Jump to content

Talk:Lucy Letby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NEDOCHAN (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 22 January 2024 (→‎Serial killer vs. murderer). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Although willing to consider a change of wording, I don't think this is quite right. She has been convicted of the murders, and "alleged" is terminology usually applied prior to conviction. I am certainly willing to consider that convictions are not always safe and satisfactory, but any wording must still capture the state of play as it is. How about:
Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She has lodged an appeal against her conviction. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sirfurboy for your guidance I hope your suggested edit can be implemented Flamingjune1900 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now made that change. Other editors may wish to adjust it though, which is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help Flamingjune1900 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING editors - that IP above is a clear sockpuppet of Richard Gill, the editor who was blocked indefinitely for advocacy in trying to portray convicted nurses as innocent. That almost EXACT suggested wording for how to word the intro is exactly what Richard Gill was demanding the article should be changed to on Twitter the other day - see here: [1]. Please can we not allow this article to be dictated by users banned from here for advocacy? Can neutral uninvolved editors who were aware of Gill’s block such as @DeCausa: @El C: @331dot: @Theroadislong: please have a look at this, and not allow these backdoor edits to be made by the banned Richard Gill (Gill110951). 93.96.18.54 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, talking of sockpuppets, you sound a lot like someone, no? Thanks for bringing the tweet to our attention, but it seems to me it is less likely Gill than one of his twitter followers. In any case, the edit as per Gill has not been made. I made an edit based on my own view that "convicted of the serial murder" is the better rendering. As I have indicated, editors in good standing may disagree and adjust that, and that is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dear Sirfurboy I am not sure what this means but I didn't mean to cause problems I wanted to balance the introduction passage particular as Letby's defence is trying to appeal but if this is unacceptable change I understand. This is my only account as someone asked I will not make any more suggestions but I do think the page seems out of balance many thanks Flamingjune1900 (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quetstar, you have reverted the change with edsum "disagree". Could you unpack that a little please. Is it the whole change, or a part of it? What is the disagreement with text that says she is convicted of murder over text that says she is a murderer? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change because i felt it was downplaying the fact that she is a killer. Your change emphasized her former job as a neonatal nurse over her status as a murderer, which she is more commonly known for. Quetstar (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely she is known for being a nurse who has been convicted of murder of the babies in her care. a former NHS neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants doesn't downplay anything. This is your first edit to the article. Why this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have been watching this article for a while now. Second, the text you proposed also emphasized the fact that she has filed an appeal, which no other article does. So in the end, I think that the original text is well balanced, neutral and consistent with other articles about convicted killers. Quetstar (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we can leave the appeal part out and keep it in a later paragraph (where it was, but needs updating). Whereas I do not think you have expressed any reason why the article should not use "convicted of". I will amend. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the status quo in the opening sentence. Letby has been convicted of her crimes and is notable for her crimes. She wouldn't have an article on account of her nursing career. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But now you have restored a version of the lead that doesn't say that. You have removed mention that she was convicted of her crimes. Why? This is how we report the facts of the matter. See, for instance Michael Stone (criminal), although it is never a great idea just to look at other Wikipedia articles, so let's see what others say. The Guardian has, e.g.,

Letby, who was a neonatal nurse at the hospital, was convicted in August of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more. [2]

People.com has:

Nurse Lucy Letby, one of the U.K.'s most prolific child killers, was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting to murder six others in August 2023.[3]

I could go on. Those were just the first two I found with a "who is Lucy Letby" Google search. I expect there are counter examples too, but this is bog standard reporting and it is utter nonsense to say that there is any denial of her notability by saying "convicted of". Worse, this is POV editing. A neutral point of view would only stress the facts. The facts are that Letby is notable because she has been accused, tried and convicted of the murder of 7 babies and attempted murder of others. The fact she is a nurse, who had babies in her care is also key to the notability of this case. But, if we just call her a serial killer we are actually going beyond the facts and editorialising. It is editorialising because she has not admitted the crimes and is appealing them. It is a fact that she has been convicted of the crimes. It is likely a fact that she murdered the babies. But, we don't need to take sides on what is likely. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. So what you just restored has a neutrality issue.
It is not just there, of course. The whole article broadly follows the Panorama documentary and is put together with newspaper reports and so that is what it reads like. These are all primary sources. The whole article is not an encyclopaedic treatment. The problem is that we don't have secondary sources to work with. I have been looking, but not found any good independent reliable secondary sources yet. We should recognise that this article has serious issues, and not seek to bolster those by fighting to retain POV wording in the lead.
Also you have reverted lodged an appeal of the verdict to announced her intention to appeal. This is not a proper summary. Per the page, she has now lodged the appeal. Why did you revert that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to the way it was. Of course she's been convicted. Otherwise you couldn't describe her as a serial killer. It is completely NPOV to describe her as such, as that's what she was found to be in a court of law. You can't write an article which takes into account the extent to which the conviction is correct or otherwise. That would be editorialisation. The appeal is mentioned in the article but that, as of now, is not lede worthy, as it's a small part of the overall story. Of course if the appeal were successful, it would certainly become lede worthy. But this is NOTNEWS, and the main point is that she is a serial killer. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she's been convicted. Otherwise you couldn't describe her as a serial killer. - Yes, but you have not understood the POV issue here. If we describe her as a serial killer then, you say, that of course this must mean she is convicted (and apparently don't need to say that - although, in fact, one can be a serial killer without being convicted of it). In any case the reverse is not actually true. If we say she is convicted of the murders, we state that a court has decided, beyond all reasonable doubt, that she is a serial killer, but actually she might, in an unlikely scenario, not be a serial killer. We know that in a small number of cases, convictions are overturned on appeal - or sometimes even after more than one appeal. By saying she is a serial killer we imply she is convicted, but we also imply that we have prejudged the issue of appeals and determined that there is no world in which this conviction would be overturned. It may seem we are obviously right in that, but we don't need to make the prejudgement. We have a neutral form of words that is factually correct and widely used in the sources. But you would rather we have a form of words that makes a prejudgement. This is not neutral point of view. I find myself at a loss as to why people are reverting to a non neutral version rather than seeking to refine and improve the wording I proposed.
As to the appeal, the appeal is mentioned in the lead. You simply reverted to the old version of that text that is now an incorrect summary of the main (the lead summarising the main per MOS:LEAD), because the appeal has been lodged. I think this was inadvertent on your part, but it is also a bad edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear what others think. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with @NEDOCHAN on this. Quetstar (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've mulled over whether to respond here for a few days, and after reading everything above and many articles about the case, I've decided I will, and here is my two penn'orth...
Sure, it is expected and accepted that the news media will label those who have been convicted of multiple murders as "serial killers" and to say they have "murdered <n> people", and I am sure we can find plenty of reliable sources to support the use of that language here. We also have WP:BLPCRIME saying A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law, implying they are presumed guilty if convicted by a court. So it seems we are policy-compliant if we present it that way in the article.
However, we also know that Letby consistently and vehemently denied the charges, and that she has made an application for permission to appeal against all the convictions. We also know that the case lasted about 10 months, was heavily reliant on circumstantial evidence, and that the jury took more than 100 hours over 4 weeks deliberating to reach its verdicts. We also know that there are lawyers and scientists out there who are not sure that there hasn't been a misscarriage of justice. That all suggests that it wasn't a clear-cut case, and that there were serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's hypotheses.
So, bearing all this in mind, and given the advice given in the WP:WIKIVOICE section of WP:NPOV to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, I support Sirfurboy's argument and believe that the wording should clearly state the outcome of the trial, but should stick to just the incontrovertible facts, and omit the editorialising and interpretations that assert guilt in Wiki's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NEDOCHAN, in the light of this discussion, I had already modified my original edit to:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

