Talk:Lucy Letby

merge

Should we merge this with Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders? PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Letby is notable enough for a separate article, though a lot of what's on that page could be merged with this one. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:1E. Currently it is the event that is notable and Letby was not known before her trial in relation to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

::Support moving the merged article to "Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders" per WP:1E. Dormskirk (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. WP:1E applies here. Nigej (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we can leave it as it is. I note that 3 similar cases mentioned at the bottom of the article are biographies of the killer. PatGallacher (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

And what about WP:1E? Let's take the doubt away, and move it to the notable subject - the "Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders" article per the discussion on the talkpage there.

As time progresses things may change, and the murderer may become notable, as with the other articles you mentioned, but they haven't yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that the reality is that it isn't just one event necessarily. This is an accumulation of lots of events over a 12-month period, granted they have been merged into one criminal case. If it was one victim it would be "Murder of ...." and if it was multiple people murdered all at once it would be "<year> <location> murders." This case however involves numerous victims being murdered on separate occasions over 12 months with gaps in between. The same person was linked to all these events. The only way you could look at it as a single event is if you looked at it as one criminal case with all the crimes merged into one case. This is why cases such as Harold Shipman, Beverley Allitt and Colin Norris all have standalone biographical articles. That's my thinking anyway. TLJ7863 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think she's pretty notable already, with the amount of TV coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a fair way to do it to have the case redirect to the perpetrator now that one has been proven. If Wikipedia had existed in Harold Shipman's time then it would have been the same way, there would be a page for the excess deaths even all the way through the trial, until it was proven that he was the perpetrator. The news, and not just the tabloids, have been describing Letby as a person, and how her background and personality made her a highly unlikely serial murderer. [1] [2] [3] Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the case should stay redirected to the perpetrator. She's already being described as the most prolific child killer in modern UK history, and I doubt very much that will change anytime soon. Letby is also being described as a person by numerous reliable sources, and has been the focus of the case since her arrest in 2018. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Attempted murders

Seems she has been convicted of 7 attempted murder but 2 of these were on the same baby, so only 6 babies. Statements like "Letby was found guilty of seven murders and six attempted murders." are confusing when other parts of the article talk about 7 attempted murders. "... and attempting to murder seven others" seems to be factually incorrect. Nigej (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Easy solution here is to clarify the correct number of babies she either murdered or attempted to. There's been numerous reliable sources published about her today alone, so I'm sure it will be clarified in due time. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Photo

Is there a necessity to having a photo of Letby?

Generally ([List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_Kingdom]), it doesn't seem to be the case where a photo is attached to the Wikipedia page of a convicted serial killer. 87.74.110.45 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Corrected link: List of serial killers in the United Kingdom 87.74.110.45 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough for an article, and there is a good image available, with no licensing issues, it should be included. It doesn't matter if they are a saint or a sinner. Edison (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In fact Schwede66 has just removed it on the basis of this deletion discussion - although I would have thought the fact she's now in prison means that "taking a new free picture as a replacement" was an impossibility so is within the WP:NFC#UUI exception. But I'm no expert. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The best-known case for criterion 1 was Kim Jong Un. Proponents of that criterion applying argued that it was impossible to go to North Korea to take a photo of him. However, that was not upheld and for years, we did not have a photo for Kim Jong Un. Schwede66 21:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the fact she's still alive somehow means the mugshot photo can't be used. Joe Exotic is still alive too and yet a mugshot is used on his page. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of living people are not acceptable. The Joe Exotic image is public domain, so completely different case. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright thank you for the clarification on that one. Do you know if Harold Shipman's mugshot is also public domain? --87.114.4.172 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Shipman is dead. Wikipedia allows for copyrighted images of dead people within reasonable circumstances. Generally speaking, the publications of the British police and prisons are Crown copyright. Joe Exotic had the misfortune of getting nabbed in Florida, which has a particularly transparent law on police documents, which is one cited reason for the Florida Man phenomenon. [4] Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification here. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy? She may appeal

