Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Very biased article

I happened to come along the present page and find a very biased, non-encyclopedic, article. On the top of this talk page there is an edit request to slightly improve the page. Let me endorse it: Please change "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who murdered seven infants and attempted the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." to "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." That would report the facts. Whether she really did this is denied by herself and doubted by many. Nhart129 (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There was already an 'RFC' on this. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is still very biased. Also, the number of reliable sources that express doubt increases all the time. Sooner or later, preferably sooner, the present text has to become more balanced. Nhart129 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is biased towards what reliable independent sources have said, you need to provide the sources that support your changes, otherwise it is just your personal opinion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Independent (today or yesterday) has a long article "Is Lucy Letby innocent? I’m a miscarriage of justice investigator – and here’s what I think...".

The Guardian, 9 Jul 2024: "Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence. Exclusive: Doubts raised over safety of convictions of nurse found guilty of murdering babies."

The NewYorker, 13 May 2024: "A British Nurse Was Found Guilty of Killing Seven Babies. Did She Do It?"

The Telegraph, 10 Jul 2024: "Former Cabinet ministers concerned by Letby case".

The Telegraph, 11 Jul 2024: "Letby case ‘has echoes’ of wrongly accused Canadian nurse, says expert" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhart129 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Daily Mail, 13 Jul 2024: "What if Lucy Letby is innocent? Her case must be reopened as growing doubts about her conviction are raised by medical experts and criminologists".

National Review, 11 Jul 2024: "The Disturbingly Shaky Conviction of Lucy Letby"

BBC, 4 Jul 2024: "Lucy Letby: Courtroom drama, a failed appeal, and battles over the truth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A471:E077:1:B62E:99FF:FE4C:71C3 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

...

There are many sources that express doubt. Nhart129 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

and the section "Doubts about the conviction" includes many of those sources and more, The Daily Mail cannot be used for anything on Wikipedia though. Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking and ignore my request: change in the first sentence the "who murdered" part into "who was convicted of murdering". WP must have a NPOV, and "who murdered" is not. If you dislike one of the six sources I mentioned, there are more. Nhart129 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For information: the lead sentence was intensively discussed in an RFC in December 2023 to January 2024. (RFCs are one of Wikipedia's formal processes for establishing community consensus, and their outcomes remain in effect indefinitely.) That discussion's now in our talk page archive at Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 3#RFC on Lead sentence. NebY (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet the section takes no content from any of these apart from the New Yorker, while giving half a dozen quotes to various rebuttals. 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:819E:F67F:3D19:FCF3 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We try not to rehash RFC discussions every few months unless there's been a significant change in our RSs. Now that the retrial's over, UK sources would no longer be in contempt of court and are reporting or publishing doubts and challenges; this includes sources that we've already used for other content in this article. At some point we're going to have to consider again whether we should begin with "convicted of ..." (or similar) or keep the current "who murdered". Is there a good reason to wait, for example do we expect a lot more to appear in RSs soon? If not then we might open a new RFC quite soon, though it would probably be useful to briefly workshop some alternative phrasings before opening a new RFC that would fix on one. NebY (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the RFC. I think that the situation today is different. There is serious doubt, expressed in reliable sources. A NPOV cannot choose sides. So "convicted of ..." is really necessary, it is the NPOV. I cannot think of a reason to wait. This is a doubt that is not going to disappear (unless she confesses). Nhart129 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with "Lucy Letby (born 4 January 1990) is a British former neonatal nurse who was convicted of murdering seven infants and attempting the murder of six others between June 2015 and June 2016." BUT Wikipedia works by consensus and until that consensus changes the wording remains as it is. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's attempting the murder of seven now, too. But otherwise that is a good starter for a possible new RfC. The RfC would need that option, and the status quo ante. Anything else? I expect that we could argue that with the completion of the retrial, and the lifting of reporting restrictions, along with the coverage it is getting, that now is a good time to revisit this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

We should accept that there was and might be much support for something close to the last RFC's option A. I think it was and still is essentially a choice between three options - in brief

A: serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted...

B: former nurse who murdered and attempted

C: former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting

Could we offer well-phrased versions of all three? NebY (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I expect we should consider the term serial killer again. But that is almost a second question. We have "convicted" or not and "serial killer" or not. With two variables, we would need four options. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The fourth permutation would be "serial killer and former nurse convicted of murdering". That seems a very unlikely choice but we could include it for completeness. NebY (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that one should be "convicted of the serial murder of..." or "convicted of the serial killing of..." as you are quite right, it seems an unlikely choice otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would make more sense. I'd guess it wouldn't be many editors' preference, but it's coherent and plausible, and completes the set of options. NebY (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONLEVEL, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". The 'wider scale' is that there was an RFC on the wording, and as Theroadislong says, until that consensus changes the wording remains as it is. The feelings of a couple of editors are not sufficient to re-open the RFC, especially when there is no consensus to do so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Um... how exactly would we establish a new CONLEVEL consensus if we said no one could open a new RfC? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

With a wide consensus that an RFC needs to be re-opened or re-started. Otherwise no RFC would ever be conclusive, and would be re-opened by editors who were not satisfied with the initial outcome. The RFC was very comprehensive and involved a large number of editors, the vast majority of whom have not been informed that the RFC may now be re-started and re-opened on the feelings of only a tiny minority of those who were involved in the RFC. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have any rule that a quorum of previous participants is required to open a new RFC. There's a convention or norm (which I think is unwritten - it's not in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC) that we need circumstances to have changed, otherwise editors might call for a procedural close and trouting or worse. It does seem to me that circumstances have changed, with a swathe of fresh coverage in RSs of a sort we did not have before and a marked number of editors calling for the lead sentence to be changed in consequence of that coverage. If a new RFC is opened, I'd ping everyone who participated in the previous one including the closer, and everyone who has since come to this talk page saying the lead sentence should be changed only to be told an RFC has fixed it, and anyone else who has since argued for the current sentence or said that it's been fixed by an RFC. This would perforce exclude IP editors, and I wouldn't ping blocked or banned editors, but would put the standard notification on the talk pages of the projects listed above. I think that would be sufficient and sufficiently neutral without WP:CANVASSING. NebY (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Restarting an RfC outlines how to restart a RFC that has not been closed. "Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed".

