Talk:Lucy Letby

Neutrality

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 [1] are being reverted. [2],[3]. 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 [4] have raised concerns about the statistical evidence in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy, I agree with you, and support the inclusion of expert doubt per WP:BALANCE. These are not minority views, fringe theories, or extraordinary claims - they are the opinions of leading experts in the field. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not support the inclusion of 'expert doubt', for the reasons I and others have gone through billions of times before and which we are just repeating now. I remind you of my previous comment on a previous discussion, which is just as relevant now as it was then:

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.

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)

DeCausa was rightly objecting to inclusion from the Letby article on Gill's blog, which was certainly undue, and he made his comment 3 days before the source in question was published,[5] so cannot apply to consideration of that. But pinging them in as you didn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll need to read through this more thoroughly later today (don't have much time right now) as I've taken this article off my watchlist. But, yes, when I posted before, Gill's views weren't yet mentioned in the RS so what I previously said is not now relevant. It's now a question much more of WP:DUE and reflecting accurately how Gill is being reported. However, looking at the The Telegraph article, it's pitched as Gill forming part of the internet conspiracy theory/fringe circus, whatever his expertise is (which isn't a surprise). My initial view is we must follow that if we mention him. But I'll take a more detailed look later today. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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 [6]? If, and only if, the guy's views are given recognition, it is part of neutrality that we should give the other side - such as that police warned him against contempt of court, warned him that he risked arrest and that the defence rejected his offers of help anyway. And that's not even getting into the way that pro-Letby arguments have been described by The Telegraph. As Structuralists pointed to in a previous discussion, I think the most crucial point is that the defence themselves didn't want him to be part of their case. Why, therefore, should we give him unchallenged recognition in this article as if he is a key part of the case?

And there's more. DeCausa made the very pertinent point that the content from The Telegraph pitches Gill as forming part of the internet conspiracy theory/fringe circus, whatever his expertise is. This I agree with, because it can also be supported by The Herald [7] - "On the margins, however - mostly on social media - a very different view is taking shape", "A fringe movement of amateur sleuths has already branded Letby's conviction as a miscarriage of justice and a US website, Science on Trial (which, btw, Gill supports [8]), is fundraising for an appeal", and "Beyond these claims, the Letby sceptics are drawing on everything from statistics to precedent" before it then interviews Richard Gill. How can it be right to use these sources to give recognition to his views, but completely ignore the negative commentary of pro-Letby views in the same sources? How is that neutral? It is in my view unarguable to say that we should treat these sources as having almost two articles within one, as if one is about the conspiracy theorists and the other is completely separate and about the totally-not-connected-or-related-at-all statisticians like Gill, and that these two groups, despite being discussed in the same article, should be treated as completely alien to each other? Snugglewasp (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Trying to assess that Telegraph article, I was surprised. It says such theories are hard to handle right after the verdict and that it sounds like some mad internet theory, but goes on to present Gill and Neil Mackenzie KC as making reasonable points from positions of expertise, which the Telegraph doesn't then challenge or describe as mad; instead it sets them against the judge's condemnatory assessment. It's a bit of an "it sounds daft - and there are some very daft theories out there - but when you really look at it" approach, with something of a "too soon" tone. This may be the Telegraph journalist or editors trying to be at least ostensibly neutral or hedging their bets in this particular case, or maybe general journalistic habit and training, but it's not making direct negative statements about Gill and neither is the Herald. NebY (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, you wrote 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[9]? 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)

OH MY GOD THANK GOD FOR SOMEONE SENSIBLE LIKE YOU @DeCausa: having spent days trying to hold back the reactionaries responding to the final complete blocking of Richard Gill from Wikipedia the other day: [10]. You should know that DeFacto and Sirfurboy have been spending the last few days blocking and removing as much negative things about Gill as possible from the Richard D. Gill article, even though it had been tagged with a COI tag post the blocking [11] as it had been written and edited on BY GILL HIMSELF and needed cleanup to comply with COI. Seems they are now moving on to this article. This is a worry especially since Gill was finally blocked in the first place for canvassing for other editors to come to his aid on Twitter, and also on Wikipedia: [12], [13], [14]. So suddenly now Sirfurboy, who had never before edited on the Richard D. Gill article, [15], comes and removes only negative things about Gill and then tries to include content about him on the Letby page, which he had also never previously edited before: [16]. Coincidence? Anyway, I am obviously also opposed to including content about Gill. But I don't think Structuralist or Snugglewasp go far enough, it should be restored to the consensus version. How anyone can claim that the Herlald isn't making negative comments about Gill when it described the overall pro-Letby group, INCLUDING STATISTITICIANS, as "a fringe group of amateur sleuths", is beyond me. People are just being pedantic and saying that because Gill's name itself isn't preceded by "conspiracist" or "fringe theorist" that he can't come under the wider category introduced earlier in the article MeltingDistrict (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, I haven't edited the Richard D. Gill article in three days (since 27 September @ 09:35), and before that I removed one piece of info from the article (three times) - the BLP-violating misrepresentation of the article from The Telegraph. So nothing that was verifiably a negative thing about Gill. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

