![]() | 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 |
The introduction says she has planned an appeal. Today the first attempt was rejected, and even though she can try again the rejection today indicates it’s unlikely to succeed. So the intro line should either be clarified that it’s been rejected now at this stage or removed, since we don’t now need to say an appeal is some future event. 78.25.220.227 ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictionsremains true, but may not be the optimal wording. The encyclopaedic information here is really that she continues to deny culpability and is fighting the conviction. My wording may also not be optimal ("fighting" could be considered editorialising, although perhaps it is accurate), but a sentence that summarises main text and says something like that would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions. A retrial of one count of attempted murder is also planned.with
Thus taking all CRYSTAL out of the lead. This also closely mirrors her own words. [1] Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Letby continues to maintain her innocence in respect of the convictions.
Parts of this case are affected by some sort of media blackout in the UK. Here's a Tory MP discussing it (and a non RS source) - [3]. I'm not sure if that is discussed in the article; best I can see it's not mentioned anywhere.
If we can find a Reliable Source talking about it, it might be good to add a line somewhere as explanation. Something like In the UK, media organisations are ordinarily prohibited from discussing ...
.
Soni (
talk)
10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
[4]The legal arguments cannot be reported by the media because a retrial over a remaining charge which the jury could not decide upon is due to take place in June.
A restriction on naming the surviving children would be fairly standard protection of minors in court cases, probably made right at the start, and I remember we've had cases where a deceased child has been called eg "Baby P" until the end. Would the court protect living siblings too? As this CPS guidance mentions,A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of the surviving and dead children who were the subject of the allegations.
Growing up's hard enough without everyone knowing such things about you, so maybe anonymity is extended sometimes. However, the NY article doesn't seem to have named any children or parents. NebY ( talk) 12:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that authorities should give primary consideration to the best interests of the child.
Our paragraphs about Children A and B now fold together different accounts, in particular the case presented by the prosecution as reported then or at the close of the case by multiple sources, and Rachel Aviv's account in the New Yorker. Is there some risk here of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:UNDUE weight? The effect seems to be that the single combined account presents the deaths as understandable without imputing deliberate harm (and thus Letby's guilt), in a way that only one of our sources (Aviv) does. Pinging @ Moriwen who's been working on that section, but hoping for other input. NebY ( talk) 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The first paragraph incorrectly states that she was present "whenever suspicious events took place", but this is incorrect, there were multiple instances where she was not present. I removed the sentence because it was uncited and because it was false, but it got reversed and now I'm locked from editing.
this wiki page is a disaster. I was also blocked from writing that the case is controversial and told I'm a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't make sense. The case is controversial. It's not like I'm saying she's innocent, which would be an opinion, and possibly a conspiracy theory. The case is controversial full stop. 128.237.82.8 ( talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In this case, that means that a claim that the case is controversial needs a reliable source and to be WP:DUE too, even if to you it's a known fact, and any statement about why it's controversial also has to be based on a reliable source; it can't simply be your explanation.in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.Anything it's summarising should first be in the body of the article, and it should be supported by a source, normally an inline citation, there. As long as the lead follows that rule, the sources don't need to be repeated there and often aren't. NebY ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I notice that some sources are cited way more than the others. Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)
While there's no specific problem with overciting one RS, we should try and find alternate sources that support the same text. If we cannot find them, it'd be a good indicator that the info is overly detailed or we're relying too much on few sources. This either adds different sources to the article, or cleans up the most overly in depth bits. Soni ( talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Should Lucia de Berk be added to the See Also section? The cases seem strikingly similar. Their occupation, the controversial use of statistical evidence in the trial, the context of their diary entries. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:5C92:1AA5:C62D:5C92 ( talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Reading through this article, it seems that the segments discussing the cases of each individual child are basically just transcribing the prosecution's arguments - not the worst thing, but if you want to write it that way you should probably add the defense's rebuttal as well. Of course that makes for a pretty bad flow for that segment overall. IMO these segments should be completely nuked and rewritten. I would do it, but I am 95% sure it would spark an edit war as a fair amount of active editors would simply interpret that as "oh you're just biased in her favor". Any consensus on rewriting them? Jspace727 ( talk) 17:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
As well as in the two cases in which insulin poisoning had been proved, evidence provided by medical experts indicated that all the babies had been harmed intentionally.should have much stronger sources than it does right now Soni ( talk) 10:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With the publishing of the (now multiple) news sources calling into question the circumstantial evidence and statistical fallacies inherent to the Letby case, I'm concerned that the wikipedia article is not adequately updated to reflect these changes. There are numerous edits that I have seen that make reference to her crimes as if they were factually committed by her. I believe a line regarding the potential wrongful conviction she may well be facing should be added to the introductory body of the article, instead of buried so far down, because it is absolutely a contentious issue, particularly now that parliamentary members have been asking why it is Geoblocked in the UK. Eastcheep ( talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where it would fit but I feel like the New Yorker Article should be included somewhere on this page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6C93:9AB4:A12:1523 ( talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
We currently have "Aviv also questioned the testimony of Dewi Evans ..." which may give the impression that this is new evidence. During Letby's trial, the jury was told that Evans' report in another case had been described as worthless etc, as described by Aviv, and her defence lawyer sought to have Evans' evidence struck out. This was reported by the Independent in August 2023: "Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge" [1] (and possibly elsewhere). Should we first mention all this in our account of the trial and then in describing the New Yorker article say that Aviv also remarked on it, rather than presenting it only in our account of the New Yorker article as if it's the fruit of new investigation? NebY ( talk) 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
References
An improvement to the first paragraph (made by another verified user, not me) was reverted by user cwmxii, and their explanation was the following:
This is giving unnecessary ground to the conspiracy theorists and truthers who've infested this article in the last few days, sorry.