As sources are saying an appeal is likely, I'm not sure we should say she's a killer in Wikipedia's voice yet. We can say she was convicted of being a killer (but it might still be overturned on appeal). Is that correct BLP policy? 194.154.172.125 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As it stands the jury have decided that Lucy Letby did commit these offences and have convicted her. There shouldn't be an issue with using the term "serial killer" or other terms unless the convictions are successfully overturned following her appeal. TLJ7863 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. With her conviction, calling her a murderer/serial killer is consistent with policy. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to call anyone a murderer following a conviction on the possibility of any supposed appeal. DeCausa (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

She has been convicted so it makes sense to describe her as a murderer/serial killer. I wouldn't fancy her chances at an appeal. If I were in her shoes I'd be expecting a life sentence, which is what she will most likely receive, so I doubt she'll ever see the light of day again. As the above user pointed out, calling her a murderer/serial killer is consistent with policy. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a fact that she was convicted of a crime, however this does not mean it is a fact that she committed the crime. For Wikipedia to be a source of accuracy, this detail should be included where appropriate. 2A02:C7C:3744:2E00:1C9D:A7C6:2028:8982 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear that she was convicted. A "confession" of a few words on a PostIt seems to be the only evidence of guilt listed in the article. The article does not seem to state any strong evidence beyond opportunity. It is correct to say she was convicted, and per typical usage to say she is a serial killer. . Edison (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no practical difference. If there was, then no person could ever be said to be responsible for a crime. Conviction is the best evidence of it. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

A criminal conviction can only be regarded as wrongful and non-factual if it is quashed by the Court of Appeals. Until then it is to regarded as fact. TLJ7863 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this as fact is a viewpoint and is not what the policy states. This conviction, and of course many others, could be reversed at a future date. I do not wish to labour the point, but it is a process has labelled her a murderer. It seems the motivation to omit this detail is to maintain consistency between articles. Considering the lack of scientific process followed in many trials, this detail itself should be more consistently included in articles. 2A02:C7C:3744:2E00:1C9D:A7C6:2028:8982 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What detail? Are you saying that every reference to every conviction throughout Wikipedia should have a "health warning" that it could be reversed? That's absurd. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and the prisons are full of people claiming their innocence. Are we not allowed to say that they committed the crime, only that they were convicted of it. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see it as absurd to implicitly remind readers from the outset that the subject has been convicted, but that this does not make it fact. As an example, Joint Enterprise laws can result in by passers being convicted of murder, when they themselves did not commit the murder. If Wikipedia regards legal outcomes as defining absolute truth, then so be it. 2A02:C7C:3744:2E00:F8A2:39D3:4347:8C6B (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. If you want an RS that calls her a murderer, see 1, 2. NM 08:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Go and find an article about a "passer-by" murderer and point that out there. It's not relevant to this article. We follow the WP:RS - reliable sources - and they call her a serial killer.[5][6] There's nothing, so far, in the RS doubting this conviction. We don't do WP:CRYSTALBALLs and we don't right great wrongs. For the moment, per Wikipedia policy, "she did it". DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This does not concern crystal ball gazing or righting wrongs via Wikipedia. My example relates to the broader problem of equating legal outcomes to fact. As I write above, if this is policy, then fine, and the community consensus is clear here. 2A02:C7C:3744:2E00:F8A2:39D3:4347:8C6B (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an issue for an article about the British legal system. Having to mention it in every article about every legal case would be ridiculous. We can't say Harold Shipman was a mass murderer, only that he was convicted of multiple murders? As noted Wikipedia policy is to follow what reliable sources say. Nigej (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the IP might be misunderstanding WP policy. The conviction per se isn't the determinant - it's how the WP:RS report the conviction. In the case of Letby there's no doubt being placed on her guilt by the RS, so that's what we reflect. However, we don't say that Alexei Navalny is an "embezzler" and "extremist" because that's what he was convicted of. We reflect how the RS treat those convictions. DeCausa (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence

User:Asperthrow objects to including "who, from 2015 to 2016, killed, or attempted to kill, infants in her care." at the opening sentence. I think without it the opening sentence is too stumpy and omits the basic nature of the serial killing - which all other serial killers normally have. see for example Jeffrey Dahmer, Rose West or Dennis Nilsen. Opinions? DeCausa (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely should mention the crime in the opening sentence. It is why she is notable. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Support keeping the phrase. Without it, the first paragraph is much too short. Nigej (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr Justice Goss linked twice in trial section