There would have to be a consensus that certain news coverage means that "circumstances have changed" enough to warrant a re-doing of the RFC. That is one interpretation, and we should not be getting into a situation whereby we restart an RFC every few months when there's a new Guardian or New Yorker article out. In fact, another interpretation is that Letby's guilt is actually more secure and confirmed now, considering that when the previous RFC was conducted it was before she was subsequently formally judged on two occasions that she had no arguable grounds for an appeal to be held, let alone for it be granted. She was then further convicted of another charge. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we are not the media, and we need to consider other things than just the line of certain newspapers. In legal terms, Letby is even more confirmed guilty than she was last time. Some in the media have written articles questioning the conviction, that is true, but it is debatable that this means that really "circumstances have changed" in regards to Letby. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Where do you find that There would have to be a consensus that certain news coverage means that "circumstances have changed" enough to warrant a re-doing of the RFC? That is not my experience and not a claim I remember seeing before, though I've participated in or observed quite a few. RFCs are sometimes procedurally closed if there is consensus that they're superfluous or vexatious, but we don't have to establish prior consensus that an RFC should be opened. NebY (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As you yourself said, there's a convention or norm that we need circumstances to have changed before re-opening an RFC. It is that question of whether circumstances have changed which is the point here. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper outlines that Wikipedia is not a journal of current news. Yes, there has been some news coverage which has expressed doubt of her conviction, but on the other hand, in legal terms her convictions are actually more secure now than they were last time considering her appeals hadn't been comprehensively rejected then yet. A further conviction has also been added on top of that. There has also been a fair amount of news coverage recently which has been equally sceptical of those questioning her guilt: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As you yourself said, I hope that future news about her allows us to revisit it, even if now is not the time.[9] Now you've presented evidence that this is the time. Remember, this would be an RFC that offers again the option you supported, "... serial killer and former neonatal nurse ...". NebY (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of what I said. I said that I hoped future news would demonstrate the need to not amplify the scope and legitimacy of doubt in a trial verdict with the opening wording. Sadly, I agree that the said 'future news' has not proved clearly that this is the time to replace it with 'serial killer', however, the 'news' has also not proved that it is the time to change it to be even less confirmatory of her guilt either. You set the criteria of circumstances needing to have changed to re-open an RFC. And my view is that they have not changed sufficiently to do so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, so noted. NebY (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless we have an RfC about having an RfC. But maybe we should have an RfC as to whether that is an appropriate action first. :)

But this is meta now. HouseplantHobbyist, you are new to Wikipedia, aren't you? We can discuss/explain on your talk page if you like, but the general question is not relevant to this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised about this discussion. First: yes, circumstances have changed significantly. Earlier people in England could not discuss the case without risking "contempt of court". Now the case is closed and people can discuss, and it turns out that reliable sources express doubt about the safety of the conviction. That doubt should be expressed in the WP article, first of all in the lede, with "convicted of", but of course also in the section on Doubts. Right now there is a strange, non-encyplopaedic fragment of text "Some of Letby's friends and former colleagues ...", "believe in her innocence". But the matter is not whether anyone believes in her innocence, but whether the conviction was safe. Many, including a former commisioner at the Criminal Cases Review Commission express doubt. So, also that section has to be rewritten (but I do not have a proposal yet). An RFC is rather superfluous. NPOV forces us to change.Nhart129 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing prevents improvement of the body of the article, and broadly speaking that should be done before changing the lead, which (per the nutshell of WP:LEAD) should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. That would also inform an RFC on the lead sentence, which would be required to change that sentence. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise that relies upon consensus and you cannot set that consensus aside merely on your personal judgment that the text which emerged from an RFC is flawed. NebY (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, no doubt you are more experienced as a Wikipedian. I was just surprised at the terrible quality of the present article. It is protected, perhaps I cannot edit it. Nhart129 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'd forgotten the article protection. There has been a lot of disruption here and elsewhere on Wikipedia over this case. NebY (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is another talk page subject above about that section, where I have made some suggestions for improvements. I’m happy to have a go at rewriting it, but it would be helpful if any other editors have any comments. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is far too partial. Also far too long. So, please go for short and NPOV.

Under doubts: LL herself denies doing anything wrong. There is no concrete proof that she did anything criminal, just circumstantial evidence. That evidence is of statistical, medical, and psychological type. Some statisticians say that the statistical evidence is not incriminating at all. Some medical experts say that the wrong conclusions are drawn from the medical data. Some psychologists say that one cannot draw strong conclusions from her private notes. Altogether this brings many to doubt that there really were any crimes. After several of the deaths the coroner declared a natural death, and these were only considered murder later because LL was nearby. Some of the alleged murders were said to be committed by air injection, visible because of a skin decoloration of the baby, and an old paper from the medical literature was quoted. But the author of said paper says that one cannot draw such conclusions. Some of the alleged murders were said to be committed by insulin injection. But the lab that provided the data stated that their results could be used for medical purposes only, not for legal purposes (because the determination is rather indirect). Another reason to doubt is that there have been other cases of nurses accused of baby murder, sometimes with a very similar case setup. Lucia de Berk was convicted for a number of baby deaths where the evidence was of statistical, medical, and psychological type. In the end it turned out to be thin air, and she was exonerated. Another case is that of Susan Nelles. Nhart129 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is NOT a forum, please present sources for any changes you want to make. Wikipedia has no interest in any of our opinions on this matter. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not so angry. PerSeAnd asks for suggestions and I give some items that one might mention under "Doubts". The article is protected, I am not editing anything. If anyone needs reliable sources for any of these statements I'll be happy to try and provide them. Nhart129 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems I can edit now. Have removed two spurious (and unbalanced) fragments of text from "Doubts". Will try to slowly polish this article, making it shorter and more balanced. Nhart129 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as a consensus has not been reached here for such a change. There may need to be certain edits dine to that section, but the change of that magnitude has not been agreed upon. 'More balanced' is also subjective. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Edits don't need a consensus before they are applied (unless previously reverted, when WP:ONUS applies). Bold edits are encouraged. What was the actual reason for taking these out, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I have just reverted and so, as you say, ONUS now applies. I reverted it for concerns over it's balance. As previously said, WP:IMPARTIAL states that "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Whether we agree or not with the views is irrelevant, we must give the views of those whatever opinions they have. There would be a bias if only the views of Letby campaigners are included, with no right of reply for others. Removing, therefore, the direct response from Dewi Evans, sourced to a perfectly reliable source in the BBC, is not appropriate. That response from him was given due prominence by the BBC. This is particularly concerning considering that Theroadislong already had to warn Nhart129 above not to use this page as a forum for expressing their own evidently pro-Letby views on the matter. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

So what ONUS says is:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

In this edit [10] inclusion is already disputed above - it is just no one removed it yet. There were two edits, and the other added or changed content, but this edit was a removal of disputed content. You reverted both. Per ONUS I'll go ahead and remove it again. My reasoning is this: this is an encyclopaedic article about the subject of Lucy Letby. Dewi Evan's medical opinion at trial is directly relevant to that page subject and should be included. His claims to have received abuse online are not, however, about Letby. They are clearly tangential to the page subject, but they are not directly relevant. Likewise I do not think that speculation about why people might harbour doubt about her conviction is directly relevant to the page. It is relevant that some do, and the linked sources will link to the opinion pieces that discuss the phenomenon. But speculation by individuals, without any empirical evidence or study, would be undue. The removal was, in my opinion, a good edit.

Nhart129, could you fill in the edit summary field when making edits on the page. It will tell other editors what you intend or your reasoning for the edit, which in this case might have avoided the reversion of your edit. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In which case, I will also remove content which I dispute the inclusion of, per ONUS.

1) The lead section which gives undue prominence to the fact that she pled not guilty and told a disciplinary council she is innocent. The trial found her guilty and her appeals were rejected, so why is such undue prominence given to her views? Her claims of innocence can be included in the body, they should not be given such prominence in the lead.