This is an incredibly inappropriate explanation for a Wikipedia edit. This user did not dispute the reliability of the edit, the cited material, the prior explanation for the edit, or the importance of the edit. Their only explanation is that it "gives ground" to people that the user has baselessly deemed conspiracy theorists.
This is not the first time this has occurred. As a result, the opening section of the article is inaccurate. It is written as if there is no controversy whatsoever about the case which is not true, it inaccurately summarizes the facts about the shift schedule, and there is emotional writing rather than facts based writing. For example, the user deleted the phrase "who was convicted of murdering" and changed it to "who murdered" because it did not fit with their sensibilities, even though the prior version was factual, did not question the verdict, and actually was more informative (she was convicted by a jury for multiple murders, which is more specific than the more vague phrase "who murdered").
I understand this case has strong emotions for british and involves the highly sensitive subject of a serial killer of small children. However, the newer edits do not argue for conspiracy theories. Instead, they provide factual info from reliable investigative reporting that adds additional factual context to a case that has lots of interest from the public. The reason that the page has recent traffic is because of a major article from the USA written by a serious investigate journalist who interviewed experts and cited the direct evidence and transcripts from the case. And none of the edits made any conspiracy claims. In fact, I don't think some editors here know what a conspiracy is, a concept that doesn't really apply here. 74.111.100.35 ( talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty- that is, charitably, tautologous. In law she is guilty because the law has found her guilty. However, on the greater question, she is, as a matter of fact, either guilty or not, and she was guilty or not before she was found guilty and will remain guilty or not regardless of the outcome of various appeals. Speculation on that point is not the role of an encylopaedic article. Careful use of language is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Just report the facts.Yes. The verifiable ones.
Letby remains guiltyNo, this is loose language. Sally Clark was never guilty. She did not remain guilty until her conviction was quashed. Your following clauses are better:
she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer.Which is a verifiable fact. We report that. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Stick to what we knowis exactly my point. But your language is tighter in that last comment, so we can leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial.To me, this question is inconsequential. Our article at the time could have been biased regardless of reliable sources existing on both sides. Alternately, Aviv's report brings those arguments from primary source (a defence who has to help their client) vs secondary (a reporter). That itself could be enough for us to consider adding more of those concerns here.
To me, this question is inconsequentialis the correct response. :) That was me veering into WP:NOTFORUM. NebY ( talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the article should probably mention that originally 8 charges were brought to trial, but one was dropped because the prosecution could offer no evidence. A good source here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-61759823#:~:text=Nick%20Johnson%2C%20QC%2C%20said%20the,neonatal%20unit%20at%20the%20hospital.
Apologies if this is already in the article, but it probably should go in that first paragraph in the section '2023 Trial' as it explains the discrepancy between the number of murder charges in the first paragraphs and the number of counts to which she pled not guilty in the second. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:9C2F:756E:70EC:DCE7 ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone update the page please 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:69DD:A23A:7F39:A0B9 ( talk) 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby 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)
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.
At Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4#Overly represented sources I had linked four sources I found were cited more than I preferred - Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)
Are there any other sources that need to be removed? Soni ( talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (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 |
The introduction says she has planned an appeal. Today the first attempt was rejected, and even though she can try again the rejection today indicates it’s unlikely to succeed. So the intro line should either be clarified that it’s been rejected now at this stage or removed, since we don’t now need to say an appeal is some future event. 78.25.220.227 ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictionsremains true, but may not be the optimal wording. The encyclopaedic information here is really that she continues to deny culpability and is fighting the conviction. My wording may also not be optimal ("fighting" could be considered editorialising, although perhaps it is accurate), but a sentence that summarises main text and says something like that would be appropriate. Any suggestions? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 10:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
She has asked for permission to appeal against her convictions. A retrial of one count of attempted murder is also planned.with
Thus taking all CRYSTAL out of the lead. This also closely mirrors her own words. [1] Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Letby continues to maintain her innocence in respect of the convictions.
Parts of this case are affected by some sort of media blackout in the UK. Here's a Tory MP discussing it (and a non RS source) - [3]. I'm not sure if that is discussed in the article; best I can see it's not mentioned anywhere.
If we can find a Reliable Source talking about it, it might be good to add a line somewhere as explanation. Something like In the UK, media organisations are ordinarily prohibited from discussing ...
.
Soni (
talk)
10:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
[4]The legal arguments cannot be reported by the media because a retrial over a remaining charge which the jury could not decide upon is due to take place in June.
A restriction on naming the surviving children would be fairly standard protection of minors in court cases, probably made right at the start, and I remember we've had cases where a deceased child has been called eg "Baby P" until the end. Would the court protect living siblings too? As this CPS guidance mentions,A court order prohibits reporting of the identities of the surviving and dead children who were the subject of the allegations.
Growing up's hard enough without everyone knowing such things about you, so maybe anonymity is extended sometimes. However, the NY article doesn't seem to have named any children or parents. NebY ( talk) 12:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that authorities should give primary consideration to the best interests of the child.
Our paragraphs about Children A and B now fold together different accounts, in particular the case presented by the prosecution as reported then or at the close of the case by multiple sources, and Rachel Aviv's account in the New Yorker. Is there some risk here of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:UNDUE weight? The effect seems to be that the single combined account presents the deaths as understandable without imputing deliberate harm (and thus Letby's guilt), in a way that only one of our sources (Aviv) does. Pinging @ Moriwen who's been working on that section, but hoping for other input. NebY ( talk) 16:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The first paragraph incorrectly states that she was present "whenever suspicious events took place", but this is incorrect, there were multiple instances where she was not present. I removed the sentence because it was uncited and because it was false, but it got reversed and now I'm locked from editing.
this wiki page is a disaster. I was also blocked from writing that the case is controversial and told I'm a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't make sense. The case is controversial. It's not like I'm saying she's innocent, which would be an opinion, and possibly a conspiracy theory. The case is controversial full stop. 128.237.82.8 ( talk) 13:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
In this case, that means that a claim that the case is controversial needs a reliable source and to be WP:DUE too, even if to you it's a known fact, and any statement about why it's controversial also has to be based on a reliable source; it can't simply be your explanation.in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.Anything it's summarising should first be in the body of the article, and it should be supported by a source, normally an inline citation, there. As long as the lead follows that rule, the sources don't need to be repeated there and often aren't. NebY ( talk) 14:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I notice that some sources are cited way more than the others. Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)
While there's no specific problem with overciting one RS, we should try and find alternate sources that support the same text. If we cannot find them, it'd be a good indicator that the info is overly detailed or we're relying too much on few sources. This either adds different sources to the article, or cleans up the most overly in depth bits. Soni ( talk) 05:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Should Lucia de Berk be added to the See Also section? The cases seem strikingly similar. Their occupation, the controversial use of statistical evidence in the trial, the context of their diary entries. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:5C92:1AA5:C62D:5C92 ( talk) 07:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Reading through this article, it seems that the segments discussing the cases of each individual child are basically just transcribing the prosecution's arguments - not the worst thing, but if you want to write it that way you should probably add the defense's rebuttal as well. Of course that makes for a pretty bad flow for that segment overall. IMO these segments should be completely nuked and rewritten. I would do it, but I am 95% sure it would spark an edit war as a fair amount of active editors would simply interpret that as "oh you're just biased in her favor". Any consensus on rewriting them? Jspace727 ( talk) 17:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
As well as in the two cases in which insulin poisoning had been proved, evidence provided by medical experts indicated that all the babies had been harmed intentionally.should have much stronger sources than it does right now Soni ( talk) 10:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
With the publishing of the (now multiple) news sources calling into question the circumstantial evidence and statistical fallacies inherent to the Letby case, I'm concerned that the wikipedia article is not adequately updated to reflect these changes. There are numerous edits that I have seen that make reference to her crimes as if they were factually committed by her. I believe a line regarding the potential wrongful conviction she may well be facing should be added to the introductory body of the article, instead of buried so far down, because it is absolutely a contentious issue, particularly now that parliamentary members have been asking why it is Geoblocked in the UK. Eastcheep ( talk) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where it would fit but I feel like the New Yorker Article should be included somewhere on this page. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:6C93:9AB4:A12:1523 ( talk) 21:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
We currently have "Aviv also questioned the testimony of Dewi Evans ..." which may give the impression that this is new evidence. During Letby's trial, the jury was told that Evans' report in another case had been described as worthless etc, as described by Aviv, and her defence lawyer sought to have Evans' evidence struck out. This was reported by the Independent in August 2023: "Bid to exclude evidence of prosecution medical expert was refused by judge" [1] (and possibly elsewhere). Should we first mention all this in our account of the trial and then in describing the New Yorker article say that Aviv also remarked on it, rather than presenting it only in our account of the New Yorker article as if it's the fruit of new investigation? NebY ( talk) 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
References
An improvement to the first paragraph (made by another verified user, not me) was reverted by user cwmxii, and their explanation was the following:
This is giving unnecessary ground to the conspiracy theorists and truthers who've infested this article in the last few days, sorry.