Only one link to his page is necessary. Can the other be removed? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Public Inquiry

The government has instituted an Independent Non-judicial Inquiry, not a Public Inquiry. as the paragraph heading states. 92.27.140.0 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "Independent" not "Public". Nigej (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 92.27.140.0 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Married doctor and Tony Chambers

I suggest two things should be added to this article. Firstly, the married doctor is mentioned in the following sentence in the "Possible motives" section: "The prosecution raised possible motives in the killings, such as boredom, thrill and attention seeking (particularly that of a married doctor)". This sentence doesn't mention the fact Lucy Letby was reported to have had a crush on this doctor. This was also brought up in the trial although she claimed they didn't have a relationship. I'd recommend changing the sentence to "(particularly that of a married doctor whom she was reported to have had a crush on)".

Secondly, the fact Letby's father had threatened consultants who had raised complaints and the fact Tony Chambers wanted Letby back on the neonatal unit isn't mentioned. Seems like noteworthy things to mention here. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It's important to find published reliable newspaper/magazine sources which say these things. If such do not appear in reliable newspapers/magazines (remember no tabloids, no Daily Mail allowed), it cannot be included. See Wikipedia:Perennial sources (for example, the Daily Mail is unreliable, so please be choosy of which newspaper sources to use) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (a general overview). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of this policy and completely understand why tabloids don't count as reliable sources (Michael Jackson summed it up quite well). Only reliable newspapers/magazines should be used in sources. Thankfully Lucy Letby has countless reliable sources discussing her. A google search for "lucy letby doctor relationship" will show a few reliable sources on the first page - the Evening Standard and The Guardian, which discuss Letby and the doctor. Both these reliable sources say that she was said to have had a crush on him by the prosecution during the trial. Another reliable source - Sky News - said that Letby denied having an affair with the doctor but did not rule out the possibility of her having a crush on him. The Sky News source also says that Letby had a boyfriend around this time though it was not identified if this was the same person as the doctor. From what I understand, the tabloids are claiming Letby was either infatuated with him or had an affair, but the reliable sources are only implying she had a crush on him. If a personal life section gets added to the article at some point, then it would make the most sense to put Letby's relationships (such as the doctor and boyfriend) there. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

External link

@DeFacto: Hello! I took a look at the edit summary and went over the URL. The URL is an index, and includes links to a press release (which is similar to the CPS press release already cited), "Important information" (about the suspect being presumed innocent pre-conviction and to avoid violating privacy) and "Support services" (linking charities which give services to bereaved). I feel the latter two provide information that can further an understanding of the subject and the trial process, but which may not be able to be integrated into the article itself.

In regards to WP:ELNO, it states: "In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." - However the charity information and the instructions to the public/media (the article does say that the victims couldn't be named, but that IMO doesn't convey the same thing as the police actively telling the public not to violate privacy), AFAIK can't be integrated into the article. This is an official link of the police agency that investigated Letby. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That charity and instructions to the public/media stuff isn't important to the subject of the article though, so is irrelevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding the subject of the article is the murders themselves, the perpetrator, and the trial/criminal justice process consolidated into one article, and so high quality ELs can touch on any of those three aspects. IMO it is important to non-British readers that, in the UK, that these reporting restrictions happen in relation to a criminal trial (here's a similar article in how, in the UK, there are reporting restrictions regarding elections while, in the US, my native country, these such things don't happen). As for the charity list, it would tell a reader how the NGOs and wider community supported the victims' families during the trial process (support services for victims' families differ from place to place). WhisperToMe (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the article title suggests that the subject is just Lucy Letby. Let's see if anyone else has any opinions about the EL. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Countess of Chester Hospital baby murders was merged into this one yesterday. It's always a difficulty when a person is only known because of one "event" - it's really an article on the person and the event under the convenient heading of the person's name. In terms of scope, the link could be kept, IMO. But in terms of the content on the link, I'm not really seeing anything that adds anything to what's in the article. The charity and instructions to the public aren't worth keeping it for. Delete. DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