You also reverted this reformulation, and your substantive argument above is only that "otherwise you can't describe her as a serial killer". I thus propose:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

I believe this answers your objections and this fairly represents a consensus view. I'll leave it a while for you to answer before asserting that edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an assertion, it's a conviction. I have made my point and there's no need to repeat it. The lede is absolutely fine and correct and it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to account for the effectiveness of a court of law. The appeal is mentioned but is, as yet, of very little relevance. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware you are the one who removed "convicted" in the first place so you may feel wedded to that, but the question is not whether you think the current wording is fine, but whether you believe there is any problem with the proposed change. If so, please express the concern. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the proposed change as she is notable for being a serial killer. She is not a famous nurse. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But of course she is famous for being a nurse who was convicted of killing babies in her care. Sources already given in this thread. What is your argument for withholding this information, considering sources above show that this is how she is, in fact, described? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because she would have failed the notability test for crime perpetrators as described in WP:CRIME (and thus wouldn't get her own article) had not been for the nature of her crimes. She was virtually unknown until her arrest and conviction. Therefore, she is notable as a serial killer and the lead, as a summary of the article, should reflect as such. Quetstar (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look this is just a nonsense. MOS:LEAD does not say you can only mention in the lead the thing that makes the subject notable. It says: the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. That Lucy Letby was a nurse is important content. Again, why wouldn't we say that? what is wrong with that revised formulation above? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a slight reordering of words could satisfy both camps - how about:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British woman who was convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital whilst she was a neonatal nurse there between June 2015 and June 2016.

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that one. I might note that she is not notable for being a woman, but that might seem churlish, so I won't ;) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::Um, Sirfurboy, current contemporaneous, reliable sources explicitly introduce Letby as a serial killer: [4], [5], [6]. That is, as NEDOCHAN says, how she is defined and what she is notable for. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't describe Fred West as a serial killer in the first line? Letby is now defined by being a serial killer. What is your argument for withholding this information, considering said sources show that this is how she is, in fact described? Presumably your argument will be that this describing of Letby comes from 'primary sources' reporting on the trial - it does not, they are secondary news sources reporting on different matters months after the conviction introducing her unambiguously as a serial killer nurse, and obviously the term "serial killer" is not taken primary-source-style from the trial as she was not - and could not - be described as such in sources until she was found guilty. So you can't use the argument that this is some sort of ineligible 'primary source' definition. Is your argument then DeFacto's, that this is some sort of immoral sensationalist term that "the media" use? Because we should not be deviating from what "the media" say because we don't like it, we have to follow the sources, not decide for ourselves whether we agree with them or not and instead spin it our own way. I am fully in agreement with NEDOCHAN, Quetstar and IP 93.96.18.54 here. 109.144.211.65 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I noticed that our see also has (emphasis mine):

  • Beverley Allitt – British nurse convicted of murdering, attempting to murder and causing grievous bodily harm of infants and children in 1993
  • Benjamin Geen – British nurse convicted in 2006 of murdering two patients
  • Genene Jones – American nurse responsible for the deaths of up to 60 infants and children in her care during the 1970s and 1980s
  • Colin Norris – British nurse convicted of murdering four patients with insulin in 2008
  • Barbara Salisbury – British nurse convicted in 2004 of attempting to murder patients to "free up beds" - Note, I removed this one as a red link which makes no sense in a see also. Removal of it is without prejudice to someone creating a page from the red link, so happy to have the red link here.
  • Harold Shipman – British general practitioner convicted in 2000 of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 250

Genene Jones is listed as "convicted" of one count in her article, as that is all she was convicted of. The "up to 60" is speculative. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word "convicted" in crime articles. It is good summary information. They all also specify nures/GP up front, before the word "convicted". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quetstar, this revert [7] is stonewalling. Note that it is again a new formulation, and one where you where you have failed to identify any issue with the wording, whether in the discussion or in your edsum. You are instead repeatedly reverting to your formulation, also without any consensus. In what way is that wording deficient? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change due to the fact that it did not secure enough consensus for it to be made. At this stage, you should follow the steps in the dispute resolution process, which you are clearly seeking to circumvent. Quetstar (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted a change that did not have any objections except from a sockpuppet who asked you to make the change on your talk page. The sockpuppet is disruptive. An RfC to change one word is the next step, but will take a month and a lot of my time to put together. I would rather avoid that by building a consensus here. I would ask you to ignore the sockpuppet and consider the discussion here where it is very clear that the word "convicted" is the usual and expected way of describing these things. Any dispute resolution will attempt to drill down to what is actually wrong with the attempted reworking above. What exactly is wrong with that wording? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to it. Sirfurboy I'd remind you that you're not the arbiter as to what constitutes a solid argument. The examples you give all describe their subjects as serial killers/murderers. They wouldn't be able to do so had the subjects not been convicted. In my opinion there is no need to change the wording. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did not object to it. Please see above, version by DeFacto, 19:13, 3 December 2023. You have no stated objection to that revised wording (note that I also included a wikilink to serial killer in the edit). What is your objection to that version please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worse than what's there. For reasons I've stated. I also think you're veering into BLUDGEON territory. Keep the STATUSQUO and wait for the input of others. We have time. I think you've had your say. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SQS and particularly WP:SQSAVOID. What are the policy reasons against the edit please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to satisfy you. Why do you insist on making me repeat myself? The edit above does not describe her as a serial killer, which is what she is notable for. All similar articles, including the ones you have linked above, do. I also think you're BLUDGEONing this discussion. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does. It describes her as a serial murderer, wikilinked to serial killer. See here: [8]. It very specifically takes account of that objection. Again, this was a refined edit taking account of objections you have raised. So what is the policy objection to this edit please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't describe her as a serial killer. That is what she is NOTABLE for. Re policy, this is about as blatant an example of BLUDGEON that I can think of. Again, you have given your views. Wait to see whether you get CONSENSUS. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Quetstar, and remember too that 'consensus' doesn't mean majority of votes, it, per WP:DETCON, is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
So quality of argument with respect to Wiki policies is the measure (not majority based on a count of personal opinions). What we need from your side is the policy-based rationale for keeping the version you reverted too to help resolve this. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an RfC is the way forward at this stage. Also, the edit was implemented before others had the time to comment on it. Quetstar (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I waited a day, but yes, the edit was bold (being a new and different edit and not a simple reversion). Your reversion should describe what is wrong with the edit in the edsum or here. Thus far you have not explained why that formulation was not policy compliant. Please also have a read of WP:SQS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I made another edit 9 days ago which has not been reverted, saying:

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

I thus take it that the point at issue was a contention that "is a British serial killer" should be preferred over "convicted of the serial murder" (linked to serial killer). I just want to check this before taking this to an RfC, because if the word "convicted" is also being contested, the RfC options will need to reflect that. Currently I propose the above wording as one option, and

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

as the other. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Lead sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for Option C, Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

In this discussion, the primary argument for A was that she has been convicted of serial murder and that reliable sources describe her as a serial murderer; thus there isn't an issue, NPOV or otherwise, in calling her a "serial killer" or otherwise stating in wikivoice that she has murdered many people.