This is an incredibly inappropriate explanation for a Wikipedia edit. This user did not dispute the reliability of the edit, the cited material, the prior explanation for the edit, or the importance of the edit. Their only explanation is that it "gives ground" to people that the user has baselessly deemed conspiracy theorists.
This is not the first time this has occurred. As a result, the opening section of the article is inaccurate. It is written as if there is no controversy whatsoever about the case which is not true, it inaccurately summarizes the facts about the shift schedule, and there is emotional writing rather than facts based writing. For example, the user deleted the phrase "who was convicted of murdering" and changed it to "who murdered" because it did not fit with their sensibilities, even though the prior version was factual, did not question the verdict, and actually was more informative (she was convicted by a jury for multiple murders, which is more specific than the more vague phrase "who murdered").
I understand this case has strong emotions for british and involves the highly sensitive subject of a serial killer of small children. However, the newer edits do not argue for conspiracy theories. Instead, they provide factual info from reliable investigative reporting that adds additional factual context to a case that has lots of interest from the public. The reason that the page has recent traffic is because of a major article from the USA written by a serious investigate journalist who interviewed experts and cited the direct evidence and transcripts from the case. And none of the edits made any conspiracy claims. In fact, I don't think some editors here know what a conspiracy is, a concept that doesn't really apply here. 74.111.100.35 ( talk) 09:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
She’s still very much guilty of the crimes for which she has been found guilty- that is, charitably, tautologous. In law she is guilty because the law has found her guilty. However, on the greater question, she is, as a matter of fact, either guilty or not, and she was guilty or not before she was found guilty and will remain guilty or not regardless of the outcome of various appeals. Speculation on that point is not the role of an encylopaedic article. Careful use of language is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 22:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Just report the facts.Yes. The verifiable ones.
Letby remains guiltyNo, this is loose language. Sally Clark was never guilty. She did not remain guilty until her conviction was quashed. Your following clauses are better:
she is by definition a convicted murderer and serial killer.Which is a verifiable fact. We report that. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Stick to what we knowis exactly my point. But your language is tighter in that last comment, so we can leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm also uncertain how much of Aviv's report brings new material that hasn't already been taken into account (or at least been available to be taken into account); for example, much about Dewi Evans was raised by the defence during the trial.To me, this question is inconsequential. Our article at the time could have been biased regardless of reliable sources existing on both sides. Alternately, Aviv's report brings those arguments from primary source (a defence who has to help their client) vs secondary (a reporter). That itself could be enough for us to consider adding more of those concerns here.
To me, this question is inconsequentialis the correct response. :) That was me veering into WP:NOTFORUM. NebY ( talk) 16:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the article should probably mention that originally 8 charges were brought to trial, but one was dropped because the prosecution could offer no evidence. A good source here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-61759823#:~:text=Nick%20Johnson%2C%20QC%2C%20said%20the,neonatal%20unit%20at%20the%20hospital.
Apologies if this is already in the article, but it probably should go in that first paragraph in the section '2023 Trial' as it explains the discrepancy between the number of murder charges in the first paragraphs and the number of counts to which she pled not guilty in the second. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:9C2F:756E:70EC:DCE7 ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone update the page please 2A00:23C4:241:8C01:69DD:A23A:7F39:A0B9 ( talk) 11:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lucy Letby 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)
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.
At Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 4#Overly represented sources I had linked four sources I found were cited more than I preferred - Panorama documentary (31 citations), The Times article (15), The Nurse who killed documentary (12), Sky news (9)
Are there any other sources that need to be removed? Soni ( talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)