Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You say, 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. Per WP:OTHERCONTENT perhaps? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 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)

"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)

So whether she is still a nurse, or not, is now a matter of subjective opinion. As per WP:NPOV/WP:DUE then, we need to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. I'm not sure how we do that though - do we just count how many sources we can find from each camp, and say x% of the sources we found say she's a former nurse whereas the rest say she's a nurse? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd come at it slightly different. The sources show that neither is wrong - probably reflecting that "being a nurse" can either be an occupation or a qualification status. I think, by consensus, we just pick one to stop what is in effect edit-warring. I think either works but would go for just "nurse" on the basis of brevity. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

According to a search of the register she is currently described as "Not on the register - Interim suspension order". The nmc site explains this means she is no longer allowed to practise. Perhaps alter the wording to specify this current situation such as "suspended nurse", or "nurse who can no longer practice" or such like? Thanks. FotoFree (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspended nurse sounds good IMO.--87.114.4.172 (talk) 19:43, 21 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)

Where are the sources saying an appeal is likely? I can honestly say the chances are higher of either of us winning the lottery than Lucy getting an appeal.--87.114.4.172 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dr Nigel Scawn's response

Should his response be included here? A response from someone at the hospital where the crimes were committed would be good to include IMO. It is included on the Countess of Chester Hospital page. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image could to with a caption

Something along the lines of "Letby's 2020 mugshot" would be good. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 20:14, 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)

I can't find the Wikipedia policy about judging when an event is no longer considered current but I think it would be sensible to remove it when media coverage lessens which isn't necessarily the day after sentencing. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The template is about people piling in to edit this article because it's in the news. The template will be taken away when that stops happening and the article stabilises. So likely that will happen when media coverage lessens - but the media coverage isn't itself really the test. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2023

Change: According to a childhood friend, she was a studious girl who wanted to be nurse responsible for newborns from an early age. To: ...wanted to be *a* nurse responsible for... 86.10.82.210 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is there two links to Manchester Crown Court?

Only one link is necessary. Can the other be removed? 87.114.4.172 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed second link per MOS:LINK. It wasn't originally linked but these things just get changed over time. MIDI (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"It was also revealed during the trial that Letby had to be told more than once not to enter a room where the parents of one of the babies she is accused of murdering were grieving"

This should be changed to "It was also revealed during the trial that Letby had to be told more than once not to enter a room where the parents of one of the babies she murdered were grieving" as Letby was convicted of all the murder charges 87.114.4.172 (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone KnO what Lucy Letby's Childhood upbringing experiences were like Please? ThanQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:2828:1C6C:4E83:5B5B:65C6:5268 (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine it would've been much different to other girls from Hereford. From all accounts her childhood upbringing was completely normal. --87.114.4.172 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

we follow sources, not what an editor imagines ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The government or His Majesty's Government?

The government is referred to as both "the government" and "His Majesty's Government". I think it makes sense to use "the government" on both occasions, especially since Charles III has absolutely no relevance to this article's subject. 87.114.4.172 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

HMG is just a formal title for the government, it has nothing to do with Charles being personally involved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

See alsos

User:DeFacto reinstated Lucia de Berk on see also, despite a link being very tenuous and it's inclusion suggesting that Letby's case could also be a miscarriage of justice. DeFacto says it's 'remarkably similar', despite Berk being innocent, unlike Letby, and it being in a different country unlike almost every other entry. It's inclusion comes off as wedging the topic of miscarriages of justice into a page on someone who's just been proven guilty MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, this is a comparable article. Up until de Berk's retrial the two cases are remarkably similar. De Berk was a paediatric nurse, so is Letby. De Berk was convicted of 7 murders, so was Letby. De Berk was convicted of 3 attempted murders, Letby of 7. De Berk was sentenced to life imprisonment (with no parole allowed), Letby got the equivalent in English law.

What's tenuous about that? It is actually the most similar of all the current 'see alsos'. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Well not in the sense that all the other entries on the list (people) are those convicted of their crimes, like Letby. I think the key phrase you use there is 'up until de Berk's retrial...'. Berk is an innocent woman, Letby is not. There has also been no campaign to free Letby. We can't just have a link based on the fact that the cases both have a number seven in them. MeltingDistrict (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, did you misread the list of similarities, or are you misrepresenting it deliberately?

