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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Thanks for cleaning up your article, you should get rid of the signature as part of the article. Uncompetence 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Uncompetence, I have lots to learn and obviously I should not be working on my own biography at all. Now I have added on this talk page what seems to be necessary for a biography of living persons, namely WikiProject Biography living=yes, I hope I am not unauthorized to do this
--
Gill110951 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored and expanded the short section on Lucia de Berk, using the linked article. Could somebody check the two Dutch references, which I couldn't reference today, but cited per AGF. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
On my talk page there are links to the compensation news for Lucia (Dutch media including a press release by ANP. [1]. Richard Gill ( talk) 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
CWI, formerly MC, is a research institute funded by the Dutch national science research council. Quite a few young people are employed there, doing research towards their PhD. The PhD degrees are granted by universities and CWI is not part of any university or affiliated to any university. People doing PhD research at CWI are typically supervised by senior university researchers with part-time positions or advisorships at CWI. The thesis is then defended at the supervisors' university. Cobus Oosterhoff, my thesis advisor, had an advisorship at MC and a chair at Vrije Universiteit. Richard Gill ( talk) 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard D. Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=73585When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @MeltingDistrict. The Lucy Letby case is not closed. She can, and likely will, appeal. So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. If we were now at the “long after the case is closed” stage, The Telegraph would not have published that article. Richard Gill ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a sentence added saying that “Gill is currently one of a number of scientists advocating for an appeal and a retrial of Lucy Letby.” The Telegraph article could be cited. Richard Gill ( talk) 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Was he chair of xyz (as in chairman) of a dept/school of xyz, or did he hold a chair in xyz (as in being Professor of xyz)? The article is unclear, at least twice. RDG could answer this question here as a factual clarification with no COI! Pam D 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Number of concerns on a COI editor. ltb dl ( talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Structuralists you are removing a lot of content from this article, but the information appears to me to likely be correct, and presumably due. Yes, citations are needed, but the citation needed templates only went on yesterday. How about leaving it a week to see if anyone can find citations. Any puffery can go, but factual information about the career would belong here if sourced. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Let me add that this is a sensitive issue for me at the moment because the article about me has been repeatedly vandalised in recent months. The UK public has been whipped up into a frenzy of hatred for a murderer of tiny babies, who possibly is actually not a murderer at all. According to a growing number of people she was a whistleblower in a failing NHS hospital, and this led to four consultants reporting her to the police. Some notable authorities are now speaking out in public in her favour and supporting the movement for a retrial. If I were allowed to edit the Lucy Letby talk page, I would be able to give reliable sources and further information. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
I was warned by UK police that I *might* risk arrest. Since the trial is over and I did not influence the jury, I do not risk arrest. The letter from the police is by now all over internet. Whoever wrote about this affair might like to take a look at it, and at my response to the police. https://gill1109.com/2023/09/20/contempt-of-court/
By the way, four independent scientists got similar intimidating letters. And all of our offers to help the defence were ignored. In the UK, new scientific evidence may not be introduced after a trial has started.
Richard Gill ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I took an active role when this page about myself was started many long years ago when Wikipedia was a friendly place. It was started by someone else, I didn’t know who they were (still don’t). I did not actively edit it since. I think the notice at the top of the page is misleading. It appears to be part of the recent campaign of vandalism of this page because of my outspoken support of Lucy Letby. An interesting phenomenon. I am not the only victim of the witch-burning hysteria which has gripped the UK though it still gripping the UK Richard Gill ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I said in my 2021 talk at the Dept of Statistics of the University of Chicago, a scientific lecture to an academic audience of legal scholars, statisticians, and forensic scientists, "I suspect she was innocent, but I don't know of course". My opinion on the case (as an academic and a scientist) changes from time to time as I get more information about it and talk to other scientists, academics, and investigative reporters about it. My present opinion is that the case deserves fresh academic and scientific study. I am not campaigning for the case to be reopened, and have never done so. I don't think this passage belongs in a section on my work as a scientific advocate for reopening cetain closed cases. I am fully aware that new academic study of the case probably won't happen till after Allitt is dead and buried, given that this is a taboo topic in the UK (but not in the rest of the world). I also made comments about the impossibility in the UK to speak up about convictions like this. Thanks for putting these links into the article, by the way. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic). Richard Gill ( talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Lucia was in jail for 9 years: three years of pre trial detention and six years as a convicted serial killer nurse. I would say that she was incarcerated for nine years. Shut up in a prison as a *suspected* baby killer is also incarceration, in my humble opinion. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Due largely to WP:CANVASSING behaviour after his previous final warning, Gill110951 (the subject of this article) has been infinitely blocked: User talk:Gill110951#Indefinite block. I therefore ask editors to be extremely cautious not only of Mr Gill's comments above, but also of any new editors who may come here to edit as a proxy on Mr Gill's behalf. Structuralists ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned that editors are removing factual content from this article, and adding in only negative aspects. The article is primarily about a statistician but it is being rebalanced in a way that threatens to overwhelm it with the advocacy issue. The refusal to leave in factual information about the subject's career is indicative of this lack of neutrality. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Editors can see these discussions on talkbut as matters stand, they cannot see the disputed material without struggling through the confused edit history of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment but that collaboration has to be facilitated and encouraged, not frustrated. NebY ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This sentence reads oddly:
Irish fact-checking organisation Logically Facts, an independent subsidiary of British fact-checking organisation Logically, found that there was no evidence Letby was framed by an organ harvesting enterprise or that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It concluded: "No evidence has come to light that suggests Lucy Letby is innocent or was framed. The investigation and available evidence upon which her convictions are based have been well documented".