2) The first paragraph of the 'doubts about conviction' section. This has been extensively edited in previous months to be progressively worded to be more favourable to Letby. Phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed, despite these phrases being the exact words used by the sources. This is an apparent violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources".

Per ONUS, this material should also not be re-added without consensus. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:POINT? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No, removing disputed content is not disruption. Unless you're saying that your own removal of content, in the middle of our own dispute about ONUS, is also disruptive behaviour and an attempt to make a point? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't dispute the content, you dispute a couple of words in it and yet you removed the whole paragraph and sources. That is WP:POINTy, as is immediately removing information elsewhere in the article to make a point about ONUS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? You don't get to tell me what I do or don't think. I dispute the content, now this talk page is the place to discuss. Stop edit warring. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed

Your rationale for removing a paragraph with multiple references, and expunging all mention of Richard Gill is because someone replaced "a small number" with "some". Haven't we been here before? How did it end for you last time? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Perhaps we can try and discuss this calmly and in a conciliatory manner? Let us look at the wider picture here as I think we are maybe both guilty of getting a bit heated here. An overview:

This started when I reverted [11] a new editor's large changes and additions to a controversial article, Lucy Letby, in the middle of an ongoing talk page discussion where no consensus had yet been reached and the user had themselves been warned by User:Theroadislong to stop using the page as a forum to promote apparently pro-Letby views: Talk:Lucy Letby#Very biased article. I gave my reasonings in my edit summary and then clarified further on the talk page: [12]. Because I had mentioned the policy of WP:ONUS as explaining why the content should not be re-added, Sirfurboy then did an edit that seems a bit WP:POINTy and invoked ONUS to do his own removal of content: [13]. Bare in mind this is all while the talk page discussion is still ongoing.

Sirfurboy then reverted me when I then removed content myself which I disputed, citing WP:POINT: [14]. I reverted, reminding him that there was an ongoing talk page discussion going on on ONUS, and asked him to stop edit warring: [[15]. His response? To go onto my talk page and warn me for edit warring: [16]. Sirfurboy has therefore twice used policies which I invoked or mentioned to immediately make the case for his own new edit, which seems itself a bit WP:POINTy. In fairness I have been accused of doing this as well. I wasn't actually trying to make a WP:POINT considering we were already discussing ONUS problems with the article, but I accept if editors deem my edit here incorrect.

My own view is that we are both guilty of being a bit WP:POINTy and need to calm down a bit. Could I get some guidance from other editor's here? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, a procedural point: I did not "expunge all mention of Richard Gill". The Richard Gill mention is still there untouched. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to summarise the history, it is right there in the paragraphs above (with some context you omitted). If you want to discuss in a conciliatory matter, you will self revert your reverted in POINTy edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The conciliatory thing to do would be to revert to before any edit which could be considered POINTy, which would include mine but also your tact use of a discussion about ONUS to simultaneously remove your own choice of content on ONUS grounds: [17]. Should you self-revert this, then I will return the favour my self-reverting my edit. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that you have displayed bias, in both comment and behaviour, in this article and talk page.

Firstly, I suggested several improvements to this section that were broadly in line with Nhart129’s edits five days ago. None, yourself included, provided any feedback, other than Nhart129. We both agreed that there was issue with that section, and I attempted to reach consensus on the talk page. My intention was to make similar edits to those made over the coming weekend should I continue to receive no replies. I do not know why you could not raise your concerns in the talk page over this past week yet be available to revert edits within minutes, but it is certainly factually false that there was no attempt to initiate a discussion.

Secondly, I note certain language used. You refer to those harbouring doubts as “truthers”; an exclusively pejorative term that is usually applied to the most extreme of conspiracy theorists. This term is in pronounced discordance with the facts currently reportable, several reputable journalists quoting many field area experts.

Thirdly, having read through the previous edits, I note that you have added several somewhat tendentious rebuttals to the section on the doubts that are clearly not consensus view, and it is largely at your hand that those rebuttals now compromise more space than that given to explaining the actual doubts. I note also that you had a reverted edit on whether Aviv “reported” or “alleged” which you later snuck through as “pointed to” as part of a larger edit, with no attempt to reach consensus with the concerned editor. PerSeAnd (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? An WP:ADHOMINEM attack directed at me as an editor, is that? Wikipedia:No personal attacks says you must comment on content, not on the contributor. You don't get to list off all your accusations of 'bias' against another editor and why you don't like them. In any case you are not correct on a number of grounds:

Firstly, I gave my views on the suggested changes to the article Nhart129 and subsequently you wanted. That was here on this very talk page: [18]. I didn't need to repeat my position over and over again when it was there for all to see. You sought out approval for your idea, but the discussion did not award you a consensus to make such edits.

Secondly, the phrase "truthers" has in fact been used in sources by commentators, such as here [19] and here [20]. I have never included content in the article itself using the word "truthers". So you've just been rather WP:ADHOMINEM over my 'language' I used in a talk page discussion.

Thirdly, WP:DUE outlines that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". WP:BALANCE also outlines "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". So we need to give a balanced overview of the views on all sides of the debate, including those who counter the doubters of Letby's conviction. That is especially the case given that, while Letby doubters have been given recent prominence in the news, counter-doubters have also been given due prominence in sources as well: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. The BBC in particular is not a source that should be disregarded as some sort of trivial contribution, especially considering Dewi Evans' response was even given airtime on BBC Radio 4: [34]. To achieve balance, we need to describe the opposing views clearly, but also from a disinterested viewpoint. WP:IMPARTIAL says "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view". Using words such as "reported" rather seems to be presenting Aviv's opinions as fact, whereas using phrases such as "pointed to" outlines neutrally that she is using that as part of her argument.

On the subject of 'bias', what I would say constitutes bias is if we ignore WP:BALANCE and refuse to include the counter-argument of Dewi Evans that was given due prominence in the BBC, simply because editors think his views are 'not relevant' to the section. That leaves a bizarre situation where the attacks levelled on him by Aviv are considered relevant to the section but somehow his very public response to this is not because it's "irrelevant". That is quite clearly not proper WP:BALANCE, and as such if Dewi Evans' response is censored on the grounds of "irrelevance", the only proportionate thing to do would be to correspondingly remove Aviv's attacks on him from the section as well. I don't believe that this would be good for the article or is what editors want, and I think what instead is in the article's interest is a neutral and dispassionate overview of the views on both sides. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Stating that you are displaying bias in your approach to this article is not ad hominem, I’m truly sorry if you have taken offence as I had no intention to cause it. I rather hoped that you would take the time to reflect on what I had to say.

Lucy Letby has been found guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable, the vast majority of the article quite rightly sets out how that came to be about. However, there are a growing number of subject matter experts raising concerns about aspects of the evidence presented in court in sources that are generally considered reputable. This small subsection should be dedicated, in the main, to setting out those concerns.

