Talk:Lucy Letby/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:HouseplantHobbyist On July 24 you reverted the following paragraph that I had just added, with the simple note "'Is Private Eye a reliable source? In any case, that is a disproportionate amount of space for one article'".

In Private Eye, physician and medical commentator Phil Hammond writes (under his usual pseudonym M.D.) that many experts doubt the fairness of the trial, citing numerous problems with the statistical analysis of the deaths, as well as how expert witness participate in medical negligence trials. He states: "MD can make no judgement either way as to the guilt or innocence of Lucy Letby, but the way expert witnesses are used – or not used – in criminal trials with complex and uncertain science is simply not fit for purpose and risks miscarriages of justice. It should be mandatory for the jury to hear expert witnesses from both sides or – better still – it should be a duty of, say the Royal Colleges or Royal Statistical Society to provide a team of the best, current expert witnesses on behalf of the court, not paid or employed by one side or the other. This is vital for justice to be done and to be seen being done."^[1]

To address your first point, Private Eye has had an excellent reputation for investigative journalism for decades, for example doing more than almost any other publication to draw attention to the British Post Office scandal. As to the second point, regarding length, I first wanted to highlight another commentator concerned about flawed statistical reasoning. But more notable (because of the potential to change the legal system) are Hammond's recommendations on expert witness participation in trials based on the one-sided way they had participated in the Letby case. Please respond with your updated view on this paragraph, given this new information. Hotlorp (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See here [1] for an example on why Private Eye as a reliable source in a biography of living person article is not really considered sufficient without corroboration from another source. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the issues with Private Eye as given in that topic. They have a history of saying or insinuating not so nice things about politicians and other public figures, often with little or no evidence, in their opinion pieces, although they often turn out to be correct. It is therefore wise to avoid it when reporting facts about the subject in a BLP. Their investigative journalism, of which this article is an example, is considered excellent.

This article is written by a respected doctor and medical commentator, who has spoken to experts as part of his investigation, and he reports those concerns. It is relevant to this section.

The contents are corroborated by the various other investigative pieces we mention, so I’m not sure why you say it should not be given as the only source.

I do agree that the paragraph was too long, perhaps you could try and rewrite a more succinct version User:Hotlorp? PerSeAnd (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, we have to follow long-established guidelines. The guidelines I linked to says about Private Eye: "you will need to use WP:ATT and be prepared to back your edits - the onus will be on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of anything contentious. Don't use the Eye for contentious WP:BLP material either, please. When in doubt, two sources are better than one, and discuss on Talk first". Citing that source for the statement "many experts doubt the fairness of the trial, citing numerous problems with the statistical analysis of the deaths, as well as how expert witness participate in medical negligence trials" would be a major issue, as it would be to state his opinion as fact, and doing this by citing one disputed source. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What you have linked to is a discussion on Private Eye as a source, not a Wikipedia guideline. It is only the view of those editors who replied to that one page.

Unfortunately, I have to assume you are being disingenuous because you know that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list exists, having very recently provided a link to support your position on The Mirror.

I have to ask, if you are so keen to argue against this article, on what basis do you believe the reference from Spiked magazine that you added should remain? PerSeAnd (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• No PerSeAnd, you do not "have to assume you are being disingenuous", what you have to do as an editor is the opposite, as WP:AGF outlines you must assume good faith. And you are also not understanding the link to the guidelines on Private Eye that I provided, which literally come from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial which you are somehow accusing me of misunderstanding. The page specifically outlines, under WP:RSPMISSING, that if your source is not on the list then you can search the archive of the reliable source noticeboard for previous discussions on the source you are looking for. That is how you find the specific reliable source discussion about Private Eye, which set out the advice that I've provided. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the matter of Private Eye's integrity in investigative journalism. On length, two-thirds of it is the quote from Hammond on the matter of one-sidedness of the expert witnesses, which feels to me important to restate fully and without distortion, rather than summarize, since the article is not online [Edit: Private Eye published the article on July 31]. Nevertheless if it goes live and someone else shortens it, I am unlikely to object. Hotlorp (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree somewhat regarding length, I do think the quote at least could be shortened and not miss the point. However, I agree with your point that it should be included in some form. As we appear to have consensus on that, I think you could reinstate it as it was and either myself or another editor can try and reduce it afterwards. PerSeAnd (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No PerSeAnd, there is not a "consensus on that". Consensus does not work by two editors together agreeing to ignore a third. There is no consensus to restore the content, and WP:ONUS outlines that "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Restoring the disputed content in full in the hope that "myself or another editor can try and reduce it afterwards" is not the way it works. Given the disputed nature of Private Eye as a source then a much shorter reference to the article would still only be acceptable if Hammond's views were corroborated in other undisputed, perennial sources. Until that is the case, then I do not support the inclusion of the content in any form. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You said “we have to follow long-established guidelines. The guidelines I linked to says about Private Eye…”

That is not a candid response, you fail to mention that Private Eye is missing from the list that provides actual guidance on how we should handle sources. It is not a policy that we have to follow as you claim. I maintain that your comment was disingenuous.