MeltingDistrict, This rant is not particularly helpful in focussing on the issue: that there is a neutrality issue with the stated paragraph. I have seen enough of DeCausa's work to have every confidence that they will read the source and then decide what they think. They may or may not agree with me, but not prejudging the issue is important here. On that, I don't think you can make any claim to neutrality here. See: [17], an edit for which you were rightly reprimanded, and in response to which you said you would not edit the Richard Gill page [18]. A promise you did not keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Having read through some of the threads and looked at the text...I remembered why I took this article of my watchlist some time ago. I think I'll post this and take it off again. I agree with Sirfurboy that the current text doesn't reflect that it isn't just "internet sleuths" who are casting doubt - Gill and Mckenzie aren't in that category wahtever one may think of them. The key here is to keep the section very short to reflect the lack of prominence/significance (at the moment) of the view that she's not guilty. I would say it's a little too long if one compares it say to the "calls for regulation" and "other reactions" sections which are far more important. It seems to me it boils down to the RS saying those doubting her guilt come from 3 sources: (1) a few of her friends (the independent article) (2) the internet sleuths who have "zero experience" (3) specifically Gill and Mckenzie but have a somewhat WP:FRINGE view. And that's what the article should say:

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].

All the additional quotes and counter quotes just gives WP:UNDUE prominence to the whole issue. It needs to come across as a very very minor point in the overall article, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for agreeing to wade into this. I think your proposed text is very fair. I'll wait to see what others think, but personally happy to go with that text, and I agree it should be kept very short. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I am 99% happy with the text. However, there are just 10 words that should be added. It should say at the end "The defence had rejected help from Gill for the trial" (sourced to AD [19]). That's not to be negative or critical of him, that's just to emphasise why more detail is not gone into on Gill's theories and to clarify that his views were not considered important for the defence case. I really don't think that is unreasonable. If that is included, I would be prepared to accept your proposed text. Structuralists (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't read Dutch - is a subscription needed? Unless it says that his post-trial views should be ignored because the defence didn't want him then you're trying to do WP:SYNTH by implication so can't be done. The source needs to make the connection - we can't do it and hope readers pick up the hint with a nudge and a wink. I would say your concern is unnecessary. One of the aims of limiting Gill to a single sentence and not using terms such as statisticians "such as" or "including" makes it clear enough (I believe) that his views are isolated without traction. DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Why should we say that some friends and colleagues continue to believe in her innocence, when two others [20], [21] have specifically said that they became persuaded by the end of the trial that she was guilty? And what about the widely reported outrage at the 'appeal fund' that was launched [22]? Why are including Gill's views more important than this? And why would anyone think it is not important to note that Gill has been in legal trouble and committed contempt of court during the trial, let alone the fact that he's been self-reporting being blocked on Wikipedia for editing on such articles with his conflict of interest [23], [24]? I disagree with the text as Gill or the other one shouldn't get a mention at all, and there shouldn't even be a "doubt about conviction" section anyway, the small paragraph needed can just go in "other reactions" MeltingDistrict (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If you come at this wanting to "get across" a particular point of view, you often end up achieving the opposite in Wikipedia. It's always best to be just pulled along by the letter and spirit of the RS. On the "friends" support - that is the main point of an Independent article. In some ways it's not surprising that some friends continue to support her. And by putting in more about 2 friends going the other way all you're doing is building up the prominence of the whole point ("wow, only 2?"). "Outrage" at the appeal? We're not a tabloid. And referencing negative items about Gill is WP:SYNTH unless it's brought up in sources about the validity of his views on the Letby case. And again, all it does it draw undue prominence to the whole "doubts" issue. We can't ignore the coverage Gill has got in that Telegraph article, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's very good; thank you. One possible tweak; I appreciate that "Despite the thorough nature of Letby's trial" is sourced but it does rather look like editorialising on our part, and your text works well without it too, with a sentence that begins simply "After the verdict, conspiracy theories soon began circulating ..." NebY (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I included that because The Telegraph took the trouble to put the conspiracy theories in specifically that context (quite pointedly actually). To say that, therefore, seemed to me to reflect how The Telegraph reported it. However, I don't feel strongly about it. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add my view that this is an improvement over what was previously in the article. I also added a relevant source (more about the inquiry), which may be of use Tristario (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To me there is still a feeling of lack of neutrality in the 'doubt' section and a number of improvements could be made accordingly

