The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by
consensus, not by majority vote.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Primary Sources template
I know the primary sources template was added a long while ago, and refreshed earlier this month. When can that template be removed? I'm trying to figure out which are the worst sources we should be looking to replace.
It does not look like anyone else has opinions on it. I have removed the primary sources template. I do not think that template applies, though I still would like to cut down on overuse of sources
Soni (
talk)
23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this, but I will put the template back now. Sorry. The article has been written based off newspaper accounts of the trial, and goes into way too much detail from this primary sourced material. Some of it is based off a documentary, which is secondary but has some other issues (e.g. the interviews of doctors etc. are primary and not independent), but we are still lacking a proper authoritative secondary account of this case. This article is currently trying to *be* the secondary source, which is unencyclopaedic.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with all of those concerns, though I'd have placed a different template instead of primary sources. Makes sense to me, let me see what we can do about this.
Soni (
talk)
09:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Senior Investigating Officer Paul Hughes later said: "the initial focus was around the hypotheses of what could have occurred: so generic hypotheses of 'it could be natural-occurring deaths', 'it could be natural-occurring collapses', 'it could be an organic reason', 'it could be a virus', and then one of the hypotheses was that, obviously, it could be inflicted harm." -> this sentence has no reliable source to back it up, so it needs to be deleted. I checked the source and did not find it in the source.
2600:6C44:117F:95BE:AD59:A396:7B54:FD9E (
talk)
03:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh dear, my mistake. I hadn't realised there was a video within the article and that's what it referred to. I thought it was the Sky report itself.
HouseplantHobbyist (
talk)
08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." to "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.
2603:6010:CF01:DD1:BCDB:FF02:134C:47D2 (
talk)
02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Surely this requirement is quite backwards in this situation? There are reliable sources referenced in the responses section which make a good case questioning the validity of the verdict. As well, other sources state that many still believe in her innocence and the possibility of a miscarriage.
The fact there's credible sources dounting her guilt means that "murdered seven infants" is the statement actively making a claim, while "was convicted of murdering seven infants" is a neutral statement. The latter doesn't even read as doubting the conviction, just not taking it as absolute certainty that she did it.
2A0A:EF40:45A:5401:6421:5F92:445B:BDAB (
talk)
16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was a request for comment on the lead sentence five months ago that settled on the current wording. Please see the link below, thank you.
In the May 20, 2024 issue of the New Yorker Magazine, there is an article by Rachel Aviv, called "Conviction, Did a neonatal nurse really kill seven newborns?". The article suggests that the allegations against and trial and conviction of Lucy Letby, the accused, may be faulty and based on data from which erroneous conclusions were made. My suggestion is rather than starting the bio with the characterization "murderer of seven infants" it be changed to a more ambiguous description such as "neonatal nurse accused and convicted by UK Court".
Perhaps include some of the points made in the New Yorker article to leave for consideration, the possibility of other possible causes (the hospital was understaffed and mismanaged, currently they are experiencing a jump in complications in women in the post-natal unit) and also, the seeming bias toward conviction of some of the witnesses and police agency.
Thank you,
Karen Blume
71.212.172.63 (
talk)
22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have time at the moment to write or edit anything, but this is in the Guardian today
[1]. A quick reading of it didn't show me anything we have not seen before, but it may support some information that we formerly chose not to include as it was not published in a reliable source.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 'Doubts about the conviction' section is highly biased
There's a fair bit in there about conspiracy theorists and amateur investigators, but apart from mentioning Gill and MacKenzie, there's nothing on the wealth of other people with relevant expertise who have weighed in on the case.
Two stories in leading broadsheets from both sides of the political spectrum came out this week. They quote consultant neonatologists, legal professionals, statisticians, forensic scientists, and various other highly qualified individuals. These are paid lip service in the third paragraph, but the sole quote is given to a columnist from Spiked magazine.
I concur. When I noted the Guardian article above, I meant I had no time to read it carefully and create new prose on our page, not that I had no time to mention it exists. The spiked magazine quote is odd too. We should not be just reporting opinions of columnists.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by
consensus, not by majority vote.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Primary Sources template
I know the primary sources template was added a long while ago, and refreshed earlier this month. When can that template be removed? I'm trying to figure out which are the worst sources we should be looking to replace.