We don't know how Letby's case is going to pan out. But we do know that as de Berk's case started in almost exactly the same way, it is a clear-cut candidate for the 'see alsos' list. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean 'We don't know how Letby's case is going to pan out'?? She's just been found guilty and convicted to a whole-life tariff, we shouldn't be speculating on any possibility that Letby will end up like Berk. MeltingDistrict (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, I'm not speculating, quite the opposite - I said we don't know. It seems to be you who is speculating what her future might be.

But the future is irrelevant here, as de Berk's first chapter has such an uncanny resemblance to Letby's, it is a textbook candidate for a 'see also', please give your rationale for opposing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Um. How am I speculating by saying she's been found guilty and been given a whole-life tariff? I have given you my rationale, I refer you to my previous answers. MeltingDistrict (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You said the link was tenuous and I described why it wasn't and you suggested the only commonality was the number seven, which is clearly nonsense. Is that it? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this statement really irks me... "Berk is an innocent woman, Letby is not". Berk literally was a guilty woman after she was convicted. She only became "innocent" after the retrial. If you are going to make an argument about the evidence involved, fine, but you can't just say Letby is different because she is "guilty". De Berk being convicted and being "guilty" is literally the defining feature of her case that makes it a miscarriage of justice and not just... a woman who wasn't convicted of a crime. RestaurantMarsupial (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Removed. The list is already far too long by this stage in any case Nordjyllands (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nordjyllands, if you think the list is already too long, why didn't you remove one of the less relevant entries rather than this one which is so similar it is spooky? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is in your apprehension that there are less relevant entries. “Is so similar it is spooky” sounds very POV-pushing. Nordjyllands (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nordjyllands, POV-pushing? Please explain.

Without worrying about the length of the list, which has no upper limit anyway, what do you think stops the de Berk entry from being a good and valuable 'see also' here? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Using the BBC Panorama TV programme as a source

@MeltingDistrict, can you use the appropriate citation template for these please (Template:Cite AV media, I think), and include the time location within the program for each reference to make it easier for readers to verify it. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'll go through the doc and add the timings in MeltingDistrict (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@MeltingDistrict, thank you. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

English/ British

There's some changes appearing in the initial description of the subject. Is there general guidance on British/ English? Thanks S C Cheese (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@S C Cheese, here's a good place to start: WP:UKNATIONALS. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou S C Cheese (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So, it makes perfect sense to refer to her as English, given that she was born in England. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that she self-identified as English rather than as British? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of the reverse? Why refer to her as British when she can be more accurately be referred to as English? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

So we should wait for evidence and discussion/argument before we change the long-standing version.

Perhaps see what the sources say. A crude Google search gives 8,800,00 for "British nurse" and 1,740 for English nurse". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Five days isn't "long-standing". There was no discussion/argument before Asperthrow made the edit referring to the subject as British, and indeed no edit summary either. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still the status quo ante though. Let's wait and see if a consensus develops rather that flip-flopping it per our own personal opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 23 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)

Initial suggestion seems to have been addressed with edits. But shouldn't Chambers be mentioned more and by name and title, given https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/22/lucy-letby-who-ran-the-hospital-she-worked-at-and-where-are-they-now reports "Tony Chambers ordered senior doctors to apologise to Letby for raising concerns she was harming babies in her care." and "work[ed] for several other NHS trusts as interim chief executive, ... until 2 June 2023." He threatened clinicians with consequences if they didn't drop it, per Panorama. RudolfoMD (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate to the lead section?

"Cheshire Constabulary stated after Letby's convictions that they believed she may have claimed more victims, including at Liverpool Women's Hospital, where two babies died when she was training. Although she faced seven murder charges at trial, thirteen babies died in her final year at the Countess of Chester Hospital; Letby was on duty for every one of these deaths. Usually, there were only two or three deaths a year on the neonatal unit."