In any case, I have pointed out that you misunderstand the issues with the Eye. It may not be a reliable source for facts about a living person, but that is not what it is being used to support. Its investigative journalism is considered excellent, as noted in your source, and Hammond is an expert who references other experts in his writing. I therefore believe it’s inclusion is justified. It is actually three to one, as a third editor restored the section. Once again, you are the sole editor blocking a change that multiple editors believe should be made and claim that consensus has not been reached. I remind you that editing Wikipedia is a collaborative process, you should be finding compromise on those points that you disagree with but where you remain in the minority, not attempting to block edits entirely. PerSeAnd (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not ever say that it was a 'policy', I said it was guidelines, which it is as the 'actual guidance' on how we should handle Private Eye is given in that reliable sources noticeboard discussion that I linked for you. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources clearly outlines that "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I am not 'blocking a change', nor am I preventing a consensus being reached. I have said that the Private Eye sentiments could well be included in a shorter form if and when other, less-disputed reliable sources can be found that directly corroborate them. If those sources don't exist yet, they might in the future, there just may need to be a wait. But in the meantime objecting to the inclusion of disputed content that does not seem to follow core guidelines and policy is not unreasonable. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So we cannot assume that the Private Eye is any more or less reliable than sources on the list. You said that this is guidance we “must” follow, that implies it is a firm rule, which it is not.

In any case, your concerns have been addressed. This particular article is an investigative piece, for which the Eye is a reputable source, written by an expert, supported by the opinion of other experts, and is being used as a source for Hammond’s opinion on a subject, not as a reference of fact. The content of the article is supported in large by the other investigative pieces we reference from The New Yorker, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph.

I agree it could be cut down, but restoring as is and reducing later would be in line with the Wikipedia:Bold-refine process. PerSeAnd (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We can't assume from the absence of Private Eye from the list that it is any more or less reliable than sources on the list. That's why we instead need to look at the guidelines on that particular source on the reliable source noticeboard instead. And those guidelines clearly indicate the lack of consensus among esteemed editors that Private Eye can be included as a source on it's own for disputed content. So no, my concerns certainly have not been 'addressed'. The New Yorker, The Guardian and The Telegraph all have entries on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources outlining a clear consensus that those sources are generally reliable as sources on their own. That's why there's no problems with the content already included sourced to those articles. The discussions on Private Eye on the reliable source noticeboard shows it does not have the same approval.

WP:ONUS outlines that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Until this consensus is reached, 'restoring it and reducing it later' is not permitted. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You say that your concerns have not been addressed, yet you fail to address most of the points raised. The exception, perhaps - this is not entirely clear, that the other articles do support the Eye article. But that would be a pivot from your previous position that you would be happy with its inclusion if it were supported.

Please can you address the points raised in a substantial manner, I do not agree that the guidelines you have provided should exclude this article and have explained this in detail. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, I am not required to negotiate with you. You know full well that I object to the inclusion of that content. You disagree, as is your right, but respectfully, sometimes users have to agree to disagree. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Negotiate with me? If by that you mean discuss with me, then yes - that is something that I would expect, considering you have raised objections to this articles inclusion, and we have addressed those arguments. You keep ignoring those counter arguments to focus on issues surrounding the practicalities of the reliable/perennial sources list. PerSeAnd (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

PerSeAnd, Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically WP:SOURCE, are wider site policies. I'm not going to agree to the inclusion of content if I don't think it is in keeping with that policy. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to address the points raised, and make arguments about how policies would not be met. Saying you disagree, and stating that policies exist is not adequate. PerSeAnd (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The talk page discussion is there for all to see. I raised issue with your interpretation of the discussion you linked, and provided what I believe to be solid arguments for the article’s inclusion. You have not addressed my points, you continue to obfuscate and maintain that we do not have consensus, although I now see that another editor has attempted to add in this reference so your position is increasingly untenable. You haven’t provided any detail on how you feel policies or guidelines might not be met, if you can’t do so then we should add in this reference. PerSeAnd (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that today Private Eye published Phil Hammond’s article online. I have edited the link in the reference to point to it. Hotlorp (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