1) her close supporters. "a SMALL number of her friends" it is too easy to infer that there is a larger group of friends that hold an alternative view; there is not reliable reference to just how many there are; it is too easy to infer that maybe her family do not hold sympathetic views. I think it better to say

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

2) Conspiracy theories and amateur internet sleuths. The reference article is too much of an opinion-piece on this point to hold weight; the specific examples mentioned : a)Richard Gill - (I can see he has been challenging already in this discussion - sorry!!) and Science on Trial. These two do not fit the wikipedia definition of Conspiracy theories; b) The r v lucyletby site rexvlucyletby2023.com (associated with 'science on trial' which is also mentioned in the articles seems to be well presented according to scientifc principals with references to peer-reviewed academic articles and does not really seem to sit within 'Conspiracy theories and amateur internet sleuths'. I suggest, leave out the sentence etc.

This leaves:

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

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]."

Further,I think it reasonable to consider inclusion or reference to rexvlucyletby2023.com as that seems to be the most reasonable and well presented example of doubt and the content seems to align with the spirit of Wikipedia's own content guidelines, perhaps more-so than RG writings? Without this inclusion (or similar) there is little justification for the section at all? Very little 'meat'? Kcaj2385 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that would be heavily WP:UNDUE and misleading and give the impression that there is "weight" to the doubts which the sources make clear is not the case. Science on Trial (rexvlucyletby2023.com) is a WP:BLOG and can't be used per WP:RS. As an aside, it's also conspiracy-theorist nonsense, but that's besides the point as it doesn't even get to the first hurdle of WP reliable sourcing criteria. DeCausa (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa here. We don't link to blogs, we link to references and references must be reliable sources. It may be that this doubts section will evolve should the doubts gain more traction amongst other statisticians. The intervention of the RSS described in the Guardian article might suggest that will happen, but important to note that it has not happened yet. This week's intervention merely raised the possibility that they may voice concerns. They did not actually raise those concerns. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. When there is more notable information published, then we will follow suit. But thanks for your contribution, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and we cannot read the RSS's intervention as even suggesting they will cast doubt. The RSS argues, as reported, that better use of statistics could lead to earlier intervention. Spiegelhalter expresses it more directly when he talks of something being inexpertly dismissed as "just a coincidence". NebY (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I accept that it is not time to include other information, particularly from blogs. However, labelling the reference as conspiracy-theorist nonsense seems to show bias as I do not believe rexvlucyletby2023.com site matches the wikipedia description Conspiracy theory. There are more credible sources of doubt https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12552809/peter-hitchens-lucy-letby-not-guilty.html#comments-12552809 but let's wait and see how the develop.