The primary argument for B, meanwhile, was tangential to this; it makes it clear that in her role as a neonatal nurse she committed serial murder.

These arguments aren't contradictory. For example, buidhe, in their !vote for B, argued not because of any doubt of the convictions but because A is redundant. Similarly, Nigej, in their !vote for A, argued Superficially there's not a vast difference between them. However I dislike B because the way it's phrased might give the impression that the convictions could be unsound. Best to be clear, which A is.

As such, while there is a clear numerical majority for A, and A is not incompatible with policy, it would be a disservice to stick rigidly to the specific proposals rather than to access the specifics of the !votes and identify wording that aligns with all of those. As such, I am finding for Option C, which was raised by NebY late in the discussion and unfortunately received no discussion but addresses the concerns of most editors.

There were some dissenting arguments; editors who argued that A was a violation of NPOV because she may be innocent. However, this position received little support from !voters, and is unsupported by policy.

Similarly, some editors argued explicitly for the inclusion of the wording "serial killer" or similar, but assessing the discussion I found that most editors supporting A were more concerned with it being clear that she is a murderer, rather than explicitly - instead of implicitly, as C does - stating she is a serial killer. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note: I did consider the possibility that canvassing affected the result but I am convinced that it did not; the scope was limited, and even when we exclude the two editors who participated after a talk page notification as well as non-established editors the consensus remains the same. BilledMammal (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Which of the following lede sentences should open the article on Lucy Letby?

A. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

B. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.

Please answer A or B, with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That's what the Discussion section is for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

B - WP:NPOV is core to the mission of Wikipedia. Letby has been convicted of the murder and the conviction may well be sound. If she killed the babies she is a murderer, but she has still not admitted doing so, and the legal process is not exhausted. History shows a case with many comparable particulars where it was shown years later that the nurse involved could not have carried out the murders, and that there were no murders (Lucia de Berk), and there are statisticians and academics who have raised some concerns about this conviction. Wikipedia must never take sides on these subjects, and option 2 accurately reports facts, hides nothing, gives prominence to all salient details without making a judgement in wikivoice. A court of law has found Letby guilty and she has been convicted of the murders. We don't need to say she is a murderer. That may be true. We may think it is very likely that is true, but the existence of a small doubt makes the neutral wording favourable, as nothing is lost by doing so. This is also the wording that is generally followed in reliable secondary sources (see discussion below). and also follows what editors have placed on the page itself when referring to other cases (see discussion below). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE the main reason this person is notable is for being a serial killer. Reliable sources have described Letby as a "child serial killer."[9][10][11] This isn't in dispute and I'm not sure why this RFC is even necessary. We should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF that is cited in the discussion below, but there's other stuff that supports A as well. I would actually be reword the lead to say Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer convicted of the murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others while being a nurse between June 2015 and June 2016. This person wasn't notable for being a nurse. She's notable for killing children. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B - (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I do think that identifying her as a neonatal nurse before disclosing she is a serial killer gives weight to the details surrounding the murders. Therefore I do think it's prevalent to address her as a nurse first that was convicted. Leading into her being a "British serial killer" doesn't seem to follow the purest form of natural flow. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - I agree with Nemov, her notability is derived from her being a serial killer, otherwise there wouldn't even be an article on her. It is a significant viewpoint and should be the lead descriptor in the first sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway, do you see a difference between "serial killer" and "convicted of serial murder" in that respect? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If one is convicted of serial murder, by default, that makes them a serial killer. It's the same with any serial killer, like Jeffrey Dahmer, Edward Edwards (serial killer), William Sapp (serial killer), Edward Walton (serial killer), Martha Wise etc. Just like Lucy Letby, we wouldn't have an article about them either, because their notability stems from them being a serial killer. And Letby meets the generally accepted criminological definition of a serial killer – that is, someone who commits three or more murders on separate occasions which are not for revenge or material gain. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to not describe her that way first and foremost in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway, so as you see no difference, you would presumably accept "convicted of serial murder" in place of "serial killer" as a compromise here to help us reach a consensus? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I prefer serial killer. There is no reason not to describe her that way first and foremost in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B - I think we need to consider WP:PARTIAL here, particularly this sentence: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Yes, it is an incontrovertible fact she was convicted of a number of murders, but it is also an incontrovertible fact that that doesn't necessarily mean that she had actually murdered anyone and that an appeal is possible. And until we can incontrovertibly say that she had actually murdered those babies, I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer.

So, with respect to MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, as she cannot be notable as a serial murderer as we do not know whether she actually is one, we need to fall-back to what we do know, which is that she is notable for having been convicted of serial murder. How some of the news media might choose to spin that is irrelevant as, unlike Wikipedia, even the most reliable news media has no duty to be neutral, and that where we encounter bias in sources we, per WP:YESPOV (under the "Prefer nonjudgmental language" bullet point), which says A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source, need to summarise it in an impartial tone. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having been convicted of serial murder makes her a serial murderer. We cannot say in wikivoice that someone is a serial murderer unless they have been convicted of serial murder. Reliable sources make it abundantly clear she is notable for being a serial killer, and that is neither spin or irrelevant. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Isaidbiway. Frankly, this whole discussion is worthless, as we've been through this extensively recently. It might not be sirfurboy's preference, but it's still fine. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B - largely for stylistic reasons, though I don't wholly disregard the NPOV considerations. I slightly take issue with those who say she is only notable for her multiple murders, actually she is notable for being a natal nurse, who (seemingly) murdered her charges. A massive amount of the coverage is about the apparent contradiction between what she was being paid, and trusted, to do and what she actually has been convicted of doing. Therefore the flow of ideas works better with B IMO. She isn't a murderess who just happened to make a living by nursing. Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - Letby is convicted and multiple reliable sources identify her as a serial killer. There is nothing of substance to the argument that "she's convicted but that doesn't mean she really murdered anyone." By that rationale, we couldn't ever refer to someone as a murderer or killer, because of the potential a court got it wrong. That is not a reasonable standard, and is outside the scope of Wikipedia: we go by what RS say, which is that she is a convicted murderer & serial killer. If a future court overturned her convictions, the article could be reverted, but per WP:CRYSTAL we are not here to speculate on that potentially happening. Identifying her as a serial killer is impartial, as that's what reliable sources have done. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds, there is no question that she was 'convicted'. That isn't the problem here though, the problem here is the assumption that that means she is therefore a murderer. That is a leap of faith, and it's that that fails WP:CRYSTAL, if anything does. All we know is the opinion of a jury, nothing more. Any assumptions based on that fail WP:V and WP:NPOV. That the news media jump to that conclusion is not an excuse for Wikipedia too because the press do not know anything more than anyone else does, and are not necessarily looking for truth, they are maximising the legal sensationalism they can get out of the situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not an "assumption" nor is it CRYSTAL. We have a judgement in court that she is a murderer. That is verifiable via WP:RS. What's crystal is the bullshit "well she might not be, and it might get overturned" speculation. That falls afoul of Wikipedia's entire principles.
The only people "maximising the legal sensationalism" are the ones like you, spreading this terrible argument that we can't call a convicted murderer a murderer, on the speculation that it might not be accurate. You are trying to twist all of Wikipedia's principles into a knot to justify this stance, and it's not going to work. If you're going with the press do not know anything more than anyone else does then you're throwing WP:V out the window and you might as well go write on a blog.
Finally, you're ignoring the instructions at the top of this RFC: Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Any further posts in this section by you will be ignored. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - She's a serial killer. We know that she killed these children (because a jury said so after seeing the evidence); and we know how she killed them (with lethal doses of insulin, and by injecting air into their bloodstreams); and we have the highest quality sources saying these things. To deny that she's a serial killer is to deny what the sources say. She's got a Wikipedia article because, and only because, she's Britain's most prolific serial killer of children in modern history. It's important that we keep that information in the lede.
WP:CANVASS disclosure: My attention was attracted to this discussion because an IP editor posted on my talk page about it.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - For better or worse that is what she is notable for. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - Agree with the other comments above. She's known for her serial killings, which is why she has an article here in the first place. Some1 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - Completely agree with S Marshall comments, also stating that someone who has been convicted of multiple murders a serial killer is in no way a NPOV issue. Waiting for the entire legal process to be exhausted in not required, only multiple independent reliable sources and that mark has been easily met. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - Superficially there's not a vast difference between them. However I dislike B because the way it's phrased might give the impression that the convictions could be unsound. Best to be clear, which A is. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B - Pared right down, Letby's significance to me – and I dare to think, more generally – is as a nurse who killed her charges, or at least is convicted of that. I therefore prefer B's order. I don't care what her ranking is as to number killed and we'd still have an article on her even if someone else had killed more. Whether we describe her as a murderer (or killer), convicted murderer or convicted of murder is not as significant; each is damning.

