinguish good faith editing from vandalism. Sometimes one makes mistakes. I try to apologise when I find out I made a mistake. Richard Gill (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Bev Allitt

I said in my 2021 talk at the Dept of Statistics of the University of Chicago, a scientific lecture to an academic audience of legal scholars, statisticians, and forensic scientists, "I suspect she was innocent, but I don't know of course". My opinion on the case (as an academic and a scientist) changes from time to time as I get more information about it and talk to other scientists, academics, and investigative reporters about it. My present opinion is that the case deserves fresh academic and scientific study. I am not campaigning for the case to be reopened, and have never done so. I don't think this passage belongs in a section on my work as a scientific advocate for reopening cetain closed cases. I am fully aware that new academic study of the case probably won't happen till after Allitt is dead and buried, given that this is a taboo topic in the UK (but not in the rest of the world). I also made comments about the impossibility in the UK to speak up about convictions like this. Thanks for putting these links into the article, by the way. Richard Gill (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Letby

Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic). Richard Gill (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Lucia de Berk

Lucia was in jail for 9 years: three years of pre trial detention and six years as a convicted serial killer nurse. I would say that she was incarcerated for nine years. Shut up in a prison as a *suspected* baby killer is also incarceration, in my humble opinion. Richard Gill (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclined to agree, but the two cited sources both say six years into the life sentence (2004-2010). Do you have a source that says 9 years, and explains the pre-trial detention? We can't say 9 years based on those sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

She was arrested in December 2001. She wrote an autobiography. A film was made of it. You can find the dates in her book. She was convicted by a lower court in 2003. She appealed (and the prosecution appealed too) and was convicted again by a higher court in 2004, for a longer list of murders and attacks. An application was made to the Supreme Court concerning a piece of evidence, namely a report which had been forgotten about at the Netherlands Forensic Institute. The Supreme Court, in 2005, confirmed the life sentence but removed the ‘indefinite detention in psychiatric hospital after completion of the sentence’ because there was nothing to treat her for. So she was in prison from the end of 2001. You can find the date of the arrest on Dutch Wikipedia. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaak-Lucia_de_Berk Richard Gill (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Gill110951 has been indefinitely blocked

Due largely to WP:CANVASSING behaviour after his previous final warning, Gill110951 (the subject of this article) has been infinitely blocked: User talk:Gill110951#Indefinite block. I therefore ask editors to be extremely cautious not only of Mr Gill's comments above, but also of any new editors who may come here to edit as a proxy on Mr Gill's behalf. Structuralists (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am concerned that editors are removing factual content from this article, and adding in only negative aspects. The article is primarily about a statistician but it is being rebalanced in a way that threatens to overwhelm it with the advocacy issue. The refusal to leave in factual information about the subject's career is indicative of this lack of neutrality. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, I have discussed this with you previously but you instead went and reinstated the unreferenced content unilaterally without a consensus. I came to this page a few days ago to clean it up after the subject was partially blocked and saw a tag at the top of the page was placed saying the article may require clean-up to ensure neutral point of view. I was met with an article that had been created by the subject, contravening conflict of interest guidelines, and which only appeared to contain positive, quite promotional content on himself. So yes, I have added some of the more sceptical things about him for wider balance, and no one is stopping you from finding sources to reinstate some of the positive factual information. The fact that you have apparently not been able to find sources for these things is indicative of its previous lack of verifiability. And Mr Gill is most notable for the advocacy work, so it's reasonable that a fair amount is given to his successes and failures in his nurse advocacy. Structuralists (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You will note, I hope, the "Removal of unverified content" section above where I explained what I was doing and why, and you have again summarily removed the information I was in the process of improving. But not only that - information about the career of a statistician in his biography article is not promotional, and the fact you think it is, and should be expunged speaks to the POV issue here. The article is wiping out his career and presenting him entirely in terms of his advocacy work. As for not being able to find sources: I did find sources. You have removed one of them, so you have now removed sourced content from the article. Another one is in an edit I have lost because of an edit conflict with your revert, which took away the material I was sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Structuralists, with this edit you removed

In 2006, Gill moved to the Department of Mathematics at Leiden University, where he held the chair of mathematical statistics.