The bold bit doesn't seem appropriate to the lead section. It's speculative. ? Better in the section at the end about the future? S C Cheese (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Does omitting it from the lead reduce a reader's comprehension of the subject as a whole? No, I don't think so. The non-bold part of what you put is sufficient—i.e. there may be more victims than what she has been convicted of. If I were to suggest something, I'd go for something along the lines of

"Cheshire Constabulary stated after Letby's convictions that they believed she may have claimed more victims at the Countess of Chester Hospital, as well during her training at Liverpool Women's Hospital."

and possibly tag something on the end, if appropriate/accurate, to say that it is still under investigation. Also, I'd reword "claimed more victims" which doesn't give distinction between victims that survived or were killed. Finally, can we WP:V that these are the statements of Cheshire Constab? I see that it's the Panorama doc that is cited, but I'm not in a position to watch it to verify. The article says "Cheshire Police have said that further charges could 'possibly' be brought against Letby [...]" but that's the only thing we appear to attribute to them. MIDI (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's much better now. Thankyou. S C Cheese (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Timeline of cases": inconsistent verb tenses

Inconsistent mixture of past tense and historic present tense. S C Cheese (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Type of inquiry

"The need for a public inquiry was a view echoed by, among others, Sir Robert Buckland, former Secretary of State for Justice, Samantha Dixon, MP for the City of Chester, Steve Brine, chair of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, and Sir Keir Starmer, Leader of the Opposition."

I think that this should be "The need for a statutory inquiry... " S C Cheese (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changed from public to statutory. S C Cheese (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Initial investigation

While I'm here, can someone find a correct reference for this in the trial section, "it was discovered that Letby had falsified patient records, covering her tracks by changing the times some babies collapsed to make sure she could not be placed at the scene". The reference [3] 16:00 is to a section of the panorama program where the presenter talks to a parent and to a friend of Letby. Createangelos (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, it was actually sixteen minutes into the ITV documentary, not Panorama. I'll change it now. MeltingDistrict (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Note this discussion is no longer relevant, but something that is worrying me a little is, some of the suspicion is because Letby did *not* attend to things, seemed to ignore distress (as in the Mom's first approach to Baby E when Letby was involved with a computer terminal), others are because she DID attend to things (numerous reports of her 'hovering over' an incubator). Can it really be suspicious when she *does* stand over one incubator, and then suspicious because she does *not* stand over another? Is the 'overly caring' angle really making sense too, as a source of suspicion? Not that it is relevant what I think, but seems to me that what one has here is the medical evidence of embolisms and insulin from the expert testimony, and the statistical evidence of a cluster. Also, it ought to be irrelevant whether she 'accepts' the medical evidence. That's about her opinions about the expert testimony, or her own level of expertise, not about what she may have done. It needn't be up to her to find an alternative explanation. If there is none, she's guilty, but if she can't find one it just means she's either guilty or un-knowledgeable. Createangelos (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sarrita Adams

Sarrita Adams published two papers in peer reviewed journals and contributed a chapter to a book. They are often cited. Having got her PhD, she then started her own consultancy business. She is a scientist and works as a scientist. She is in the business of helping cure children with rare diseases. She is not in the business of publishing research papers as a tenured academic. The Telegraph is not a very reliable source. What is the relevance of her being based in the US and not being related in any way to the hospital or the families or whatever? Isn’t that something positive?

Regarding the so-called conspiracy theorists: four independent scientists have gathered together statistical and medical material and published it on various internet sites and blogs. Three fundraisers have started up. An appeal is very likely. As you know, there are arguments that the police investigation was biased and the trial unfair. Obviously, these developments are not for Wikipedia right now, but may become relevant. Richard Gill (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed some of the wording in that section to be closer to the sources and appear more impartial. I think care should be taken to make sure the language stays WP:IMPARTIAL, and that section of the article should comply with WP:NPOV too. I don't know whether it does currently, I'd have to look at what sources say about this more Tristario (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The telegraph article does actually dedicate a fair bit of space describing the arguments made by those concerned about how the trial was conducted, and I think WP:NPOV means we should be including some detail on those arguments rather than just including criticism of them. I may do that if someone else doesn't get around to it Tristario (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But as part of NPOV, we need to consider WP:UNDUE. Including the views and arguments of these people, who the Telegraph described as web sleuths and conspiracy theorists (or at least their supporters) seems to me to really bring into question the weight should be giving to such theories, especially considering when one of the two editors above who wants to include them IS Richard Gill, the person who's theories are in question! This brings up all kinds of WP:Conflict of interest issues. Looking at previous discussions on talk, I see there has already been a discussion on the inclusion of Mr Gill's theories: Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 1#a statistician doubts the evidence, which ended with User:DeCausa, rightly in my view, concluding that it would be undue. This seems to me to be especially important considering the provided sourced context of Mr Gill and others: he has already been warned by police about contempt of court with his online activity, there seems to be questions on whether he will be arrested(!), and there have been clear concerns raised as sourced about the true crime content-makers and people playing private detectives like in the Nicola Bulley case here. Furthermore, with the sources stating that the defence specifically rejected using Mr Gill as part of their defence, for me this really seems to throw up all kinds of questions of why we should be including a platform for his views in any case, when the defence themselves didn't want it to be part of their case. Structuralists (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