I didn't follow the case closely but I'm aware that it was extraordinarily long and in the absence of "smoking guns", demanded a lot of work from the prosecution and the jury. The jury will have been instructed to convict only on the basis of the evidence presented and only if they found it beyond reasonable doubt that she murdered or attempted murder as charged (they mostly did). WP:RSs usually treat convictions as determing the facts of the case, the UK's libel courts treat the fact of a conviction as completely adequate justification for calling someone a murderer, and we usually treat such reporting as definitive even though we know and document that convictions are sometimes overturned (although we may sometimes accept the consensus of historians that there was a miscarriage of justice even if no appeal was successful). Thus while "convicted of murder" clearly satisfies WP:V, "convicted murderer" and "murderer" also satisfy WP:V as it is normally applied. I wish there had been an option C on the lines of

Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016. NebY (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning A. There is not much in it. The two sentences are pretty much equivalent.
A. B flows slightly better but, after reading some of the comments here, I have to lean towards A because some people see B as allowing room for doubt in her guilt. Personally I do not read it that way but the mere fact that anybody sees ambiguity in B, and advocates for it on that basis, makes me feel that it might be necessary to stick with A, even if it is very slightly clunky. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the subsequent comments, I'm firming this up to more definite support for A. B is clearly more ambiguous than I initially thought and hence is likely to confuse, mislead or under-inform at least some proportion of our readers. The more direct language of A is clearly necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B - not because of any doubt of the convictions but because A is redundant. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B She has been convicted, which is factual whether or not she truly committed the murders we cannot be 100% certain. Lightoil (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A – She fits the definition of serial killer, and this should come first. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B Serial killer is using strong language and falls under WP:PUFF In a Wikipedia article, there should not be praise-filled (nor criticism-filled) adjectives appended to the subject's name. Dobblesteintalk 21:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killer is neither a criticism or praise. It's a non-contentious definition for someone who commits several murders. "Serial killer" is in no way, shape, or form WP:PUFF. Nemov (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A with a note that this entire thing was pointless, as we've dealt with it recently already. Collosal waste of time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: It was not dealt with. There was a 2-2 split and my suggestion for an RfC was encouraged by the editor who supported your view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A - per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE the only reason this person is notable is for being a serial killer. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. She has been convicted of numerous murders and she wouldn't be considered notable enough for an article otherwise. Arguments that I've seen above which seem to argue that option B should be used in case she didn't actually murder them or in case she's proven innocent later fall squarely into WP:CRYSTAL. If at a later date that happens then the language can be changed to reflect that but the phrasing of option A can be supported with reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This entire discussion centres on whether the verdict might be wrong, which, unless it turns out to be, is clearly WP:CRYSTAL, which is exactly where we got to prior to this pointless RfC. NEDOCHAN (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suonii180, @NEDOCHAN, as I wrote above, there is no question that she was 'convicted'. That isn't the problem here though, the problem here is the assumption that that means she is therefore a murderer. That is a leap of faith, and it is that that fails [[[WP:CRYSTAL]], if anything does. All we know is the opinion of a jury, nothing more. Any assumptions based on that fail WP:V and [[WP:NPOV]. Sure, the news media jump to that conclusion, but that isn't because the press know anything more than anyone else, or are looking for the truth, it is that they are maximising the legal sensationalism they can get out of the situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only guilty man in Shawshank. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: It's not an assumption to call someone who has been legally convicted of murder a murderer. Dismissing legal proceedings and not basing her description on sources is what would make the article not neutral. That's the whole point of WP:NPOV. Suonii180 (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Suonii180, not at all. NPOV says Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. That she was convicted is not contested, but whether that conviction means that she is incontrovertibly a murderer is very seriously contested. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources "seriously contesting" that's she's a serial murderer? If there are not then your argument is baffling. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than replying in the survey, could this be taken to the discussion below please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Unequivocally, she has been convicted. Any differentiation between her legal conviction and the correctness of her legal verdict is based in commentary on jury trials as a whole, and therefore outside the scope of this article, violating NPOV and stepping into WP:CRYSTAL. She is notable for her murders & attacks; that they happened in her workplace is secondary to that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) 4 January 15:05 (UTC)— HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

B, and not because of NPOV or anything, but because A is just bad writing. Lucy Letby is a British serial killer and former neonatal nurse leaves the constituents disconnected, and opens the possibility that she randomly killed people on the street or at night; oh, and by the way, she was a nurse. On the other hand, Lucy Letby is a British former neonatal nurse convicted of the serial murder of seven infants is crystal-clear that the murders were made in the course of her work (and no, I don't agree that they happened in her workplace is secondary to that information -- on the contrary, it provides the whole context). It does not stress that she is notable because of nursing – at least not for readers with reading skills above the third-grader. No such user (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE as that best reflects why she is known, as others have said. But also, B is a WP:NPOV failure, specifically WP:DUE. It doesn't give due prominence to the way which the RS overwhelmingly describe her. There's an element of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RGW to it. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment/discussion of sources - Talk page history demonstrates the term "convicted of" was accepted but an editor has objected that Letby is known, first and foremost, as a serial killer. Thus this should come first and foremost in the lead. As well as creating the neutrality issue, I don't think Letby is known first and foremost as a serial killer. Looking at sources (and this page needs to move beyond sensationalist newspaper primary sources) I searched Google scholar for WP:RS secondary sources. These are the wordings used by the first four hits on Lucy Letby and are indicative of the larger set:

  1. The dreadful reality of the Lucy Letby case is still sinking in. That a neonatal nurse was murdering babies under her care and attempting to harm more is hard to comprehend.[12]
  2. the case of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse convicted of murdering...[13]
  3. Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse, was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of seven babies[14]
  4. The case of Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse who has just been given a full life sentence for the murder of seven babies[15]

These are all from the BMJ, an impeccable source. In every case they start off with her being a neonatal nurse. Letby is known for being a nurse convicted of murdering babies in her care. The first has "was murdering", but the others are all more carefully worded. Convicted of or sentenced for the murders (and no mention of serial murder, although clearly multiple murders do meet the definition). So the treatment in reliable sources does strongly favour both a neutral wording (e.g. "convicted of") and for beginning with "neonatal nurse". I anticipate an objection that the BMJ may be predisposed to stressing the medical setting, but googling "who is Lucy Letby" shows news sources also nearly all begin with her being a nurse. E.g. first three hits:

  1. Nurse Lucy Letby has been convicted...[16]
  2. Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering babies...[17]
  3. The neonatal nurse...[18] - Second paragraph. This one is weak evidence though. The headline begins "serial killer" and the headline appears meant to be read with the text, and is not just an article hook. You could argue this one is "serial killer" first. Even so, the fact she was a nurse is clearly highly pertinent and mentioned up front.

So there is no reason not to say "neonatal nurse" up front, just as there is no reason not to say convicted of - (the latter point having now been accepted). Indeed we strongly prefer occupation first neutral wording on the page itself in the see also section (where the whole reason for selection is that these are comparable cases - implicitly demonstrating that the fact she was a nurse was a key factor here):

  • Beverley Allitt – British nurse convicted of murdering, attempting to murder and causing grievous bodily harm of infants and children in 1993
  • Benjamin Geen – British nurse convicted in 2006 of murdering two patients
  • Genene Jones – American nurse responsible for the deaths of up to 60 infants and children in her care during the 1970s and 1980s
  • Colin Norris – British nurse convicted of murdering four patients with insulin in 2008
  • Harold Shipman – British general practitioner convicted in 2000 of 15 murders but suspected of as many as 250

Genene Jones is listed as "convicted" of one count in her article, as that is all she was convicted of. The "up to 60" is speculative. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word "convicted" in crime articles, nor of occupation first, when the occupation is clearly key to the story interest. It is good summary information. They all specify nurse/GP up front, before the word "convicted". So tl;dr: Option B is the most neutral and most representative wording found in reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Serial Killer - Isaidnoway and Nemov, I should have pointed out that in option B, "serial murder" is wikilinked to Serial killer. There is no attempt to remove that point from the lead sentence, despite not being found in the secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a handful of community consensus perennial sources reporting on the significant viewpoint that Lucy Letby is Britain's most prolific serial child killer of modern times.
    @Isaidnoway, do you think that all means that it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer, and that there is no possibility at all that her convictions could ever be overturned on appeal? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto It means that tons of sources call this person a serial killer and that's beyond any reasonable dispute. Nemov (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov, Wikipedia fully accepts that even the most reliable sources can/will be biased - WP:BIASEDSOURCES says: ... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
    I agree that many sources are saying she is a serial killer, but they do not substantiate it other than by saying she was convicted by the court. But general knowledge tells us that courts often get it wrong, and that it might transpire that she is innocent. So we are not in a position where we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a killer - WP:WIKIVOICE says, amongst other things: If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. The most we can say is that she has been convicted of these murders, but not imply that Wiki agrees with the media interpretations that she is therefore a killer, or even a murderer.
    WP:PARTIAL is relevant too, it says: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. And WP:YESPOV says: A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
    All this implies that our summary in the lead needs to use an impartial tone, and not just mimic the bias applied by the news media. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an absurd argument. If you're going to say that all the media is biased, we've just thrown WP:RS out the window. Your argument does not make a lick of sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer, because she has been convicted, and reliable sources describe her that way. I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to predict the future, so my opinion on her appeal is not relevant. We leave that to subject matter experts, and I haven't seen any expert opinions claiming she has a snowball chance in hell of overturning her conviction, have you? Isaidnoway (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway, using that logic then, was it also incontrovertible that Barry George was a murderer? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apples and oranges 🍎 🍊 - Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Lucia de Berk? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaidnoway, he, as Letby, was convicted of murder in a court in England - a valid comparison therefore - so the question still stands.
    According to the OED, "Incontrovertible" means That cannot be controverted; incontestable, indisputable, indubitable. So using that definition, do you still think "it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer"? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeFacto it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Nemov (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for the second time, it is incontrovertible that she is a serial killer. It is reliably sourced and verified with high-quality sources. In fact, it is incontrovertible that she is Britain's most prolific serial child killer of modern times. My !vote and argument for option A is based on policies and guidelines. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree. The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not mean that others are obligated to answer, much less satisfy you with their answers. Please see WP:BADGER. And btw, it is also incontrovertible that whatever the outcome of this RfC is, it is absolutely, without a doubt, perfectly fine with me per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not ask me this question again. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Convictions are not inherently incontrovertible. NebY (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if the verdict is overturned, this point is relevant. If it isn't, it isn't. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these. I will number them 1-17 per the order you list them.
    1. Yes, this is a secondary source making a case that she meets the definition of a serial killer. It is not how it introduces her though: In seeking to understand the crimes of Lucy Letby, the neonatal nurse who murdered seven babies in her care. The fact it has to make the case that she meets the definition of serial killer actually is against the view that she is known first for that. Rather, she is known for being the neonatal nurse who murdered babies.
    2-15. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. These are primary sources. Note that I said it was in secondary sources (the ones discussed above) that Letby is not called a serial killer. Secondary sources are also what the article should be built around (currently it is not)
    16. The Lancet is a good source, and secondary. It does call her a serial killer in the article, but again, note how it begins: Lucy Letby will spend life in prison for murdering seven infants and attempting to kill at least six others during her time as a nurse. The reason this case had public attention was that it was about a nurse killing babies.
    17. This document number returns an error for me, but as it is to the Sydney Morning Herald, it is almost certainly primary too.
    So no, secondary sources do not call her a serial killer up front. But again, there is no intention to hide that information. Option B has it wikilinked. The question is about neutrality, not about removing that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They all have community consensus for being reliable sources, and WP:NPOV says we represent the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Letby being described as a serial killer in reliable sources, as pointed out above, is a significant viewpoint. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So again, nothing in option B fails to represent such a view, but being reliable sources is not the same thing as being secondary sources. Primary sources can be very useful, but articles are built around secondary sources. See, for instance, WP:SECONDARY which includes:

    Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot ignore the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer, and even go as far to describe her as one of Britain's most prolific serial killers. That is notable, anyway you look at it, and to ignore that significant viewpoint means we are basically saying fuck you reliable sources, we don't care what you are reporting on this topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How? Nothing in option B fails to represent such a view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote and argument is for option A.✦•┈๑⋅⋯𝓜𝒆𝗿𝗿𝛄 𝓒𝒉𝗿𝖏𝙨𝙩𝒎𝝰𝙨⋯⋅๑┈•✦ Isaidnoway (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One last point. an overwhelming majority of primary sources don't call her a serial killer either. A lot do. Google "lucy letby" "serial killer" gives 117,000 hits. But "lucy letby" -"serial killer" gives 1,130,000. An order of magnitude more.
    Further comparison: "lucy letby" "nurse": 457,000 (4 times as many). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GOOGLEHITS is a terrible argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and this comparison is not only particularly poorly constructed (treats all hits as equal, includes hits dated before her conviction, neglects synonyms and paraphrases), it's irrelevant. Both options A and B use the term "serial". NebY (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google hits are not meant as an argument for either version, especially as neither version removes mention of being a serial killer. The google analysis was particularly meant to be in response to We cannot ignore the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. The point being that there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of sources (even including primary sources) describe her thus. The majority of reliable sources do not describe her thus (but Neby's point is correct - if this analysis were to be useful it needs a lot more work). The question, though, is how the secondary sources describe her, and how an encyclopaedia with a commitment to neutrality should describe her. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Reliable sources. This is why GOOGLEHITS is terrible, because you're also getting blogs & random other posts mixed in, so counting numbers is completely irrelevant. Analyze the sources used in the article & suggest more reliable sources if you think there's a disparity, don't just throw numbers on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and again, my point was simply to say we have no evidence to support the statement that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. And again, and despite what ban evading user and sockpuppet User:MeltingDistrict has been placing on multiple Canvassed user's talk pages, there is no suggestion here of removing that she was a serial killer from the lead. It is right there, wikilinked from serial murder. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy The horse is dead please step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    my point was simply to say we have no evidence to support the statement
    Then you're not listening, because we have plenty.
    Nemov is right, this is pointless. You've made up your mind regardless, so we're not going to get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see this digression as being about option A or B. Rather it is about the statement that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. You say Then you're not listening, because we have plenty. but that appears to be answering something else. There are, as we all agree, plenty of primary sources and certainly some secondary sources that call her a serial killer. What we have no evidence for is the quantified claim: the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that describe her as a serial killer. How have we ascertained and quantified this majority? How many sources do and how many don't describe her thus?
    That said, it is, as I say, a digression. I would not oppose hatting everything from (and including) my comment "one last point", where I inadvertently steered the conversation down a blind alley. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clicking through these examples, I find many headlines and articles that lead with Letby being a nurse and continue by describing her as either convicted of killing/murder or as a killer/murderer; I hadn't tried to reach a balanced opinion on this RFC but the examples above make me lean towards B: begin with her being a nurse. NebY (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NebY I found 3 recent articles in my comment that just called her a serial killer. Nemov (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, there are two differences between A and B; whether to begin with nurse or with killer/murderer, and whether to describe her as convicted of murder or merely as a killer. I was considering the first difference, looking at how Isaidnoway's quotations contrasted with their sources. NebY (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why is there a comma after "neonatal nurse" in B but not in A? It seems that the relative clause starting with "convicted of" is restricting the noun phrase "neonatal nurse", so no comma is needed. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'll edit it out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - third option NebY You say: I wish there had been an option C on the lines of
    Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016.     The RfC is new and has weeks to run. I would be happy for you to paste in your option C and to see if that changes any of the existing !votes, or gains a better consensus. Personally I would prefer "convicted of murdering" over "murdered" for reasons I have stated above, but that is up to you. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear it would get messy if people started adding options. An RFC can develop into successfully workshopping opening text but that's unusual and conditions may not be right here. NebY (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NebY After this RFC of I'd like to discuss a version of the alternative I've presented. Nemov (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish. I'll park my response until then. NebY (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Crystal and the issue - In the survey a comment refers to WP:CRYSTAL and a reply there agrees (a reminder - please put replies in the discussion, not the survey). This may be the nub of disagreement here. A sockpuppet has been heavily canvassing people to this RfC (e.g., [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]), claiming that option B is trying to assert that Letby is not a serial killer and that this is an attempt to expunge that from the article. Neither sentence removes mention of serial killing, but the point of sentence B is that it seeks to eliminate any need to predict the future, whereas sentence A, to my mind, either predicts that ongoing appeals will fail, or simply seeks to know something for a fact that cannot be established as absolute fact. WP:CRYSTAL states Wikipedia does not predict the future. The facts on the ground right now are that a court of law and a jury have found Letby guilty of serial murders. The appeals process is not over, but on pure numbers, anyone betting on Letby being shown to have not comitted the murders would need excellent odds to offset the likelihood they will lose all their money. But we know that in a very similar case to this, a nurse, Lucia de Berk, was shown to be innocent years after her conviction, and that the statistical evidence presented at trial was flawed, and that she had no opportunity to carry out the murders (which, in any case, were not murders). De Berk was never a murderer. It is not correct that she was a murderer until she was proven not to be. It simply was never true. She was, however, convicted of murder. It was many years before she was shown to be innicent. Sally Clark would be another famous case were statistical evidence was flawed and someone spent years in prison for a murder that never happened. Will that happen in Letby's case? Probably not. Such cases are rare. But they are possible. It would certainly be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that we should treat Letby as innocent or report the article in that manner. But it is also predicting the future to write the article in such a way that we assume she is a murderer, when she has not confessed, where there is not unidisputed evidence that murders even took place, and where the appeal on these matters remains pending. That is, option A is the option that violates WP:CRYSTAL.
And sources matter too, but there is a source discussion above. For the most part, secondary sources are more careful in their wording. Wikipedia is an encycloaedia, not a news service. It is a tertiary source, not a primary source. We should not be reporting in the same way as a news report or television documentary (and this is a problem throughout the page and not just in that sentence). I would particularly ask those who were brought here by messages on their talk pages by a sockpuppet to consider whether the misrepresentation of the issue by the sockpuppet may have swayed your view, and thus to reconsider in the light of what I say here. If not, well we can disagree, and that is fine. But please bear in mind that my intention in bringing this matter to RFC is to make the article more neutral, not less, and to avoid predicting the future, without any loss of meaning. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A doesn't predict the future. She's a convicted serial killer. Those are facts. She is notable for being a serial killer. Your examples of convictions being overturned are just more irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF. If this conviction is overturned then the article will be changed. I wasn't brought here by any sockpuppet. It was the RFC notice. Frankly I believe this RFC should be closed or withdrawn because consensus for B isn't happening. Nemov (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the text of either option intrinsically violates WP:CRYSTAL but that some of the arguments being made by a few of the supporters of option B seem to be advocating for B on the basis that they think that it does, and that they wish to introduce ambiguity into the article in order to leave the door open for idle speculations of the spherical kind. That is not appropriate and speaks against option B, even if that was not the original intention of option B. Turning to specific arguments above, I don't think that confession makes any difference either way. Innocent people have frequently confessed to crimes (commonly but not always in coercive situations) and the guilty very often fail to acknowledge their guilt. As for the sockpuppetry/canvassing, is there any reason to believe that they have successfully influenced !voting here? Over on the ANI thread there was a comment that this "would benefit from uninvolved eyes on it" and that is what brought me here. I suspect that this had more effect in bringing people here than the hamfisted attempts at canvassing. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On the ANI thread, the summary given by another editor matched the summary placed on that user's talk page by the sockpuppet, but not the summary of the argument here. Inasmuch as that summary placed on the ANI thread was therefore influenced by the sockpuppet, there is an argument that it was the sockpuppet's argument, amplified by the reputation of the one who repeated it, that influenced those who came here from the ANI thread. On the other hand, experienced editors may well have come to a determination despite the machinations of the sockpuppet, so I am certainly not suggesting you were influenced by that. If you saw the source analysis above and simply came to a different view, then that is exactly what an RfC discussion is for. As to what some people want to do with options A or B, I take your point about B, but you might want to consider that the sockpuppet's stated purpose in pushing A is also about making something more out of it than any good faith editor is intending.[25]
To Nemov: OTHERSTUFF is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (don't delete my article, we have other stuff like it). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:OTHERCONTENT which is mentioned. Nemov (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which says The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page which is not the point of mentioning De Berk and Clark. The point is not the content of the pages, but the fact that we know that criminal cases built on statistical arguments have led to miscarriages of justice. A fact recognised by the Royal Statistical Society, who published a report, Healthcare serial killer or coincidence? Statistical issues in investigation of medical misconduct [26]. Also pertinent is that one of that report's authors as well as a KC have questioned the use of statistical evidence in this case, claiming the report's recommendations were not followed. Although this is the wrong place to rehearse the arguments concerned, and certainly the wrong place to express any advocacy, it is nevertheless the case that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, should carefully and neutrally report facts and avoid interpretations. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, your point is irrelevant to this article. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The appeals process is not over, but on pure numbers, anyone betting on Letby being shown to have not comitted the murders would need excellent odds to offset the likelihood they will lose all their money. But we know that in a very similar case to this..."
But you give yourself away here, you want the language to reflect a possible future outcome rather than the current reality. The appeals process is not over, in fact there is no indication that it will ever actually begin. The current legal state defines her as a serial killer, and that is what makes her notable. In any case, Lucia de Berk is not referred to as a former nurse, but as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. These individuals are notable for the outcomes of their trials HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Congratulations for making it to this discussion on your very first edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome, though it feels rather close to an ad hominem in violation of WP:BITE, since you haven't addressed the content of my comment. And while I have much to learn about Wikipedia, I do have a thorough knowledge of this topic, so what better way to begin helping on this platform when I find an active conversation I can contribute value to?
WP:CRYSTAL says that future events should be included only if the event is notable *and almost certain to take place.* We have no indication that Letby's application to appeal will be granted which is far from the standard required.
Your argument here "But it is also predicting the future to write the article in such a way that we assume she is a murderer, when she has not confessed, where there is not unidisputed evidence that murders even took place, and where the appeal on these matters remains pending. That is, option A is the option that violates" does go into WP:CRYSTAL territoy by opining, without supporting, that there are expected events almost certain to take place. She has applied for permission to appeal, that appeal on the odds is likely to be denied (refer here to Ben Geen's multiple rejected applications to appeal, including three directly to the CCRC) and so treating her appeal as pending an overall change in her verdicts is beyond premature. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Serial killer vs. murderer