Your edit summary talked of disputed content, the need for an online citation to a reliable source, and that "I think we should be particularly careful considering that Mr Gill has just been indefinitely blocked" but I can't see that any of that applies to that sentence, and without that sentence the article is misleading, leaving Gill's career ending with him still at a university he left in 2007. I hope your removal of that sentence was a mistake and that you won't object to my having reinstated it. NebY (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes fair enough about the sourced bit you added - as I say above, I hadn't seen that and only meant to remove unreferenced stuff. I can see another editor has added it back in so that solved the issue there I think. All I would say re edit conflicts is that it would be better to not restore the content in question at all (the uncited stuff) until you have an inline citation, as WP:VERIFIABILITY states. I admit that I was a bit hasty with removing the uncited stuff only a day after the CN tags, but what's done is done now, and let's just focus on finding references for bits we can add back in. You have started to do that so that is ideal and quite proper Structuralists (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Or you could read what I said above, and give editors the space to fix the article by self reverting your revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Editors can see these discussions on talk and use this space to discuss fixes to the article, including what content can be found to be properly verifiable. The article was previously in such a state that leaving it with a whole load of unreferenced content for weeks and then discussing it would have been dangerous. I'm not going to self revert because I don't believe in the intentional addition of unreferenced content Structuralists (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe in the immediate deletion of content that appears neutral, informative and likely to be accurate, and which has only very recently been tagged as requiring citation. I've reinstated one without which the article would be misleading. You deleted three other tagged statements:

Marrying a Dutch woman, Gill moved to the Netherlands where he worked from 1974 to 1988 at the Mathematical Centre (later renamed Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica, or CWI) of Amsterdam.

In 1983 he became the head of the Department of Mathematical Statistics at CWI.

He reached the mandatory retirement age in 2017, and continues with research and consultancy.

The career part of the first and all of the second are routine, easily understood and likely to be verified; until they are, the reader can see that they are as yet unverified. The first part of the third is not so clear; it may be that he retired from that post in 2017 or that phrasing might be deliberately indirect. If the former, it can probably be sourced or found to be in some way contrary to sources. The second part is vaguer, might depend on another source, and is not of particular note (many retired academics do a bit of this or that) so I think we can lose it. I'll reinstate that material with such changes.

On the broader point, we use such a process of tagging so that material will remain on view for editors to consider. Occasionally, editors will move the contested material to the talk page so that editors there - a much smaller number - can consider it. As you say, Editors can see these discussions on talk but as matters stand, they cannot see the disputed material without struggling through the confused edit history of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment but that collaboration has to be facilitated and encouraged, not frustrated. NebY (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes NebY you are right, it was a mistake and I do not object to you reinstating it. Verifiability is all I'm wanting here - which you've provided for that section. Just accidently didn't see it with the other stuff. Structuralists (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Logically fact check

This sentence reads oddly:

Irish fact-checking organisation Logically Facts, an independent subsidiary of British fact-checking organisation Logically, found that there was no evidence Letby was framed by an organ harvesting enterprise or that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It concluded: "No evidence has come to light that suggests Lucy Letby is innocent or was framed. The investigation and available evidence upon which her convictions are based have been well documented".