He has also released a second article in the last edition that could be worth adding. PerSeAnd (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I see the article is now discussed but is not referenced correctly. I’m on mobile at the minute, if no one gets to it first I’ll try and fix this later. PerSeAnd (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks. Happy for it to go now per PerSeAnd. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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: [9], [10]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

DeFacto was not pinged. NebY (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I already pinged him in the list above? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Appears to be a typo, you pinged 'De(space)Facto' instead of 'DeFacto'. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping correction. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps the defence didn't adequately identify the flaws in the prosecution argument? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Try Google. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• The Independent
• Telegraph
• Royal Statistical Society
• BBC
• Private Eye
• The New Yorker
• The Washington Post
• The National Review
• The Week
• UnHerd
• The Justice Gap
• The Irish Times
• The Herald
• Irish Legal News

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We, thanks for offering your personal opinion, again. Nemov (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Well, according to you at least. Truthers think they have plenty of experts as well. Nemov (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

I don't believe having a separate section is helpful in this instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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: [11], [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseplantHobbyist (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Okay. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [13]

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. [14]

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)

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)

Ah, more original research needs to be done! Nemov (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Informing oneself about the topic under discussion is not OR. What a bizarre claim to make. PerSeAnd (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Of course consensus doesn't require conformity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

There's no policy-based consensus to remove it - so removing it could be considered disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Oooooooooooooh Channel 5, impressive. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Watch it, it might help you understand the doubts. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand the doubts perfectly well, please don't patronise me. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

amigo, if that is the comment you seize upon as "not an argument", and not the Oooooooh, Channel 5 or Ah, more original research needs to be done!, then my English must be worse than I thought, because--

--wait a second... that latter one was you! Himaldrmann (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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.[15]

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.[16]

NebY (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

It seemed to me when I protected the article and imposed 1RR a couple of weeks ago that part of the problem was the title of this section. I just renamed it "doubts about guilt" since the conviction, as an event that occurred, is not in any doubt. Whether Letby is actually guilty is what is being discussed.

It seems to me that this wording may have set some editors off unnecessarily. It didn't have to. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure this change is an improvement. People with doubts usually don't talk about LL's guilt or not - how could one know anything about that? - but they say that the conviction is unsafe. It is the conviction that is doubted - not whether it is a fact, but whether it is correct, in view of the adduced evidence. Nhart129 (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And there is another important point. A conviction is based on the standard that evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt". One can always doubt any conviction, but the question is whether those doubts are reasonable. If the conviction is made, but there are reasonable doubts, then the doubt is not whether she did it but whether the high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt" is met. If that bar has not been met, then it is the safety of the conviction that is doubted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my other reply, people are not expressing these doubts purely out of concern for the legal niceties of due process. They are expressing these doubts because they believe it highly likely that she did not commit the crimes she was accused and convicted of. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. There are those who specifically argue that Letby should be given leave to appeal because there are serious doubts about the safety of her conviction, but who equally say they do not know whether she is guilty or not. A case in point would be Dr Phil Hammond, who writes for Private Eye. See, for instance, [17]. He has gone on record as saying he does not know if she is guilty or innocent, but it is his opinion that the conviction is unsafe. He is not alone in that view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the sources. They are questioning whether or not the conviction is sound based on the evidence. Arguing the case is not compelling and the conviction unsafe is not the same as proclaiming someone must be innocent. Say ocean again (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

To doubt the conviction is to doubt her guilt. As far as I can tell all the issues raised are substantive. No one seems to be arguing there were procedural shortcomings in the trials that compromised her right to a fair trial to the point of what we'd call over here reversible error (is there a different term for that in English law?). And in my experience those issues, if they are the only ones raised, usually excite only lawyers, not the general public.

