![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
... 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)
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.
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)
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)
it makes it sound like all statisticians believe thiswhich 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)
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)
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)"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate".
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.
But instead, you chose to add"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".
and that Gill only edited the page"clearly refuted"
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"well over a decade ago".
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)"a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence"
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)
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)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.
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)
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].
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 LetbyDeCausa ( talk) 12:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevantflows 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)
@
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)
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)
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)
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)
AndPrimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] [2] Truecrimefan22 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Truecrimefan22 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infantsdoesn't downplay anything. This is your first edit to the article. Why this? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
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.,
People.com has:Letby, who was a neonatal nurse at the hospital, was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more. [36]
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.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]
lodged an appeal of the verdictto
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
-- DeFacto ( talk). 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)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.
:::::::::::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):
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)
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 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
... 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)
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.
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)
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)
it makes it sound like all statisticians believe thiswhich 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)
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)
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)"Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate".
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.
But instead, you chose to add"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".
and that Gill only edited the page"clearly refuted"
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"well over a decade ago".
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)"a nurse wrongly sent to prison on the back of statistical evidence"
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)
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)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.
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)
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].
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 LetbyDeCausa ( talk) 12:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevantflows 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)
@
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)
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)
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)
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)
AndPrimary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [1] [2] Truecrimefan22 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Truecrimefan22 ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infantsdoesn't downplay anything. This is your first edit to the article. Why this? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
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.,
People.com has:Letby, who was a neonatal nurse at the hospital, was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more. [36]
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.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]
lodged an appeal of the verdictto
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
-- DeFacto ( talk). 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)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.
:::::::::::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):
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)
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 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)