I do not believe that the long paragraph we had about Dr Evans being attacked on social media is relevant to “doubts about the conviction”, nor do I believe that the opinion pieces you have linked, many of which are red tops, are particularly relevant. The vast majority of these are simply the opinion of the journalist and offer no specific nor expert rebuttals.

I would be satisfied with a paragraph summarising that other commentators consider the convictions safe, that the prosecution expert witness stands by his evidence, and offering any specific rebuttals to the points raised should any exist.

You clearly have some insight and knowledge about this case, somewhat more than myself, therefore much that you can contribute. This talk page would be more constructive for all of us if instead of invoking policy and raising your concerns through edit warring you engaged more directly in the content of our concerns. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Making points about how you think an editor is biased is commenting on the contributor, not on content, the direct opposite of how an editor is meant to conduct themselves. The response of Dewi Evans to the trolls that attack him due to the doubt about Letby's conviction that has been publicly raised and the specific criticisms labelled at him by those such as Aviv is entirely related to the the 'doubts about conviction' section. Why do you think he was giving an interview about attacks on him in the first place? It was to respond to those who have doubted her conviction and question the safety of his role in the conviction. It's about including his direct response to those who've been attacking him online and those such as Aviv, on the specific subject of doubts about her conviction. It's not about, as you imply, just including him moaning about some tangential social media topic that's nothing to do with doubts about her conviction.

In response to "I believe that the opinion pieces you have linked, many of which are red tops, are particularly relevant... offer no specific nor expert rebuttals". Well, no. The only source there which could be described as a "red top" newspaper is the Daily Mirror. And please note that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources outlines that the Mirror is not considered to be the same level of unreliability such as The Sun or the Daily Mail. David Wilson is an expert. In fact, as a criminologist he is an expert on, well, crime. Dewi Evans is also an expert on this case as, well, he was the lead expert witness, and regardless of those who are unhappy with him the court accepted the veracity of his evidence and upheld this on appeal when it was questioned. Judith Moritz was also the BBC's lead reporter on the Letby trial, very much an expert on the conviction of Letby. Dr Jessica Taylor is a psychologist, so she's entitled to give her views on the psychological reasons some have chosen to support Letby.

Rachel Aviv's article is itself an opinion piece, I don't know if you have realised. She's not an all-knowing deity. Her views can and should be mentioned, but not the point where only hers are mentioned and anyone who responds to her criticisms or offers a conflicting view are barred from being mentioned. There is such thing as WP:BALANCE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What is ad hominem, of course, is saying of another editor: ... and the user had themselves been warned by Theroadislong to stop using the page as a forum when that was irrelevant to an edit that removed a passage you added but 3 editors had criticised. In particular, I would remind you that we give genuine new users more latitude per WP:BITE, as they are less aware of the rules and policies we have here. And, of course, you did use the word "truthers" [35] so PerSeAnd has a point. As for your removal of all mention from the lead summary that Letby herself pled not guilty and maintained that stance at retrial, that was clearly a POINTy edit because you did it in retaliation for the removal of the Dewi Evans additional opinion, even though removal of that paragraph actually has a very clear nascent consensus of 3:1. It is POINTy because you wrote In which case, I will also remove content which I dispute the inclusion of, per ONUS and then went ahead and removed that from the lead. Yet it is in the article, and the lead summarises the article. You merely damaged the lead, which is disruptive. You then (above) tried to negotiate the restoration of that to the lead if I would restore your Dewi Evans paragraph.[36] Again demonstrating that the removal was POINTy. This is disruptive editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not suggest that I think you are biased or have any reason to be. I pointed out that your edits and talk page discussion display bias on the subject. That is a comment on your content and not on you, it is not ad hominem. We are all susceptible to bias, if it were pointed out to me I would take some time to reflect. But if you won’t do that, you would do best to accept that my intention was good faith and move past this point.

I will request that you moderate the tone of your replies to me. Please avoid using terms like “Well, no.” in response to the points I raise, or condescending remarks such as “…I don’t know if you have realised.” If you can’t do that then I do not think we can have a serious discussion on the content of this article.

The links you provided include two articles in The Mirror, which is a red top, one article in a student paper directly quoting one of the Mirror’s articles, and one article in a local newspaper with the headline Inside creepy Lucy Letby fan group for 'perverts obsessed with baby killer'. Not technically a red top, but the same level of journalism I would expect from one. That’s almost a quarter of the sources you have asked me to look at, and a handful are from the verdict last summer so are not topical to the current zeitgeist.

Rachel Aviv’s piece was not simply stating her opinion, it directly quoted the opinion of experts she had spoken to. It was an investigative piece, not an op-ed. David Wilson is an expert, I agree, but that article is an opinion piece, and it is from last summer so does not mention any of the recent points raised. Judith Moritz is not an expert; her reporting has been given due weight in the parts of the article where it is relevant.

I do not imply anything about Dr Evans, I state that him saying he has been attacked on social media is only a tangential point about those expressing doubts. I do not think it is worth mentioning in this section, but it certainly did not require the amount of space dedicated to it. By the way, I listened to the radio show you linked, and he does not point to any specific attacks even when asked directly by the host. PerSeAnd (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• User:Sirfurboy, consensus is not achieved by the number of editors on either side. Wikipedia:Consensus outlines that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments, not by a simple counted majority". So whether there was a 3-1 split is irrelevant (and in any case it would be better described as 3-2 considering User:Theroadislong was involved and stated his own scepticism of Nhart129's suggested edits, saying: "The article is biased towards what reliable independent sources have said, you need to provide the sources that support your changes, otherwise it is just your personal opinion", "and the section "Doubts about the conviction" includes many of those sources and more" and "Wikipedia has no interest in any of our opinions on this matter").

It is not ad hominem to remind editors of the warning an editor had received, which is an objective fact. It is ad hominem to make assumptions and speculate on an editor's intentions. I was not the one who started off making POINTy edits, you did Sirfurboy. I said that ONUS means that content should not now be restored so you used this to remove your own chosen section of content with the brusque phrase "Per ONUS I'll go ahead and remove it again" and "Per talk and per ONUS, removing this disputed content". You were being POINTy in regards to the ONUS policy, using it after I had invoked it to make the case for your own removal of content. My position has always been therefore that I will self-revert the edit I made subsequently which you regard as counter-POINTy but only if you self-revert your own POINTy edit. You declined.