But an editor's attempts to pare it back were reverted by another editor, so perhaps we can discuss what it is achieving. The first thing to note is that this is an article about Gill, not Letby. We are describing his advocacy, but the Letby article should have all the detail. However, we don't want to create an inadvertent impression that we, in wikivoice, are advocating for Gill's position, so I understand the intent of wanting to say that an organisation has said that the conviction looks secure. My questions, though, are (1) would removing the whole sentence really create that imbalance? why? (2) we spend 15 words saying who did the fact check, which is a bit daft. I think we can recast this without even mentioning the company, and (3) What is the relevance of organ harvesting here? Has Gill alleged that there was such a conspiracy? If so, we should source that. If not, then I can't see why we are saying that. If Gill never made any such assertion, then it is not neutral point of view to even mention it as it creates an impression that this is conspiracy theory stuff, rather than an argument about the use/misuse of statistics in criminal trials. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the references to organ harvesting and framing from last paragraph of the "Advocacy" section because there was nothing in the original wording of that paragraph to connect those to Richard Gill's advocacy about Lucy Letby. Did Richard Gill suggest that Lucy Letby was framed for organ harvesting or something similar? If so, that should be made clear in that paragraph, or elsewhere in the "Advocacy" section. Otherwise there seems no reason to mention organ harvesting and framing in that section. Stassa (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto, your revert of Stassa's edit here [4] is as per your previous revert of that material, but I wonder if you saw this section. The question is: has Gill made any claim that the conviction was part of an organ harvesting conspiracy? If so, we should state and reference that. If not, this looks undue and potentially not neutral as it is a straw-man refutation of something the BLP subject has never said. Thanks for your thoughts. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I hadn't seen this before my edit, but I just saw it and replied. It's no so much about whether Gill raised the idea of organ harvesting, more about did that Logical investigation look at the integrity of the statistical evidence that Gill is concerned with.

I suggest removing it all as irrelevant to the discussion in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, this was primarily an investigation into the line of thinking that Letby was framed to cover up organ harvesting. The first paragraph of the conclusion says: There is no evidence that suggests Countess of Chester Hospital, its staff, or the NHS trust responsible for running the facility have engaged in organ trafficking. Nor is there any available evidence that suggests Lucy Letby is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

This was not an investigation into whether the statistical evidence that Gill is concerned with was sound. If we omit the true context of the investigation, readers might mistakenly assume that this was somehow related to what Gill has been concerned with.

If we think the passage needs paring back, then some of the details about the nationality of the company and its parent company and its relationship to its parent could be omitted without harming readers understanding of the subject. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. But now I don't think any of it is due. It can all go because it is information about Letby, but it is not information about Gill. This page is about Gill, so it doesn't belong here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I agree with you on that and support removing it in its entirety. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I arrived at the same conclusion. Fact-checking the jury's decision (!) or other claims about Letby has no bearing on Gill. The whole paragraph would barely belong in an article about Letby, let alone here. NebY (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal also. I thought the entire paragraph was irrelevant, since the fact-checking site is not mentioning Gill at all, but didn't want to make such a drastic edit, having checked the talk page before making any edits and realising there is some disagreement about the best way to treat this subject. Stassa (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

This source is used for some of his biographical information. [5] However the tilde in the URL is used in Unix systems to indicate a user namespace within the filesystem. That appears to be something Gill wrote and hosted himself. Now we might expect Gill to be a good judge of his own biography, but I think we should improve that source to something that has had editorial oversight. I'll mark the occasions it is used. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I cannot see any problem with the use of that source. Indeed the Wikipedia verifiability policy, at WP:ABOUTSELF, explicitly condones the use of such self-published sources for the purposes it has been used for in this article. This acceptance is reinforced by the biographies of living persons policy at WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll remove the tags. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia block

Sirfurboy removed the line about Gill just being blocked on Wikipedia - saying 'Wikipedia doesn't talk about Wikipedians' and "neither is this notable or due". Firstly, Gill HIMSELF has been talking about his block: [6], [7]. Since when do the rules say we can use Gill's own blog as a source to mention what he thinks about the Letby case, but can't use it to say he acknowledges being blocked? Secondly, it is notable to him clearly as he is brining it to the attention of his followers, and this is a biography of him. Sirfurboy you seem to just be removing this as it is negative of him? MeltingDistrict (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean to direct this at my editing? In which case this is the wrong forum. Or do you wish to assert that the fact that the subject has been editing Wikipedia and then blocked is notable for a mention in a BLP article? in which case I suggest you take a good read of WP:BLP and then go and find some reliable independent secondary sources that are speaking about this. Without that it is neither notable nor due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