Should the introduction not make it clear that investigations into other possible murders by her are live / pending? (The statement that she killed 13 without any further nuance feels quite final). This would also be relevant for the possible retrial on the deaths the jury were inconclusive on. 81.141.91.68 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Operation Hummingbird

This is the official name for the investigation into the baby murders used by the police. I feel as though it should be mentioned somewhere on here. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@87.114.4.172 Thanks for that. I suggest you find a source and submit a semi-protected edit request, or I am happy to add content about that. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Some sources: Cheshire Police, BBC News, Sky News, Sunday Times. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Change "In March 2023, as her trial was taking place, Letby was suspended as a registered nurse by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.[9]" to "In November 2020, Letby was suspended as a registered nurse by the Nursing and Midwifery Council." 149.22.200.134 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The already existing source was dated March 2023, 28 months after the source you’ve provided. I now think it’s best to wait for Letby to be officially stricken from the nursing register before making any references to occupation or suspension. I’ve removed the sentence, which I added, and the instance in the infobox. Asperthrow (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I think she was suspended on an interim basis pending trial a few days after her arrest in November 2020 and that suspension was extended once or twice (most recently in March 2023 - the later source refers to the hearing being a review of the existing suspension and that suspension being extended). She will inevitably be struck off now anyway. 149.22.200.134 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Medical doctors struck off by the General Medical Council

Is this category applicable for this page? It's on Harold Shipman's page, and I find it highly unlikely Letby won't receive the same fate. Letby has been suspended from nursing but is this the same thing as being struck off by the General Medical Council? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No. She's not a doctor. Her equivalent is Nursing and Midwifery Council. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Motive

There seems to be a slight contradiction. In the 'possible motives' section, it states, 'One of many jottings on a sticky note written by Letby and found in her handbag after her arrest stated: "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them", but this was not put forward as proof of motive in court.'

However, further down, in the 'Trial' section, it states, 'On the fourth day of the trial, the prosecution showed the court a handwritten note from Letby, which said "I am evil, I did this" and that she "killed them on purpose" because she "couldn't take care of them".'

Technically, the original source for the first quote doesn't say it wasn't used as proof of motive, merely that it was never used as 'definitive proof of her motive', which I feel is a subtle difference - slight weasel wording, but technically accurate (as other things were also put forward as possible motives). S eoJ (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've revised this section. Yes, "this was not put forward as proof of motive in court" isn't supported by the source and I've taken it out. What the source actually says is "Yet even these were never held up in court as definitive proof of her motive." i.e. likely, it was one of many motivations put forward. However, one interpretation is that while they were adduced in evidence as a confession, they weren't used as evidence of motivation. Either way, it's safest to just take out how it was used in court and let the Post-it quote speak for itself. DeCausa (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

Please could you link the following page in the See Also section:

A scientist-led discussion of the medical evidence provided in Lucy Letby's trial: https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/ Thunderstruck1986 (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like bogus WP:FRINGE nonsense: "We appreciate that science is being used as a tool of injustice around the world, and this case is but one example." It's certainly WP:SELFPUB of unknown provenance. Something for the bin, I think. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I love the site's unintentionally ironic strapline: " Science on Trial: Challenging the laws of nature". Indeed!! Very oddly, the website, out of the blue (and without any explanation of why they are saying it) states that it's nothing to do with Richard Gill, a statistician who's previously put stuff on the internet supporting Letby. I've also asked Thunderstruck1986 what their connection with that website is, given their acount has only 7 edits and was registered 17 years ago. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Good morning. I have no affiliation to Science On Trial. I am member of the public with an interest in fairness and balance. On the point of FRINGE/SELFPUB categories, can it not be argued that the points made in the website are actually backed up by being referenced to published medical literature?

I have only made one previous edit on Wikipedia to simply assess the ease of making edits but haven't had an interest/need in doing so in subsequent years.