My own view at this point was we were both guilty of being a bit WP:POINTy and need to calm down a bit. So I then suggested to you on talk that we should both calm down a bit and discuss thing in a conciliatory manner, and I tried to ask for other editor's views on the matter: [37]. In the morning, instead of engaging in the discussion you appeared to retaliate by suddenly removing a range of long-standing content in the article that was unfavourable to Letby or of the doubts about her conviction, the topic which had originally been the point of dispute in the first place: [38], [39]. This edit [40] in particular to the introduction section, removing a section about part of the evidence the prosecution used to convict her, seems to be in direct response and retaliatory to when I removed what I thought was the undue prominence given to her claims of innocence in the introduction yesterday. You attempted to re-add the innocence claims to the lead, despite it being subject to an ongoing discussion on talk, calling it an 'update': [41]. I reverted and reminded you that the talk page discussion was ongoing and that was where the matter should now be decided: [42]. Yet you re-added the disputed content again [43], claiming "It is clearly leadworthy that she pleaded innocent". I had to revert you again and ask you to stop edit warring at this point: [44]. Then, you added a neutrality tag, opening no specific talk page discussion despite Template:POV clearly saying: "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies". HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

My own view at this point was we were both guilty of being a bit WP:POINTy. I accept your competence in assessing your own guilt. So please go ahead and self revert your edit to the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I told you, if you revert yours. Yours was the initial offence, so I'm not self-reverting anything if you refuse to self-revert yours. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now reverted this edit to the status quo. You have admitted the edit was WP:POINTy, although I don’t accept the tit-for-tat reasoning on Sirfurboy’s edit. PerSeAnd (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree the page should be reverted to the status quo before this all started. So have done so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

“I agree…” although it should be obvious to anyone reading this talk page, I’ll point out that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. PerSeAnd (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:STATUSQUO, it says that an appropriate tag should be added to the section in dispute, so I have done so for the disputed "doubts about conviction" section. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I've re-added the tag at the top as well, considering the wider issues in dispute e.g. the introduction HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• User:PerSeAnd, I've just attempted to neutralise the section a bit by giving more space to the content of the Guardian and Telegraph articles and more quotes from them, while reducing the ones from the counter articles and the space given to them. Is this in the right direction of things? See here: [45] HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Attacks on Dewi Evans

There is a paragraph on attacks on attacks on Dewi Evans in the 'Doubts about Conviction' section. Is it worth following this section with a bit about who is making these attacks? The Guardian article quotes two sources happy to go on record as having reported reported him to the GMC?

″ Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who is part of the government-appointed Ockenden review investigating deaths and harm allegedly caused to dozens of babies in Nottingham University NHS hospital trust, is one of five who the Guardian understands has approached the GMC in relation to evidence given by Evans. She said she took this step having been approached by multiple consultant neonatologists and paediatricians, and specialist neonatal nurses, who flagged up their concerns to her but were frightened to go public.″

″ Roger Norwich, a medico-legal expert with an interest in paediatrics and newborns, has also made complaints to the GMC. He has put in a complaint about Evans, and has also put in a complaint about the second witness, Bohin. He said he thought both had failed to provide balanced, impartial views, instead giving the court “opinions that would not be supported by most doctors”.″

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:AE87:3401:3167:EF7B:A102:C6C4 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that those statements are extracts from partial, attack complaints about an individual to the GMC, which themselves are primary sources as they are essentially just letters these people have sent. This would also raise questions of WP:DUE, since the courts have already ruled on multiple occasions, including at the appeal hearing, that Dewi Evans' evidence did not lack impartiality and that he actually was well-qualified to give an opinion. The courts have also repeatedly ruled that it was right that the jury were the ones who should assess the quality of Evans' evidence. So giving equal or even more space to the contrary views of these random, unconnected people (I note in particular that the article says those two people never actually had access to the full clinical notes) than to the views and rulings of the courts would be an issue. That's especially the case since a fair amount of space is already given to Aviv's criticisms of Evans in that doubts section. It's possible that a more brief, unconnected statement that some experts have complained about Dewi Evans could be included, but if that was the case then balance and neutrality would require that Evans and Bohin's responses to this which are discussed in the same Guardian article (how these complainants didn't have access to the clinical notes like them) would also need to be mentioned. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that putting in the context of these 'attacks' on Evans, would better serve the article.Gumlau (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSEDITORIAL

WP:RSEDITORIAL outlines specifically that opinion pieces "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". The sentence "while alternatively fellow UnHerd writer Sarah Ditum argued that they should not be" does that. The source is not being used to state fact, it is being used, as can properly be done with opinion pieces, to outline one author's opinion. Sarah Ditum is a well-known author and journalist, and WP:RSEDITORIAL does not provide for the exclusion of content sourced to reliable and respected journalists. Her It says "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact". It already does that, and in addition the sentence before outlined that Adam King is specifically a barrister, while Sarah Ditum is a writer. It gives that attribution for who is saying these statements and qualifying them with their form of expertise. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSEDITORIAL also says When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

Is Ditum a specialist and recognised expert in the criminal law process? Does her opinion on this matter carry as much weight as that of King? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ditum is a specialist in reporting on current affairs and on public reaction to news events, being a well-respected and trusted journalist who writes for a number of reliable sources across the political spectrum. And that is exactly what her article focuses on, the public reaction and what she suggests is the 'hysteria' of the 'truthers'. So she is perfectly entitled to be heard on this matter, although it could be that her sentence could be better worded to better clarify what angle she is approaching it from. As well as this, irrespective of whether King is 'more important' than Ditum, that does not mean that her views should be entirely barred from an article, which would be an apparent problem of Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED. What may be more appropriate is to outline the specific backgrounds of the two to attribute what authority these people hold for their views, and perhaps to give more space to quotes and points from King's article. Nevertheless, proper balance would require Ditum's views to also be given a mention. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Her piece is the primary source for her views, but if her views on this case are given due weight in secondary sources, then, there might be a case to include them, otherwise there probably isn't. This isn't a matter of censorship, it's a matter of due weight in secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In which case, that also applies to Adam King as well. Neither can be included. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless he is a specialist and recognised expert in the subject he is discussing, in which case he is likely to be reliable and reflect a significant viewpoint. We need to hear what others think. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, where is this policy that states that opinion pieces by certain experts can be included without them being mentioned in secondary sources, whereas others need to have their views mentioned by other sources? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The guideline we're discussing here describes it as we see above ("The opinions of specialists and recognized experts..."), as does WP:PRIMARY. Expert analysis is acceptable. We need to decide if he is an expert in the field in question. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Both these figures are expert analysts, in different ways. As we have been discussing, WP:RSEDITORIAL does not provide for the total exclusion of certain opinion pieces. What we in fact need to decide is why it would be justifiable to include only King's views, but not give any space whatsoever to the views of another reliable journalistic expert from the exact same source, even if it's less space than King. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I see how King is an expert (barrister commenting on a legal topic -- seems solidly within his area of expertise) but don't see how Ditmun qualifies as one.— Moriwen (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view outlines that neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Editors here seem to be claiming that the accredited journalist and author Sarah Ditum doesn't count as a significant view, even on public reaction to news events and current affairs. To establish whether an author is significant or not, their relative prominence and notability needs to be considered. Wikipedia:Notability outlines what criteria are required for Wikipedia to consider an individual notable, enough to warrant having their own article. Due to her prominence as a journalist for a number of publications, Sarah Ditum has been considered notable by these standards and so has her own article. In this sense her views can, if anything, be viewed as more significant than Adam King, who does not have an article of his own and has nowhere near as big a public profile and prominence as Ditum does.