On what verifiability grounds is it justifiable to use Gill's blogs to cite his opinions about the Letby case, but not to cite his reaction to being blocked? MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source, so cannot be used to support anything about a third-party in a Wikipedia article. All WP:BLP content needs to strictly comply with the appropriate Wiki policies, particularly verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not added anything about the Letby case, and would not have sourced anything to a blog, but the question I have raised is whether this is WP:DUE. So on the advocacy of Lucy Letby, we ask whether what we say fairly represent[s] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Note, then, that reliable sources (not blogs or social media postings) are required to establish the due weight. There are such sources in the article, suggesting that the advocacy there may have due weight (and I take no position on whether that is correct). If that is established, then we have the warning every time we edit this page: Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject. So the subject's blog is a suitable source, the only self published information we can include, although it is very important to remember that it is WP:PRIMARY. Being a primary source, it does not, itself, establish notability for including the information in the article. Very few articles include the subject's wikipedia activities, and these only when reliable secondary sources have already discussed the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph article removal

@DeFacto: the problem I have with your removal is the claim that my wording is non-neutral, and therefore the information should not be included at all. I agree that the wording of those lines which had been inserted into the article by Melting District had some overly loaded "although" words and tone: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about the "internet sleuth" sceptics of her guilt, although the newspaper commented that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". But I changed that to the, in my view, softer: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about sceptics of her guilt. In the same article the newspaper observed that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". The point of this wording was intentionally to provide neutrality, allowing readers to learn that Mr Gill's theories have been prominent enough to earn him coverage and an interview in a national newspaper, but also being fair by stating on the other side that the very same article also criticised theories disputing Letby's responsibility. So I am a bit bemused about how I am described as being un-neutral here, when my intention was to neutralise the sentences, not to just erase their existence which you have done?

I am more flummoxed by your claim that this is OR. It's a direct quote from the source? And further to this, if it's a quote from the source, I feel a bit insulted by accusations that I am being non-neutral here; I'm sure it is unfortunate for Mr gill that such theories were described as such in the article, but I don't see how that's my fault? It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not? Structuralists (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with what I'd written originally. Essentially editors here only want to stop others being able to add negative things a source said about the man, even though the Richard D. Gill article was previously only a self-loving monologue. If you really want to get rid of words like 'although' then whatever, but there's no good reason for it to be blocked from being written. MeltingDistrict (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Essentially editors here only want to stop others being able to add negative things a source said about the man. Incorrect. Please WP:AGF. even though the Richard D. Gill article was previously only a self-loving monologue. I think you are wearing your own bias on your sleeve here. You may be interested in this essay: WP:BEINSCRUTABLE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, please assume good faith. I read that article from The Telegraph, and your wording was not only a misrepresentation of it, but the loaded language was unacceptable too. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of misunderstandings here. Firstly, saying the wording of an edit fails NPOV is not an aspersion on the editor. Most bias in edits will be unconscious, Editors wishing to be scrupulously neutral will, nevertheless, reflect their biases, and that is the human condition, so there is no aspersion on you here. You say It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not?, but that is not right. WP:ONUS says:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

Curation of sources is a primary function of editors. We do not need to include the Telegraph source simply because it exists. The question is whether this information is relevant to an article about Gill, whether it would better be placed in an article about Letby instead, and whether the balance of the article is being skewed and unbalanced by a concentration on a particular aspect.