When it was previously brought up that was from a primary source, this is from a secondary source. And the Telegraph does not describe Richard Gill as either a web sleuth or a conspiracy theorist. Whether he was considered to be in contempt of court or whether the defence didn't want his help doesn't have a bearing on whether this is WP:DUE. Note that this has been covered by other sources such as this one, where the chairman of the Dutch trade union for statisticians said "His analyses of these kinds of things are mathematically always of the highest level."

Note that when writing about living people you need to be very careful to be fair to the people you write about - currently that section is written almost specifically to portray Gill in an unfavorable light, and not include any other details. I don't think that follows the spirit of WP:BLP, and I find that concerning. I'm not suggesting giving any significant amount of weight to what he says - but choosing to only include negative details about him seems to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph article, notably titled How internet sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent, starts off by introducing straight away the main point of the article, that "the conspiracy theories are already circulating" and "They don’t necessarily argue that she is innocent, but rather that there may have been holes in the evidence or issues with how it was presented in court". It then follows: "Statistician Richard Gill, 72, is one of those backing a controversial claim that there are holes in Letby’s case and it should be retried. He doesn’t profess to know for certain that she is innocent, but argues there are issues with the way evidence was presented to the court". I agree that it doesn't state he is a conspiracy theorist, but the implication that he has been supporting some of these theories is clear (otherwise, why would he be talked about in an article about the web sleuths trying to prove her innocent?) and so I don't see anything inherently incorrect about it stating "...supported by some individuals such as retired statistician Richard Gill". Yes that Dutch source might give Gill's views a thought, but it's an interview with him, so it's bound to!

It seems to me that the point of the Telegraph article How internet sleuths are already trying to prove Lucy Letby innocent is less to report about how there are genuine concerns about the verdict, and more so to highlight the perhaps concerning rise in true crime speculation about these sort of cases - "The reaction to the Letby trial has parallels with the modern obsession with true crime. These podcasts and TV series often share a mission to save those who they feel are wrongfully accused – they have won devoted followings of people who are grimly fascinated by these stories, and the lines between entertainment and public interest are blurred". This is in fitting with what the New Statesman reported, that this sort of content should "worry us all" and "The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant". It seems to me that the main point of this coverage is to document the increasing rise of internet theories, especially in the aftermath of the Nicola Bulley case, rather than give them a genuine platform. So it would seem very dubious of us and in my view uncalled for to use them for that purpose.

As such it would seem more appropriate in my view for at least the first paragraph of that section be put in a new section titled something like "Internet theories" or "True crime coverage". In all honesty the amount of coverage in reliable sources questioning her conviction - in comparison to the very large coverage of the case in general - is really very small if not non-existent, so having a section which is 50-50 on whether she is guilty or not would really be uncalled for in my view. So removing the overall apparently undue section about "doubt about conviction" would seem fitting anyway and may well solve this issue of it apparently looking non-neutral by not giving "both sides". Furthermore, this seems especially poignant since Letby apparently hasn't even decided whether she will appeal anyway - Mr Gill himself above states that "these developments are not for Wikipedia right now, but may become relevant".

Also just a minor thing - this is not a WP:BLP of Mr Gill himself. Structuralists (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph does not say that Gill is supporting conspiracy theorists and internet sleuths, or that he is one. That may be your interpretation of that source, however the source does not say that. The source, in fact, doesn't even use the phrase "conspiracy theorists", and it only uses "internet sleuths" in the headline (see WP:HEADLINES, so not reliable). The New Statesman piece has no relevance to this.

WP:BLP is a policy, and it applies everywhere, including talk pages. If you're going to edit about living people, I'd suggest that you read through the policy.