Wikipedia:DUE also outlines that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". In this particular case, the viewpoints of these two figures have been published by the same source, UnHerd, and given an equal platform by this said organisation virtue of each having had an article published by them. UnHerd exists to provide a platform for prominent and accredited journalistic opinion, and they have given the views of King and Ditum equal space. In this sense alone it would not be neutral, due or proportionate to only include one of UnHerd's contributions to the exclusion of the other. This is especially the case given that WP:NPOV outlines the inportance of describing both sides when a topic is in dispute, stating that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight".

WP:EXCEPTIONAL also outlines that "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". Letby's appeal attempts have been comprehensively and totally rejected by the Court of Appeal on two occasions, with these legal courts ruling that her case should not be heard in full by the Court of Appeal. Therefore, Adam King's claims in light of this that "The convictions should be referred back to the appeal" is rather an exceptional claim. As outlined by WP:EXCEPTIONAL, a red flag that should prompt extra caution is "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources...", and with DeFacto highlighting that this is a primary source, then this is a relevant problem. If his views on this case are given due weight in secondary sources, then, there might be a case to include them, otherwise there probably isn't. This is a matter of due weight in secondary sources. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that seems to speak to the question of whether Ditmun is an expert source, as referred to in WP:RSEDITORIAL.— Moriwen (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:RSEDITORIAL is not the only policy or guideline at play here. The RSEDITORIAL guideline does not trump the policy of WP:NPOV. Secondly, UnHerd provides a platform to a range of expert opinions and writers. Adam King may well be a criminal barrister (although his prominence is very limited and I have been unable to find any independent, secondary source which describes him in any terms as a criminal "expert"). But Sarah Ditum, as a long-established and accredited journalist who has been employed to write for a wide range of journalistic sources and is a feature writer, is certainly expertly qualified to comment on media reaction to news events as she focuses on in her UnHerd article about Letby, hence her topic of her article "Letby Truthers want a good story". She is well-positioned to provide her insight into public reaction to current affairs and media battles over 'truth'.

Rachel Aviv is a staff writer, not a barrister or medical expert. Are you saying that she's not an expert and her observations and opinions on Letby should also be removed because of this? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@HouseplantHobbyist, which part/s of WP:NPV do you think are in danger of being undermined here? Can you cite any reliable sources attesting to Ditum's expertise in this field? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided much detail on that in my answer above. And I don't see why there should be any reliable sources needed to cite Ditum's expertise in this field, when none for Rachel Aviv are apparently required when she has no legal or medical background. Where are the sources that show that King is an expert on the wealth of medical tests and procedures he discusses? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any quotes of the part of NPOV that you think might be trumped. To help us decide if Ditum's remarks and opinions are due, we need to know what her qualifications are wrt legal expertise as that doesn't seem to be a legal professional. Aviv was analysing, and comparing, the facts and the views of experts, and not airing her own opinions as with Ditum's opinion piece. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay I'll just repeat what I said here then and the quotes I used for your convenience: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view outlines that neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Editors here seem to be claiming that the accredited journalist and author Sarah Ditum doesn't count as a significant view, even on public reaction to news events and current affairs. To establish whether an author is significant or not, their relative prominence and notability needs to be considered. Wikipedia:Notability outlines what criteria are required for Wikipedia to consider an individual notable, enough to warrant having their own article. Due to her prominence as a journalist for a number of publications, Sarah Ditum has been considered notable by these standards and so has her own article. In this sense her views can, if anything, be viewed as more significant than Adam King, who does not have an article of his own and has nowhere near as big a public profile and prominence as Ditum does. Wikipedia:DUE also outlines that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". In this particular case, the viewpoints of these two figures have been published by the same source, UnHerd, and given an equal platform by this said organisation virtue of each having had an article published by them. UnHerd exists to provide a platform for prominent and accredited journalistic opinion, and they have given the views of King and Ditum equal space. In this sense alone it would not be neutral, due or proportionate to only include one of UnHerd's contributions to the exclusion of the other. This is especially the case given that WP:NPOV outlines the inportance of describing both sides when a topic is in dispute, stating that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight". And since Aviv's inclusion is under dispute here, I'm going to remove it for the time being until a proper resolution is determined. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Aviv’s article is not under dispute, it is clearly different to the nature of the pieces being discussed here. And it is notable in its own right, it was a relatively major news story in the UK, its publication spoken about in several outlets and discussed in Parliament (something that we later mention). Please do not start another edit war. PerSeAnd (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not starting another edit war. The wider criteria for inclusion of opinion pieces and journalistic commentary essays is under dispute here. WP:ONUS outlines that "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Rachel Aviv is not a legal or medical expert, so if we are going for the idea that the 'experts' need to be legal or medical professionals, then she can't qualify either. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As DeFacto has pointed out, Aviv is analysing other expert opinions, and is reporting on proceedings directly. It is not an opinion piece, there is a clear distinction between that and the disputed articles. And as I have said, it’s publication was notable in its own right, not true of the others. PerSeAnd (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In what ways is Rachel Aviv's 13,000 word essay not an opinion piece? Ditum reports on other expert opinions and debates in her own article. This is just double standards. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Aviv is reporting on what others have to say, and on proceedings. In what is it an opinion piece? I would class it as investigative journalism. That is not to say she doesn’t give her opinion, but it would not be classed as an opinion piece. That is distinct from the two UnHerd pieces, which are almost entirely dedicated to the opinion and interpretation of the authors. Ditum does not report directly on other experts, as far as I can tell she barely mentions in passing what others have said, mostly as small summary of the innocence arguments.

Anyway, you are being disruptive now and have derailed the discussion into something that it was not, you know that no one would agree to the removal of that section, it seems your reasoning is again tit for tat. I think you should revert your edit, so that we can believe you are acting in good faith. PerSeAnd (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Ditum's article is literally an analysis of some of the arguments others have been making about Letby and her coming to her own conclusion on them (hence "Having absorbed as much of the evidence as I can bear to, I’m not one of them"). Yes, Rachel Aviv carried out her own investigative journalism, and her presentation of her findings in a 13,000 essay argument is a presentation of her findings and opinions on the matter. Need I remind you that when she published that article, there had been massive reporting restrictions, and as such much of what she was saying and arguing was being put out there and presented for the first time. She was essentially conducting her own original research. What is disruptive is for you to disregard policy such as WP:BLPRESTORE. This talk page discussion is where we are discussing the wider selection criteria of opinion pieces, as DeFacto said we should when I earlier added a different expert opinion (a former CCRC commissioner) who was sceptical of her guilt: [46]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you are the the one who has disregard WP:BLPRESTORE. I reverted your edit, and you restored it. You are the one that now needs to come with arguments to support that edit. Once again, you ignore the actual reasoning I have given for disagreeing with you. Leaving 3RR warnings on my talk page is not conductive, nor a true reflection of this situation. This is a flagrant and clear attempt to gain the system. PerSeAnd (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not how WP:BLPRESTORE works. I removed content from a BLP that was under discussion, your attempts to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material is the offence outlined by WP:BLPRESTORE. Attempts to restore content are what need a consensus on talk page: "any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies", and WP:ONUS itself clearly outlines that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". I.e., the person who wants in back in, not the person who removed it. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But there is no dispute, you are removing long standing content with no support from other editors as a response to disputed content that you have added being removed. You have no consensus to remove it. PerSeAnd (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that you don't care that I dispute it? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can’t support that dispute with any reasonable arguments, if you refuse to respond in constructive debate to reach a consensus, then yes. PerSeAnd (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It is in your apprehension that I have not made any reasonable arguments. You just saying that doesn't mean it's so. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@HouseplantHobbyist, thanks for the recap. I think you are misunderstanding some of the concepts in NPOV.