Now this is an article about Gill, the statistician. In this article we cover his 38 year career in 127 words. The section just about Letby is already longer than that at 139 words (569 on his advocacy work), and you want to add 58 more. On pure word count alone there is a prima facie argument that this article is being skewed, and this looks like WP:RECENTISM. But sure, if there is truly notable information about Gill's involvement in the Letby case, covered in secondary sources, that would need to be in the article, regardless of word counts. Fleshing out the career might rebalance things in that case.

The Telegraph article is not a secondary source though, and neither is the information it covers of any particular relevance to an understanding of Gill. We already have what is important here. What does this add about Gill? Why is this notable? Why is it due? He is interviewed? But where are all the other interviews of Gill - of which there are many? What makes this one so important that it has permanent and lasting notability such that it must be covered in an encylopaedic article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

ONUS says "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted". Neither you nor DeFacto have a consensus, and so that exact policy proves why it is totally wrong to just remove it without any attempt on talk to find a consensus on talk for it's removal, which that wording of the policy explicitly says is required. MeltingDistrict (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The consensus will form one way or another. That is why we are talking. It is, of course, correct to remove contested material from a BLP until the consensus is formed. That is what WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE mandate, and those are core wikipedia policies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph article does not describe Gill in the way quoted. It expresses scepticism about such theories as a starting point before presenting Gill and Neil Mackenzie KC as making reasonable points from positions of expertise, which the Telegraph doesn't challenge or describe in the terms quoted; instead it sets them against the judge's condemnatory assessment. It's a classic "it sounds daft but when you really look at it" approach. It would be severely misleading to extract those descriptions from the Telegraph article and apply them to Gill in the way that your edit did.

You say above that the article "was previously only a self-loving monologue". We deal with such problems by removing any self-love rather than by introducing some balancing hate, and we avoid focussing on the most recent event in our subject's life; this biography has quite enough on that one case. We are, after all, not here to right great wrongs – or at least we shouldn't be! NebY (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@NebY, yes, that was more or less my analysis of that article in The Telegraph too. It was not implicating Gill as suggested in the content that I removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Major Contributor Maintenance Tag

I think this can go now. The career has been pared back and rigorously sourced. It is too short but there is no puffery, so that is fine. The Advocacy section is out of proportion but does not show the hand of the page subject. Any further clean-up should be based on expansion of the career and balancing of the content. Any objections to removing it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I object to removing it, since the entire intro and the positive parts were almost all written during the period Mr Gill was still allowed to edit the page. Structuralists (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What information remaining in the article was written by Gill? And where is there a lack of balance? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Um well there's the fact that the article itself was created by him. There's surely an argument that the article should be deleted on those grounds alone MeltingDistrict (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD is thataway --> but the question here is why we need that template when there is nothing in this article that has not now been repaired. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please state any specific COI concerns with the material as it is in the article now so that these may be addressed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

4 days of WP:SILENCE is enough. I'll remove the template. A silent consensus is easily reversed with a revert, but if objecting, please explain here what material remains on this page that needs to be rewritten, and why. Who created the page is immaterial. Please focus on the current content only. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, first of all Structuralists has said that the entire intro has never been changed. And secondly, the tag makes clear to editors that major contributors to the article may have a close connection to him, which is still relevant considering Gill was blocked for canvassing for editors to come and do his edits by proxy, and lo and behold you arrived and started editing on this page for the first time, making edits in his interest. I'm not saying that you are editing on behalf of him, but the tag is there to warn users of such possibilities and the fact that Gill himself may still be holding sway over what does and doesn't go on the page. MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The tag is there for purposes of clean-up. I and others have done a lot of clean-up on this article that now bears no resemblance to how it looked before, and I have asked that you please explain here what material remains on this page that needs to be rewritten, and why. It is not enough to say that the intro has not been changed. What is the COI? What is not neutral? What is puffery? What needs fixing? Because the intro you are so concerned about reads:

Richard David Gill (born 1951) is a British-Dutch mathematician. He has held academic positions in the Netherlands. As a probability theorist and statistician, Gill has researched counting processes. He is also known for his consulting and advocacy on behalf of alleged victims of statistical misrepresentation, including the reversal of the murder conviction of a Dutch nurse who had been jailed for six years.