Currently, I think that section constitutes a WP:BLP violation. Either you write about the people in that section fairly, using impartial language, and include the good, bad and neutral things that sources write about them, or alternatively, don't include any information about those people if you don't think you can do that. I think that including a brief description of what Gill and Neil Mackenzie have said, and related information, is fine - it does constitute only a small amount of the coverage of this case, so a brief mention seems appropriate. However, simply removing the information about living people in that section would be an improvement if it makes that section comply with WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out that now at least two of the families of babies have spoken out saying they believe that Lucy is innocent and that colleague nurses are now speaking out saying the same, also Lucy's closest friend has spoken out. These people are not conspiracy theorists. The "theory" that the "gang of four" deliberately targeted Lucy to cover up their own mistakes is supported by one of them actually recently saying "when the RCPCH report came out, we. knew it was her or us which was going to lose their jobs", or words to that effect. Richard Gill (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

“Chairman of the Dutch trade union for statisticians”. There is no trade Union for statisticians. I think you are referring to the president of the Dutch statistical society, which is an influential body representing professional statisticians, including most of those in academia. Richard Gill (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Doubt about conviction

Snugglewasp (talk · contribs) removed section "Doubt about conviction" on grounds of WP:UNDUE. I disagree. The five sources in question are:

• Herald Scotland
• Daily Telegraph
• New Statesman
• Independent
• The Times

I believe the first three are secondary sources, not WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The last two are arguably WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but I think statements that some of her colleagues don't believe her guilt and some do is not WP:UNDUE.

N.B. I suggest that Gill110951 (talk · contribs) doesn't participate in this discussion, since it is partly about whether to mention him on the article page. cagliost (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not interested in whether or not my name turns up on the Lucy Letby article page in the near future, and of course I do not wish to influence you guys on that matter in any way. Right now I’m just one of a big network of nutty conspirators. Some time, if and when Lucy has been exonerated, our story will be part of the big picture! In the meantime Wikipedia editors must do their work following Wikipedia principles. Richard Gill (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Herald article literally describes those doubting the conviction as "a fringe movement of amateur sleuths". What more evidence of WP:FRINGE do you want? Snugglewasp (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a typical journalistic generalisation rather than evidence of anything. It goes on to describe some compelling similarities with other cases where convictions were overturned. As that discussion is covered in several reliable sources I support its inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Herald article describes some of those doubting the conviction as "a fringe movement of amateur sleuths", but goes on to detail the arguments of defence barrister Ben Myers KC and Prof Richard D. Gill (as well as listing his relevant qualifications). Not amateurs. cagliost (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the existence of a campaign to free Letby which has been covered in reliable sources is surely worthy of inclusion, regardless of its arguments? cagliost (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It depends - if there is a consistent, wide and notable amount of neutral coverage about a campaign then yes, it could be mentioned in the article. However, editors should in my view be careful not to cross the line into promotion or allowing undue recognition of these theories. In the previous talk page discussion Talk:Lucy Letby#Sarrita Adams it was concluded that it would be better, on BLP grounds, to not include information about named individuals if it can't be done so neutrally, and so contentious information on Richard Gill and Sarrita Adams was removed. I agree. Especially with Gill, above, saying he is not bothered about having himself discussed on the article anyway.

In terms of the other content, saying that the Herald's description is merely "a typical journalistic generalisation" and so should be dismissed does not seem appropriate. The sentiments on these views being fringe theories is also referred to by The Telegraph, who describe them as being largely conspiracy theories promoted by web sleuths, adding "the Letby case illustrates how often the theories that emerge are on the fringe between campaigning and conspiracy". The existing version of the article as it stands also includes a reference to the New Statesman article which exists to criticise the "rise of social media sleuthing and content creation" and, as stated, says "The Letby case has demonstrated a trend of people believing – despite having zero expertise – that their personal opinions on a stranger’s innocence, guilt or appropriate punishment are relevant". To suggest that we should ignore their very clear conclusions that these are WP:FRINGE theories would be bizarre in the least, we can't just exclude their comments on these being fringe theories because we don't like or agree with their journalistic tone! In any case, the New Statesman, Telegraph and Herald provide views from across the political spectrum, yet all notably are in consensus here that these views are peripheral theories. This gives this conclusion wider credence.