However, I still stand by my proposal to redact information that seems to imply bias (it does to me at least!). Kcaj2385 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe put it this way - if the title of the section was 'There is no credible doubt about the trial' then the contents seem to fit better. The contents of a section 'doubt about the trial' should give reference to doubt, not rebuttals of doubt. Well, certainly not so closely intertwined. Add the rebuttals at the end? Explain what is meant by 'a small number'? Kcaj2385 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Daily Mail isn't credible and can't be used as a source either - see WP:DAILYMAIL. We reflect how the case is reported in sources which meet our WP:RS criteria. If there is "bias" in those sources then we reflect that bias. This is explained in WP:DUE and WP:RGW. DeCausa (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, me again! It occurs to me that the case MAY be linked to Conspiracy theory in that there has been an implication that the doctors involved in alerting the deaths to the hospital management and implicating LL were conspiring together in order to divert attention from themselves. But we should not assume that, just because a conspiracy theory has been proposed, all presentation of doubt is also conspiracy. That might be what is going on here? Kcaj2385 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. We only report what reliable sources say, not what we think or our own ideas. That's prohibited as "original research" - see WP:OR. If your speculation is not a proposal for changing the article, and just floating an idea for discussion, that's prohibited as well - see WP:NOTFORUM. DeCausa (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the ' it's also conspiracy-theorist nonsense' logic, proposed this as an explanation as I don't think this was explained and perhaps I made a poor attempt to suggest that the referenced article itself does not actually make the link between science on trial and conspiracy theory. I accept the daily mail is not a good source! I was not suggesting myself to include it as a reference. I will try to get up to speed asap. Meanwhile, I DO propose that the section should have elements redacted as I suggest.

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article].

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]."

Alternatively I would support

"A number of her family, friends, and colleagues have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]."

Alternatively I would support the whole section is removed.

These changes cannot introduce bias and I think it may protect the article from allegations of bias. thanks. Kcaj2385 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As was previously explained to you, that breaches Wikipedia's concept of neutrality as set out in WP:NPOV. We must reflect the balance of opinion in reliable sources. The reliable sources are reporting "doubt" originating from 3 places: a small number of friends (and is is reported as a small minority), conspiracy theories on the internet, and Gill. That's what the sources currently say and that's what we must reflect. It may or may not change in the future and we must reflect any future change. Reducing it in the way you want gives a credibility to "doubt" which has not been reported. That would be a breach of neutrality. DeCausa (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about

"A number of her friends and colleagues and a small small number of people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]. "

or maybe

"A number of her friends and colleagues, including a small small number of people on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester, have continued to believe in Letby's innocence. [cite Independent article]. "

That seems to be a way to accommodate 'small' while staying accurate to the referenced article.

Thanks for your patience. Kcaj2385 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Could I also suggest that the New Statesman reference does not seem directed in the same sprit as the statement to which is is used as a reference. I suggest it should be removed here. The article talks generally about morbid interest in true life crime and covers those who support the conviction or are just interensted in the case; it is not specific to 'doubter' so should not be in this section. So I suggest:

"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 only the Telegraph]" Kcaj2385 (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From paragraph 6 of the NS piece: 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 Letby DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

My point is that "innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment" is broader than "miscarriage of justice". It seems the article reference is being applied while making the mistake of 'cherry picking'. I can't find a wikipedia guide that suggests 'cherry picking' should or shouldn't be allowed so I might be on thin ice as far as reference in the rules. It seems to ne that it is not best placed as a reference in a section 'Doubt about the conviction'. By all means, use it elsewhere. Maybe the section title could be more generic like 'controversy' (that is a suggestion, not conjecture).

And I still think 'small' is significant in the current text and not supported by the reference unless appropriately adjusted.

Thanks Kcaj2385 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Miscarriage of justice" encompasses questions of "innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment", and can also include process (eg was a trial fair and timely), but has become quite a charged term for some, and the NS writer's that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant flows 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)

English

@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)

But then, MOS:ETHNICITY note a says 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)

Note that the article is categorised under English murderers of children, English nurses and English prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but categories are included in upper categories so you place the article in the lowest category in the tree. The same does not apply for ethnicity in page text, where MOS:ETHNICITY is clear that any change should be through a content discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not referring to English as an ethnicity, but as a (sub)nationality, per WP:UKNATIONALS. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Neveselbert, please look at the essay at Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. We really need to know whether she had a preferred nationality before we change it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

She's a convicted felon criminal, so I doubt it will cause any issues. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "felony" does not have the same clear definition in the UK as it does in the US. The term almost certainly applies, but it looks a bit like an Americanism in that usage. On the question of nationality, the considerations are how the best secondary sources describe her (with a preference for British sources) and the preferences of the subject, regardless of criminal convictions. We don't ignore how she thinks of herself simply because she has been convicted of a crime. So... as per my initial question: how do sources describe her nationality? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Felony" was abolished in England an Wales in, I think, the '50s or '60s. The modern equivalent is indictable offence. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

British sources are unlikely to describe her as British or English for obvious reasons. Her preferences don't appear to be publicly known, and likely won't ever be given the sentence she was handed down, hence my point. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Incidents stopped

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,[25] 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)

@Sirfurboy: You do realise that all reverts on this site are not against ONUS, right? Otherwise nothing could or would ever be reverted and the whole site would be unworkable. You misunderstand my edit summary anyway, since the 'consensus' I'm talking of is about the later wording of which has already been discussed.