But an editor's attempts to pare it back were reverted by another editor, so perhaps we can discuss what it is achieving. The first thing to note is that this is an article about Gill, not Letby. We are describing his advocacy, but the Letby article should have all the detail. However, we don't want to create an inadvertent impression that we, in wikivoice, are advocating for Gill's position, so I understand the intent of wanting to say that an organisation has said that the conviction looks secure. My questions, though, are (1) would removing the whole sentence really create that imbalance? why? (2) we spend 15 words saying who did the fact check, which is a bit daft. I think we can recast this without even mentioning the company, and (3) What is the relevance of organ harvesting here? Has Gill alleged that there was such a conspiracy? If so, we should source that. If not, then I can't see why we are saying that. If Gill never made any such assertion, then it is not neutral point of view to even mention it as it creates an impression that this is conspiracy theory stuff, rather than an argument about the use/misuse of statistics in criminal trials. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that suggests Countess of Chester Hospital, its staff, or the NHS trust responsible for running the facility have engaged in organ trafficking. Nor is there any available evidence that suggests Lucy Letby is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
This source is used for some of his biographical information. [5] However the tilde in the URL is used in Unix systems to indicate a user namespace within the filesystem. That appears to be something Gill wrote and hosted himself. Now we might expect Gill to be a good judge of his own biography, but I think we should improve that source to something that has had editorial oversight. I'll mark the occasions it is used. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sirfurboy removed the line about Gill just being blocked on Wikipedia - saying 'Wikipedia doesn't talk about Wikipedians' and "neither is this notable or due". Firstly, Gill HIMSELF has been talking about his block: [6], [7]. Since when do the rules say we can use Gill's own blog as a source to mention what he thinks about the Letby case, but can't use it to say he acknowledges being blocked? Secondly, it is notable to him clearly as he is brining it to the attention of his followers, and this is a biography of him. Sirfurboy you seem to just be removing this as it is negative of him? MeltingDistrict ( talk) 20:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
fairly represent[s] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Note, then, that reliable sources (not blogs or social media postings) are required to establish the due weight. There are such sources in the article, suggesting that the advocacy there may have due weight (and I take no position on whether that is correct). If that is established, then we have the warning every time we edit this page:
Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject.So the subject's blog is a suitable source, the only self published information we can include, although it is very important to remember that it is WP:PRIMARY. Being a primary source, it does not, itself, establish notability for including the information in the article. Very few articles include the subject's wikipedia activities, and these only when reliable secondary sources have already discussed the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: the problem I have with your removal is the claim that my wording is non-neutral, and therefore the information should not be included at all. I agree that the wording of those lines which had been inserted into the article by Melting District had some overly loaded "although" words and tone: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about the "internet sleuth" sceptics of her guilt, although the newspaper commented that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". But I changed that to the, in my view, softer: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about sceptics of her guilt. In the same article the newspaper observed that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". The point of this wording was intentionally to provide neutrality, allowing readers to learn that Mr Gill's theories have been prominent enough to earn him coverage and an interview in a national newspaper, but also being fair by stating on the other side that the very same article also criticised theories disputing Letby's responsibility. So I am a bit bemused about how I am described as being un-neutral here, when my intention was to neutralise the sentences, not to just erase their existence which you have done?