Thanks BilledMammal for closing the discussion. There was some talk of rewording the lead sentence after this RFC was closed. I do have one suggestion if there's consensus to do so and that's to replace Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016. with Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others while working as neonatal nurse between June 2015 and June 2016. Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe her as a serial killer so that should be mentioned in the lead. Her being a nurse is secondary. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be OK to just implement. My only comment is that the dates might be better moved to the middle i.e. Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016 while working as neonatal nurse. Either way, I don't think this is a significant enough change that it would require another RfC. Maybe just give whichever version you prefer a go and see if anybody objects? DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with your proposed wording (Option D) is it runs against some of the arguments presented against A; it de-emphasis, although to a lesser degree, the relationship between her role as a nurse and the murders she committed, and it re-introduces the redundancy that some editors were concerned about.
That, combined with the lack of consensus to explicitly include "serial killer" I find it is less supported than Option C, though I don't see it as clearly against the RfC consensus; I suggest that editors discuss it informally here, and if there is clear agreement that D is more suitable than C then switch to it; otherwise, remain with C. If you're not certain whether there is clear agreement, please ping me again and I'll be happy to assess in the context of the RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although some people stated in the RfC that "reliable sources overwhelmingly describe her as a serial killer," I do not see that in the source analysis which showed that secondary sources very often did not call her a serial killer, and assertions that the sources overwhelmingly described her this way were not evidenced. So no, let's stick with C. Thanks to BilledMammal for your work in closing this RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to religitate the RFC, but reliable sources most definitely describe her[27] as[28] a[29] serial killer[30]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is uncontroversial. What was not evidenced was "overwhelmingly". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any google search reveals she is habitually referred to as a serial killer in the RS. Here's searches for "Lucy Letby" on the BBC and Guardian websites.[31][32]. I've only spotted one article where she isn't described as a serial killer. But I agree it's a shame this wasn't gone into more detail in the RfC. I think not naming her in the opening as a serial killer when the RS do so overwhelmingly is, in my view, a significant NPOV problem. DeCausa (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment, at the start of the discussion, looked at that. Secondary sources do not overwhelmingly refer to her as a serial killer, and looking how she is described in all sources shows her called a serial killer often, but also child killer, baby killer/murderer, convicted of murdering/killing etc., and the one description that really is overwhelming used is "nurse/former nurse". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nurse/former nurse" is a red herring in the sense that the issue is how to capture her criminality which is why she has notoriety. I don't understand your point about your first comment in the discussion. I don't see where that is addressed. RS not describing her as a serial killer is a rarity. I gave the searches of the BBC and Guardian websites as an example. It's not that they have used the term "serial killer" that is significant. It's that every time they run an article about her to date (unaffected by appeals etc) as a matter of course that's what they call her. To my mind (others may differ), those two sources are gold standard UK RS and notably non-sensationalist. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question was how to open the article. The article has thousands of words capturing her criminality, but on the question of whether she is notable for being a serial killer or whether she is notable a a nurse who killed babies, that is a greyer issue. Newspaper accounts are primary sources. In my comment of 11:12 22 December I looked at what secondary sources were saying, and how they introduced the subject. I also took a look at how primary sources introduced the subject, which, of course, is not the same as saying it has "serial killer" somewhere in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. This is how the last 6 articles (since September) published by the BBC on Lucy Letby are introduced:
The other RS I have looked at take a similar approach. As matter of course, RS predominantly introduce her as a serial killer when writing about her. It's a serious WP:NPOV failure for us not to reflect that. DeCausa (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. We should be following secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that you claim that BMJ and the Lancet are the secondary sources that we should restrict ourselves to. I think that's very dubious. On the specific question of whether Letby should be described as a "serial killer" I don't see that they are any less primary than news reporting. Additionally, when the BBC or the Guardian are reporting on subsequent events in the case it's equally questionable whether they remain primary in relation to the "serial killer" descriptor. Ultimately, it's a highly novel and impracticable position in WP to say that high quality news coverage such as the BBC or the Guardian should not be reflected in articles covering recent events. The question. of secondary v primary is only going to truly arise when genuine academic articles discussing the criminology or psychology of what Letby has done are eventually published. we're nowhere near that. The BBC and the Guardian et al is what we should be following in the meantime. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy and @DeCausa this is getting a bit off topic and isn't central to the discussion about phrasing moving forward. Sirfurboy, many of the arguments your making here weren't supported in the close so it's best to quit beating the dead horse. Nemov (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a curious comment. The inclusion or not of "serial killer" is what you appear to be discussing with another editor below. The RfC closed with the omission of serial killer. that's what I've been discussing with Sirfurboy. If anything, it would be me that WP:DROPTHESTICK could be directed at. DeCausa (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer, it's the who "secondary sources" argument which you countered very well. Nemov (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal My only comment here is that the status quo version was "serial killer" and the two options in the RFC were "serial killer" and "serial murderer." There certainly was no consensus here to remove "serial" from the lead. Had that been an option would have strongly opposed since that's how she's described over and over in reliable sources. Nemov (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I voted A but am happy with C. The "serial" word is not a big issue for me, when the text makes that perfectly clear (i.e. seven infants). Nigej (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the decision smacks of a Supervote to me. "Option C" was never actually an option proposed, it was I wish there had been an option C on the lines of.