Perhaps I have got my timing wrong and these issues can only be documented on Wikipedia if subject to a reported appeal etc? Thunderstruck1986 (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOBLOGS. That website, the authorship of which is anonymous, is propagating misinformation. DeCausa (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree it should not be included. Misinformation has no place on Wikipedia.--87.114.4.172 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanilla Killer

This is listed in the infobox. Any reliable sources out there that are calling her this? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. A quick Google search shows it's an epiphet used just a handful of times by the Daily Mail. If the term was in widespread use we could possibly justify its inclusion, but it's not – and even so, if the only source is the rag itself then WP:DAILYMAIL applies. MIDI (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. I live not too far away from Letby's hometown and have been following this case for 10 months, and have never heard the term. Makes sense why I hadn't now I know it came from there. If it gets re-added at any point then it should be promptly removed. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Harold Shipman

Harold Shipman is in the "see also" section but there is no information about how his case relates to this one. The other people in the see also section are nurses who targeted either babies or children, whereas Shipman was a male doctor who targeted the elderly. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is admittedly OR, but Letby is drawing a lot of conclusions to Shipman. More relevantly, British serial killers are rare and Letby/Shipman both being in the medical profession and both going undetected for years feels like justification enough. Couruu (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO says "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category". A link to Harold Shipman is logical, and there are plenty of RSs to use if we want. MIDI (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Him being in the see also section makes sense, as he was the last time prior to Letby that someone had been convicted of similar crimes. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"On the fourth day of the trial, the prosecution showed the court a handwritten note from Letby"

I don't think the fourth day of the trial should be specified here. No other days of the trial are listed anywhere in the trial section. It should simply say "The prosecution showed the court a handwritten note from Letby". 87.114.4.172 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

a statistician doubts the evidence

since a similar case argued by this same expert eventually resulted in exoneration,I think it's worth mentioning, especially given BLP policy.

https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/?amp=1

courts are to be respected, but they can err too. and carefully citing the argument for her innocent is relevant information. Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it would be WP:UNDUE. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Lucy Letby refusing to attend her sentencing

This has gained a lot of news coverage and should be mentioned in the article. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called it "cowardly" and said the government were looking to make criminals be required to attend their sentencing, and Keir Starmer said similar remarks. Both Letby refusing to attend the sentencing and comments from the prime minister and opposition leader are notable enough to include here. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably. The hearing is still ongoing as I type so let's get to end the end of it at least! WP:NORUSH - although no doubt some eager beaver will be adding it shortly. You never know, WP:CRYSTALBALL maybe she'll turn up before it's all over...unlikely though. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much "refused to" though, but a matter of choosing not to exercise her right to attend it. The press have been sensationalising people making this choice recently, to rabble-rouse and fuel a demand for it to be made compulsory I suppose. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Should her denial be mentioned in the lead? If so, where?

@DeFacto: Removing "She denied the charges" while it is discussed on talk, as the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus for inclusion of disputed content. Firstly, I didn't delete it, I moved it out the first paragraph as a compromise, and secondly, please provide a policy that confirms "if the accused denies it it must be added". Snugglewasp (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's is the current established consensus, so leave it until we get a consensus to change it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether it's in or out but, to be fair, it was only added in 40 minutes ago by Sandstein. Not sure if it can be said to be the consensus version. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being in but not in the first sentence - it gives the accused's views far too much prominence. DeFacto, the WP:ONUS is on you for the inclusion of the content: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Repeatedly re-adding it despite a dispute and a talk page discussion being opened is clearly improper. Snugglewasp (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

40 minutes is a long time in the editing history of this article at the moment, and Sandstein's edit stood the test of that time. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not enough to overcome the fact that the WP:STATUSQUO should be restored while it is being discussed. Wikipedia:Reverting says: "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion." This is what you have been doing by repeatedly restoring it after it has been disputed. In fairness, I have been reverting back, but the third only to restore to the status quo as I had already started a talk page discussion. The onus is on you to seek a consensus for it's inclusion, which you currently don't have. Snugglewasp (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps 40 minutes wasn't long enough, even in this article, I've self-reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be removed from the lead, as it gives too strong an impression of doubt or uncertainty in the case. Her denial can be included in the main body of the text, not the lead. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005: I agree. Per Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies: "WP:BLP matters but so does WP:NPOV. We don't legitimize fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing. If reliable sources have checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?". Snugglewasp (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, it's not a fringe view, it was her plea. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a fringe view to imply, as Wjfox2005 says, an impression of doubt or uncertainty in the case. Especially to do so in the very first paragraph. Snugglewasp (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, it is not a view at all, it is a statement of fact. Or is there a preponderance of reliable sources saying she did not deny it? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