I am more flummoxed by your claim that this is OR. It's a direct quote from the source? And further to this, if it's a quote from the source, I feel a bit insulted by accusations that I am being non-neutral here; I'm sure it is unfortunate for Mr gill that such theories were described as such in the article, but I don't see how that's my fault? It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not? Structuralists ( talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Essentially editors here only want to stop others being able to add negative things a source said about the man.Incorrect. Please WP:AGF.
even though the Richard D. Gill article was previously only a self-loving monologue.I think you are wearing your own bias on your sleeve here. You may be interested in this essay: WP:BEINSCRUTABLE. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not?, but that is not right. WP:ONUS says:
Curation of sources is a primary function of editors. We do not need to include the Telegraph source simply because it exists. The question is whether this information is relevant to an article about Gill, whether it would better be placed in an article about Letby instead, and whether the balance of the article is being skewed and unbalanced by a concentration on a particular aspect.While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.
I think this can go now. The career has been pared back and rigorously sourced. It is too short but there is no puffery, so that is fine. The Advocacy section is out of proportion but does not show the hand of the page subject. Any further clean-up should be based on expansion of the career and balancing of the content. Any objections to removing it? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
please explain here what material remains on this page that needs to be rewritten, and why.It is not enough to say that the intro has not been changed. What is the COI? What is not neutral? What is puffery? What needs fixing? Because the intro you are so concerned about reads:
This is surely a fair and neutral summary. If there is no identified COI there should not be a tag.Richard David Gill (born 1951) is a British-Dutch mathematician. He has held academic positions in the Netherlands. As a probability theorist and statistician, Gill has researched counting processes. He is also known for his consulting and advocacy on behalf of alleged victims of statistical misrepresentation, including the reversal of the murder conviction of a Dutch nurse who had been jailed for six years.
Should the following sourced sentence be excluded from the article?
Gill has advocated on behalf of Letby on the radio show of
Kate Shemirani.
[1]
[2]
Structuralists (
talk) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It was clear that any talk page conversation I'd start would just be you two flatly refusing to consider inclusion of the material.Again, stop that. Comment on content, not contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
References
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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Thanks for cleaning up your article, you should get rid of the signature as part of the article. Uncompetence 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Uncompetence, I have lots to learn and obviously I should not be working on my own biography at all. Now I have added on this talk page what seems to be necessary for a biography of living persons, namely WikiProject Biography living=yes, I hope I am not unauthorized to do this
--
Gill110951 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored and expanded the short section on Lucia de Berk, using the linked article. Could somebody check the two Dutch references, which I couldn't reference today, but cited per AGF. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 03:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
On my talk page there are links to the compensation news for Lucia (Dutch media including a press release by ANP. [1]. Richard Gill ( talk) 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
CWI, formerly MC, is a research institute funded by the Dutch national science research council. Quite a few young people are employed there, doing research towards their PhD. The PhD degrees are granted by universities and CWI is not part of any university or affiliated to any university. People doing PhD research at CWI are typically supervised by senior university researchers with part-time positions or advisorships at CWI. The thesis is then defended at the supervisors' university. Cobus Oosterhoff, my thesis advisor, had an advisorship at MC and a chair at Vrije Universiteit. Richard Gill ( talk) 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard D. Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/search/author.html?mrauthid=73585When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, @MeltingDistrict. The Lucy Letby case is not closed. She can, and likely will, appeal. So the analogy with these nutty conspiracy theorists is a bit weak. If we were now at the “long after the case is closed” stage, The Telegraph would not have published that article. Richard Gill ( talk) 23:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I suggest a sentence added saying that “Gill is currently one of a number of scientists advocating for an appeal and a retrial of Lucy Letby.” The Telegraph article could be cited. Richard Gill ( talk) 00:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Was he chair of xyz (as in chairman) of a dept/school of xyz, or did he hold a chair in xyz (as in being Professor of xyz)? The article is unclear, at least twice. RDG could answer this question here as a factual clarification with no COI! Pam D 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Number of concerns on a COI editor. ltb dl ( talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Structuralists you are removing a lot of content from this article, but the information appears to me to likely be correct, and presumably due. Yes, citations are needed, but the citation needed templates only went on yesterday. How about leaving it a week to see if anyone can find citations. Any puffery can go, but factual information about the career would belong here if sourced. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 16:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Let me add that this is a sensitive issue for me at the moment because the article about me has been repeatedly vandalised in recent months. The UK public has been whipped up into a frenzy of hatred for a murderer of tiny babies, who possibly is actually not a murderer at all. According to a growing number of people she was a whistleblower in a failing NHS hospital, and this led to four consultants reporting her to the police. Some notable authorities are now speaking out in public in her favour and supporting the movement for a retrial. If I were allowed to edit the Lucy Letby talk page, I would be able to give reliable sources and further information. Richard Gill ( talk) 18:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
I was warned by UK police that I *might* risk arrest. Since the trial is over and I did not influence the jury, I do not risk arrest. The letter from the police is by now all over internet. Whoever wrote about this affair might like to take a look at it, and at my response to the police. https://gill1109.com/2023/09/20/contempt-of-court/
By the way, four independent scientists got similar intimidating letters. And all of our offers to help the defence were ignored. In the UK, new scientific evidence may not be introduced after a trial has started.