The weight given to opinions in opinion pieces is based on their prominence in reliable secondary sources. Are we aware of any secondary sources covering any of Ditum's opinions from that article? It is undue to add them based solely on the primary source in which they are published, UnHerd.

Aviv's article isn't an opinion piece and it isn't a primary source, it is another secondary source analysing the arguments of experts casting doubts on the convictions, and thus adding more weight to those arguments. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are confusing an opinion piece with a primary source. UnHerd is not a primary source, as a primary source would be something that the individual has published individually. Sarah Ditum doesn't own UnHerd. They have their own editorial overview, are their own publishers and they chose to publish Ditum's submission, making it a secondary source. That therefore is the reliable secondary source that gives a platform to her opinions, just like Adam King. Just because they have published that journalist's opinion piece does not make it a primary source. An opinion piece and a primary source are not the same thing.

WP:NPOV clearly outlines that NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". I.e., views that have been significant enough to be published in reliable sources, and so we must fairly represent both the views of King and Ditum, who both have had their opinions published in a reliable source - in this case the same one, UnHerd.

Rachel Aviv's source is an opinion piece, since it is her own POV conclusions on the opinions of a certain hand-selected group of experts who are only of one side of the argument (the pro-Letby side). It's not like a BBC News article where it is just reporting on what's happened. It's not a report, it's a 13,000 word essay. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a second issue with the edit you made and that I reverted that I think it’s worth highlighting for other editors weighing in on this.

removed removed reference to the fact that King is a criminal barrister, whilst adding in the subsequent sentence about Ditun’s article. It completely changed the original editor’s meaning, yet your summary “polish sentence addition” gives the impression that it was a minor improvement to that editor’s contribution.

Given I have raised concerns before that your edits tend to appear biased and non NPOV, and that you have already been warned several times for edit waring on this page, I would not expect you to alter another editor’s words in such a manner without raising discussion first. PerSeAnd (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No no PerSeAnd, hold on. As I've told you before, you must comment on the content, not the contributor: [47]. You should also look at WP:AGF. In light of this your comments on me are frankly outrageous and I invite you to withdraw them. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Wiki:AGF, where the following statements are made:

“However, editors should remember to not disregard patterns of harmful editing, nor should they overlook obvious attempts to deceive, vandalize, or push a biased agenda.”

“In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors.” You could also read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith.

You keep accusing me of ad hominem, but I do comment on your content and not on you. I would challenge anyone to argue that the edit in question was not biased. As I have stated, your edit changed how a reader would interpret the paragraph and was not well described at all in the summary.

The pattern of bias is also well established, three recent talk page discussions directly about your edits and reversions, and another two that heavily involved your edits.

My comment is not withdrawn. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Speculating on my motives for the inclusion or removal of content is still commenting on the contributor, not the content. You are perfectly able to argue in favour or in opposition of certain content without resorting to accusing the editor of "bias" and of engaging in "obvious attempts to deceive, vandalise, or push a biased agenda". This talk page is about what should and should not be included in the article, it is not a place to debate and discuss other editors' alleged POV or their opinions on Lucy Letby. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me when I have speculated about your motives? PerSeAnd (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well in the last 24 hours alone there's:

1. 'I have to assume you are being disingenuous'
2. 'attempting to block edits entirely'
3. 'removed reference to the fact that King is a criminal barrister, whilst adding in the subsequent sentence about Ditun’s article. It completely changed the original editor’s meaning, yet your summary “polish sentence addition” gives the impression that it was a minor improvement to that editor’s contribution' - implying that I'm trying to sneak through an edit and intentionally removing mention of him being a criminal barrister to discredit him, when in fact what I was instead trying to do was note that both he and Ditum are UnHerd writers HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not assume your motive in any of those examples, I merely point out

things that you have said or

done, and why they appear biased. PerSeAnd (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't use the word 'assume' in the sentence "I have to assume you are being disingenuous", then? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I do, “disingenuous” is not not a votive. But you are somewhat correct, what I should have said was “you are being disingenuous” PerSeAnd (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is, you are implying that I am being intentionally sneaky or insincere in my editing. Please could you explain how you think that meets WP:AGF? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, but you *are* editing away from NPOV all the time. One can only assume good faith so long, but when the opposite has been established without any doubt, one is forced to give up this assumption. 2A02:A471:E077:1:B62E:99FF:FE4C:71C3 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Except my edits are only motivated by the desire to ensure that an article about a controversial subject fully adheres to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including NPOV. Removing content as I don't think it adheres to proper NPOV it not 'editing away from NPOV all the time'. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I imply no such thing, I say what I mean and I explain my reasoning. You do not imply good faith on my behalf, yet accuse me several times of not assuming it of you? Why the double standard? PerSeAnd (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Doubts section

I've edited this to deal with some of the problems that have cropped up and tidied up some of the order.

Regardless of what you think about this case, when there are numerous expert voices on record as having doubts, it is highly contentious to not include the majority of those voices and to open up the section on doubts with some weasel words such as 'speculative theories' and 'amateur investigators'. It is frankly embarrassingly slanted and I can see there's been some discussion on this before.

So, I'm proposing this: Let's start this section with some on the record quotes from named institutions and experts quotes in reliable sources who are expressing doubts. We can keep the stuff about LL's friends and 'amateur theories, but let's move it further down the section.

If anyone has a problem with any of this, please add your problems here. Do not simply delete everything just because you don't agree with it. This is NPOV page and has a lot of traffic and adding more reliable links should be a priority.

After editing this by adding quotes from a manner of reliable sources, User:HouseplantHobbyist has reverted all the changes and removed all the new sources that were added. I don't feel this is in good faith and invite other editors to examine this.