I am also concerned with the OP's listing of the articles of The Times and New Statesman as somehow demonstrating wider coverage of scepticism of Letby's conviction! The Times article literally is on the opposite subject - discussing one person saying she thinks Letby is guilty. The New Statesman mentions people questioning the conviction only briefly (it is not the main subject of the article), and even then mentions it only to criticise them. It seems to me likely that the editor in question, having no access to these paywalled articles, has assumed their wider contents, without actually seeing what they actually say. So that leaves only really three reliable sources from the list which actually discuss people questioning Letby's conviction. Three. I note how WP:UNDUE states "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", and - indeed as other editors have similarly observed - the coverage in these two or three reliable sources questioning Letby's conviction in comparison to the mass of coverage about her guilt shows how much of a minority these views of Letby's innocence really are. The inclusion of an entire devoted section about "doubt about her conviction" therefore seems very, very disproportionate. Snugglewasp (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the remark about “these people having zero expertise” could better apply to all those amateurs who explain Lucy’s psychology under the assumption that she’s guilty. Myself - Richard Gill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Gill), Sarrita Adams (rexvlucyletby2023.com,now relaunched as scienceontrial.com), Peter Elston (Chimpinvestor.com) and Scott McLachlan (Law Realth Tech substack) are all highly qualified professionals. The fact that New Statesman suggests they have ‘zero expertise’ is an interesting example of what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial. Lucy’s defence team is now actively using the material which they have prepared for Lucy’s appeal. Richard Gill (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gill110951: you have already been politely asked not to involve yourself in this particular discussion due to the content involving you and your acute conflict of interest issue. This seems particularly significant giving that you are appear to be disingenuously referring to yourself in the third person to promote your own credentials, and also because of what amounts to WP:SYNTH regarding David Wilson, below. You state that "it is clear to me that he is prepared to accept that she may be innocent" and partly claim that he must feel this way because you read that he wrote about another nurse, but he has unequivocally not stated this and in fact contrastingly spoke to Newsnight about how he believed Letby's motive as a murderer seemed to feature a hero complex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVLx9U6MFXU. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". To say that Wilson is 'also' saying she is innocent is plainly an artificial construction and amounts to WP:SYNTH.

Furthermore, I would observe that your noting of the 'enormous bias' in the media about Letby's guilt actually substantiates the fact that the amount of reliable secondary sources discussing disbelieving of her guilt is a tiny minority - whether you like that overwhelming 'bias' or not. Snugglewasp (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it has been a minority. Whether or not I like that bias is irrelevant. Please do not accuse me of not acting in good faith. I did not say that Wilson is saying she is innocent. I say that I think that he thinks she might be innocent. I have exchanged many emails with him in the past concerning the Ben Geen case and I think I know him a lot better than you do. He equivocally did state that Lucy Letby is an outlier on one of those internet TV shows. Richard Gill (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah that Richard Gill, at it again. I strongly agree that the existence of the section based on three outlier sources is undue, and even more strongly agree that there should not be an undue paragraph within it promoting the credentials of Gill. And if that's going to be there then some of Structuralists previous edits about Gill being in trouble legally and being turned down by the defence team should return for the sake of neutrality: [7]. In fact I agree with Structuralist's point in the Talk:Lucy Letby#Sarrita Adams discussion that giving a platform to a person who the defence didn't even want to be part of their case further demonstrates how undue it would be to bang the drum about him. MeltingDistrict (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Two or three reliable sources, which are generally critical of the theories, are no where near enough to justify the inclusion of an entire section titled "doubt about conviction", even less so a promotional pitch on the credentials of Mr Gill. What's more is that there is currently no consensus for the inclusion of the promotional-tone sounding line on Richard Gill added very recently [8]. Other editors have objected, and there is a talk page discussion ongoing here about its inclusion. The WP:STATUSQUO should be restored while it is being discussed. And as I've drawn attention to previously, experienced editor DeCausa (talk · contribs) already concluded in a previous talk page discussion, rightly in my view, that the inclusion of Gill's theories would be undue. The previous discussion I was involved in, on Sarrita Adams, also concluded with an agreement that it would be better to not include information about the living persons Sarrita Adams and Richard Gill to avoid BLP and neutrality problems. Therefore there is also the possibility here that the re-inclusion of the content is a dictatorial attempt to override previous consensuses, despite no new, wider consensus being reached which would justify the disregarding of previous consensuses and discussions. I request that the line on Gill at least be removed while this discussion is ongoing. Structuralists (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Sarrita Adam's group "Science on Trial" now has a weekly Zoom meeting and more than 1000 members including doctors, nurses, lawyers, scientists. A fringe conspiracy theory group? According to the media which condemned Lucy before a jury did, yet, of course.Richard Gill (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) I put back my addition to the remark by the nurse who said that her mind was changed by the trial. The sentence suggests that she is speaking for her colleagues. But it is easy to check that she isn’t. This is yet another example of the heavy bias caused by the COI of many editors of this page, who themselves are convinced that Lucy is guilty. Richard Gill (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)