It does not look like anyone else has opinions on it. I have removed the primary sources template. I do not think that template applies, though I still would like to cut down on overuse of sources
Soni (
talk)
23:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I missed this, but I will put the template back now. Sorry. The article has been written based off newspaper accounts of the trial, and goes into way too much detail from this primary sourced material. Some of it is based off a documentary, which is secondary but has some other issues (e.g. the interviews of doctors etc. are primary and not independent), but we are still lacking a proper authoritative secondary account of this case. This article is currently trying to *be* the secondary source, which is unencyclopaedic.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with all of those concerns, though I'd have placed a different template instead of primary sources. Makes sense to me, let me see what we can do about this.
Soni (
talk)
09:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Senior Investigating Officer Paul Hughes later said: "the initial focus was around the hypotheses of what could have occurred: so generic hypotheses of 'it could be natural-occurring deaths', 'it could be natural-occurring collapses', 'it could be an organic reason', 'it could be a virus', and then one of the hypotheses was that, obviously, it could be inflicted harm." -> this sentence has no reliable source to back it up, so it needs to be deleted. I checked the source and did not find it in the source.
2600:6C44:117F:95BE:AD59:A396:7B54:FD9E (
talk)
03:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh dear, my mistake. I hadn't realised there was a video within the article and that's what it referred to. I thought it was the Sky report itself.
HouseplantHobbyist (
talk)
08:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." to "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.
2603:6010:CF01:DD1:BCDB:FF02:134C:47D2 (
talk)
02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Surely this requirement is quite backwards in this situation? There are reliable sources referenced in the responses section which make a good case questioning the validity of the verdict. As well, other sources state that many still believe in her innocence and the possibility of a miscarriage.
The fact there's credible sources dounting her guilt means that "murdered seven infants" is the statement actively making a claim, while "was convicted of murdering seven infants" is a neutral statement. The latter doesn't even read as doubting the conviction, just not taking it as absolute certainty that she did it.
2A0A:EF40:45A:5401:6421:5F92:445B:BDAB (
talk)
16:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There was a request for comment on the lead sentence five months ago that settled on the current wording. Please see the link below, thank you.
In the May 20, 2024 issue of the New Yorker Magazine, there is an article by Rachel Aviv, called "Conviction, Did a neonatal nurse really kill seven newborns?". The article suggests that the allegations against and trial and conviction of Lucy Letby, the accused, may be faulty and based on data from which erroneous conclusions were made. My suggestion is rather than starting the bio with the characterization "murderer of seven infants" it be changed to a more ambiguous description such as "neonatal nurse accused and convicted by UK Court".
Perhaps include some of the points made in the New Yorker article to leave for consideration, the possibility of other possible causes (the hospital was understaffed and mismanaged, currently they are experiencing a jump in complications in women in the post-natal unit) and also, the seeming bias toward conviction of some of the witnesses and police agency.
Thank you,
Karen Blume
71.212.172.63 (
talk)
22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't have time at the moment to write or edit anything, but this is in the Guardian today
[1]. A quick reading of it didn't show me anything we have not seen before, but it may support some information that we formerly chose not to include as it was not published in a reliable source.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 'Doubts about the conviction' section is highly biased
There's a fair bit in there about conspiracy theorists and amateur investigators, but apart from mentioning Gill and MacKenzie, there's nothing on the wealth of other people with relevant expertise who have weighed in on the case.
Two stories in leading broadsheets from both sides of the political spectrum came out this week. They quote consultant neonatologists, legal professionals, statisticians, forensic scientists, and various other highly qualified individuals. These are paid lip service in the third paragraph, but the sole quote is given to a columnist from Spiked magazine.
I concur. When I noted the Guardian article above, I meant I had no time to read it carefully and create new prose on our page, not that I had no time to mention it exists. The spiked magazine quote is odd too. We should not be just reporting opinions of columnists.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Charliehdb (
talk)
04:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
M.Bitton (
talk)
16:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)