This is surely a fair and neutral summary. If there is no identified COI there should not be a tag.

But, in fact, we do have something of a COI, don't we. Because here you are, editing a page about a person to whom you wrote this: [8]. On having this raised at ANI, you said you would leave this article alone [9]. It does not appear that you are able to approach this subject from a neutral point of view, and you should not be editing the page at all, let alone reverting in a maintenance template as a badge of shame. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not twist what I said. I said I would leave Gill alone, not articles. Gill was then blocked site-wide, so I did not need to leave him alone as an editor anymore. MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I regard Wikipedia as the sum of its articles (created under an extensive set of more or less firm rules to make the project work). Under this premise, the "twisting" that you are suspecting Sirfurboy of was actually an assumption in your own favor. Also, I may have missed something but I can't make sense of your last foregoing sentence if what you call "twist" is not assumed: trivially, it is editors who work on articles. Finally, if there is a Wikipedia rule for why you don't "need" to leave somebody (here, Gill) alone anymore as an editor after they have been blocked site-wide, I would be glad to see it quoted.--CRau080 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I have raised the POV editing issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MeltingDistrict. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion was begun by an editor who is now blocked for socking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the following sourced sentence be excluded from the article?

Gill has advocated on behalf of Letby on the radio show of Kate Shemirani. Structuralists (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:NOTCENSORED. The content is sourced to the radio show and is worded neutrally, simply being matter-of-fact and saying that he was on a show, not making a judgement about it. I can see that some editors might want to ban it as it may to some portray the subject in a bad light by being connected to a conspiracy theorist (although on the contrary others may approve of it showing he is a 'free thinker' etc.), but it's not our job to censor what shows he has or hasn't been on if we don't like it, even on biographies, and readers can make their own judgment after reading an unloaded, matter-of-fact statement. Recording facts like what shows he has been on in an emotionless way is entirely in keeping with encyclopaedic tone. How would it make sense to allow all the content glowingly speaking about the amazingly academic groups he is in and academic sites he has written for, but then exclude any mention of another radio station he has been on with a more 'alternative' position? That is not NPOV. Thank you. Structuralists (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Less assuming the motives of other editors and more secondary sources demonstrating WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am not 'assuming' that other editors think it portrays him in a bad light. See this edit summary [10], claiming I am imposing "guilt by association". I would appreciate less of that assuming of my motives as an editor thanks. Structuralists (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? This RfC appears to be as a result of this bold edit on 22 October, [11] of which I reverted the last paragraph the same day.[12] You don't appear to have even attempted to discuss it on this talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Because you and another editor instantly reverted it, saying I was imposing "guilt by association". It was clear that any talk page conversation I'd start would just be you two flatly refusing to consider inclusion of the material. You had already made your thoughts clear, so I am seeking here the thoughts of other, non-involved editors Structuralists (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  My edsum is in the link, and is not that. There is another problem. Your RFC question is negatively phrased, so oppose supports inclusion and support opposes it. That is a bit of a gotcha. All in all, I might suggest withdrawing before you get any supports, doing an RFCBEFORE (if only a talk page discussion about your reverted edit) and then consider an RFC if you feel more eyes would be beneficial at that stage. But it's your RfC. Up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It was clear that any talk page conversation I'd start would just be you two flatly refusing to consider inclusion of the material. Again, stop that. Comment on content, not contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - In view of the nominator being blocked as a sockpuppet, I presume this can just be closed now? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Bad RfC - should not be worded as a negative---Avatar317^(talk) 23:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Sentence should not be included as it stands: using PRIMARY sources you can't say someone ADVOCATED for someone else; that is WP:OR. Saying someone appeared on a show is different than "advocating for". ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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.