Cf. Harvey Weinstein's recent success in getting the New York Court of Appeals to reverse most of his rape convictions purely on the grounds that the trial judge applied precedent too broadly in allowing testimony from several victims he was not charged with attacking. That appeal was purely a matter of law. Nobody is questioning whether he committed the crimes. Whereas here we are. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No one seems to be arguing there were procedural shortcomings in the trials that compromised her right to a fair trial But that is exactly what a lot of people are saying. We shouldn't take a view on whether that is right or wrong, but if we are covering doubt, that is exactly the doubt that is being raised. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"To doubt the conviction is to doubt her guilt" - not precisely. Guilt or not is an indivisible item, but the safety of the conviction has many aspects. Ask a statistician and he'll tell you "the statistics part of the evidence is worthless, I have no opinion about the medical evidence". Ask some medical doctor and he might say "the part about air embolism is ridiculous, I have no opinion about the remaining evidence". Ask a third person and he will say "I don't know about medical or statistical facts, but it was claimed that LL was alone with the baby and the swipe data say otherwise". Lots of people see shortcomings in the trial without being able to have an opinion about the guilt or not of LL. Nhart129 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See the two long, detailed UK broadsheet articles published as soon as reporting restrictions were lifted, the Telegraph's Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice? [18] and the Guardian's similarly long and detailed Lucy Letby: killer or coincidence? Why some experts question the evidence.[19] They repeatedly express the doubts of a number of experts that the evidence was sufficient to convict, together with some perplexity that the defence didn't challenge some evidence in particular ways. As the Telegraph says, "Letby’s defence team did not call any scientific, medical or data experts. Experts said they were concerned that there may have been a miscarriage of justice." Not one expert is quoted as saying that Letby was innocent; instead, the Guardian has "While few of the experts the Guardian spoke to went as far as to say they believed Letby was innocent, the questions about the evidence called into doubt, they said, the safety of the convictions." The Telegraph closes with "Defence expert Dr Hall added: “I don’t know whether Lucy Letby is guilty or innocent, but what I do feel is she did not have a fair trial. And the reason is that some of the information given to the jury was flawed, and some was misinterpretation. My concern is that the legal system allowed it to happen.”". We can characterise these concerns as doubts about the convictions; we are not entitled to reframe the careful statements of a variety of experts reported in RSs as doubts about her guilt. NebY (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems the discussion stopped. Let me revert the renaming. Nhart129 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

After reading this through, I realized a different change was better. It's now "Doubts about the safety of the conviction", although I still see that as little more than a proxy for belief in her innocence by people who understandably believe they have more productive and satisfying things to do with their lives than go into police-protected hiding after being doxxed by the Daily Mail's editorial page as supporters of a baby-killer. If you can find someone who's been willing to stand up and say "I believe with all my heart she's guilty as hell but, for the justice system's sake, the conviction needs to be set aside so she can be retried and reconvicted to leave no doubt whatsoever on the part of everyone except those clever people who talk loudly in restaurants", by all means feel free to put it in the article and cite it.

The prior wording was too broad IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There are people who explicitly believe in Letby's innocence, including some colleagues and friends, according to RSs. There are also people who believe the conviction is not safe, according to RSs. As editors, we can't impute motives and disbelieve explicit statements by experts in RSs on the basis that I still see that as little more than a proxy for belief in her innocence. In matters of legal proceedings and justice more generally, it is not the case that only people who believe someone is innocent would suggest their conviction's unsafe. That's particularly so when the conviction's based on statistical and circumstantial evidence. The Royal Statistical Society, for example, is deeply concerned to set the use of statistics in criminal cases on a sounder basis. The Thirlwall Inquiry will consider not only why Letby was not stopped but also whether the care of babies at that hospital was in other ways problematic. A great danger of an unsafe murder conviction is that another killer remains at large or that other reasons for death remain. There are even people throughout the justice system and outside it who believe that the due process of law is a cornerstone of our society - in the UK, this goes back at least to Magna Carta and the US's Fifth Amendment has "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", but the principle's much older. In short, we cannot limit this section's scope because you think anyone who's concerned secretly believes in Letby's innocence. NebY (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/08/22/the-trial-of-lucy-letby-has-shocked-british-statisticians

before are some relevant sections. I've noticed longish edit discussions about statisticians critical of the trial. I think this just published piece gives an added perspective from a RS Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't seem really relevant to the article; it just mentions statisticians' criticisms in the first couple of paragraphs as a jumping off point for unrelated commentary on British society.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

it offers specific criticisms too. better is a copy of all relevant paragraphs from the Economist piece Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the breach of copyright that followed the above post. NebY (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

no worries. it's it ok to cite a 20-40 words sentence? Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to write any blank cheques for potential copyright violation. Describe how it's relevant in your own words. NebY (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)