That said, I'm not willing to challenge the close. I just think it was a bad idea for the closer to unilaterally decide on a compromise that wasn't actually part of the RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds I agree with this, especially since in the discussion when option C was first proposed, it was implicitly agreed by participants that the discussion had advanced far enough that new options would only confuse. This influenced my response to the survey as considering that option to be not worth mentioning. It's like we agreed to the rules of engagement but now find that they didn't apply.
I feel like this ruling gives some ground to what appears to be a fairly concerted effort to amplify, beyond its actual real-world proportion, the scope and legitimacy of doubt in a trial verdict that crosses the line into WP:RGW. I hope that future news about her allows us to revisit it, even if now is not the time. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presented the C text to make my reasoning clear; I did not "propose" it and it was my explicit choice not to add it as a formal Option C. I did not draft it out of any desire to amplify whatever doubt there may be about that verdict. I have no interest in that doubt, remain sceptical that it is widely shared (despite Gill's claims) and find myself quite affronted at any intimation that I was participating in any concerted effort to cast or amplify such doubt. NebY (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good close by BilledMammal. It correctly weights the most persuasive policy-based arguments on both sides and reaches a reasonable compromise wording. I didn't comment in the RFC but I support Option C. I don't believe there is any policy that mandates a particular choice between "serial killer", "serial murderer", "killed", or "convicted of killing". The decision therefore comes down to editorial choice about how to write the most effective opening sentence. The redundancy of serial killer... convicted of the murder is avoidable, whereas former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants encapsulates the relationship between her occupation and the murders in a clear and succinct way. That connection is the essence of what makes her notable and is consistent with how the majority of sources introduce Letby. If we're going to wordsmith any further, I would not be opposed working in "under her care" at some point in the sentence, probably after "murdered seven infants", just to make it 100% clear. I don't agree that the outcome concedes ground to those that would like to place more weight on the possibility of a wrongful conviction. As noted in the closing statement, there isn't an issue, NPOV or otherwise, in calling her a "serial killer" or otherwise stating in wikivoice that she has murdered many people. Jfire (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So something like Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British serial killer and former nurse who murdered seven infants while under her care between June 2015 and June 2016. I removed the attempted murders since the crimes are explained in further detail later in the article. Nemov (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former nurse who murdered seven infants under her care between June 2015 and June 2016. The differences from your formulation are a) omit "serial killer" as redundant and per the RFC result, and b) omit "while", which would lead to a nonsensical parse as ((Letby murdered seven infants) (while under her care)), whereas the intended parse is (Letby murdered (seven infants under her care)). I am fine with moving attempted murders out of the opening sentence. Jfire (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid redundancy it could be worded Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former nurse and serial killer of seven infants under her care between June 2015 and June 2016.. Nemov (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to continue this thread, because I think we're at risk of re-litigating the RFC, which was closed with what can be viewed as a compromise: omitting "serial killer" but also omitting "convicted of" – instead stating directly that Letby... murdered. (Note that both the A and B options included "convicted of", while all option C-derived wordings omit it.) That said, I think that adding the conjunction "and" weakens the connection between Letby's occupation and the murders, which I maintain is more essential to her notability than her status as a serial murderer, and that "serial" is still redundant, because it is implied by murdered seven infants... between June 2015 and June 2016 that the murders were serial. Jfire (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be 100% opposed to using the phrase "serial killer" even when I have addressed your concerns about redundancy. I disagree with your argument about notability as the New York Times, The Guardian, and BBC and many other sources refer to her as a serial killer first. We have NPOV issue if "serial killer" is omitted. This isn't a challenge to the close since there is no consensus to remove it from the lead. Nemov (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not making this clear: I'm definitely not opposed to using "serial killer" (or some other variant with the word "serial") elsewhere in the lead. I'm just trying to wordsmith the absolute best possible opening sentence, and support what I perceived as an attempt by the RFC's closer to finesse an acceptable consensus. Jfire (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
preposterous closure that settles on an option that was never on the table. Utterly farcical and needs admin attention.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January, 2023

Can an adjustment be made under the "Career" section to indicate that Lucy Letby was moved "primarily" to day shifts, removing the absolute nature of the phrasing current used? Citation #12 does use language "but when Letby was put onto day shifts," Citation #15shows via the chart that the change was not absolute. Furthermore, after the last event in the indictment, Letby was asked not to come in for a scheduled night shift "On June 27, 2016, Letby messaged a doctor colleague at 5.41pm: "Eirian [Lloyd Powell, neonatal unit manager] has just phoned telling me not to come in tonight & do days instead. I asked if there was a problem & she said No, just trying to protect me a bit & we can have a chat about it tomorrow but now I'm worried."" HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit too WP:SYNTH to me. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referencing that, it was helpful. I agree and retract the request. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt about conviction section needs cleaning up

The "Doubt about conviction" section looks very sloppy and biased. Many independent observers have expressed quite well-reasoned doubts about the verdict, so it is misleading to suggest that the doubts have only been raised by "a small number" of Letby's "friends and former colleagues" and a few "internet sleuths". And to include a high-profile expert like Richard Gill "amongst" these "internet sleuths" makes this section look very amateur and biased. Hopefully, somebody will be able to clean it up. KitePerson (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly OK but I agree that the way it linked Gill and Mackenzie with the "true crime" people was poor. I don't think that was intentional bias, just poor wording. I've split it now.
I think it would be good add a few words to say what Gill and Mackenzie's objections actually are. I don't think it merits more than a sentence though. DanielRigal (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit. I have added in a sentence relating to Gill's concerns. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Letby&oldid=1197806169"