Being sourced to a television documentary does not invalidate inclusion. Especially considering it is from the BBC, which, as WP:PERENNIAL clearly states, is considered by this community as a generally reliable source - including BBC documentaries. You make it sound like a BBC documentary is bound to be a massively biased, unbalanced, bloodthirsty and tabloid-like source. Well no, the BBC is specifically there to be impartial - it might not get it right all the time of course, but let's not get into a Nigel Farage-like attack on the BBC as if it's some obviously political bandwagon that we should stop paying the license fee for. Come now. Furthermore, I am in absolute agreement that we should use the direct wording of the source! Lets indeed just follow the source and not put editorial spin on it by arguing that it was 'actually the downgrading of the hospital' that stopped the cases, as that would quite obviously be WP:OR. The source is quoted (I note the timestamp should actually be 29:00) "...she was finally removed from the neo-natal unit three weeks later. The suspicious incidents stopped". Therefore saying that when she was removed the suspicious incidents stopped and citing it to the doc is not editorialising, it is just what the source says. I'm sorry if you disagree with the source but we can't spin the information in our own way, we just follow what sources say. What would be editorialising would be to assume the source is being biased in saying that and attempt to include our own personal argument against the source within the wikivoice saying "actually no that's wrong, they actually stopped when the hospital was downgraded and that's more important and what the source ought to have mentioned!!". In any case, the hospital was downgraded a month after she was removed, so the events were not simultaneous. Please could you elaborate on why we should totally ignore what the source says and write it according to our own perspective instead? Structuralists (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are aware of what ONUS says. You just don't choose to follow it. Thank you for clarifying your edit summary. So there is no consensus for that line in the lead. It can go then. As for the sourcing discussion, you are confused. I am not concerned that the BBC is an unreliable source, I am concerned that it, and all the other sources in this article are primary sources. Your latest reverts say it is OR, but actually, of course, we have the sources (primary sources) in the article stating that the unit was downgraded. You just chose to ignore those. When I say the documentary source must be handled appropriately, I meant, of course, appropriately as a primary source. Your revert does not handle it appropriately. You might wish to have a read of WP:PRIMARY which says, inter alia:

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

And

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.

It is a misuse of primary sources to assert that suspicious incidents stopped, because that is not a straightforward description of facts. For a start, it makes no sense, when talking about statistically rare events, to say they stopped. That is just a nonsense. It also, as explained, misses the fact that the unit, as per our article, and sourced here, was downgraded so that they would no longer handle such cases. This is not an appropriate use of that source. It should go. If you don't understand that, I expect you need to spend some time learning how to handle primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it can not "go". You are aware of what WP:STATUSQUO says, as you've had this discussion before. The content is restored to the stable version status quo while it is discussed on talk in attempt to find consensus. You just choose to ignore this policy and don't choose to follow it because you like ONUS better. It is OR to say that the incidents stopped when the unit was downgraded, when no source says that. Period. It is not OR to say that the incidents stopped when she was removed from the neo-natal unit, as sources do say that. Get it? Using your personal statistical beliefs and research to personally disagree with a quote from a source is OR.

I expect a paragraph in response outlining how incorporating your own personal views are more important than quoting the source, and how we should follow some Wikipedia policies instead of others. Structuralists (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And you are aware that STATUSQUO is an essay and not policy. WP:ONUS is the policy. The fact I did not choose to edit war with you last time you did this, on the Talk:Michael Stone (criminal), where you argued for STATUSQUO, does not mean I agree with your erroneous interpretation. But, of course, it did mean I had to open an RfC on the issue there owing to lack of eyes on that page. Again, the policy is ONUS. You consistently ignore it. The remainder of your comments do not address my concern with the sentence in the lead, which is misusing a primary source. I suggest that further meta discussion of the ONUS policy could go to my talk page if you like. Please focus comments here on the point at issue: that we are misusing a primary source to make a statement in the lead that is obviously POV, based on the information on the page and referenced there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary Sources

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)

Lucy Letby Introduction - Suggested edit

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)