Richard Gill ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I took an active role when this page about myself was started many long years ago when Wikipedia was a friendly place. It was started by someone else, I didn’t know who they were (still don’t). I did not actively edit it since. I think the notice at the top of the page is misleading. It appears to be part of the recent campaign of vandalism of this page because of my outspoken support of Lucy Letby. An interesting phenomenon. I am not the only victim of the witch-burning hysteria which has gripped the UK though it still gripping the UK Richard Gill ( talk) 02:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I said in my 2021 talk at the Dept of Statistics of the University of Chicago, a scientific lecture to an academic audience of legal scholars, statisticians, and forensic scientists, "I suspect she was innocent, but I don't know of course". My opinion on the case (as an academic and a scientist) changes from time to time as I get more information about it and talk to other scientists, academics, and investigative reporters about it. My present opinion is that the case deserves fresh academic and scientific study. I am not campaigning for the case to be reopened, and have never done so. I don't think this passage belongs in a section on my work as a scientific advocate for reopening cetain closed cases. I am fully aware that new academic study of the case probably won't happen till after Allitt is dead and buried, given that this is a taboo topic in the UK (but not in the rest of the world). I also made comments about the impossibility in the UK to speak up about convictions like this. Thanks for putting these links into the article, by the way. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic). Richard Gill ( talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Lucia was in jail for 9 years: three years of pre trial detention and six years as a convicted serial killer nurse. I would say that she was incarcerated for nine years. Shut up in a prison as a *suspected* baby killer is also incarceration, in my humble opinion. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Due largely to WP:CANVASSING behaviour after his previous final warning, Gill110951 (the subject of this article) has been infinitely blocked: User talk:Gill110951#Indefinite block. I therefore ask editors to be extremely cautious not only of Mr Gill's comments above, but also of any new editors who may come here to edit as a proxy on Mr Gill's behalf. Structuralists ( talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned that editors are removing factual content from this article, and adding in only negative aspects. The article is primarily about a statistician but it is being rebalanced in a way that threatens to overwhelm it with the advocacy issue. The refusal to leave in factual information about the subject's career is indicative of this lack of neutrality. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Editors can see these discussions on talkbut as matters stand, they cannot see the disputed material without struggling through the confused edit history of the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment but that collaboration has to be facilitated and encouraged, not frustrated. NebY ( talk) 23:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This sentence reads oddly:
Irish fact-checking organisation Logically Facts, an independent subsidiary of British fact-checking organisation Logically, found that there was no evidence Letby was framed by an organ harvesting enterprise or that she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It concluded: "No evidence has come to light that suggests Lucy Letby is innocent or was framed. The investigation and available evidence upon which her convictions are based have been well documented".