An inclusion practically in the first line that she denied everything is highly unusual, an inference being that there is some contention in her conviction. Since when has it been standard to include in the first paragraph of killer's articles whether they denied it or not? Otherwise why isn't it included on Harold Shipman and Rose West, both of whom always denied their charges? Snugglewasp (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

A truly bizarre argument. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005, do you think that saying she denied it, which was reported by all the news outlets, is merely a fringe view then? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether it’s fringe or not is not really relevant in this discussion in my opinion, I think you are missing the point. The question is why should we do something out-of-the-ordinary and put that she denied it in the first paragraph, unlike common practice on other articles. Doing so would itself be implying that Letby’s denials need particular attention compared to others and would be totally undue in my opinion. 148.252.133.181 (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I favour keeping it in the first paragraph per WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

• NPOV/MOS:OPEN says the opening paragraph should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If she hadn't denied it, most of what's written in this article would not have happened. It is a key part of the story.
• WP:NPOV says: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. Which is why her denial is in the article in the first place.
• WP:BLP says: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. To not mention this in the context of the accusation clearly contravenes this, especially in terms of neutrality.

-- DeFacto (talk). 12:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

In my view, the inclusion of the denial in the lead is not so much a matter of FRINGE/NPOV (nobody believes her denials, I gather) but an important aspect of the case as such: a mass killer who denies culpability is a different matter than one who denies it, even if only with respect to the prospect of appeals and such. Sandstein 13:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Harold Shipman and Rose West always denied their charges, so why haven't they got a line in the first paragraph saying they denied it all? Because it would be undue weight - they were both found proven guilty by a jury. And to quote @DeCausa:, are you saying that every reference to every conviction throughout Wikipedia should have a "health warning" that it could be reversed? That's absurd. Snugglewasp (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Well I said that in a different discussion on a different proposal. I think I agree it does give too much attention to her denial by putting it so close to the opening. But, it would flow naturally if it came, say, at the end of the second paragraph. DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: yes I agree that would be a good compromise, which is why I moved it there previously, but DeFacto moved it back without apparently reading the edit, saying 'if the accused denies it it must be added'. It was added, just in a more sensible part of the lead. Therefore the titling of this talk section 'Should her denial be included in the lead?' is totally misleading. Snugglewasp (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Snugglewasp, you totally removed it in this edit, invoking an essay, WP:MANDY! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Letby became only the fourth woman in UK legal history to receive a whole life order

Who were the first three again? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Myra Hindley, Rosemary West and Joanna Dennehy I believe. Couruu (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sounds about right. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, IP, can I recommend creating an account? It comes with a whole host of features, including not doxxing yourself :P Couruu (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"This article is about a person involved in a current event"

Is it still a current event? The judge gave his sentence. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Former" neonatal nurse

I've lost count of the number of times "former" has been added and removed. Shall we try for a WP:CONSENSUS - and then add hidden text stating what that consensus is? DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Trying for a consensus seems like the logical thing to do. As you pointed out in the revision edit, she is still on the register according to the article. Until a reliable source states she is no longer on the register, it should remain in the article. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong De! That was DeFacto (no relation). DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad! Eitherway, she is still on the register according to the article, so it should remain in the article for now. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

She qualified as a nurse and is a registered nurse, and according to the article has not yet been struck off. So she is still a nurse. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

We should follow the sources. But they're mixed as far as I can see. Today, for ITV, The Guardian, Nursing in Practice (but maybe they're motivated), Financial Times she's "former". But the BBC, Independent and CNN have her as just "nurse". DeCausa (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

AP is former and Reuters is just nurse. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)