My suggestion for the Doubts section are below. Will listen to editors here on this and then add it to the main article after a discussion:

:The evidence convicting Letby was circumstantial in that there was no direct witness of her committing the crimes and neither did she confess guilt. The use of circumstantial statistical analysis by the prosecution has attracted criticism from various experts on statistics. In July 2024, the Royal Statistical Society issued a statement that they were 'aware of concerns raised by some RSS members and the wider statistical community' and welcomed an investigation. One of the key pieces of evidence was a chart that showed Letby had been present for a number of deaths on the neo-natal unit. However the chart omitted deaths that has occurred when Letby had not been present. Professor John O’Quigley, from UCL who was quoted as saying “In my opinion there was nothing out of the ordinary statistically in the spike in deaths, and all the shift chart shows is that when Letby was on duty, Letby was on duty.” :Phil Hammond, writing in Private Eye as 'MD', also drew attention to many problems with the conviction and also questioned statistical errors, for example while deaths on the ward did go down after Letby's removal, this also coincided with the unit itself being downgraded and thus not being allowed to deal with babies needing intensive care. Hammond states 'This alone could account for the reduction in harm'. :Medical experts have questioned the veracity of the prosecution's witness. Dr Svilena Dimitrova, an NHS consultant neonatologist who made an official complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC), was quoted as saying "“the theories proposed in court were not plausible and the prosecution was full of medical inaccuracies. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say Letby was innocent, but I can see no proof of guilt”[136] Gumlau (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in improving this section Gumlau. As you have split it into several subsections , I have placed the topic in its own section. I think that is due, as these articles have become forthright in the UK media. There are a couple of other historic issues with the section that previously I was in favour of removing, but I think perhaps they are better now and more inline with NPOV thanks to your reordering. I will have a read through over the weekend and perhaps make some edits. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Gumlau (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think these changes are much-needed, and a number of editors have been repeatedly saying as much over the last days and weeks. HouseplantHobbyist has been consistently reverting all such changes while citing consensus, which seems dubious to me; the consensus in fact appears to be on the opposite side, with HH standing alone, and it's starting to get into WP:OWN territory. I would like to see some version of your edits implemented.— Moriwen (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this, I've just had to revert yet another tendentious deletion/edit by HouseplantHobbyist who deleted the entire paragraph with Dimitrova arguing that "the Guardian article already has enough weight". This is a frankly terrible reason to remove an expert opinion. Relevant information is relevant information, and if an article supplies it, then we use it. End of.

Furthermore, they also have attempted to do what they call a "balance" but this has made the Doubts section even more lopsided. What we should have is a section by section outline of each of the major arguments made by doubters (e.g. statistical flaws, the witness credibility, etc). Instead what HouseplantHobbyist is doing is removing the specific arguments made and instead making the section not a doubt section, but a doubt the doubters section. They also, for some unexplained reason, rewrote the section with Hammond to remove the argument made about the Unit downgrading completly and instead replaced it with a quote that says it's difficult to ascertain guilt. This is getting ridiculous now, and we're building up a case as the strange behaviour going on here. Gumlau (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored it to the 20:02, 29 July version, except with your paragraph move. Do check if I've lost anything else you did while those reverts were going on. HouseplantHobbyist is currently blocked for edit-warring. NebY (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to NebY, PerSeAnd, Gumlau, Moriwen ! The text is much better now. But further polishing is possible. Under "Criticism of witnesses" it says "The New Yorker article also questioned", but this article is first mentioned in "Staff and infrastructure issues". The sentence with "friends and colleagues" occurs twice. More importantly, there is no subsection "Evidence" (directly after "Letby's plea") yet, that states that there is no direct evidence (and possibly discusses the indirect evidence, other than the statistical). One might also add a subsection "Similar cases" and refer to Lucia de Berk and similar cases. Nhart129 (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete information - the missing info must be on the record somewhere

In several places in the article, I stumbled over some gaps in the information provided. I am not entering into the dispute about Letby's guilt but seeking clarity.

section Initial investigations

The "board" is mentioned 4 times without any clue as to what board this is. Clearly it's some important part of the management structure. On first occurrence, please insert the explicit name of the board.

Same section, paragraph "In September 2016",

Letby's grievance was upheld in January 2017. Did she return to work in the neonatal unit in that month? Alternatively is this what is being talked about in the following paragraph "Letby due to return work on 3 May 2017". That seems like a long time to elapse without explanation.

Section 2023 trial

Did Letby continue to work in the neonatal unit while she was on bail?

Section Evidence

This sentence needs attention "Two days later she had a heated text exchange with a colleague over her manager refusing to let her go back onto the intensive care ward, and the next day, Baby C died". So was she on shift when Baby C died (despite the manager's refusal) or not (irrelevant to the death of Baby C maybe)? JRGp (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. These are good points. On the board, aren't we just talking about the hospital board? We can make it explicit I suppose. On the last point, she was on shift but assigned to a different baby when Baby C fell ill. She was suspended from the unit in 2016, and thereafter worked in the risk and safety office. She did not return to the unit after her grievance was upheld. She did not work while on bail. Fixing this with sources is certainly possible, and thanks for pointing out the issues. There remains a lack of secondary sources to work from, and much of this article was piece together from trial reports - not ideal. I note that there is a forthcoming book [48] that may allow for a substantial rewrite, although as our existing best secondary source is a documentary by the same people, this will still need careful handling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made some changes to try to address these points. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Drafting a new RFC - continued

@Sirfurboy and I looked at four different options that we might put to the Wikipedia community in a new Request For Comment, permutations of whether to describe Letby in the first sentence as a murderer or convicted of murder, and whether or not that sentence should describe her as a serial killer. Those four options are in rough:

A: serial killer and former nurse who murdered and attempted / serial killer who while a nurse murdered and attempted...

B: former nurse who murdered and attempted

C: former nurse convicted of murdering and attempting

D: former nurse convicted of serial murder and attempted murder

The previous RFC laid the options out as fully-formed sentences. Do we need to do that again or would it be enough (maybe even clearer, in a way) to list them as above? In which case, should it be with only one version in (A)?

Other procedural notes: RFC opening statements must be neutral and brief, per WP:RFCBRIEF. I would, after posing the question: "Should the first sentence of Lucy Letby describe her as a .... ", close that as the opening request for comment and then, in comments below, explain that since the last RFC, Letby's requests for permission to appeal have been rejected; she has been retried on one charge of murder and convicted; doubts have been published in the US and (following the lifting of some reporting restrictions) in the UK; our article now includes material on those doubts; editors who have seen those publications have sought to change the lead sentence to include "convicted of". I would notify participants in the previous RFC, and relevant projects as usual, and it would be listed automatically in various places.

So, do we need to lay out the options in full sentences, or otherwise improve the request so that the community can have a good discussion and as clear and stable an outcome as possible? NebY (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging this out. I think I agree that not having full sentences might be better. It would be easy to create 4 samples, but last time I think some people became distracted by words that were never meant to be under discussion, so having it quite clear what the 4 options are should be fine. I would contest that the status quo should be option A, and marked as such, but otherwise would be happy with this. But let's see what others think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of "almost died" in parts sourced with BBC panorama

> "Between March and June 2016 another three babies almost died while under Letby's care"

> "the next day another baby almost died under Letby's care"

The panorama episode uses "almost died" (i.e. did not die) in it's own voice in both the timestamps used, it's not the episode citing another source itself (e.g. a medical professional or legal expert). Ought these either be changed to make clear it's BBC panorama claiming this, or that the incidents were characterized as "almost died"? As really "Almost died" (again, i.e. did not die) is nebulous/weasel on panorama's end, but it's just treated as fact in the article, despite panorama being basically the tabloid of documentaries, so not really a good source for that kind of statement.

(I'm not making the arguement, could one also make the arguement WP:WEASEL? not sure) Storsed (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)