But an editor's attempts to pare it back were reverted by another editor, so perhaps we can discuss what it is achieving. The first thing to note is that this is an article about Gill, not Letby. We are describing his advocacy, but the Letby article should have all the detail. However, we don't want to create an inadvertent impression that we, in wikivoice, are advocating for Gill's position, so I understand the intent of wanting to say that an organisation has said that the conviction looks secure. My questions, though, are (1) would removing the whole sentence really create that imbalance? why? (2) we spend 15 words saying who did the fact check, which is a bit daft. I think we can recast this without even mentioning the company, and (3) What is the relevance of organ harvesting here? Has Gill alleged that there was such a conspiracy? If so, we should source that. If not, then I can't see why we are saying that. If Gill never made any such assertion, then it is not neutral point of view to even mention it as it creates an impression that this is conspiracy theory stuff, rather than an argument about the use/misuse of statistics in criminal trials. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that suggests Countess of Chester Hospital, its staff, or the NHS trust responsible for running the facility have engaged in organ trafficking. Nor is there any available evidence that suggests Lucy Letby is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
This source is used for some of his biographical information. [5] However the tilde in the URL is used in Unix systems to indicate a user namespace within the filesystem. That appears to be something Gill wrote and hosted himself. Now we might expect Gill to be a good judge of his own biography, but I think we should improve that source to something that has had editorial oversight. I'll mark the occasions it is used. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Sirfurboy removed the line about Gill just being blocked on Wikipedia - saying 'Wikipedia doesn't talk about Wikipedians' and "neither is this notable or due". Firstly, Gill HIMSELF has been talking about his block: [6], [7]. Since when do the rules say we can use Gill's own blog as a source to mention what he thinks about the Letby case, but can't use it to say he acknowledges being blocked? Secondly, it is notable to him clearly as he is brining it to the attention of his followers, and this is a biography of him. Sirfurboy you seem to just be removing this as it is negative of him? MeltingDistrict ( talk) 20:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
fairly represent[s] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Note, then, that reliable sources (not blogs or social media postings) are required to establish the due weight. There are such sources in the article, suggesting that the advocacy there may have due weight (and I take no position on whether that is correct). If that is established, then we have the warning every time we edit this page:
Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject.So the subject's blog is a suitable source, the only self published information we can include, although it is very important to remember that it is WP:PRIMARY. Being a primary source, it does not, itself, establish notability for including the information in the article. Very few articles include the subject's wikipedia activities, and these only when reliable secondary sources have already discussed the matter. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: the problem I have with your removal is the claim that my wording is non-neutral, and therefore the information should not be included at all. I agree that the wording of those lines which had been inserted into the article by Melting District had some overly loaded "although" words and tone: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about the "internet sleuth" sceptics of her guilt, although the newspaper commented that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". But I changed that to the, in my view, softer: "After her conviction, Gill was interviewed for an article in The Telegraph about sceptics of her guilt. In the same article the newspaper observed that the theory that Letby was innocent was "extremely hard to entertain" and "sounds like the kind of mad claim that swirls around dark corners of the internet long after a case is closed". The point of this wording was intentionally to provide neutrality, allowing readers to learn that Mr Gill's theories have been prominent enough to earn him coverage and an interview in a national newspaper, but also being fair by stating on the other side that the very same article also criticised theories disputing Letby's responsibility. So I am a bit bemused about how I am described as being un-neutral here, when my intention was to neutralise the sentences, not to just erase their existence which you have done?
I am more flummoxed by your claim that this is OR. It's a direct quote from the source? And further to this, if it's a quote from the source, I feel a bit insulted by accusations that I am being non-neutral here; I'm sure it is unfortunate for Mr gill that such theories were described as such in the article, but I don't see how that's my fault? It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not? Structuralists ( talk) 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Essentially editors here only want to stop others being able to add negative things a source said about the man.Incorrect. Please WP:AGF.
even though the Richard D. Gill article was previously only a self-loving monologue.I think you are wearing your own bias on your sleeve here. You may be interested in this essay: WP:BEINSCRUTABLE. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
It's surely our job to recount what the sources say, no matter whether we agree with them or not?, but that is not right. WP:ONUS says:
Curation of sources is a primary function of editors. We do not need to include the Telegraph source simply because it exists. The question is whether this information is relevant to an article about Gill, whether it would better be placed in an article about Letby instead, and whether the balance of the article is being skewed and unbalanced by a concentration on a particular aspect.While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.
I think this can go now. The career has been pared back and rigorously sourced. It is too short but there is no puffery, so that is fine. The Advocacy section is out of proportion but does not show the hand of the page subject. Any further clean-up should be based on expansion of the career and balancing of the content. Any objections to removing it? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
please explain here what material remains on this page that needs to be rewritten, and why.It is not enough to say that the intro has not been changed. What is the COI? What is not neutral? What is puffery? What needs fixing? Because the intro you are so concerned about reads:
This is surely a fair and neutral summary. If there is no identified COI there should not be a tag.Richard David Gill (born 1951) is a British-Dutch mathematician. He has held academic positions in the Netherlands. As a probability theorist and statistician, Gill has researched counting processes. He is also known for his consulting and advocacy on behalf of alleged victims of statistical misrepresentation, including the reversal of the murder conviction of a Dutch nurse who had been jailed for six years.
Should the following sourced sentence be excluded from the article?
Gill has advocated on behalf of Letby on the radio show of
Kate Shemirani.
[1]
[2]
Structuralists (
talk) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
It was clear that any talk page conversation I'd start would just be you two flatly refusing to consider inclusion of the material.Again, stop that. Comment on content, not contributors. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
References